Darker Arctic Boosting Global Warming 378
The Grim Reefer sends this news from an Associated Press report:
"The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says. With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study (abstract) published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. The Arctic grew 8 per cent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space."
The same decrease in ice contributes to the weather circumstances that led to extremely low temperatures across parts of the United States this winter.
Cloud formation albedo (Score:3, Interesting)
And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction. How much and how soon? Nobody knows. But the planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now during it's long history. Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself.
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Insightful)
Earth ultimately doesn't care; it's older than we are and will outlive us.
We care because civilization as we know it is really shockingly dependent on climatic patterns like rainfall and seasonal temperature and parameters like sea level being what they are.
Re: (Score:3)
If the climate isgoing to change because of our input, we should figure it how much and in what direction. It does appear that we are causing more rapid change than ever before short of a major cataclysm.
"Evolve at this particular point in history"? How wide is that historical point? 1000 years, 20,000 years? More? Less?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When starting with "Given that humans are a major cataclysm..." it is easy to make that argument.
Start with the opposite statement (and belief) and it becomes much more difficult.
Personally, I believe that every person who believes humans a "virus" or "plague" or what have you, should stop being hypocritical and remove themselves so they are no longer a plague upon the earth.
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Informative)
About 60% of that rise has been in only the past 30 years.
That history you're referring to had very few temp rises as quick as what we're seeing now although there were some.
One of the most important factors, which is not currently in play and won't be for thousands of years is an orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycle.
Re: Cloud formation albedo (Score:3)
Yes it has. But that don't mean we'll survive it. A 4c warming over a thousand years triggered the permafrost melt (for a total of 10c warming) which damn near sterilized the planet.
Regardless, those massive shifts are not contemporary and not compatible with our survival. In fact we're not even sure 4c is particularly compatible with our survival if history has any say in it.
Re: (Score:3)
To expect things to stay the way they are just because we happened to evolve at this particular point in history is kind of silly. The climate *will* change. *We* must adapt.
So you are a proponent of stricter emission controls, carbon caps, and forced adoption of green technologies even if they are more expensive? Being as how those are the surest ways of adapting rapidly enough to preserve the greatest amount of your freedom of choice as can be preserved over the next 30 to 50 years? Because that's the direction your train of logic is going toward.
It's a liberty issue. I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.
The "liberty issue" here is making sure that those 0ne-Percenters who are either too short-sighted or too wrapped up in their own f
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Insightful)
Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself
It did that by putting carbon into the ground as coal, peat and limestone, humans are doing their best to put it back in the atmosphere by burning the coal and peat, and releaseing the CO2 from limestone to turn it into concrete. The problem with your sig and issues such as this is that your wrong decisions have a negative effect on everyone else, you rights are not infinite, they end when they negate the rights of others.
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Insightful)
98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic.
The exact causes of the Permian–Triassic extinction event you reference are not known. High CO2 are but one hypothesis, alongside many others, all of which have at least some supporting evidence. CO2 may be the favorite whipping boy these days but it is a blatant falsification on your part to claim CO2 was the sole driver of this particular extinction event. CO2 may have been the sole cause. It may have been a contributing cause. Or, in the case of something like a catastrophic impact, it may have had *absolutely nothing* to do with the event. I don't know the answer, but you most certainly don't either.
The problem with your sig and issues such as this is that your wrong decisions have a negative effect on everyone else, you rights are not infinite, they end when they negate the rights of others.
And your wrong decisions don't have similar impacts were they to be implemented as national policy? Of course they do! But you're naively assuming you're the only "right" person in this discussion. You've made up your mind and that's the end of it, despite plenty of evidence to show that there just *might* be other climate factors out there that could be just as -- or perhaps even more than -- contributory to what's going on with the climate. It's that kind of dogmatism that marks you as a zealot, and subsequently makes logical people tune you out.
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Insightful)
This cuts both ways. Your rights to insist someone stop something must have fact, not fear behind them. The current state of our understanding of the climate doesn't support the claims being made. The fact that a number of those claims have fallen is further evidence that it needs further study not immediate action.
The wait until the car drives off the cliff before thinking about putting on the brakes theorem .
The problem is that while on the surface, your statement sounds quite reasonable, there are a lot of people who simply will not accept any evidence at all, either because of personal incredulity, or being paid for their opinion. In the grand process of Baksheesh, It will take more than the gradual uptick in temperature to change any of that.
Plus of course, with the tendency for people to determine that climate is what they see out their window, it's cold today, so climate change isn't happening. Which is to say, don't worry, Deniers have won.
Re: (Score:2)
It' more like applying the brakes after going off the cliff.
If it's not going to do any good, we would be better served bracing for the impact, instead of trying to prevent it.
Get ready for mass migrations, seawalls, and such, it's already too late anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what kills me about "the climate debate." Um, it's already happened. Enough CO2 to radically change the climate is already in the atmosphere. The oceans are already acidifying. The polar ice is already melted. The deniers can "debate" all they want, but they're still going to freeze in the winter from the disrupted jet stream and bake in the summer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The wait until the car drives off the cliff before thinking about putting on the brakes theorem .
I think it's actually the "at least show me that there's a cliff, and where it is so I can decide if I should stop or turn" theory.
Re: (Score:3)
Many of the things that could be done and should have been begun decades ago will make life better for pretty much everyone.
Better housing standards - the roots of the Passivhaus dates back to the '70s and there are even older ideas that would have saved a lot of money if they'd been followed.
Solar power / heating - Carter's initiative from 1980, if it had been pursued would have changed the face of America and the breakthroughs we're waiting for may have come a decade or more ago.
But his "gasohol" idea wou
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:5, Insightful)
First, is the planet getting warmer? On that I'd say there's general agreement, although it is not a 100% consensus.
It's a 99.something% consensus, which is as solid as any consensus among a large population is ever going to get. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012, only 24 reject global warming. (source [desmogblog.com])
Second, if it is getting warmer, is it caused in large part by human activity or is it part of some natural variation? This is the sticking point. If it's part of a natural variation in temperature -- and I will point out many such variations have happened in the past few million years, all without any input from humans -- then there is no need for us to radically alter our life to stop it because such actions will have no positive climatic effect while having a signficant negative effect on quality of life.
All the evidence we have for previous natural variations show them to be slow (or extremely rapid, as in catastrophically rapid - impact events or super-volcano eruptions); the changes we're seeing today is way too rapid to conform to any known natural cycle. The difference, of course, is that we're around and actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. In short, not a "natural variation".
Third, if it is anthropogenic, what should we do about it? Curtainling greenhouse emissions is an obvious choice, but is it the best one? How severe are the predicted warming effects? The economic and socio-political upheavals from drastic policy changes might be worse than adapting to a changing climate. And how much confidence can we have in the predictions regardless of how severe (or not) they may be?
We don't know; that's the problem. We don't have any crystal balls, so we don't know what the most effective strategy is, or exactly how severe the effects will be. What we do know is that large climate changes historically have been responsible for some of the most drastic extinction events we know of. And it's pretty easy to speculate about what a massive dying-off of e.g. marine life would do to coastal communities - as is the effect on the same communities of rising sea levels.
These are not minor issues. They deserve to be studied and debated *in depth* before drastic action is take, if for no other reason than to determine that we're taking the *most effective* action possible. This whole "the debate is settle and if you don't agree with us you're a denier" smacks of the same kind of thinking that gave us an Earth-centric cosmic model and burned "deniers" as heretics.
No, these are not minor issues, and the ramifications of the decisions are huge. In the end though, doing nothing is probably the worst decision; there is a tipping point somewhere (the edge of the cliff, so to speak) which going past that there is no turning back. More research and discussion is always welcome, but that should not and cannot stop us from starting to act - if nothing else to slow down the rate at which we're approaching that tipping point.
The analogy with the earth-centric cosmic models and burning of a few heretics is really stretching it when we're talking about the possibility of mass extinctions of not only humans but a lot of other species as well.
The earth will survive, and life itself will survive. The question is, will we? And even if we do, in what kind of society? One that has planned for such an eventuality, or one that has had to just react to it. One is liveable, the other is a post-apocalypse society; I know which one I'd rather (have my kids) live in.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that a number of those claims have fallen is further evidence that it needs further study not immediate action.
What claims have fallen? When I hear specific claims from the contrarian side they're mostly 3rd hand misinterpretations of what was actually said and sometimes totally made up. If you want to know what the scientists really think read the IPCC reports paying close attention to the time scales and uncertainty they attach to the claims. We can argue about those claims but not the straw men I commonly hear.
Re: (Score:3)
The current state of our understanding of the climate doesn't support the claims being made. The fact that a number of those claims have fallen is further evidence that it needs further study not immediate action.
Which claims are you referring to? Do you mean the claims of the so-called contrarians (e.g. Judith Curry) that climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0 C/(W/m2)? Or Roy Spencer's claim of a cloud iris effect counteracting a greater sensitivity?
If so, you are right - observations have disproven these claims.
If not, we will need to know the specifics of the claims to judge the veracity of your own claim.
Re: (Score:3)
And increased heat in the oceans can (and likely will) lead to increased cloud formation, which will alter the planet's albedo in the opposite direction. How much and how soon? Nobody knows. But the planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now during it's long history. Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself.
From what I've seen we're past the tipping point and warming will continue. Further compounding things is Unforeseen Consequences, such as changes in chemistry of the upper water column, resulting in changes in sea life. Change global climates has usually been gradual, this is happening so rapidly only species of flora and fauna which can adapt will survive.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to grasp just how much energy one degree change is. We are not talking about your local body or your local city, it's a whole friggin planet that has risen one degree over a very short period of time (again, planetary scale, not human).
It is most likely very bad, what should be worrying the crap out everyone is that currently less energy is being deposited where stuff happens, we have been on a cooling trend in the El Nino cycle and the sun has been unusually "inactive" - signs are that the E
Re: (Score:3)
Clouds are troublesome because they have both cooling & warming effects, depending on their type, reflectivity ( which varies even though we see them mostly as "white") and altitude.
But the overall effect of clouds is hypothesized to make the Earth slightly warmer - but the margin of error is pretty wide.
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly with clouds, they do not just represent a change of moisture within then atmosphere but a change of ability due to temperature change of that atmosphere to hold that moisture without condensation occurring and clouds forming. So the fallacy is that with higher temperatures there will be more clouds, false, the truth is with higher temperatures more water will be held within the atmosphere, whether clouds form or do not form will be subject to local weather conditions and geography, nothing
Re: (Score:3)
About increased cloud formation and the planet's albedo...
What we know is that clouds, in the form of water droplets or ice, increases the albedo more than anything else that is likely to happen. But water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas. Nobody is talking about the interplay of these factors, because nobody knows how to model them: how much of the increase in evaporation stays water vapor, what layers of the atmosphere will be affected. Another complication is that the atmosphere is expanding as it
Re:Cloud formation albedo (Score:4, Interesting)
But the planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is now during it's long history.
Yes that's true, but never in the planet's history has one species dominated in such sudden and strong force.
Each time it's damped out cycles of extreme warming and extreme cooling all by itself.
Precisely, because the changes have been relatively slow and there has been plenty of time for the feedbacks to occur. At the moment humanity is acting like a once per 100 000 years super volcano in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Every year. On top of that we are sustaining a ridiculously big cattle population, which wouldn't be able to sustain itself while cutting trees down (and thus one negative feedback loop).
If an alien species started to pour greenhouse gases to atmosphere, inserts billion strong alien cattle population and cuts rain forests down etc I guess you would be fucking furious. So why aren't you now?
Terraforming 101: Chapter 1 - What not to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully "soon" we get a good foothold on Mars, and hopefully, and this sounds weird I know, there is NO life on Mars. Because that would give us a nice "sterile planetary lab" on which to experiment as we find ways to control global climates without operating on the only global climate we have available - which we happen to depend on completely and utterly for our survival.
Better to start experimenting on another one as soon as possible, because even when we get a handle on our climate changing activities, nature is standing by with a much larger list of climate changing activities which we will have to confront.
Maybe Venus too - if we can fix that place we can fix anywhere! So Mars would be like our lab and Venus is like our final exam.
And I think we really need to pass this course.
Re: (Score:2)
You've already failed, they don't have magnetic fields. All the oxygen in the world is useless for real habitation without a magnetic field. Not a place I would want to live, with cosmic rays flying through my brain all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
we are getting our first experiences with venusforming
FTFY
On the other side (Score:2)
How much more light is reflected by the extra snow cover from the polar vortices?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps about the same amount that isn't being reflected from those areas of the world where snowfall has been at a record low this winter. Like here in the arctic.
Re: (Score:3)
People die all the time. I wasn't aware that was an argument for allowing them to be murdered...
The whole point of anthropogenic climate change isn't that we should stop climate change, it's that massive CO2 emissions from human sources over the last three centuries are producing far greater and more harmful changes than natural processes. This
Re: (Score:2)
Global cooling (Score:2)
Imagine the stories if the opposite were happening, global cooling. The panic.
Old News (Score:4, Informative)
To anyone that has been paying (not even very close) attention this is nothing new.
Please tell me I'm not dreaming! (Score:2)
Solution... (Score:2)
man made fake icebergs, painted white of course.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The PLANET is getting warmer. The eastern half of the United States experienced a cold winter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There are several datasets that show a long term warming trend. 17 years is a clear attempt to cherry pick data as outlined in this Forbes article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe... [forbes.com]
Really, you can argue a bit about causation if you want, but at this point in time there is no credible argument about the actual trend in temperature. The idea that the earth is not warming is sheer poppycock.
Re: (Score:2)
very cold throughout europe
Er... no. Seems like the U.S. got all our dose of winter this year. I don't think we (central Europe) had more than a couple of days below freezing point all winter. Quite often temperatures reaching above 10C.
Re: (Score:3)
'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve ye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that after their climate models were disproved time and time again they would try and find another model. That's science. But this has never been about science or the climate. Its about personal gain and subversive people's ideal society that takes away other people's rights to add to their own.
You are going to have to provide the citations and references for that.
Tell us about that incredible personal gain of these scientists? We need some numbers. You as the arbiter of the truth, need to do more than just tantalize us with your knowledge.
Re:As we've always said (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As we've always said (Score:4, Insightful)
Than damn it you fool... (Score:3)
Maybe we should stop wasting money studying CO2 and check and make sure our sun is okay. I'd hate to clean up all the CO2, only to find out we should of been building ships to get us off planet before the earth shattering ka-boom.
Re:As we've always said (Score:4, Insightful)
Please check the link [drroyspencer.com]. You'll see the average IPCC model misses measured data by 0.6 deg C; the vast majority of models are off by 0.4 deg C or more. Given that there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over a projected 1 deg C change over the next half century, I'd say an error of 0.4 deg C over 17 years is significant.
Now there IS ONE model [wwu.edu] that actually got the current stall spot-on. Of course, that model doesn't rely upon CO2, and it's not by a climatologist (just a geologist), so many discount it. But considering he nailed the stall - and has a rational, reasonable explanation as well, it is worth considering.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have a clue what they do with that grant money do you? It goes in to equipment, transportation, computer time, paying post-docs a stipend. Most of the time none of it goes in to the grantees pocket and if some of it does it's in lieu of the salary the scientist would be paid by their employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
I can't have a fever because my feet are cold!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
But the Earth has got warmer. It doesn't mean every spot on the globe warms up.
If you're going to criticize a theory, at least have the wit to understand what it says. Otherwise, you just come off looking like an infantile moron.
Re:nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, when a specific locality talks about an unusually warm spot of weather, we have people screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE!"
The problem is, there's too damn much noise at BOTH edges of the issue and it's completely drowning out the center.
There's been WAY too much alarmist bullshit injected into the discussion, and it simply distorts said discussion away from the facts of the matter.
Re:nope (Score:5, Insightful)
No scientist is going to point to a specific event and go "That's caused by AGW". The theory cannot hope to explain every weather event. But what it can explain are trends.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read scientific journalism any more. Can you point me to some journal citations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
So how about we ignore the loud idiots on both sides, and just listen to the scientific community? Their consensus is available to anyone who cares to read it.
Oh, but I doubt you'd agree to that. Because, like most deniers, you probably think all the scientists in the world are in a great, globe-spanning conspiracy. You'll choose to ignore the 99.99% of scientists, and listen only to the guy who's saying what you want to hear. Who cares that he's on BP's payroll?
Re: (Score:2)
Those evil climatologists are up there with the evil evolutionists who medical researchers. It's a global conspiracy to kill oil, Christianity and cigarettes!
Re:nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere did I say the issue was one-dimensional.
That was you, putting words into my mouth and trying to skew the scope of the issue and maximize argument potential while minimally helpful in working towards a working, palatable solution.
Yes, the climate IS changing. Anyone denying that the climate is changing pretty much has blinders on.
NO, we're NOT going to render the planet uninhabitable tomorrow. Acting like we're going to wake up at the end of this month and it's going to be 150 in the shade and only get hotter is unwarranted.
Yes, we, as a species, need to live cleaner in a multitude of ways. Yeah, humans have been pretty frickin' nasty to the environment in the last thousand or so years, and in the last 2-300 years especially.
NO, we should NOT simply dump millions/billions into trying whatever harebrained "band-aid" idea happens to float into the public consciousness today without extensive study. We need to KNOW that any massive changes we try to impose are going to work how we want and NOT further damage the environment.
Yes, there are going to be changes in how people live. It's inevitable. But not ending human civilization in a heat crisis is probably worth it (depends on how I'm feeling about humanity on a given day).
NO, we should NOT be reverting to living in caves, eating grass and rooting for grubs. And we really need to start shooting dickheads who scream about how horrible others are to the environment, yet are first class environmental nightmares themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is, too many people are playing at "Little Dutch Boy".
And no, this problem is NOT as simple as 2+2=4. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Anyone trying to make it out as that simple is misleading you.
It's a heavily multi-faceted problem with no "one true way" as a given solution for just about any of said facets.
Re:Let it be (Score:5, Insightful)
The Earth isn't, but people are, and a good many are living in fairly marginal areas, and not just in terms of agriculture. Will humanity die out. Most certainly not. But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
But there will be consequences, and they will ultimately be fair more expensive than if we had tried to curb emissions.
That's an interesting hypothesis. Hopefully someday you will do some research to back it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Give me a lever and I can move the world." brute force isn't required.
Tell that to the fulcrum and the lever.
Re:Small problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Arctic ice rebounded somewhat from the all-time record low of 2012.
However It was still the 6th lowest level on record.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
The problem is the lack of context in whatever warped source you are reading.
Re:Small problem (Score:4, Informative)
Small problem with that is this summer had 50% less ice melt in the arctic
Says who? 50% less than what? 2012 was a record minimum year. 2013 has bounced back from that record low (in ice extend, not ice volume), but is still one of the years with the least sea ice extend science measurements began. And all the other similarly low extend years have been after 2005.
Re:Small problem (Score:5, Funny)
the year after a record year is usually not a record year. it's called 'regression to the mean'. it's an actual thing, look it up.
Re:Small problem (Score:4, Informative)
Since they were stated out of context to suggest a meaning that wasn't in line with the actual fact stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll put forth what I always do:
1. It would be nice if global climate change were to be debated not on the basis of politics (etc.) but on a rational, unbiased, scientific basis. If we would stick 100% to the science I think we would come to a sound conclusion in fairly short order. But factor in all the special interests (on all sides) and you get the current mess.
2. Having said that, I also think it is prudent to act as if climate change were real. This is in the Willilam James sense: if it's real, we
Not Prudent (Score:5, Insightful)
I also think it is prudent to act as if climate change were real.
Not if it involves spending billions or trillions to simply reduce CO2 emissions, when it could have gone to medical or space research.
Or even in fact to reducing REAL pollution.
There's no sign anything like a runaway greenhouse effect is going to happen. CO2 levels have continued to increase even as global average temperatures have hit a lull. In the simplified glass jar experiments that is not what happens, so pretty obviously the earth is lots more complex than a glass jar with CO2 inside. The current rate of ocean level rise is less than foot over the next 100 years, not exactly a panic situation.
Lets get back to spending money on real issues instead of a bogeyman created to funnel large sums of government money in the hands of special interest groups or creating new things for financial moguls to get rich off of (looking at you carbon credits).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Running out of fossil fuels certainly is a real issue.
It might be in a few hundred years, at which point I'm pretty sure technology will have a pretty obviously better answer.
If people really cared about not using fossil fuels ten we'd use nuclear power everywhere, since that's not the case its's really hard to care much about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because CO2 does not directly cause adverse changes the way Chernobyl or Bhopal did does not mean that CO2 is not pollution.
The fact that the entire plant kingdom relies on CO2 rules it out as pollution for me. The Earth's whole ecosystem is devoted to processing CO2. It's probably the most benign thing we could possibly be emitting.
A rapid increase in temperatures basically undermine all that investment we have made.
As I said it's clear that will not happen. CO2 levels have risen heavily, temperatu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because CO2 does not directly cause adverse changes the way Chernobyl or Bhopal did does not mean that CO2 is not pollution.
The fact that the entire plant kingdom relies on CO2 rules it out as pollution for me. The Earth's whole ecosystem is devoted to processing CO2. It's probably the most benign thing we could possibly be emitting.
You can use that standard it you want to but it's kinda useless in practice. Say it turns out that low levels of background radiation are good for us, does that mean radiation is no longer pollution? We use sound to talk, I guess I can open a night club next to your house because there's no such thing as noise pollution.
A much better standard is pollution is anything that's harmful when emitted in excess or the wrong circumstance, CO2 emissions are harming the planet right now, thus they're pollution.
A rapid increase in temperatures basically undermine all that investment we have made.
As I said it's clear that will not happen. CO2 levels have risen heavily, temperatures is flat. It's clear that the levels of XO2 we are producing are not enough to cause a runaway effect.
Forget
Re:Not Prudent (Score:4, Insightful)
You can use that standard it you want to but it's kinda useless in practice. Say it turns out that low levels of background radiation are good for us, does that mean radiation is no longer pollution?
Actually yes.
There are background levels of radiation. In amounts around as high as that, radiation is not really pollution.
The same goes for CO2. The amounts we are emitting are not nearly enough to be pollution, the ONLY concern was the RUNAWAY greenhouse effect, which is not happening.
Forget about decades of research and thousands of peer reviewed papers.
You are forgetting about the same decades having many papers showing there is no runaway warming.
There's also the worry that the changing climate will lead to larger storm surges
The "more XTREME Weather" line is the equivalent of "we took away all your privacy and freedom because of the CHILDREN".
Because all the science indicates that it almost certainly IS happening.
Science should look up the overall levels of Earth temperatures because there is no runaway warming, and hardly any warming of any sort at the moment.
But in reality of course, many real scientists would not agree with your statement.
Re:Not Prudent (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure why I am the idiot when you are the one with stupid ideas:
Based on what do you claim that one foot of sea-level rise will not be harmful?
Over 100 years? Come on, we can move anything needed over that timeframe. But someone would have to be insane to build something near enough to the ocean where a foot mattered much anyway.
Your analysis of CO2 level change not affecting things because temperatures have leveled off is fit for a retard
CO2 has risen (by a lot). Temperatures have not. Pretty clear what is happening and have a tantrum doesn't make you any less wrong.
CO2 build-up could have adverse effects on more than just temperature.
And that shows you have zero understanding of the levels of concentration we are talking about here.
I guess at causes and effects
And everything else.
The sad part is, you don't have to guess. You could know. But your religion forbid knowing, just mind-addling hatred towards anyone who disagrees with your philosophy.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? It can't have anything to do with the massive ball of fire that we call the Sun having record low activity [newscientist.com]?
Yes, really. The current total solar irradiance (TSI) [colorado.edu] is about 1361 W/m^2. For the satellite era (1979 to the present) [nasa.gov] it has varied between a low of around 1360 to a high of around 1364 W/m^2 so it's not outside the norm. Changes in solar irradiance such as we've seen have a small effect on the climate that mostly cancels itself out when averaged over several cycles.
Re:Not Prudent (Score:5, Insightful)
"it could have gone to medical or space research."
That's rich. Who do you think has been at the forefront of identifying the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining
your ideas are intriguing and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.
The summer story is much more relevant though. In winter, when there is a low angle sun a few hours a day, sunlight is reflected back into space. In summer, when the sun is at a higher angle and there are only a few hours of night a day, increasingly large areas are not reflecting much sunlight back into space. I don't see how this invalidates TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing we have you to refute those damn scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one scientist who believes the polar vertex is caused by warming based on scientific evidence? One!
Re: (Score:2)
1) Reflectivity of ice vs snow is different.
2) Water is great at storing and DISPERSING heat; it raises averages even if it still freezes part time.
3) Anecdotal to mention some areas that are frozen today and ignore the larger trend. Can you see the forest or just the trees?
4) Net energy increases to the atmosphere are not going to be uniformly distributed (if that was the case, we'd likely not ever have much WIND which is created by the uneven temperatures.)
5) Higher energy input, NOT uniformly distributed
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you mention Hudson's Bay being frozen over, it hasn't happened in awhile. And it was such huge crisis back in the 70's and early 80's that the Government of Canada commissioned nearly 100 air compressors from Gardner Denver in Woodstock, Ontario to keep sections of the bay open so they could land sea planes to deliver supplies to remote communities. You'd think that landing on ice would be okay, the problem was two fold. There was never enough clean ice to make a runway. The other was high levels
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect - the world has continued to warm. You need to update your knowledge, please see http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
It'd help you to wander around that site - they're on top of recent developments and watch new papers as they come out.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the arctic ocean and Hudson Bay are 100% frozen due to this thing we call winter. Summer it is a different story.
Second the world is getting cooler or stagnate in warming in recent years due to solar lull and dining as evident in the lack of solar flares. Last time this happened we had the mini ice age from 1400 - 1850. There is no scientific basis of global warming causing the polar vortex.
<citation needed>
here [arstechnica.com]
Re:BS junk science (Score:5, Insightful)
north, north central, midwest, and eastern, and southern parts of the U.S.. How much global warming do you see?
i didn't know that the entire globe consisted merely of those portions of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's move to California and Australia...
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Adelaide had it's hottest February day on record, 44.7 degrees celsius.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/... [adelaidenow.com.au]
To respond to the parent of your post, yes when a jet-stream pushed air from the north pole over North America, and it got cold.
As you point out, that doesn't mean the entire world is colder.
And of course, obligatory XKCD http://www.explainxkcd.com/wik... [explainxkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At some point the denialists will run out of runway, but sadly, by the time they do, any notion of being able to even mitigate the effects will be long gone. And probably around the same time, we'll start running out of cheap fossil fuels, so we'll get a nice double whammy.
But as long as the Koch Brothers make money today, well, fuck the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then... (Score:2)
And that, kind reader, is why we must outlaw meat.
Re:There are two "Arctics" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed we do have two poles, but they have entirely different climate dynamics, due to the fact that the Antarctic has a continent surrounded by water and the Arctic has an ocean surrounded by land.
Re: (Score:3)
By measuring changes in gravity the GRACE satellites have documented the loss of land ice in Antarctica, mostly in the West Antarctic ice sheet. The rate has been around 50 Gt/year and appears to be accelerating.
Re: (Score:2)
So the amount of asphalt has an impact also, right?
Yes, we should clearly use more concrete, it is more reflective than asphalt.
Re: (Score:2)
There was serious consideration of banning dark colored roof shingles!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)