But this new package does include for the first time all countries working towards a global reduction of greenhouse gases, whether developed or developing. It reaffirms that holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees C remains the goal of such international negotiations and launches a working plan to consider how ambitions might be raised, particularly in developed countries such as the U.S. that are responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse gases emitted worldwide in the past several centuries.
"Powerful speeches and carefully worded decisions can't amend the laws of physics," notes Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The atmosphere responds to one thing, and one thing only: emissions. The world's collective level of ambition on emissions reductions must be substantially increased, and soon."
See what we're tweeting about
136 Comments
Add CommentThis is a better result from Durban than I expected. Having the reductions deal formulated by 2015 and in force by 2020 is cutting it a bit close considering what the science is screaming at us. However, we need SOMETHING in place so that people see that a deal won't wreck the economy after all or it isn't some plot to funnel money to developing nations. Once we get a framework, the emissions targets can be adjusted over the years as the system progresses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe'll clean up pollution while lowering the odds of catastrophic climate change and we'll get to tell OPEC where to shove their imported oil. The money we'll save on lowered healthcare costs alone can pay for a lot of the clean energy transition. The money we save on fuel costs through efficiency and conservation can pay for the rest. With the costs of just solar PV falling by 50% over the last 2 years, this won't be as hard as people make it out to be. As long we stop dragging our feet and clean up our act, that is.
The climate has changed on earth for billions of years before humans were ever around and it will continue to change long after we're gone...the idea that we can change that is perpsoterous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPokerplayer: So true. more smoke and mirrors. 25,000 GW cultists get together and the result is ZIP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately the cult is losing influence. Governments in the USA, Russia, China, Japan, Germany etc. are conternt to nod a few times and then get back to real world issues.
Why do these zombie canards keep popping up? Is it because the deniers NEVER even consider evidence that doesn't fit their existing narrative?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Don't all these conferences end with a "really significant" agreement that turns out to be absolutely meaningless? Its like a tradition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. A tradition. At the core is transfer of hard earned wealth from democratic nations to tinpot dictators and basketcase societies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey sault did you just buy a thesaurus? seriously until such time as you can stop calling people names in some lame attempt to marginalize their opiniknyour post are just inflammitory and not changing anyone's mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if you were to admit that there are some holes in your arguement (as I have pointed out many times and a length offered to send you the data so you could run your own analysis) then we could probably have a meaningful discussion. However, you seem content to spew your dogma backed up by web references containing analyses that you have not performed all topped off with insults to anyone who dares to contradict you. IMHO that makes you the zombie puppet of the climate change religion (believe without questioning ).
fantastic! now the solar panels are now only half as uneconomic as they were. Also, let us consider the cost of the land required to install them and the cost of installation and maintenance. Also let us not forget that we would need a silar array with an area of 5.5 times the US to supply enough energy to meet the current demand. Also what are we going to do when thr sun is not shining? And also, what energy is it that we are going to use to mine the materials to build the panels and then truck them to the array and them get the workers to and from work to install and service the array?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are the full cycle considerations that are required before an alternative energy source is considered. not just that the technology itself is getting cheaper but that there are many more factors and costs that have to be incorporated into the decision. I am all for new technology and I support it every day in my work but I also know that in the end decisions will be heavily influenced by the economics (full cycle) and that sometimes you have to be willing to compromise to get what you need rather than what you want.
maybe we should just tax everyone more to get the funding amd take the lamd that we need throgh eminent domain beause the ends justify the means. however, for the time being we live in what is left of a representitive republic and therefore the majority needs to be on board or the decision is not going to be made.
Wow, talk about spewing your dogma without doing your own analysis! So, let me see your calculations where you determined that we need 5.5x the USA's land area covered with solar arrays to generate electricity and then we'll see who's making stuff up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice to see that you were either responding to another one of my comments maybe, or you don't even know what I was talking about. Go look at the skepticalscience.com link I posted and if you still think the "climate's changed before" zombie canard is still valid, you need to get your head examined! Quit trying to change the subject and respond to the proof I put forward. Unless you're an intellectual coward, that is.
And you go and look at: There have been periods in the Earths history when CO2 levels were much higher without correspondingly high temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
I read it somewhere and the work was done by a researcher in the UK. I will find the reference at some point not that you care. I am sure that you will have yet another off topic derogatory comment about what I have to say, or my intelligence or my ability to think critically, rather than actually admitting that you have not got the slightest clue what it is that you are talking about and are only able to regurgitate the statements of others that you have taken as fact without actually doing any thinking on your own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been more than happy to send you the work I have personally done with respect to the invalidity of the temperature increase statistics (an R2 of 0.014 is hardly compelling but it is what is being sold as completed and undeniable) and the probable CO2 flux of super volcanic events and the ensuing forest fires, nor the admitted (by the model builders) issues with the models ignoring some very important drivers. You have not yet agreed to look at this information but rather just spewed more crap from your beloved skeptical science website.
So, I have offered to supply you with data/information and analyses that I myself have done (and detailed in a number of posts) but it is you that is unable to understand that the arguments that you make are fraught with some serious holes and uncertainty. When you decide to address the analyses that I have done then then please let me know where to send them. Otherwise, stop calling names and think for yourself and maybe realize that you are not the smartest person on the face of the planet and you do not have all of the answers.
Do not try and use scientific arguments with him as he will only call you names.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSalt please tell me where I'm wrong. I know that you've lost the argument when you start calling people names....BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's because he is losing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's understandable why Sault attacks the individual... and not the issue at hand. It's a tactic of the 'believers' of most cultists. "How dare anyone question the Truth?" The issue isn't about science or not for him but rather a crusade of good vs evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat link that you posted is about debunking the quote you posted? What the hell? Although I agree that sault should not attack individuals for their nonsense beliefs, I feel sorry for him trying to argue these points with you lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to discuss this science rationally... do it. Don't just jump to denial. It is not scientific. If you do that you shouldn't be posting comments on a science magazine's website.
There is a lot of evidence to show that humans are quite responsible for current warming. You can deny it but then you are ignoring so much evidence. You may claim that this warming may have very little effect and the majority of scientists are just being alarmists.
It is much more scientifically responsible to take an "agnostic" position about anthropogenic climate change. I have a feeling that what humans are doing will definitely have a negative effect on the planet, it seems unreasonable to think otherwise.
So you think it is insignificant that there is evidence the earth once had 4000ppm of CO2 without runaway temperatures. In fact glaciation. What would you need to see before you reconsidered? As for the scientists you refer to, remember scientists have spent a lifetime talking about the Higgs boson too. The vast majority of particle physicists believe it exists. It could still be proven to exist but just because so many have spent their working lives in the belief that it exists, does not prove that it does. Billions have been spent on the LHC & they have not found it yet & the possibilities are diminishing. At least they have genuine peer review unlike climate science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"we would need a solar array with an area of 5.5 times the US to supply enough energy to meet the current demand."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Actually it's 1/452 the land area of US. The total generation capacity of US is about 1,000 gigawatts. You can get 46 MW solar energy per sq. km. You only need 21,739 sq. km. Nevada alone receives more solar energy than the output of all the power plants in the world.
Well at least you agree that there are some things we could do, as I said before self generation is one key way to cut a lot of pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is sault, you place far too much faith in politicians. Countries like the US do not need treaties to lower emissions. We already have the best laws and stuff going and yes I have been to many other countries in Europe and Asia and America is simply the cleanest for a place that was really nasty for pollution in its past.
Other countries like India or China will never cut their emissions. They will claim they are, come up with excuses and it wont be enforceable. Think about it, China threw a few mountain valleys under a giant damn, they dont care what they damage. I have been to Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu, they are getting as bad as mexico city for feeling like you will choke to death. India has their holiest river so polluted that it is a death sentence to even get in the water for all the toxins and disease in it. They have not even attempted to clean it up. No none of these countries will even try, no force available could make them.
Politicians all over the world are the most untrustworthy and dishonest group of power hungry money grabbers in existence. Everything they do will be colored by their desire to line their own pockets or increase their own power. They are so corrupt they will actually prefer to keep the problem going as long as possible because it does give then money and power. So you may think the money grabbing scam is gone. It is not, they are just trying to hide it somewhere.
So there may be a treaty and I agree unlike kyoto at least it says all countries must reduce green house gases. My issue is they should demand a reduction in ALL pollution and really just not do business with any country that cant keep up with California air quality laws. Oh, thats right the rest of the US wont even do that much.
fine. i stand corrected on that point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisamen (in a non-religious kind of way). there is no way that a bunch of politicians are going to do anything other than vote to get re-elected so that they can continue the graft and corruption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswith respect to your previous post: I have considered both solar panels and natural gas co-generation at my home. I determined that by the time I bought and installed the solar array that it was at best a break even. I never really added up the cost for the natural gas co-gen but you have me rethinking that idea. since the light bulbs (which my family refuse to turn off so I have installed motion detecion switches) are only around 1.6 percent efficient from power plant to light I am assuming that I can really increase the efficiency by generating my own electricity via natural gas generation. However, I assume that the neighbors may have an issue with the sound but the new generators are supposed to be pretty quiet. i also looked into a wind mill but the trees and residntial area are kind of ruling that one out.
You see what "they" do, right? They can cherry pick a quote that proves their point on THE VERY SAME PAGE that utterly disproves their point. The quote was the claim that skepticalscience.com was trying to disprove! That's their whole shtick, really. "They're" not interested in debate, they don't want to look at any facts you present that don't fit in to their established narrative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat narrative is climate scientists are in a secret conspiracy to fake climate data to get grant money and moake us a bunch of socialsits living in huts, by the way. The U.N.has to be in on the conspiracy, as well as all the WORLD'S scientific bodies, ALL the major political parties around the world (including the Tories, but strangely not the Republicans in the U.S.), and well, reality has to be in on it too since it's inconveniently warming, by the way.
This is a ridiculous way to look at a problem, and the deniers approach any evidence from this perspective whether they know it or not. If you do actually look at the skepticalscience.com articles and pull those little quote mining stunts, you are either a disingenuous debater that's not discussing this issue in good faith, or you do indeed need your head examined!
Take a look at who is doing the disproving & their basis for dismissing anything that does not fit the programme. As the old song says, It aint necessarily so".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore information on previous levels of CO2 & temperatures over geological time scales. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the global swindling scam goes on & on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets all get conned to fund UN global goverment.
Only liberals are STUPIDenough to buy into this hoax
"only around 1.6 percent efficient from power plant to light I am assuming that I can really increase the efficiency by generating my own electricity via natural gas generation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe transmission and distribution energy losses are only 7%. The heat loss of your incandescent bulb is over 80%. If you want to increase efficiency, you don't have to generate your own electricity just change your light bulb to flourescent or LED. But if you want to be green, install solar panels on your roof.
That was the only real point you were trying to make with any sort of data or numbers that could be independently checked. Everything else was ad hominem and vitriol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're NOT EVEN READING the information I post that disproves the "conjectures" on the link you provide. Okay, let's try this again, all together now:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Just because CO2 was higher in the past, DOES NOT mean we have nothing to worry about today. Notice how the link I posted cites FOUR scientific papers while Carlyle's link cites ZERO? If these findings are so groundbreaking, where are the scientific papers? Why do these armchair climatologists have to resort to blogs and posting conjectures on unsourced blogs? Is that how you think science operates? Is that how you think science has EVER operated?
And if you think climate change won't be that bad, here's a side-by-side comparison of the positives and negatives of climate change WITH THE PROPER SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
Any old nut can post junk science on blogs. You have to be extremely thourough to get through peer-review!
Thank you for injecting political nonesense into what should be a scientific discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, so paleoclimate data is only 100% correct when you can use it to prove your point and is totally unreliable when the evidence points the other way? Make up your mind...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm...could any of THIS be going on around here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39304/page1/
People being paid to influence discussions on social media? What about comment sections accompanying articles?
Priddisen: "We already have the best laws and stuff going and yes I have been to many other countries in Europe and Asia and America is simply the cleanest for a place that was really nasty for pollution in its past."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo true. Go to many basketcase countries and they don't do a 100 things now that are FREE to improve the environment. People keep animals near drinking water, throw feces into their streets (Nairobi is disgusting). Toss garbage hither and yon. Mothers pop out an average of 7 children.
It's a mindset that somebody else shold come in and fix their situation 'with money'. I'm dead against my taxes going to prop up these slackers. They aren't children. they are adults with brains and continually hide behind a mantle of victimhood.
It's not about money.
Yes, per the EIA the efficiency of a incadscent bulb, in terms of light, is around 1.6% from the energy contained in the fuel to the light generation. This means that around 98.4% of the energy contained in the fuel is wasted on heat loss at the plant, transmission and heat loss at the bulb (among a number of other things not listed). The eqution is E1*E2*E3 so assuming that the Plant (E1) is 35% efficient and Transmission (E2) is 90% efficient and the bulb (E3) is 5% efficient then I get 0.016 (or 1.6%). Using you numbers with my E1 I get 2.8% either way it is pretty bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this is a gross simplification of the efficiency equation it goes to prove my point that there is a long way to go in terms of energy efficiency.
No the point I have made numerous times is that you have your climate change blinders on and are unwilling to look at an analysis (which is really simple using documented sources) in an Excel sheet that I have because you are: (1) unable to understand anything that has not been spoon fed to you by climate scientists or (2) unwilling to concede that there are issues with the science that are very troublesome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust not right now. And please don't ask us for any specifics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you honestly believe it will really happen? CO2 reductions will be like practical fusion power: always about 15 years away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's perpsoterous is to deny that there is both natural and anthropogenic climate change, and that if we can break it, we can't fix it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are going to continue to discuss volcanic carbon emissions as the primary contributor to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, then that is just bat-feces insane:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We KNOW the level of CO2 emissions coming out of volcanoes. They are 1 - 2% of the tonnage that man emits every year.
2. The CO2 in the atmosphere is increasingly from fossil fuels. We know this because carbon released from fossil fuel combustion has a different isotope ratio (C12, C13, C14) than geologic carbon (from volcanoes).
And Finally,
3. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere DOES NOT track major volcanic eruptions in the instrument record. If volcanoes were a major source of CO2, doncha think we'd see spikes in CO2 concentration from Mt. Pinatubo or Mt.St. Helens? Or, how about if Hawaii stops erupting, do you think there's be a DROP in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
Let's face it, we have a very good handle on the level of CO2 going into and out of the atmosphere. The CO2 in the air is increasingly from fossil fuels and really, the data just doesn't track your theory. Sorry, but that's just how science works.
Oh, so colonialism did nothing to prevent the development of these countries, right? Taking millions as slaves, or treating the natives like 2nd class citizens for generations has totally been reversed by predatory lending from the IMF, right? Propping up dictators to fight proxy Cold War battles didn't have a downside, am I right? Plundering these countries' natural resources, enriching the opportunists that captured the most profits, and then LEAVING a dysfunctional country behind isn't the reason why developing countries are having a hard time, correct? Talk about the diode effect...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgot # 4:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4. There has been no discernible trend in volcanic activity to account for rising CO2 level in the atmosphere. If your theory was correct, we'd see a sizable increase in volcanic activity starting around 1850 or so which would slowly and steadily increase until today. If your theory were correct, volcanic activity would mysteriously slow down at about the same time as major depressions or contractions in economic activity. Oh noes! We'd better sacrifice some more virgins to the volcano god so we don't have another recession!
In Reality, CO2 levels start increasing in the latter half of the 19th Century just as soon as we start pumping CO2 into the air on an industrial scale. The buildup of emissions slows slightly when we experience major recessions.
So, what does this movie look like to you?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Doesn't it look like water in a bathtub slowly rising with a bunch of wavelets near the faucet? (Those are stations nearer to CO2 sources than Antarctica and Mauna Loa.) There's no volcanic signal in that data, if you ask me! Or if you ask anybody who knows what they're talking about!
Kyoto was inherently flawed due to the start date chosen (1990) which allowed the UK, Germany, the USSR, and Australia to post CO2 gains without actually changing a single thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed, along with all of its industry, and eastern bloc countries' CO2 levels plummeted. Germany gets to include Eastern Germany's CO2 levels in its calculations.)
It wasn't an accident - it was deliberately chosen with this messed-up start date in mind.
I have at no time said that modern volcanism is the cause of the current CO2 increase and if you had actually read my posts you would have found that what I have said is as follows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistorically, in Earth's history, there have been major fluctuations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which I think we can agree upon). The climate following these events responded (also reasonably clear) and the got to the point where we humans showed up on the scene. The source and timing of the CO2 is reasonably unclear (pretty safe assumption). I took the amount of lava and the CO2 that outgassed and then computed (given the surface area of the flow and relative amount of CO2 released in the fire and organic decay using todays published models). I have found that the Siberian Traps released: 5.65e13 tonnes of CO2 over around 20K years and of that around 2.4e13 tonnes were from forest fires (which is a release in a time frame to what we are currently doing). Over the 8 historic quantifiable events around 2.13e14 tonnes were released of which 9.07e13 are from fires/decay (read human time frame).
Now I am left to consider that this is a huge volume in a short time and that the climate system did in fact deal with this volume. Also, I am left to consider that the current climate models do account for this process which is troublesome if I am to believe the results.
Now we come to our exchanges. You seem unwilling/unable to read otthers posts for content nor actually admit that there are processes and drivers that are not being accounted for in the climate modeling to date. On top of that you do not seem to understand that there are a lot of repercussions from taking action on incomplete analyses that could actually be more detrimental than the possible results.
So now read my post for content, then think about what I have said and then reply in a coherent format. You do not do so and therefore you resort to name calling when you, IN FACT, have not read the posts completely for content.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdditionally, any time you would like to see the information that I have compiled on both historic CO2 volumes and the absolutely ridiculous r2 value on the line I see on these temperature increase graphs I am happy to either supply the data that I have compiled or point you in a direction to do so yourself.
I am going to assume that you are going to once again ignore this offer and call me names and attempt to 'prove' that I am wrong by misreading my posts and then supplying a wealth of information that does not answer any points that I have made.
i only got on here to ask a question someone wrote an article on act test and math question were can i find these question are they on line and if so could i get the web address of them in email from someone
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissounds like fun
i am all for fun
Sault: "Oh, so colonialism did nothing to prevent the development of these countries, right?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy country, Canada and Australia are always listed by the UN as countries in the top 5 for quality of life. You can toss New Zealand into the top 10.
hint...we were all colonies.
Basketcase countries need to get their act together before I want one cent of my money going to their tinpot dictators and corrupt bureaucrats
And finally maybe you can answer this question: why is it that climate models are so infallable when we are unable to use the same methodologies to predict the action of the stock markets? We created the stock market system and we have very little idea of why it behaves as it does (case in point the derivative market). However how is it that we think that we can predict the climate system with some degree of certainty?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is all time series analysis and so one would think that we should be able to figure out how the system that we created works but somehow that illudes us. Now, how is it that we are so smart when it comes to climate modeling when we are apparently so bad at financial market modeling?
Just a thought on the use of computer based models to replicate complex systems.
meant this post for sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYippee
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanada just announced it is withdrawing from the Kyoyo Treaty. Thus saving a potentioal 14 billion dollars of our taxes being transferred to tinpot dictators and corrupt bureaucrats in basketcase countries.
Three cheers for sanity from my government!
Actually if you use my numbers, you'll get
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this0.35 x 0.93 x 0.2 = 6.5%
My point is you cannot improve the 35% generation efficiency by doing it in your home using heat engine. Your efficiency will be lower since small engines are generally less efficient than big ones. Efficiency improvement can be easily attained at the end use. Flourescent lamps are 6 times more energy efficient than incandescent bulb.
Re post 31. All information needs to be discussed. Time & again the AGW proponents try to whitewash anything that does not wholly support their point of view. This can be clearly seen in the leaked emails as well in various other places, including putting pressure on different venues to prevent speakers airing a different point of view. Note the polar bear expert I linked to a few days ago. There have been innumerable other examples. Only in your world is everything incontrovertible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO climate models should be used only to determine causality. Example, what are the causes, the effects, and the feedbacks? The output is probability distribution to an effect given a particular cause. Models are based on the equations of atmospheric physics and are just an automation of manual calculations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrediction is a tricky business. The most that models can do is a general trend line with margins of error. This is also true for stock markets. The fluctuations and reversals in stock prices are very hard or impossible to predict.
Agreed. One thing that you can be sure of is that as soon as you point out that the climate change science is far from complete, correct or even have made valid assumptions you are immediately attacked on every possible front with no regard for the issues that you have illuminated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW folks have determined that they are right and that anyone with a different point of view should be dismissed and/or vilified as they are incapable of understanding that we are 'destroying the Earth' and that there is nothing more important than stopping climate change at all costs no questions asked. Never mind that it is impossible to stop the natural variability in the climate system and that we have a very rudimentary understanding of how the system works.
I have one principle objection to the Global Warming fiasco. What have they correctly predicted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe predictions I have seen made are mostly calling things that are 10 years or more off. But, if I look at the predictions 10 to 30 years ago for this date, I find dramatic evidence that the predictions are not a match of actual climate.
I checked the site you referenced. At least they are no longer denying that the Medieval warm period happened, but they are still not able to factor that in, or to even explain it. Nor can they explain the 'year without a summer' or the 'little Ice Age' that lasted from around 1300 to around 1870.
Maybe it's just that I'm older, but I remember the long range climate predictions from the late 1970's, and we were supposed to be in the middle of a new Ice Age by now, with glaciers having already swallowed all of Canada, and closing in on New York City. (Human caused, of course.) With the only hope being to stop burning so much oil and coal, and transferring huge amounts of money to the 'third world', mostly to petty dictators, via the UN.
Now, I see that we are supposed to be heading to a very hot future, if we don't stop burning so much oil and coal, and transfer huge amounts of money to the 'third world', mostly to petty dictators, via the UN.
There is a clear pattern here.
I'm sorry, but the UN climate groups have used up all their credibility. I haven't seen any predictions that match what is happening with the weather. The famous 'hockey stick' graph from five years ago, had us in a warming by over two degrees centigrade by this year. The actual warming observed is that since that prediction was made, the global temperature has actually declined. Oops!
Predictions were made over the last couple of years about glaciers melting in Greenland, the Himalaya mountains, and the Antarctic. Instead, the Himalaya glaciers are only slowly retreating, and have even expanded in one time period. Satellite measurements show that both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker. Meanwhile, Alaska and Siberia appear to have climate regions shifting further north, but climate regions in Africa and southern North America are not shifting. The Arctic Ocean was supposed to be ice free by now. But, the ice keeps stubbornly coming back. Retreats in this ice were 'proved' by using satellite photos from 400 miles further south, and placing them in the wrong latitude. When the correct photos were used, the dramatic de-icing of the Arctic disappeared.
continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but these people don't know what they are talking about. The other side is mostly wrong also.
This is an immature science, and it is crying wolf far too often.
The answer isn't to just ignore things, nor is it to panic and do foolish things. The answer is to continue the research. Eventually, we may know enough to make real and verifiable predictions.
To date, this has not been demonstrated.
But, as we have passed the Hibbert Peak, we should be finding substitutes for oil and coal. We should also not just jump on the Wind Wave and Solar bandwagons, as there are real and potentially severe consequences to each of them. We have time, we should be pursuing many sources of energy to sustain civilization. Nuclear is currently the best option. But, the current reactors are all designs from 40 to 50 years ago. Fusion would be a good choice if it worked. We need to be critically examining all of our options. We only have about 50 years before a disaster awaits. That is with or without "Climate Change".
Hydro power was once promoted as the ideal power source, then we began to find all the environmental damage that was being done to the surrounding ecosystem by drowning it.
We are just starting to find the problems with Solar and Wind power. If the Wind plants drain enough power from either the Gulf Stream or the Japanese Current, we will NEED Global Warming to protect us from the new Ice Age we will have created.
You claim that CO2 levels began rising in the 1850's That is based mostly on wishful thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon dioxide levels began rising in the 1300's when the colder temperatures came in. People burned trees. Coal was burned in China, and Petroleum in what is now Iraq and Iran. The same things occurred in North America. the cause was simple People like to keep warm.
One result of this was large scale reduction in forests. That has well established results in increasing carbon levels.
Oh, your assumption that Volcanic eruptions emit only a low but steady carbon dioxide flow into the atmosphere is mistaken. Volcanic eruptions do not occur on regular schedules. There are some volcanoes that undergo continuous eruption (like Hawaii) but most only erupt occasionally. A Mount Saint Helens will dump some (quite a lot actually) but that isn't really big as volcanoes go. There is a really big one in Yellowstone Park, and an even bigger one in Indonesia. If ever either of those lets go, it will spew more into the atmosphere than a couple of decades of human activity, all at once. The sulphur and nitrates will really do some harm, as well as all the rock and dust.
Geology is really interesting, you should read some. The formation of the Deccan Traps or the Siberian traps was quite impressive too. Yellowstone is a volcanic caldera almost 50 miles wide. The Deccan Traps is a caldera over 200 miles wide, and Siberia is even larger. But, luckily, those haven erupted in a very long time. (Fractions of a billion years).
I have a problem with your evidence. First, it is all assumed. But, that is minor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you check, you will find that the Siberian traps coincide with the end Permian extinction event. 99% of everything died. EVERY LIVING THING!!!
That is not something that I would want to post as a reassurance about the warnings of climate change.
No, we do know what it takes to drasticly affect climate.
Go even further back. In the Precambrian, there were 6 or 7 "Snowball" events. each began with a fall in global CO2 levels to below 100 PPM (about 1/3 to 1/4 the levels today), and the entire Earth froze over. The average temperature was around -40 C. The bacteria that had consumed the CO2 then slowly decomposed, and over many millions of years, the CO2 and Methane leaked out until the atmosphere had levels around 4000 PPM, roughly 10 X todays levels. Then, the ice rapidly melted, and temperatures rose to a planetary level of close to 40 C the bacteria that survived could live at that temperature, and began devouring the CO2.
These two extremes give us the worst that can happen. I don't like either one. For the times since, the highest that I have seen confirmed is during the Mid Eocene Climactic Optimum, when it was around twice what it is today. Mammals thrived all over. This is the period when most of the modern large mammals species and sub groups began it was around 35 Million Years ago.
During most of the Dinosaur period, CO2 levels were just below that, though there were fluctuations, some of them pretty drastic.
Um, the Siberian Traps were erupting at the end of the Permian and if you recall your geologic history, the End Permian Extinction was the greatest mass-extinction in he Phanereozoic Eon! I don't think they were just milk and cookies...In fact, it's a warning NOT to dump massive amounts of CO2 into the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the Climate DIDN'T "in fact deal with this volume [of CO2]":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event#Volcanism
Still, I don't really see your point. Are you arguing that massive injections of CO2 into the atmosphere are okay because life survive the End Permian Extinction? This is a horrible point to argue because around 85% of ALL species alive before the extinction event weren't around after. Also, it took life 30 MILLION years to recover its former biodiversity. This is the LONGEST recovery period from ANY observed mass extinction. I don't think it's prudent to run that experiment again!
Yes, mass extinctions paved the way for the eventual rise of mammals, but we have asteroid impacts to thanks for our existence as well. However, massive injections of CO2 into the air correlate well with mass extinctions, including the 6th Great Mass Extinction that humans are causing right now! Yes, the current extinction rate is similar to past mass extinctions if that helps put our actions into perspective.
So really, I don't see your point. Volcanoes erupted in the past, sure. You cite one eruption that was a precursor to the greatest mass extinction. The moral of THAT story is: don't put a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere too quickly.
The cost of events anywhere NEAR as bad as the climate disruption caused by the Siberian Traps is so high that taking preventative measures beforehand should be a foregone conclusion.
If you're trying to make a totally different point, then I don't get how your examples and argument lead to it. Call me dense, but it sounds like you are really arguing for limits on the amount of CO2 we are spewing into the air without knowing it.
"hey sault did you just buy a thesaurus? seriously until such time as you can stop calling people names in some lame attempt to marginalize their opiniknyour post are just inflammitory and not changing anyone's mind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---
Did you read @sault's comment? I don't think so, because @sault describe the regurgitated talking points as zombie canards, not the commenters themselves. That's not ad hominem at all.
If you must criticize someone for perhaps using a thesaurus, I suggest you get a dictionary. "opiniknyour"?
Moreover, the one using personal insults is you!
16. geojellyroll 06:29 PM 12/11/11
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's understandable why Sault attacks the individual... and not the issue at hand.
--
The hypocrisy there is amazing.
"We should also not just jump on the Wind Wave and Solar bandwagons"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason for wind and solar is they are abundant. The economic wind energy resource is 72 terrawatts. That's 16 times larger than all the power plants in the world. Nevada alone receives more solar energy than the output of all power plants in the world.
"Nuclear is currently the best option"
Nuclear fission is okay but it is limited. If the world shifts to nuclear power, the 16 million tons identified uranium resources will be depleted in 10 years. Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future. In 2019 the ITER fusion reactor in France will be operational.
Are you under the illusion that stock market participants (mostly people, but increasingly computer algorithms) operate rationally 100% of the time? Do you seriously think that market actors know what all the other market actors around them are doing? Do honestly think that the "market" has repeatable behavior? Well, the only repeatable behavior is is you deregulate everything, the market eventually crashes, but that's beside the point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact remains, the Earth's climate obeys the laws of physics while the stock market is plagued by irrational human psychology. Therefore, your comparison is utterly invalid.
14. mlbbchbill in reply to sault 04:39 PM 12/11/11
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Salt please tell me where I'm wrong. I know that you've lost the argument when you start calling people names....BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
Your credibility isn't enhanced by your misspelling of sault's user name (as "Salt") when it is in front of your eyes in the very input box that you used to respond, then accuse HIM of calling people names. You don't see the irony there?
"BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
Hark! Could that be the almost-forgotten battle cry of the Socrates of the sand box that I hear echoing down the DSL line?
yet another list of zombie canards and you can look here to debunk every one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
If you're going to write a novel on an internet comment board filled with points that have already been dismissed years ago, I'll just point you in the right direction so you can get your questions answered.
The fact remains that sure, we don't know exactly how much the climate will warm, but isn't getting off fossil fuels worth the effort to not have to worry? I mean, we'll decrease other pollution too and stop having to import oil from crazy people. Please post independent sources that show wind and solar cause more problems than oil and coal. I can tell you right now that it's not going to happen. If you think that dumping 30 (40 soon enough) billion tons of CO2 into the air won't cause problems, but then you say that wind turbines will disrupt the gulf stream, I don't know how those two ideas can coexist in your head! I mean, either we CAN affect the environment or we CAN'T. Just because you're biased against clean energy because the angry man on the TeeVee, talk radio, or the blog says so, doesn't make it true.
Correct, but when I offer evidence showing that your points are wrong, say in debunking "the climate has changed before" canard:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
You dismiss all the OBSERVED paleoclimate data because it doesn't agree with your talking points. However, when someone cooks up a graph that seems to prove your point (and goes much farther back into the uncertain past than the ice cores and sediment that most paleo-climatologists study), you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it's 100% correct. Consistency, man! (or woman!)
Petroleum and coal will be major sources of energy for the foreseeable future. Climate talks are an amusing waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenhouse gases will be pumped into the atmosphere for decades, if not centuries.
Get used to it.
If your "evidence" is easily debunked by searching the peer-reviewed literature with the googles, then don't feel bad when I show you. I can't remember if you're the volcano guy, or the "CO2 doesn't cause warming" guy, but I've done my best to present facts to counter your "evidence". The fact that you don't want to even look at it means you need to be pointing your fingers 180 degrees in the other direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease show proof of rising CO2 starting around 1300. According to this graph, you're wrong:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Until you post better proof, you'll still be wrong.
You really should occupy yourself in a more useful fashion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of your yammering will change the fact that petroleum and coal will be used by humans in ever increasing amounts for centuries.
Nuclear and hydroelectric power our the two main alternatives to coal and petroleum. The Environmentalists and Greens hate them with a passion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we continue to use coal and petroleum, and will continue to do so for centuries.
There are a few promising developments on the nuclear power front. Too bad the Greens and Environuts will make them politically untenable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasically, the industrial world will geographically shift to China, which has no qualms over burning dirty coal.
Europe and the US will descend into third-world status, with the help of Muslim and Mexican immigration.
Democrats and Socialists really don't care one way or another about the decline of the Western world - they just want power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you think we'll keep using fossil fuels for centuries? We've already passed peak oil production and peak coal (energetic) is upon us:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/2009/10/28/research-forecasts-world-coal-production-could-peak-as-soon-as-2010.html
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf
Natural gas may bridge the gap if only we can find a way to drill for it without polluting groundwater first. Because, if fossil fuels get tight, clean water is going to become a highly valuable commodity. Fusion or Thorium could work given a few decades of intense development. However, for the time being, we KNOW that efficiency, conservation and renewable energy can cut our fuel use dramatically. If done intelligently, no one really knows how much of our energy supply renewable energy could produce. So, let's get efficiency, conservation and renewables going to hedge our bets, and then see if we need nuclear power in the future. All it would take is for governments around the world to stop tilting the market in favor of dirty energy (indirect/direct subsidies ended as well as policy support) and get them to pay the true costs of using their products on society. If this happens, since clean energy is close to cost parity right now, the market will make the efficient decision and chose the cheaper renewable alternative.
It's really not surprising that things were so much better before women and minorities became involved in national politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all can see how things suck since that happened.
Oh well.
Peak oil? I can't believe you're talking peak oil, since everyone else has abandoned that fiction. Catch up with reality, sault.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thing is, Sault - you don't work for an energy company.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey probably wouldn't hire you if you tried.
Energy companies know what works and what doesn't.
They have to, in order to exist. I'll trust them before I'll trust somebody like you.
"Clean energy" is nowhere close to cost parity. You are either a liar or are extremely naive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think handicapping legitimate energy production is the way to clean energy parity, you are psychotic.
Projections of current usage and reserves show oil will be depleted in 50 years and coal in 120 years. Sooner or later the world will shift to renewables and nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody "tilts" the market in favor of coal over wind power, sault. You are an idiot if you buy that premise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, it is true that the coal industry slimed nuclear power early on, and stacked the NRC with coal lobbyists.
"Projections" 40 years ago indicated that oil would be used up by now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre these "projections" being produced by the oil and coal industries? They are the ones with the most interest in projections of this sort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould the world run dry of oil and coal, these companies will be the first to adopt new energy production methods.
If there is a way to produce electricity that beats oil, coal or nuclear, the established companies in these fields will be the first to capitalize on it - not some Enviro-nut co-op.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, you can always tell when someone doesn't really have a point because they tend to drag politics into a scientific debate...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether or not the projections will come true is a matter of economics. If they drill and mine deeper, they will find more oil and coal. But will it be economical?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal and oil are still the cheapest that's why the world is addicted to them. Economics vs. environment. The world leaders chose economics. Is it a good choice?
World Leaders?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about "everybody chooses coal and petroleum", with their wallets.
Jeez. Your "World Leader" statement confirms your socialistic nature.
You dragged politics into this. You did so by discussing extra-market methods of introducing "clean energy" into the market - essentially by subsiding clean energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, but we don't have to be anywhere NEAR "depletion" to be in trouble. Historically, reserves estimates have been way too optimistic and have been continually revised downward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, as a finite resource gets depleted, the richest and easiest to extract reserves are taken first, leaving smaller and lower grade reservoirs of fuel as time goes by. These resources take more time and energy to extract until eventually, we're "running as fast as we can just to stand still". This is called Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI). Oil's EROEI has fallen from 100 to 1 to under 10 to 1 today. Tar Sands oil is under 4 to 1. Corn ethanol is just above 1, depending on your accounting. However, since combustion usually throws away 60 - 80% of the energy in a fuel as waste heat, a BETTER metric is USABLE Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Using this metric accounts for the differences in efficiency of various energy production, and tells us a troubling story. Any process with a USABLE EROEI under about 3 is a waste of time. A USABLE EROEI under 5 for crude oil is a waste of time. For example, just the natural gas used to EXTRACT Tar Sands Crude could propel electric cars farther than the crude could itself if refined and burned in gasoline-powered cars. Additionally, an electric car can go farther on just the ELECTRICITY used to refine a gallon of gasoline than the gas-powered car could go on that gallon. For a planet running out of fossil energy, we sure throw a lot of it away...
Finally, since fossil fuels aren't as evenly distributed as renewable energy, they will be increasingly held by fewer and fewer countries as they are depleted. (OPEC anyone?) Geopolitical issues will certainly interfere with the ideal production curve of the world's finite fossil fuel reserves as the reserves dwindle.
Nope. Not everybody. Some drive electric cars, ride bicycles, use solar panels on their roof and invest in wind turbines. The Kyoto Protocol is a summit of world leaders don't you know? What's wrong with socialistic? Don't your country have socialized health care and welfare? But if you think it's evil, I understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe post 61. Unfortunately the French reactor you refer to is only an experimental model designed to test a method of creating fusion but only for brief periods measured in seconds. It will not be a functioning power generating facility connected to the grid. This does not mean that the project is not worthwhile. The construction details listed on the link below are staggering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.iter.org/factsfigures
Clean energy hasn't been close to cost parity until recently because the established energy sources are older, more well-developed, and benefit from an entire century of preferential treatment from the government. If you think energy markets are fair and the playing field is level, you need to do some more research! Government policy has shaped the energy industry from the first coal boilers in the late 1700s. Look up the Price Anderson Act, The Manhattan Project, the Navy's reactor program, Yucca Mountain (before it was closed) and the recent reactor construction loan guarantees and production tax credit for government support for nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFossil fuels enjoy massive direct government subsidies:
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Indirectly, dirty energy is allowed to use our air as an open sewer for free, which offloads the true cost to use their product onto society as a whole. Here's an analysis of some major polluters and the TRUE costs they impose on all of us:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
These costs are NOT incorporated into the price of the fuel and therefore, the Market makes inefficient decisions since there is a lack of transparency and market actors don't have access to all the information necessary to make efficient decisions. Conservatives these days base their economic outlook on the Efficient Market Hypothesis whether they know it or not.
You sound like a good conservative given your comments. If the true costs aren't being incorporated, doesn't your WHOLE economic outlook break down? Shouldn't you want the cost of pollution to be accounted for so that the "Invisible Hand" can move the market efficiently? I mean, unless you think government intervention is the best way to run things, I don't see why not.
once again you are wrong in your emotionally charged reply. sorry to butst your bubble but models, especially poorly parameterized ones, are falable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisonce again tou deflect. You have not once posted anything that counter supervicamism nor have the experts that advise congress that I contacted. so maybe you should read and understand before you claim to have addressed my point because you have not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswho is infusing politics now? maybe you could just admit that you are a bleeding heart liberal and all that you know about climate science is what you have read at skeptical science. it is pretty clear that you do not douch thinking om the subject yourself or you would have opinions based upon your own analysis if the daa (which for the most part is freely available on the net) and not regurgitation of skeptical science and deflection when someone brings up a point not covered there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow massive typos on the smart phone, douch = do much, om = on, daa = data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Projections" 40 years ago indicated that oil would be used up by now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShow me that projection 40 years ago. Or else this is just your imagination.
"Are these "projections" being produced by the oil and coal industries?"
Yes. The projection I cited was made by the American Petroleum Institute.
"Should the world run dry of oil and coal, these companies will be the first to adopt new energy production methods."
Today they are not adopting "new energy production methods" because these are more expensive and they still have 50 years and 120 years to deplete current oil and coal reserves.
Your dream of abundant oil for many centuries ahead will not come true because they will be depleted in 50 years. That's the reality.
Taxing for the cost of pollution, removing subsidies on fossil fuels, regulating emissions all require government intervention. But I'm not sure just removing subsidies on fossil fuels will make renewables competitive. The absolute amount may be large but the dollar per BTU may be small.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe I still don't understand your idea. This is what I think you're trying to say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVolcanic emissions of CO2 are responsible for the rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last few hundred years.
If that's not the case, then please explain it better. If that IS your idea, it doesn't match the data. There has been NO trend in volcanic activity that tracks the rise in CO2. There have been NO spikes in CO2 concentration following large eruptions. The data's just not there! Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but the reverse is 100% FALSE! In order to have causation, you ABSOLUTELY NEED correlation! If you don't understand this, you need to learn more about how science works. This is how we find the Higgs Boson, this is how we determine the effectiveness of drugs, this is how we operate in the modern world!
No.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: In the geologic past (before man get here) volanic eruptions (through degassing and the ensuing forest fires) have released many 1000 times as much as we release in the same sort of time frame (from the fires) as we are now.
These volumes have been dealt with by the climate system in some manner. That manner has not been considered and therefore in my view the climate models, which blame CO2 as the main culprit, are flawed. If a doubling of CO2 caused the projected rise then where was the rise when CO2 was 10 times what it currently is?
So simply, my point is that there are fundamental flaws in how the models work. It is NOT that volcanic emissions are the cause of the current rise in CO2.
And ... just because the models can be history matched (read curve fit) by tweaking the CO2 knob does not PROVE that CO2 is the main driver in the actual climate system but rather that it is the main driver in the mathematical equations that we built into the simulators. With this type of model there are an infinite number of models that can match the data with a high degree of precision but there are a very select few that are doing the job correctly.
So please stop telling me that I do not know how science works or that I need to learn more. The fact is that I apply these methodologies each and every day and the success in my work is that paychecks keep showing up and the companies that I work for keep making money.
"If a doubling of CO2 caused the projected rise then where was the rise when CO2 was 10 times what it currently is?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the Devonian period, atmospheric CO2 was at 4,000 ppm and global temperature at 22C. There's your rise in temperature. Today CO2 is 390 ppm and temperature 15C. The logarithmic relation of 390 to 4,000 ppm and 15 to 22C translates to 2.1C climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2. Right smack the middle of 1.8C to 3.0C range predicted by climate models.
Correct, although a slightly dimmer sun during the Devonian AND taking into consideration that climate sensitivity is LOWER on an ice-free planet would probably nudge that 2.1C closer to the most-likely 3C that the IPCC states is Earth's climate sensitivity today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if you need any more info on how the Siberian Traps were so bad, read this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Furthermore, if the Siberian Traps eruptions occurred within a period of 200,000 years, the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content would have doubled. Recent climate models suggest that such a rise in CO2 would have raised global temperatures by 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) to 4.5 °C (8.1 °F), which is unlikely to cause a catastrophe as great as the P–Tr extinction.[86]
In January 2011, a team led by Stephen Grasby of the Geological Survey of Canada—Calgary, reported evidence that volcanism caused massive coal beds to ignite, possibly releasing more than 3 trillion tons of carbon. The team found ash deposits in deep rock layers near what is now Buchanan Lake. According to their article, "... coal ash dispersed by the explosive Siberian Trap eruption would be expected to have an associated release of toxic elements in impacted water bodies where fly ash slurries developed ...", and "Mafic megascale eruptions are long-lived events that would allow significant build-up of global ash clouds".[96][97] In a statement, Grasby said "In addition to these volcanoes causing fires through coal, the ash it spewed was highly toxic and was released in the land and water, potentially contributing to the worst extinction event in earth history."[98]
So, we're set to DOUBLE the atmosphere's CO2 content in 200 years, which is 1000x faster than the most massive volcanic eruption known! If you think this won't have negative consequences, then your risk management style is utterly reckless!
Consensus? Arrogant liberal/socialist notion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sad thing is that 1 day a real scientist might produce a climate change model that accurately predicts the future and he'll be ignored because we've become so cynicised by the rants of warmist quacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree, salut, it's very rare that you do anything other than insult people who pick holes in your so called evidence. How much will the global mean temperature go up in 5 years time? If you can't answer it with 100% confidence then your model isn't science, it's quackery
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's correct, the warmists have dozens of models all of which claim to accurately predict the future based on historical data. Monkeys and typewriters comes to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey've had 30 years to do it and have utterly failed so far. What makes you think they'll succeed now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
Aha, here you are moving the goalposts impossibly far to demand 100% confidence! This shows your ignorance of how science actually works once more as NOTHING can have 100% confidence...well nothing except climate science deniers that have 100% confidence that they're right. So let me restate, you can be 100% confident in an answer unless you're wrong! You are employing the continuum fallacy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
Wait a second...you can only be 100% confident in ananswer IF you're wrong! There we go!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the short term, the stock market appears chaotic (like weather). In the longer term, it appears to follow trends (like the climate). If you can't predict stock market fluctuations which are down to mankind alone, why do you think you'll be able to predict the climate which has mankind and nature variables?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost laws of science work for everyday use. I am be 99.99999999% confident that gravity and pi have been calculated accurately. Warmists aren't anywhere near 100% confident in their multiple models. The models cover such a wide temperature range they're practically useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be happy if warmists make a concensus prediction on how warm the earth will be in 5 years time with a confidence of 90%. I can confidently predict how long a car will take to go from 0-60. That's based on science that involves a model that has been found to fit a theory. The big bang theory, by contrast, still remains a theory and billions are pumped into trying to prove the standard model is accurate. The scientists involved haven't spent their time labelling those who disagree with them as denialists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no intention in reading articles on an unscientific website which removes posts from people they label denialists. There's your problem. 1 day a scientist may prove you right but we'll have stopped listening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn truth, with the carbon content of the atmosphere reaching 400 ppb, we don't have much time at all to start seriously reducing carbon emissions. The Antarctic large glacier is starting to melt. The question is: Can we slow this process? Sure, it will take 500 to 600 years for the Antarctic glacier to fully melt, which would raise the oceans level 168 feet. But chaos will ensue before it is fully melted. With 80% of the world population living near the sea or close to sea level, even 40 or 50 feet will be disruptive for most people. And animals and trees take time to adjust to climate change. If carbon emissions are significantly decreased in the next seven or nine years, there will be large scale deaths among humans, and large scale extinctions among animals and trees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen did science become trivialized by the primacy of political considerations and rigid adherence to dogma over the core tenets of the scientific method? The adherents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change should be rigorously attempting to find flaws in their theories via comprehensive experimentation as opposed to demonizing any opposition with the epithet "denier". The use of the terms "consensus" and "settled science" flies in the face of reality, and clearly demostrates that this debate is about anything but science. It's sad to see an esteemed journal like Scientific American so clearly advocating for a single point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=9&t=425&&a=15#comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what happened when I posted to a thread called "Models are unreliable" on sault's favourite warmist website. Part of the basis of the thread is that you can extrapolate future trends from historical data. Using an example of the Nikkei, I blew that argument apart. The so-called climate change scientists removed my post and then banned me from the site.
The post that caused me to be banned from skepticalscience.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"intraday chart for Dow:-
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=1d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
Looks pretty chaotic to me, rather like the weather.
chart for Dow since inception:-
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
Looks like it's following a trend, rather like the climate.
Individual humans may make irrational decisions but collectively, there is such a thing as the 'wisdom of crowds'. Freakonomics is a good read which suggests that certain groups of people behave in a similar way.
I work in the world of statistics, and what I know is that dependent on the factors you choose and the timescale you choose, you can produce evidence that your selected audience wants to hear.
e.g. If I produced a chart in 1990 of the Nikkei and was working as a financial advisor, I'd say to my customers look at this lovely chart, I can't guarantee it but by the end of 2011, I'm fairly confident the Nikkei will be trading above 70000. It's actually trading today at 8400.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EN225#chart1:symbol=^n225;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined"
Clearly on topic, and non-political so in no way contradicted their comments policy
I can make a forecast in the next 5 years with 90% confidence within plus or minus 1K. But most people will not be happy with it. That's within plus or minus 0.35% of the mean value. That's virtually impossible to replicate in financial markets. It seems climate, chaotic as it is, is more predictable than financial markets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If carbon emissions are significantly decreased in the next seven or nine years, there will be large scale deaths among humans, and large scale extinctions among animals and trees."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know what you mean by large scale death. 58 million people die annually on a normal year. I bet nine year from now the mortality rate will not reach 500 million annually regardless of CO2 emission.
Let me make a bolder forecast. I bet 9 years from now the mortality rate will be less than 150 million annually regardless of CO2 emission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is precisely the problem with the global warmists, they cannot tolerate dissenting opinion even if it's based on evidence and fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3737156.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article about how climate change is politics not science. I find it astounding that a leading science journal like this can give airtime to people whose theory has thus far got as much scientific evidence to support it as a daily horoscope. My greatest concern is that these quacks may actually work out the science in the end, but will have cynicised so many people with their more alarmist predictions that everybody will have stopped listending by then. They seem to want to return science to the dark ages.
"with the carbon content of the atmosphere reaching 400 ppb" or put another way 0.036% of the atmosphere. If you really want to be alarmist, you could say there is 1000 Gigatonnes of the stuff up there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can see why people fall for this idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore responsible for the alarming predictions that the world will increase in temperature by several degrees centigrade over the next 100 years. Then if you do some research, you find CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and although mankind has indeed increased it's percentage in the atmosphere by 30% since 1780, that's an increase from 0.025% to 0.036%. CO2 must have astonishing greenhouse capabilities to be the cause of global warming.
Go on then. I'll be happy with it. This post will be up here for 5 years, so we can refer back to it then. If you get it right, I will declare the second coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure. If you understand a little science, you will know that I will get it right. My forecast is plus or minus 1K = 1C of present mean value in the next 5 years. It took humanity 100 years and 600 billion tons of CO2 emissions to increase global temperature by 0.6C. Since the Little Ice Age, it took nature 300 years to increase it by 0.8C. What's the odds it will increase or decrease by 1C in 5 years? I look forward to your declaration of the second coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn case you didn't understand that, for my forecast to be wrong which means the actual temperature is outside my predicted range, global temperature must increase or decrease by more than 1C in 2017.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, I can declare the 2nd coming early.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that the global mean temperature has increased by less than 1C in the last 300 years, it's hardly a prediction to say that it won't change by more than +/-1C within 5 years. None of the IPCC scenarios have the global mean temperature going below 0C by 2100, so you could have at least restricted it to +1C.
an interesting exercise is to take an excel worksheet that is 320 by 320 (about 102,000) cells and then randomly distribute 41 filled cells in it. What results is representation of 400 ppm. If you make the 41 cells black in a white background it is interesting. Then if you switch the background and cell color you see something else interesting which indicates the way that your eye is drawn to the 41 cells differently by the color.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole point of the exercise is to get a feel for what 400 ppm really looks like. I suspect that after this you will get a whole different opinion of what the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere really looks like.
Of those 41 mankind is responsible for around 30%, or 12 of the cells.
Wrong, it does not work that way. You do not add x degC each time that you double CO2?!?! I would love to see your log relationship (because all log methods do are linearize non-linear data points on a graph for computational purposes). I see many linear graphs of CO2 versus temperature and the following equation applied:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDelta F = 5.35 * ln(C\C0) (w/m2)
So where is the log relationship?
But if doubling really causes your proposed doub, then the more we add then the less damage we are doing. If we go from 270 to 540 and add 2 degC then we can go from 540 to 1080 and only adding another 2 degC and then from 1080 to 2160 and add another 2 degC and then to 4320 and add another 2 degC. So we go from today's 15 to tomorrows 22 and multiply CO 10 times. So, following your logic, essentially the more CO2 we add the less impact it has?
Awesome, now I am really not all that worried because it has taken us 100 years to add 270 ppm so it should take about 1600 years to get there.
Try again that argument does not hold water.
So what is your profession again. It seems to have slipped my mind and yes the Siberian traps were disastrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased upon that fact we had better be figuring out how it is our species is going to survive the next one. My simple point of view is that sooner or later something really huge is going to happen which is so far beyon
So what is your profession again. It seems to have slipped my mind and yes the Siberian traps were disastrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased upon that fact we had better be figuring out how it is our species is going to survive the next one. My simple point of view is that sooner or later something really huge is going to happen which is so far beyon
So what is your profession again. It seems to have slipped my mind and yes the Siberian traps were disastrous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased upon that fact we had better be figuring out how it is our species is going to survive the next one. My simple point of view is that sooner or later something really huge is going to happen which is so far beyond our control to stop that we cannot fathom it. When that time comes we are going to really find out how small we really are.
Sorry, I missed the natural log.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting. The temperature at 4000 ppm should be 27 degC based upon today's 390.
Does it strike anyone else as strange that as CO2 increases it's forcing ability decreasing? In any case as we continue to increase the concentration then the effect diminishes. Fantastic. I say we just go ahead and do the next 1600 years of damage (which is essentially the same amount of CO2 from the Siberian traps) now and then just deal with the consequences all at once (this is sarcasm).
Seriously though, it seems a bit off that the forcing decreases. I need to research that some.
Climate science isn't an exact science. That's why you have a range for climate sensitivity not a single value. The point is despite the uncertainty, it is science not pure guesswork.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it's hardly a prediction to say that it won't change by more than +/-1C within 5 years"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's precisely my point. You finally got it. We can make forecasts within plus or minus 0.35% of mean value but most people are still unhappy with it and say it's inaccurate.
"None of the IPCC scenarios have the global mean temperature going below 0C by 2100, so you could have at least restricted it to +1C."
That would be wishful thinking regardless whether it's you or IPCC making that prediction.
Hours of sunlight, tide times, phases of the moon. All natural phenomena, that scientists can pinpoint to all practical purposes exactly. Global mean temperature, different story. The only concensus amongst scientists is an IPCC report produced every few years by committee where the world's climate change scientists produce prediction graphs which cover such a wide range, that it's practically impossible for them to be wrong. They then make statements about global warming being very likely to be caused by man. The only proof to substantiate this claim is that they cannot produce a model with just natural forcing agents in it, that fits data captured in the 150 years. If they add in manmade forcing agents, they can. Turn it on it's head, they can't produce a model with just manmade forcing agents in it, that fits data captured in the last 150 years. If they add in natural forcing agents, they can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not difficult to produce a model to fit the data, if you increase the number of variables, and apply weightings to each variable until it fits the model. The model is only accurate, if new data also fits the model. Since at least 2003, the warmist model hasn't worked. Warmists have gradually increased the timespan on which the model should be accurate. The GISS chart shows a 5 year mean, warmists are now saying it's only accurate over a 30 year mean.
This isn't science, this is a scam.
I will not waste my time anymore. Your posts are a lot of nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe equation dF = 5.35 ln (C/Co) does not refer directly to temperature. dF is the change in radiative forcing. Use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to determine the temperature change J = e o T^4 where e is emissivity, o is Planck's constant and T is temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above climate sensitivity equation represents no feedback. It gives the value 1K change in temp. for doubling of CO2. Using the values 390 to 4,000 ppm gives 3.2K. So the predicted temp. is 18.2C but the observed temp. during Devonian period was 22C. This means there is a positive feedback.