The rate is going to be unpleasant, but more certain than that is difficult to tell, because among other things it will depend on what we do about it.
"E-Wa" has fascinating geography, and I do recommend to the interested reader the book "Roadside Geology of Washington". The Cascades are of course very active volcanically, and the scars from the Missoula Floods are simply epic. You are correct that the absence of ice where there was ice previously indicates an upward trend over that time period. However, prior to the Industrial Era, we were actually on a slight cooling trend. The Holocene climatic optimum was 5000-9000 years ago. As I recall, we have yet to reach similar global temperature levels, but our timeframe for doing so assuming current emissions levels is on the order of 1-2 centuries.
I believe the largest volcanic outgassing in geologic history would be the creation of the Large Igneous Province called the Deccan Traps. As I recall (but I would be happy to find the relevant scientific papers and re-do the calculations for you) human CO2 output to date was about three orders of magnitude smaller than the total figure for the Deccan Traps. Humans are unlikely to be able to emit 1000x more CO2 than we already have on any timescale, however, the flip side of that is that if we continued at this rate we would exceed the largest volcanic outgassings in the history of the Earth in some few thousands of years, where the natural timeframe of those events was several million years. On another scale, we're emitting about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions' worth of CO2 per day, or about one Yellowstone-sized supereruption per year (Gerlach 2011). The IPCC reports give some good estimates about the exact rate of warming, but the rate of CO2 increase far exceeds that of any prior historical event. Since we know that there is a causal link between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, this implies (but does not in any sense prove) that the warming rate may also end up being historically unprecedented. However, if you think that there's some sort of uncertainty about the outcome of this, to where you don't have to be worried, you're probably going to want to rethink that.
Models aren't evidence for or against a theory. The evidence for AGW is essentially that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it exists in the upper atmosphere, and that we are increasing the concentration of it in the atmosphere. Very basic physical laws dictate that this will cause warming. You can prove the greenhouse gas part in your basement, to measure the upper atmosphere I'd imagine you'd need a sounding rocket. Your basement will also allow you to demonstrate a substantial positive feedback effect with water vapor. So, easily verified properties of atmospheric gases tell us that AGW must be occurring.
"But wait," you say, "who says that the real world has to match what happens in the laboratory? What if there's some bigger negative feedback loop that we don't know about?" This is a cogent objection. As it happens, that is exactly what we've been looking for (at least, since Keeling). We haven't found one, and we've ruled out all known atmospheric phenomena. Some misunderstood part of the water cycle was probably all that could have saved us; the H2O feedback effect is quite strong. As you can see, the amount of water that can be dissolved in air has a really nasty exponential curve to it, as anyone from the South can doubtless attest.
The science of AGW really is settled. What exactly will happen is where the models come in, and a large part of the modeled uncertainty is because they're giving projections which take into account human responses to climate change. I'm not suggesting that you take any particular action about this, but you may rely on the science being correct, so if your personal view is that that would be a situation requiring action, I would imagine that you would want to be thinking about what to do.
We disagree vehemently on a number of subjects; you're on my foes list for a number of good reasons. However, I feel that makes it the more incumbent on me to give you credit where it is due, so I'd just like to say that I often find your comments to be valuable and insightful. I freely admit that I do not like you, but I do respect you, and Slashdot would be a worse place without you.
Right, our system of voting is so bad that our choices were Hillary and Trump. We need to stop picking the President like we pick a prom queen. We don't care how popular someone is. We want to know how good they are. Every product and service on the Internet has a five-star rating system right next to the name of the product, because it's a system that works. Doing this for Presidential elections will increase the viability of third party candidates, and prevent asshats from being able to hijack our elections. Frankly, I think this is something that will destroy our democracy in short order if we don't adopt it as soon as possible.
The worst part is it's an intentional decision. Microsoft decided that the risk of something crashing due to mismatched library versions was more important than countless billions of man-hours. It's one of the more staggeringly wasteful decisions in history, in my opinion.
There is no bus service that runs between Alaska and the contiguous US, sadly. Most towns do not have road access, and I am not aware of any regular bus service between cities in the State. Seasonal buses would run from the cruise liner stops south of Anchorage up to Denali. I seem to recall reading about the possibility of the international bus service, perhaps in the Milepost, but I don't think it's possible to get much past Ft. St. John going north by bus. So to my mind, just your saying that bears out my point pretty well.
I have to congratulate you on emigrating, I feel like few enough people here know how difficult that is. I think you've carried your argument that I have been rich because the polity I am from is rich to its fullest extreme. Again I have to note, this is an ad hominem argument of some type, and you do seem fairly interested in seeing me as a bad person. I am sure that in general I believe you. It seems a little unnecessary however. If you don't mind educating me a little bit more, I would be pretty interested in hearing your story. I have been pretty free with my own story, as you note, and to some degree it does reflect in how I view the world. I do see climate science advocacy as a patriotic expression; there are only a few tens of thousands of people in this country with comparable experiences. Glacial ice loss is pretty easy to dismiss if you haven't happened to watch twenty cubic miles of ice vanish. It's a thankless task, but on the other hand the alternative is to be silent and hence complicit in the destruction. I hope that's comprehensible even if you don't condone it.
The statement was that rural Alaska was beset by grinding poverty. As in, the thousands of communities only reachable by bush plane, although technically in Alaska the term is applied to all but the three largest cities (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau). The population of Juneau is about 30,000. Fully half of the State's citizens live in the Greater Anchorage Area (ANC+Mat-Su), and the overwhelming majority of economic activity is concentrated in due proportion in these three major cities. The smaller Alaskan towns have with few exceptions (Dutch Harbor/Unalaska) very little economic activity, and typically this activity is seasonal in nature. Strangely enough, Wikipedia seems to have an article on the economies of various places in Alaska. I won't editorialize here, why don't you look at the numbers there and tell me what you see.
And as for the 'homeland' word, I have to apologize if you don't like it. I learned about America from the Internet at a young age. We didn't have television, but we weren't too far out in the sticks to not have phone service. I would always look south and imagine a land of noise and shining lights far beyond the horizon, and it never really seemed like I could actually be a part of that polity. As an adult I've lived outside the country at various times (third world shitholes that had the advantage of being tropical. I mean, can you blame me?). I have a massively warped perspective on American culture. It's one of the reasons why I try to avoid political opinions: I don't know enough about how most people think to be able to tell them differently (and not that discussing politics on Slashdot is ever a good idea). You, in turn, have very little perspective on daily life in rural Alaska. I'm not clear on why you are insisting otherwise, or what it could possibly say about me.
Check this article, which gives this PDF as a source, which contains a figure of around 44,000 in 2005 dollars. Your source uses the same document as reference. I did see some vandalism on these pages earlier but I can't find the exact revision now. This article compares the GSP of Alaska to that of Croatia. It cites this table as a source. That table ranks Alaska as 46th in GSP. I can certainly be thick at times, but I don't believe I could be wrong about the size of the economy there by a factor of 10.
Well, it's funny how you said that Congress needs to not spend as much money on climate science, and again, whatever reasoning you have for this continues to be elusive. I think I'm becoming less interested in it though.
Alaska has the fifth-smallest GSP in the United States (gross), and sixth-smallest per capita GSP. Sweden has 10x the GDP and much better GDP per capita. Wages are high, but expenses are even higher. In Anchorage, the cost of living is about a third higher than the median US, and rural Alaska is much more expensive. Like $10 for a gallon of milk expensive. I'm from rural Alaska, about 300 miles from Anchorage. I can't think of any reason to be more specific than that, but maybe you can think of something. Most people in Anchorage are pretty well off, but the smaller communities tend to be pretty dire. So that comparison is hard to sustain, and using it to draw inferences about me sounds dubious, and I don't see what a discussion of my qualities has to do with anything. But, of course, I am usually pretty happy to talk about myself.
Okay so let's wrap this up and score things. I think I scored higher on style and virtue signaling and won some popularity points, but most of my posts probably represent a near-total failure to engage any opposing viewpoint. Your precise viewpoint is still unclear, but the vague ad hominem drew some harsh responses. Also, if you do have a nuanced view of the world, you might want to be a bit more explicit about what that is, or stupid people may draw incorrect conclusions from the context of your argument. Trying to make any sort of argument about my character was, well, this seems to be a bit of a trap for you, and the insults aren't going to be kindly read by anyone. Overall, I think we both have some things to work on. I won't be offended if you don't share that opinion, however:) I do appreciate your responses, and I am sure that I will be interested to read more of your opinions in the future.
We have glacier overlooks that were built in the latter half of the 20th Century, where the glaciers are no longer visible, having retreated over the horizon. The glacier nearest my house lost 20 cubic miles of ice in ten years. I have a difficult time imagining 20 cubic miles of ice, but it seems that both of us are left without an alternative. Across the state we've lost 75 billion tons of ice per year for the last thirty years. Winter temperature anomalies regularly exceed 10 degrees C, pretty much every year now. An average 10 degree C temperature change during the winter is a very different climatic zone, especially in Southcentral Alaska (Prince William Sound) where the temperatures would typically stay close to freezing for most of the winter. Some exceptional weather patterns in recent years (including this one) have seen temperature anomalies reaching 20 degrees C. Glaciers that survived the last Ice Age and the Holocene Optimum are gone. Fairbanks has doubled its frost-free days per year since 1900. The ice loss is primarily in the tidewater and lower alpine glaciers, in other words, the most visible and accessible glaciers. And do I really need to mention the ice caps? Alaska is, very obviously, melting like gangbusters. The temperature anomaly is mind-blowing. Also, generally speaking I believe the effects on the various forests in the state has not been good, with aggravated issues of spruce beetles and wildfires. And since it seems to be only a matter of time, we are also going to see widespread melting of permafrost, which is going to be Very Bad in many, many ways. Will that do to start?
It's really entertaining that you've decided that I am from Scandinavia and not Alaska, which would perhaps explain why you think that my experience has been one of wealth rather than grinding poverty. I am unclear what that has to do with anything, but I am happy you take an interest. So the part of your philosophy that is complete nonsense which you have yet to make any remark in support of would be that you're suggesting that we don't need to study this. So now we have established that you do accept the science, that you accept the scenarios as outlined, and you have some further reason to think that this situation does not require research. We are merely probing for your breakdown in logic.I'm sure we'll get there eventually. Lovely day, isn't it?
"I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less."
So either you're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next or there is no problem here. The warming will be catastrophic, but you don't care because you think it won't affect you. For the sake of the world at large, you might want to reconsider that one.
And as an aside, the "research papers" I mentioned would obviously be the foundational evidence for the theory. The IPCC is an excellent summary of current understanding, but it's not really possible to discuss the evidence for the theory without some mention of Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, and various other people who established and defended the theory. I do recommend this site if you haven't approached the subject from a historical perspective. I would also recommend reading Arrhenius 1896 just on its own merits. It's well written, it did get a lot of things mostly right. and yet it was debunked immediately upon publication and didn't return to respectability for 50 years. There are actually few enough papers on the topic before 1950 that one can read them exhaustively in an afternoon or two. The study of the evolution of thought on this issue is at least as interesting to me as the current scientific perspective.
If I'm a liar, prove it. It should be as obvious as 1+1, and I will not only admit my faults with good grace, but thank you honestly from my heart. I would shed every drop of blood I have for any small comfort about the fate of my homeland. Go ahead, comfort me. Tell me how despite seventy five billion tons of ice loss per year for the last thirty years, is a good thing. Tell me how happy I should be about the tundra melting. I want to believe. In all seriousness, I would be ecstatic if there was even the slightest bit of evidence that AGW might even be on the low end of the temperature projections. But go ahead and insult me. That's not evidence, but it's some kind of argument, right? I'll take your insults. You're welcome. Go ahead and destroy the place I grew up in too, and tell me exactly how bad it is. Fine. Okay. Neither of us really has control over that, and you may have sufficient hybris to have an opinion on how bad things are in the Arctic. But if you are going to venture into empiricism enough to suggest that the science of AGW is in any way inadequate, inaccurate, or exaggerated, prove it. Show any empirical evidence you think is remotely related. Your opinion that the world secretly works another way is not particularly interesting without observational evidence. For me, either I'm right, or I learn something and my homeland is saved. If you think there's some partisan leanings here, let me be the first to assure you that we almost certainly hold environmental activists in equal contempt. You are, however, alleging a distortion of science, and it's not like you're suggesting that there's a problem with using one error distribution model over another, you're suggesting that whatever part of this theory that you don't like is simply wrong. It may well be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you. So far you have supplied insults. I think that you should definitely continue to argue in such a way; I doubt anyone reading will be misinformed as to the relative merits of our positions.
We're having the same discussion in two different threads. If I am a liar, prove it. If I am a fool prove me wrong. Show evidence. Cite sources. Tell me what's wrong with the research papers. Or, with all due respect, kindly consider shutting the fuck up.
Then on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown? The H2O feedback is strongly positive and no negative feedback of anything close to the right magnitude exists. There's not a lot of room for situations that don't have levels of warming that we would consider to be catastrophic. As it happens, I am not a scientist, merely an empiricist, which means that I don't care about your politics one way or another. If you think you can prove whatever your assertion is about the physical world, I would be keenly attentive. If all you have is some conspiracy theory, well, that would be telling now wouldn't it?
Insults are also not scientific evidence, and you saying that something is so doesn't make it true. If it's not real, prove it to me, and tell me what's wrong with the science, even if that is, "something unexplained happens in step x and we need more research into y".
I have a low tolerance for bullshit on this subject. I grew up in Alaska, and it is already ruined. It would be nice if there were any hope of putting things back to normal there, but unfortunately the science is unequivocal. So now you have burned down my home, lied about doing it, and insulted me for saying otherwise. I suppose that's only fair, but what are you going to do for an encore?
AGW is supported by evidence, your statements are supported by political conjecture. We don't have to ask scientists if AGW is correct. We can look at the science, which as it happens is over 100 years old and quite mature as a field. It's wonderful of you to call an entire academic discipline liars with just some rhetorical argument though. So did these climate researchers also go back in time and jog Tyndall's hand as he measured the thermoptic characteristics of atmospheric gases? Are we missing a carbon-dioxide-eating term in our atmospheric physics equations? Or is it that this whole "greenhouse effect" thing is a liberal myth (like the moon!)? And if we are this badly wrong about how the atmosphere works, why do the atmospheric physics laws work just fine to explain the temperatures on Jupiter and in the Solar atmosphere? And if you can't answer any of these questions, why should we listen to the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject?
"traditional" $100-$200 million? Traditional since when? Traditional since the 19th Century when CO2 was first recognized as a potential problem, or traditional since 1959 when it became clear that there was a global issue with rising CO2 levels? Or would that have been any time in the past two centuries when the fundamentals of atmospheric physics were being worked out?
You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument. If you want to argue that AGW is not a serious concern then you need to do it in the language of science, not allege some sort of cabal. Roy Spencer is still getting up and delivering contrarian screeds to Congress and being lead author on the sections of the IPCC report related to his specialty -- it's not like the opposing voices aren't being heard. It's that they're not persuasive in the face of the evidence. If you don't like what the science says, do better science. This is, really and truly, a meritocracy, where reproducible results are all that matter. We can prove it, because the consensus was *against* CO2-induced warming until the 1950s, and then everyone changed their mind and no one was fired. Because we didn't have jackasses like you trying to inject politics into a scientific topic by insisting that the entire field is comprised of avaricious liars. Honestly, this is just you being intellectually lazy. Go and look up the evidence for AGW. Go read about radiative transfer equations, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the atmospheric window, carbon 14 ratios, and all the rest. When you do, come back and tell us what you think is wrong with *that*, not some irrelevant horseshit about some conspiracy of white-haired professors. The basics of AGW were worked out in 1896, and they have been supported since then by thousands and thousands of people working in cooperation around the globe since that time. We respect your right to disagree with the science; the whole point of science is to argue about models of reality. The rules of this game are mandatory and not up for debate: if you arguing against science with something other than empirical evidence, you are fighting reality itself, and you will lose. Now, do you have some novel observations on the nature of CO2 that you would like to share with us?
That's all very well and good, and I credit Mr. Raymond for his accomplishments, but I'm afraid that he has a sufficiently bad reputation for making crazy statements that I am unwilling to take his opinion on any matter, That may not be fair to him as a technical expert, but he has earned distrust for his far-too-numerous non-technical opinions and general batshit craziness. It's not my job necessarily to issue proclamations for the groupthink here, but I am pretty sure that I'm not alone in feeling like this, and I suggest that you might want to put in some sort of explicit disclaimer or endorsement, to the effect that, "this is one of the times when ESR is actually worth listening to." It's a shame to have to say something like this. There are things he has written, however, that are crazy enough that I wish I could unread them. I am of course merely offering this suggestion on the basis that you might not be aware of his reputation.
You contradict yourself don't you? Doesn't string theory state that there is a possibility and a probability for anything to happen?
No, and also no. You may be thinking of quantum physics, but it's generally not true either way. I'm not going to suggest that you go learn the philosophy of science or epistemology required to discus this subject sensibly. However, there are some basic things that you should know.
Science is technically never "settled" in the specific sense that one can never prove any given statement. We can however disprove theories, by finding statements that lead to contradictions. We do not have absolute truth, but we do have negation. So, we can exclude realties in which PM is a thing, and we have. But CoE is actually in its own special category, because it's an implicit part of every physics equation which has an energy term, which would be pretty much all of them. It's also covered by Noether, so mathematically either energy is conserved, or the laws of physics vary with energy. So again, we can test this and rule out alternative theories. We can do this for all physics equations, and we have. So this is the part where I repeat myself: we have multiple independent lines of evidence which rule out PM. From a strict philosophical standpoint, there will be error bars on any individual measurement, so theoretically every measurement we've ever made of anything could all just be biased in precisely the wrong way so as to fool every scientist ever.
The chances of CoE being wrong are not zero, but so close to zero that it is impossible to express without hyperoperators. Scientific notation doesn't begin to cover it. There is quite literally nothing less likely than CoE being wrong. It is the single most well-supported fact in the history of science. And again, it's not clear that the laws of physics would be knowable if it were not true. And ultimately this means about you that you either have no idea what it is that you're actually suggesting, or you are crazy beyond the ability of language to describe. Either way the patent office is the least of your troubles. I was trying hard to be nice in this post, and I hope you forgive my failings, but really, it would probably take less time to complete an undergrad and postgrad degree than to explain everything that's wrong with PM. I don't have time for that kind of education. Please bother a physics professor if you have further questions, and accept my sincere apologies for having to say that. I do wish you good health, happiness, and good fortune in all your endeavors.
You're not interested in the truth of this matter, it seems. I will repeat my offer of citations for any fact that I have happened to mention. I don't have any opinions about science: what use would they be? I would very much like to reassure you that my only angle is whether the science is accurately described. I think we can both agree life is way too short to deal with environmental activists. No, if you have any opinions that you want to inflict on other people, you're welcome to them, and please make any political climate-related decisions for me in my name and with my blessing. And if your solution is inaction then the only thing I would want is an informed inaction.
The irony of this sentence escapes you.
Is it ironic to suggest that we have ways of observing the atmosphere today that did not exist in 1950? It's not a mystery what pieces they were missing and why. The only irony here is that you seem to think there's some big piece missing about our understanding of things like heat, light, and the properties of atmospheric gases. In order for AGW to be wrong, Tyndall would have to be wrong. We've ruled out everything else. I would be happy to explain to you this subject in any amount of detail. But if you don't want to listen, that's fine too, anyone else reading this exchange will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions about your level of scholarship.
On some level, it makes sense for you not to engage in any factual discussion. Reality does have a well-known liberal bias, and you don't know enough about this theory to be able to point to a potentially-valid issue with the causal chain. And it's funny, because the thing that would be most helpful to you in your argument appears to be the thing that you will go to any lengths to avoid knowing.
For me there's no real downside to being forced to back up the things I say. Either I'm right or I learn something. I'm not a scientist, engineer, or academic, but I do consider myself an empiricist. I think that science is the only objective way to discover truths about the real world. Being an argumentative empiricist is a great way to learn the distinction between opinion and fact, and arguing with many fine people here such as yourself has driven me to read hundreds of research papers on this subject, as well as, oh, at least half a dozen undergraduate textbooks, and countless other publications of lesser note. That of course includes the contrarian research too: one can hardly ignore Spencer or Curry. And in thousands of hours of research and argument, I don't think I've had any one of you people even do so much as look at the papers being cited. I don't see these things as futile. We're the loud ones; other people are silent because they are reading and listening. And I don't despair of you, though you certainly strain my faith in humanity. And if nothing else, knowledge is good for its own sake. So if you do have any actual curiosity about this subject, or if you do have any concerns about the causal chain, please do share them, and I'll be happy to help. Sadly, I don't think that's what you're here for.
Classic ignorant denialism. The evidence for AGW has nothing to do with models or the temperature record. It is a straightforward result of the properties of CO2. Straightforward as in, "Some guy in 1896 figured it out using research from 1859". You know this theory is more than 100 years old, right?
It's really irritating to read this. It's one thing to be completely ignorant of a subject -- we all start out that way. It's quite another thing for you to declare your ignorance of the causal chain but insist that other people got it wrong. Yes, you're right, it's hard to draw causal links from statistics, but that's not remotely what has happened, and the idea that you know this and some scientific community might not is breathtakingly stupid. But okay, I'll try to believe that you at least mean well and maybe don't have a lot of time to read about this. I would recommend starting here, and maybe continuing on the section about basic radiation maths. Keep in mind that what we know about Earth's atmosphere we have also been able to apply to extraterrestrial atmospheres, including the Sun. Generally what you're going to find is that warming is a direct result of CO2 trapping heat, and that we've been trying pretty hard to find reasons why raising the partial pressure won't also raise the temperature. There's only so many things that can happen in terms of radiation between the surface of the Earth and outer space, and we've pretty much ruled out anything that could prevent drastic warming. Which, yes, sucks balls. The other interesting thing that you'll find is that there was a scientific consensus *against* the CO2 theory, and you'll have to see why it was overturned.
People who challenge the consensus are called contrarians, unless they don't have a factual argument. Then we call them deniers. For example, Dr. Roy Spencer is a prominent contrarian climatologist, who has been lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. You also seem to be unaware that there was a consensus *against* AGW up until the mid-1950s. It was overturned by better observations of the atmosphere and oceans. In short, the idea that there is some political cabal in charge of the consensus view is false, bordering on the ridiculous. We KNOW, empirically, from experience, that not only has the consensus changed, the authors of the authoritative summary of climate change research selected perhaps the most notable contrarian as lead author (for the bits relevant to his research). Because it doesn't make a difference whether he or anyone else thinks about whether the Earth is warming, the only thing that matters is what the observations say. And unfortunately we've ruled out the alternatives to warming, at least without some bizarre new physics.
This isn't nutrition, this is basic atmospheric physics. If we're wrong about this atmosphere then we're wrong about all the extraterrestrial atmospheres too. Also, you're going to be able to demonstrate this fact unambiguously either way -- we're measuring heat, not health. The way to unmask this supposed conspiracy is to do the experiments yourself -- no trust in any community is required. Failing that you are able to read the papers and use a better analysis to figure out where everyone else went wrong. We figured this stuff out in the 19th Century so it's not like it requires a big lab setup. The IPCC report is big and complicated, but the actual science at hand is surprisingly simple. If you don't want to trust the scientists, but refuse to provide an alternate explanation, to experiment, or even read the theory, well, I'm not sure there's anything more descriptive than "denialist".
Slashdot Mirror
The rate is going to be unpleasant, but more certain than that is difficult to tell, because among other things it will depend on what we do about it.
"E-Wa" has fascinating geography, and I do recommend to the interested reader the book "Roadside Geology of Washington". The Cascades are of course very active volcanically, and the scars from the Missoula Floods are simply epic. You are correct that the absence of ice where there was ice previously indicates an upward trend over that time period. However, prior to the Industrial Era, we were actually on a slight cooling trend. The Holocene climatic optimum was 5000-9000 years ago. As I recall, we have yet to reach similar global temperature levels, but our timeframe for doing so assuming current emissions levels is on the order of 1-2 centuries.
I believe the largest volcanic outgassing in geologic history would be the creation of the Large Igneous Province called the Deccan Traps. As I recall (but I would be happy to find the relevant scientific papers and re-do the calculations for you) human CO2 output to date was about three orders of magnitude smaller than the total figure for the Deccan Traps. Humans are unlikely to be able to emit 1000x more CO2 than we already have on any timescale, however, the flip side of that is that if we continued at this rate we would exceed the largest volcanic outgassings in the history of the Earth in some few thousands of years, where the natural timeframe of those events was several million years. On another scale, we're emitting about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions' worth of CO2 per day, or about one Yellowstone-sized supereruption per year (Gerlach 2011). The IPCC reports give some good estimates about the exact rate of warming, but the rate of CO2 increase far exceeds that of any prior historical event. Since we know that there is a causal link between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, this implies (but does not in any sense prove) that the warming rate may also end up being historically unprecedented. However, if you think that there's some sort of uncertainty about the outcome of this, to where you don't have to be worried, you're probably going to want to rethink that.
Models aren't evidence for or against a theory. The evidence for AGW is essentially that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it exists in the upper atmosphere, and that we are increasing the concentration of it in the atmosphere. Very basic physical laws dictate that this will cause warming. You can prove the greenhouse gas part in your basement, to measure the upper atmosphere I'd imagine you'd need a sounding rocket. Your basement will also allow you to demonstrate a substantial positive feedback effect with water vapor. So, easily verified properties of atmospheric gases tell us that AGW must be occurring.
"But wait," you say, "who says that the real world has to match what happens in the laboratory? What if there's some bigger negative feedback loop that we don't know about?" This is a cogent objection. As it happens, that is exactly what we've been looking for (at least, since Keeling). We haven't found one, and we've ruled out all known atmospheric phenomena. Some misunderstood part of the water cycle was probably all that could have saved us; the H2O feedback effect is quite strong. As you can see, the amount of water that can be dissolved in air has a really nasty exponential curve to it, as anyone from the South can doubtless attest.
The science of AGW really is settled. What exactly will happen is where the models come in, and a large part of the modeled uncertainty is because they're giving projections which take into account human responses to climate change. I'm not suggesting that you take any particular action about this, but you may rely on the science being correct, so if your personal view is that that would be a situation requiring action, I would imagine that you would want to be thinking about what to do.
Looking at 2016 graphed against the 2-standard-deviation range there is really depressing.
We disagree vehemently on a number of subjects; you're on my foes list for a number of good reasons. However, I feel that makes it the more incumbent on me to give you credit where it is due, so I'd just like to say that I often find your comments to be valuable and insightful. I freely admit that I do not like you, but I do respect you, and Slashdot would be a worse place without you.
Right, our system of voting is so bad that our choices were Hillary and Trump. We need to stop picking the President like we pick a prom queen. We don't care how popular someone is. We want to know how good they are. Every product and service on the Internet has a five-star rating system right next to the name of the product, because it's a system that works. Doing this for Presidential elections will increase the viability of third party candidates, and prevent asshats from being able to hijack our elections. Frankly, I think this is something that will destroy our democracy in short order if we don't adopt it as soon as possible.
The worst part is it's an intentional decision. Microsoft decided that the risk of something crashing due to mismatched library versions was more important than countless billions of man-hours. It's one of the more staggeringly wasteful decisions in history, in my opinion.
Do you have any arguments other than tu quoque and ad hominem?
There is no bus service that runs between Alaska and the contiguous US, sadly. Most towns do not have road access, and I am not aware of any regular bus service between cities in the State. Seasonal buses would run from the cruise liner stops south of Anchorage up to Denali. I seem to recall reading about the possibility of the international bus service, perhaps in the Milepost, but I don't think it's possible to get much past Ft. St. John going north by bus. So to my mind, just your saying that bears out my point pretty well.
I have to congratulate you on emigrating, I feel like few enough people here know how difficult that is. I think you've carried your argument that I have been rich because the polity I am from is rich to its fullest extreme. Again I have to note, this is an ad hominem argument of some type, and you do seem fairly interested in seeing me as a bad person. I am sure that in general I believe you. It seems a little unnecessary however. If you don't mind educating me a little bit more, I would be pretty interested in hearing your story. I have been pretty free with my own story, as you note, and to some degree it does reflect in how I view the world. I do see climate science advocacy as a patriotic expression; there are only a few tens of thousands of people in this country with comparable experiences. Glacial ice loss is pretty easy to dismiss if you haven't happened to watch twenty cubic miles of ice vanish. It's a thankless task, but on the other hand the alternative is to be silent and hence complicit in the destruction. I hope that's comprehensible even if you don't condone it.
The statement was that rural Alaska was beset by grinding poverty. As in, the thousands of communities only reachable by bush plane, although technically in Alaska the term is applied to all but the three largest cities (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau). The population of Juneau is about 30,000. Fully half of the State's citizens live in the Greater Anchorage Area (ANC+Mat-Su), and the overwhelming majority of economic activity is concentrated in due proportion in these three major cities. The smaller Alaskan towns have with few exceptions (Dutch Harbor/Unalaska) very little economic activity, and typically this activity is seasonal in nature. Strangely enough, Wikipedia seems to have an article on the economies of various places in Alaska. I won't editorialize here, why don't you look at the numbers there and tell me what you see.
And as for the 'homeland' word, I have to apologize if you don't like it. I learned about America from the Internet at a young age. We didn't have television, but we weren't too far out in the sticks to not have phone service. I would always look south and imagine a land of noise and shining lights far beyond the horizon, and it never really seemed like I could actually be a part of that polity. As an adult I've lived outside the country at various times (third world shitholes that had the advantage of being tropical. I mean, can you blame me?). I have a massively warped perspective on American culture. It's one of the reasons why I try to avoid political opinions: I don't know enough about how most people think to be able to tell them differently (and not that discussing politics on Slashdot is ever a good idea). You, in turn, have very little perspective on daily life in rural Alaska. I'm not clear on why you are insisting otherwise, or what it could possibly say about me.
Check this article, which gives this PDF as a source, which contains a figure of around 44,000 in 2005 dollars. Your source uses the same document as reference. I did see some vandalism on these pages earlier but I can't find the exact revision now. This article compares the GSP of Alaska to that of Croatia. It cites this table as a source. That table ranks Alaska as 46th in GSP. I can certainly be thick at times, but I don't believe I could be wrong about the size of the economy there by a factor of 10.
Well, it's funny how you said that Congress needs to not spend as much money on climate science, and again, whatever reasoning you have for this continues to be elusive. I think I'm becoming less interested in it though.
Alaska has the fifth-smallest GSP in the United States (gross), and sixth-smallest per capita GSP. Sweden has 10x the GDP and much better GDP per capita. Wages are high, but expenses are even higher. In Anchorage, the cost of living is about a third higher than the median US, and rural Alaska is much more expensive. Like $10 for a gallon of milk expensive. I'm from rural Alaska, about 300 miles from Anchorage. I can't think of any reason to be more specific than that, but maybe you can think of something. Most people in Anchorage are pretty well off, but the smaller communities tend to be pretty dire. So that comparison is hard to sustain, and using it to draw inferences about me sounds dubious, and I don't see what a discussion of my qualities has to do with anything. But, of course, I am usually pretty happy to talk about myself.
Okay so let's wrap this up and score things. I think I scored higher on style and virtue signaling and won some popularity points, but most of my posts probably represent a near-total failure to engage any opposing viewpoint. Your precise viewpoint is still unclear, but the vague ad hominem drew some harsh responses. Also, if you do have a nuanced view of the world, you might want to be a bit more explicit about what that is, or stupid people may draw incorrect conclusions from the context of your argument. Trying to make any sort of argument about my character was, well, this seems to be a bit of a trap for you, and the insults aren't going to be kindly read by anyone. Overall, I think we both have some things to work on. I won't be offended if you don't share that opinion, however :) I do appreciate your responses, and I am sure that I will be interested to read more of your opinions in the future.
We have glacier overlooks that were built in the latter half of the 20th Century, where the glaciers are no longer visible, having retreated over the horizon. The glacier nearest my house lost 20 cubic miles of ice in ten years. I have a difficult time imagining 20 cubic miles of ice, but it seems that both of us are left without an alternative. Across the state we've lost 75 billion tons of ice per year for the last thirty years. Winter temperature anomalies regularly exceed 10 degrees C, pretty much every year now. An average 10 degree C temperature change during the winter is a very different climatic zone, especially in Southcentral Alaska (Prince William Sound) where the temperatures would typically stay close to freezing for most of the winter. Some exceptional weather patterns in recent years (including this one) have seen temperature anomalies reaching 20 degrees C. Glaciers that survived the last Ice Age and the Holocene Optimum are gone. Fairbanks has doubled its frost-free days per year since 1900. The ice loss is primarily in the tidewater and lower alpine glaciers, in other words, the most visible and accessible glaciers. And do I really need to mention the ice caps? Alaska is, very obviously, melting like gangbusters. The temperature anomaly is mind-blowing. Also, generally speaking I believe the effects on the various forests in the state has not been good, with aggravated issues of spruce beetles and wildfires. And since it seems to be only a matter of time, we are also going to see widespread melting of permafrost, which is going to be Very Bad in many, many ways. Will that do to start?
It's really entertaining that you've decided that I am from Scandinavia and not Alaska, which would perhaps explain why you think that my experience has been one of wealth rather than grinding poverty. I am unclear what that has to do with anything, but I am happy you take an interest. So the part of your philosophy that is complete nonsense which you have yet to make any remark in support of would be that you're suggesting that we don't need to study this. So now we have established that you do accept the science, that you accept the scenarios as outlined, and you have some further reason to think that this situation does not require research. We are merely probing for your breakdown in logic.I'm sure we'll get there eventually. Lovely day, isn't it?
"I'm not "alleging" a distortion of science. I simply pointed out that climate scientists have strong financial stake in the conclusions they reach, nothing more and nothing less."
So either you're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next or there is no problem here. The warming will be catastrophic, but you don't care because you think it won't affect you. For the sake of the world at large, you might want to reconsider that one.
And as an aside, the "research papers" I mentioned would obviously be the foundational evidence for the theory. The IPCC is an excellent summary of current understanding, but it's not really possible to discuss the evidence for the theory without some mention of Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Hansen, and various other people who established and defended the theory. I do recommend this site if you haven't approached the subject from a historical perspective. I would also recommend reading Arrhenius 1896 just on its own merits. It's well written, it did get a lot of things mostly right. and yet it was debunked immediately upon publication and didn't return to respectability for 50 years. There are actually few enough papers on the topic before 1950 that one can read them exhaustively in an afternoon or two. The study of the evolution of thought on this issue is at least as interesting to me as the current scientific perspective.
If I'm a liar, prove it. It should be as obvious as 1+1, and I will not only admit my faults with good grace, but thank you honestly from my heart. I would shed every drop of blood I have for any small comfort about the fate of my homeland. Go ahead, comfort me. Tell me how despite seventy five billion tons of ice loss per year for the last thirty years, is a good thing. Tell me how happy I should be about the tundra melting. I want to believe. In all seriousness, I would be ecstatic if there was even the slightest bit of evidence that AGW might even be on the low end of the temperature projections. But go ahead and insult me. That's not evidence, but it's some kind of argument, right? I'll take your insults. You're welcome. Go ahead and destroy the place I grew up in too, and tell me exactly how bad it is. Fine. Okay. Neither of us really has control over that, and you may have sufficient hybris to have an opinion on how bad things are in the Arctic. But if you are going to venture into empiricism enough to suggest that the science of AGW is in any way inadequate, inaccurate, or exaggerated, prove it. Show any empirical evidence you think is remotely related. Your opinion that the world secretly works another way is not particularly interesting without observational evidence. For me, either I'm right, or I learn something and my homeland is saved. If you think there's some partisan leanings here, let me be the first to assure you that we almost certainly hold environmental activists in equal contempt. You are, however, alleging a distortion of science, and it's not like you're suggesting that there's a problem with using one error distribution model over another, you're suggesting that whatever part of this theory that you don't like is simply wrong. It may well be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you. So far you have supplied insults. I think that you should definitely continue to argue in such a way; I doubt anyone reading will be misinformed as to the relative merits of our positions.
We're having the same discussion in two different threads. If I am a liar, prove it. If I am a fool prove me wrong. Show evidence. Cite sources. Tell me what's wrong with the research papers. Or, with all due respect, kindly consider shutting the fuck up.
Then on what grounds do you argue that the concerns are overblown? The H2O feedback is strongly positive and no negative feedback of anything close to the right magnitude exists. There's not a lot of room for situations that don't have levels of warming that we would consider to be catastrophic. As it happens, I am not a scientist, merely an empiricist, which means that I don't care about your politics one way or another. If you think you can prove whatever your assertion is about the physical world, I would be keenly attentive. If all you have is some conspiracy theory, well, that would be telling now wouldn't it?
Insults are also not scientific evidence, and you saying that something is so doesn't make it true. If it's not real, prove it to me, and tell me what's wrong with the science, even if that is, "something unexplained happens in step x and we need more research into y".
I have a low tolerance for bullshit on this subject. I grew up in Alaska, and it is already ruined. It would be nice if there were any hope of putting things back to normal there, but unfortunately the science is unequivocal. So now you have burned down my home, lied about doing it, and insulted me for saying otherwise. I suppose that's only fair, but what are you going to do for an encore?
AGW is supported by evidence, your statements are supported by political conjecture. We don't have to ask scientists if AGW is correct. We can look at the science, which as it happens is over 100 years old and quite mature as a field. It's wonderful of you to call an entire academic discipline liars with just some rhetorical argument though. So did these climate researchers also go back in time and jog Tyndall's hand as he measured the thermoptic characteristics of atmospheric gases? Are we missing a carbon-dioxide-eating term in our atmospheric physics equations? Or is it that this whole "greenhouse effect" thing is a liberal myth (like the moon!)? And if we are this badly wrong about how the atmosphere works, why do the atmospheric physics laws work just fine to explain the temperatures on Jupiter and in the Solar atmosphere? And if you can't answer any of these questions, why should we listen to the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject?
"traditional" $100-$200 million? Traditional since when? Traditional since the 19th Century when CO2 was first recognized as a potential problem, or traditional since 1959 when it became clear that there was a global issue with rising CO2 levels? Or would that have been any time in the past two centuries when the fundamentals of atmospheric physics were being worked out?
You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument. If you want to argue that AGW is not a serious concern then you need to do it in the language of science, not allege some sort of cabal. Roy Spencer is still getting up and delivering contrarian screeds to Congress and being lead author on the sections of the IPCC report related to his specialty -- it's not like the opposing voices aren't being heard. It's that they're not persuasive in the face of the evidence. If you don't like what the science says, do better science. This is, really and truly, a meritocracy, where reproducible results are all that matter. We can prove it, because the consensus was *against* CO2-induced warming until the 1950s, and then everyone changed their mind and no one was fired. Because we didn't have jackasses like you trying to inject politics into a scientific topic by insisting that the entire field is comprised of avaricious liars. Honestly, this is just you being intellectually lazy. Go and look up the evidence for AGW. Go read about radiative transfer equations, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the atmospheric window, carbon 14 ratios, and all the rest. When you do, come back and tell us what you think is wrong with *that*, not some irrelevant horseshit about some conspiracy of white-haired professors. The basics of AGW were worked out in 1896, and they have been supported since then by thousands and thousands of people working in cooperation around the globe since that time. We respect your right to disagree with the science; the whole point of science is to argue about models of reality. The rules of this game are mandatory and not up for debate: if you arguing against science with something other than empirical evidence, you are fighting reality itself, and you will lose. Now, do you have some novel observations on the nature of CO2 that you would like to share with us?
That's all very well and good, and I credit Mr. Raymond for his accomplishments, but I'm afraid that he has a sufficiently bad reputation for making crazy statements that I am unwilling to take his opinion on any matter, That may not be fair to him as a technical expert, but he has earned distrust for his far-too-numerous non-technical opinions and general batshit craziness. It's not my job necessarily to issue proclamations for the groupthink here, but I am pretty sure that I'm not alone in feeling like this, and I suggest that you might want to put in some sort of explicit disclaimer or endorsement, to the effect that, "this is one of the times when ESR is actually worth listening to." It's a shame to have to say something like this. There are things he has written, however, that are crazy enough that I wish I could unread them. I am of course merely offering this suggestion on the basis that you might not be aware of his reputation.
You contradict yourself don't you? Doesn't string theory state that there is a possibility and a probability for anything to happen?
No, and also no. You may be thinking of quantum physics, but it's generally not true either way. I'm not going to suggest that you go learn the philosophy of science or epistemology required to discus this subject sensibly. However, there are some basic things that you should know.
Science is technically never "settled" in the specific sense that one can never prove any given statement. We can however disprove theories, by finding statements that lead to contradictions. We do not have absolute truth, but we do have negation. So, we can exclude realties in which PM is a thing, and we have. But CoE is actually in its own special category, because it's an implicit part of every physics equation which has an energy term, which would be pretty much all of them. It's also covered by Noether, so mathematically either energy is conserved, or the laws of physics vary with energy. So again, we can test this and rule out alternative theories. We can do this for all physics equations, and we have. So this is the part where I repeat myself: we have multiple independent lines of evidence which rule out PM. From a strict philosophical standpoint, there will be error bars on any individual measurement, so theoretically every measurement we've ever made of anything could all just be biased in precisely the wrong way so as to fool every scientist ever.
The chances of CoE being wrong are not zero, but so close to zero that it is impossible to express without hyperoperators. Scientific notation doesn't begin to cover it. There is quite literally nothing less likely than CoE being wrong. It is the single most well-supported fact in the history of science. And again, it's not clear that the laws of physics would be knowable if it were not true. And ultimately this means about you that you either have no idea what it is that you're actually suggesting, or you are crazy beyond the ability of language to describe. Either way the patent office is the least of your troubles. I was trying hard to be nice in this post, and I hope you forgive my failings, but really, it would probably take less time to complete an undergrad and postgrad degree than to explain everything that's wrong with PM. I don't have time for that kind of education. Please bother a physics professor if you have further questions, and accept my sincere apologies for having to say that. I do wish you good health, happiness, and good fortune in all your endeavors.
You're not interested in the truth of this matter, it seems. I will repeat my offer of citations for any fact that I have happened to mention. I don't have any opinions about science: what use would they be? I would very much like to reassure you that my only angle is whether the science is accurately described. I think we can both agree life is way too short to deal with environmental activists. No, if you have any opinions that you want to inflict on other people, you're welcome to them, and please make any political climate-related decisions for me in my name and with my blessing. And if your solution is inaction then the only thing I would want is an informed inaction.
The irony of this sentence escapes you.
Is it ironic to suggest that we have ways of observing the atmosphere today that did not exist in 1950? It's not a mystery what pieces they were missing and why. The only irony here is that you seem to think there's some big piece missing about our understanding of things like heat, light, and the properties of atmospheric gases. In order for AGW to be wrong, Tyndall would have to be wrong. We've ruled out everything else. I would be happy to explain to you this subject in any amount of detail. But if you don't want to listen, that's fine too, anyone else reading this exchange will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions about your level of scholarship.
On some level, it makes sense for you not to engage in any factual discussion. Reality does have a well-known liberal bias, and you don't know enough about this theory to be able to point to a potentially-valid issue with the causal chain. And it's funny, because the thing that would be most helpful to you in your argument appears to be the thing that you will go to any lengths to avoid knowing.
For me there's no real downside to being forced to back up the things I say. Either I'm right or I learn something. I'm not a scientist, engineer, or academic, but I do consider myself an empiricist. I think that science is the only objective way to discover truths about the real world. Being an argumentative empiricist is a great way to learn the distinction between opinion and fact, and arguing with many fine people here such as yourself has driven me to read hundreds of research papers on this subject, as well as, oh, at least half a dozen undergraduate textbooks, and countless other publications of lesser note. That of course includes the contrarian research too: one can hardly ignore Spencer or Curry. And in thousands of hours of research and argument, I don't think I've had any one of you people even do so much as look at the papers being cited. I don't see these things as futile. We're the loud ones; other people are silent because they are reading and listening. And I don't despair of you, though you certainly strain my faith in humanity. And if nothing else, knowledge is good for its own sake. So if you do have any actual curiosity about this subject, or if you do have any concerns about the causal chain, please do share them, and I'll be happy to help. Sadly, I don't think that's what you're here for.
Classic ignorant denialism. The evidence for AGW has nothing to do with models or the temperature record. It is a straightforward result of the properties of CO2. Straightforward as in, "Some guy in 1896 figured it out using research from 1859". You know this theory is more than 100 years old, right?
It's really irritating to read this. It's one thing to be completely ignorant of a subject -- we all start out that way. It's quite another thing for you to declare your ignorance of the causal chain but insist that other people got it wrong. Yes, you're right, it's hard to draw causal links from statistics, but that's not remotely what has happened, and the idea that you know this and some scientific community might not is breathtakingly stupid. But okay, I'll try to believe that you at least mean well and maybe don't have a lot of time to read about this. I would recommend starting here, and maybe continuing on the section about basic radiation maths. Keep in mind that what we know about Earth's atmosphere we have also been able to apply to extraterrestrial atmospheres, including the Sun. Generally what you're going to find is that warming is a direct result of CO2 trapping heat, and that we've been trying pretty hard to find reasons why raising the partial pressure won't also raise the temperature. There's only so many things that can happen in terms of radiation between the surface of the Earth and outer space, and we've pretty much ruled out anything that could prevent drastic warming. Which, yes, sucks balls. The other interesting thing that you'll find is that there was a scientific consensus *against* the CO2 theory, and you'll have to see why it was overturned.
People who challenge the consensus are called contrarians, unless they don't have a factual argument. Then we call them deniers. For example, Dr. Roy Spencer is a prominent contrarian climatologist, who has been lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. You also seem to be unaware that there was a consensus *against* AGW up until the mid-1950s. It was overturned by better observations of the atmosphere and oceans. In short, the idea that there is some political cabal in charge of the consensus view is false, bordering on the ridiculous. We KNOW, empirically, from experience, that not only has the consensus changed, the authors of the authoritative summary of climate change research selected perhaps the most notable contrarian as lead author (for the bits relevant to his research). Because it doesn't make a difference whether he or anyone else thinks about whether the Earth is warming, the only thing that matters is what the observations say. And unfortunately we've ruled out the alternatives to warming, at least without some bizarre new physics.
This isn't nutrition, this is basic atmospheric physics. If we're wrong about this atmosphere then we're wrong about all the extraterrestrial atmospheres too. Also, you're going to be able to demonstrate this fact unambiguously either way -- we're measuring heat, not health. The way to unmask this supposed conspiracy is to do the experiments yourself -- no trust in any community is required. Failing that you are able to read the papers and use a better analysis to figure out where everyone else went wrong. We figured this stuff out in the 19th Century so it's not like it requires a big lab setup. The IPCC report is big and complicated, but the actual science at hand is surprisingly simple. If you don't want to trust the scientists, but refuse to provide an alternate explanation, to experiment, or even read the theory, well, I'm not sure there's anything more descriptive than "denialist".