http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/leading-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-mother-of-all-climate-reports/280045/
QuoteLeading Scientists Weigh In on the Mother of All Climate Reports
Time is running out to put the brakes on the planet's warming, says arguably the most exhaustively researched scientific paper in history.
The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we thought they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That's a less than scientifically rigorous summary of the findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.
Appearing exhausted after a nearly two sleepless days fine-tuning the language of the report, co-chair Thomas Stocker called climate change "the greatest challenge of our time," adding that "each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than the past," and that this trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
Pledging further action to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "This isn't a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn't a political document produced by politicians... It's science."
And that science needs to be communicated to the public, loudly and clearly. I canvassed leading climate researchers for their take on the findings of the vastly influential IPCC report. What headline would they put on the news? What do they hope people hear about this report?
When I asked him for his headline, Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State (a former IPCC author himself) suggested: "Jury In: Climate Change Real, Caused by Us, and a Threat We Must Deal With."
Ted Scambos, a glaciologist and head scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) based in Boulder would lead with: "IPCC 2013, Similar Forecasts, Better Certainty." While the report, which is issued every six to seven years, offers no radically new or alarming news, Scambos told me, it puts an exclamation point on what we already know, and refines our evolving understanding of global warming.
The IPCC, the indisputable rock star of UN documents, serves as the basis for global climate negotiations, like the ones that took place in Kyoto, Rio, and, more recently, Copenhagen. (The next big international climate meeting is scheduled for 2015 in Paris.) It is also arguably the most elaborately vetted and exhaustively researched scientific paper in existence. Founded in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC represents the distilled wisdom of over 600 climate researchers in 32 countries on changes in the Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas. It endeavors to answer the late New York mayor Ed Koch's famous question "How am I doing?" for all of us. The answer, which won't surprise anyone who has been following the climate change story, is not very well at all.
It is now 95 percent likely that human spewed heat-trapping gases — rather than natural variability — are the main cause of climate change, according to today's report. In 2007 the IPCC's confidence level was 90 percent, and in 2001 it was 66 percent, and just over 50 percent in 1995.
What's more, things are getting worse more quickly than almost anyone thought would happen a few years back.
"If you look at the early IPCC predictions back from 1990 and what has taken place since, climate change is proceeding faster than we expected," Mann told me by email. Mann helped develop the famous hockey-stick graph, which Al Gore used in his film "An Inconvenient Truth" to dramatize the sharp rise in temperatures in recent times.
Mann cites the decline of Arctic sea ice to explain : "Given the current trajectory, we're on track for ice-free summer conditions in the Arctic in a matter of a decade or two... There is a similar story with the continental ice sheets, which are losing ice — and contributing to sea level rise — at a faster rate than the [earlier IPCC] models had predicted."
But there is a lot that we still don't understand. Reuters noted in a sneak preview of IPCC draft which was leaked in August that, while the broad global trends are clear, climate scientists were "finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades."
From year to year, the world's hotspots are not consistent, but move erratically around the globe. The same has been true of heat waves, mega-storms and catastrophic floods, like the recent ones that ravaged the Colorado Front Range. There is broad agreement that climate change is increasing the severity of extreme weather events, but we're not yet able to predict where and when these will show up.
"It is like watching a pot boil," Danish astrophysicist and climate scientist Peter Thejll told me. "We understand why it boils but cannot predict where the next bubble will be."
There is also uncertainty about an apparent slowdown over the last decade in the rate of air temperature increase. While some critics claim that global warming has "stalled," others point out that, when rising ocean temperatures are factored in, the Earth is actually gaining heat faster than previously anticipated.
"Temperatures measured over the short term are just one parameter," said Dr Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in an interview. "There are far more critical things going on; the acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying, it's such a hugely important signal. Why aren't people using that as a measure of what is going on?"
Barnett thinks that recent increases in volcanic activity, which spews smog-forming aerosols into the air that deflect solar radiation and cool the atmosphere, might help account for the temporary slowing of global temperature rise. But he says we shouldn't let short term fluctuations cause us to lose sight of the big picture.
The dispute over temperatures underscores just how formidable the IPCC's task of modeling the complexity of climate change is. Issued in three parts (the next two installments are due out in the spring), the full version of the IPCC will end up several times the length of Leo Tolstoy's epic War and Peace. Yet every last word of the U.N. document needs to be signed off on by all of the nations on earth.
"I do not know of any other area of any complexity and importance at all where there is unanimous agreement... and the statements so strong," Mike MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute in Washington, D.C. told me in an email. "What IPCC has achieved is remarkable (and why it merited the Nobel Peace Prize granted in 2007)."
Not surprisingly, the IPCC's conclusions tend to be "conservative by design," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist with the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology told me: "The IPCC is not supposed to represent the controversial forefront of climate science. It is supposed to represents what nearly all scientists agree on, and it does that quite effectively."
Nevertheless, even these understated findings are inevitably controversial. Roger Pielke Jr., the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder suggested a headline that focuses on the cat fight that today's report is sure to revive: "Fresh Red Meat Offered Up in the Climate Debate, Activists and Skeptics Continue Fighting Over It." Pielke should know. A critic of Al Gore, who has called his own detractors "climate McCarthyists," Pielke has been a lightning rod for the political controversy which continues to swirl around the question of global warming, and what, if anything, we should do about it.
The public's skepticism of climate change took a dive after Hurricane Sandy. Fifty-four percent of Americans are now saying that the effects of global warming have already begun. But 41 percent surveyed in the same Gallup poll believe news about global warming is generally exaggerated, and there is a smaller but highly passionate minority that continues to believe the whole thing is a hoax.
For most climate experts, however, the battle is long over — at least when it comes to the science. What remains in dispute is not whether climate change is happening, but how fast things are going to get worse.
There are some possibilities that are deliberately left out of the IPCC projections, because we simply don't have enough data yet to model them. Jason Box, a visiting scholar at the Byrd Polar Research Center told me in an email interview that: "The scary elephant in the closet is terrestrial and oceanic methane release triggered by warming." The IPCC projections don't include the possibility — some scientists say likelihood — that huge quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas thirty times as potent as CO2) will eventually be released from thawing permafrost and undersea methane hydrate reserves. Box said that the threshhold "when humans lose control of potential management of the problem, may be sooner than expected."
Box, whose work has been instrumental in documenting the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet, also believes that the latest IPCC predictions (of a maximum just under three foot ocean rise by the end of the century) may turn out to be wildly optimistic, if the Greenland ice sheet breaks up. "We are heading into uncharted territory" he said. "We are creating a different climate than the Earth has ever seen."
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, speaks for the scientific consensus when he says that time is fast running out to avoid the catastrophic collapse of the natural systems on which human life depends. What he recently told a group of climate scientist could be the most chilling headline of all for the U.N. report:
"We have five minutes before midnight."
Yep, they sexed it up as expected.
derspiess hates Earth.
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2013, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2013, 09:19:15 AM
derspiess hates Earth.
Only the part where you live.
Be nice if we could confine global warming to Baltimore, but unfortunately not possible.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2013, 09:55:30 AM
Be nice if we could confine global warming to Baltimore, but unfortunately not possible.
Considering the outsourcing of industry overseas, the erosion of the tax base and the number of teh poors without electricity, it's not like we're that big of a power draw.
judgement day is here any minute now
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
QuoteWarmer Future Oceans Could Cause Phytoplankton to Thrive Near Poles, Shrink in Tropics
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121025161747.htm
I guess that's pretty much my biggest problem with reports like that.
I mean, I know when this shit goes down a LOT of coastal people will get seriously fucked unless, like, IDK, we start considering counter-actions, since we are 95% sure it will happen in a couple of decades.
But, doesn`t this also mean stuff like more liveable, maybe even arable parts in now too desolate places like parts of Siberia and Canada or whatnot. And etc. Once everything was so fucking hot that there were forests at the polars FFS. Let`s try and not sell this as the end of life on Earth.
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
Quote from: Jacob on September 27, 2013, 10:39:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 27, 2013, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
Yep, they sexed it up as expected.
Elaborate.
Not adding GOP anti-science talking points = sexing up
You may not remember this but years and years ago you and I had a debate about global warming. I was a skeptic and thought it was foolhardy to spend billions of dollars to address a problem that the scientific community had not yet fully understood as it may well turn out that human intervention had nothing to do with the data regarding warming. At the time there were a number of alternative explanations that legitimate scientists were proposing as having to be ruled out before any definitive statements regarding human causation could be made.
You took the position that while the science may not yet be conclusive, as a matter of risk managment, it would be prudent to at last take some steps on the assumption that there was some human causation. If there was no human causation then all we would have lost is some money but if there was human causation the loss could be very serious indeed.
You were right. I was wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
And my issue is simply that it is tantrumed as an end of the world scenario. Which may be for humans and a lot of other species (although that migration story you mentioned hints otherwise for the other species bit), but it is not for Earth, nor for life on it in general.
It is not an important distinction from our perspective, but still should be mentioned from time to time because often the impression I get from these reports and the activists quoting them that if we put our mind to it, we could stop all climate change forever, period. And that is highly delusional on the long term.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
And my issue is simply that it is tantrumed as an end of the world scenario. Which may be for humans and a lot of other species (although that migration story you mentioned hints otherwise for the other species bit), but it is not for Earth, nor for life on it in general.
Ok, so we shouldnt worry because while we might die off with most of the rest of the species something will survive. Are you serious!
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
Ouch.
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
Ouch.
Not really. If one reads the body of the article and title makes no sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:23:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
Ouch.
Not really. If one reads the body of the article and title makes no sense.
So you don't see stuff that doesn't make sense? Do you even know where you are?
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:25:05 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:23:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
Ouch.
Not really. If one reads the body of the article and title makes no sense.
So you don't see stuff that doesn't make sense? Do you even know where you are?
I apologize for reading the content of the article and not jumpting to a conclusion from a misleading title which probably wasnt written by the article's author.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:26:04 AM
I apologize for reading the content of the article and not jumpting to a conclusion from a misleading title which probably wasnt written by the article's author.
Tamas linked a second article that somewhat contradicts the first.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:25:05 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:23:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2013, 11:10:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 10:45:02 AM
Tamas, I am not sure where you got that quote. It wasnt from the article you linked. The article you linked is a prediction that warming ocean temperatures will mean a dramatic drop in phytoplankton because the various species of those organisms have adapted to live within the ocean temperatures they currently inhabit and this research has concluded they will not be able to adapt fast enough to the warming temperatures which which cause a massive die off.
What you may have confused is the notion that some species may be able to migrate north to inhabit niche areas that are similar to their current temperatures. But there is no suggestion at all in that report that the die off with be balanced off by such a migration.
Another related observation has been made regarding the Lobster fishery. In recent years the fishery in Nova Scotia has had boom years as the local waters warm and the lobsters move north. This seemed like a good news story for Nova Scotia but scientists have recently predicted that the northward migration will continue north as oceans continue to warm. The prediction will be that not only will the lobsters move further north but that there will also be a dramatic drop in the lobster population because the waters of the far north are limited in the amount of biodiversity they can support even if they do warm to the current temperatures of southern bodies of water.
My quote was the title of the article.
Ouch.
Not really. If one reads the body of the article and title makes no sense.
So you don't see stuff that doesn't make sense? Do you even know where you are?
I apologize for reading the content of the article and not jumpting to a conclusion from a misleading title which probably wasnt written by the article's author.
Jumpting? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:19:32 AM
Ok, so we shouldnt worry because while we might die off with most of the rest of the species something will survive. Are you serious!
Humans are more adaptable than just about any other species. We have people living in the Arctic, the desert, the rain forest, on boats... Anything that kills us off will take the vast majority of other species as well.
I find man-made global warming highly unlikely to finish the job as once it starts cutting into our population it reduces the processes that are fueling it. That is not to say that it's not a potentially very serious problem.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2013, 11:35:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:19:32 AM
Ok, so we shouldnt worry because while we might die off with most of the rest of the species something will survive. Are you serious!
Humans are more adaptable than just about any other species. We have people living in the Arctic, the desert, the rain forest, on boats... Anything that kills us off will take the vast majority of other species as well.
I find man-made global warming highly unlikely to finish the job as once it starts cutting into our population it reduces the processes that are fueling it. That is not to say that it's not a potentially very serious problem.
Not sure how any of those interesting incites about the potential of the human race to survive once decimated by global warming helps at all.
Not sure what you want help with.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Not sure what you want help with.
eradicating people who think this report is merely sexy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 11:51:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 27, 2013, 11:47:02 AM
Not sure what you want help with.
eradicating people who think this report is merely sexy.
Step 1: Drive south
Step 2: Buy gun
Step 3: I think you can figure this one out
Quote from: Jacob on September 27, 2013, 10:39:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 27, 2013, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 27, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
Yep, they sexed it up as expected.
Elaborate.
Not adding GOP anti-science talking points = sexing up
Exactly.
It doesn't matter for people like derspiess. There is no amount of science that can change their core faith that there is nothing to see here, it is just a vast conspiracy to convince us to waste huge amounts of resources for no particular reason.
The subject attracts fundamentalists from both extremes, which obscures what we should rationally be doing about the problem.
I don't believe there is any real threat to humanity's existence but, on the other hand, a lot of real estate is on the shoreline, changes in climate could lead to food shortages (especially at a regional level), changes from the previous equilibrium may lead to extreme weather events that destroy property.
It really comes down to what is the real cost of carbon-based fuels, it is almost certain that we are not paying that cost and that is a major problem.
We need to go full nuclear.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 27, 2013, 03:50:25 PM
I don't believe there is any real threat to humanity's existence but, on the other hand, a lot of real estate is on the shoreline, changes in climate could lead to food shortages (especially at a regional level), changes from the previous equilibrium may lead to extreme weather events that destroy property.
This. And keep in mind that billions of people live in threatened coastal areas, as well as areas that will probably go from not quite optimal to live in to total crap places to live in.
The refugee-floods have the potential to be immense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
I have an local acquaintance who's a well respected oceanographic scientist in that field, I wonder what his take on it is?
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
I have an local acquaintance who's a well respected oceanographic scientist in that field, I wonder what his take on it is?
Ask him, then let us know :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
I have an local acquaintance who's a well respected oceanographic scientist in that field, I wonder what his take on it is?
Ask him, then let us know :)
Yes I will, I've got a project I need his advice on, so need to drop him a line anyway.
Last time we chatted he was not far from concluding the time had passed and we now have to actively start managing the climate.
I am amused by how people convince themselves this is something to ignore. Tamas decides to classify it as a religion, and since he religion is for idiots, he doesn't need to pay it any more attention. Derspeiss just plain doesn't want to hear about it. He's not alone, a lot of conservatives have made up their minds and don't want to here about it.
With DerSpiess it makes sense, given the current antipathy the GOP and allies have towards science and the scientific method and, it seems, the Enlightenment. With Tamas it's a bit weirder, since he's supposedly all about facts and logic.
Quote from: Jacob on September 27, 2013, 06:50:13 PM
With DerSpiess it makes sense, given the current antipathy the GOP and allies have towards science and the scientific method and, it seems, the Enlightenment. With Tamas it's a bit weirder, since he's supposedly all about facts and logic.
When has Tamas been about facts and logic? :lol:
You know, now that I think of it, wouldn't "Mother of All Climate Reports" be the first one, not the latest one?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/we-are-terrifyingly-close-to-the-climates-point-of-no-return/280076/
QuoteIn a landmark report, a global panel of leading scientists again called the evidence for climate change "unequivocal" and for the first time said humans are "extremely likely" to be the dominant cause.
Put simply: "Human influence on the climate is clear." And as this map makes clear, the world has already experienced warming of up to 2.5°C over nearly its entire surface since the start of the 20th century:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2Fscreen-shot-2013-09-27-at-8-11-29-am.png&hash=4fedcecd510de5625eb380366537cc88bacd5e2b)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is convened by the United Nations to give periodic updates on the state of climate science as well as future projections and likely impacts. The group was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their last update in 2007.
What makes the IPCC so important is simple: They are required to agree. Last night, the group pulled an all-nighter to ensure that representatives from all 195 member countries agreed on every single word of the 36-page "summary for policymakers" (pdf). That instantly makes the report the world's scientific and political authority on what is happening to the climate, what will happen in the future, and what needs to be done to avoid the worst impacts.
Here is the report's side-by-side comparison of the best-case and worst-case scenarios for global climate change in the 21st century. The scenario on the left assumes drastic and immediate global reductions in fossil fuel usage; the right assumes "business as usual" just continues. On the right, runaway climate change causes warming of more than 10°C in some regions, extreme rainfall and droughts become the norm, the Arctic becomes ice-free in the summer, and the ocean becomes much more acidic:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2Fmaps.png&hash=779277be381f625ee690ac1d03ffe4a24acb87dd)
Some other important takeaways from the new document:
• Between 1901–2012, "almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming... Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850."
• "The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia.... It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100."
• "Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and N2O have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years....Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped."
• "Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer.... Extreme precipitation events...will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century."
• "A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is likely."
• "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.... Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
For the first time, the report mentioned projections of climate change beyond 2100 and painted a picture of a bleak world, possibly unrecognizable to those living today, should fossil fuel use continue on its current trajectory.
The report also raised a note of caution for the first time on the use of so-called "geoengineering technologies" (such as solar shades or carbon dioxide extraction via artificial trees), which are being increasingly considered as last-ditch efforts to neutralize some of the impacts of climate change.
Also concerning was the report's insistence on new evidence showing a strengthened link between man-made climate change and extreme weather events, particularly heat waves, droughts, and floods. Such extreme weather events cost the United States $110 billion in 2012, most notably from Hurricane Sandy, which brought record coastal flooding to New York City—a portion of which has been linked to global sea level rise.
According to the report, the world can emit about 300 gigatons more carbon (total, ever) before there is a 50 percent confidence the world will reach warming of 2 degrees Celsius, which is the previously agreed upon "point of no return" for the climate system. For reference, 531 gigatons was emitted from 1870 to 2011. On a continued "business as usual" trajectory, the world will burn through about 5 times that safety limit by 2100, putting the world on a path for warming of more than 4.5 degrees Celsius and about a meter of additional sea level rise. This idea of a 'global carbon budget' — a precursor to a possible global price on carbon emissions — was endorsed by the group for the first time.
Without jumping up and down on the desks of their computer terminals, this forum of scientists has done about as much as they can do. With this report, they have proven humankind's impact on the climate, and confidently projected dire consequences should world governments fail to act immediately.
To help put the report's results in a human context, the Guardian has created an interactive that calculates how much climate change you will experience in your lifetime.
The full report, due out next week, will total roughly 2,500 pages
Yup, we're boned.
At least America's doing it's part. IIRC we're the only nation to reach the Kyoto emission goals of 1990 levels. Pretty ironic that we never signed that treaty and it happened by complete accident due to market forces involving natural gas.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2013, 03:52:28 AM
Yup, we're boned.
At least America's doing it's part. IIRC we're the only nation to reach the Kyoto emission goals of 1990 levels. Pretty ironic that we never signed that treaty and it happened by complete accident due to market forces involving natural gas.
You remembered wrong.
Quote from: mongers on September 28, 2013, 09:12:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2013, 03:52:28 AM
Yup, we're boned.
At least America's doing it's part. IIRC we're the only nation to reach the Kyoto emission goals of 1990 levels. Pretty ironic that we never signed that treaty and it happened by complete accident due to market forces involving natural gas.
You remembered wrong.
Ok, who else met the goal?
Of course it's going to get worse, those gases take like 80 years to get to the right altitude to produce greenhouse effects. None of the post WWII emissions reach that yet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 28, 2013, 09:36:44 PM
Of course it's going to get worse, those gases take like 80 years to get to the right altitude to produce greenhouse effects. None of the post WWII emissions reach that yet.
You sure you're not thinking of flourozorrohorrorcarbons? I've never heard of any 80 year lag with CO2.
TL, DR, but isin't this the report that says the temp increases over the last 15 years have been less than Al-Gore and Friends (tm) projected?
I don't get it, what are they bitching about now? Clearly global warming is not happening or happening at a far slower rate than the climonazis believed.
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:02:49 PM
TL, DR, but isin't this the report that says the temp increases over the last 15 years have been less than Al-Gore and Friends (tm) projected?
I don't get it, what are they bitching about now? Clearly global warming is not happening or happening at a far slower rate than the climonazis believed.
Ah, an inconvenient truther.
This is from Rush Limbough
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Ffiles%2FRushGlobalWarming7.jpeg&hash=79de0d7defd14c399e20dba1f6dc5b9fa9d99676)
"If I'm in a global warming movement, and it hasn't warmed up in the last 15 years, I'd claim credit for it. I say it's all the hybrids. It's the reduction in coal! I claim that everything I've been advocating is the reason, and then I'd say,"We need to do more of this." I mean, if their objective is to downsize this country and downsize our lifestyle and downsize our progress, we had a golden opportunity.
Fifteen years of no warming! They could have claimed credit and probably had a pretty good chance of being supported by the media in advocating further lifestyle change. But they didn't, did they? Because they don't want the issue changing in any way. They don't want the premise changed. The premise is it's getting warmer and we're causing it, and nothing is gonna change that narrative. Nothing. Even if they can claim success in it.
The narrative, the template is, "It's getting warmer, we're causing it, we have to pay a price," and it's never gonna end. Just like affirmative action will never end. There will never be a day where somebody says, "You know what? Okay, we've had enough reverse racism now that we've evened the score, and we're gonna get rid of it and we're now in a level playing field." They (sic) will never happen. The price will never be paid. "
Siege moved from the Middle East to the United States so clearly it's getting cooler.
Never would have guessed that was Limbaugh.
"Religion has ritual. Global warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations.
Some religions persecute heretics. Some global warming alarmists identify "denialists" and liken them to Holocaust deniers.
Religions build grand places of worship. Global warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that produce uneconomic and intermittent electricity.
Global warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.
"
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2013, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 28, 2013, 09:12:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2013, 03:52:28 AM
Yup, we're boned.
At least America's doing it's part. IIRC we're the only nation to reach the Kyoto emission goals of 1990 levels. Pretty ironic that we never signed that treaty and it happened by complete accident due to market forces involving natural gas.
You remembered wrong.
Ok, who else met the goal?
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/sbi/eng/31.pdf
Looking at this 2012 report (based on 2010 figures), the US increase its greenhouse emissions since 1990 by about 10%, while the EU decreased its greenhouse emissions by 15%. Do you have a source for your claim?
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 02:09:15 PM
Never would have guessed that was Limbaugh.
My first thought was
the Onion, as well.
Man, that large graphic is absolutely terrible.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 02:09:15 PM
Never would have guessed that was Limbaugh.
What? You didn't know he was fat like a whale?
Jabba The Rush.
By the way, I finished Princess of Mars last week, and its incredibly how much it influenced modern sci-fi.
The Jabba The Hut scene is a complete copy of when the fat Tark leader had Dejah Doris chained and half-naked, and John Carter came in to save her.
Even the flying barges are a copy of the flying ships of the Red Martians. No to mention architecture and so on.
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:40:11 PM
Jabba The Rush.
By the way, I finished Princess of Mars last week, and its incredibly how much it influed modern sci-fi.
The Jabba The Hut scene is a complete copy of when the Tark leaders had Dejah Doris chained and half-naked, and John Carter came in to save her.
Even the flying barges are a copy of the flying ships of the Red Martians. No to mention architecture and so on.
That's Disney for ya.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 02:41:17 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:40:11 PM
Jabba The Rush.
By the way, I finished Princess of Mars last week, and its incredibly how much it influed modern sci-fi.
The Jabba The Hut scene is a complete copy of when the Tark leaders had Dejah Doris chained and half-naked, and John Carter came in to save her.
Even the flying barges are a copy of the flying ships of the Red Martians. No to mention architecture and so on.
That's Disney for ya.
I was talking about the book from 1911.
The recent Disney version was crap, except for the Green Martians.
Dejah Thoris wasn't a fighter, the flying ships didn't have wings, etc, etc.
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:35:32 PMWhat? You didn't know he was fat like a whale?
So do you actually believe the Limbaugh stuff you're posting, or are you just trolling for the laughs?
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:45:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2013, 02:41:17 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:40:11 PM
Jabba The Rush.
By the way, I finished Princess of Mars last week, and its incredibly how much it influed modern sci-fi.
The Jabba The Hut scene is a complete copy of when the Tark leaders had Dejah Doris chained and half-naked, and John Carter came in to save her.
Even the flying barges are a copy of the flying ships of the Red Martians. No to mention architecture and so on.
That's Disney for ya.
I was talking about the book from 1911.
The recent Disney version was crap, except for the Green Martians.
Dejah Thoris wasn't a fighter, the flying ships didn't have wings, etc, etc.
And I'm talking about the Star Wars movies.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:35:32 PMWhat? You didn't know he was fat like a whale?
So do you actually believe the Limbaugh stuff you're posting, or are you just trolling for the laughs?
I never troll.
I believe some of the stuff he says, when its verifiable information and/or when his opinion reinforces mine.
I doesn't change the fact he is a whale and was addicted to drugs and had an openly gay dude play at his wedding, and have been divorced 3 times, and have no kids of his own. In other words, he is not trustworthy to my eyes. He says one thing, and does another.
I mean, as you know I had problem having children, but I tried everything, and my wife got me to do the genetic staff, sperm selection, ovule fecundation, and then reincertion, and it worked. If a guy with the resources of Rush Limbo really wants to have children, he can certainly have. Besides there is always adopting. My Israeli conservative education taught me adopting children is not just ok, but its mandatory if you have the resources. Providing a loving home for an orphan is the highest a man or woman can do.
So I have really little time for these fake conservatives that don't walk the walk.
Mark Levin is the guy you want to listen, if you are looking for a conservative media figure that talks the talk and walks the walk.
Do you believe that the recorded temperatures of the last 15 years refute the global warming thesis?
Yeah, real conservative men are all about raising somebody else's kids. :huh:
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 02:09:55 PM
"Religion has ritual. Global warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations.
Some religions persecute heretics. Some global warming alarmists identify "denialists" and liken them to Holocaust deniers.
Religions build grand places of worship. Global warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that produce uneconomic and intermittent electricity.
Global warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.
"
I think I just heard the weeping of a thousand liturgists :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Yeah, real conservative men are all about raising somebody else's kids. :huh:
Yes. Taking care of orphans is a Mitzvah.
Socialist and progressives are very charitable with other people's money, conservatives are charitable with their own money.
Socialist and progressives put orphans in a vile institution to enhance their suffering, paid by our taxes. Conservatives adopt the orphans not only expending their own money but providing a loving home.
Adoption have been long practiced not only in the sefaradi comunity but in the Israeli conservative movement at large.
:secret: Limbaugh is not Jewish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
Do you believe that the recorded temperatures of the last 15 years refute the global warming thesis?
I haven't got deep into it.
I don't really care that much.
I ain't going to support cutting down our economy for the fear of global warming.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 04:36:41 PM
:secret: Limbaugh is not Jewish.
Of course. But the conservative values remain the same.
Altruism is not a conservative value. It's not really a liberal value either, but they're more likely to convince themselves it is.
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:34:07 PM
Adoption have been long practiced not only in the sefaradi comunity but in the Israeli conservative movement at large.
Also, gays :)
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:38:31 PMI haven't got deep into it.
I don't really care that much.
I ain't going to support cutting down our economy for the fear of global warming.
I think we can all agree that triggering serious economic set-backs based on unsubstantiated fears is foolish. I think we can also agree that taking preventative measures in the face of a verifiable danger is only prudent.
Assuming that we agree on that, I'd like to ask you the following:
What sort of data and facts would convince you that global warming was real enough and significant enough to warrant taking any kind of action to counter it?
If some action to counter global warming was economically neutral, or even resulted in growing the economy, would you be more inclined to support it whether or not you were convinced that global warming ought to be a concern?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2013, 04:46:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:34:07 PM
Adoption have been long practiced not only in the sefaradi comunity but in the Israeli conservative movement at large.
Also, gays :)
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2013, 04:46:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:34:07 PM
Adoption have been long practiced not only in the sefaradi comunity but in the Israeli conservative movement at large.
Also, gays :)
Yeah, but gays adopt children so they can rape them. Most conservatives (or liberals or moderates) don't.
Quote from: Zanza on September 29, 2013, 02:22:13 PM
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/sbi/eng/31.pdf
Looking at this 2012 report (based on 2010 figures), the US increase its greenhouse emissions since 1990 by about 10%, while the EU decreased its greenhouse emissions by 15%. Do you have a source for your claim?
Looks like it hasn't quite reached 1990 levels like I thought.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578430751849503848.html
QuoteEnergy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,
Looks like I was wrong about Europe
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
Looks like I was wrong about Europe
You were wrong about some places in Europe, and not others. Europe isn't a country.
So when do you go off on hiatus again? :)
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:34:07 PM
conservatives are charitable with their own money
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Quote from: fhdz on September 29, 2013, 06:26:29 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Actually that's true. Mostly because of church offerings.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2013, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: fhdz on September 29, 2013, 06:26:29 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Actually that's true. Mostly because of church offerings.
Church offerings shouldn't count. I mean I am funding an organization I am a member of, it is more like voluntary dues than a donation.
Granted some of my money does end up doing charitable work but that is not the primary purpose, which is to support the church.
Quote from: Siege on September 29, 2013, 04:38:31 PM
I ain't going to support cutting down our economy for the fear of global warming.
Cutting emissions does not necessarily involve cutting down our economy. Natural Gas is a great short term solution and quite economical. I think claims that taking steps make cleaner energy is going take down the economy is pure BS. I mean granted it CAN if you do it idiotically, but I think we can manage.
Natural gas is not a short term solution. It exacerbates the problem, which is that human activity relies too much on burning things. What's BS is the idea that the problem can be fixed at this point.
Remember how shitty and unrealistic the end of Battlestar Galactica was? Because that's the kind of solution that it would take to fix the problem within fifty generations.
Maybe we should just annex Canada and ride it out. :hmm:
Canada needs its own nuclear deterrent.
Won't do you much good if everyone's living in Canada.
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:18:30 AM
Natural gas is not a short term solution. It exacerbates the problem, which is that human activity relies too much on burning things. What's BS is the idea that the problem can be fixed at this point.
Remember how shitty and unrealistic the end of Battlestar Galactica was? Because that's the kind of solution that it would take to fix the problem within fifty generations.
Fifty generations? So...about 2,000 years? :lol:
I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'fixing' only that global warming is not going to be the end of history and we need to have long term solutions for our energy needs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
Won't do you much good if everyone's living in Canada.
I've been to Canada, trust me you don't wanna live there!
Quote from: katmai on September 30, 2013, 12:45:34 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2013, 12:44:32 AM
Won't do you much good if everyone's living in Canada.
I've been to Canada, trust me you don't wanna live there!
Well, I figure Alaska would be too crowded with >300 million people. We need lebensraum. :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2013, 12:45:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:18:30 AM
Natural gas is not a short term solution. It exacerbates the problem, which is that human activity relies too much on burning things. What's BS is the idea that the problem can be fixed at this point.
Remember how shitty and unrealistic the end of Battlestar Galactica was? Because that's the kind of solution that it would take to fix the problem within fifty generations.
Fifty generations? So...about 2,000 years? :lol:
I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'fixing' only that global warming is not going to be the end of history and we need to have long term solutions for our energy needs.
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
History already ended once, and it was barely noticeable.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2013, 06:06:04 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
History already ended once, and it was barely noticeable.
You are going to have to get over the Peloponnesian War.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
QuoteEnergy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,
Looks like I was wrong about Europe
Much of the drop in emissions can probably be traced to the economic crisis rather than a shift in energy policies.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 30, 2013, 09:20:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2013, 05:42:41 PM
QuoteEnergy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,
Looks like I was wrong about Europe
Much of the drop in emissions can probably be traced to the economic crisis rather than a shift in energy policies.
And I bet it doesn`t mean shit with China and India puffing CO2 like there was no tomorrow (or like they felt like joining Europe in standards of living!)
:lol:
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
how so?
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
how so?
War between great powers over declining resources?
jake, no amount o data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.
Economically neutral? ok. I can support that.As long as is not cutting back on oil
consumption. I love swimming in oil, and I love controlling world resources, to stall
Chinese economic growth. Not that is working, though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2013, 07:14:11 PM
War between great powers over declining resources?
Why not? Both China and Russia are modifying their military postures--particularly their navies--accordingly.
Quote from: Siege on October 01, 2013, 06:26:37 AM
jake, no amount o data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.
I guess I do not get how the Conservatives differ on this agenda. The only thing, as far as government control, they seem passionate about stopping are entitlements (and even then that is just for poor people, entitlements for old people they love). I mean there are a few nutty Libertards (:wub:) in there now...but guess what? Most of their allies for curtaling government power are leftwing nutters on the other side.
Siege, no amount of data will convince you because you don't want to be convinced. It's a matter of blind faith to you and facts don't come into it.
Quote from: Siege on October 01, 2013, 06:26:37 AM
jake, no amount o data will convince me global warming is real, because of how
politicized the whole issue has become. I'm at that point where I do not believe
a word out of the liberals. Everything is about their agenda for big government control.
Economically neutral? ok. I can support that.As long as is not cutting back on oil
consumption. I love swimming in oil, and I love controlling world resources, to stall
Chinese economic growth. Not that is working, though.
Because of how politicized the whole issue has become, I don't believe that this is really how you feel.
It's a shame they restored military pay at the last minute.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2013, 07:14:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2013, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 30, 2013, 12:59:09 AM
And what I'm saying is that those long-term solutions to our energy needs are likely to result in the end of history.
how so?
War between great powers over declining resources?
That's already going to happen over water and oil. What I want to know, is how R&D in newer form of renewable energy, or better energy conservation will lead to the end of history?
Well, that's settled. Gary Novak for pravda.ru calls it all baloney. I kinda zoned out while reading this.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-09-2013/125769-global_warming_controversy-0/
QuoteGlobal warming controversies
According to the most noted "deniers" (critics of global warming) within science (Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and others), they all agree with climatologists that greenhouse gases create global warming; they only disagree on how much.
The primary effect of carbon dioxide is called sensitivity, secondary effects, forcing. Climatologists say that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a primary effect (sensitivity) of about 1°C temperature increase, and the only dispute is the secondary effects.
The primary effect is the science; the secondary effect is the witchcraft. Therefore, the science of climatology is reduced to a number (1°C), and only the witchcraft is studied or disputed.
The basis for sensitivity cannot be located. The closest thing to a source is Hansen's fudge factor (http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html), which in itself does not have an identifiable source. The fudge factor says: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.
How can all scientists agree upon something which cannot be located with a source? What is in their minds which fixes sensitivity in place? Why can't they tell us what it is?
I think what happened is that the result of Hansen's fake equation was repeated over and over in the scientific literature causing scientists to assume it must have a valid basis. Maybe they saw the fudge factor and assumed it must be unquestionable fact. If so, they are not real scientists. Scientists could not miss the absurdity of the fudge factor.
And now that the graph for the average global temperature stopped showing an increase, some say the sensitivity number should be reduced. If the amount was wrong, how can sensitivity be so unquestionable?
In fact, the original fudge factor yields 2.8°C increase with doubling CO2, but it has been whittled down to 1°C at this time, which requires the original constant to be reduced from 5.35 to 1.92. In other words, climatologists keep changing constant (5.35) in response to criticisms and increased complexities which they have to consider.
The fudge factor undoubtedly was constructed by extending the past into the future, as sugested by Norm Kalmanovitch. One of the frauds inherent in the fudge factor is the assumption that no other influences in the past but CO2 determined temperature increase of so-called global warming. Yet "deniers" in science say numerous factors influence global temperature. Do they not know that the fudge factor includes everything which influenced global temperature? They don't seem to know that. A real scientists could not have missed it. When real scientists see a fudge factor, alarm bells go off, and they find out where it came from. The source of sensitivity cannot be located, yet it gets used and repeated, and no explanation exists of where it came from.
There is no scientifically valid basis for assuming a certain amount of CO2 will produce a defined temperature increase.
Where is the Mechanism?
Scientists used to try to explain how greenhouse gases create global warming, but they totally failed. They produced dozens of explanations for the public, and none of them were consistent with each other. So they sort of stopped trying to explain it and are now simply saying, we can observe the temperature increase, and our models show it, regardless of how it is happening. But over the past 18 years, the graphs stopped showing an increase in temperature. What then is there left to the subject? Are they now going to go back to the scientific details? What is the science which shows it?
Before they gave up trying to rationalize the science, climatologists were arguing a mechanism based upon the shoulders of absorption peaks. Saturation forced them onto the shoulders of the peaks. Saturation means a small amount of greenhouse gases absorbed all radiation available to them, so more of the gases cannot absorb more. But the gases only saturate at the center of each peak. Supposedly, the shoulder frequencies are not saturated.
This depends upon how saturation is defined. At the center of the main peak for CO2 (15 micro meters), all radiation is absorbed within 10 meters (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten) in the atmosphere. In other words, at 11 meters, no more radiation at that frequency can be found. But change the frequency a little, and less absorption occurs.
At about 14.7 µm, absorption is one tenth, and radiation goes 100 meters to be completely absorbed. More distance is required, because fewer CO2 molecules have the stretched shape which absorbs at that wavelength.
At about 14.1 µm, radiation goes 1,000 meters, which means still saturated. At about 14.0 µm, radiation goes 10 kilometers. Is that saturation? Upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance is half (5 km). Is reducing the distance from 10 km to 5 km increasing the near-surface temperature? Not really. This is a miniscule amount of heat spread over 5 km of height.
Why Shoulder Effects are Miniscule.
The assumption that shoulder effects are where global warming occurs is greatly in error. The real quantities involved are ridiculously small for the following reasons: Using the example of about 14.1 µm, where there are 1/100 as many CO2 molecules, the distance increases from 10 meters to 1,000 meters for complete absorption of available radiation (ignoring atmosphere getting thinner to make simple points). Doubling the CO2 reduces this distance to 500 meters.
The total amount of heat increase for CO2 is said to be 1°C upon doubling. So this 1°C must be divided by 100 due to one hundredth of the CO2 molecules at 14.1 µm, and divided again by 50 due to the molecules being spread over 500 meters of height instead of 10 meters. Spreading the molecules over more distance reduces their density and results in less temperature increase upon doubling.
So 1°C ÷ 100 = 0.01, and this divided by 50 = 0.0002°C.
The shoulder effects are miniscule, because very few CO2 molecules are involved, and they are spread over a lot of height in the atmosphere.
The Hansen fudge factor has a rudimentary logic, which says doubling the amount of CO2 doubles the temperature of the air at the surface of the earth. This logic would be correct, if there were no other factors involved. Even with saturation, more molecules absorbing at a particular location will produce more heat at that location. But consider these absurdities: Air rapidly mixes near the surface due to convection, and therefore, the total heat within the convecting volume determines the result, and it does not change with increases in CO2 due to saturation. Then the starting point is determined by the constant, 5.35, and it cannot be determined except through past observations, which include a hodge podge of factors.
Crunching the Numbers.
Climatologist may have acquired a concept of CO2 sensitivity by combining the NASA energy chart (http://nov79.com/gbwm/rad.html) with an application of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html) (SBC) to greenhouse gases, both of which are extremely erroneous and misused for the purpose. The SBC says the temperature of the earth would have to be -19.3°C without an atmosphere, because solar energy is 235 Watts per square meter. With an atmosphere, the measured near-surface average is said to be 15°C. The atmosphere increased the temperature by 34°C by this analysis (The number 33°C is usually shown. Don't know why.).
The NASA energy chart says 41% of the energy leaves the surface of the earth by radiation. About 30% of that radiation is said to radiate directly into space, while 70% is absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. CO2 takes up 8% of the bandwidth for infrared radiation leaving the earth, which is 11% of the greenhouse gas influence. One side of one band (out of three) overlaps with water vapor; so the 11% is reduced by one sixth to 9.17%. This times 41% equals 3.76% of the assumed temperature of 34°C, which totals 1.28°C. This is how much temperature increase CO2 supposedly added to the earth before humans influenced the result. Doubling the CO2 would supposedly add another 1.28°C to the atmosphere.
There is a major error in referring to this number as sensitivity. It represents what CO2 in the atmosphere did during saturation of greenhouse gases. The number tells nothing of what will happen post saturation. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will not produce much increase in temperature after saturation. Due to saturation, this number crunching method is not appropriate for determining present-time sensitivity.
The Hansen fudge factor is also not appropriate for the purpose. Inherent forcing cannot be tweezed out. Due to inherent forcing, the fudge factor is not really a representation of sensitivity but a combination of sensitivity and forcing in addition to unknown influences over past temperature, which it vaguely parallels.
Where is the real sensitivitry? It can't be found. Yet the "deniers" claim it is the most certain and agreed upon fact of global warming.
The saturation question prevents a simple determination of sensitivity, unless one admits there is no sensitivity due to saturation. How then can sensitivity be the most certain fact of global warming, which even the deniers do not question?
Beyond these problems, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is grossly in error, which means 34°C is nothing close to the effect which greenhouse gases or the atmosphere produced before human influences.
Why Sensitivity Contradicts Knowledge.
There are two perspectives on global warming. Extremely uninformed persons have a very simplistic view. They assume that heat would radiate into space, if it were not stopped by greenhouse gases. Scientists argue minutia, which keeps getting more minute, as they try to cope with increasing counter-arguments.
Most heat leaves the planet from the atmosphere, not from the surface. Uninformed persons do not know that. The Nasa chart shows 10% of the earth's energy radiating from the surface into space. The rest of the energy goes from surface to atmosphere through conduction, evaporation and radiation. The NASA chart shows 14% conduction, 45% evaporation and 41% radiation. It should be about 52% conduction, 45% evaporation and 3% radiation. The logic is that conduction should be about 20 times radiation (with normal wind). Cooling fans would not be used, if the ratios were much different from that. The NASA chart shows 3 times as much radiation as conduction on the surface of the earth, which is absurd.
The perspective of both uninformed persons and most scientists is that global warming is about heat entering the atmosphere. They error. The temperature of the atmosphere is about heat leaving, not entering. Heat entering the atmosphere produces an undefined result apart from heat leaving. This fact is due to the second law of thermodynamics, which says heat dissipates from warmer areas to colder areas. Heat leaving creates a steady state, called equilibrium.
Equilibrium means there is a temperature which causes heat to escape at the same rate it enters. For the atmosphere, that temperature is fixed by the rate of heat leaving. Increase the temperature, and heat will leave at a higher rate. But heat must leave the earth at the same rate solar energy enters. Therefore, the temperature from which the heat leaves is fixed by the amount of solar heat entering.
Scientists will sometimes mention equilibrium claiming or implying that more heat entering the atmosphere will shift the equilibrium temperature upward. The equilibrium temperature can't be shifted upward, unless something makes escape of heat more encumbered. The original greenhouse gases slightly encumber radiation escaping from the surface of the earth into space (5% radiation x 70% bandwidth = 3.5% temperature increase); but that effect ended with saturation of the gases. Any increase in greenhouse gases does nothing due to saturation.
The earth (surface and atmosphere) is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. The escaping radiation allows equilibrium to be established, which fixes the atmospheric temperature in place, beyond weather effects, which could be quite significant for an ice age, but not due to greenhouse gases.
About the author: http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/
Huh, he has a second article about it there: The Contrivance of Global Warming (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/23-09-2013/125729-global_warming-0/)
Gary Novak, that name sounds familiar, is that the guy who claims all physics since Newton is a conspiracy?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2013, 04:24:05 AM
Gary Novak, that name sounds familiar, is that the guy who claims all physics since Newton is a conspiracy?
Yes, same guy.
Still, it's nice that the anti-scientist conservative right wing of the U.S. can find some common ground with Russian populist media. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2013, 04:24:05 AM
Gary Novak, that name sounds familiar, is that the guy who claims all physics since Newton is a conspiracy?
Sure. Discredit the guy if you can't discredit the argument.
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 09:03:25 PM
Sure. Discredit the guy if you can't discredit the argument.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20110624171561%2Fbacon%2Fimages%2F5%2F5f%2FCrispy_bacon_1-1-.jpg&hash=36977f89bd99c87444983b7055ec135d1ed29525)
Looks good, don't it.
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 09:03:25 PM
Sure. Discredit the guy if you can't discredit the argument.
Siege, have another shot of Coors Light and don't change.
WTF? I almost puked when I saw that picture.
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 09:19:14 PM
WTF? I almost puked when I saw that picture.
:lol:
All the Hannity-watching you do hasn't stopped you from being an Un-American commie. :(
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2013, 09:19:14 PM
WTF? I almost puked when I saw that picture.
That's suspiciously close to what a Muslim would say.
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 06:20:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
I have an local acquaintance who's a well respected oceanographic scientist in that field, I wonder what his take on it is?
Ask him, then let us know :)
Yes I will, I've got a project I need his advice on, so need to drop him a line anyway.
Last time we chatted he was not far from concluding the time had passed and we now have to actively start managing the climate.
Hey mongers, I may have missed a post - did you get a chance to talk to your friend?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2013, 12:31:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 06:20:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
Well besides the fact there are people like derspiess
I have an local acquaintance who's a well respected oceanographic scientist in that field, I wonder what his take on it is?
Ask him, then let us know :)
Yes I will, I've got a project I need his advice on, so need to drop him a line anyway.
Last time we chatted he was not far from concluding the time had passed and we now have to actively start managing the climate.
Hey mongers, I may have missed a post - did you get a chance to talk to your friend?
No, I need to draft a proposal first, which I then need some help with. So probably end of the month.
I won't forget to get back to you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
As a follow up the local shell fish and scallop industry (going down to as far as Oregon iirc) is failing because the ocean is becoming too acidic for the shells for form properly. The industry is attempting to find a species of shell fish or some genetic manipulation that will tolerate higher levels of acidity in the ocean.
By the way - where is Mongers?
Likely floating out to sea after those floods.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2014, 03:50:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2013, 09:52:53 AM
Quotethe acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it's sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying
I think this is the scariest thing of all.
As a follow up the local shell fish and scallop industry (going down to as far as Oregon iirc) is failing because the ocean is becoming too acidic for the shells for form properly. The industry is attempting to find a species of shell fish or some genetic manipulation that will tolerate higher levels of acidity in the ocean.
By the way - where is Mongers?
Yeah, I saw that too. About 10 million scallops died, apparently.