But if you actually saw Climate Change or more specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change as a valid threat, it would appear the answers would be to create a working group with the goals of developing the technology to make existing energy sources cleaner as well as clean alternatives and to make this information available to all parties concerned so they could implement it as it becomes reliable and economically feasible.
Huh? Haven't you noticed all the research that's been put into alternatives like wind and solar that has brought them or will in a short while bring them to grid parity with fossil fuel sources of energy? Also, all the work on battery technology? There's a ton of work going into alternatives and at the rate it's going it's just a matter of time ( 10 years) before they are easily the most cost effective way to produce most energy.
What's true about vaccines is for the vast majority of people they are safe and effective. A very small number of people have bad reactions to them and it's difficult to tell ahead of time who that will be. It's part of the genetic variability in the human race that makes it resilient to a lot of different things. For example some people manage to survive Ebola even without a lot of intensive medical care.
But for science and scientists there's an objective reality that can't be corrupted. If their research results don't match up with that reality then they get rejected by the scientific method. Most scientists are smart enough to know this which is what makes it so baffling to me that so many people think they are contorting the science for political ideology. They'll never get away with something like that over the long haul.
Of course there are long term variations like Milankovitch Cycles that operate on scales of thousands of years and drive the cycle of ice ages but they have so small an effect on a scale of a few centuries that you can ignore them. I was talking about variations that work on multi-year and decadal scales like ENSO, the AMO and PDO, solar cycles, etc.
By far the largest percentage of carbon emissions is from generation of electricity and surface transportation. Aviation is less than 5% of the problem and bovine emissions of methane are a minor side issue.
Carbon has been proven not to be a significant contributor to warming, otherwise instead of global temperatures holding pretty much flat for ever a decade the temperature would have gone up a lot in response to continued large increases in atmospheric CO2.
What you fail to understand is the magnitude of the warming signal compared to the magnitude of natural variations. Natural variations are considerably larger than the warming signal but the natural variations mostly just cycle up and down netting to zero in the long run while the warming signal just continuously rises. Even a decade or two of "no warming" is not long enough to make the statement you made.
Name the study that convinced you beyond any doubt that AGW is "true". It will be based on least squares curve fitting and computer modeling, neither of which every proved anything.
Svante Arrhenius who is 1896 stated:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Or F = ln (C/C sub 0). That formula still hold true today.
Gilbert Plass who in 1958 published a paper called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Everything today is refinements of that (and some others) work.
The average surface temperature of Venus is 462 degrees C (863 F). That's hotter than Mercury. How long would it take for it to cool down enough to be tolerable for human habitation?
We'll be chasing it back and forth like crazy, every time a storm pops up.
This. Once you start there's no stopping without fixing the underlying problem of too much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And on top of cooling the atmosphere you'd also have to do something about ocean acidification which could ultimately turn out to be as big a problem if not bigger that the warming.
When it comes to AGW it's true that most of the science deniers are on the right side of the political spectrum. But for anti-VAXers it appears to be more spread out over the political spectrum. For most I think it has a lot to do with how the implications of the science conflict with their ideology.
But as a liberal myself I pretty much agree with you. Unfortunately snark doesn't come through well in written prose unless you make it obvious.
The Sun is of course the source of essentially all of the energy on the Earth's surface but we've been monitoring it intensely since after WW II and continuously since the launch of satellites in the late 1970s. There has been no observed change in the Sun's output that would fully account for the temperature changes we've seen. The Sun's effect on the Earth's surface temperature is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such that the surface temperature is around 58 degrees F greater than it would be without them. Water vapor is of course the most important greenhouse gas but it is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and there is essentially nothing humans can do to change it. That leaves the 2nd most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide as something we can exercise some control over.
The effects of a Krakatoa sized eruption would last for 2 or 3 years with maybe some lingering effects for 4 or 5 years. It would have little effect in the long run. Even the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, the largest eruption in the last 100 years only had 2 or 3 years of effect on temperatures. (BTW, the word you want is "moot" as in "moot point".)
If you allow your fear of socialist redistribution to color your opinion of climate science then you've got it backwards. Political opinions have no effect on science. Understand the science first then develop your response to its implications. Anything else is wishful thinking.
The basic "classical" climatological period is 30 years as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. So to answer your question by definition 30 years or more.
It will take a couple of weeks to do the quality control on December's numbers so the official notifications should come out toward the end of January.
Nuclear power will be in the mix when it can compete on a financial basis with other forms of power. I think in the future it's going to get more and more difficult for nuclear power to compete.
What does being a liberal have to do with anything? The nice thing about science is it doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative or whatever, science just is what it is regardless of your political leanings.
Considering that back in the 1920s world population was less than 1/3 of what it is now and the use of fossil fuels was probably well less than 1/3 of what it is now. CO2 levels didn't pass 320 ppm until around 1960 (from starting at 280 ppm in the early 1800s) so there wasn't that much forcing back then.
If you want to understand what the majority of scientists think about the subject you can't go wrong reading the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you actually saw Climate Change or more specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change as a valid threat, it would appear the answers would be to create a working group with the goals of developing the technology to make existing energy sources cleaner as well as clean alternatives and to make this information available to all parties concerned so they could implement it as it becomes reliable and economically feasible.
Huh? Haven't you noticed all the research that's been put into alternatives like wind and solar that has brought them or will in a short while bring them to grid parity with fossil fuel sources of energy? Also, all the work on battery technology? There's a ton of work going into alternatives and at the rate it's going it's just a matter of time ( 10 years) before they are easily the most cost effective way to produce most energy.
What's true about vaccines is for the vast majority of people they are safe and effective. A very small number of people have bad reactions to them and it's difficult to tell ahead of time who that will be. It's part of the genetic variability in the human race that makes it resilient to a lot of different things. For example some people manage to survive Ebola even without a lot of intensive medical care.
But for science and scientists there's an objective reality that can't be corrupted. If their research results don't match up with that reality then they get rejected by the scientific method. Most scientists are smart enough to know this which is what makes it so baffling to me that so many people think they are contorting the science for political ideology. They'll never get away with something like that over the long haul.
Ah, I see, your objection is informed by your ideology more than science.
Here are some papers that examine the changes in outgoing longwave radiation spectra over time that support the increase in greenhouse forcing:
* Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 – John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges; Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553.
* Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).
* Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007)
* Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
* Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
* A method for continuous estimation of clear-sky downwelling longwave radiative flux developed using ARM surface measurements, C. N. Long and D. D. Turner, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 113, D18206, doi:10.1029/2008JD009936, 2008
* Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models, Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).
Of course there are long term variations like Milankovitch Cycles that operate on scales of thousands of years and drive the cycle of ice ages but they have so small an effect on a scale of a few centuries that you can ignore them. I was talking about variations that work on multi-year and decadal scales like ENSO, the AMO and PDO, solar cycles, etc.
Stupid /., you can't do formulas. That formula should read:
{delta}F = {alpha}ln(C/C sub 0)
By far the largest percentage of carbon emissions is from generation of electricity and surface transportation. Aviation is less than 5% of the problem and bovine emissions of methane are a minor side issue.
Something being engineered implies it was done purposely.
That doesn't help the ocean acidification issue.
Carbon has been proven not to be a significant contributor to warming, otherwise instead of global temperatures holding pretty much flat for ever a decade the temperature would have gone up a lot in response to continued large increases in atmospheric CO2.
What you fail to understand is the magnitude of the warming signal compared to the magnitude of natural variations. Natural variations are considerably larger than the warming signal but the natural variations mostly just cycle up and down netting to zero in the long run while the warming signal just continuously rises. Even a decade or two of "no warming" is not long enough to make the statement you made.
Name the study that convinced you beyond any doubt that AGW is "true". It will be based on least squares curve fitting and computer modeling, neither of which every proved anything.
Svante Arrhenius who is 1896 stated:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Or F = ln (C/C sub 0). That formula still hold true today.
Gilbert Plass who in 1958 published a paper called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Everything today is refinements of that (and some others) work.
The average surface temperature of Venus is 462 degrees C (863 F). That's hotter than Mercury. How long would it take for it to cool down enough to be tolerable for human habitation?
We'll be chasing it back and forth like crazy, every time a storm pops up.
This. Once you start there's no stopping without fixing the underlying problem of too much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And on top of cooling the atmosphere you'd also have to do something about ocean acidification which could ultimately turn out to be as big a problem if not bigger that the warming.
Terraforming Venus would take thousands of years.
UTC doesn't do daylight savings time.
When it comes to AGW it's true that most of the science deniers are on the right side of the political spectrum. But for anti-VAXers it appears to be more spread out over the political spectrum. For most I think it has a lot to do with how the implications of the science conflict with their ideology.
But as a liberal myself I pretty much agree with you. Unfortunately snark doesn't come through well in written prose unless you make it obvious.
The Sun is of course the source of essentially all of the energy on the Earth's surface but we've been monitoring it intensely since after WW II and continuously since the launch of satellites in the late 1970s. There has been no observed change in the Sun's output that would fully account for the temperature changes we've seen. The Sun's effect on the Earth's surface temperature is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such that the surface temperature is around 58 degrees F greater than it would be without them. Water vapor is of course the most important greenhouse gas but it is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and there is essentially nothing humans can do to change it. That leaves the 2nd most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide as something we can exercise some control over.
The effects of a Krakatoa sized eruption would last for 2 or 3 years with maybe some lingering effects for 4 or 5 years. It would have little effect in the long run. Even the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, the largest eruption in the last 100 years only had 2 or 3 years of effect on temperatures. (BTW, the word you want is "moot" as in "moot point".)
If you allow your fear of socialist redistribution to color your opinion of climate science then you've got it backwards. Political opinions have no effect on science. Understand the science first then develop your response to its implications. Anything else is wishful thinking.
The basic "classical" climatological period is 30 years as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. So to answer your question by definition 30 years or more.
John Coleman has a Bachelors Degree in Journalism and no peer reviewed published work in climatology.
Climate models do not use temperature observations as input. The observational data is compared to the output of climate models to test them.
It will take a couple of weeks to do the quality control on December's numbers so the official notifications should come out toward the end of January.
The time frame that is relevant to human civilization is only about the last 9,000 years because that's the only time period in which it has existed.
Nuclear power will be in the mix when it can compete on a financial basis with other forms of power. I think in the future it's going to get more and more difficult for nuclear power to compete.
What does being a liberal have to do with anything? The nice thing about science is it doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative or whatever, science just is what it is regardless of your political leanings.
Considering that back in the 1920s world population was less than 1/3 of what it is now and the use of fossil fuels was probably well less than 1/3 of what it is now. CO2 levels didn't pass 320 ppm until around 1960 (from starting at 280 ppm in the early 1800s) so there wasn't that much forcing back then.
If you want to understand what the majority of scientists think about the subject you can't go wrong reading the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report.