Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change, have increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas.
ook up 'climate model CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient'
Of course we can measure how much more water vapour is in the atmosphere relative to the 70's. We can measure the radiative forcing from such an increase. We can measure changes in the lapse rate. It is not like this parameter is a wild ass guess. It is constrained by observations.
Yeah! They said that the Atlantic cod stocks would collapse in the '90's and look how that turned out! It's a good thing we didn't listen or we'd all have egg on our faces ^H^H^H jobs.
But I like beef. What is wrong with breeding more resilient cattle? It's not exactly money wasted since there is a strong beef economy that is worth investing in.
If we could develop more resilient livestock we would have a technological and economic advantage over our competitors. We have been doing this for hundreds of years. Why should we stop now? And why would you ascribe some nefarious plot to scientists for continuing to do so? Is the American Brahman Breeders Association in on the jig in the early 1900s?
And lets say ECR is towards the low end. We will have committed ourselves to 2C by 2046 if ECR is only 2.5. That would be good, but it doesn't exactly solve the issue.
And we have ECR observations that show remarkable fluctuations in climate resulting from rather small forcings. These are what push the high end up - not models. Why would we ignore these observations?
The range is small enough to make informed decisions. The range is constrained by observations as well as models. Observations are what is pushing the high end of the spectrum, not models. You are ascribing motives to people who you don't know or understand which is just silly.
Agreed that this is a horrible summary that neither 'side' will have liked. At the heart of the story we have researchers working to develop more resilient livestock. That is a non-story that Slashdot would never have posted so Hugh sexes it up to the point of absurdity. Slashdot encourages this poor journalism.
Why wouldn't we want to continue making more resilient livestock? As you note we have been doing this for hundreds of years. Are you just against us using the latest technologies? It seems like only an anti-GMO eco-freak would be against this. Somehow (because climate change was in the summary) you attribute nefarious motives to those working towards progress. Does a switch flip in your brain when you see those words?
And for the record, you haven't said anything worth debating. Your pedantry about greenhouses not being heated by the greenhouse effect is obvious to everyone. It is still a useful and common metaphor that the ggparent is justified in using. You were modded down because of this silliness: "ideology", "physics-challenged", "believed and followed uncritically", "co2insanity.com", etc. Who could take you seriously?
Wait. Based on your comments people assumed you denied radiative physics. You scoffed at the idea. Yet in a previous post you say that you deny radiative physics. Somehow this proves your point?
I'm sitting here laughing at you guys, because I didn't (myself) even make any arguments against Global Warming.
Not a global warming denier? Perhaps you protest too much? Let's see what you have said:
"It has been shown that the very foundation of Hansen's own concept of radiative effects on climate is based on a flawed understanding of physics." - http://slashdot.org/submission...
Not a climate science denier? Oh no. Just a denier of radiative physics. Good Lord. You are even in denial of being in denial. Is there no fact that you can't trick yourself out of believing?
Global warming isn't much different I think. Global temperatures are increasing at 0.035F/year. No one will care about the temperature increase of the next year or even the next decade - even as the costs associated with rising temperatures accumulate. A Lobster in a pot doesn't care about the next 1F increase in temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change, have increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas.
Sea level was rising 12,000 years ago when we entered the current inter-glacial, but it had been stable for the last 8000 years
http://ourchangingclimate.word...
- until now. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/...
Cooling trend? Not sure where you come up with that. Here is the temperature trend over the last 15 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
That's a change of + 0.18 C over the period. That is a rather large increase for 15 years.
ook up 'climate model CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient'
Of course we can measure how much more water vapour is in the atmosphere relative to the 70's. We can measure the radiative forcing from such an increase. We can measure changes in the lapse rate. It is not like this parameter is a wild ass guess. It is constrained by observations.
Yeah! They said that the Atlantic cod stocks would collapse in the '90's and look how that turned out! It's a good thing we didn't listen or we'd all have egg on our faces ^H^H^H jobs.
But I like beef. What is wrong with breeding more resilient cattle? It's not exactly money wasted since there is a strong beef economy that is worth investing in.
Or feed the homeless to the hungry?
If we could develop more resilient livestock we would have a technological and economic advantage over our competitors. We have been doing this for hundreds of years. Why should we stop now? And why would you ascribe some nefarious plot to scientists for continuing to do so? Is the American Brahman Breeders Association in on the jig in the early 1900s?
And lets say ECR is towards the low end. We will have committed ourselves to 2C by 2046 if ECR is only 2.5. That would be good, but it doesn't exactly solve the issue.
And we have ECR observations that show remarkable fluctuations in climate resulting from rather small forcings. These are what push the high end up - not models. Why would we ignore these observations?
You are focusing on TCR - which is important, but doesn't negate ECR which is just as important.
2 this century is off the table due to observations
Rrrrrrrealy??? With an ECS of three degrees C (right in the middle of the range) we would cross two degrees C in 2036.
Nice try though!
The range is small enough to make informed decisions. The range is constrained by observations as well as models. Observations are what is pushing the high end of the spectrum, not models. You are ascribing motives to people who you don't know or understand which is just silly.
Agreed that this is a horrible summary that neither 'side' will have liked. At the heart of the story we have researchers working to develop more resilient livestock. That is a non-story that Slashdot would never have posted so Hugh sexes it up to the point of absurdity. Slashdot encourages this poor journalism.
Why wouldn't we want to continue making more resilient livestock? As you note we have been doing this for hundreds of years. Are you just against us using the latest technologies? It seems like only an anti-GMO eco-freak would be against this. Somehow (because climate change was in the summary) you attribute nefarious motives to those working towards progress. Does a switch flip in your brain when you see those words?
In what way is the flu related to GMO?
Beef tastes good. Why wouldn't we want to produce it as cheaply as possible?
This is why there are uncertainty intervals in the models. So what? The range is small enough to make informed decisions.
Incredulity != skepticism.
And for the record, you haven't said anything worth debating. Your pedantry about greenhouses not being heated by the greenhouse effect is obvious to everyone. It is still a useful and common metaphor that the ggparent is justified in using. You were modded down because of this silliness: "ideology", "physics-challenged", "believed and followed uncritically", "co2insanity.com", etc. Who could take you seriously?
Wait. Based on your comments people assumed you denied radiative physics. You scoffed at the idea. Yet in a previous post you say that you deny radiative physics. Somehow this proves your point?
I'm sitting here laughing at you guys, because I didn't (myself) even make any arguments against Global Warming.
Not a global warming denier? Perhaps you protest too much? Let's see what you have said:
"It has been shown that the very foundation of Hansen's own concept of radiative effects on climate is based on a flawed understanding of physics." - http://slashdot.org/submission...
Not a climate science denier? Oh no. Just a denier of radiative physics. Good Lord. You are even in denial of being in denial. Is there no fact that you can't trick yourself out of believing?
And since you brought it up, I don't know of any notable physicists today who challenge heliocentrism
That is because you are a climate denier nut, not a heliocentrism denier nut.
"believed and followed uncritically"?
Yeah - you are not a denier.
Wow. Physicist are physics? Physicists challenge evolution and heliocentrism. So what?
Quoting co2insanity.com? Yup. Definitely not a denier. Why would anyone have thought that?
Global warming isn't much different I think. Global temperatures are increasing at 0.035F/year. No one will care about the temperature increase of the next year or even the next decade - even as the costs associated with rising temperatures accumulate. A Lobster in a pot doesn't care about the next 1F increase in temperature.