Climate Models Are Getting Future Warming Projections (nasa.gov) 164
Alan Buis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, writes: There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding," meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun. For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been? Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change. The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change. The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
So it is now undeniable.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, fanatics will be fanatics. One of their characteristics is ignoring reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cue the queue of science deniers . . .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course those that 'do not believe in man made climate change' will continue unaffected by facts or reason or scientific proof.
I believe two things.
First, the climate changes and we will need the resources to adapt, the level of human impact on this is in my opinion irrelevant. The climate will change and we will have to adapt, and this will take energy.
Second, if human CO2 emissions are making global warming worse then nuclear power is a good idea, if human activity is not making an impact on the climate then nuclear power is still a good idea. How is nuclear power a good idea if there is no human impact on the climate? See my
Re:So it is now undeniable.... (Score:5, Informative)
This story is about a considerable amount of evidence against the part of your opinion that is in bold. These models all include human generated greenhouse gasses as significant predictors. In fact, the greatest component of error in the predictions was not misprediction by the models, but rather errors in the estimates of how much CO2 we released.
Your opinion is directly counter to the evidence. Which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of sense in some of the other things in your post.
Re: (Score:3)
What he said was, it doesn't matter what caused it, we need to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thanks. I did misunderstand. My point stands though. The models indicate that the changes are due in very large part to our activities. This is relevant, because the models also indicate that we can mitigate the damage by modifying our activities.
Re: (Score:2)
But knowing how much we are contributing to a problem is part of dealing with it.
Re:So it is now undeniable.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe two things.
First, the climate changes and we will need the resources to adapt, the level of human impact on this is in my opinion irrelevant.
The whole point of the debate is that it may be cheaper to reduce emissions (and adapt) than to continue to raise emissions and adapt. That's why acknowledging that the human has an impact is important. If we didn't have any impact, then there would be no point in trying to reduce our global warming impact.
We are not going to build nuclear power plants if they end up more expensive than coal/oil/gas. That's why the environmental cost, including the cost associated to the global temperature rise because of the emitted CO2, must be counted in.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will get more traction with your goals if:
1. You let yourself be convinced (by the mountain of evidence) that CO2 is in fact the primary cause of climate change.
2. You use this fact to support the need for nuclear, allowing you to dispense with all the "ifs".
Since CO2 is the cause nuclear power is for sure part of the solution.
You have made some great points in the past about the safety of nuclear power and how we can make it even safer then it already is.
Re: (Score:2)
So buy renewable energy and drive an electric car. Replace all incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs (so what if you look orange). Demand political action on climate change and phase out subsidies for everything - especially fossil fuel. Actually read "The Green New Deal" and understand that it is a strategic direction, not a detailed mandate.
Don't let people trot out the stupid argument that we cannot afford it. The status quo is much more expensive and paid by younger g
Re: (Score:2)
...then you are saying nuclear power is a greater threat than global warming.
This is a non-sequitur. Humanity is operating with limited resources. We need to solve a problem. If we have a more efficient way of solving it than nuclear plants, then due to the limited resources, we'll get there faster with this more efficient way.
This particular problem gets bigger over time, so efficiency is important.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This particular problem gets bigger over time, so efficiency is important.
Go ahead, show me how efficient all our options are. Certainly you know where to find such data, no?
Nuclear power is the most efficient option. I'll show you.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
You are correct, we have only limited resources. It's because we have limited resources that we should not be investing in solar power on the grid. Off grid use doesn't bother me, in that case the math is different. When
Re: (Score:3)
Solar is clearly and unambiguously the cheapest energy source during the daytime, in locations with a lot of sunlight. Low-cost silicon panels are well under 50 cents a watt; you simply can't
Re: (Score:2)
The reasonable answer is: both.
Yup. If we implement a revenue neutral carbon tax we can let the market decide what mix is appropriate. The free market will allocate resources more efficiently than government fiat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Re: So it is now undeniable.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trees can buy us a short reprieve, but eventually trees die and release their CO2. At best they are a short-term sink of atmospheric carbon. Geological processes will gradually sequester CO2 over 100s or 1000s of years.
If you need more speed than that, you are going to need a big source of energy to power CO2 extraction equipment.
As to your first link, I think it agrees with the person you are replying to - nuclear energy is too damn hard to get built, so it isn't currently helping displace CO2. I think the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's what I want, solutions, not a more accurate measure of how CO2 emissions are warming the planet. I will simply concede that CO2 is warming the planet. Now, can we have some new nuclear power plants already?
Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. [slashdot.org]
The link you give does not support your statement. The actual link is to a summary headlined not "Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change" but "Nuclear Energy Too Slow, Too Expensive To Save Climate, Says Report". There is a difference.
Based on the actual headline, not the one you rewrote, the conclusion would be that to save the climate. nuclear energy would have to be faster and less expensive.
OK. We need to make nuclear plants more quickly, and they need to be less expensive, if this is to sa
Re: (Score:2)
as the root mass buried underground sequesters CO2 and the top half burned in the biomass power plant is carbon neutral.
The roots might sequester some carbon but not much. Most of the carbon turns into CO2 as microorganisms consume the roots. The problem is that the methane released by the microorganisms is significantly worse then CO2 as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
The main way carbon is sequestered is via the ocean where phytoplankton fall to the ocean depth never to be seen again. Growing trees is great for many reasons - but not for sequestering carbon.
Re:So it is now undeniable.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientific paper says A, with extensive analysis in support. Slashdot poster claims A is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about a scientific paper. The paper proves that most of the models are in fact very accurate.
If you see a flaw in the paper please point it out.
Are you stupid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really I have to ask because here is a direct quote from the summary
"most of the models have been quite accurate"
All of the data is there. You are of course free to run your own models and post the results. If you think everyone is mistaken then why don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are the models accurate for Earth, but if you use them on Venus, Mars or Titan they work pretty well there too. It seems like physics works the same everywhere, who would have guessed?
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of humanity, the climate would still be warming
No, actually we should be starting a new cold cycle according to the Milankovich Cycles which have ruled global climate for at least the last few million years. That we aren't cooling is a dead giveaway that something is wrong.
Re: So it is now undeniable.... (Score:2)
So... what will the climate be like if humanity flips the switch and goes all carbon free or whatever?
The same? Ideal, whatever that means? Worse? No change in where it seems to be trending.
In other words, what will success look like?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we didn't add any anthropogenic carbon to the atmosphere from here out it would still take Earth over a century to process out the excess that we've generated. So flip your magic switch, we've still got at least a century of excess heating coming up. Then we're not sure how long it will take the oceans (which currently absorb ~90% of the retained heat) to cool back to historical norms, but it will be at least another half a century of warmer than natural temperatures.
After that, if we haven't perm
In the long term Re: So it is now undeniable.... (Score:2)
So... what will the climate be like if humanity flips the switch and goes all carbon free or whatever? The same? Ideal, whatever that means? Worse? No change in where it seems to be trending. In other words, what will success look like?
For about a century or two, "success" by your terms (zero anthropogenic CO2 and methane emission) would mean that we keep the temperature rise we've already caused, but we stop the temperature from rising further. The warm period is possibly longer-- it's highly debated what the main removal mechanism of CO2 from the atmosphere is if we keep cutting down forests.
Longer term than a few centuries, the climate will cool. Eventually-- meaning millennia-- we'll drift into a new ice age glaciation. But glacia
Re: In the long term Re: So it is now undeniable.. (Score:2)
What do the models say will happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How could they not be, "Accurate"?. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the temperature record is constantly "adjusted"?
Yeah, that's been the deniers' most recent talking point: it's all a hoax! They adjust the data to get the results they want!
The deniers very conveniently ignore that there are a multiple different groups in the U.S., Britain, Germany, Japan, and Australia that are analyzing the data, and that all the data analysis is exhaustively documented and explained (including the purported "adjustments", which are, in fact, pretty minor.)
That's what science is about: reproducability.
If it's a hoax, the conspiracy consists of hundreds of people working independently on four continents. That's a little far-fetched. But "plausibility" is not really a criterion for the deniers.
Re:How could they not be, "Accurate"?. (Score:5, Informative)
500,000,000 years [Re:So it is now undeniable.... (Score:2)
It's a fact that 20% of the climate change during the 20th century was caused by the sun getting brighter and hotter...all by itself.
We measure the solar luminosity. It was not getting brighter nor hotter over the twentieth century.
This is going to continue and in a few hundred million years the sun will be so hot and bright that all life on Earth will die and the oceans will evaporate.
Actually, that's true. The sun does get brighter and hotter over time scale of hundreds of millions of years. I would suggest that, with the homo sapiens species only a hundred thousand years or so old, a few hundred million years is possibly not important to us right now, but you're right, in roughly 500,000,000 years, the sun gets bright enough that life on Earth becomes uncomfortable (and a few billion ye
Re: (Score:2)
We are in a solar minimum since over 10 years.
And the difference between a maximum and minimum is roughly 1%
dumbass
How accurate? (Score:3)
It's pretty vague to call most studies quite accurate, why not give some real numbers?. You can find the actual study here: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc... [nasa.gov]
Interesting, but really, if you drew a straight trend line you would have been more accurate than most of these models. In the details they all seem way off, if you combine them, for temperatures you get a somewhat accurate end result for the last few years. On all the other atmospheric numbers most of them were completely off
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are misunderstanding the paper.
It is almost all about the temperatures. The "other atmospheric numbers" you are referring to I am guessing are the comparison between the projected CO2 levels and the actual ones? But those projections are not what was being tested, the climate models tell us what happens with X CO2, the models for how much CO2 humans will make are separate.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article before deciding I was wrong about it?
Re: (Score:3)
I did, but I thought you misunderstood that paragraph.
Now I think that the key part you might have missed was this (from the key findings at the top):
"The quasi-linear relationship between model / observed forcings and temperature change is used to control for errors in projected forcing"
I think the paragraph you cited is explaining why they had to correct for errors in projected forcing.
Projected forcing is certainly the biggest error in the models. They have to estimate how much GHGs will be emitted and e
Horrible surprise! (Score:3)
Who could have foreseen this?! Why weren't we warned so we could have taken action earlier?! /s
You're trying to convince religious people with lo (Score:2)
This is a common error all mostly logically-thinking people make: They assume the other side also thinks this way, and only needs more convincing arguments to change their views.
But in reality, it's about feelings. You're appealing to their brain, when they are coming from their gut. (Well, not literally, but you./ know what I'm saying.)
So you have to be skilled at emotional talk. (The way women prefer.)
Without being condescending. Feelings and emotion are just wide-angle logic. Big picture judgment and bei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Build trust, then the person will start to believe you.
And hope that the used car you just drove off the lot doesn't explode before the end of the warranty. Where do I go to collect on that "global cooling" b.s? We are driving another one off the lot and I'm already hearing rods knocking*. When will I learn?
*Oblig. bad car analogy.
The Australian Fires are a very good argument (Score:2)
Not because it is rational. But precisely because it is emotional.
A 0.05C increase in global temperatures is merely a statistic. A fire, and the smoke, is real.
Sometimes it is hot, and sometimes it is not, and the fires are mainly just a bit of a statistical extreme. But politically they have been dynamite. Far, far more persuasive than any number of carefully constructed models.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this approach is that we live in a society that grants power to people by their numbers (and/or their money), not by their intellect or other qualification, and their numbers have been growing exponentially in the last few decades.
It is the minority intelligent and educated, who must play the dope's game. We may have to give up a few things that they want in order to get back the power that was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
when they are coming from their gut. (Well, not literally,
Well, since the anus is part of the gut, I think a lot of them ARE literally talking from their gut.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a little bit far sketched. With the same rational you could say, your mouth is part of your gut(s).
Humanity has a real problem (Score:3)
We need global system change. Capitalism exploits people and the finite resources of our planet - thus it cannot be sustained.
We have known since the dawn of the industrial revolution that our actions have consequences on our climate. Yet we continue to ignore the facts.
Our governments, financial institutions media and tech giants all rely on oil money. It is simply not going to be the case that they will tell the brutal truth
that it cant be sustained because in doing so we have to admit that our whole way of life , and the societal structures we work within , must change. Everything
depends on Fossil Fuels. If not the car you drive to work in - the single use plastics housing the convenience foods and soft drinks we willfully cosume by the tonne every day. Our oceans are polluted with Microplastics, the largest source of them is from car tyre dust. Micro plastics are consequently present through the food chain - including yours and my faeces. Were causing rapid loss in biodiveristy and with it destroying the mechanisms that hold our planet in balance.
We are at a point in human history where we can no longer turn back the clock on this. The warming of the planet we are seeing today is due to the carbon we put into our atmosphere decades ago - thats how long it takes! Our carbon emissions are on the increase - this clearly should not be the case. Last year we saw the Amazon rainforest decimated by fire, and as we have seen in the past months Australia is experiencing unprecidented bush fires in fact ,pretty much the whole of 2019 stuff was burning. We look at temperatures since the 1800s and since the 1990s nearly every year has been a record breaker. We have to face the facts here that year on year from now on the fires will continue , the weather will become more extreme - more destruction will occur. Unpredictable and extreme weather will cause crop failures (it already has) - in coming years we can expect to see the frequency of these events increase through time leading to multiple bread basket failures around the globe. We are going to see food shortages on an unprecidented scale - its not hard to see where this leads.
Since the 1970s over 60% of animal species have gone extinct - to put that into perspective just 15% more and were at the same level as the cretaceos extinction ( 75% of species extinct ) . It is no lie when we hear Greta Thunberg say that we are in the middle of the 6th mass extinction - she is correct. Listen to , and understand the science. Dont listen to the politicians , the media , read the science for yourself and youll begin to understand why the next 10yrs is critical to slowing down what is currently looking like game over for our childrens future, and much of the world in which they live.
Re: (Score:2)
We need global system change. Capitalism exploits people and the finite resources of our planet - thus it cannot be sustained.
No, that's mercantilism. Mercantilism is based on the theory that resources are limited. Capitalism is based on the theory that resources are effectively unlimited. To gain wealth in mercantilism the theory is that someone else must lose wealth. Capitalism operates that wealth is created, almost as if out of nothing, when people trade.
A mercantilist sees someone that trades dollars for gasoline as losing wealth. But who is losing in this? Who was exploited? Nobody. The person with the gasoline had a
Climate Scientist study themselves (Score:2)
How about some ways to fix it. I know that is harder than being chicken little, but hey. I want an option for dealing with this that does not require destroying the middle class and the economies is western countries.
Once academia,celebrities, the rich and government officials move to their cloud cities. They will be free to take all the steps to fix the planet
Re: (Score:2)
The peasants will be food for the folks in the cloud cities.
Actually, the old saying is (Score:2)
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating"...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not the only one. While both are considered valid (in US parlance at least) in modern days, you have the right of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck US parlance! We gave the world Donald Trump. Fuck the world!
Executive summary (Score:2)
En Pudding Veritas
Link to full paper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sunk costs and how to fix stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that would not help.
Building nuclear power plants means you have to use a lot of concrete which creates a lot of emissions. Operating nuclear power plants means you need cool water. Some existing power plants are being impacted by warmer water supplies, making them more difficult to operate. Nuclear power is basically a large radioactive toaster oven.
Renewables are far far cheaper. Even under the Trump Regime, investments have increased in renewable energy by 38%. Nuclear power books out around 20 times the cost of renewables.
However, since I indicated that renewable investments are increasing, for sound economic reasons, it is not true that fossil fuel infrastructure is going away. The chief reason for that is the fallacy of sunk costs.
To replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure - airplanes, vehicles, power plants, the entire chain - you need to do some simple things:
First: expire all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation. Entirely. Starting in 2020, end it all. Including existing fossil fuel infrastructure. This makes continuing operation on a fully depreciated item a bad economic decision. Nobody forces you to get rid of it (classic car collectors), they just don't allow you to expense the operation.
Second: expire all fossil fuel infrastructure incentives, set-asides, exclusions (grandfather clauses), requirements (electric grid shaping does not actually need it, as has been demonstrated time and time again, read the science), subsidies of any type. Don't phase it out, cut it off entirely.
Third: require all zoning codes for industrial, commercial, and residential allow for buildings to generate their own power from microgrids of renewable power. Don't specify which ones. Let the market choose that for you.
And, that's it.
It's fairly simple, really.
But not highly profitable for fossil fuel purveyors. Or those who live on their supply chain.
Re: (Score:3)
Building nuclear power plants means you have to use a lot of concrete which creates a lot of emissions.
Compared to what? Here's a comparison.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rCI... [blogspot.com]
For context read the article that goes with the image.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Operating nuclear power plants means you need cool water.
Then explain how we got a nuclear power plant operating in the Arizona desert?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yes, it gets cooling water. But the water is not "cool" and it is not impacted by "warm weather". Other nuclear power plants might be affected by warm weather, this was an engineering decision. It was cheaper to shutdown on the rare hot d
Re: (Score:2)
My Governor is Jay Inslee.
You are totally incorrect about the lights going out.
For more data try UW CEI.
Re: (Score:2)
My Governor is Jay Inslee.
I'm sorry. Perhaps you should do something about that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, our GDP per capita makes yours look like peanuts
Re:That's nice. What are we going to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're only absurdly expensive because of the artificial regulatory and legal obstacles continuously put up to prevent their construction.
"Please stop lying about this. You are endangering the future of the human race."
Not very persuasive. You actually turn off more people than you know with such hand-waving hyperbole. That's why you wish to silence those who disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
We could always do away with regulation and put Boeing's management in charge. I'm sure they wouldn't cut corners.
Re: (Score:2)
So first you agree I am right, and then I am the one telling the untruth? The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
worldnuclearreport.org is the website of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is a yearly report that explores the global challenges facing the nuclear power industry. It is produced by Mycle Schneider,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Schneider is a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials,[5] and the nuclear non-proliferation group Independent Group of Scientific Experts (IGSE), which is based at Hamburg University.[2][6] Since 2004, he has overseen the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.[3]
Mycle Schneider founded the "citizen's science"[7] group WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Schneider has been described as an 'Anti-Nuclear Activist'.[8]
Re: (Score:3)
The question then remains, what does then. Solar and wind isn't the answer either, it requires a lot of space where nothing can grow which leads to desertification, it isn't at all clean to produce or dispose of and isn't very efficient to begin with.
We need a sustainable, stable power source for most of our energy needs. Unless you're willing to commit massive acts of genocide or forcibly keep people in abject poverty, or forced abortion and sterilization, as China did, you're going to need a power source
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear looks very expensive according to this analysis. Or are you looking at the plot point which represents the marginal cost of operating plants? This implies that you should keep existing plants running but not that you should build new ones (which is very expensive).
Re:The cost of nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Building is expensive only in the West where NIMBY and politics drive up the cost ten-fold if not more. It often takes 10 years or more for a plant in the West (both Europe and the US) to get their permits, there are various plants in Europe and the US that have been built and weren't allowed to produce for years, which drives up operating and recovery costs while other nation-states heavily tax the energy produced to subsidize inferior solar and wind systems.
China is building out massive amounts of nuclear power plants at a fraction of the cost and going from plans to production in just a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
While NIBMYs may be a contributing factor, it is far from the only reason for high cost. For example, the stated reason for recent delays and cost increases for Hinkley Point C (which come on top of earlier delays and cost increases) are "challenging ground conditions":
https://uk.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But you do know if you have a nuke plant and don't run it for 3 years, it has a CF of zero during those years?
Why people bring up CFs is beyond me ....
Re: (Score:3)
Why people bring up CFs is beyond me ....
You could read a book to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
No one except /. posters uses a CF ... ah well, american plants are supposed to report their CFs to the authorities ... no one else does that.
Is that written in your book :P ?
As I take it, you still have no solar panel? If you had one, what would be the CF tomorrow between 11:00AM and 1:00PM your local time? Just curious ...
Re: (Score:2)
What tech exactly? Germany would like to know. They've literally replaced all their nuclear with 'green' energy supply yet only got the actual energy usage from green sources up by ~3-4% over the last decade, they're now paying Russia for coal energy and starting up coal power plants to get sufficient supply.
Re: (Score:3)
The same "tech" that will allow us to live on Mars and build Hyperloops. Also known as "bullshit that programmers think can exist even though they have never even built a shed before".
Re: (Score:2)
Germanies power is still provided 10% by nukes.
And roughly 40% is by renewables.
Why would we pay russia for coal energy is beyond me ...
So what is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we import gas.
Mostly for heating. But we don't pay for it. We payed already 40 years ago, as we delivered the pipes for the trans Russian gas network.
Are we reliant on Putin? No, not really. Norway, Netherlands and UK have enough gas to sell, if we don't get our payment from Russia for our pipes and need to actually "buy" gas.
Re: (Score:2)
In the last ten years (2009-2019) electricity production in Germany changed as follows: Production from coal was reduced from 107.9 TWh to 56 TWh, from lignite from 145.6 TWh to 114 TWh, Nuclear decreased from 134.9 TWh to 75.2 TWh. Renewables increased from 96 TWh to 244 TWh and are now a substantial part of production (40.2%). Exports increased from 14.3 TWh to 36.6 TWh. Source: https://www.bdew.de/energie/st... [www.bdew.de]
Re: (Score:2)
That is about the most extreme bunch of lies in this whole thread. Are you even living on this planet?
Re: (Score:2)
He was talking about cost not risk.
As it should be. (Score:3)
Long-term survival of the global ecosystem from clear and present dangers should be an obsession. If we ignore it, the only result is it begins dying a completely preventable death and take a whole lot of humans with it. Kinda seems like it fits the "stuff that matters" section.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather have some news about Trump instead?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure. What happened to that guy anyway? He used to be on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. What happened to that guy anyway? He used to be on TV.
He's still on TV, he just moved to a different channel. It's a really crazy show. There's a bunch of people that keep calling him a bad orange man. He just replies, "I'm peach!"
These people voted on if he's peach or not, I guess he's officially peach not orange now. At least that's the vote by the blue team.
I guess there's some kind of online polling going on. I don't know how these hashtags work but there's team "orange man bad": #orangemanbad
And team "I'm peach": #impeach
Now the red team gets to vot
Re:Hypothetical situation (Score:5, Informative)
There is a big difference in adjusting projected inputs to reflect the now known values and adjusting the weighting factors that go into the construction of the model. The first is akin to a failure to project accurate CO2 emissions by industry, not a correction to the climate model itself. This is what the article is talking about correcting. It seems that you are oversimplifying your interpretation of the analysis and hence arriving at an erroneous conclusion about how the testing should have been done.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting hypothetical situation. Maybe you'd prefer to discuss the actual one that's the subject of the story?
Re: (Score:2)
Base a system on data from 1970 to the present.
No. The authors evaluated models created during 70-s and 80-s. Unless they had a time machine they couldn't have been based on data from 70-s to the present.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse than that... (Score:2)
Its even worse than that, they also dont point out that they selected the modelruns that most well tracked subsequent measurements, AND that they also call it a good result when the actual climate has stayed within error bars, even when those are very VERY wide.
To be clear, it is common to run models with many different 'magic numbers' of forcing in them, and publish a wide range of data - this 'research' has gone through those many options, selected the best fitting, and claims THAT was the models predicti
Re:Worse than that... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you don't understand how the models work in the first place? They're physics-based, not random curve fitting, and they run those physics with different assumptions about e.g. how much CO2 humans will emit in the future. Later on they can look back, see how much CO2 was actually emitted, and evaluate the past model runs for that amount. Models for other amounts of CO2 are ignored, not because they're "wrong" but because they're irrelevant.
Here, read this [arstechnica.com]. It provides a good overview of the science behind climate models, and their differences.
Re: (Score:3)
And can you show actual evidence of this claimed sampling bias? Or is this just your own bias, where you discard results based purely on the conclusions?
Of course, if you (or anyone) could actually *prove* that these scientists were deliberately *wink*wink* selecting their evidence to arrive at false results (and their peer reviewers were deliberately overlooking this) that would be explosive news. Yet nobody ever does; they just post snide, fact-free accusations on forums - because that's easier than facin
Re: (Score:2)
YOU need to define how you are calculating "worldwide average temperature".
The article does not define this, to find this definition read the scientific paper the article is referring to. It is well defined there. This is a common tactic, to attack a summary of the paper without even looking at the paper itself. If YOU want the level of detail you are claiming to be looking for, then look for it.
Making a bunch of random statements about things moving is merely hand waving to distract and cast doubt. The authors of the paper supported their claims with a mountain of evidence. You l
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, please alert these weather stations that they have been reading thermometers wrong for decades!
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market and the weather are completely different animals.
Stock prices are entirely defined by human whims that are easily manipulated by interested parties and thrown back and forth by news of the day. Predict at your own risk.
The weather, while complex, is a physics-based phenomenon which does lend itself to some predictive modeling.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, the stock market, under certain circumstances, is predictable in the short run and Trump and his cronies have been making a haul based on his announcements about the trade war with China. https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Scientists have been working on climate models and refining them for years and they are getting better all the time. Nope, they can't predict what the temperature will be at a specific place at a specific time (that's weather) but they can predict the overall long term trend
Re: (Score:2)
How important is prediction for this issue?
There are small scale examples (i.e., practical experiments) that have shown the effect of CO2 on closed environment systems, like the Earth's atmosphere. These show that the temperatures rise as the CO2 increases.
We also have records of temperatures over the past 100+ years showing an increase in temperature, and an increase in CO2.
With these two pieces of data (some facts and an experiment), we can assert that the Earth is heating up, and the cause is likely to b