What's the scientific evidence for climate change?

[The_Joker13]

It is dumb, because there is AMPLE PROOF that cutting emissions to zero WILL allow warming to level off. That is very concrete stuff, not merely speculation as you claim. Of course we cannot drop emissions to zero tomorrow; but we can start in that direction now, instead of waiting for another 50 years.

One thing we need to start doing NOW is re-vamping our electrical grids to handle greater power transmission - if we want to eliminate the internal combustion engine and replace it with something zero emissions, then ALL of the power currently supplied for cars, etc will need to come from somewhere else, and the power grid for electrics is one of the most obvious sources. But we cannot fix the grid in one year or five years; we need to invest in a decade-level plan to rework it, which will also spur investments in solar and wind to transmit energy from those sources to areas it is needed. The next gen grid will become to energy what the internet has become to information. But only if someone gets it built.

Solar has serious limitations and negative effects on the environment as well. The problem with electricity right now is we don't have a practical way to produce it without damaging the environment. Wind and Solar will only get us so far, we need a revolutionary development in power production that also doesn't create negative effects on the environment.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

OK, what are they?

The idea that a couple billion-year-old ball of gas a long ass ways away could have some variations in the heat it kicks out. I can't even keep a stable temperature in my daughters bedroom with a space heater.

You like to reference science but I am also aware that science is funded by special interest groups on both sides.

 

[HawkCat]

See above for unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations.

In any case, there is absolutely no proof that this alleged trajectory would change even if we cut carbon emissions to zero tomorrow (which is of course impossible).

Furthermore, if something should happen that causes global cooling (asteroid strike, supervolcano eruption, nuclear winter, etc.), a warmer baseline will mitigate that disaster somewhat.

Oh, the irony. Joe's Place is the one guy on this board who talks real science on this subject day after day, and clearly knows more about it than anyone else on the board, and YOU accuse him of making "unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations." Joe's Place brings more scientific observations to HROT on this subject than any other poster--by a mile.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Peer reviews and journals, period.

 

[The Tradition]

Oh, the irony. Joe's Place is the one guy on this board who talks real science on this subject day after day, and clearly knows more about it than anyone else on the board, and YOU accuse him of making "unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations." Joe's Place brings more scientific observations to HROT on this subject than any other poster--by a mile.

So I guess you didn't see the unsupported estimates in his post, huh?

 

[The Tradition]

That's odd... you climate clerics have been screaming about reaching the "tipping point" after which runaway warming will occur no matter what we do.

Were those predictions wrong?

25 Years of "Tipping Point" Hysteria.


1. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming… since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrotein 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBCreported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

9. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

 

[Joes Place]

That's odd... you climate clerics have been screaming about reaching the "tipping point" after which runaway warming will occur no matter what we do.

Were those predictions wrong?

How is this inconsistent with what I've stated? The Earth has enormous thermal heat capacity; it may require 200 years or 2000 years for it to equilibrate to an alteration in greenhouse gas levels which we have 100% control over emitting. If that number is more like 2000 years, then we could easily hit a tipping point in the next 50 or 70 years, where we will literally 'lock in' 4°C warming, even though it won't occur immediately, it will take time for it to happen.

There are dozens of 'tipping points' which could shift the climate into a completely different phase, much like Ice Ages that have occurred in the past with small (4°C) variations in overall planet temperature. These may include:

• Loss of Arctic ice (fundamentally and permanently altering the jetstream, which we rely on for our nominal weather patterns)
• Shutting down the AMOC and altering weather along the US East coast and Europe permanently, along with major changes to ecosystems which also rely on the Gulf Stream patterns
• Warming the Arctic tundra to the point that methane emissions 'take over' for our emissions, which means we can go to zero emissions, but the planet will start emitting its own greenhouse gases and continuing to warm w/o anything we can do
• Warming the oceans until methane hydrate deposits do the same - become the dominant greenhouse gas emission over our human-burned fossil fuels.

The complete loss of Arctic sea ice, impacting our jetstream, is now pretty much a given, it is just a matter of when.
The rest are less likely right now, but the risk is non-zero. ANY prudent risk management analysis would indicate we should avoid ANY possibility of triggering the rest of them. If we want that risk to be zero, we have to start limiting our emissions immediately. Doing otherwise means those risks become non-zero, and will continue to increase with potentially devastating consequences. Despite the reality that this many not occur for several hundred years, that is no excuse for leaving a giant mess for future generations - we have benefitted greatly from the sacrifices of past generations, and it's incredibly selfish for us to ignore these risks even though we are not likely to be directly impacted by them, but someone else will.

 

[Joes Place]

25 Years of "Tipping Point" Hysteria.


1. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming… since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrotein 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBCreported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

9. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

For the hundredth time, you are completely incapable of separating 'politics' from 'science'.

 

[naturalmwa]

See above for unsupported gloom and doom predictions and estimates, instead of scientific observations.

In any case, there is absolutely no proof that this alleged trajectory would change even if we cut carbon emissions to zero tomorrow (which is of course impossible).

Furthermore, if something should happen that causes global cooling (asteroid strike, supervolcano eruption, nuclear winter, etc.), a warmer baseline will mitigate that disaster somewhat.

This is a joke right? Pro GW in case an asteroid hits? You might want to put a smiley face or people are going to think you're a loon.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

My issue is the ridiculous speculation that the media runs with. Climate change is going to cause all these bad things to happen. A warming world will obviously not be all bad. There will be some benefits, but the climate orthodoxy won't allow any such discussion. The most they'll admit is stuff like "climate change makes poison ivy grow better."

Bullshyte. If it was the media you had a problem with, you would ignore them and focus on the science. You certainly can't make that claim. If we go much past a 2 degree C rise in global temps, it's likely to set off feedbacks that will continue to push the global temp higher - that's just physics. Permafrost will melt releasing methane. The Arctic ice that reflects about 60% of the sun's energy will give way to darker water that absorbs >80% of that energy. The same thing will be happening on land as the snow and ice disappear. At some point, the carbon cycle flips and the ground starts emitting rather than absorbing CO2. Once those feedbacks kick in, there's nothing we can do but hang on. Temps will inexorably climb higher. A 4-5 degree C rise in temps might be good for something...but not for any humans anywhere. Just the movement of refugees will be unlike anything ever seen.

Feel free to call that alarmist. Recognize that it's a lot like standing on a train trestle listening to the whistle of an approaching train and calling warnings to get off the trestle "alarmist". You want there to be another track for that train, even though nobody can find one on any map.

 

[Joes Place]

The idea that a couple billion-year-old ball of gas a long ass ways away could have some variations in the heat it kicks out. I can't even keep a stable temperature in my daughters bedroom with a space heater.

You like to reference science but I am also aware that science is funded by special interest groups on both sides.

Wrong.

We have records of solar output. It has been stable AND declining for the past 70+ years; more than likely the past 400 years.
Does a DECLINE in solar output explain an INCREASE in global temperatures? Try turning on your A/C this winter and see if your house will warm up nicely for you....

'Science' is not funded by 'special interest groups'. It is funded by government grants among other things. And not only the US government, MANY governments. Begging the question that they are all 'colluding together' is not really a very sound argument. But if you want to join the conspiracy theorists, have at it.

 

[Joes Place]

Solar has serious limitations and negative effects on the environment as well. The problem with electricity right now is we don't have a practical way to produce it without damaging the environment. Wind and Solar will only get us so far, we need a revolutionary development in power production that also doesn't create negative effects on the environment.

We can absolutely get there eventually with wind and solar, particularly with new 400' wind towers, as most of the contiguous US is able to produce wind power with that technology.

We also need storage zones and new tech to 'buffer' energy using affordable storage systems. Many of those are actually in use today, but on smaller scales.

We need a competent grid to move the energy around where it is needed.

All of this costs money; we have spend trillions (in equivalent 2016 dollars) on our infrastructure for fossil fuels over the past 100-150 years. While it is a shame that much of that infrastructure will become obsolete, it is silly to continue investing in it. We need to start funding the 'next gen' stuff we need for the next 200 years and onward.

 

[Joes Place]

Just the movement of refugees will be unlike anything ever seen.

This is precisely what our military is concerned about in its long-term outlooks.....major climate shifts will result in major wars over resources. The best thing we can do in the US is obviate the need for external energy resources, and build the infrastructure here to harness solar, wind, natural gas, etc. so that we don't need to be the world's policeman for moving oil and coal around the planet.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And yet, you manage to top it by resorting to an ad hominem attack instead of telling us why you think this argument is "dumb".

You want to heat up the planet to ward off the chill in case an asteroid hits. That you don't see how dumb that is....well.

 

[naturalmwa]

I have a guest bedroom in Iowa that I'm willing to let one of our FL posters secure an option to rent on. Pay now, be safe later. Bid it up.

 

[The Tradition]

The politics of climate change IS the problem. Not sure why that reality is so threatening to you people.

 

[naturalmwa]

The politics of climate change IS the problem. Not sure why that reality is so threatening to you people.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees. How about we just give NOAA the authority to implement a plan and take the politics out of it?

 

[cigaretteman]

The politics of climate change IS the problem. Not sure why that reality is so threatening to you people.

Because the only people politicizing it are the ignorant, selfish denialists, and life on the planet including the future of generations of humans is at stake because people like you remain willfully ignorant due to your irresponsible, selfish politically driven refusal to educate yourself on the topic.

 

[The Tradition]

Because the only people politicizing it are the ignorant, selfish denialists, and life on the planet including the future of generations of humans is at stake because people like you remain willfully ignorant due to your irresponsible, selfish politically driven refusal to educate yourself on the topic.

LOL... it is being politicized on all sides. lefties have wanted some way to get the evil oil companies forever. Climate change, just like the bogus second-hand smoke bullsh!t, gives them something "scientific" to bludgeon them with.

 

[artradley]

The politics of climate change IS the problem. Not sure why that reality is so threatening to you people.

The problem is, the OP asked about the science behind GW, and that's what most of us have tried to address. Your problem is that the science doesn't match what you would like, and does match what your political opponents are saying; and so you flail at the media and the politics of the issue instead of the science.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

Wrong.

We have records of solar output. It has been stable AND declining for the past 70+ years; more than likely the past 400 years.
Does a DECLINE in solar output explain an INCREASE in global temperatures? Try turning on your A/C this winter and see if your house will warm up nicely for you....

'Science' is not funded by 'special interest groups'. It is funded by government grants among other things. And not only the US government, MANY governments. Begging the question that they are all 'colluding together' is not really a very sound argument. But if you want to join the conspiracy theorists, have at it.

I didn't say the Suns heat was increasing. You have preformulated arguments in your head. I just think we don't understand it well enough to be mocking anyone who isn't sure.

 

[coloradonoles]

I am willing to concede that the global temperature has been rising in the last 100 years, to some extent due to human causes.... if you will consent that science has NO idea what the GLOBAL temperature was from 1600-1700. Not regional, not Northern Hemisphere, but the entire Earth's temperature to the accuracy of a tenth of a degree C.

 

[Joes Place]

The idea that a couple billion-year-old ball of gas a long ass ways away could have some variations in the heat it kicks out.

I didn't say the Suns heat was increasing.

You most certainly did imply that, and likewise implied that it was the reason behind the topic at hand, recent global warming. (In case you FORGOT what you actually posted above)

I did not make any 'mocking' statements about you; I simply pointed out that you are misinformed to presume the sun has anything at all to do with recent warming.

If 'we' don't understand it enough is referring to non-scientists and laypeople, I'm sure you DON'T understand it. But YOUR lack of understanding of a topic does not preclude that someone who is smart and has studied the topic likewise doesn't understand it.

The scientists DO understand it. So, you don't need to claim 'ignorance', all you need to do is LISTEN to what they are telling you.

 

[Joes Place]

I am willing to concede that the global temperature has been rising in the last 100 years, to some extent due to human causes.... if you will consent that science has NO idea what the GLOBAL temperature was from 1600-1700. Not regional, not Northern Hemisphere, but the entire Earth's temperature to the accuracy of a tenth of a degree C.

Newsflash: almost NONE of the records, satellite, instrumental, or proxy, have ABSOLUTE accuracy of 0.1°C.

They have EXCELLENT accuracy of RELATIVE temperatures over time, within the error ranges of the respective measurements.
Do you UNDERSTAND that those are two different things?

Thus, it is fairly SIMPLE to discern differences over the records using overlapping and redundant datasets. And this is why scientists KNOW we are warmer than any time in the past 10,000 years. Putting that into perspective, it is at least 2x or 3x longer than recorded history.

We ALSO know that we have increased CO2 levels to something never seen in the past several hundred thousand years.

 

[Joes Place]

I am willing to concede that the global temperature has been rising in the last 100 years, to some extent due to human causes.... if you will consent that science has NO idea what the GLOBAL temperature was from 1600-1700. Not regional, not Northern Hemisphere, but the entire Earth's temperature to the accuracy of a tenth of a degree C.

It's pretty much like having a bathroom scale that you never calibrated, so you have no idea if it's within ±5 lbs.
BUT, you can weigh yourself on it daily or week-week, and you can absolutely tell if you have gone up or down in weight by 0.1 or 0.2 lbs.

And, if you had 50 scales at home all in the same shape and used at least 2 (or maybe even 10) at a time to track changes in your weight, you could assemble the datasets of all of them, and when you have one of them compared against a calibrated scale,you could then go back and track your weight regardless of which scale was used. That's because you have data for each scale over a time period that tracks with other measurements. And when you finally track one scale's output with something truly 'instrumental', you can back-correct for all of the measurements.

Are there limitations with that? Sure. But when the data are correctly assembled and analyzed, it works quite well. Especially when you have literally dozens of proxies that overlap and track with one another. That's how science works.

 

[coloradonoles]

Newsflash: almost NONE of the records, satellite, instrumental, or proxy, have ABSOLUTE accuracy of 0.1°C.

They have EXCELLENT accuracy of RELATIVE temperatures over time, within the error ranges of the respective measurements.
Do you UNDERSTAND that those are two different things?

Thus, it is fairly SIMPLE to discern differences over the records using overlapping and redundant datasets. And this is why scientists KNOW we are warmer than any time in the past 10,000 years. Putting that into perspective, it is at least 2x or 3x longer than recorded history.

We ALSO know that we have increased CO2 levels to something never seen in the past several hundred thousand years.

No they don't.


• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. Other factors limiting our confidence in surface temperature reconstructions include: the relatively short length of the instrumental record (which is used to calibrate and validate the reconstructions); the fact that all proxies are influenced by a variety of climate variables; the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time; the lack of agreement as to which methods are most appropriate for calibrating and validating large-scale reconstructions and for selecting the proxy data to include; and the difficulties associated with constructing a global or hemispheric mean temperature estimate using data from a limited number of sites and with varying chronological precision. All of these considerations introduce uncertainties that are difficult to quantify. Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations. Our confidence in the results of these reconstructions becomes stronger when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general result, as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling and the 20th century warming.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/surftemps2000yrs.pdf

 

[L. Wade Childress]

I work in a business that goes out 8 spots behind the decimal. You seem to like rounding up.

 

[The_Joker13]

We can absolutely get there eventually with wind and solar, particularly with new 400' wind towers, as most of the contiguous US is able to produce wind power with that technology.

We also need storage zones and new tech to 'buffer' energy using affordable storage systems. Many of those are actually in use today, but on smaller scales.

We need a competent grid to move the energy around where it is needed.

All of this costs money; we have spend trillions (in equivalent 2016 dollars) on our infrastructure for fossil fuels over the past 100-150 years. While it is a shame that much of that infrastructure will become obsolete, it is silly to continue investing in it. We need to start funding the 'next gen' stuff we need for the next 200 years and onward.

The grid is so bad they basically need to start from scratch. Unfortunately for anything of that scale to be done we are talking insane amounts of money. Sure, someday hopefully man will not be dependent on fossil fuels, but that is distant future. The cost of fossil fuels are too cheap compared to alternatives at this point, just being realistic.

 

[sijoint]

The indirect evidence of it is the amount of money the oil companies (who own the GOP) pay to deny that it's real.

Stop, no more false narratives/propaganda/bs.....pleeeeeeease?

 

[naturalmwa]

The grid is so bad they basically need to start from scratch. Unfortunately for anything of that scale to be done we are talking insane amounts of money. Sure, someday hopefully man will not be dependent on fossil fuels, but that is distant future. The cost of fossil fuels are too cheap compared to alternatives at this point, just being realistic.

Didn't Tesla have a plan for a wireless energy grid? Let's build that.

 

[fredjr82]

These threads always go the same way for me

1. Wait for IMCC and other dumb people to equate a cold day in July as proof of no existence of GW
2. Wait for Joe's Place to start schooling people on the subject as he appears to be the closely connected to it.
3. Close the thread
4. Wait for new thread to appear.
5. Repeat steps 1-4

So far I haven't been disappointed.

 

[Joes Place]

No they don't.


• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. Other factors limiting our confidence in surface temperature reconstructions include: the relatively short length of the instrumental record (which is used to calibrate and validate the reconstructions); the fact that all proxies are influenced by a variety of climate variables; the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time; the lack of agreement as to which methods are most appropriate for calibrating and validating large-scale reconstructions and for selecting the proxy data to include; and the difficulties associated with constructing a global or hemispheric mean temperature estimate using data from a limited number of sites and with varying chronological precision. All of these considerations introduce uncertainties that are difficult to quantify. Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations. Our confidence in the results of these reconstructions becomes stronger when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general result, as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling and the 20th century warming.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/surftemps2000yrs.pdf

OR....you could look up the seminal paper on this work, the PAGES2K team and read their paper.

Temperatures today a substantially warmer than at any time in the past 2000 years (at least). You can either Google that yourself, or I can do it for you.

(FWIW....their work was ONLY encompassing the past 2000 years, which is what your link is allegedly refuting or confounding. It IS a peer-reviewed paper and is the largest consortium to look at this info of anything else out there.)

 

[The_Joker13]

Didn't Tesla have a plan for a wireless energy grid? Let's build that.

Dude, Tesla is one of the most underrated minds of our time. He was the Einstein of electricity. Thomas Edison truly was an evil man when it came to business practices and basically ruined Tesla because of his genius. Thank God Tesla was at least able to convince the general public that AC was far superior to DC for power transmission.

 

[whatsup13579er]

Solar has serious limitations and negative effects on the environment as well. The problem with electricity right now is we don't have a practical way to produce it without damaging the environment. Wind and Solar will only get us so far, we need a revolutionary development in power production that also doesn't create negative effects on the environment.

What negative effects does solar have on the environment?

 

[Joes Place]

I work in a business that goes out 8 spots behind the decimal. You seem to like rounding up.

Good for you.

I've worked in areas where we go well below that (e.g. microwave systems using log-scales down to 10^-9) as well a biomedical areas where even smaller numbers are important. (ALL of us scientists know how to use the exponential representation system!!!)

No clue as to how that correlates with your 'solar output' comments.

 

[Raglefant]

Dude, Tesla is one of the most underrated minds of our time. He was the Einstein of electricity. Thomas Edison truly was an evil man when it came to business practices and basically ruined Tesla because of his genius. Thank God Tesla was at least able to convince the general public that AC was far superior to DC for power transmission.

Spot on, plus his Love Song is one of the most underrated rock ballads of all time.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

Good for you.

I've worked in areas where we go well below that (e.g. microwave systems using log-scales down to 10^-9) as well a biomedical areas where even smaller numbers are important. (ALL of us scientists know how to use the exponential representation system!!!)

No clue as to how that correlates with your 'solar output' comments.

We are talking about the earth and the sun and everything the comprises these two objects. Some are convinced that we have been able to accurately identify and break down a trend using 70-400 years of data on a planet that's 5b years old. I'm not, that's all. I'm not even against having my mind changed (after all, who wants to burn alive???) but it's hard to take anyone seriously with the emotion and politics that drive everyone's opinion on this subject.

 

[coloradonoles]

OR....you could look up the seminal paper on this work, the PAGES2K team and read their paper.

Temperatures today a substantially warmer than at any time in the past 2000 years (at least). You can either Google that yourself, or I can do it for you.

(FWIW....their work was ONLY encompassing the past 2000 years, which is what your link is allegedly refuting or confounding. It IS a peer-reviewed paper and is the largest consortium to look at this info of anything else out there.)

I linked the NOAA.gov website!?!?!? I guess maybe I was wrong assuming that was peer reviewed... FML.

The fact that you can't even CONSIDER that what you believe can be questioned is the very thing that makes me doubt your whole position.

I am happy we've moved on from you calling me names and insulting my intelligence.

 

[BrianNole09]

Oy. Tradition has hijacked my thread.

Trad, no offense, but "science" and "evidence" don't interest or convince you. Please leave

To everyone else, one does not debate Tradition with facts. He is not convinced by them. If you present facts that completely contradict his opinion, he will simply side step or dodge.

Again, facts do not convince Trad. Save your effort.

 

[Raglefant]

I am willing to concede that the global temperature has been rising in the last 100 years, to some extent due to human causes....

Why does anything else matter? If we are at all contributing to the warming in a measurable way in such a short historical time frame, and that warming could by all accounts have painful or apocalyptic ramifications, why does anything else matter? We would have already established the need to take action.

I might be missing something, but isn't the only reason we would ever decide to do nothing because we conclude that we are not affecting the climate and couldn't even if we wanted to?