They overlooked the part in their model where more acidic seas dissolve existing carbonate faster. Nature recycles. How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2?
They've overlooked simple biomechanics before: "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change, according to a new scientific study. In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought - but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely. Ref: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00255-2"
So I click on the first link in the article "Pictures" and I get a fucking ad and have to click through to something far more reasonable looking to me than the fucking ad.
I've really had enough of those things, they're everywhere now. If they don't go way soon I'll make them go away (at least for me).
"Also, shifts in the weather zones is going to cause a lot of the agricultural Haves to become Have-Nots, and vice versa."
Yes but this happens so slowly man has a chance to adapt. As in adaptation or survival of the fittest. Evolution in action: this is not a test.
They grow almonds in England now. It's too hot and dry for grain any more.
Keep in mind the Irish grew potatoes because the climate changed; they used to grow wheat, but it became too cold and damp to do that any more around 800 years ago.
For those keeping track, pre-1976 British summers were cold and wet. Since then, not so much.
I'm sure this stuff is all terribly scary if you don't read much.
"So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change."
Man's contribution to CO2 is 2-3%. Even if that were stopped the planet is gonna do what the planet is gonna do. It does that; what what point in earths history was the climate ever *not* changing.?
They don't know math well. They don't know biology well. They don't know astrophysics well. All they really know how to do well is take money from the nuclear industry (who really hate coal) and cut scary press releases, that so far have all turned out to be lies.
What you're pointing out is when man cuts all the trees down things go to shit. Look at a realtime real-color animation of the globe spinning. Notice that big brown part in Africa, Asia and Europe? That's where man grew up. When you take out all the trees you get desert.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81 "Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011 (note the date) PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown. The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said. "This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra. "If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected"."
Excuse me but what kind of Co2 scientist finds it "increadable" and "unexpected" (!) that trees eat CO2?
Keep that in mind next time somebody refers to them as climate "experts".
Maybe it had something to do with NASA and the NOAA point out the IPCC model forgot to include the fact plants eat CO2. "experts". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/ "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Note the date.
Course, the fact they admit they were lying didn't go unnnoticed: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite "James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
0 BCE was way warmer than it is now. How modern do you need man to be?
And if you think you know it all, you're the last person to be talking about others education: there's two types of people that have issues with the broken CO2 hypothesis: people that know far less than you and people that know far more.
"If you are just concerned about 'life' flourishing, then it doesn't really matter what the climate is or will be. Life will find a way. If, however, you are concerned about keeping the majority of human beings, and especially 'first world' human beings safe and snug in their high tech cocoons, then you should be very concerned about any abrupt change in any one of a number of critical environmental variables - climate, water, air, fossil fuels, food."
Translation: all those huge million+ dollar houses on the coast will be in trouble in 150 years. Canada, which is larger than the US, will do alright though with new farmable land opening up.
Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.
When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.
The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt
Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...
1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s. http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/ "At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"
"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
3) "Arctic Ice Threatens Northern Hemisphere Posted on April 19, 2009 (note the date) While the eastern Antarctic ice pack continues inexorable year over year growth, Arctic ice is greater than it’s been in the last 8 years, and showing massive expansion again this year." http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E.jpg
6) The real problems are pollution in a general sense and deforestation. Given mans contribution to carbon is at best 3% and that we've removed so fucking many trees (look for yourself, fly over the Island of Borneo in google maps would be a good start, its gone, it's all gone)... what did you expect was gong to happen. "By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011 PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
That's right, in 2011 the geniuses that know all about CO2 got the revelation that trees eat the stuff. Next time somebody calls them "experts" rememnber that.
Possibly this was in response to NASA and the NOAA bitch-slapping the IPCC by pointing out in 2012 they'd sort of ignored this fact in their "models": "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Which doubt caused Gaia-dude to recant, showing he has at least a modicum of intellectual integrity:
""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die
Damn, beat to the punch. But that doesn't matter, what matters is http://australia.sucks/ works even though it doesn't at time of writing. Or typing. Whatever.
But it's not Australia per se. It's a guy called Paul Twomey. He showed up in the late 90s after making a real dogs breakfast of internet regulations in Australia and was about as smarmy as they come so of course he did well in the den of lying clueless shitbag skullduggery that is ICANN and lasted 10 years until he lied to congress and achieved zero deliverables in a decade.
So, after being ousted and replaced by Beckstrom I'd wager he ran around to any governmental authority that would list and for only $way_too_much helped them write a report on the order of ".sucks" sucks.
This was done through the "Government Advisory Committee" or "GAC", and I was there that day when the GAC was introduced by the ITU wonk Bob Shaw as an "essential" part to this. Where "this" was supposed to be "measure the consensus of the internet communty and implement it".
During an open mike session later that hour, I asked for a show of hands for support for this GAC. 11 out of 1000 people raised their hands, all government reps to the GAC even though it hadn't been created yet. It was emphasized this was "advisory" only.
Ok, we heard your advice, now fuck off.
P.S. I still have the.rm files of that day in Berlin fom the Berkman center archives if anyone's interested.
Slashdot Mirror
They overlooked the part in their model where more acidic seas dissolve existing carbonate faster. Nature recycles. How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/Evo_large.gif
They've overlooked simple biomechanics before: "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change, according to a new scientific study. In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought - but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely. Ref: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00255-2"
"Comments lie. Code never lies" - Keith Doyle
Lets play spot the warming trend: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
...yes but not very much a all. Nothing beats clear thinking.
Make guns trackable with very stiff fines for an untrackable gun, say 10 yrs max for first offence.
"He killed younglings".
So I click on the first link in the article "Pictures" and I get a fucking ad and have to click through to something far more reasonable looking to me than the fucking ad.
I've really had enough of those things, they're everywhere now. If they don't go way soon I'll make them go away (at least for me).
Yawn
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
Really? Show me the warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
Why do experts on Co2 not know trees eat the stuff? From last year:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
Those aren't scientists. They marketing assholes.
First instance I've found is 1953: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg
Then there's this: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
Show me the warming part.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64C warming
'Important to get these things right', says scientist"
Call me when you can predict the weather.
"The resource we will run out of is useful land."
Apparently you've never looked at a map.
Water is the resource at minima.
That's because the only thing made in America any more is a deal. And that emits very little carbon.
"Also, shifts in the weather zones is going to cause a lot of the agricultural Haves to become Have-Nots, and vice versa."
Yes but this happens so slowly man has a chance to adapt. As in adaptation or survival of the fittest. Evolution in action: this is not a test.
They grow almonds in England now. It's too hot and dry for grain any more.
Keep in mind the Irish grew potatoes because the climate changed; they used to grow wheat, but it became too cold and damp to do that any more around 800 years ago.
For those keeping track, pre-1976 British summers were cold and wet. Since then, not so much.
I'm sure this stuff is all terribly scary if you don't read much.
"So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change."
Man's contribution to CO2 is 2-3%. Even if that were stopped the planet is gonna do what the planet is gonna do. It does that; what what point in earths history was the climate ever *not* changing.?
WTF kind of "Co2 Scientist" is surprised to find plants use Co2?!?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
They don't know math well. They don't know biology well. They don't know astrophysics well. All they really know how to do well is take money from the nuclear industry (who really hate coal) and cut scary press releases, that so far have all turned out to be lies.
What you're pointing out is when man cuts all the trees down things go to shit. Look at a realtime real-color animation of the globe spinning. Notice that big brown part in Africa, Asia and Europe? That's where man grew up. When you take out all the trees you get desert.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
"Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011 (note the date)
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected"."
Excuse me but what kind of Co2 scientist finds it "increadable" and "unexpected" (!) that trees eat CO2?
Keep that in mind next time somebody refers to them as climate "experts".
Maybe it had something to do with NASA and the NOAA point out the IPCC model forgot to include the fact plants eat CO2. "experts".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Note the date.
Course, the fact they admit they were lying didn't go unnnoticed:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
0 BCE was way warmer than it is now. How modern do you need man to be?
And if you think you know it all, you're the last person to be talking about others education: there's two types of people that have issues with the broken CO2 hypothesis: people that know far less than you and people that know far more.
"If you are just concerned about 'life' flourishing, then it doesn't really matter what the climate is or will be. Life will find a way. If, however, you are concerned about keeping the majority of human beings, and especially 'first world' human beings safe and snug in their high tech cocoons, then you should be very concerned about any abrupt change in any one of a number of critical environmental variables - climate, water, air, fossil fuels, food."
Translation: all those huge million+ dollar houses on the coast will be in trouble in 150 years. Canada, which is larger than the US, will do alright though with new farmable land opening up.
Actually it wasn't ignored, the ITU made sure the US goverment *mandated* the ITU/OSI protocol suite and *banned* the TCP/IP protocol suite for any interaction with the US government in 1991. By 93 this had come to seem as ridiculous even to the USG then as is it does now to you and this quietly went away.
When the very first transatlantic ITU-protocol OSI/X.25 link was put up the first thing that went over it was TCP/IP traffic. Why? Because there actually *was* some.
The sole accomplishment of the dude that spun the ITU and UN into this feeding frenzy for the net was a technical paper on how to write an X.400 email address on a business card. That's it. http://www.itu.int/itudoc/teltopic/x400/20656.txt
Previous to that he made Ethernet work in the ITU office, comically described in Carl Malamud's superb book wherein he tries to put the ITU technical specs online like the IETF's were. The general counsel at the time, the America technical genius (who set up the white house web server) / lawyer who started Internet Society, Dr. Tony Rutkowski, thought it was a swell idea, and since the rest of the ITU had never heard of the Internet they said "whatever" thinking it was some sort of CompuServe like thing. Then they found out some months later, and took them all down so they could figure out how best to deploy their information online - http://museum.media.org/eti/ http://museum.media.org/eti/Prologue01.html and more...
Rutkowski wrote a paper recently pointing out it would be best if the ITU were sort of, um, turned off. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/
Why? This isn't hard, if gene P53 is inactive, you gonna die.
This is only a revelation if you don't read about this stuff.
:s/when/if
there, i fixed that for you
Couple of things they fail to mention:
1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s.
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
"At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"
"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."
2) This is what NASA has to say about the "unprecedented melt":
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
3) "Arctic Ice Threatens Northern Hemisphere
Posted on April 19, 2009 (note the date)
While the eastern Antarctic ice pack continues inexorable year over year growth, Arctic ice is greater than it’s been in the last 8 years, and showing massive expansion again this year."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E.jpg
4) "Antarctic sea ice grows to record extent while Arctic continues to shrink"
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2750
5) http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
The world is warming, or cooling, depending on the time scale you look at. See for yourself.
6) The real problems are pollution in a general sense and deforestation. Given mans contribution to carbon is at best 3% and that we've removed so fucking many trees (look for yourself, fly over the Island of Borneo in google maps would be a good start, its gone, it's all gone)... what did you expect was gong to happen. "By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
That's right, in 2011 the geniuses that know all about CO2 got the revelation that trees eat the stuff. Next time somebody calls them "experts" rememnber that.
Possibly this was in response to NASA and the NOAA bitch-slapping the IPCC by pointing out in 2012 they'd sort of ignored this fact in their "models":
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Which doubt caused Gaia-dude to recant, showing he has at least a modicum of intellectual integrity:
""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die
2? 4? fuq dat, use 12. use another 12 if you need redundancy. and scsi is still a better performer than sata...
Please. They've been doing this forever: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/February/other/christmas.xml
Damn, beat to the punch. But that doesn't matter, what matters is http://australia.sucks/ works even though it doesn't at time of writing. Or typing. Whatever.
But it's not Australia per se. It's a guy called Paul Twomey. He showed up in the late 90s after making a real dogs breakfast of internet regulations in Australia and was about as smarmy as they come so of course he did well in the den of lying clueless shitbag skullduggery that is ICANN and lasted 10 years until he lied to congress and achieved zero deliverables in a decade.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/ceo/salary/
So, after being ousted and replaced by Beckstrom I'd wager he ran around to any governmental authority that would list and for only $way_too_much helped them write a report on the order of ".sucks" sucks.
This was done through the "Government Advisory Committee" or "GAC", and I was there that day when the GAC was introduced by the ITU wonk Bob Shaw as an "essential" part to this. Where "this" was supposed to be "measure the consensus of the internet communty and implement it".
During an open mike session later that hour, I asked for a show of hands for support for this GAC. 11 out of 1000 people raised their hands, all government reps to the GAC even though it hadn't been created yet. It was emphasized this was "advisory" only.
Ok, we heard your advice, now fuck off.
P.S. I still have the .rm files of that day in Berlin fom the Berkman center archives if anyone's interested.