Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 144

If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?

Perhaps but when I hear about incidents like this it seems like it nearly always involves the medical field or something like sociology or psychology, seldom the harder sciences. When I hear about it in climate science it usually seems to be the contrarians who are the ones being called out.

Comment Re:Your plan? (Score 1) 620

Coincidentally there is a new paper in Nature that found an increase in photosynthesis of 31% +/- 5% in the 20th century (and I presume into the 21st).

Here are press releases from the institutions of two of the researchers:

From the University of California at Merced

From Carnegie Science

The Carnegie Science press release has the following paragraph which supports my contention that we can't grow enough plants fast enough to fix the problem:

“It may be tempting to interpret these results as evidence that Earth’s dynamics are responding in a way that will naturally stabilize CO2 concentrations and climate,” Berry added. “But the real message is that the increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels. Nature’s brakes are not up to the job. So now it’s up to us to figure out how to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”

Comment Re:Sky is Falling! (Score 1) 620

No there won't be 70 feet of sea level rise this century. Most likely it will be between 3 and 5 feet this century but it could be more if there is a catastrophic collapse of some of the ice sheets on Antarctica or Greenland, maybe 10 feet. Even 3 feet will cause its problems particularly in southern Florida and along the Gulf Coast.

But like I said the last time CO2 was over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher and that may be unstoppable in the long run.

Comment Re:I wish I could trust "academic experts". (Score 1) 620

AGW is not a proven condition in the real world. Selectively run experiments in isolated labs that claim AGW to be a real thing aren't legitimate for claims of open air,

A study from 2000 to 2010 measured the changing forcing of CO2 using spectrometers from the ground in the open air. Here is the abstract:

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 +/- 0.19 W/m^2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of +/- 0.06 W/m^2 per decade and +/- 0.07W/m^2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W/m^2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

And here is the PDF of the whole paper for your edification: Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

The dishonest climate change scam's scientists and sheepish laymen alike have another problem to sort out: "NOAA’s GHCN systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs."

There's a temperature record from BEST. Maybe you've heard of them. They use every single temperature record they can get their hands on, that's over 39,000 temperature stations. They don't exclude anything with usable data. And yet their findings are substantially the same as NOAA's GHCN. Even if you did the opposite of what you accuse NOAA of doing you still wouldn't find much difference as long as you picked a statistically valid selection of stations.

Comment Re:You should better learn basic laws of physics (Score 1) 620

(Previous post with the quoting fixed up and missing text added.)

I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.

Water vapor and clouds are two different things when it comes to climate effects. You have to consider them separately. There is of course a relationship between water vapor and clouds as either one can become the other as atmospheric conditions change but their effects are not the same.

Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.

Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.

It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.

Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?

Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. The energy flux is net positive on the day side and net negative on the night side. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.

Comment Re:You should better learn basic laws of physics (Score 1) 620

I thought water vapors called simply as clouds mostly influence greenhouse effect.

Anyone who believes that 25,000 terawatyears energy that the Earth gets from our star Sun annually, can be even slightly affected by humanity's output of 25 terawatyears annually (burning oil, coal and nuclear fuel), has not properly studied mathematics, biology and physics.

Of course the amount of heat produced by humans as you note is of practically no consequence. No one is claiming that. It's water vapor and CO2 and other greenhouse gases slowing down the loss of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth after it absorbs energy from the visible light from the Sun that is causing the heating.

It becomes clear that your climate science denialism is driven by your fear of possible economic consequences from responding to the problem more than any understanding of science. You also ought to consider the possible economic consequences if the climate scientists are right.

Global warming happens, no doubt about that, like global cooling. Every day and night. By some 15-20 degrees of Celsium. Where are climate fear-mongers explaining how that is possible?

Cute. The obvious answer is the Sun heats the day side of the planet and on the night side energy is being lost to the black sky. But that is a cycle that's been going on for the whole 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence and has never been a cause of climate change. For individual places on Earth it varies seasonally but repeats year after year and on a long term basis (tens of thousands of years) it varies due to the Milankovitch cycles but when you're talking about a climatologically significant period (30 years) it has essentially no effect.

Comment Re:Your plan? (Score 1) 620

I'm not saying that. Of course those are issues and they have impacts. I'm just saying that we can't grow plants fast enough to keep up with the CO2 we are producing by burning ancient plant residue. Even if we reforest the rain forests and take care of those other things you mentioned it would just barely put a dent in the problem.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 620

Hotter sun plus normal fluctuations in the climate equal kill all humans to save the planet.

I thought that, "All Scientists" said that the Sun had nothing to do with climate change and this is all due to humans?

Then you weren't paying close enough attention to what they have actually said. That is that in the ~200 years this current climate change has been going on the Sun has not changed enough to be a major factor. But maybe that's to complicated for you to grasp.

Comment Re:It's only going to get worse (Score 1) 620

The lack of building nuclear power plants has as much to do with economics as it does with opposition to nuclear power. I'm not against nuclear power but I am against paying more for my power because of nuclear power when there are less expensive options. Ask the people in Georgia and South Carolina who are already paying higher electric bills to help pay for the nuclear plants they are building.

Comment Re:Bet it happens before 2100 (Score 1) 620

Hey now, let's be fair. These same flappy heads were claiming that Manhattan Island and Florida would be under water by 2000(when I was a kid in the 1980's), and again by 2010, then 2012, and the latest ones screaming it'll be by 2025, and then there's the ones saying 2060 and then there's the others saying by 2100 too. You also can't forget the other alarmist stuff, like acid rain will destroy all the trees by 1995. The ozone hole will make it so you can't go outside except at night. The world will run out of oil by 1985. And my personal favorite? The world will starve by 1976.

Maybe some flappy heads were saying that but I doubt you could find a scientist who studies sea levels who said that. In fact the reality is that sea level rise has been faster than they predicted.

And regarding acid rain and the ozone hole we actually did something about those things to prevent them from getting out of control.

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis

Working...