But only for very large values of 'soon'. TFA says we can expect the impact from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability by 2030 or 2040. This would make deoxygenation clearly attributable to climate change at that point. No date is given for when the ocean would become unlivable for marine life. (not that we should wait to find out).
I've mentioned this before and they go on to tell me that it is expensive. Yeah? It's not like we have a choice in the matter and it's going to happen no matter how much shit we stuff in the air. No, really, it's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down.
Sea level was dropping a few hundred years back. It seems to have abruptly reversed course shortly after the start of the industrial revolution: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...
A bunch of peoples really nice coastal cities would also probably cease to exist. But we're not looking at 200 foot sea level rise. Even still, New York was 60 billion in the hole after Sandy. Even a few feet of sea level rise would make the average storm surge rather expensive.
Please show me where methane is much less of an effect than CO2.
Methane has about 28 times the global warming potential. The rest of what you've said is conspiracy nuttery though. "Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived." Even still, CH4 is hardly ignored.
By the way, guess which one of us this scientist is backing on our global warming bet. You may be surprised!
Why thanks! We need the Republicans to step up to the table with some fiscally conservative ideas. They have let the left own this issue so we end up with suboptimal solutions like feed in tariffs and industry specific subsidies,
Here are the costs associated with climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio... . The ideal goal would be to advance a transition to the new energy economy at a rate where the costs of doing so are commensurate with the costs of delaying.
Any record is going to be a result of the combination of some cyclical effects, some random noise, and the secular steadily rising trend from human activity. You can use deviation from the trend to determine how much of that is human activity and how much is cyclical:http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the market decide the solution. A revenue neutral carbon tax would reduce income and sales tax (we ought to be encouraging income and spending so this is good) and it would send a price signal to move us from carbon into the new energy economy.
By the way, NOAA has published their March temperatures. This is the one you were looking for previously but ended up confusing the 2014 report for the current one. I'm afraid it doesn't do much to bolster your side of our bet:
"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22C (2.20F) above the 20th century average of 12.7C (54.9F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32C / (0.58F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month."
Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance "UFO. The U stands for unidentified. You can't say 'I don't know what it is, so it must be an alien from outerspace visiting from another planet.' If you don't know what it is... "- https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The case is currently being investigated. Bill Nye is not a lawyer so he's not likely to weigh in on the merits of the case. "Let's see what happens" seems like a reasonable response. Is it OK that Exxon spent millions on a campaign to mislead the public and investors about climate change - even when their own scientists were telling them that it is real, it is happening, and it represents a threat to the business and to society? I think it's morally repugnant, but whether or not it is illegal is up to the courts at this point.
Things have been warming up for about 10,000 years
Where do you get this stuff? The Holocene Thermal Maximum was 8000 years ago. We've been cooling since then - up until about 150 years ago that is when the trend took a turn for abrupt warming (just at the same time CO2 took a similar abrupt change in trajectory). - http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
I have some bad news on our bet by the way. The director of the NASA institute for space studies says this about my chances of winning: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfG...
I think he only suggested that if you lie to your shareholders for short term profits you may end up in jail. That is what Exxon is being investigated for. Lying to shareholders. They knew the science of global warming. Their own scientists told them that it was happening, that CO2 was the culprit, and that it posed a threat. They realized that this was a threat to their business so they decided to deceive their shareholders. It turns out that is illegal.
Regarding our bet that 2016 would(n't) be the hottest year on record, NASA has published their March global mean temperature analysis. They concur with the satellite analysis. Hottest March on record. Second hottest anomaly (after February 2016). Are you sure you don't want to put money on this?
"In reality, the bill could effectively cripple the FCC’s power to protect net neutrality, according to open internet advocates, because cable and phone companies could claim that FCC rules against blocking and throttling—concepts at the core of federal net neutrality protections—amount to rate regulation." - http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
If the effect is that we get some more tornadoes and hurricanes and ice melt and all of that, its a problem but not insurmountable. We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves. Not good, but not worth chucking civilization for, since even more people would die or be extremely inconvenienced without it. We've dealt with climate change before as humans lived through Ice Ages and a Little Ice Age in recent memory. So, let's not go doing anything rash.
I agree. We need to take action that is commensurate with the costs of inaction. A moderate approach is warranted, but since the cost of inaction is > $0, it means we need to take some action. At the same time, we can embrace the future, adopt emerging technologies, and become the leaders in the new energy economy.
Though it is still condemned by a certain segment of the population: The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, Robert Dicke, illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as Relativity and Time Signals[4] and Relativity - Joke or Swindle?[5]. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its Counterexamples to Relativity page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.
- http://www.conservapedia.com/T...
Slashdot Mirror
at this point the theory of climate change is like...
Physics. It's physics. Attention grabbing headlines don't help, but that has nothing to do with the science.
They were wrong about the ice caps melting,
The arctic ice cap is melting much faster than predicted: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
But only for very large values of 'soon'. TFA says we can expect the impact from climate change to overwhelm the natural variability by 2030 or 2040. This would make deoxygenation clearly attributable to climate change at that point. No date is given for when the ocean would become unlivable for marine life. (not that we should wait to find out).
I've mentioned this before and they go on to tell me that it is expensive. Yeah? It's not like we have a choice in the matter and it's going to happen no matter how much shit we stuff in the air. No, really, it's going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down.
Sea level was dropping a few hundred years back. It seems to have abruptly reversed course shortly after the start of the industrial revolution: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...
Why do you think we are powerless?
It rose over 300 feet at the end of the last ice age, ... Sucks if you own beachfront property but not a problem for most of humanity,
New York city is beach front property. Miami is beach front property. How much of humanity lives near the coast? - https://coastalchallenges.com/...
As I said, not an extinction event, but global catastrophe? Could be.
A bunch of peoples really nice coastal cities would also probably cease to exist. But we're not looking at 200 foot sea level rise. Even still, New York was 60 billion in the hole after Sandy. Even a few feet of sea level rise would make the average storm surge rather expensive.
a mere 15 million years ago CO2 levels were 4 times higher, average temperature was several degrees warmer, and seas were 200 feet higher.
200 foot sea level rise (your words, not mine) would probably count as a global catastrophe.
Please show me where methane is much less of an effect than CO2.
Methane has about 28 times the global warming potential. The rest of what you've said is conspiracy nuttery though. "Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived." Even still, CH4 is hardly ignored.
By the way, guess which one of us this scientist is backing on our global warming bet. You may be surprised!
This was proved in 1859. http://rspl.royalsocietypublis...
Why thanks! We need the Republicans to step up to the table with some fiscally conservative ideas. They have let the left own this issue so we end up with suboptimal solutions like feed in tariffs and industry specific subsidies,
Again, what is the "right number" as a target
Here are the costs associated with climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio... . The ideal goal would be to advance a transition to the new energy economy at a rate where the costs of doing so are commensurate with the costs of delaying.
China has committed to reaching to peak CO2 emissions in 2030 ( http://climateactiontracker.or... ) and may have already achieved this a few years back ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... )
India has set the following targets: http://climateactiontracker.or...
Any record is going to be a result of the combination of some cyclical effects, some random noise, and the secular steadily rising trend from human activity. You can use deviation from the trend to determine how much of that is human activity and how much is cyclical:http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970
You can look here for economic consequences of climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the market decide the solution. A revenue neutral carbon tax would reduce income and sales tax (we ought to be encouraging income and spending so this is good) and it would send a price signal to move us from carbon into the new energy economy.
By the way, NOAA has published their March temperatures. This is the one you were looking for previously but ended up confusing the 2014 report for the current one. I'm afraid it doesn't do much to bolster your side of our bet:
"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22C (2.20F) above the 20th century average of 12.7C (54.9F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32C / (0.58F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month."
- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...
let's see something using the scientific method that shows us that this is real
Try this from 1859: "Note on the transmission of radiant heat through gaseous bodies" by John Tyndall - http://rspl.royalsocietypublis...
Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance "UFO. The U stands for unidentified. You can't say 'I don't know what it is, so it must be an alien from outerspace visiting from another planet.' If you don't know what it is... "- https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The case is currently being investigated. Bill Nye is not a lawyer so he's not likely to weigh in on the merits of the case. "Let's see what happens" seems like a reasonable response. Is it OK that Exxon spent millions on a campaign to mislead the public and investors about climate change - even when their own scientists were telling them that it is real, it is happening, and it represents a threat to the business and to society? I think it's morally repugnant, but whether or not it is illegal is up to the courts at this point.
I agree with Bill. Let's see what happens.
Things have been warming up for about 10,000 years
Where do you get this stuff? The Holocene Thermal Maximum was 8000 years ago. We've been cooling since then - up until about 150 years ago that is when the trend took a turn for abrupt warming (just at the same time CO2 took a similar abrupt change in trajectory). - http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
I have some bad news on our bet by the way. The director of the NASA institute for space studies says this about my chances of winning: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfG...
I think he only suggested that if you lie to your shareholders for short term profits you may end up in jail. That is what Exxon is being investigated for. Lying to shareholders. They knew the science of global warming. Their own scientists told them that it was happening, that CO2 was the culprit, and that it posed a threat. They realized that this was a threat to their business so they decided to deceive their shareholders. It turns out that is illegal.
By weatherman I think you mean physics.
Nothing is natural anymore.
Regarding our bet that 2016 would(n't) be the hottest year on record, NASA has published their March global mean temperature analysis. They concur with the satellite analysis. Hottest March on record. Second hottest anomaly (after February 2016). Are you sure you don't want to put money on this?
"In reality, the bill could effectively cripple the FCC’s power to protect net neutrality, according to open internet advocates, because cable and phone companies could claim that FCC rules against blocking and throttling—concepts at the core of federal net neutrality protections—amount to rate regulation." - http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
If the effect is that we get some more tornadoes and hurricanes and ice melt and all of that, its a problem but not insurmountable. We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves. Not good, but not worth chucking civilization for, since even more people would die or be extremely inconvenienced without it. We've dealt with climate change before as humans lived through Ice Ages and a Little Ice Age in recent memory. So, let's not go doing anything rash.
I agree. We need to take action that is commensurate with the costs of inaction. A moderate approach is warranted, but since the cost of inaction is > $0, it means we need to take some action. At the same time, we can embrace the future, adopt emerging technologies, and become the leaders in the new energy economy.
Though it is still condemned by a certain segment of the population: The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, Robert Dicke, illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as Relativity and Time Signals[4] and Relativity - Joke or Swindle?[5]. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its Counterexamples to Relativity page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. - http://www.conservapedia.com/T...
The solution is clear. We all need to write our congress critters or members of parliament and get them on board.