Climate Change: Why you should be angry and why anger isn't enough: John Ashton at TEDxBedfordSchool
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- About the Speaker: One of the world's top climate diplomats, John Ashton is now an independent commentator and adviser on the politics of climate change. From 2006-12 he served as Special Representative for Climate Change to three successive UK Foreign Secretaries, spanning the current Coalition and the previous Labour Government. He was a cofounder and, from 2004-6, the first Chief Executive of the think tank E3G. From 1978-2002, after a brief period as a research astronomer, he was a career diplomat, with a particular focus on China. He is a visiting professor at the London University School of Oriental and African Studies, and a Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College.
About the Talk: If you are under 30 today, you are on track to find out in your lifetime what unmanageable climate change will be like. Business,politics and economics seem to have no response. What is going wrong and how can you use your voice if you want this fixed in time to fix your future?
+ In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
I commend this gentleman for his calm and reasoned anger and his respect for and trust in the ability of the younger generation to use their intellectual and fiscal influence to get done a job that ought to have been done a long time ago. Change can indeed take place, and the technology to implement it exists already. Let cooler heads prevail: the ranting and raving and stunning self-centeredness shown by both political extremes in all Western countries these days must give way to the truly non-partisan efforts of those who have the scope and perspective to change the way in which we use and produce our energy from now onward.
Talk about self-centered. You think your generation is smarter, way more socially conscious, more informed than the previous generation? What a narcissist. Try looking behind the wizard's curtain-you're being flummoxed by the education and media systems into believing something that is a lie. References upon request.
..the over arching thing to remember, scientists have families, they do not want to say what they are saying. They understand what remedies will cost..... However; they are gutsy enough to at least give out a warning, and thank god for that !
they certainly want to say whatever will keep them funded and gainfully employed . physics genius freeman Dyson told his students Not to go into clisci because unless you go along with the crowd you won't get funded or have a job
@@jeffgold3091
Incorrect. Freeman Dyson was instrumental in u s.a. and Britian during and after WW2.
HOWEVER Freeman Dyson was used by deniers in his twilight years to spout
B S..
How do I know Freeman Dyson....?
I read his book Disturbing the Universe 1978, and in that book his love for the Earth is readily apparent.
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello Dyson worked next door to Einstein at IAS and was a brilliant scientist and humanitarian til the end . he was always a contrarian , like Feynman , and knew exactly what he was saying . its on one of his CZcams videos . being brilliant and being skeptical go together .
@@jeffgold3091
His comments on CLIMATE CHANGE were idiocy
The problem is that we are reversing in centuries a percentage of atmospheric changes that occurred over a period of 60 million years. One hundredth of 60,000,000 is 600,000 and that is too fast for evolution to keep up, except for bacteria.
I am worried about the number of people who imagine that ANYTHING other than nuclear power can oust fossil carbon. We have ALREADY guaranteed the the planet's biosphere will get hotter, until the infrared radiation from warmer surfaces can escape capture by the existing increase in greenhouse gas content.
"If we can afford to bail out the banks we can certainly afford to build a carbon-neutral energy system." 6.03
This is a golden point among a lot that this guy supplies. Well worth the effort to get past his circuitous metaphorical introduction.
Please don't respond to the comments of climate change deniers,they are creating a debate where none exists to confuse public who come here to learn about climate change.
Tosser.
*****
Tosser.
*****
Correct.As far as i can see there are two types of deniers,those who are paid by the oil and coal interests and those who cannot and/or will not change there opinion due to lack of understanding of reality,religion,ideology or survival bias.I have seen uneducated people with enough common sense that they can feel that something is not right with the way climate and weather is behaving...Scientists are warning about Co2 and other greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution started..like you said..its not rocket science.
kingkobra1978 Well said! It is not a matter of having a degree in environmental sciences to understand the issue. It is just a matter of having little criticism and be able to tell flawed, or against-the-facts arguments of deniers, from reviewed evidence from thousands of scientists from all over the world which have been researching and studied the issue from AT LEAST the 80's. It is easy to tell the willingly-ignorant from those who use their brain. It's not rocket science.
That's right, you can't win a debate, so just ignore!
Thankyou!
Her subset of data was from 15-25 degrees north, Which is in-fact in the tropics/ subtropics. The average subtropical latitude is 30 degrees N/S. I apologise for any confusion from her calling her study area "NE"
Climate change aside , I've noticed that in nearly all the nature documentaries I watch , the documentary makers final words are normally about , how negatively we are impacting and degrading the world's ecosystems . The general conclusion is nearly always pessimistic.
+Glen Mccarthy Yes, even if climate change were not happening we have a massive toxicity crisis that has been building since the industrial revolution. There's a limit to how much poison the environment can absorb.
You've been bamboozled, as was I for 30 years.
We hv gone PASSED the tipping point!! - no NEED to get angry or be angry!
JUST be adequately PREPARED!!!
The only significant tipping point is in the far distant future (approximately one billion years from now) when the sun becomes more luminous and earth loses its water into space.
Ok Doomer
The US developed 2 LFTR in the 70's, one can be found at the Oak Ridge National laboratories in Tennessee. The reactors had SERIOUS flaws, not the least of which was the inability to keep radioactive tritium inside the reactor (there was particle loss to the environment). The reactors did produce energy, but not significantly more than solid rod reactors, and the LFTR fluids are extreme waste hazards, with coolant water being contaminated. It was a good idea in theory, but it doesn't work well.
Excellent talk: thank you.
i'm angry. I want deniers to all live in a big biosphere where they always experience the climate they want us to live with. They have to grow their own food, too. Sometimes we'll give them too much rain, then none, then an unseasonable freeze. Watch their eyes bug out and enjoy them pounding their fists to get out as we laugh. Then.....they'll turn on each other. Make it a pay per view show.
kim weaver
Get a life , Socialist Climate Clown !
Try to save your life, denier wingnut idiot.
kim weaver your words are that of a Gullible Simpleton True B'lver !
A crash test climate dummy in praise and support of the above shyster televangelist medieval ratbag !
This is the true hidden agenda freely admitted by one of your fellow ratbags
lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png
Prove me wrong, dolt.
Well, I understand your frustration, but let us be the rational and patient group. I'm fine with a little colorful talk as long as it's just a bit of spice in the stew of real information.
great talk. one of the few worthwhile.
Gutsy speech made seven years ago, still valid, even more important.
To avoid confusion, what is the title of Dessler's paper?
Apologies, the amount for Don Easterbrooks error should read > 0.4C, not 4 C.
I do not at all believe the uncertainty of the cloud feedback is low, it is NOT low, it is the MOST uncertain feedback in the system. However it is consistently found that while it is still uncertain, it is uncertain in the positive direction. The tropics are more uncertain because the vast majority of all cloud formation happens there (along the Inter tropical convergence zone).
The physics don't leave much wiggle room, as temperature rises, absolute humidity will as well. A review of the Clausius-Clayperion equation might be in order, if your atmospheric physics has become a bit rusty.
No, I mean like we use irrigation now. We use underground aquifers to irrigate crops. You can't count on rainfall, it's too erratic and there's a substantial amount of capital investment in crops, so part of your costs include transporting water by pump, which is seriously depleting our stores. We're drawing down glacial meltwater to grow food faster, but once the aquifers are depleted, we'll have to rely on rainfall and then we'll be in serious trouble.
Graphite cores are a virtual NECESSITY for LFTR's. There has been talk of using graphite cobbles, rather than a solid core, but the problem of graphite degradation and positive reaction feedbacks still persists.
Don't get me wrong, there might be some use for Th based reactors in the distant (some decades down the road) future, but LFTR is not viable at this time, and its likely that different reactor types would be developed were Th to be used as a large scale breeder material.
AR4 was almost 7 years ago... the science has improved greatly. Certainly not perfect, but today aerosol dynamics are much better understood. The data on the cloud-feedback is found in quite a few physics and computation studies. Two good examples include Lauer et al. 2010 and Clement et al. 2009. Again, cloud-feedback is still poorly quantified; but it is quite apparently positive, rather than negative.
Think about what you just said; coolant is MOLTEN salts.... Now it is true that LFTR avoid using much coolant materials thanks to their hotter running temperatures, but there must STILL be coolant water for the Rankine Cycle, in order to produce electricity from the reactor. There are, as I stated, significant design issues with LFTR, which include catastrophic graphite core failure, radioactive tritium contamination of released water, higher level proliferation risks, and waste
Thank you for providing the full paper. But, I do find something troubling in the paper, which obviously produced a lot of really bad looking data for such a study, and that is their use of SST to measure reather than air temps. After all, we are talking about the atmosphere, right? Sure, if you look at the data on the hole, it would indicate a slight positive feedback, but here's the thing: The differences between regionsis so large, and ANY study that uses SST has to deal with El Nino.
No farmer is counting on the rain to water his crops... he's counting on irrigation.
The Arab Spring was the result of a sudden sharp increase in food prices, mainly due to the fact that the area suddenly became a net energy importer. An increase in food prices means that more farming becomes economically viable. When food prices rise economic profit is possible, which means that he can afford to pay higher water rates.
The food-spike had much to do with the drought in Russia 2010, which prompted a stop in all wheat-exports
So, as I mentioned earlier, the subtropics were the region where most of the uncertainty was, there was not much trouble in modelling cloud behaviour at the poles or midlatitudes. But, a global picture is good as well, which was why I provided Dessler's citation for his global study. There are some other good global studies, but most scientists focused on the regions where the uncertainty was greatest to provide better quality analyses.
Because you can read his primary sources... since he cites and lists them all; and even provides most of them to the reader directly.
well said. I wish more people would listen to talks like this one.. thanks for the talk..
HI Yvonne
As I see you are concerned about climate change, I wanted to share with a cash prize we are giving out to anyone that can produce a video that goes “viral/most hits” about climate change. To win, you need to prepare a NEW 2 minute video and submit it to us at:
www.iowaclimateprize.org/
While the contest starts April 8, you can submit anytime as the contest runs for 3 months.
Please pass the word!!
David Grewell, PhD
Chair of Iowa Climate Prize
Excellent talk
(cont) This is what truly is the logical disconnect between the arguments and what they imply. Sure, there's a valid argument on both sides of the climate debate in terms of how much warming we have, do, and will cause. I love these debates and enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with someone producing literature that supports their case. You are not wrong in that regard.
But, to go from that to comments like "A rapidly warming world is no fun ..." is where the good arguments end and (cont)
Trying to use politics to change things in this matter still sounds like someone whistling cheerfully from a cross..
Unfortunately political action is essential because of the magnitude of the problem. The obstruction all seems to come from one side of the political fence who are beholden to the fossil fuel industry.
I agree completely, It isn't worth my time to have to attempt to counter every single instance where you fail to read my citations, fail to provide any of your own, or just flat out lie about the literature I have cited.
What you provide here is a perfect explanation of your own tactics, and you attempt to project them onto me. The problem is, anyone reading your our posts can read my citations for themselves, and while many will not, the ones who do will see the fox in the henhouse at once
There is a fundamental difference. The 2 regional papers I cited applied their method to certain regions; Lindzen developed a model of cloud dynamics specifically for the tropics, and applied it to the midlatitudes and poles... that DOESN'T WORK and is not scientifically sound let alone robust.
That's what I just told you good to see you intend to follow it up
As for contemporary extinctions, natural background in stable conditions is ~ 10-100 species going extinct each year; While estimates vary, the present rate is in excess of 30,000 species a year (that is a very conservative estimate). There is much literature on the discussion of whether or not we are currently in the midst of another mass extinction, with good papers on both sides, though it is increasingly appearing that mass extinction is inevitable.
(cont) But, with Clement's study, I will state this again, and this is likely why the abstract was very careful in stating what what's in the paper truly means: You cannot derive any kind of a relationship from this other than the models being in the ballpark simply because this is not a global study. It is regional, deals with very specific cloud formations.
I've asked you for the title of the paper you are quoting from. You refused to provide it.
In traditional reactors you are 100% correct; but I was not discussing traditional solid core reactors. Vic was touting LFTR. The old LFTR at Oak Ridge National Laboratories had the problem I mentioned, where the steam water for turbine power was radioactive; thanks to free particles breeching the containment structure and releasing tritium with the turbine water.
See the paper by ORNL contractors in Nuclear Science and Engineering here:
bit(.)ly/18qVn6Y
Let us choose to build our future. Well said.
Sea level rise and rate, especially with advanced topographical data for sea surfaces over the past ~40 years is increasingly useful. Both NASA and JAXA have great resources detailing the utility of sea level metrics; ESA has some nice ones as well. This is esp. true with the Jason / TOPEX missions.
Clement is not listed in the author list of Science vol. 325.
No articles from Lauer listed in Journal of Climate vol. 23.
My assumption is that you looked up an article online that sourced them, even though those names are nowhere to be found, unless they were re-cited by papers in those journals and their research is from previous papers.
Someone must have posted this video on some denier website. I can't see why else there would be so many of the loons posting here. It's depressing that there are still so many of these people about, throwing sand in the wheels.
I've not come across Mr Ashton before. he talks a lot of sense.
He talks Nonsense.....As well as Bollocks..
Average SI is 1362 W/m^2, and the exact value is heavily dependant on region due to sun-angle geometry. During the day 1/2 the earth radiates IR, and recieves VIS EMR; at nightthat same 1/2 continues to radiate IR; as does anything that isn't 0K.
What you're really talking about is cost structure. Farmers are using more equipment, more petrochemicals, and more inputs in general in order to grow crops. Since the number of farms has increased so much it can produce a glut, prices fall. Anyone who fails to keep up can find themselves priced out of the market.
I don't think it's very strange how cookies crumble. Heterogenous carbohydrate matrices tend not to stay in one piece after dessication.
Of course, corn isn't the only major crop produced in the US; nor is it the most desired in foreign markets. I know folks in the US love their corn.. but they should pay attention to their other two humongous crops; wheat and soy.
~$10 a bushel is an all time high for wheat, and the soy prices aren't helping the global market.
Having worked in Tennessee for quite a while, I can assure you they have NEVER experienced 2 100 year floods within 3 years of eachother before this decade. Referring to a flood as 100 or 1000 year event is the best practice in hydrologic reporting; Those terms do not mean you will have a flood of that magnitude every 100 or 1000 years, but refer to the chance of experiencing one in any given year. For a 100 year flood the chance of is 0.01 , or 1% for a 1000 year flood it is 0.001 or 0.1%
take a look at the floods of 1913 that flooded most of the eastern US and killed hundreds . that's flooding
(cont) And that was snowball Earth. So, given that fact, if every single feedback is positive and the system feeds onto itself, how could we have had such wild swings between warm and cold? What provides the "off" switch if the feedback system amplifies itself.
From a climate history of the EArth perspective,it's much more realistic for the Earth to have a dampening of feedbacks, where colder temperatures produce mechanisms where temperatures won't fall below a certain range. Same for warmth.
So, the northeast pacific is located in the subtropical zones?
Inspiring
We need more CO2 not less.
All ecosystems and life on Earth was adapted to an Earth with 300 ppm of CO2 or less (usually less) before we started burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests. Those were the levels the Earth had been at for 800,000 years. More CO2 is already unraveling the web of life and even more will collapse Earth's ecosystems (and our food supply with them). Take care.
Many factors affect temp, co2 is one. Overall, will increase temp when everything else is constant. So a circumstance when temp was higher but there was lower co2 does not mean co2 has no effect. had it been higher levels of co2, it would have been even warmer in that case.
No, if you look at the WHOLE of geologic time you see that most often, CO2 rises precede warming. Of course other things also drive climate, so occasionally you see milankovitch cycles driving the warming, then CO2 feedbacks kicking in and making the minor warming from orbital changes much greater.. but MOST often in geologic history CO2 rise precedes warming. It is only in the Quaternary that Milankovitch cycles have a strong presence.
Dessler 2010 (Science; Final paragraph, lines 9-15)
"My analysis suggests that the short-term cloud feedback is likely positive and that climate models as a group are doing a reasonable job of
simulating this feedback, providing some indication that models successfully simulate the response of clouds to climate variations."
I clearly did NOT as you say "flat out lie..." about Dessler's research, I characterized exactly as he did in his own paper.
For a nice review of the observed effects of AGW on drought, Dai 2011 has a decent paper. Extreme weather events have manifested as projected; with > moisture in the hurricanes that do form (with warming there isn't an expected increase in hurricane frequency, but there is in hurricane energy/ moisture). The AMS put out a nice supplement to BAMS covering the natural and human contributions to extreme weather for Vol 94 issue 9. It's a good read, so check it out.
Perhaps, but many of those basic questions are already answered. Aerosols are fairly well quantified now; the feedbacks are mostly all quantified, actually all of them are pretty well quantified with the sole exception of clouds, although there is agreement that clouds are a net positive feedback the exact magnitude they will amplify warming is still not clear... But the reality is that the ill effects of the ~1C warming we have already seen are much more dramatic than anticipated.
The fossil fuel industry and it's political lackeys are effectively obstructing the advance of new technology. Investments in new tech always benefit the economy. Cleaner and increasingly cheaper and more efficient energy production not only reduces the need to burn fuel, it saves customers money, it's profitable, and creates jobs. The alternative is increasing ecological catastrophes which will be vastly more costly with no compensating benefits.
In their missions statements, and in the documents they supply to their constituents. It is not incorrect to call the Heartland institute anti-science when they release documents to stake holders explicitly detailing how to introduce non-science into the science classroom.
Those citations focused on the tropics/ subtropics; where most of the uncertainty with cloud-feedback was. If you really want to see a global study Dessler published one in 2010 in Science, but the methods were a little bit sketchy... He showed the net effect was likely positive or VERY positive... but I am not to sure about his high end results, so take it with a grain of salt. The moral of the story being that there are virtually no scientific studies that show any substantive - cloud feedback
There are both positive and negative feedbacks in the earth system, these again as you point out are well documented in the geologic and paleoclimate literature. The discrepancy is the major negative feedbacks act on long geologic time (millions of years), the most important negative feedback is silicate/carbonate weathering, which traps GHGs in sediment > eventually bedrock. The key is in the timing, though of course, as you suggest there are clearly negative feedbacks as well.
Tropics to subtropics? The Clement study was in the Northeast Pacific! You're WAY off on that, my friend.
"2 100 year floods in Tennessee ... a 1000 year flood in Colorado." ~ Nate Drake (paraphrase)
Those are individual weather events.
I was in Colorado for the big Thompson canyon mega flood in 78 .' 1000 year floods' are a dime a dozen .
Of course they do. I stated upfront the magnitude of the feedback is quite uncertain, but that consistently it is found to be positive in nature. If you haven't read Dessler's global study that is a good one that I cited earlier. Take the high end positive estimates for what they are worth (with a grain of salt) but again, it shows while uncertain, cloud feedback is consistently found to be positive.
Again, I already addressed your complaint, well before you posted on Lauer's paper. I will happily re-post it though (Cont)
Why aren't we dealing effectively and immediately with climate change?
"Ideology, interest, and intellectual shackles."
Adaptation is not difficult. You adapt to changes that imminently or immediately threaten you. If a city has a problem with storm surges, then build a wall to protect from it. Tornados a problem? Build storm shelters, build structures that better resist high winds. Earthquakes? Horizontal stabilizers. We're going to do this whether global warming is real or not, because adaptation is what we do. We don't control the weather, we simply don't allow the weather to control us (cont)
Sort the overpopulation problem out and it will have a massive knock on effect to climate change. Don't sort overpopulation out and you may aswell forget it.
(grrr at youtube for not posting my last two comments as responses)
Another point that I missed that I've really been trying to get from you is this: You said the subtropics were the region of most uncertainty.
I'd like to know where you get information that uncertainty levels of cloud feedback are low. What studies can you point to that show GLOBAL cloud feedback? That's what I'm really after here, not "It's certain everywhere but where I just posted" attitude.
Holland has extensive policy aimed at climate change mitigation and reduction. They focus mainly on keeping their country liveable, but just the sheer volume of policy proscribed already is impressive.
pbl(.)nl/en/publications/the-effects-of-climate-change-in-the-netherlands-2012
dc(.)the-netherlands(.)org/key-topics/energy--climate/climate-change-and-energy-allies(.)html
(cont) Lauer has written a lot about clouds. Could you give me the specific title of the papers by Lauer and Clement that show this to be the case? And "quite apparently positive" is ridiculous because we have barely monitored global cloud albedo for 30 years.
What a ridiculous crock. What else would you expect from the Grantham Institute?
Yes, I apologise, perhaps you stopped at the paywall. You can obtain a full copy of the PDF from Amy Clement's website; or you can follow this link to her paper on, ironically, Roy Spencers site :)
bit(dot)ly/bP7P4L
You will see that her study actually encompassed most of the pacific.
I wouldn't say never; but for federal grants the PI is required to submit a final report with documentation of what funds were spent on. If there was any funny business that PI is barred from receiving any subsequent federal grants.. so normally there isn't much misuse of federal money (even the worst scientists aren't usually dumb enough to ruin their careers by misusing grant funds).
I haven't the slightest clue. I've never encountered a post limit besides the anti-bot capcha's if posts are too rapid in succession.
(cont) We don't see ANYTHING in the past or present that indicates that higher temperatures than today will cause a net loss, especially when considering the cost of mitigation as opposed to adaptation. Adaptation is a much better strategy because it relies on something we know we can do, rather than something we only might be able to do. It costs less, uses more reliable data, is flexible, and we can still transfer to renewables whenever the time is right (I'm all for that!)
At 3:54 he said one true thing " he is in the climate change business", so his investments in green industries are not paying off. That is why he is angry.
(cont) And, I think you're missing a huge problem of rain distribution around the country: cloud seeding. We're at the point of artificially creating rainfall across the world by spraying aerosols through the atmosphere. Surely, people causing it to rain will have a greater impact than weather forces that we can only predict a few days ahead of time. Because the Earth doesn't have an unlimited supply of water vapor, these cloud seeding programs probably have a huge impact.
And just know, my sister *does* actual physical research, is a paid official working in parts of the science involved regarding oceans. She puts the equipment out there and obtains all data from this equipment. It's *not* being faked by middlemen, there's no reason to be 'suspicious'. She always rightfully says to me: "If anything, we've always been rather modest with our models and predictions. As it turns out, it's MUCH worse than we expected it to be. We allowed humanity too much slack."
Excellent link:
"In the 2012/2013 season, the global corn harvest plunged to 855 million tonnes from 883 million tonnes a year earlier." you proved my point very nicely that at least ONE of the major grains was devastated by the drought in 2012/2013.
"This upcoming season, however, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is FORECASTING [emphasis mine] a harvest... "
"Everybody EXPECTS [emphasis mine] it to be a record high harvest on a global level"
You claim expectations are evidence?
If the world is getting warmer, explain why my fridge still maintains the same temperature for almost 10 years! Haha, gotcha!
Oh SNAP!
John Ashton is a very naughty boy filling his students heads with this modern mythology. He is just as deluded as the people who thought Brian was the messiah.
+Replevideo Modenr mythology, riiight...
Market Dealers don't set prices. That's not how it works. If they charge too high a price, people switch to a different type of starch, a substitute of the same or similar quality, the same way I can't charge you $5.00 for a can of coke. I'd love to sell them at that price, but people have options. If the market is truly abundant, food prices fall.
It will never be enough
For those who don't agree that climate changes are man made; Why would NASA lie? climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
I really don't think this is clear to you; What you publish has NO impact on your salary at a university or gov't research center. The only way your salary increases in academia is if there are university wide raises, or you get promoted (Asst > asoc > full professor) The only way it happens in govt is if you qualify for a new pay grade, which is related to years experience not findings of publications.
LFTR provides enough material to be used as a feed stock for nuclear weapons. The only difference is it produces more dangerous materials, which are not as simple to extract at OSHA safe levels of radiation exposure. The US and developed nations with radiation laws would have to spend about 20,000 more to extract fissionable stock; in an undeveloped nation they would just expose their workers to the extra radiation and make weapons.
Often times people define climate as average weather, That is not accurate however. A desert is not a desert because it doesn't rain a lot; it doesn't rain a lot in a desert BECAUSE it is a desert (due to stationary, large geophysical high pressure systems). ALL weather is an immediate expression of climate; as climate changes, weather reflects that change. Not just some weather, ALL WEATHER.
"Aerosols are fairly well quantified now." Well, that depends on who you ask. In IPCC AR4, the aerosol estimates show extreme differences. No, they're not well quantified in the least; the exact numbers depend on who you ask.
And "agreement" that clouds are a new positive feedback? Where's the data that supports that? We've had a decrease of clouds and an increase of temperature since the 1980s. Here are some numbers for you to consider: The SUN emits 1500W/m^2 of energy (cont)
(cont) See? Here's the thing. I don't claim that Lindzen's methods of observing tropical areas is any better. What I'm saying is that the studies that are being done do not cut the mustard. CERES is the best thing we have for global measures, but even CERES is questionable because different methodologies produce different statistically significant results as Lindzen pointed out.
Also, stating that just because someone rebukes Lindzen does not mean it is "debunked."
no that's not right, coolant is molten salts which contain the thorium which is bombarded with uranium creating a reaction increasing the temperature of the molten salt fluid, its then pumped throw a heat exchanger and that's were the steam is made, the water never comes in contact with the core and that steam can be re-condensed into water. LFTR is complete enclosed process, even the salt solution is reused after filtering small amounts of by product.
since you asked so nicely here are some further references, all from this year:
cnb. cx/ZDe4fX
cnb. cx/VevRby
on-msn. com/1czCLWz
bit. ly/H9pQMP
It's not. You'll learn that soon enough (like, when your town gets flooded, your food-supply runs out, you have no more or no clean water, no energy-transport, you die from drought, fire, heat, hurricanes, you name it).
Its long past time that idiots like this guy were jailed for spreading fear and hysteria among our kids.
Fear and hysteria? I didn't notice any. And on what charge should he be jailed? Sedition? He is trying to get a largely apolitical yet able generation to implement a sent of changes long overdue: how we obtain our energy, how we use it, and how objectively is viewed the future of the planet.
Mirreyna Sayeeda
He is a very dangerous idiot who is spreading misinformation and scaring our kids with his invented future of a climate catastrophe. The end game of what he is proposing is loss of freedom and democracy in the world and the deaths of billions. That is why he should be jailed - I hope for a very long time - as an example to others.
What fear, what hysteria - I hear common sense, not dogma of the blinded believers.
Angela Mosetty
He said; "I've been in the climate business for about 15 years now".
So this bloodsucker admits he has been ripping off the taxpayer for 15 years. That is enough reason alone to jail him for fraud, let alone his constant use of political propaganda to indoctrinate our kids during this talk.
***** If there is anybody thats gonna have blood on his hands its you!
You need a little Fox News detox
Pretty sure Muller never asserted the reality of that fairly silly Nemisis hypothesis. He did produce some calculations suggesting it was mathematically plausible, but dismissed the hypothesis until such an object were directly observed, stating "Ultimately, the existence of Nemesis must be confirmed by direct observation".
I provided him as a citation to the denialist above who asked for a non-climate scientist source... which Muller fits perfectly.
Interests, such as the oil, coal and transportation industries are not free from 'themselves' to be able to walk away from the currently polluting ways of doing things. (Think: addicts just walking away from their drugs just because that would be smart.) Path dependency is a nice way to look at this. Pre-socratic wisdom, that we can't get enough of bad stuff, while we can get nuff of good stuff is a stricter way of looking at it. Let's work to get the fossil fuel industry out of this trap !
Most of Muller's papers on Nemesis were written over 20 years ago, with the most recent being the SP in 2002 in which he directly claims that the hypothesis can only be confirmed by direct observation of the object itself. Just because a physicist is eclectic and studies interesting though ultimately fruitless (to be fair, much of modern physics falls into this category) topics does not undermine his or her credibility, especially when their scientific claims are as conservative as Mullers.
Expect the first ever category 6 hurricane in 2018.Location the Gulf of Mexico based on La Nina and a 30% slow down in the North Atlantic Drift which is adding to ocean temperature at this location.
2021 ; didn't happen
Its rizen everywhere, thats why a weak, category 1 hurricane (Sandy) poduced a 5 meter ( 15 foot) storm surge in NY and NJ; It's why multiple islands around the world have lost their fresh water supplies (Higher seas > more salt water invading their aquifers).
If the world embraced sound emission reductions policy and mitigation strategies much of the dangerous impacts of AGW can be avoided.
Are you referring to this?
"Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget"
Because, this does not show that clouds produce a positive feedback. This paper is a rebuttal to Lindzen's assertion that clouds are both a forcing and a feedback. He argues that clouds do not cause the climate to change. Whether he is right or not is another subject for debate, but Dessler does NOT argue anywhere that clouds produce a positive feedback.He states it in a single sentence of his conclusion with no data.
The studies that you provided are regional, not global, and the Dessler study didn't even show any data about total radiative balance. His paper only attempted to show that clouds are not a forcing, but are a feedback. Nothing to do with positive or negative feedback, but simply a feedback.
You provided no studies on global cloud cover. Lindzen has written several papers on this as well
You will see in ten years, this is the fourth climate scare in my lifetime, none of them have come to pass, and I don't know how many times I have been told the world is going to end, and it never does. As you get older you will perhaps be able to see when you are being fooled...Experience you see, is worth a lot.