Science also doesn't care what you think the results should be. Regardless of who's paying the bills the science is what it is. The vast majority of climate science research is payed for by governments and other public sources because that's how basic scientific research gets funded in today's world. Private enterprise scientific research is mostly aimed at producing profitable results over the short term so they don't fund a lot of science that doesn't have a clear short term payoff. If fossil fuel companies thought climate scientists were wrong and distorting their results for whatever reason they'd be paying for research to show that to protect their profits.
According to Wikipedia the Antarctic ice sheet contains 26,500,000 km^3 of ice. According to Wikipedia the area of the world's oceans is 360,000,000 km^2. Dividing 26,500,000 by 360,000,000 gives you 0.0736111 kilometers which is about 241.5 feet. Since the oceans will spread out as they rise they end up rising around 200 feet.
The NY Times article has this big graph showing an accelerating downward trend starting in 1994. Yet NASA says that Antarctica has been gaining ice from 1979 to 2015. So which is it?
Boy, you're just in love with that Zwally paper, aren't you? Even to the point of ignoring the caveats that Zwally himself put on it.
Actually poor people may be better able to survive in a war ravaged world. They've already figured out how to survive on a bare minimum anyway. Most wealthy people have so much stuff done for them that they don't have a good handle on how to survive if things go south. All the wealth in the world won't do you a bit of good if there's no underlying society to provide the goods you need to survive.
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming. Although people are contributing a fair amount to the rate at which we are warming up, this planets default temperature is much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with. Guess what? If you are reading this, you were born during an ice age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Guess what, humans, in fact the whole history of the genus Homo has happened during the current ice age. So maybe that's what we're adapted to.
How about the fact that the last ice age ended a while ago, so it's somewhat expected that the ice may not remain frozen forever?
As Immerman pointed out by the definition that geologists use we are still in an ice age and will be until there are no longer substantial ice caps in the polar regions.
But you're talking about the end of the last glacial period around 10,000 years ago. The fact is that the peak of the Milankovitch cycles that apparently drive the glacial cycles occurred around 8,000 years ago and since about 6,000 years ago there has been a slight cooling trend that would have eventually dropped us into the next glacial period. But the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (primarily CO2) has interrupted that cooling trend and will prevent the next glacial period from commencing indefinitely.
So yes, ice may not remain frozen forever but the current rate of melt is above what would be expected from natural drivers alone.
I was at a glacier recently, and there was a sign talking about how if the glacier kept melting due to global warming, it would vanish and no longer be able to be a source for water for the rivers it fed, and all the problems people downstream would have due to lack of water.
What they seemed to miss was the idea that if the glacier was NOT melting, there would also be no water downstream....
The size of a glacier is dependent on the balance between the snow it receives each year and the amount of melt over the year. If the glacier is growing it's receiving more snow than is melting. If the glacier is shrinking it's receiving less snow than is melting. If it shrinks to the point of disappearing then melt that keeps rivers going late in the summer/fall will also disappear changing the pattern of water flow often to the detriment of those who depend on the river.
The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area. So I think it's pretty easy to see which side of this you need to be on if you actually want your research to get any funding.
You don't think if fossil fuel companies actually thought they could seriously put a dent in what climate scientists have found that they wouldn't be throwing money at research to do so? The Koch brothers gave $150,000 to the Berkeley Earth group because they thought they would show that the other government funded temperature records were biased but in the end their result confirmed that they were all correct within the margins of uncertainty.
Science is what it is and in the long run is immune distorting the results just because you prefer a different outcome. In the short run people can try to put spin on it but reality will catch up the that sooner or later. Climate science has been pretty intensely scrutinized for around 30 years now yet no one has seriously challenged the basic findings.
SpaceX did not rebuild the booster after its first use. Basically 100% of the booster was reused.
The reason the booster was not recovered was it was a Block 4 Falcon 9. They are only reusing them a maximum of one time. Basically they are trying to clear the old boosters from the inventory so they can move to the Block 5 boosters. They hope to reuse Block 5 up to 10 times before any major refurbishment.
For me the big news of this launch is the GRACE-FO satellites. The amount of and value of the information the original GRACE satellites provided is hard to overstate. Who knew that measuring the minute changes in gravity around the Earth would be so informative? The original GRACE satellites finally failed in October 2017 after 15+ years so it's good to get the replacements in place.
You don't just go in and start changing data the way you want.
Which is why I said:
Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications.
Because scientists don't just adjust the data for arbitrary reasons. When adjustments are made they have to be defended before other scientists who will quickly call out any unjustified changes. If you think otherwise it's up to you to show in a scientific manner why the changes are unjustified. Just believing they are doesn't make it so.
When talking about long term obviously the further you go out into the future the less sure you are about what will happen. It's unknown what future CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will be. It's unknown what the sun will do. It's unknown what major volcanic eruptions will happen. Yet, if you look at the 30 year time frame of the classical climatological period as defined by the WMO the big climate models do a pretty good job. If you start talking about 100 years from now there is far more uncertainty.
Ahh... the raw data, virginal and pure as the driven snow. Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications. Very little raw data comes without defects. Calibration issues, measurement bias and for large long term data sets changes in the methods used to collect the data as modern methods improve and other things all affect the quality of the data. These are things the scientists have to take into account when analyzing the data.
If you're concerned about the raw temperature data it's not that hard to get. You just have to be willing to take the time to seek it out. Here's the page for raw data from Berkeley Earth: Source files
Regarding your IPCC quote I think maybe long-term means something different to them than it does to you.
Australia had one but it got repealed when the ALP won the next election. It was only in force for a couple of years. I've heard of cap-and-trade being used in the EU but not a straight up carbon tax.
When it comes to human CO2 emissions how about the fact that annual human emissions are more than twice the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. If humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 where do all the emissions we produce go?
As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature of the Earth's surface.
Considering that nearly every article about a city, state, nation, geographic region, etc. talks about the Koppen climate classification of that area it's not surprising that the work would be cited so much. And for all you folks thinking this is about climate change, no it's not. It's about the existing climate as it is in those places.
I understand why they used a 30 year time frame. But shifting all of model projections so they all start at the same point is misleading. What if a projection actually showed a temperature below what the UAH showed in 1983? The graph may show how they've changed relative to each other since 1983 but it hides how close to each other the findings might be.
Even if the climate sensitivity is as low as you hope it is the world is still warming, just a little slower.
I don't know what the average around the world would be but it's probably a little lower than 410. The further south you go the lower the level of CO2. At the South Pole levels are about 3-4 ppm lower than Mauna Loa so not a huge difference. Even though those other places they're taking the readings from may be a bit different than Mauna Loa they're all changing at about the same rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Science also doesn't care what you think the results should be. Regardless of who's paying the bills the science is what it is. The vast majority of climate science research is payed for by governments and other public sources because that's how basic scientific research gets funded in today's world. Private enterprise scientific research is mostly aimed at producing profitable results over the short term so they don't fund a lot of science that doesn't have a clear short term payoff. If fossil fuel companies thought climate scientists were wrong and distorting their results for whatever reason they'd be paying for research to show that to protect their profits.
According to Wikipedia the Antarctic ice sheet contains 26,500,000 km^3 of ice. According to Wikipedia the area of the world's oceans is 360,000,000 km^2. Dividing 26,500,000 by 360,000,000 gives you 0.0736111 kilometers which is about 241.5 feet. Since the oceans will spread out as they rise they end up rising around 200 feet.
The NY Times article has this big graph showing an accelerating downward trend starting in 1994. Yet NASA says that Antarctica has been gaining ice from 1979 to 2015. So which is it?
Boy, you're just in love with that Zwally paper, aren't you? Even to the point of ignoring the caveats that Zwally himself put on it.
Actually poor people may be better able to survive in a war ravaged world. They've already figured out how to survive on a bare minimum anyway. Most wealthy people have so much stuff done for them that they don't have a good handle on how to survive if things go south. All the wealth in the world won't do you a bit of good if there's no underlying society to provide the goods you need to survive.
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming.
Including the supposedly intelligent people that insist on calling it Global Warming.
(Hint: Anthropomorphic Climate Change is what the intelligent people call it. Or just Climate Change.
You're welcome.
Hmm... does climate change look like a human?
anthropomorphic
anTHrpmôrfik/
adjective
adjective: anthropomorphic
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
having human characteristics.
"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"
The word you're seeking is anthropogenic.
But anthropogenic global warming is still happening and it is the major cause of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change this decade, global warming last decade. Make up your minds. What a bunch of hogwash fake science.
One of the causes of climate change is global warming. Either one is useful in the correct context.
IOKIYAR
He'll die happy, you'll die full of hate. Ya, you're the intelligent one.
Yea, ignorance is bliss ...
until the shit hits the fan.
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming. Although people are contributing a fair amount to the rate at which we are warming up, this planets default temperature is much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with. Guess what? If you are reading this, you were born during an ice age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Guess what, humans, in fact the whole history of the genus Homo has happened during the current ice age. So maybe that's what we're adapted to.
Unavoidable change,
no Globalist World Government Tax & Spend scheme will slow the changes of Solar energy output.
Of course if you go by solar energy output then we should be slightly cooling since the 1970s.
How about the fact that the last ice age ended a while ago, so it's somewhat expected that the ice may not remain frozen forever?
As Immerman pointed out by the definition that geologists use we are still in an ice age and will be until there are no longer substantial ice caps in the polar regions.
But you're talking about the end of the last glacial period around 10,000 years ago. The fact is that the peak of the Milankovitch cycles that apparently drive the glacial cycles occurred around 8,000 years ago and since about 6,000 years ago there has been a slight cooling trend that would have eventually dropped us into the next glacial period. But the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (primarily CO2) has interrupted that cooling trend and will prevent the next glacial period from commencing indefinitely.
So yes, ice may not remain frozen forever but the current rate of melt is above what would be expected from natural drivers alone.
I was at a glacier recently, and there was a sign talking about how if the glacier kept melting due to global warming, it would vanish and no longer be able to be a source for water for the rivers it fed, and all the problems people downstream would have due to lack of water.
What they seemed to miss was the idea that if the glacier was NOT melting, there would also be no water downstream....
The size of a glacier is dependent on the balance between the snow it receives each year and the amount of melt over the year. If the glacier is growing it's receiving more snow than is melting. If the glacier is shrinking it's receiving less snow than is melting. If it shrinks to the point of disappearing then melt that keeps rivers going late in the summer/fall will also disappear changing the pattern of water flow often to the detriment of those who depend on the river.
The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area. So I think it's pretty easy to see which side of this you need to be on if you actually want your research to get any funding.
You don't think if fossil fuel companies actually thought they could seriously put a dent in what climate scientists have found that they wouldn't be throwing money at research to do so? The Koch brothers gave $150,000 to the Berkeley Earth group because they thought they would show that the other government funded temperature records were biased but in the end their result confirmed that they were all correct within the margins of uncertainty.
Science is what it is and in the long run is immune distorting the results just because you prefer a different outcome. In the short run people can try to put spin on it but reality will catch up the that sooner or later. Climate science has been pretty intensely scrutinized for around 30 years now yet no one has seriously challenged the basic findings.
If coal didn't have the subsidy of not having to pay for the health problems it causes in the population it would be way too expensive to use.
If nuclear didn't have the subsidy of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act they wouldn't be able to insure nuclear power plants and they would all close.
SpaceX did not rebuild the booster after its first use. Basically 100% of the booster was reused.
The reason the booster was not recovered was it was a Block 4 Falcon 9. They are only reusing them a maximum of one time. Basically they are trying to clear the old boosters from the inventory so they can move to the Block 5 boosters. They hope to reuse Block 5 up to 10 times before any major refurbishment.
For me the big news of this launch is the GRACE-FO satellites. The amount of and value of the information the original GRACE satellites provided is hard to overstate. Who knew that measuring the minute changes in gravity around the Earth would be so informative? The original GRACE satellites finally failed in October 2017 after 15+ years so it's good to get the replacements in place.
You don't just go in and start changing data the way you want.
Which is why I said:
Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications.
Because scientists don't just adjust the data for arbitrary reasons. When adjustments are made they have to be defended before other scientists who will quickly call out any unjustified changes. If you think otherwise it's up to you to show in a scientific manner why the changes are unjustified. Just believing they are doesn't make it so.
When talking about long term obviously the further you go out into the future the less sure you are about what will happen. It's unknown what future CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will be. It's unknown what the sun will do. It's unknown what major volcanic eruptions will happen. Yet, if you look at the 30 year time frame of the classical climatological period as defined by the WMO the big climate models do a pretty good job. If you start talking about 100 years from now there is far more uncertainty.
Climate model projections compared to observations
Ahh... the raw data, virginal and pure as the driven snow. Maybe your time would be better spent understanding why the modifications are made and the techniques used to do the modifications. Very little raw data comes without defects. Calibration issues, measurement bias and for large long term data sets changes in the methods used to collect the data as modern methods improve and other things all affect the quality of the data. These are things the scientists have to take into account when analyzing the data.
If you're concerned about the raw temperature data it's not that hard to get. You just have to be willing to take the time to seek it out. Here's the page for raw data from Berkeley Earth: Source files
Regarding your IPCC quote I think maybe long-term means something different to them than it does to you.
Australia had one but it got repealed when the ALP won the next election. It was only in force for a couple of years. I've heard of cap-and-trade being used in the EU but not a straight up carbon tax.
The only carbon tax I'm aware of currently is the Province of British Columbia, Canada. It's working pretty well for them.
When it comes to human CO2 emissions how about the fact that annual human emissions are more than twice the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. If humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 where do all the emissions we produce go?
John Tyndall was among the first to measure the greenhouse gas characteristics of various gases in the 1850s.
John Tyndall
In 1862 Tyndall wrote this:
As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature of the Earth's surface.
Considering that nearly every article about a city, state, nation, geographic region, etc. talks about the Koppen climate classification of that area it's not surprising that the work would be cited so much. And for all you folks thinking this is about climate change, no it's not. It's about the existing climate as it is in those places.
I understand why they used a 30 year time frame. But shifting all of model projections so they all start at the same point is misleading. What if a projection actually showed a temperature below what the UAH showed in 1983? The graph may show how they've changed relative to each other since 1983 but it hides how close to each other the findings might be.
Even if the climate sensitivity is as low as you hope it is the world is still warming, just a little slower.
I don't know what the average around the world would be but it's probably a little lower than 410. The further south you go the lower the level of CO2. At the South Pole levels are about 3-4 ppm lower than Mauna Loa so not a huge difference. Even though those other places they're taking the readings from may be a bit different than Mauna Loa they're all changing at about the same rate.