Probably once the CO2 levels get well below 280 ppm which is where it was for the last ~10,000 years until the early 1800s.
You should understand that this story doesn't mean that CO2 is not still rising in the atmosphere, just that the rate of increase didn't accelerate in 2014.
More like a simplistic argument from someone who hasn't done their homework gets censored.
I'm probably wasting my time but... First you need to realize the ocean and atmosphere are a coupled system with heat being transferred between them all of the time. Second the heat capacity of the ocean is at least 100 times greater than the atmosphere so small changes ocean heat absorption can make a big difference in the heat retained in the atmosphere. And the ocean has continued to warm over the past 20 years. It can't continue to do that forever without some of the heat showing up in the atmosphere eventually. (If the PDO is switching to a warm phase as it appears to be doing that will be sooner rather than later.) The slowdown in warming is probably from a combination of factors which are complimentary rather than contradictory as you believe.
I just heard a story on NPR discussing this story. One of the authors said that one of the bigger factors is that coal use in China is down a bit and has been replaced by hydro, wind and solar.
Actually the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is a pretty straightforward calculation. For instance if you burn a ton of coal (70% carbon so 1400 lbs of carbon) that produces 2.56 tons of CO2. The actual amount produced is a bit less than that because the coal isn't burned perfectly. So as long as we know how much fossil fuels have been consumed we can calculate the CO2 produced.
As far as I can tell the story was about direct human emissions of CO2 and didn't take into account any CO2 absorbed by biomass. The calculation probably just involved the amount of fossil fuels used and cement production (and maybe a few other industrial sources of CO2).
My God! What will we do if the poor get as good health care as the wealthy? Oh, imagine the horror of that!
That's not what would happen, though. History has shown that the least common denominator would be in effect--it would lower the quality of health care with a single payer system. People who actually work in health care hate this idea. They know it wouldn't work.
What is it about the US that would means single payer would lower the quality of health care when that hasn't been the case in other nations around the world that have single payer, many of whom have better overall health statistics than the US. Is the US really some kind of special case? If so, why?
The US essentially developed all the technology (through heavy research subsidies) over decades. Instead of cashing in over the last decade on what as become economically competitive against tens of billions of dollars of existing assets, a bunch of ignorant assholes gave away they keys to the castle. Only 10 years of ass dragging by US and its ignorant short-sighted thinking will have ceded these industries to China.
You've nailed it. The US could have been the worldwide leader in renewable clean energy but a bunch of neanderthals prefer to live in the past rather than look to the future and threw all the possibilities away. Despite that employment is growing faster in wind and solar power in the US than in other power sectors like coal, oil and gas. Even if they come to understand this they're probably too embarrassed to back down now so they double down. What a waste of opportunity.
There are currently 4 (or 5) nuclear reactors being built in the SE US that you don't hear much about. It will be interesting to see how they work out when they finally come online in a few years.
I realize that. Part of the reason I respond to folks like mi is simply so their assertions don't go unchallenged. Lurkers reading the exchange may benefit from it.
Rather than saying anything can be attributed to global warming it would be more accurate to say everything occurs against the background of global warming and is affected by it.
Has there actually been an increased frequency of extremely cold weather? Have you gone through the weather records to quantify that? Without doing that you're just making a subjective judgement. It's true that the last two years have seen some extremely cold weather in Eastern North America. Global warming may be a factor in that the Arctic is warming faster than the more temperate areas further south. This reduces the temperature differential that drives the jet stream causing it to slow down. When a fluid stream slows down it tends to meander more and it is large meanders and slowing in the jet stream that are pulling the Arctic air further south and not clearing it as fast. That's probably not the whole story but it may well be a factor.
Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying in the iop paper then I'm wasting my time engaging you. They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them than you do with the paper I cited. I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.
Gore said the could be gone by 2013. not that it would be gone. What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing. You won't find cryologists arguing that it isn't. The exact rate it's going to disappear is subject to some discussion.
Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you? It compares observations to IPCC projections. In other words it give you the example of projections that the IPCC made in 2001 and 2007 regarding temperature and sea level rise then compared them to actual observations. Isn't that what you want? What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?
Ok, here's a twofer in one paper that compares observations to IPCC projections for temperatures and sea level rise. The temperature projection turns out to be pretty good and observed sea level rise is at the top end of the projections.
Even though you're not prepared to argue the validity of your claims I'm going to comment on them and let you know how I look at it.
Re Dr. David Viner. The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist. I take any journalists interpretation of what a scientist said with a grain of salt. Also, the article quotes Viner as saying snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." So he wasn't saying it would never snow, just that snowfalls would become rarer. Someone could dig through the records to determine if that were true.
Re Skiing in Scotland. Again, not peer reviewed science but a story by a journalist. The full quote of what you excerpted is:
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
Note they aren't saying all climate change experts.
To really know you'd have to go through the data to see what the trends are in the Scottish Ski industry.
When I see stuff like that in stories I say "Yea, ok, maybe but show me the science."
The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time. The IPCC reports of the time estimated the Arctic Ocean would be ice free (defined as less than 1 million km^2 of sea ice) sometime after 2040. Another scientist in the story, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge is quoted as saying:
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.
I guess I would say you need to take a more nuanced view of these things instead of leaping on the worst case scenarios they envision.
I'll see if I can rustle up some predictions for you but it might take a while and have to wait for the next time we engage.
It's not what I say, it's what Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen's colleague and successor as head of GISS says:
Hansen et al, 1988
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Slashdot Mirror
Probably once the CO2 levels get well below 280 ppm which is where it was for the last ~10,000 years until the early 1800s.
You should understand that this story doesn't mean that CO2 is not still rising in the atmosphere, just that the rate of increase didn't accelerate in 2014.
I think you've been Poe'd.
More like a simplistic argument from someone who hasn't done their homework gets censored.
I'm probably wasting my time but... First you need to realize the ocean and atmosphere are a coupled system with heat being transferred between them all of the time. Second the heat capacity of the ocean is at least 100 times greater than the atmosphere so small changes ocean heat absorption can make a big difference in the heat retained in the atmosphere. And the ocean has continued to warm over the past 20 years. It can't continue to do that forever without some of the heat showing up in the atmosphere eventually. (If the PDO is switching to a warm phase as it appears to be doing that will be sooner rather than later.) The slowdown in warming is probably from a combination of factors which are complimentary rather than contradictory as you believe.
I just heard a story on NPR discussing this story. One of the authors said that one of the bigger factors is that coal use in China is down a bit and has been replaced by hydro, wind and solar.
Actually the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is a pretty straightforward calculation. For instance if you burn a ton of coal (70% carbon so 1400 lbs of carbon) that produces 2.56 tons of CO2. The actual amount produced is a bit less than that because the coal isn't burned perfectly. So as long as we know how much fossil fuels have been consumed we can calculate the CO2 produced.
As far as I can tell the story was about direct human emissions of CO2 and didn't take into account any CO2 absorbed by biomass. The calculation probably just involved the amount of fossil fuels used and cement production (and maybe a few other industrial sources of CO2).
The category of domestic cats includes feral cats that have to feed themselves. I can easily imagine them killing a bird or two every day.
Chemical fertilizers and lots of petroleum energy input to drive all that farm equipment.
The problem with that is that a windmill has to face the wind to work efficiently and most of the time that's not likely to be facing the sun also.
Construction of the Vogtle units 3 & 4 started in 2013 and they've proceeded to construction of the containment vessel at unit 3.
Construction has also started on units 2 & 3 at the Virgil C Summer station.
They are all expected to be on line in the 2017-2018 time frame.
Carbon monoxide does a pretty good job without a lot of discomfort.
My God! What will we do if the poor get as good health care as the wealthy? Oh, imagine the horror of that!
That's not what would happen, though. History has shown that the least common denominator would be in effect--it would lower the quality of health care with a single payer system. People who actually work in health care hate this idea. They know it wouldn't work.
What is it about the US that would means single payer would lower the quality of health care when that hasn't been the case in other nations around the world that have single payer, many of whom have better overall health statistics than the US. Is the US really some kind of special case? If so, why?
The US essentially developed all the technology (through heavy research subsidies) over decades. Instead of cashing in over the last decade on what as become economically competitive against tens of billions of dollars of existing assets, a bunch of ignorant assholes gave away they keys to the castle. Only 10 years of ass dragging by US and its ignorant short-sighted thinking will have ceded these industries to China.
You've nailed it. The US could have been the worldwide leader in renewable clean energy but a bunch of neanderthals prefer to live in the past rather than look to the future and threw all the possibilities away. Despite that employment is growing faster in wind and solar power in the US than in other power sectors like coal, oil and gas. Even if they come to understand this they're probably too embarrassed to back down now so they double down. What a waste of opportunity.
There's plenty of sodium and sulfur.
Physics doesn't give a damn about PR.
But climate change is so 1950s.
Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154.
There are currently 4 (or 5) nuclear reactors being built in the SE US that you don't hear much about. It will be interesting to see how they work out when they finally come online in a few years.
I realize that. Part of the reason I respond to folks like mi is simply so their assertions don't go unchallenged. Lurkers reading the exchange may benefit from it.
The central science in studying climate is physics.
Rather than saying anything can be attributed to global warming it would be more accurate to say everything occurs against the background of global warming and is affected by it.
Has there actually been an increased frequency of extremely cold weather? Have you gone through the weather records to quantify that? Without doing that you're just making a subjective judgement. It's true that the last two years have seen some extremely cold weather in Eastern North America. Global warming may be a factor in that the Arctic is warming faster than the more temperate areas further south. This reduces the temperature differential that drives the jet stream causing it to slow down. When a fluid stream slows down it tends to meander more and it is large meanders and slowing in the jet stream that are pulling the Arctic air further south and not clearing it as fast. That's probably not the whole story but it may well be a factor.
Frankly if your scientific knowledge is so poor you can't parse out what they are saying in the iop paper then I'm wasting my time engaging you. They presented graphs that compared IPCC projections of temperatures and sea level rise from 2001 and 2007 to observations through 2011. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I could link to the relevant sections of the IPCC AR3 and AR4 reports then to papers on observations separately but you would have a harder time parsing them than you do with the paper I cited. I don't have the time to hand everything to you on a silver platter.
Gore said the could be gone by 2013. not that it would be gone. What is settled about Arctic sea ice is that it's disappearing. You won't find cryologists arguing that it isn't. The exact rate it's going to disappear is subject to some discussion.
Did you even bother to read the iop paper I sent you? It compares observations to IPCC projections. In other words it give you the example of projections that the IPCC made in 2001 and 2007 regarding temperature and sea level rise then compared them to actual observations. Isn't that what you want? What difference does it make that it's all in one link? Is that really so hard to understand?
Ok, here's a twofer in one paper that compares observations to IPCC projections for temperatures and sea level rise. The temperature projection turns out to be pretty good and observed sea level rise is at the top end of the projections.
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
Even though you're not prepared to argue the validity of your claims I'm going to comment on them and let you know how I look at it.
Re Dr. David Viner. The source for that wasn't a peer reviewed published paper but an interview with a journalist. I take any journalists interpretation of what a scientist said with a grain of salt. Also, the article quotes Viner as saying snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." So he wasn't saying it would never snow, just that snowfalls would become rarer. Someone could dig through the records to determine if that were true.
Re Skiing in Scotland. Again, not peer reviewed science but a story by a journalist. The full quote of what you excerpted is:
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
Note they aren't saying all climate change experts.
To really know you'd have to go through the data to see what the trends are in the Scottish Ski industry.
When I see stuff like that in stories I say "Yea, ok, maybe but show me the science."
The ice free prediction by Maslowski was peer reviewed science but it was at odds with a lot of other predictions at the time. The IPCC reports of the time estimated the Arctic Ocean would be ice free (defined as less than 1 million km^2 of sea ice) sometime after 2040. Another scientist in the story, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge is quoted as saying:
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
So while Maslowski's projection may not be correct it was far from the only scientific opinion about it at the time.
I guess I would say you need to take a more nuanced view of these things instead of leaping on the worst case scenarios they envision.
I'll see if I can rustle up some predictions for you but it might take a while and have to wait for the next time we engage.
It's not what I say, it's what Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen's colleague and successor as head of GISS says:
Hansen et al, 1988
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now.
- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Schmidt should know so I'll take his word for it.