How Two Scientists Accurately Predicted Global Warming in 1967 (medium.com) 218
Slashdot reader Layzej shares an article from this spring marking the 50th anniversary of the first accurate climate model:
Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel looks at a climate model (MW67) published in 1967 and finds "50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right."
An analysis on the "Climate Graphs" blog shows exactly how close the prediction has proven to be: "The slope of the CO2-vs-temperature regression line in the 50 years of actual observations is 2.57, only slightly higher than MW67's prediction of 2.36" They also note that "This is even more impressive when one considers that at the time MW67 was published, there had been no detectable warming in over two decades. Their predicted warming appeared to mark a radical change with the recent past:"
An analysis on the "Climate Graphs" blog shows exactly how close the prediction has proven to be: "The slope of the CO2-vs-temperature regression line in the 50 years of actual observations is 2.57, only slightly higher than MW67's prediction of 2.36" They also note that "This is even more impressive when one considers that at the time MW67 was published, there had been no detectable warming in over two decades. Their predicted warming appeared to mark a radical change with the recent past:"
Now we just need one more thing (Score:3, Insightful)
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
Re:Now we just need one more thing (Score:5, Insightful)
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
We have that. It's called science.
And while we're on the subject, science does get things wrong despite its best efforts. But the most important thing about science is that it is in a constant state of trying to correct and improve itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay and what about all the climate models that are "called science" that were very wrong? His point is that there are many competing models and almost none of them were correct. We only know this one was correct in hindsight.
Re:Now we just need one more thing (Score:4, Informative)
Okay and which ones would those be. The climate cooling myth doesn't count for obvious reasons.
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
His point is an uncited tautology.
"Scientists pull random theories out of their butts and decades later pick and choose the ones that were correct" isn't how science actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
No?
Then that's a start, right?
Re: (Score:2)
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
I disagree with that assumption. I think the spectrum of predictions is graduated; not binary. I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct; many will be partially correct but incomplete; some partially right/partially wrong, others mostly wrong and about 50% fully worng. My reason for that number is that I think that life on earth is far more complicated, interconnected and inter-dependent that we yet realize. Once the links are broken or disturbed, some life will evolve, a
Re: (Score:3)
Is it that science is wrong, or that people are wrong? Science is science. People have foibles, flaws, misinterpretations, lack of imagination and hidden agendas.
Science is a process that depends on amongst other things, correct data.
A famous example is the ether theory. Made perfect sense as light obviously had the properties of waves and in the experience of people, waves need a medium to travel in.
Eventually the measurements got better and showed that light traveled at the same speed no matter what, which was unlike anything people had experienced. After checking and rechecking their measurements, the theory of ether was thrown out.
The science was limited by the
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct;
Probably not. They say "Essentially, all models are wrong [wikipedia.org], but some are useful". This is the nature of models regardless of the field. Though even the wronger ones can be useful insofar as you can attempt to understand why it deviated from reality.
In this case "The big advance of Manabe and Wetherald’s work was to model not just the feedbacks but the interrelationships between the different components that contribute to the Earth’s temperature. As the atmospheric contents change, so do both
Re: (Score:2)
A danger warning about safe crossing of the street doesn't have to identify the one car of millions that is gonna run you down.
It's OK to dodge ALL the cars, and you get to the other side without getting flattened.
The proposed 'need' is nonsense.
The real need, is enough knowledge and understanding (i.e. science) to proceed with a degree of safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Start with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know precisely how much of it is emitted when fossil fuels are burnt. We've known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for a lot longer than 50 years.
http://www.climatechangenews.c... [climatechangenews.com]
1856, we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 160 years now!
Re: (Score:3)
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
You mean predictions like:
"It's not warming"
"It's warming but it's the sun/moon/jupiter"
"It's a something something natural cycle! Natural!"
"It's warming but it's good somehow (mumble mumble)"
Predictions like those?
Re:Now we just need one more thing (Score:4, Funny)
Depends on how you throw the banana [myabandonware.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Now, thin fruit flies like thunderstorms
And thin farm boys like farm girls narrow;
And tax firm men like fat tax forms –
But time flies like an arrow.
When tax forms tax all firm men's souls,
While farm girls slim their boyfriends' flanks;
That's when the murd'rous thunder rolls –
And thins the fruit flies ranks.
Like tossed bananas in the skies,
The thin fruit flies like common yarrow;
Then's the time to time the time flies –
Like the time flies like an arrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely irrelevant, of course. This planet has a molten nickel-iron core, and frigid upper atmosphere; it doesn't have thermal equilibrium, nor an 'accurate temperature'. We make various averages and selections of temperature according to a variety of needs.
There was nothing wrong with any or all of those temperatures in 1967, nor is there now.
Actual science (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because you can predict something, does not mean you can repeatedly predict it, or that your prediction implies a pattern. Investors tend to lose their shirt on a regular basis thinking they can time the market, even with rock solid data. Even predictions that can be replayed on historical data, frequently fail when applied on new, future data. I can virtually guarantee if y
Re:Actual science (Score:4, Informative)
The difference here is that there is a mechanistic explanation, the physical properties of CO2, while in trading you just have people twiddling knobs getting functions to fit or AI to converge. That is what makes climate research science and trading voodoo.
Re:Actual science (Score:4, Insightful)
Definitely denialist handwaving. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is being driven by humans, why insult your own intelligence with the "gosh this is toooo hard to understand!" shtick.
Traders who make money on fees whether the market goes up or down. A market driven by human psychology, something climate DGAF about.
Re: (Score:3)
Anytime we think there is a mechanistic explanation for events in a complex system -- such as the Earth and its biosphere is -- we're probably wrong.
The Earth's climate doesn't change for magical reasons or as in the case for economic models for human psychological reasons. It changes for actual physical reasons, IOW mechanistic reasons. The complexity may make it difficult to determine those reasons but they definitely exist.
Also, a scientists reputation depends on the quality of the science they do and I think most scientists care quite a bit about their reputations. If they cared more about money they're smart enough to go into another field that
Re: (Score:2)
Climate models don't use data like you think they do. Temperature data is never an input to climate models except maybe as a starting point. Instead they run climate models in reverse to see how well they compare to the temperature data from the past and they do pretty well at it.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not listen much. Global warming deniers for the most part don't doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they doubt the man made catastrophe predictions of AGW zealots. You just can't come up with real evidence for a looming disaster so you set up the straw man CO2 argument to shut down debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Real evidence is historical evidence of what happened in the past when CO2 levels where high, there have been very large scale extinction events before. We're on course for 3centrigrade or more of heat rises, then there's the knock on effect of the methane from melting permafrosts which hasn't been added to the models and there's a substantial risk from ocean methane clathrates also releasing, also not factored in to the models. The permafrosts are already melting much like the north pole sea ice has alread
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming deniers have technology. Which is sort of a game changer when it comes to survivability... It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it.
Technology can allow us to build more hardened structures, control water resources better, and even manipulate the atmosphere. But instead of focusing resources on those efforts which would benefit humanity regardless of climate, the cult of AGW has insisted we tax
Re: (Score:2)
You want to live on a planet with air too toxic to breathe!!!
"It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it."
Yeah, fantasy like the rest of the denialists ideas.
" the cult of AGW has insisted we tax and reduce the expansion of technology to poor people"
Such as? Coal Power stations? But of course coal is not technology, coal is a fossil fuel, one of which when you include the external costs is one of the most expens
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This paper is arguably the origin of the modern disinformation campaign against carbon pollution. This is the point where politically powerful interests realized that their core business model was in danger and that they needed to do something to stop it.
It also looks just like the hockey stick the "corrections" to later data warp the readings to match.
Now that the issue has been politicized, any actual science is no longer relevant to the debate.
* One side has caught researchers fudging (or using
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same thing with climate change. The chances of catastrophe are small, but the best estimates put it about 2.4%. And real world experience has shown that the cost of doing something is, net, almost nothing. Sure there are winners and losers, and th
Re:Actual science (Score:4, Insightful)
I've lived in houses for 42 years, and have yet to have one burn down on me. As a rough approximation, we could say that the probability of my house burning down next year is less than 1 in 42, or less than 2.4%. Yet I have fire insurance, because it is worth it.
Must be liberal arts grad. Your neighbor too lived for 40 or 50 years without burning down a house. Now suddenly your upper bound drops to 1%. And then add more and more people and you will find a few who lost houses to fire. Your sample might eventually include Betram Wooster who burnt down two houses, (or was it three?). Pretty soon you can get a very good estimate of actual likelyhood of you losing a home to fire in the next one year. The insurance company has this actuarial statistic and priced you insurance premium accordingly.
The actuarial science actually dates back to 1700s when the mortality of the priests in England was calculated with surprising accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody with a 4 year degree who didn't attend a "trade school" has a Liberal Arts Degree. That includes all those BS degrees!
"The more you know!"
Liberal Arts means you had to learn how to read in addition to learning math.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal arts are meant for people with independent means of income and wealth who do not need the education to earn a living. Liberal comes from liberty and freedom. Such people would learn useless things that takes to their fancy without worrying about whether it would lead to paying jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they dropped debate, argument and formal logic at his though: the GP's point, while valid, strengthen's the OPs actual argument considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for fighting climate change if it is a reasonable cost. There is no way of knowing the cost of future climate change and if the premium we are being asked to pay to slow it down is worth the decreased risk.
Re: (Score:2)
So was giving women the right to vote and keeping companies like DuPont from dumping toxic waste into your drinking supply. WYP.
Yes, a conservative, market-based approach to mitigating climate change. Yet conservatives who believe in market solutions for everything despise Al Gore, for some reason.
Fake news! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Make Pancakes Tennis Again!!!!1@
Suggestion: RTFA (Score:3)
The medium.com article is very good by the way. Read it!
Re: (Score:2)
The medium.com article is very good by the way. Read it!
I've fallen for that one before. Friends don't let friends read medium.com
Really? (Score:2)
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, really. What has a mantle plume under Antarctica have to do with global warming ? You're only exposing your ignorance here.
So, we're safe! (Score:2)
The only quantitative _predictive_ statement in the Medium article is that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause a 2degreesC increase is temperature (at fixed relative humidity). This is a strictly log-linear prediction. Let's submit it to a real _prospective_ experiment:
We are currently at ~400 ppm CO2. According to the IPCC [ipcc-data.org], the prediction of CO2 concentration in 2100 is about 600 ppm. So, according to the cited model, we will have about another 1degreeC in global mean temperature by 2100. (T
Strange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1. Not really.
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming.
Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
3. Ice age argument again? Really. Learn to troll noob.
Re: (Score:2)
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming. Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
Actually the causation part is well-known. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can demonstrate that easily in any high-school science class.
Re:Except of course not (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a nice demonstration how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Except of course not (Score:5, Informative)
ad 2nd: CO2 did raise far before the warming. The numbers were 270 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in 1899 (Anatole Leduc, Nouvelles Recherches sur les Gaz, 1899), 330 ppm in the 1970ies, and are 400 ppm now. Warming took of in the 1970ies, when half of the CO2 increase until now had happened already.
ad 3rd: The global temperature level of the Eem Interglacial (the last warm period before the last Ice Age) is already reached.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're sending the same number of people either way, and the number of people being sent is not set up to automatically scale to their productivity, then the difference in cost is $0.
Whereas most of the people on the ground work at jobs where if they got less work done, it would translate into more total hours of work their employer would have to pay for.
Easy, easy calculation! X > 0 T/F
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is Digg? Is that going to be the new slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
...We need real mods not these fake ass mods...
said the AC
Re: (Score:2)
3rd. coming out of an ice age it is a safe bet to predict increasing temperature
Golly, if only we had some sort of geologic record to compare! Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
1st. 2.36 and 2.56 are wayyy off.
2.36 is well inside the 95% confidence interval of the observations (2.29-2.84), so it's not accurate to say that this is way off from observations. Indistinguishable would be a closer word. As far as policy implications go they are also indistinguishable. Both are about 1/2 an Ice Age Unit (IAU) [xkcd.com] for a doubling of CO2. We're on track to much more than double by the end of the century.
Re: (Score:2)
Global cooling was not forecasted in the 70s. (Score:2)
Yeah, that never happened.
"Yeah, that never happened" is correct! Anonymous Coward says something accurate for a change.
There was no scientific consensus nor prediction by scientists that the Earth was "entering a global cooling phase."
Citations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 [ametsoc.org]
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/ [scitation.org]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/" [realclimate.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of times where things do not happened as predicted are due to the predictions being addressed with possible solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
As a schoolkid in the 60s and 70s I remember every science class telling us if we didn't fix our ways there would be another ice age.
It is obvious that you either did not pay attention and likely are just a business or liberal arts idiot, OR you have no memory of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IOW, it was not during the 60s and 70s, but about 1 month in the 70s and then it disappeared, and instead, scientists were saying we do not know, but it looks more like a major warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And Popular Mechanics had articles on how everyone would have their own personal airplanes. Whoop de fucking do.
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Or he did hear that being taught, just like I did in the late 70s and heard the exact same thing being taught - even in the Weekly Reader (those under 40 or so probably have no clue what that even is). The last theory I heard before the "next Ice Age" theories died out was that cooling was going to be caused particulate pollution in the atmosphere keeping sunlight from hitting the ground. Looking back it doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO, but that was the theory.
Weak trolling attempt, dude...
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, those that make 'ice age' as though it was a HUGE deal, either was not alive or simply is a total idiot.
And yes, I do remember since I am 58 and it occurred before 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
"Liberal Arts" means they tried to teach you to read, in addition to teaching you a trade.
I take it you're very proud of your trade school degree, and consider it to be more valuable than a science degree from a Liberal Arts institution, right? Right? You're not just an idiot who couldn't learn the words??!
Re: (Score:2)
This will help you more, sophist.
https://skepticalscience.com/i... [skepticalscience.com]
Re:The coming Ice Age (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Because science doesn't dabble in truth, it deals with evidence, and likelihoods. Truth may be unchanging, but the most probable scenario has to change as you obtain more evidence.
From the 1940s to around 1980, the globe actually cooled because of industrial aerosol emissions, which reflect solar energy back out into space. From around 1910 to around 1960, CO2 mediated warming was believed to be impossible because (a) atmospheric CO2 was mistakenly believed to be in a stable equilibrium with ocean dissolved CO2 and (b) CO2's emission spectrum was mistakenly believed to overlap that of water vapor, which is much, much more common.
In the 1950s both those beliefs were disproven, by Roger Revelle's study of ocean CO2 chemistry and by more precise spectrographic instrumentation. This meant CO2-mediated warming was physically possible, however in the 1960s cooling was still the consensus because at that time scientists thought aerosol cooling would outpace CO2 warming. That was easy to believe, because the Earth was cooling before our very eyes.
In the 1970s measurements of increasing CO2 along with newly available computer modeling techniques tipped the balance of scientific consensus toward warming in the upcoming decades even though we were still in a aerosol-mediated cooling phase.
This is about as robust as a scientific result gets: an accurate prediction of a reversal of current trends. Were the predictions being made perfectly precisely correct? Of course not. But on the whole the prediction of a reversal of current temperature trends was correct. There was still significant dissent about the direction of future climate in the 80s, but by 1990 it was clear to virtually everyone in the climate research field that CO2 warming was overwhelming [wikipedia.org] aerosol cooling.
Again, that's how science works. It's about reasonable extrapolations from evidence, not eternal and unassailable truths.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if entirely by accident we produced enough aerosol emissions in order to neutralize global warming for decades, shouldn't it be easy right now to intentionally release aerosols which will neutralize global warming? Wouldn't this be cheaper, quicker, and less disruptive than reworking our entire economy to avoid carbon emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
What you are talking about is called geoengineering, and yes, people have examined the possibility of stratospheric aerosol injection.
There are some drawbacks to the procedure. CO2 has a half-life of 100 years, and CO2 levels are continuing to rise; you'd have to put a lot of aerosols into the stratosphere and continue doing so indefinitely on an increasing basis as CO2 rises. So one question is whether this is cheaper in the long run than simply curbing carbon emissions. Aerosol injection will also caus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Same here, it was all, "We're all gonna freeze!" in the late 70s, maybe into the early 80s. Then we got distracted by cocaine, gun violence, and AIDS for a while.
Keep in mind, we're talking about what was being told to kids in school, and usually at the elementary and high school level you're lucky if you're getting anything published in the last 20 years. And teachers who actually know and understand such things well enough to teach them generally aren't doing so in elementary or junior high envir
Re: (Score:3)
You're either very badly mistaken or flat-out dishonest. Most of the studies in the 1970's predicted warming. The few that didn't have been discredited or retracted.
Read and learn:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you remember reading articles in news magazines, not scientific studies. We'll be charitable and go with "badly mistaken". But as many times as this canard has been debunked it's probably "flatly dishonest".
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?
Yes, they took into account all zero of the dramatic changes.
comparison (Score:2)
Wow, in 1967 scientists predicted global warming, with a study that half a century later has proven to be largely accurate...
BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?
No. If you'd read the article, not just the summary, you'd see that the paper did not try to predict how much carbon dioxide would be produced. It predicted if this much carbon dioxide is produced, then this much warming would occur.
The comparison of prediction to experiment-- if you'd read the article you'd know this-- was to look at how much carbon dioxide actually was put in the atmosphere, and compare the warming to the amount predicted for that amount of carbon dioxide.
The theory turns out to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "unrevised" raw data shows a steeper warming slope than the adjusted data. That's because the methods they used to measure sea surface temperatures back then had a cool bias. When you haul a bucket of water out of the sea it cools by evaporation before it gets on deck and you can plop a thermometer in it.
Anonymous Cowards might be GOOD (but I doubt it) (Score:3)
These arguments always tend to revolve around whether global warming is real or not. That is not the right question.
Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
Yes, but that is a different question.
The relentless assault on climate science and on climate scientists-- using words like "hoax" "scam" and "fraud" in referring both to the science and the scientists-- is still continuing. But now the attack has forked, with attacks on the scientists continuing, but now another branch of the attack saying "well, but maybe warming is good."
I'd pay more attention to them if they weren't pretty much the same people (and funded by the same oil companies) who were saying "
Goblal warming will be bad (less food) (Score:2)
... The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
The point is: think about the ECONOMICS. Global warming may be real, but the fallacy is assuming that it is bad. It may be a great thing.
Never play games with reality, you get burned [scienceheathen.com]
The only fallacy is assuming that more deserts = more food
Re: (Score:2)
Boilerplate denialist handwaiving.
Every extinction event in history (before man started hunting species to extinction) arose from the climate changing too fast for life to adapt to it. You may have dreams of planting wheat in Antarctica and bananas in Siberia, which would be cool if that climate c
Re: (Score:2)
It increases the temperature which increases the amount of water vapour the air can hold, which in turn increases the amount of clouds when the air cools.
Not how science is done (Score:2)
If you collect every predictive scientific paper published this year and fast-forward 50 years, a proportion of them will turn out to be correct, simply due to sheer dumb luck.
This just happens to be the first one, and the one in all of the textbooks (even the textbooks not about global warming-- textbooks about atmospheric light scattering, for example), and the one that all the climate scientists acknowledge as the beginning of accurate climate models.
This is not a paper that was picked up in retrospect, because it happened to be right-- this is the paper the started the field.
However, there is no way of knowing now, in 2017, which ones will be correct.
Bullshit. That's not how science is done. Scientists show their work and lay out their calculations
Re: (Score:2)
Like how you just adapted yourself into a straw man!
Gi
The paper that started modern climate modelling (Score:2)
If you read any of the literature, you'd know that this is the reference-- the Manabe and Wetherald paper was the first to fully model the co-effect of carbon dioxide and humidity in a convective atmosphere, and is the one pretty much everybody references.
Here https://www.carbonbrief.org/pr... [carbonbrief.org] for example, or here https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Manabe was the grandfather of global circulation models-- pretty much all the models that exist today can be traced back to his work. This wasn't a "random" pap
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also think that doctors talk about the danger posed by measles without ever saying what can be done about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also think that doctors talk about the danger posed by measles without ever saying what can be done about it?
Posing another question doesn't help anything. Again, you didn't present anything constructive. You're passing the buck.
Re: (Score:2)
Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough
Re: (Score:2)
Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough not to wipe itself out.
Present the plan then. You can claim it exists but if you don't present it, all you have is words.
Re: (Score:2)
You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia. 100% Renewables, investment in multiple types of energy storage, changes to the way concrete and steel are made, changes to aeroplane fuel types. Efficiency increases. Incentives and fines. Massive car charging networks. Fossil fuel nothing, electric everything. 100% recycling of literally everything, if it can be recycled then don't make products with it. Just some of the stuff that needs doing, doing all of this would create jobs and
Re: (Score:2)
You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia.
Excuses. Show me evidence there is such a plan and that it's been peer reviewed to have been deemed viable by experts. That'll fit in a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.
Wow, you wouldn't know the first thing about Logic, MrL0G1C. If you actually knew what logic was you'd realize how much you just embarrassed yourself. You just made a half a dozen appeals to irrational emotion. And guess what? Ironically, that's why the issue isn't resolved because people like you approach it irrationally. You're your own worst enemy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git. There's no reason why I have to provide some 'plan' that isn't necessary, there doesn't need to be some incredible plan, just individual solutions to individual problems.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git
Awwww all little baby could do is whine and complain and sit on their behind and not lift a finger besides to rant on the internet to solve a problem they supposedly care about. Wah wah wah. Do you need a diaper change?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming. How about YOU actually try and construct some kind of meaningful argument, something which you haven't actually done yet, you've said nothing meaningful what-so-ever. Just went with some weird straw man argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming
I asked you to present compelling evidence for your claim and you presented nothing. You're the one who made the claim not me. I never claimed we can't deal with global warming. Go ahead look back and see if I made that claim. If you think I did, you either can't read or you're delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan", a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party. The solutions to global warming are not 'the plan' it's not a valid argument to say that solutions to global warming don't exist because you don't know what they are. Global warming is an extremely multifaceted problem, not a singular problem, it is caused by construction, by farming, by transport, by the energy industry etc. There is no one solution, there are hund
Re: (Score:2)
No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan"
Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence. Are you sure you're logical? Most plans, in case you weren't aware, not only contain a strategy but also projected results to justify the plan. That would be compelling. Governments do this all the time.
a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party.
No one said things worth doing would be easy. You sir have now achieved the status of a bonafide moron. But keep the rosy glasses on if it helps you sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence."
No, I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence."
No, I'm not.
Last word achievement unlocked. Congratulations. Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
They looked at the past and extrapolated.
https://www.google.co.uk/imgre... [google.co.uk]