Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 282

by riverat1 (#49748099) Attached to: Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

I wouldn't say the RWP, MWP or LIA overrode Milankovitch Cycles but were the noise of natural variability on top of them. It's unlikely that the RWP or MWP were warmer than it is now and the increase in temperature leading into them was much slower than the current warming rate.

No one (with any sense) is talking about de-industrializing the West. Instead of spending money on building new fossil fuel power plants we spend it on renewable energy. They may cost a little more to build but they don't have ongoing fuel costs like FF energy. Solar PV is already inexpensive enough and continuing to get cheaper that at least one coal plant has been cancelled because they didn't think they could compete with PV once it was completed. I get called an alarmist but people saying responding to anthropogenic global warming will destroy economies and plunge millions into poverty are also alarmists.

The supposed pause in warming in undetectable when you rigorously analyze it statistically as Grant Foster, a professional statistician, did here. The warming has continued pretty much as expected and temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of IPCC projections.

I think there is plenty of existing evidence to take action right now. If we wait until it's slap you in the face obvious the damages will cost us a lot more than doing something about it.

Comment: Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score 1) 103

by riverat1 (#49745557) Attached to: Oldest Stone Tools Predate Previous Record Holder By 700,000 Years

Most all "carbon dating" is absolute fiction. You cannot carbon date something that was never alive. They just pull most of these numbers out of their butts. It is completely unknowable.

That's why they use other forms of radiometric dating to date things that are too old for carbon dating.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 282

by riverat1 (#49741737) Attached to: Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.

The warmth of the current interglacial period hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and has been declining ever since (until recently). The decline in temperatures is what you'd expect to see given the current state of the cycles of the various components of Milankovitch Cycles. Something has overridden the Milankovitch Cycles.

Comment: Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by riverat1 (#49741669) Attached to: Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

James Taylor is an idiot and the story is bullshit. The time to gauge how Arctic sea ice is doing is in September at the sea ice minimum. Arctic sea ice doesn't vary a whole lot in the winter and spring because it's constrained by the surrounding continents. Nevertheless since February it's been setting records for minimum extent for that date.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 282

by riverat1 (#49741427) Attached to: Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.

As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.

BTW, that should be "1000 PPM CO2". With business as usual we won't hit 1000 ppm this century but could well do it before 2200.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 282

by riverat1 (#49739663) Attached to: Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Comment: Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by riverat1 (#49733723) Attached to: Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

That's pretty funny. Do you understand all the calculations and adjustments they have to make to get the satellite temperature records? They're implying the temperature for an amorphous region of the atmosphere that doesn't go down to ground level from the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. They have to make adjustments for orbital variations, sensor decay, water vapor and clouds and high altitude land. It's much more involved than what they do for surface temperatures.

The satellite temperatures are useful information but to imply they're more accurate than surface temperatures is absurd. Even one of the scientists, Carl Mears from RSS says he thinks the surface measurements are better.

Comment: Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by riverat1 (#49700241) Attached to: Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.

And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?

(BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)

Comment: Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by riverat1 (#49694219) Attached to: Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.

Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually the middle of the range (around 3C in this case) is the most likely answer.

Comment: Re:-dafuq, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by riverat1 (#49694151) Attached to: Greenland's Glaciers Develop Stretch Marks As They Accelerate

I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.

The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.

Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals. Real world evidence is in the simple physical formula for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.

If the current El Nino continues through the end of the year 2015 or 2016 will likely set an unequivocal new global temperature record much like 1998 did. What will you have to say then?

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain

Working...