Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

mdemone posted:

Arkane disingenuous? Say it ain't so! (Don't you love how your post banished him into the wilderness once more? I wonder how long it will be before he comes back to change subjects.)

Wrap it up Earthailures.

Read what he is responding to. It's an entirely circular argument, one which doesn't need a reply. He sidestepped my point and repeated exactly what I said was a disingenuous argument in the first place (and still is).

He is trying to make a point that similar pauses in the past lessen the import of the current hiatus; that the current hiatus is noise in a trend. The current hiatus is completely unanticipated and unexplained. His argument is exactly at odds with the scientists in the field who are trying to explain the current hiatus because it has no current scientific explanation given their assumptions about the climate system (via climate modeled forecasts). Putting some random trends down then saying "oh yuk yuk yuk its Arkane again" indicates that he probably doesn't read about this topic at all outside of this forum or else he's bound to know this.

This week, Science published a new study that found the culprit of the hiatus is the Atlantic ocean's changing circulation patterns. The authors postulate that the hiatus will continue to last for another 15 years, give or take (the late 2020s). This study is at odds with one finding that it is the Pacific ocean -- that I think was published early this year. Either way, there would appear to be natural processes that are not accounted for in the climate models and that we are only now coming to understand due to the unexpected 0 trend in temperature over the past 14 years. The effect of these new findings would be felt in calculations of climate sensitivities that did not take into account natural processes such as the Atlantic or Pacific causing a pause in temperatures -- even as atmospheric CO2 levels accelerated. There's also the very real possibility that the heat will be sequestered in the ocean, and that the oceans are a bigger heat sink than we realized (considering their ability to trap heat is magnitudes higher than the atmosphere due to the volume of ocean water and density of liquid H2O compared to the density of the atmosphere) which would impact the climate system's sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 such that surface temperature rises much slower than anticipated.

# ? Aug 23, 2014 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 18:08

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Struensee posted:

So apparently, Michael Mann filed a defamation suit over the national reviews dishonest coverage of his story. NR's attempt to get the case thrown out didn't go over in the first round. Now they're trying to appeal that decision. I hope they take it right up the rear end.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/06/michael-mann-s-opponents-hockey-stick-defamation-case-regurgitate-half-truths-new-court-filing

The defendants (National Review & Competitive Enterprise Institute) have the support of the ACLU and virtually every major newspaper organization in the United States. Together they filed an amicus brief on NR/CEI's behalf: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf There have been numerous other amicus briefs filed on their behalf by other internet publishers, media watchdogs, freedom of press organizations, and the like.

Mann filed a ridiculous lawsuit that has virtually no chance of success. If it does succeed, it will have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press. Worse, his hopeless lawsuit will waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

On the merits of the case itself, the guy is a perpetual liar and a fraud. Just in his lawsuit alone (and your laughable link that parrots his lawsuit with 0 fact checking), he lied about the Oxburgh report and other "reviews" which had 0 to do with him, misrepresented the NCAR findings; and he lied about being a Nobel Laurette to the point where the Nobel committee intervened to get him to desist. And that's not even going into his papers, which are of course also frauds. Mann 2008 was ripped to shreds by McShane and Wyner 2010 who had such praise as "the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable", "SMR make no attempt to grapple with standard errors", "RegEM appears to be a classic, improvised methodology with no known statistical properties." He also put in upside down data into Mann 2008: Mann was corrected by the author whose data he used, and Mann refused to issue a correction to paper stating that it "didn't matter" (it did, a lot). A similar paper, Kaufmann 2009, that used the same data upside down because he was citing Mann of course issued a correction to the upside down data because he isn't a insufferable jack rear end. Mann doesn't actually gather any data himself, and the decades-old bristlecone pine data (tree-rings) cataloged by Graybill that are the centerpieces of his studies was painstakingly re-sampled by a PhD student (Ababneh) a few years ago. She found no significant hockey stick in the data. You get one guess how many times Mann has referenced this updated data (hint, it's less than once and more than negative once). You'd honestly be hard-pressed to come up with even a fictional scientist who was more cartoonishly fraudulent than Michael Mann. He is a joke, and an embarrassment. I've been posting about his antics for years.

# ? Aug 23, 2014 19:52

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

The fact that you cannot read such simple language astounds me, Arkane.

I was not trying to point to past 'pauses' and I even said as much. Again, I was saying that narrowing your 'trend' to the span of a few years, over several of these subsequent narrow windows, would give the impression that absolutely no warming had happened since 1880. Yet, we know that it has.

I also pointed out that your reliance on merging entirely different data sets into some sort of descriptive average is weird and also that taking trends based on specific start and end dates can show quite different things - especially in narrower time frames.

First off, you need to state your basis for merging the data points from entirely different data sets as an overall average, because know for a fact that RSS is consistently an outlier.

As to the second bit - regarding range - let me illustrate it so that you will comprehend (I hope):
Data sets used in the trend calculator:
GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid

Ranges and exceptions (verify this yourself):
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

From GISTEMP, annual average (2σ = �0.57 �C):
1979: +0.12 �C
1980: +0.22 �C
1981: +0.28 �C
1982: +0.08 �C
1983: +0.27 �C
1984: +0.12 �C
1985: +0.08 �C
1986: +0.14 �C
1987: +0.28 �C
1988: +0.35 �C
1989: +0.24 �C
1990: +0.39 �C
1991: +0.37 �C
1992: +0.18 �C
1993: +0.20 �C
1994: +0.28 �C
1995: +0.42 �C
1996: +0.32 �C
1997: +0.45 �C
1998: +0.61 �C
1999: +0.40 �C
2000: +0.40 �C
2001: +0.52 �C
2002: +0.61 �C
2003: +0.60 �C
2004: +0.51 �C
2005: +0.65 �C
2006: +0.59 �C
2007: +0.62 �C
2008: +0.49 �C
2009: +0.59 �C
2010: +0.66 �C
2011: +0.54 �C
2012: +0.57 �C
2013: +0.59 �C

Do you see it now?

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Aug 23, 2014

# ? Aug 23, 2014 20:30

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

It's like you don't even need to read ClimateAudit, Arkane can just give you an RSS digest summary of the last ten years right in this thread!

Arkane posted:

He also put in upside down data into Mann 2008: Mann was corrected by the author whose data he used, and Mann refused to issue a correction to paper stating that it "didn't matter" (it did, a lot). A similar paper, Kaufman 2009, that used the same data upside down because he was citing Mann of course issued a correction to the upside down data because he isn't a insufferable jack rear end.

I wonder what happened to Kaufman when the Tiljander series was corrected. After all, Kaufman only used 23 proxies and Mann used hundreds, so if the inverted Tiljander mattered "a lot" to Mann then surely it must have destroyed Kaufman's paper!

http://archive.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/Correction_and_Clarification.pdf

Enhance.

# ? Aug 23, 2014 20:53

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Elotana posted:

It's like you don't even need to read ClimateAudit, Arkane can just give you an RSS digest summary of the last ten years right in this thread!
I wonder what happened to Kaufman when the Tiljander series was corrected. After all, Kaufman only used 23 proxies and Mann used hundreds, so if the inverted Tiljander mattered "a lot" to Mann then surely it must have destroyed Kaufman's paper!

http://archive.arcus.org/synthesis2k/synthesis/Correction_and_Clarification.pdf

Enhance.

Well one of us hasn't read the papers.

Kaufmann cut off the proxies Mann used upside down in the year 1800 which eliminated the "hockey stick" shape on those proxies and would have therefore incredibly little impact on his results. I didn't say nor even imply that Kaufmann's results were altered, only that he issued a correction, which he did. That is a projection & assumption on your part.

Mann, on the other hand, DID NOT cut off the data at 1800. Mann used the graph right up until the modern era (late 20th century) where the data implied sharp hockey-stick like spikes in temperature (of course this was wrong, because he had oriented the data upside down).

Edit:

Here you can see the 1800 cut-off that Kaufmann used, and the data that Mann used upside down and refused to correct (there were 4 of these proxies):

And while you will undoubtedly respond that there were many proxies used by Mann, remember that the statistical "method" (very loose term) that he uses overweights hockey sticks. The McShane and Wyner paper delves into that re: Mann 2008 and of course McIntyre himself delved into that on the first hockey stick. And all of this goes back to the data itself, which in the case of both the lakes & the Graybill data (and consequent re-sampling), he appears to have no interest whatsoever in presenting things accurately, only presenting things that confirm his hypothesis even if you have to use fraudulent methods to achieve the result.

Edit 2: and for those reading this, this really doesn't have anything to do with global warming in the 20th century. There has been warming. These are proxy reconstructions to attempt to re-create temperature back to 1000 years ago (and beyond). Anthropologists have long speculated that in the years ~900 to ~1100, the Earth was warmer than it was in the 20th century. We have treeline data that shows trees grew to high altitudes during that period of time. Mann's reconstruction essentially eliminated this warm period of time, and said that the 20th century was significantly warmer and indeed that the time period of the late 90s was the warmest decade of the last 1000 years. The debate is over whether right now we're warmer than we were in the year 900 to 1100. If we are, then we could see unprecedented effects. If we're not, then the planet has gone through a period of time like this very recently (relatively speaking) and (1) natural temperature variations may be more potent than we would otherwise be assumed if the hockey sticks are accurate and (2) the temperature rise may not have as alarming of an impact as expected as the planet has essentially lived through it previously.

Arkane fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 23, 2014

# ? Aug 23, 2014 21:34

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Evil_Greven posted:

I was not trying to point to past 'pauses' and I even said as much. Again, I was saying that narrowing your 'trend' to the span of a few years, over several of these subsequent narrow windows, would give the impression that absolutely no warming had happened since 1880. Yet, we know that it has.

To what end did you do that if not to belittle the importance of the hiatus? I never argued nor implied that global warming had ceased or that it didn't occur. If that is what you are arguing against, it is a strawman of your own creation.

The 14-year trend that comprises the hiatus is pointed out to show that temperature has paused. Because it has. It is not to make an implication about past changes.

Despite your denials, you were quoting random time ranges and implying that this has anything to do with what I am arguing when it has nothing to do with it.

Third time man....your attempts to hand wave away the hiatus as some sort of Arkane-generated noise is belied by the scientists who are publishing papers to attempt to explain it. It is a topic of immense importance.

Evil_Greven posted:

I also pointed out that your reliance on merging entirely different data sets into some sort of descriptive average is weird and also that taking trends based on specific start and end dates can show quite different things - especially in narrower time frames.

First off, you need to state your basis for merging the data points from entirely different data sets as an overall average, because know for a fact that RSS is consistently an outlier.

All of the 5 data sets are measuring surface air temperature, yeah? Yeah. They're not entirely different in what they are measuring. The true surface air temperature is very likely within the range of the 5 data sets. I'm not presenting the average of these 5 as a definitive measurement, merely as an illustrative example that the answer is very likely to be close to 0.

I'm honestly not trying to belittle you here, but you are telling me that I'm being "weird" citing descriptive averages when you don't even know the temperature data you then cite a few lines later, BEST, is itself essentially a very complicated average of other temperature data and an average that only applies to land data. Are you arguing just to argue or what? And HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT4 hybrid is redundant. HadCRUT4 hybrid is the Cowtan & Way correction to the Hadley data via arctic infilling, and would essentially replace the previous data set if its accurate.

Evil_Greven posted:

Ranges and exceptions (verify this yourself):
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

This is an incredibly misleading point and you know it. Come on. This entire exercise is you trying to belittle the importance of the hiatus through disingenuous posting. Not going to respond to you if this is what you're going to post. If people think you have a point, that's their own fault and biases.

The hiatus is very widely discussed in the literature. The study I just cited in my earlier post was from Science as of this week attempting to explain the hiatus. They also think that the hiatus could extend for more than a decade into the future. This would potentially have wide-sweeping ramifications on climate modeling and "worst case" scenarios.

The pause in temperature is not some magical trick of cherry picking with the goal of hoodwinking people. It is an anomaly (versus the models) that needs explanation. Bear in mind that the models don't just predict a steep temperature rise, they predict an accelerating temperature rise, neither of which have materialized. The CMIP models started with the year 2001 in their forecasts. That's also the year that I use.

edit: using just GISTemp here is the hiatus...

Assuming for a second that GISTemp is "definitive" and the correct data, .019C/decade is virtually indistinguishable from 0. For perspective, it would take 525 years for temperature to rise 1C at .019C/decade.

Arkane fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Aug 23, 2014

# ? Aug 23, 2014 22:56

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

You are bad at reading things.

No, I'm telling you a 14-year trend is rather narrow. Why not a 15-year trend? Or if a 14-year is plenty long enough, why not a shorter trend - say from 2007 through 2013?

I quoted different narrow periods of time to illustrate that you could say what you want it to be by carefully choosing start and end dates. If you change the starting year to 2000, the trend is warming, almost across the board (loving RSS again). This should be the first hint that some exceptional outliers are to blame for any apparent "hiatus" - and I've shown you exactly which ones they are.

Also, you are bad at analysis.

Arkane posted:

If we start with the year 2001, which is not dominated by either an El Nino or a La Nina, using the SkS tool you just linked, the decadal trends from 2001 to 2014 are: -.06C (RSS), .05C (UAH), .05C (HadCRUT Hybrid), -.00C (NOAA), and .02C (GISTEMP). Taken together...

Suppose we have 5 data sets all supposedly measuring the same thing, over a very small time frame.
Suppose the first set has these values: { -10, -5, -7, -9 }.
Suppose the second set has these values: { 2, 1, 2, 2 }.
Suppose the third set has these values: { 2, 2, 2, 2 }.
Suppose the fourth set has these values: { 3, 1, 2, 2 }.
Suppose the fifth set has these values: { 3, 1, 3, 3 }.
The average: { 0, 0, 0, 0 }.
This gives us an accurate picture - that nothing happened - according to the wisdom of Arkane.

Modifications to a data set make it a different data set.

Oh, also RSS is an outlier so stop loving using it to skew data. A very complicated average is not what you are doing.

Also, you are bad at remembering things.

Arkane posted:

The trend since 2001 either 0 or real close to it.

Arkane posted:

... these trends are indistinguishable from 0. That's the hiatus. Over that time period there has been ~no trend in temperature, so it'd be factually incorrect to say that warming (or more precisely, significant warming) is happening over that period of time.

Arkane posted:

I never argued nor implied that global warming had ceased or that it didn't occur. If that is what you are arguing against, it is a strawman of your own creation.

Arkane, given that we have 9 years out of the last 16 as statistical outliers (because they were so motherfucking hot), what happens to the trend if you eliminate those outliers?

# ? Aug 23, 2014 23:46

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

It appears the eastern seaboard was getting jealous of the methane seeping out from the Arctic Ocean, and has decided to get in on the action:

BBC posted:

In an area between North Carolina and Massachusetts, they have now found at least 570 seeps at varying depths between 50m and 1,700m.

Their findings came as a bit of a surprise.

"It is the first time we have seen this level of seepage outside the Arctic that is not associated with features like oil or gas reservoirs or active tectonic margins," said Prof Adam Skarke from Mississippi State University, who led the study.

The scientists have observed streams of bubbles but they have not yet sampled the gas within them.

However, they believe there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence pointing to methane.

[...]

As to the energy potential of these new seeping sources, Prof Skarke is fairly pessimistic.

"There is no evidence to say that these clathrates are related to conventional gas reservoirs, so there is no evidence to say they are a recoverable resource."

# ? Aug 25, 2014 06:06

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

While I understand that burning methane is better than releasing it there is something poetic about being excited by the opportunity to harvest this extra form of fossil fuel that is being released by the Earth's warming.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 06:25

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Salt Fish posted:

While I understand that burning methane is better than releasing it there is something poetic about being excited by the opportunity to harvest this extra form of fossil fuel that is being released by the Earth's warming.

As far as Poetry goes, I'd classify it as "Vogon".

# ? Aug 25, 2014 13:04

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Hedera Helix posted:

It appears the eastern seaboard was getting jealous of the methane seeping out from the Arctic Ocean, and has decided to get in on the action:

For what it's worth the estimate is these are seeping ~90 tons per year which is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. It's not really worth getting worked up over especially because it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for that long.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 13:35

tmfool: Dec 9, 2003; What the frak?

ClimateProgress posted a story the other day that's probably relevant here given the topic as of late. "New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming �Pause� Is A Myth" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/

# ? Aug 26, 2014 20:06

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

tmfool posted:

ClimateProgress posted a story the other day that's probably relevant here given the topic as of late. "New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming �Pause� Is A Myth" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/

The actual article they're linking seems to be taking the opposite rhetorical perspective.

quote:

Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth's missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? ... A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth's warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.

I.e., finding the causes of the genuine hiatus, rather than arguing that the hiatus isn't real. Though the difference between the two is at least partially semantic.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 21:20

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Good write-up by Revkin on the oceans/atmosphere and how it relates to the hiatus:

quote:

Earth�s climate is shaped by the interplay of two complicated and turbulent systems � the atmosphere and oceans. (The photo above is from the two years I spent at that interface as crew on ocean-roaming sailboats.) The oceans hold the majority of heat in the system, are full of sloshy cycles on time scales from years to decades and, despite an increase in monitoring using sophisticated diving buoys, remain only spottily tracked.

It�s no wonder, then, that assessing the mix of forces shaping short-term wiggles in global and regional atmospheric temperature (years to decades) remains a daunting exercise. That�s why it�s worth stepping back after weeks of news about studies of the role of oceans in retarding, and sometimes accelerating, global warming to reflect a bit on the difference between edge-pushing analysis and firm scientific conclusions.

What�s firmly established is that the climate is warming, that the buildup of human-generated heat-trapping greenhouse gases is contributing substantially to the warming and that while the buildup of gases is steady, the rise in temperatures is not.

There�s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process � including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion. The oceans are high on the long list of contributors, given their capacity to absorb heat. The recent studies have pointed variously to process in the Pacific and Atlantic and Southern oceans (the latter being the extraordinary band of seas in the Southern Hemisphere where winds circulate around the globe unimpeded by continents).

There�s important work to be done on this question but � as the oceanographer Carl Wunsch notes at the end of this post � the paucity of data on ocean heat makes it tough to get beyond �maybe� answers.

Peter Spotts of the Christian Science Monitor wrote a nice piece on the battle of the ocean basins. Here�s his description of the Atlantic mechanism:

quote:
[I]n the Atlantic, the heat is carried north as part of a powerful current system known as the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. The north-flowing Gulf Stream is the most visible manifestation of this circulation.

By the time it reaches the far North Atlantic, the dense, salty water has cooled and sinks. It plunges toward the seafloor and heads south at depth, retaining some of the heat it accumulated on the surface.

In a news article in the journal Science, which published the latest paper on the Atlantic�s role in decades-long global temperature fluctuations, Eli Kintisch described the Pacific argument this way:

quote:
[I]n the 17 August Nature Climate Change study, a team led by [Kevin] Trenberth suggests that natural variability in the Pacific explains more than half of the hiatus. Based on data and climate simulations, they argue that a pattern known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which shifts every 20 to 30 years, is driving the increased upwelling as well as other climate trends, including the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent cold winters in Europe.

The newest paper, in the current issue of Science, �Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration,� argues that the Atlantic not only has shaped the current plateau, but also was responsible for half of the sharp global warming at the end of the 20th century. The paper, by Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China and Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, has a remarkably trenchant abstract:

quote:
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Ni�a�like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.

In an e-mail exchange, Ka-Kit Tung noted something missed in a lot of press coverage � how this work can help reveal the steady warming in the background that is attributable to human activities:

quote:
The underlying anthropogenic warming trend is 0.08 C per decade�. [That's 0.08 degrees Celsius, or 0.144 degrees Fahrenheit.] However, the flip side of this is that the anthropogenically forced trend is also 0.08 C per decade during the last two decades of the twentieth century when we backed out the positive contribution from the cycle�.

I asked a range of climate and ocean scientists to weigh in on the paper. Many focused on details of the Atlantic-Pacific debate. A few took a broader view that�s worth sharing:

Joshua K. Willis of NASA�s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said this:

quote:
In regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the �slowdown� in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significant. If you are wondering whether is it meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change, I would say the answer is no. The basic story of human caused global warming and its coming impacts is still the same: humans are causing it and the future will bring higher sea levels and warmer temperatures, the only questions are: how much and how fast?

As far as the cause of the slowdown, I think there is still some debate, not just about the cause but about the details of what�s going on. For example, there have been several studies including this one to suggest that some deeper layer of the oceans are warming faster now than they were 10 or 15 years ago. This suggestion of an accelerated warming in a deep layer of the ocean has been suggested mostly on the basis of results from reanalyses of different types (that is, numerical simulations of the ocean and atmosphere that are forced to fit observations in some manner). But it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some sub-surface layer of the ocean (at least in the globally-averaged sense) is robustly supported by the data itself.

Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.

Here�s Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University:

quote:
There are a few interesting things to note here.

First, the hiatus is example of how science works. When it was first observed a few years ago, there were lots of theories � including things like stratospheric water vapor, solar cycles, stratospheric aerosol forcing. After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver is ocean variability. That�s actually quite impressive progress and shows how legitimate uncertainty is handled by the scientific community.

Second, I think it�s important to put the hiatus in context. This is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate. We are not going to find out that, lo and behold, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and is not causing warming. Rather, I expect that the hiatus will help us understand how ocean variability interacts with the long-term warming that humans are causing. In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

As far as this particular paper goes, I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean�s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.

What�s most exciting to me is that this is really a fascinating conundrum. People like Kevin Trenberth and Kosaka and Xie have published quite convincingly that the action seems to be in the Pacific. So the challenge is to try to resolve that evidence with the ocean heat data that shows that the energy is going into other ocean basins. Ultimately, the challenge come up with the parsimonious theory that fits all of the data.

I do think that ocean variability may have played a role in the lack of warming in the middle of the 20th century, as well as the rapid warming of the 1980s and 1990s. But the argument that the hiatus will last for another decade or two is very weak and I would not put much faith in that. If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don�t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozen of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don�t think we even know if it IS a cycle.

And this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it�s purely internal variability, which I�m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.

Thus, their estimate of 1-2 more decades before rapid warming resumes might be right; but, if so, I�d consider them lucky rather than smart.

John Michael Wallace, a professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, offered these thoughts:

quote:
Back in 2001 I served as a member of the committee that drafted the National Research Council report, �Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.� The prevailing view at that time, to which I subscribed, was that the signal of human-induced global warming first clearly emerged from the background noise of natural variability starting in the 1970s and that the observed rate of increase from 1975 onward could be expected to continue into the 21st century. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 2007, offered a similar perspective, both in the text and in the figures in its Summary for Policymakers.

By that time, I was beginning to have misgivings about this interpretation. It seemed to me that the hiatus in the warming, which by then was approaching ten years in length, should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke. It was as legitimate a part of the record as the rapid rises in global-mean temperature in the 1980s and 1990s.

In 2009 Zhaohua Wu contacted me about a paper that he, Norden Huang, and other colleagues were in the process of writing in which they attributed the stair-step behavior in the rate of global warming, including the current hiatus, to Atlantic multidecadal variability. I was initially a bit skeptical, but in time I began to appreciate the merits of their arguments and I became personally involved in the project. The paper (Wu et al.) encountered some tough sledding in the review process, but we persisted and the article finally appeared in Climate Dynamics three years ago. [See Judith Curry's helpful discussion.]

The new paper by Tung and Chen goes much farther than we did in making the case that Atlantic multidecadalvariability needs to be considered in the attribution of climate change. I�m glad to see that it is attracting attention in the scientific community, along with recent papers of Kosaka et al. and Meehl et al. emphasizing the role of ENSO-like variability. I hope this will lead to a broader discussion about the contribution of natural variability to local climate trends and to the statistics of extreme events.

Carl Wunsch, a visiting professor at Harvard and professor emeritus of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offered a valuable cautionary comment on the range of papers finding oceanic drivers of short-term climate variations. He began by noting the challenge just in determining average conditions:

quote:
Part of the problem is that anyone can take a few measurements, average them, and declare it to be the global or regional value. It�s completely legitimate, but only if you calculate the expected uncertainty and do it in a sensible manner.

The system is noisy. Even if there were no anthropogenic forcing, one expects to see fluctuations including upward and downward trends, plateaus, spikes, etc. It�s the nature of turbulent, nonlinear systems. I�m attaching a record of the height of the Nile � 700-1300 CE. Visually it�s just what one expects. But imagine some priest in the interval from 900-1000, telling the king that the the Nile was obviously going to vanish�

Or pick your own interval. Or look at the central England temperature record or any other long geophysical one. If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The �hiatus� is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.

The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that �the data are inadequate to answer the question,� how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.

A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?

The biggest news out of that story is that the authors in the Atlantic ocean study found the anthropogenic (human) climate signal to be .08C per decade. If true, that would be staggeringly low (compared to previous assumptions). That would also mean almost 40% of the rise in temperature since 1950 has been natural.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 21:25

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Arkane posted:

Good write-up by Revkin on the oceans/atmosphere and how it relates to the hiatus:

The biggest news out of that story is that the authors in the Atlantic ocean study found the anthropogenic (human) climate signal to be .08C per decade. If true, that would be staggeringly low (compared to previous assumptions). That would also mean almost 40% of the rise in temperature since 1950 has been natural.

The quote you're pulling that from is:

A) Clearly in regards to the last 2 decades

B) Clearly in regards to anthropogenic warming that took place in spite of the "pause" in overall warming.

3) Mangled to the point that the person who is being quoted requested a chance to expand on the quote per the footnote

# ? Aug 26, 2014 23:23

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Salt Fish posted:

The quote you're pulling that from is:

A) Clearly in regards to the last 2 decades

B) Clearly in regards to anthropogenic warming that took place in spite of the "pause" in overall warming.

It refers to the "last two decades" of the 20th century, i.e., 1980-2000. In the expanded quote, he seems to be saying fairly straightforwardly that the underlying anthropogenic trend has been consistently .08C/decade during the entire timeframe, and that influence from the oceans resulted in periods of both greater and lesser observed surface warming.

quote:

The underlying anthropogenic warming trend, even with the zero rate of warming during the current hiatus, is 0.08 C per decade.* [That's 0.08 degrees Celsius, or 0.144 degrees Fahrenheit.] However, the flip side of this is that the anthropogenically forced trend is also 0.08 C per decade during the last two decades of the twentieth century when we backed out the positive contribution from the cycle�.

# ? Aug 26, 2014 23:37

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Salt Fish posted:

The quote you're pulling that from is:

A) Clearly in regards to the last 2 decades

B) Clearly in regards to anthropogenic warming that took place in spite of the "pause" in overall warming.

3) Mangled to the point that the person who is being quoted requested a chance to expand on the quote per the footnote

1980-2000 would be "warm phase" Atlantic (earlier than that even); the author is saying that once you extract out (based on their calculations, not necessarily conclusive) the natural temperature contribution from the change in Atlantic phase, you end up with a anthropogenic forcing of .08C/decade even though temperature increased much faster than that during that time period (~.15C/decade). Likewise, even though right now the temperature has been in stasis for ~14 years, that is only because the Atlantic "cool phase" is masking the forcing from GHGs.

This could very well be wrong, but if it's true, it is stupendous news. It would be mean humanity's ability to alter the global climate is much less than was hypothesized.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 03:23

ThaGhettoJew: Jul 4, 2003; The world is a ghetto

"There's a hiatus! That's basically 0� warming. No problem here."
"All the warming goes safely into the ocean. Probably. I don't know. #ITSCOOLWHEREILIVE"
"Man-made warming is like less than one percent, why even worry about it?"
"See if you average these numbers with these unrelated numbers over this carefully selected small range, unbiased evidence exists! There were numbers!"
"Have you heard about this journal paper that has an out-of-context sentence that says some other paper's outcome is slightly different than expected? CLIMATE CHANGE IS OVER! Hooray!"

Evil_Greven posted:

From GISTEMP, annual average (2σ = �0.57 �C):
1979: +0.12 �C
1980: +0.22 �C
1981: +0.28 �C
1982: +0.08 �C
1983: +0.27 �C
1984: +0.12 �C
1985: +0.08 �C
1986: +0.14 �C
1987: +0.28 �C
1988: +0.35 �C
1989: +0.24 �C
1990: +0.39 �C
1991: +0.37 �C
1992: +0.18 �C
1993: +0.20 �C
1994: +0.28 �C
1995: +0.42 �C
1996: +0.32 �C
1997: +0.45 �C
1998: +0.61 �C
1999: +0.40 �C
2000: +0.40 �C
2001: +0.52 �C
2002: +0.61 �C
2003: +0.60 �C
2004: +0.51 �C
2005: +0.65 �C
2006: +0.59 �C
2007: +0.62 �C
2008: +0.49 �C
2009: +0.59 �C
2010: +0.66 �C
2011: +0.54 �C
2012: +0.57 �C
2013: +0.59 �C

Do you see it now?

# ? Aug 27, 2014 05:32

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

ThaGhettoJew posted:

"There's a hiatus! That's basically 0� warming. No problem here."
"All the warming goes safely into the ocean. Probably. I don't know. #ITSCOOLWHEREILIVE"
"Man-made warming is like less than one percent, why even worry about it?"
"See if you average these numbers with these unrelated numbers over this carefully selected small range, unbiased evidence exists! There were numbers!"
"Have you heard about this journal paper that has an out-of-context sentence that says some other paper's outcome is slightly different than expected? CLIMATE CHANGE IS OVER! Hooray!"

If you're just going to put random sentences not said by anyone in this thread into quotes you could've come up with some funnier ones than that. Step up your troll game kemo sabe.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 06:20

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Doesn't really seem particularly responsive to anything that's been recently discussed, to be honest.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 06:21

ThaGhettoJew: Jul 4, 2003; The world is a ghetto

Arkane posted:

If you're just going to put random sentences not said by anyone in this thread into quotes you could've come up with some funnier ones than that. Step up your troll game kemo sabe.

I don't think it's funny either. To put a finer point on it I don't think your posts in this thread are intellectually honest and they rarely if ever address any criticisms put directly to you. However since tone arguments make for bad discussions, I'll happily leave that alone.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 06:37

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

Arkane posted:

This could very well be wrong, but if it's true, it is stupendous news. It would be mean humanity's ability to alter the global climate is much less than was hypothesized.

Too bad about the whole "CO2 making the ocean more acidic" thing though. Haven't ever seen an AGW denier try to handwave away that one.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 07:22

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Too bad about the whole "CO2 making the ocean more acidic" thing though. Haven't ever seen an AGW denier try to handwave away that one.

Hasn't the pacific reached a point where it's starting to dissolve barnacle glue, which is one of the strongest known natural adhesives? I vaguely remember reading that back in June.

Going up the North Coast was pretty weird this summer. Gigantic red jellyfish, some over two feet wide washed up everywhere, but a complete lack of starfish, sand dollars, or other formerly common marine life to be seen. It's changed considerably since I was last there in the 1990's. :shrug:

# ? Aug 27, 2014 18:13

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

God just skimming this thread makes me want to off myself. How do you goons deal with this, how do you live knowing this poo poo. Is the hope of actually getting governments onside for this that slim?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:14

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Samurai Quack posted:

God just skimming this thread makes me want to off myself. How do you goons deal with this, how do you live knowing this poo poo. Is the hope of actually getting governments onside for this that slim?

I don't know, it pisses me off, but I don't have kids and most likely never will. I've tried to talk to people in real life about this and they don't give a poo poo or they are completely crazy and we end up talking about how awesome they think creationism is. I just want to talk about science and black holes and chaos and interesting stuff, no, people want to talk about loving religion; in the mean time their car is idling and burning a ton of gas.

You deal with it by laughing.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:21

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Rime posted:

Hasn't the pacific reached a point where it's starting to dissolve barnacle glue, which is one of the strongest known natural adhesives? I vaguely remember reading that back in June.

Going up the North Coast was pretty weird this summer. Gigantic red jellyfish, some over two feet wide washed up everywhere, but a complete lack of starfish, sand dollars, or other formerly common marine life to be seen. It's changed considerably since I was last there in the 1990's.

Yeah the local rag has been running stories about sea star disease. They're dying off in droves.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:24

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Arkane posted:

Step up your troll game kemo sabe. *rolls coal in lifted F-350 over his own children*

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:42

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

Pohl posted:

I don't know, it pisses me off, but I don't have kids and most likely never will. I've tried to talk to people in real life about this and they don't give a poo poo or they are completely crazy and we end up talking about how awesome they think creationism is. I just want to talk about science and black holes and chaos and interesting stuff, no, people want to talk about loving religion; in the mean time their car is idling and burning a ton of gas.

You deal with it by laughing.

I guess it's the 'having kids' part that's really getting to me. Like, I've always kinda thought I would want children, try to establish a kind of legacy. Hearing about the future prospects makes me balk at the thought of bringing in a new life that will just have to end up suffering.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:50

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Samurai Quack posted:

I guess it's the 'having kids' part that's really getting to me. Like, I've always kinda thought I would want children, try to establish a kind of legacy. Hearing about the future prospects makes me balk at the thought of bringing in a new life that will just have to end up suffering.

If you're in the developed world, your kid(s) would probably be pretty alright.

'Course, they're also going to consume more scarce resources, but that's not quite the same objection.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 09:43

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Samurai Quack posted:

God just skimming this thread makes me want to off myself. How do you goons deal with this, how do you live knowing this poo poo. Is the hope of actually getting governments onside for this that slim?

I'm only worried about people in developing countries, since countries like the USA are going to hae lots of money to spend to develop ways to protect their citizens.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 12:19

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

I'm only worried about people in developing countries, since countries like the USA are going to hae lots of money to spend to develop ways to protect their citizens.

Pretty much this. Africa in contrast will be a pit of despair - the question is really only how many million we'll allow to starve to death.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 12:28

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

Anosmoman posted:

Pretty much this. Africa in contrast will be a pit of despair - the question is really only how many million we'll allow to starve to death.

We already allow millions to starve to death every year. The difficulty of growing important crops in the 21st century is going to mean that subsistence farmers in the developing world are going to face more problems than the people in the developed world.

I've started a food garden in the area I live in (in the Andes mountains) and in the time I've been here the growing seasons have changed so much that everyone I talk to is complaining of the changing and violent weather.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 12:42

The New Black: Oct 1, 2006; Had it, lost it.

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

I'm only worried about people in developing countries, since countries like the USA are going to hae lots of money to spend to develop ways to protect their citizens.

I'd say I'm far more concerned about those in developing countries, but I think that in the longer term things may well get pretty bad for us as well. The comfort and security we enjoy is based largely on the developing world. I'd say exploitation, but whether you call it that or not, if/when things get very bad over there, we're suddenly going to lose most of that endless supply of crazily cheap consumer goods, as well as losing a lot of our sources of raw materials, and food prices are going to go through the roof, to name a few impacts. I'd be willing to bet that a significant series of shocks like that would cause an economic crisis that would make the one we just had look like nothing. Couple that with lots of new refugees trying to get in and increasing instability in a lot of the world and maybe we'll see increasing nationalism which certainly isn't something I'd like to see.

You may be right that we can politically organise ourselves to spend our riches on weather defences, social programs and subsidies to mitigate the worst of this, but how well did we organise to deal with the climate problem in the first place? See also the widening wealth gap here in the UK and in the USA in recent decades.

Again, this will still pale in comparison to the suffering unleashed on developing countries, that is still the major issue here, and I'm not predicting some kind of worldwide collapse any time soon, but I do think people are inclined to overlook some of the vulnerabilities of our systems.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 12:46

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

The New Black posted:

Again, this will still pale in comparison to the suffering unleashed on developing countries, that is still the major issue here, and I'm not predicting some kind of worldwide collapse any time soon, but I do think people are inclined to overlook some of the vulnerabilities of our systems.

Immigration pressure will be an issue for the developed world but we're already building walls so...

If food prices go up substantially it means the developed world spends a slightly larger fraction of income on food which will be annoying. In the rest of the world people will just die.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 12:57

white sauce: Apr 29, 2012; by R. Guyovich

We are so hosed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHQbtlZLvXw&t=140s

tried to link the video at the relevant time, if it doesn't work its around the 2:20 mark. Basically shows the conundrum we are facing with the food system in countries like Gabon, in Africa.

"When you have oil you can do anything you want!"

white sauce fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 29, 2014

# ? Aug 29, 2014 16:37

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Not available in Canada. :/

# ? Aug 29, 2014 17:25

ProfessorCurly: Mar 28, 2010

Rime posted:

Not available in Canada. :/

To summarize - Gabon has a lot of oil wealth, and their domestic farming has essentially collapsed so they are importing all their food from Europe, South America, etc. Meanwhile the non-wealthy non-oil well owners face an increasingly expensive food supply with dwindling domestic production.

Also they're running out of oil. So the president decided to turn 10% of the country into nature reserves. The people who lived on that land can no longer hunt and it crimped on farming. Now villages are essentially putting on traditional dances for tourists to try and make money.

# ? Aug 29, 2014 18:55

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

ProfessorCurly posted:

To summarize - Gabon has a lot of oil wealth, and their domestic farming has essentially collapsed so they are importing all their food from Europe, South America, etc. Meanwhile the non-wealthy non-oil well owners face an increasingly expensive food supply with dwindling domestic production.

Also they're running out of oil. So the president decided to turn 10% of the country into nature reserves. The people who lived on that land can no longer hunt and it crimped on farming. Now villages are essentially putting on traditional dances for tourists to try and make money.

Well, small-plot farming has ceased for plenty of reasons. Some of them are related to cartels and holding fields in standby mode to adjust to global demand; others, to French agricultural subsidies. What's more, small-plotter farming has always been an inefficient means of food production. Sometimes it really is cheaper to hold a field in reserve and collect a fixed property tax on it than it is to be self-sustaining and food independent. Now, this isn't the case for most of the world, however, nations within AEF like Gabon are a special case.

No, what could truly assist in Gabon is adherence to, and enforcement of, adequate and green urban planning measures. Gabon is attempting to transition from a sustinance-agricultural economy to a majority-service sector, which is a much improved situation.

Hows it matter with climate change? Well, Gabon is an example of the logistics required to live in a moderately-developed world. Gabon is fairly resource-rich, including shale oil and fracking potential. Be glad that so much land was declared nature reserve; the alternative is to clear-cut, drill, and frack. Gabon really could use more inter-urban rail transit and less personal vehicular use :smith:

But the power supplies are never always stable in Africa....

So how close are we to having large-scale mobile nuclear power generation? Say, a few ships able to power a country like Gabon.

# ? Aug 29, 2014 22:46

ProfessorCurly: Mar 28, 2010

My Imaginary GF posted:

So how close are we to having large-scale mobile nuclear power generation? Say, a few ships able to power a country like Gabon.

The biggest, baddest mobile reactors I'm aware of are the ones driving the Nimitz class carriers. Those can output (about) 165 MegaWatts, although they are not set up to do so (Their turbines turn the propellers rather than produce electricity). Each one is probably equivalent to the new Grand Poubara Dam in Gabon. Make of that what you will, and that is a very back-of-the-envelope type figure.

# ? Aug 30, 2014 00:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 18:08

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

My Imaginary GF posted:

So how close are we to having large-scale mobile nuclear power generation? Say, a few ships able to power a country like Gabon.

ProfessorCurly posted:

The biggest, baddest mobile reactors I'm aware of are the ones driving the Nimitz class carriers. Those can output (about) 165 MegaWatts, although they are not set up to do so (Their turbines turn the propellers rather than produce electricity). Each one is probably equivalent to the new Grand Poubara Dam in Gabon. Make of that what you will, and that is a very back-of-the-envelope type figure.

Karadeniz Powership Kaya Bey � (216.4 MW)!
(Those these aren't nuclear)

# ? Aug 30, 2014 06:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »