How long does it take for a coral community to recover from a death event? What about following man-made disturbances where the environment has undergone permanent change? What if the change is ongoing?
The Atlantic cod still exists as a species, but that's of little comfort to the folks who once had jobs linked to the fishery.
Likewise, your assurances that the coral species will probably not go extinct says little about whether the Great Barrier Reef will be around for our children to enjoy, or the fate of the ~70,000 associated jobs.
Every prior warming and cooling cycle has happened over thousands of years which gave species the chance to adapt
Not only that, the gp is conflating coral reefs in general with the Great Barrier Reef in particular. The GBR is relatively young, and its modern form is only 8,000 years old. It is not invulnerable to change. The GBR contributed $5.68 billion to the Australian economy in 2011-12 and it generated almost 69,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
If the AMOC were disrupted, it could divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted
...I've not seen their study so I have no clue how they managed this....Hey, don't take me wrong... I think they are making grand claims on the thinnest of data in an attempt to either justify or secure funding though generating interest and news coverage.
The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. These folks have applied some rigour to their model. That doesn't somehow make it less accurate.
Of more interest is whether over fished stocks would be in (as much) trouble if not over fished.
"'No Touch' is requested by BPA when unusually hot or cold weather increases the demand for electricity, notes Mike Paoli, spokesman for Energy Northwest," the report adds. "Many regional transmission and system operators across the United States ask nuclear plants to keep running during extreme weather because nuclear plants are the least affected by bad weather.
42,343 user ratings for Captain marvel vs 139 for Wonder Park, 114 for Triple Frontier, 58 for The Kid, or 43 for I'm Not Here. Seems like a coordinated effort by Culture Warriors fighting the good fight against the first.
"and even if they do not communicate with one another"
Well that can be the case with people, too, can it not? Except that when people do not communicate with each other, I don't believe that it can be said to be colluding, by definition. So why is it collusion when algorithms do it?
In most countries (including Europe and the US) such ‘tacit’ collusion, not relying on explicit intent and communication, is not currently treated as illegal, on the grounds that it is unlikely to occur among human agents and that, even if it did occur, it would be next to impossible to detect. The conventional wisdom, then, is that aggressive antitrust enforcement would be likely to produce many false positives (i.e. condemning innocent conduct), while tolerant policy would result in relatively few false negatives (i.e. excusing anticompetitive conduct). With the advent of AI pricing, however, the concern is that the balance between the two types of error might be altered.
This image charts global mean temperature vs. GHG forcing. You can see that forcing was still small, but already rising by 1900. Natural variability dominates the early part of the chart. That natural variability is largely cyclical though and nets to about 0C over the full period.
Natural variability no doubt dominated early on. That is no longer the case. Here is the atomospheric CO2 and delta forcing between each 50 year period. (DeltaF=5.35ln(C/C0)Wm^-2)
1750: 277 ppm CO2 to start
1800: 280 ppm / deltaF=0.06 Wm^-2
1850: 284 ppm / deltaF=0.08 Wm^-2
1900: 295 ppm / deltaF=0.20 Wm^-2
1950: 312 ppm / deltaF=0.30 Wm^-2
2000: 369 ppm / deltaF=0.90 Wm^-2
2014: 397 ppm / deltaF=0.39 Wm^-2
You can see that between 2000 and 2014 we've had a greater forcing than between 1900 and 1950. (source = ftp://data.iac.ethz.ch/CMIP6/i...)
Their natural summer habitate does not exist anymore, so they migrate.
It doesn't?
Here's an image that compares sea ice average prior between 1979 and 2000 to sea ice in 2007: https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov... . It's been worse since 2007. Polar bears rely on sea ice to efficiently catch their seal prey. The polar bear's main prey, the ringed seal, relies on sea ice, too—for giving birth to and raising their pups.
You do realize there was a little Ice Age at the end of the 17th C. So you're comparing the trough of a wave with a crest.
The LIA had ended by the second half of the 18thC when the Berkley temperature analysis starts. So there is no trough included in this graph.
Here's a longer term view if you like. Notice the 6000-8000 year trend back into an ice age that was dramatically reversed during the industrial revolution.
It's really not clear that we haven't already warmed more than 1.5C above pre-industiral. Just look at the Berkley record which goes farther back than others and includes confidence intervals. It's possible we're much closer to 2C above pre-industiral.
One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump...
I think the wake-up call was when it became apparent that a great deal of disinformation was part of an orchestrated campaign by an enemy state for the purpose of undermining American democracy.
And your article starts off with "All four of us". Pretending that equates to "climate scientists" in general is sophistry.
Who is pretending? Maybe the problem is with your parser?
Then there's the fact that those four people are idiots. Even if every government everywhere got on the nuclear fanboy bandwagon tomorrow, it's going to take decades to plan for and construct thousands of nuclear plants across the globe.
Decades the world doesn't have to head off more serious climate change.
If James Hansen is an idiot then maybe we don't need to worry all that much about global warming after all.... but he has a history of being right.
A guy with a PhD in Nuclear Physics (and a consultant) thinks we should use nuclear power.>
In other words:
A guy who actually knows what the hell he is talking about comes up with great clean solution, is ridiculed by armchair pundit who apparently would rather watch the planet die than admit nuclear power was ever a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
How long does it take for a coral community to recover from a death event? What about following man-made disturbances where the environment has undergone permanent change? What if the change is ongoing?
The Atlantic cod still exists as a species, but that's of little comfort to the folks who once had jobs linked to the fishery.
Likewise, your assurances that the coral species will probably not go extinct says little about whether the Great Barrier Reef will be around for our children to enjoy, or the fate of the ~70,000 associated jobs.
Every prior warming and cooling cycle has happened over thousands of years which gave species the chance to adapt
Not only that, the gp is conflating coral reefs in general with the Great Barrier Reef in particular. The GBR is relatively young, and its modern form is only 8,000 years old. It is not invulnerable to change. The GBR contributed $5.68 billion to the Australian economy in 2011-12 and it generated almost 69,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
Some places are not warming at all. Look at the white blob in the north Atlantic. This is possibly a sign that the Atlantic Ocean’s Meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) may be weakening as a result of increased fresh water due to Greenland glacier melt. This was the premise of "day after tomorrow".
If the AMOC were disrupted, it could divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted
In other words, don't drink the stuff,
On the contrary, according to industry lobbyist Patrick Moore, "you can drink a whole quart of it an it won't hurt you."
Skepticism is easy.
Our model knows more than your reality.
The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. These folks have applied some rigour to their model. That doesn't somehow make it less accurate.
Of more interest is whether over fished stocks would be in (as much) trouble if not over fished.
Of course not. What's your point?
This may be the answer: Small modular reactor >
If CA has the hottest temp in the last 11 months, it will be the hottest ever recorded Nowdyagetit?.
"'No Touch' is requested by BPA when unusually hot or cold weather increases the demand for electricity, notes Mike Paoli, spokesman for Energy Northwest," the report adds. "Many regional transmission and system operators across the United States ask nuclear plants to keep running during extreme weather because nuclear plants are the least affected by bad weather.
Erm...Europe’s heatwave is forcing nuclear power plants to shut down
US drought causes nuclear power station to shutdown
"But the new findings -- which separate the effects of warming waters from other factors, like overfishing..."
About 44,000 of the votes were submitted in the last 2 weeks. Prior to that it had a 90% rating.
42,343 user ratings for Captain marvel vs 139 for Wonder Park, 114 for Triple Frontier, 58 for The Kid, or 43 for I'm Not Here. Seems like a coordinated effort by Culture Warriors fighting the good fight against the first.
You mean this guy? Yeah. I'd say.
"and even if they do not communicate with one another"
Well that can be the case with people, too, can it not? Except that when people do not communicate with each other, I don't believe that it can be said to be colluding, by definition. So why is it collusion when algorithms do it?
In most countries (including Europe and the US) such ‘tacit’ collusion, not relying on explicit intent and communication, is not currently treated as illegal, on the grounds that it is unlikely to occur among human agents and that, even if it did occur, it would be next to impossible to detect. The conventional wisdom, then, is that aggressive antitrust enforcement would be likely to produce many false positives (i.e. condemning innocent conduct), while tolerant policy would result in relatively few false negatives (i.e. excusing anticompetitive conduct). With the advent of AI pricing, however, the concern is that the balance between the two types of error might be altered.
This image charts global mean temperature vs. GHG forcing. You can see that forcing was still small, but already rising by 1900. Natural variability dominates the early part of the chart. That natural variability is largely cyclical though and nets to about 0C over the full period.
Natural variability no doubt dominated early on. That is no longer the case. Here is the atomospheric CO2 and delta forcing between each 50 year period. (DeltaF=5.35ln(C/C0)Wm^-2)
1750: 277 ppm CO2 to start
1800: 280 ppm / deltaF=0.06 Wm^-2
1850: 284 ppm / deltaF=0.08 Wm^-2
1900: 295 ppm / deltaF=0.20 Wm^-2
1950: 312 ppm / deltaF=0.30 Wm^-2
2000: 369 ppm / deltaF=0.90 Wm^-2
2014: 397 ppm / deltaF=0.39 Wm^-2
You can see that between 2000 and 2014 we've had a greater forcing than between 1900 and 1950. (source = ftp://data.iac.ethz.ch/CMIP6/i...)
Watch 1.5 minutes of the linked video and find out.
Competitive companies will find efficiencies and reduce their carbon liabilities.
Their natural summer habitate does not exist anymore, so they migrate.
It doesn't?
Here's an image that compares sea ice average prior between 1979 and 2000 to sea ice in 2007: https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov... . It's been worse since 2007. Polar bears rely on sea ice to efficiently catch their seal prey. The polar bear's main prey, the ringed seal, relies on sea ice, too—for giving birth to and raising their pups.
You do realize there was a little Ice Age at the end of the 17th C. So you're comparing the trough of a wave with a crest.
The LIA had ended by the second half of the 18thC when the Berkley temperature analysis starts. So there is no trough included in this graph.
Here's a longer term view if you like. Notice the 6000-8000 year trend back into an ice age that was dramatically reversed during the industrial revolution.
It's really not clear that we haven't already warmed more than 1.5C above pre-industiral. Just look at the Berkley record which goes farther back than others and includes confidence intervals. It's possible we're much closer to 2C above pre-industiral.
One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump...
I think the wake-up call was when it became apparent that a great deal of disinformation was part of an orchestrated campaign by an enemy state for the purpose of undermining American democracy.
Mash no like joke, mash make people serious, serious people better. Or was that the joke? It can be tough to tell these days.
I think you've just been had by a troll account. There are about 40 variants on the msmash userid. This is one of them.
And your article starts off with "All four of us". Pretending that equates to "climate scientists" in general is sophistry.
Who is pretending? Maybe the problem is with your parser?
Then there's the fact that those four people are idiots. Even if every government everywhere got on the nuclear fanboy bandwagon tomorrow, it's going to take decades to plan for and construct thousands of nuclear plants across the globe. Decades the world doesn't have to head off more serious climate change.
If James Hansen is an idiot then maybe we don't need to worry all that much about global warming after all.... but he has a history of being right.
A guy with a PhD in Nuclear Physics (and a consultant) thinks we should use nuclear power.>
In other words:
A guy who actually knows what the hell he is talking about comes up with great clean solution, is ridiculed by armchair pundit who apparently would rather watch the planet die than admit nuclear power was ever a good idea.
And climate scientists agree: Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change