Any governmental price controls on any commodity (which carbon credits are)
GP is talking about a carbon tax, not carbon credits. A tax has many benefits and doesn't have the pitfalls you describe above. Best of all, a revenue neutral carbon tax would allow government to lower tax on things they ought to be encouraging like income and sales.
He also stated he'd have Snowden killed - so why would we have assumed he wouldn't go after Assange? Assange was a real asset during the campaign, but probably quite a liability now that it's over.
In fact I'm not sure that this new article says anything that wasn't already said in the original Guardian article. This new article says:
"Though it's discouraged, the Daily Mail can be (and still is) cited."
Which is entirely consistent with the original:
“This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution.”
So then the previous article was fake news about a ban on citing a fake news source?
Worse, the Slashdot article isn't even internally consistent:
There was no vote to ban the Daily Mail because Wikipedia editors don't vote.
Or...
Seventy-seven editors participated in the discussion and two thirds supported prohibiting the Daily Mail as a source
Which is true? Seems like there is hair splitting going on here. Especially since the original Guardian article included the following that is entirely consistent:
Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’.
how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
It's about 100%, and probably slightly more than that. Natural factors have been driving temperatures down. See Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, or Gillett et al. 2012.
Here's the fifth IPCC report. It was published in 2013 and hasn't changed since - let alone every six months. The next report is due in 2022 (> 2013+6 months). You are talking nonsense.
Why say things that are demonstrably false? The IPCC reports are released every 5 years, not every 6 months, and they change very little on key findings between reports. Insofar as they change as new evidence becomes available - that's a feature, not a bug. It's a bit surprising that you'd think otherwise..
Any prediction three years hence is weather forecasting. Nothing to do with climate change. For the consensus view look to the IPCC reports. They've been remarkably accurate, which illustrates why going with the consensus is better than selecting one study or another at the extremes.
Nonsense. If things are really as bad as this study suggests then the consensus will adjust according to the data. But it takes more than one alarming study to overthrow 150 years of climate science.
Maybe, but once it happens I am for a lot of retrroactive punishment
Yikes! If we overreact to the threat we would end up incurring cost to our ancestors as well. Should the "what, me worry?" folks then demand that we be stripped of our assets and voting rights?
How about instead we work towards a sensible response based on the consensus science rather than basing our approach on one study or another showing the best or worst case?
Climate models are projections. They show an expected outcome given certain inputs. They don't actually predict how much C02 or methane we'll emit. They don't predict volcanic eruptions. They don't predict aerosol emissions. Each of these has an impact on the climate.
The model can say "if we have a volcanic eruption of this magnitude at this lattitude then we should expect this result", but cannot determine whether, how many, or where we will get eruptions. Plugging real world events into models after the fact can bring them closely in line with reality, That's not a fault of the climate models.
It's a little more complicated than that. The underlying mechanism involves the relationship between changing zonal mean temperatures and the strength and position of maxima in the mid-latitude westerly jet. The main condition for resonance is the formation of a zonally-directed waveguide for a particular zonal wavenumber k, which depends only on the wavenumber and the shape of the zonal-mean zonal wind (U) profile. Such a waveguide is present when a mid-latitude region of positive squared meridional wavenumber l2 is bounded by latitudes both north and south where l2 vanishes, inhibiting the dispersion of wave energy and trapping excited planetary waves in the upper troposphere (300–500mb). This can occur for zonal wavenumbers k=6–81,2, with the waveguide found at the equatorward flank of the subtropical jet at latitudes around 30–45N.
Such conditions are typically associated with a profile for U characterized by two maxima in the Northern Hemisphere, i.e. a double jet latitudinal structure. In contrast to a single jet, a double jet regime associated with a profile for U is characterized by a confined sub-tropical jet with sharp edges wherein wind speeds change rapidly with latitude3. Such sharp sub-tropical jets are highly effective waveguides30,31, a central requirement for QRA (quasi-resonant amplification).
The team here has isolated a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets.
Possibly sea ice loss due to man made global warming is in line with projections, but natural variability causes the observed melting to oscillate outside of projections. If so we should see the melt rate slow over the next few decades.
In the case of climate change, we know the 'asteroid' is barreling down at us. If there was no uncertainty then we could wait until the very last minute to shoot down the "asteroid". Unfortunately we don't have that luxury.
All we can do is project based on what we know. It is quite possible that things will turn out way worse than we would have guessed (as is the case here). We're executing a grand experiment and we won't know for certain just how bad things will be until it's too late.
It's an interesting & fun graphic I'll give you that, but it doesn't 'prove' anything in terms of any major concern.
I wasn't really trying to prove anything. Just show the data.
Sure it might provide support for these guys getting $500B of taxpayer's money to freeze ice in the summer.
I'm pretty sure they're not looking for funding to execute the idea. Just investigating options. They're physicists after all, not engineers. It seems pretty far fetched to try to refreeze the arctic, but some pie in the sky ideas may be required once things start to accelerate.
By market forces you mean the immense pressure Obama put on the industry, choking it under regulations while giving huge tax breaks to other energy producers? The "market" had nothing to do with this.
You think coal got the short stick over the last decade? Try finding a decent video rental shop these days. Thanks Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
Any governmental price controls on any commodity (which carbon credits are)
GP is talking about a carbon tax, not carbon credits. A tax has many benefits and doesn't have the pitfalls you describe above. Best of all, a revenue neutral carbon tax would allow government to lower tax on things they ought to be encouraging like income and sales.
Not to mention Trump has stepped up the bombing in that region, something his supporters said Clinton would do but Trump wouldn't.
That's hardly fair. Trump may have indicated he'd pull back from the region, but he also very clearly stated that he'd "bomb the shit out of ’em.". You can't corner Trump like this. He holds every position.
He also stated he'd have Snowden killed - so why would we have assumed he wouldn't go after Assange? Assange was a real asset during the campaign, but probably quite a liability now that it's over.
"Though it's discouraged, the Daily Mail can be (and still is) cited."
Which is entirely consistent with the original:
“This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution.”
So then the previous article was fake news about a ban on citing a fake news source?
Worse, the Slashdot article isn't even internally consistent:
There was no vote to ban the Daily Mail because Wikipedia editors don't vote.
Or...
Seventy-seven editors participated in the discussion and two thirds supported prohibiting the Daily Mail as a source
Which is true? Seems like there is hair splitting going on here. Especially since the original Guardian article included the following that is entirely consistent:
Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’.
how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
It's about 100%, and probably slightly more than that. Natural factors have been driving temperatures down. See Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, or Gillett et al. 2012.
There were three laptops already available in 1981. So... not much of a prediction really.
And you would know how? Did you keep a copy of the report as it was previously published on their site?
Yes.
Such a trusting soul, no skepticism in you.....and no science either.
But you're supposing it's changing every six months based on... fantasy?
Here's the fifth IPCC report. It was published in 2013 and hasn't changed since - let alone every six months. The next report is due in 2022 (> 2013+6 months). You are talking nonsense.
Why say things that are demonstrably false? The IPCC reports are released every 5 years, not every 6 months, and they change very little on key findings between reports. Insofar as they change as new evidence becomes available - that's a feature, not a bug. It's a bit surprising that you'd think otherwise..
Any prediction three years hence is weather forecasting. Nothing to do with climate change. For the consensus view look to the IPCC reports. They've been remarkably accurate, which illustrates why going with the consensus is better than selecting one study or another at the extremes.
Nonsense. If things are really as bad as this study suggests then the consensus will adjust according to the data. But it takes more than one alarming study to overthrow 150 years of climate science.
Science doesn't happen by consensus. It happens by rigorous proof and verifiable, repeatable testing of a (hopefully null) hypothesis.
Which is what informs the consensus.
Maybe, but once it happens I am for a lot of retrroactive punishment
Yikes! If we overreact to the threat we would end up incurring cost to our ancestors as well. Should the "what, me worry?" folks then demand that we be stripped of our assets and voting rights?
How about instead we work towards a sensible response based on the consensus science rather than basing our approach on one study or another showing the best or worst case?
YOLO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But 9-14C is way outside of the consensus view. They need to have strong evidence of this fantastic claim.
Climate models are projections. They show an expected outcome given certain inputs. They don't actually predict how much C02 or methane we'll emit. They don't predict volcanic eruptions. They don't predict aerosol emissions. Each of these has an impact on the climate.
The model can say "if we have a volcanic eruption of this magnitude at this lattitude then we should expect this result", but cannot determine whether, how many, or where we will get eruptions. Plugging real world events into models after the fact can bring them closely in line with reality, That's not a fault of the climate models.
Even still, they do a remarkable job of projecting global warming.
What leveling off?
correlation is not causation
It's a little more complicated than that. The underlying mechanism involves the relationship between changing zonal mean temperatures and the strength and position of maxima in the mid-latitude westerly jet. The main condition for resonance is the formation of a zonally-directed waveguide for a particular zonal wavenumber k, which depends only on the wavenumber and the shape of the zonal-mean zonal wind (U) profile. Such a waveguide is present when a mid-latitude region of positive squared meridional wavenumber l2 is bounded by latitudes both north and south where l2 vanishes, inhibiting the dispersion of wave energy and trapping excited planetary waves in the upper troposphere (300–500mb). This can occur for zonal wavenumbers k=6–81,2, with the waveguide found at the equatorward flank of the subtropical jet at latitudes around 30–45N.
Such conditions are typically associated with a profile for U characterized by two maxima in the Northern Hemisphere, i.e. a double jet latitudinal structure. In contrast to a single jet, a double jet regime associated with a profile for U is characterized by a confined sub-tropical jet with sharp edges wherein wind speeds change rapidly with latitude3. Such sharp sub-tropical jets are highly effective waveguides30,31, a central requirement for QRA (quasi-resonant amplification).
The team here has isolated a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets.
This study may partly explain why models drastically underestimated Arctic sea ice loss: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6...
Possibly sea ice loss due to man made global warming is in line with projections, but natural variability causes the observed melting to oscillate outside of projections. If so we should see the melt rate slow over the next few decades.
Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.
There's one rather large experiment going on right now. Unfortunately we're all inside the test tube. So far it's turning out more or less how we expected.
In the case of climate change, we know the 'asteroid' is barreling down at us. If there was no uncertainty then we could wait until the very last minute to shoot down the "asteroid". Unfortunately we don't have that luxury.
All we can do is project based on what we know. It is quite possible that things will turn out way worse than we would have guessed (as is the case here). We're executing a grand experiment and we won't know for certain just how bad things will be until it's too late.
. "there's no discernible change in the Antarctic at any time in the year
Actually, there is even a slight increase in the antarctic for many of the months!
something that may indicate a problem in the Arctic in 'summer months' (4 through 9) but not a huge deal in the 'winter months" (10 through 3)'
Summer months are important because of the ice albedo feedback.
It's an interesting & fun graphic I'll give you that, but it doesn't 'prove' anything in terms of any major concern.
I wasn't really trying to prove anything. Just show the data.
Sure it might provide support for these guys getting $500B of taxpayer's money to freeze ice in the summer.
I'm pretty sure they're not looking for funding to execute the idea. Just investigating options. They're physicists after all, not engineers. It seems pretty far fetched to try to refreeze the arctic, but some pie in the sky ideas may be required once things start to accelerate.
By market forces you mean the immense pressure Obama put on the industry, choking it under regulations while giving huge tax breaks to other energy producers? The "market" had nothing to do with this.
You think coal got the short stick over the last decade? Try finding a decent video rental shop these days. Thanks Obama.
Here's once more with a clickable link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
NSIDC shows 2012 minimum at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
You can click on 2016 in the key and see how last year compared