The Science Behind the Paris Climate Accords (thebulletin.org) 118
Lasrick writes: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists offers a pretty thorough run-down of the pros and cons of the Paris climate accords. William Sweet examines not only the political machinations behind the agreement but much of what the agreement entails and how it got there after 21 years of COP meetings. "As for the tighter 1.5-degree standard, this is a complicated issue that the Paris accords fudge a bit. The difference between impacts expected from a 1.5-degree world and a 2-degree world are not trivial. The Greenland ice sheet, for example, is expected to melt in its entirely in the 2-degree scenario, while in a 1.5-degree world the odds of a complete melt are only 70 percent... But at the same time the scientific consensus is that it would be virtually impossible to meet the 1.5-degree goal because on top of the 0.8–0.9 degrees of warming that already has occurred, another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it." In an additional audio recording of a teleconference briefing given to the Bulletin's Science and Security Board and other leading scientists and policy makers, Sivan Kartha and Richard Somerville (both on the S & S Board) explain what was accomplished (and not accomplished).
"Atomic Scientists" (Score:1, Informative)
Lol.
Hasn't this rag been discredited enough already?
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
Captcha: NIMBY.
Re: (Score:3)
Before parent post gets modded to oblivion, it should be noted that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (home of the 'Doomsday Clock' if I'm not mistaken), does tend to run a bit activist in its public statements. Now as to whether or not the science they print is sound/skewed/whatever, I'll leave to the reader.
Re:"Atomic Scientists" (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth a read if you're interested in what goes on at these conferences.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bulletin is a policy journal, not a technical journal. Always has been.
Re: (Score:2)
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
No, they oppose atomic *weapons*, which is an eminently sensible position to take. They are not anti nuclear power, however, and in fact their stance is that Nuclear power is probably the best way forward in reducing greenhouse emissions.
Their staff are mostly nuclear or related hard scientists with some policy experts. They are about as respectable as you get for a policy thinktank.
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing clear about climate change is that every day we learn that we know less and less about the Climate.
Climate Scientists are like ants on a tree trunk trying to infer the shape of the Forrest. All they know is what little they see.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing clear about climate change is that every day we learn that we know less and less about the Climate.
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
Could be worse [Re:Yet more lies] (Score:3)
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
Yep. That's what keeps climate scientists awake at night. Most particularly, the long-term feedback of methane released from permafrost and other cold traps as the temperature warms. The emphasize-the-uncertainty community (previously called deniers) doesn't like to emphasize that aspect of the uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
Oh definitely. In a worse case scenario we get huge methane clathrate releases that result in MASSIVE temperature increases, possibly large enough for a global extinction event. It's a low probability scenario, but certainly scary.
Re: (Score:2)
The oceans are not only composed of the deepest "abyss".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article you cite is about the abyssal ocean below about 7,000 feet. There's a lot of water between 7,000 feet and the surface. As per usual simple analyses like yours are usually wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
It has to be the deep ocean because measurements of shallow ocean temperatures have not shown any excess warming.
What are you talking about? There has been lots of warming in the upper ocean. It is clearly shown at this NOAA page on ocean heat content. [noaa.gov]
Since heat only moves from a warmer object to a cooler object, the heat will never exit from the ocean until the atmospheric temperature drops.
Since over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans it only takes a slight change in how much goes into the ocean for major changes in atmospheric temperatures. For example 2015 is about to set a new temperature record because El Nino has reduced the amount of heat going into the ocean leaving more of it in the atmosphere.
I doubt it was much wa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Want lies?
Here you go:
NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.
“We
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, look who is behind the funding of judicialwatch.org and I think you'll know how seriously to take their accusations.
that was a restricted study. (Score:2)
That was looking at the very deepest ocean. Since greenhouse effect influences warming at the surface, that's where you should look.
The 0-700m and 0-2000m ocean heat content measurements are barreling straight up.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
"The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" (Score:5, Funny)
Is that a real journal? Because it sounds like something that would give me +5% radiation resistance perk in Fallout 4.
Re:"The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it's the official journal behind the "Doomsday Clock". It used to be only about nuclear war. Now, it's all ELEs
Re: (Score:1)
I believe it's the official journal behind the "Doomsday Clock".
Didn't some kid get into trouble for bringing one of those to school?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a real journal?
Yes.
http://thebulletin.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists
Re:Goodbye Miami, and thanks for all the cocaine. (Score:4, Informative)
That's not from the 3-5 mm/year sea level rise. That's from overpumping of groundwater. Once you suck the fresh water out, the silt compacts and the land subsides. You can fairly blame that on overdevelopment, but it doesn't have the slightest connection to climate.
Re:Goodbye Miami, and thanks for all the cocaine. (Score:4, Informative)
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
wow. posting is undoing my moderation and my apologies but I don't think my lone positive moderation is having any impact anyway. I just can't believe that your post is being bottomed out as a troll. Apparently the climate change deniers are even stronger here than I thought.
To anyone reading this: just because you don't believe in climate change and the fact that Florida is facing real consequences doesn't make PopeRatzo's post a troll.
To the person who replied with "3-5mm/year" and "flooding is caused by
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
On the bright side, sea level rise is slow and anyway South Florida will likely eventually make a magnificent coral reef. Many people would consider that to be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
It might be worth looking at the state of Milankovitch Cycles then and now to understand the difference. Since the different components of Milankovitch aren't in harmony with each other each glacial/interglacial cycle is different from others.
Re: (Score:2)
All true. And the cycles have time scales that aren't too dissimilar to glaciation cycles.
A lot of people are looking at Milankovic cycles and trying to reconcile astronomical information which is probably very good with polar ice core temperature data that is maybe less so. So far, the results are kind of underwhelming. But maybe that'll change. Or maybe Milankovic is one component of whatever triggers and terminates glaciations and we don't have the other factor(s) well worked out yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry about Miami. They'll get their product, come hell or high water [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point! I guess the Scrooge mods are out tonight.
Oh well, Merry Christmas everyone. Hold tight to the ones you love.
https://youtu.be/TBJLhOB8O0A [youtu.be]
Smoke and mirrors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how none of the new "agreements" are binding, what real difference does it make? Show and no go, feel good BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how none of the new "agreements" are binding, what real difference does it make? Show and no go, feel good BS.
And how binding do you think a "binding" agreement would be? Considering the fact that most of these state leaders would have to go home and have their binding agreements ratified. This is how all politics work; you state your intentions, and then you start working towards making it happen, but nowhere is it guaranteed that it will. One of the costs of having democracy. Hopefully the respective parliaments and electorates are not all too benighted to actually go and do something about things.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the science? (Score:1, Informative)
Where is the science and economics that tells us that the agreement is the optimal solution? That reducing CO2 emissions is the only possible response to the problem? That the cure won't be worse than the disease?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll settle for a solution. Any solution. Based on science.
Re: (Score:3)
We will all move to the moon and Mars in order to escape the catastrophic heating. In the far future, we will escape out to other star systems. /sci-fi
Re: (Score:2)
We have a scientifically verified problem. So in response we should just do the first damn thing that comes into our heads because science does not provide optimal solutions? Nevermind that the unintended consequences are not considered?
Sounds like right-wing nutjobbery to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind that the unintended consequences are not considered?
By definition, you can't consider unintended consequences.
The point is not just that you didn't mean them to happen, but that you had no idea they would happen at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already too late. We need other options, quick, but I detect an irrational reluctance to consider them. You are the foot dragger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a course of action doesn't mean that research can't and won't continue on other options. Pursuing the EPA's current clean power plan doesn't mean economic collapse either. Minnesota is already half way towards its 2030 emissions goal and its economy is doing quite well.
I'm just not seeing the research into other options happening. Am I missing something?
No economic collapse is a pretty low hurdle. The latest statistic is that the US economy grew by 2%. What if it could have been 5%? Minnesota is doing "quite well". Maybe it could be doing fantastically, if not for emissions goals.
I am not arguing for or against emissions controls, only that they are being implemented on an entirely unscientific basis.
Re: (Score:2)
The fear mongering that's gone on related to dealing with climate change is that fixing things will be too expensive and will drive energy prices sky high. Minnesota is well on its ways to meeting its emissions goals for electrical power generation yet electricity costs in Minnesota are relatively low. The national average is 10.45 cents per kWh. The cost in Minnesota is 9.63 cents. So no, the emissions goals are not holdin
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure you are getting my point. Just saying that things aren't bad because of controls does not mean that the controls are ok. You have to consider what might have been otherwise. You say electricity is reasonable at 10.45 c/kWh, but what if it were 5 c/kWh? Maybe the economy, living standards and life expectancy would be better. Maybe we would not have a disappearing middle class.
You make a valid point that not addressing global warming has consequences and costs. But the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing CO2 emissions is something we can do fairly quickly to some extent, and it's going to be helpful. If your boat is sinking, fixing the hole isn't the only solution, but it's going to help a lot with other actions.
We're getting a lot more energy from solar and wind now, reducing the need to burn coal. This is good. It isn't causing economic problems.
Obviously, we can't just cut them out entirely, but we can work towards it.
EEhhhhh?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That would be swell. Of course, given Merkin's proclivity for Dunning Kruger effect and our prevalence here it would also be a pointless exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a global security / public policy magazine aimed at a scientific readership. Presumably anyone who subscribes has been following the issues and doesn't need a science primer on climate change; they presumably do need more substantive coverage than they're going to get on cable news.
Watered down agreement thanks to the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Watered down agreement thanks to the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it was a nice travel junket, but I would do it in Germany, during Oktoberfest, with lots of barbequed bratwurst and sauerkraut.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA, the reference to Kerry's speech "In the version of the speech he delivered upon arrival in Paris, he said the flat-earthers seem to think that as the world’s oceans rise, the water is just going to pour off the sides." shows the fundamental disconnect; the AGW proponents aren't willing to even consider the premises of the skeptics, so they make ad hominem attacks against the skeptics themselves to make them personally ridiculous and their positions inherently fallacial. It's always seemed to
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's mad at the skeptics. They're important. However, there's a lot of deniers out there, and they throw around insults like they were all going to melt at .5C warmer and they have to use them now.
A while ago, an oil company commissioned a climate scientist skeptic to look at the data. Previously, he had claimed that warming might or might not happen, he didn't know. The scientist looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that warming was happening, and then some people started claiming h
The only science you need (Score:3, Interesting)
“I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer." -- Freeman Dyson
If Freeman Dyson says your science is rubbish, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a link to that comment in context? I would love to use that quote.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/02/403530867/a-veteran-scientist-dreams-boldly-of-earth-and-sky
Re: (Score:2)
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me."
Unfortunately, the truth has nothing to do with how nice you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirming once again that a lot of slashdot posters appear highly incapable of judging expertise.
Dysons a smart guy, we all know that, but he's not qualified on the topic (and says so himself) and has opinions somewhat at odds with those who are qualified on the topic. his claims on fluid dynamics are decades out of date, he's consistently misrepresented the models (possibly by incompetence rather than dishonesty, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt
Re: (Score:1)
"Experts" like psychologist John Cooke? or journalist David Appell? or the disgraced 'Hockey Stick' fraud Michael Mann? or "Climategate" falsifier Phil Jones? or politicians like Al Gore? instead of actual climate scientists like Dr Judith Curry and Dr Roy Spencer and Dr Murray Salby (who literally wrote the graduate-level textbook on atmospheric physics). Your argument is an appeal to authority as much as the Freeman Dyson proponents are (with the difference that Freeman Dyson was not found to be a co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But I urge you to look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA, and I provide links to quotes directly from sources. It seems that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alamists such as yourself are driven by extreme Left wing Collectivist indoctrination that must deny observational reality (UAH and RSS satellite data, and well-sited surface stations) as well as the quotes from the architects of the wealth-redistribution scam. What are you guys going to do when you find t
Re: (Score:1)
all you've done is showcase your own ignorance
Re: (Score:1)
"all you've done is showcase your own ignorance"
Huh? I suggest looking at OBSERVATIONAL REALITY as shown by the UAH and RSS satellites, and the well-sited surface stations. As well as check out the quotes of the architects of the wealth-redistribution scheme. It appears you are ignorant of the satellite data, and closed minded to observational reality. I urge you to drop the dogmatism and employ The Scientific Method - where observation is king.
"Feel the Bern!"
ROFL !!!!! you say that I'm "showcasing
Re: (Score:2)
again: all you've done is show your own ignorance, your incapacity for thought, and gullibility/capability for believing BS.
Not one thing you've said is backed by reality.
Not one.
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? Look at the RSS and UAH satellite data ! I bet you haven't. Hence, you have zero clue as to what I'm talking about. Also, please look at the paleo record for the last 10000 years to get some perspective.
Actually, it is the CAGW that is not backed by reality. The ECS and TCS have most probable values around 1.2 according to the latest review of observational measurements (eg. Lewis & Curry 2015). Do you understand the significance of this for CAGW ? CAGW is a DEAD hypothesis. The Scientific M
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Mann disgraced? Phil Jones a falsifier? Climategate being taken seriously? Pro-CACW "experts"? If they're experts, leave out the scare quotes. Would you care to identify who said that quote? I'm willing to bet a nickel that it wasn't an expert, meaning climate scientist. A web site called "green-agenda" looks political, not scientific, and you should not just believe politicians like Al Gore.
Would you care to rephrase that post without all the ad hominems, and in what Wikipedia would call
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I haven't looked at it. There is a simple causal relationship between what we are doing and global warming, and the climate is changing. Since the science shows what I was thinking would happen, I don't examine the details. I'm more interested in the forecasts of what might happen.
So, what about the satellite data?
Re: (Score:1)
"Because I haven't looked at it. "
Epic Fail. You know, what is striking is how strong the opinions of CAGW believers are, without understanding anything about the observed reality/observations. This is a really, really, really bad habit that otherwise smart people fall into.
The Scientific Method requires you to understand your own hypothesis, as well as any competing hypothesis - and the evidence for an against each one. But you don't follow the Scientific Method and seem quote proud of following dog
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know much about science, do you?
I'm not doing climate research in any way, shape, or form. If you want details on things, find a climate scientist. If I were doing climate research, I'd know what the satellite readings were, in general, and their significance. I wouldn't necessarily have the details, since climate science, like all others, has specialties.
I do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we've been putting a lot more of it into the atmosphere, that we keep seeing high
Re: (Score:3)
even Dyson can get one wrong.
besides, you're cherry picking one quote from one scientist who isn't a climate scientist out of context, and he never called it rubbish. in fact, he does NOT actually reject climate science, or even AGW. he is at most a reluctant skeptic (a TRUE skeptic, not a denier that hides behind the word skeptic). and Dyson is also a member (founding?) of the very same group the article is even about, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
and a personal request: if you're going to be so igno
Re: (Score:2)
Dyson is a smart guy, and deserves to be listened to... but "listening to him" doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Being smart does not mean he's always right, and particularly not when he's not in his field.
When you dive into what he actually says, what he says is that he hasn't studied the science and doesn't follow the literature (that's the part where he says he's not an expert) but he simply doesn't trust any computer modelling because they're complicated.
You may keep your SUV (Score:3, Insightful)
And drive it around all you want.
But I get to shoot you, in that oh-so-unlikely event that every scientist is a moron and every corporate asshole with a vested interest in not having to pay to clean up the mess he makes is right, and you want to escape the water by climbing onto my hill.
Deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of all the new sea shore frontage. Atlanta, Georgia will be an ocean port. Too bad about Savannah.
Re: (Score:1)
But I get to shoot you
Be sure to use "low carbon" smokeless gun powder in your bullets, otherwise you're part of the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I give a damn, I'm 800m above sea level.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you, I'll shoot back. Choose wisely.
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, give it another few decades. Of course after all the nukes go off everything should cool down nicely.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Baked In (Score:2)
Can't believe /. falls for the climate change bull (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU. That is all it has ever been.
I think you need to renew your medication, you're talking bollocks out loud in public again.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Funny)
Cue the usual conga line of Useful Idiots who drank the Kool-Aid and have nothing but bad science and ad-hominem attacks to back up their politically-motivated wish to create their socialist Utopia which in effect will render everyone - except a few elite who Know What's Good For Us Or Else - into grey serfdom.
So easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, let's see, all the credible science is on my side, yes, I'm happy to admit drinking the kook aid of real science.
It's most amusing to see the same old delusional paranoia of the flat earthers who deny reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly typical of the denialist, unable to read and comprehend. Where did I say anything about killing anybody?
Lmao.