Earth Hit Record Hot Year in 2016: NASA (news.com.au) 267
Earth sizzled to a third-straight record hot year in 2016, government scientists have said. They mostly blame man-made global warming with help from a natural El Nino, which has since disappeared. From a report: Measuring global temperatures in slightly different ways, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last year passed 2015 as the hottest year on record. NOAA calculated that the average 2016 global temperature was 14.84 degrees Celsius (58.69 degrees Fahrenheit) -- beating the previous year by 0.04 Celsius (0.07 degrees F). NASA's figures, which include more of the Arctic, are higher at 0.22 degrees (0.12 Celsius) warmer than 2015. The Arctic "was enormously warm, like totally off the charts compared to everything else," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, where the space agency monitors global temperatures. Records go back to 1880. This is the fifth time in a dozen years that the globe has set a new annual heat record. Records have been set in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2010 and 2005.
Start the clock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that might not even work- it looks like La Nina may not last past Feb, and El Nino could be back by the ned of the year. For example see
http://www.weathernationtv.com... [weathernationtv.com]
Re:Start the clock (Score:5, Informative)
Don't worry alarmists, El Nino's are cyclic. A new shipment of scare is on backorder. Approx ETA ~ 2020.
Here's a graph [wikipedia.org] of temp anomalies vs El Nino events from 1950 - 2012. Notice anything unusual?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did notice something unusual.
That graph conveniently leaves out the 1930 and 1940s.
How about, when making graphs, including all the historical record, its a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry alarmists, El Nino's are cyclic. A new shipment of scare is on backorder. Approx ETA ~ 2020.
Here's a graph [wikipedia.org] of temp anomalies vs El Nino events from 1950 - 2012. Notice anything unusual?
Uh...have you heard the new Guar album?
Re: (Score:2)
This is so nonsensical that I don't think you even believe what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I do. I'm not the one showing a tiny little graph with zero fucking context.
Re: (Score:2)
4 billion years ago the Earth had a reducing atmosphere that would be toxic to almost all multicellular and even a good portion of the unicellular life we see today. I cannot imagine why you think 4 billion years of climate history is relevant when humans, or anything that we would call human, has only existed for about 4 million years, and human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old.
Or do you have a point? I get the feeling that people like you think you've falsified a theory you don't like if you
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot imagine why you think 4 billion years of climate history is relevant when humans, or anything that we would call human, has only existed for about 4 million years, and human civilization is no more than 10,000 years old.
Your mistake is to assume that thinking is part of the process. I imagine the process is more like
1. See another article on climate change
2. Panic!
3. Reach into bag of (now half rancid and definitely stale) denialist snacks and jam that indigestible mass into mouth to distract yourself
4. Aim mouth at article and spew half digested nonsense in the general direction
5. Run off
6. ??
7. Profit!
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. When someone punches you in the face and asks you whether it hurt, do you also tell them it's an "insufficient sample size"?
Also, you fail at statistics, the necessary sample size is not determined by the size of the population being studied.
What happened before 1950 (Score:2)
Yea. What happened before 1950?
The Second World War. [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is true because it is 40 degrees in January here in Minneapolis MN... we call that "shorts weather" around here...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious. Do you actually believe what you post?
Re: (Score:2)
Only invisible if you are one eyed and blind. Flooded New York, melty Alaska, eroded coastlines world wide etc. I mean see the ice, see no ice, not invisible. NASA do monitor temperature via the infrared spectrum, so not invisible either. What you are really saying is it does not affect you personally at this time and screw everyone else you don't care, you want more of everything right now, not just more, but you want it all. You here much but all you listen to is your own greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those New Yorkers can all move to the wonderful vast open lands of Alaska once it thaws?
Re: (Score:2)
Only invisible if you are one eyed and blind.
... or a climate scientist?
Elizabeth Muller, Executive Director of Berkeley Earth, said, “We have compelling scientific evidence that global warming is real and human caused, but much of what is reported as ‘climate change’ is exaggerated. Headlines that claim storms, droughts, floods, and temperature variability are increasing, are not based on normal scientific standards. We are likely to know better in the upcoming decades, but for now, the results that are most solidly established are
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump announces he's firing half of the staff at NOAA and NASA.
(and bans either organization from owning a thermometer.)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
You joke... but he basically did already. Trump has announced his intention to shut down NASA's earth sciences division.
Because apparently Earth is not a planet in space.
Where are the error bars? (Score:2)
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 [www.ipcc.ch] of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed tho
Re: (Score:3)
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
So, look on their site.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
Re:Where are the error bars? (Score:5, Informative)
What Geoffrey said. It's easy enough to pull the instrumental record global average data into a spreadsheet and plot it; I've done it several times myself.
Also be aware of what error bars can and cannot tell you. You can't tell about the statistical significance of trends just by comparing adjacent years with error bars. It's the wrong statistical test to talk about decades-long tends. You might never ever see a year which is statistically significantly warmer than a prior year at some level of confidence, yet have a trend which over a decade or more hits that confidence level.
IPCC figure (Re:Where are the error bars?) (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 [www.ipcc.ch] of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin.
I think you're mis-reading the numbers on that figure. The numbers in red aren't error bars, that's the change since 1750. (each individual element is listed in the form "123= 108.9+14.1", where the first number is the total, the second number is the estimated value in 1750, and the third number is the change since 1750 (printed in red). Note that all that matters from photosynthesis is the difference between the input and output (labelled "net land flux"), which they point out is known to a better accuracy than the component parts.
Long Cycles--Dry Before Wet (Score:2, Informative)
Year to year changes are "NOISE." California had a drought for several years (virtually a blip in time) and then come the rains. It happens over an over.
Sun spot cycles are repetitive. Mega-Rains come to California every 160 years or so. Last time was 1862, so 2022 look out. These are formed over decades of hot water buildup in the Eastern equatorial Pacific.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
How these longer term cycles
It's not the solar input (Score:2)
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
We have very good measurements of solar output. We know with very high certainty that the current warming is not due to a change in solar output.
The changing "debate" on global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
This afternoon, I watched clips on Youtube from the 1992 Presidential debate. It's not that far in the past, but there was a massive difference in the tone from 2016. The three candidates did go after each other, but were respectful and focused on the issues, mostly the economy. The debate had real substance and addressed the real issues rather than being characterized by personal attacks. All the AC comments at -1 on this story make me feel the same way about public discourse. Those comments are at -1 mostly because they are attempting to prevent rational discussion of the issues.
There are still uncertainties about global warming, notably the effects on certain types of extreme weather (such as cold air outbreaks), the role of positive feedbacks (like the release of methane) and mitigating factors (such as aerosols), and the societal impacts in the 21st century. Although computer models are continually improving, there are still significant limitations in what can be simulated in the configurations used for climate simulations. Specifically, the need to simulate longer periods of time comes at the expense of the resolution of the models, meaning that processes resolved in models used for weather prediction may not be resolved in global climate models. However, the idea that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause warming really should be settled by now, as the greenhouse effect is a long-established matter of physics and chemistry. But it doesn't mean there's no room for rational discussion on a lot of issues. And certainly the solutions to our global warming problems should be up for debate, because it's not at all clear that carbon taxes and other proposed are good and effective solutions.
The problem is that we aren't discussing those issues. If every aspect of global warming was settled science, there would be no reason for any further research, yet there's a lot of funding going toward studying climate change. However, that there some topics that can be debated should not be considered a license to deny basic physics and chemistry. It seems like a deliberate attempt to prevent the discussion from ever reaching the real issues.
In many of these discussions, the credibility of the scientists is more on trial than the actual science. Much of it is based on statements that are misleading at best. For example, data sets and methodologies used by federal administrations like NOAA and NASA are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, along with other requirements for accountability and transparency. Data sets collected by researchers receiving NOAA funding are obligated to release those data sets to the public within two years and keep them archived. The claim that scientists are keeping data secret and cutting corners with their methodologies is almost completely invalid, yet the claim keeps being made.
I'm reminded that we once focused our discussions on actual issues and were capable of rational discourse despite our disagreements. That 1992 debate featured large disagreements on economic issues between Perot, Bush, and Clinton. Bush clearly lost the debate, but it was because the discussion was about the economic plans of the candidates, and Bush came across as very out of touch with the economic issues facing the middle class. He lost on the issues, which is incredibly refreshing compared to what we see in 2017. Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion on so many other topics, including climate change, has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, to the point that we never actually get to discussing the issues. That's a damn shame.
Reminds me of a quote (Score:3)
And PeOTUS Trump wants to defund NASA, since "it engages in bad science", and will very likely get his way through the rubber-stamp Congress he'll enjoy.
Sort of makes me glad that I won't be here for four years. I don't think four years of this sort of attitude and thinking will be very enjoyable to me. Still, for those that voted for Mr. Trump, I'm glad you got your guy. I hope you stay glad and that I'm wrong about him. I wasn't wrong about POTUS Obama or George W, though.
Republicans Have Different Weather System (Score:2)
Republicans have different weather system where humans have not changed the planet in any negative way, and therefor don't have to be responsible for anything, and don't have to pass a working planet to our children.
Enjoy it while it lasts (Score:3)
Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...
Re:At this rate... (Score:4, Interesting)
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS! Isn't that the oft-repeated timeline?
No.
This is a long term effect. The timeline is many decades.
We're all going to be slightly warmer in 10 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, so you're saying that because a car wheel rotates on itself the car itself can't drive up a hill. Got it.
Re: (Score:3)
We're actually going to be 20C warmer in six months
No. The globe does not warm or cool by 20C as the seasons change. In fact, when the Earth was just 4.5C cooler, your house was under 1/2 a mile of ice. XKCD described this as an "Ice Age Unit" [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your Nobel Laureate, and raise you 36 Nobel Laureates [time.com].
Not that any of their opinions matter half as much as a practicing climatologist's, since expertise in the field is the only way to reach an informed conclusion. By contrast, your chosen authority freely admits [snopes.com]:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned..."
Re: (Score:2)
Deniers will use whatever word they can to deny reality. And if they can't find a word, they'll just make one up.
Re: (Score:2)
Skepticism is a hallmark of Science. Consensus is not science at all. Tell me, who is being more scientific, the skeptics or those running around saying "90% of scientists say ____________"?
For reference, Piltdown Man was once "Scientific Consensus" and taught in Universities and printed in Text Books. E=MC2 was once rejected as "Science" by many in the "science" community.
Stop pretending that it is "settled" (no such thing, scientifically). All science, even accepted science needs a critical eye. Anything
Re:At this rate... (Score:5, Informative)
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Here's how 2012 ended up. [scientificamerican.com] Looks like he was not too far off!
Re: (Score:3)
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
I suppose you can argue that that since he used the word "could" rather than "shall", it make his statements null and void. But they sure sounded scary at the time.
Did you notice the qualifier "At this rate"? It was more of a comment on the substantial drop in the sea ice minimum in 2007 as it was a prediction of the future. But coincidentally 2012 does happen to be the record year for sea ice minimum.
No one ever says that (Score:3)
Do you want to discredit research with your false comments? Really. Some effects are already present and other effects will hit the net generation. Massive sea level rise, which would require to relocate many of our larger cities on this globe will be necessary in 200-300 years. Anyway, we will have problems with food supply long before that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those larger coastal cities where everyone moved to over the past 200-300 years?
Re: (Score:2)
No. I mean all the big cities and city conglomerates close the coast. It is a big difference to have cities grow in that area, because the population grows, as compared to a relocation of all the people. This is a bigger problem than you think, as a relocation brings no short term benefit. therefore the motivation to start relocation is low. It is expensive. you need strong government or a lot of public incentive to help people and industries to relocate.
We also have right now not enough space for mankind o
Re: (Score:2)
The first step is to stop encouraging people to move TO the coasts. The government needs to stop subsidizing flood insurance and helping to replace and repair coastal area development after hurricanes. Stop the incentives to live on the coast and people will move inland on their own.
As far as not enough space for mankind on this globe... Umm by what metric are you coming to this conclusion? Have you been to Alaska? Canada? Siberia? Plenty of space there... Not currently very populated because it's really co
Re: (Score:2)
"Have you been to Alaska? Canada? Siberia?" Yes, I have (Alaska and Canada). I also live in the EU. Have you ever visited the Netherlands? They will be gone when we have a 13 m sea level rise. Also other densely populated areas, like Bangladesh. Do you want 160 mio Bangladeshis relocated to your country? Have you ever visited China? (I did 2012) You have to move Beijing 21 mio, Shanghai 23 mio, Tianjin 14 mio, and many many more. And China is already densely populated. Siberia is BTW largely in the arctic c
Re:A matter of degrees and places. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The changing frequency of billion-dollar disaster events [climate.gov]
The U.S. has experienced a rising number of events that cause significant amounts of damage. From 1980–2016, the annual average number of billion-dollar events is 5.5 (CPI-adjusted). For the most recent 5 years (2012–2016), the annual average is 10.6 events (CPI-adjusted). The year 2005 was the most costly since 1980 due
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, reducing CO2 emissions is a guaranteed waste of billions today and all of your natural disasters can't directly be linked to CO2 levels or global temperature. It's just a bullshit argument that all disasters are obviously because of climate change. Where are the dollar figures for benefits of climate change? I know personally, I'm saving money and CO2 emissions for the fact that my heater hasn't turned on in almost 2 weeks and it's January... Want to get a calculator for me?
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, it is impossible to know whether a person wouldn't have died of lung cancer anyway, even if she hadn't smoked a pack a day. But on aggregate we know that smoking dramatically increases the chance of lung cancer. We are certain that many more people are dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking.
Re: (Score:3)
The upward trend in the cost of natural disasters is more highly correlated with the increased standard of living of the average person and the concentration of populations in areas subject to natural disasters. If the same Katrina hit in 1800, the damage cost, even inflation adjusted, is far less than it is now. Any increase in frequency or strength of storms is not the primary cause for more "billion-dollar events." It's the increase in billion dollar areas.
Economics of climate change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS!
If by "WE" you mean the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, then yes you'll be extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that'd be the straw man you've been swallowing for the past ten years.
Re: (Score:2)
When "scientists" make predictions that do not come true, that SHOULD put a question on their "science". Those that reject skeptics are not real scientists. Science requires rigorous questioning, anything else is ... religion. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the problem that the majority of action researchersin these fields reject your "natural oscillation" claim.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Now, now, Trump, go have your hot chocolate and go back to beddie-bye. Melania will be in to tighten your diapers and tuck you in shortly.
Data source (Score:5, Informative)
I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.
The Goddard Institute for Space Science data is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
A press release from Columbia University about the findings is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/... [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I don't think anyone here cares about the facts. We would rather talk about politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Henceforth it is decreed that no government record or communication shall exceed 140 characters.
For most civilian functions of government, I could actually live with that...
Chicken Littles forget the El Nino (as usual) (Score:2, Troll)
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist with Berkeley Earth, said “The record temperature in 2016 appears to come from a strong El Nino imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated.”
Re:Chicken Littles forget the El Nino (as usual) (Score:5, Informative)
Of course El Nino contributed. But it's still hotter than every other El Nino year we've ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
" imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated"
doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.
Re:Chicken Littles forget the El Nino (as usual) (Score:5, Insightful)
If the recent warming trend is due to the El Nino:
1. Why is 2016 hotter than every other year in which there was an El Nino?
2. Why was the trough of the last La Nina hotter than every La Nina that came before it: and indeed, so hot that that trough was level with the El Nino that happened 10 years prior?
3. Why do you accept the concept of an El Nino at all? Surely if the concept of atmospheric composition impacting climate must be reject for [error! no reason supplied], then El Nino (ocean temperature driving climate) ought to be rejected as well? Explain the logic behind that.
Alternate sources per request (Score:3)
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/peter... [buzzfeed.com]
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Sure they do, and I assume they know how to use it. This doesn't change the fact that the summary didn't include them because the editors were too lazy to put them there.
It's a joke. Laugh! (Score:2)
Looks like the grandparent poster should have flagged it as sarcasm.
For the humor impaired: Buzzfeed and CNN are regarded as having been more "fake" than the Washington Post.
Re:0.00000333% (Score:5, Interesting)
Not overly to be sure, but only an idiot would think that pumping around 40 GIGATONS of CO2 per year isn't going to have a significant effect on the environment. I think the entire atmospheric CO2 cycle is only around 700 gigatons. That represents around 5% increase each year. Imagine if you increased the salinity of your blood, the temperature of a pond, or practically aspect of anything by 5% a year, it wouldn't take long for disaster to ensue. Luckily the planet can generally take quite a beating, and has done so many times before, but the puny lifeforms clinging its habitable margin between being cooked alive/crushed (about 10 miles down) and freezing/suffocating (5 or so miles up) don't tend to fare so well (see the couple dozen ELE in the past 500 million years).
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating "weather" with "Climate" and only AGW proponents are allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was the time of the dust bowl it was caused by a combination of severe droughts and poor farming techniques many of the record high temperatures where set that year and are still the record high today. It only takes one year with a long record low temperature winter and short mild summer to drop the average temperature which happened a couple times in the 1970s though some how it's still a steady and consistent increase. The weather isn't that consistent or predictable I doubt any data that doesn'
Data is here (Score:5, Informative)
Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.
All of the data is available on the GISS site, which I assume you haven't bothered to look at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
The site includes the source code for the analysis and a discussion of what all the data corrections are, why they were done, and what the data looks like before and after corrections.
You might want to start with the FAQ on how the data analysis is done, here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
If you don't like the way NASA does the data analysis, there's an independent analysis from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, here: http://berkeleyearth.org/ [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sad Trombone.
Re:Data is here (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you choose other stations [nasa.gov] the adjustments make the past look warmer.
You can't cherry pick a handful of stations and use the results to impugn the validity of the adjustments. You have to look at the justifications made for the adjustments to decide whether they make sense or not.
Pretty graph of uncorrected data (Score:5, Informative)
Click here [arstechnica.net] to see the uncorrected data graphed alongside the main corrected analyses (source: Berkeley Earth via Ars Technica).
Hopefully this makes it abundantly clear that the raw data still shows an obvious warming trend even before known problems are removed. It also shows how little difference the corrections have actually made, particularly in the last 75 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Click here [arstechnica.net] to see the uncorrected data graphed alongside the main corrected analyses (source: Berkeley Earth via Ars Technica).
Hopefully this makes it abundantly clear that the raw data still shows an obvious warming trend even before known problems are removed. It also shows how little difference the corrections have actually made, particularly in the last 75 years.
Not only that but the corrections before about 1940 actually raised the temperature which reduces the overall warming trend. That kind of counters the people that claim the adjustments always increase the warming trend.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is settled, mankind's massive emissions affect mankind's environment, Earth.
a: If it's "settled", it's not science.
The only question now is what the fuck are we going to do about it, and who can we trust not to line their pocket on both sides of that line?
"Only" question? There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activit
Re: (Score:2)
If it's "settled", it's not science.
oh shut the f up.
that bs canard needs to die.
"It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
see above.
Re: (Score:2)
>There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
That would be a concern... if ANYBODY was proposing THAT as a solution. Why would we propose something that wouldn't work ? The proposed solution is "replace archaic 19th century technology with the best of 21st century technological ingenuity"
You know what happe
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so we are all agreed. The planet is getting warmer and human CO2 emissions are contributing. I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
You're aware that the "feedback loop theory" you're referring to is the assumption of constant relative humidity, right?
If you want to suggest that this feedback doesn't exist, you are making the assumption that humidity decreases as temperature increases. Unless you can come up with a plausible mechanism for that, I'd call that an "unproven, unsettled" theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.
Re: (Score:2)
is supposed to generate 1.2C
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score:5, Insightful)
A rain belt shift that sees the Midwest and the Plains become more and more drought prone is going to have a pretty major effect on a country of over 300 million people. This isn't just about having to build dikes in Florida or abandoning portions of its coastline, there are certain features of modern civilization that are built upon ready access to arable lands.
CO2 levels 80 million years ago are irrelevant to a feature of the planet that has only existed for the last 10,000 years; namely human civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
A rain belt shift that sees the Midwest and the Plains become more and more drought prone is going to have a pretty major effect on a country of over 300 million people.
A rain belt shift that saw the Midwest become more and more drought prone would indeed have a pretty major effect.
Fortunately, it's not happening. Quite the opposite. Average rainfall in Missouri is trending upwards [weather.gov], and is higher now than it has been since at least 1900.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this [globalchange.gov] is a more useful picture, rather than a single cherry-picked datapoint.
The good news is, as expected we're getting more rainfall overall, as humidity rises with temperature. The bad news is, some important specific areas are getting quite a lot less. Sucks to be a farmer living there.
Re: (Score:2)
The long term outlook is far more precipitation in winter and spring, and hotter dryer summers.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have a ton of farmers growing crops IN THE FREAKING DESERT of California. I think we are already farming unsustainable land. It's ok though, most of the world's available crop land isn't even being tapped yet.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have a ton of farmers growing crops IN THE FREAKING DESERT of California. I think we are already farming unsustainable land. It's ok though, most of the world's available crop land isn't even being tapped yet.
Yes, by pumping ancient aquifers to empty. It won't last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything the models have been too conservative. I expect some of the nastier aspects to be hitting us well within my lifetime. My kids and grandkids will get the worst of it, of course, if that makes you feel better about shouting about Al Gore.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything the models have been too conservative.
Unless, of course, they're not too conservative. That's always the problem with assertions not backed by evidence. They can be just as wrong as right.
Re: (Score:2)
That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.
Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.
But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.
When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actuall
End of the glaciation was ten thousand years ago (Score:2)
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago. We can see that very clearly in many different records, but possibly most clearly in the global sea level, which drops when the glaciers increase and rises when the glaciers melt.
One thing we know for sure, the present warming is not because the Earth coming out of the glaciation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.
You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you? >By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.
The graphs show nothing of the sort. Look at it more closely and pay attention to the scale. http://geology.utah.gov/wp-con... [utah.gov] The smallest time division on that graph is 50,000 years, and the temperature has been warm for about a quarter of a division.
The article summarizes it clearly: "Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago" which is pretty much what I just said.
Here's a good graph showing the sea level rise at the end of the glaciation. You can see the warming very
Re: (Score:2)
You changed the AC's definition. Glaciation is different than ice age. Ice ages refer to parts of history where there are ice caps at the poles that last over entire years. There have been times in earth's history when that was not the case and life continued.
One thing we do know for sure. The earth is warming, humans are contributing, but we don't know how much of each of the climate factors are contributing. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
All of this fear mongering is just to push forward the globalist agenda of bringing down western civilization.
So, have you considered attacking the "globalist agenda," rather than attacking the science and the scientists?
Climate fluctuations are cyclical, and solar output DOES have a lot to do with the climate.
Of course it does. Nobody is challenging that point. But we measure solar output, and it is not the cause of the current warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar output in fact has decreased since the early 60s.
Also according to the Milankovitch cycles we should be in the middle of a cooling period, although the actual effect is quite complex (e.g. it makes a difference whether perihelion occurs in the austral or boreal summer). So it is also possible that we might be in for slight warming over the next twenty thousand years. But even if we were in for dramatic warming due to orbital resonance, that would be on the order of 0.1C/century, much lower than the c
Re: (Score:2)
I often wonder how accurate their temperature monitoring is. Are their thermometers better accuracy than .01C? What is their drift?
Anyone who knows about metrology knows you need at least 10x the accuracy of your measurements to put the errors down in the noise a bit.
They're talking about hundredths of a degree, are they really calibrated that accurately down to millidegrees? I doubt it.
When you're averaging a large number of measurements it's reasonable to have a much higher precision than the precision of the individual measurement itself. The clearest example of this I know of is baseball batting averages. A batter either gets a hit or an out, that is an integer 1 or a 0. But batting averages are typically expressed to 3 decimal places (thousandths).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it losing that much energy or is the energy just going someplace else like into the oceans?
Re: (Score:3)
If they're talking about a monthly anomaly then it's the average for the whole month that they're talking about, the highest of any individual days.