'Extreme and Unusual' Climate Trends Continue After Record 2016 (bbc.com) 373
From a report on BBC: In the atmosphere, the seas and around the poles, climate change is reaching disturbing new levels across the Earth. That's according to a detailed global analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It says that 2016 was not only the warmest year on record, but it saw atmospheric CO2 rise to a new high, while Arctic sea ice recorded a new winter low. The "extreme and unusual" conditions have continued in 2017, it says. Reports earlier this year from major scientific bodies - including the UK's Met Office, Nasa and NOAA -- indicated that 2016 was the warmest year on record. The WMO's State of the Global Climate 2016 report builds on this research with information from 80 national weather services to provide a deeper and more complete picture of the year's climate data.
This will be denied by all the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
When you visit 99 doctors who say you have cancer and one who says your lump is natural, and besides you just don't believe in medical science be cause religion/ideology/economics... whatever. That's pretty much the situation were in with climate science and climate change deniers. WAKE UP! Start treatment!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the world is getting warmer. That's pretty obvious, all you need is a thermometer. It's going to suck to be on the coast. We're looking at a significant rise in ocean levels somewhere around 20 inches most likely by 2100. It's not the end of the world but it'll suck for a lot of people. Best to start preparing for it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest problem will be the food supply. Things that grow where they currently do may not, leading to farmers either having to move or switch crops. Which means our diets are going to have to change to match whatever the farmers come up with.
Natural plantlife will have a much harder time since they don't get to pack up and drive 100 miles north when it gets too hot for them. They just die out and that's that. Animals that rely on that plantlife for food and shelter will of course die out as well, though
Re: (Score:3)
Things will happen slowly enough. It's not the first time the world has been hot we know. They've found plant fossils in Antarctica. And we also know it was once a giant snowball. I think we wont see either of those two extremes for quite a while. Now if the oceans rose 20 inches tomorrow things would get dicey.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already too late for all practical purposes. Eventually carbon output will see significant decline but not in time to do much about the next 100 years. That ship has sailed. Big Oil and Coal are on their way out. Everyone knows it, it's just a matter of time. When battery technology gets to the point you can go off grid on a middle class income it'll be the tipping point. Renewables are the future. Not all the coastal people will be fine, not all are rich. Especially in other parts of the world
Re: (Score:2)
Deniers moved the goal posts.
- They agree that it's happening.
- They are denying it's caused by humans.
It's a step in the right direction. I consider this a "small win".
Re: (Score:2)
- They agree that it's happening.
- They are denying it's caused by humans.
Followed by:
- Okay, it's caused by humans, but it's not a big deal
- Okay, okay, it is a big deal, but it's too late now.
Re: (Score:2)
Followed by "if it's a big deal, why aren't we building more nuclear reactors? Replacing baseload coal with baseload natural gas is just delaying things slightly."
Re: (Score:3)
After some really cold winters, they stopped calling it 'Global Warming', which sounded stupid in the context, and started calling it 'Climate Change'.
Wrong. The term "Climate Change" has been in use for more than 50 years. https://skepticalscience.com/c... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible analogy. Mostly because there's a large chunk of the population who would listen to that one new-age homeopathic dingleberry over the opinion of actual doctors. Maybe not as many as climate change deniers but still a depressingly large number.
Re: This will be denied by all the idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody is getting rich of government grants. Nobody. Maybe you should break out of your news bubble and stop listening to the people shoveling this crap at you.
Re: This will be denied by all the idiots (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, lots of people like building up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student debt just so they can barely scrape by on that sweet sweet government grant money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the cost is destruction of the environment in exchange for that metric assload of money, it is like they're screwing people.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were in it for the money you know damn well that they wouldn't be in higher ed.... or at least you would if you were at all honest with yourself.
You get all fucking flip because I tell you to step outside of your news bubble and actually read something that isn't from some conservative jackass who knows literally nothing, who feeds you information in little bite sized pieces designed to fit right in with your preconceived beliefs and lead you right to the slaughter, along with the rest of us.
You kno
Re: (Score:2)
Its good practice for when our cities are underwater
Re: (Score:2)
Some cities deserve to be underwater, just saying.
Re:This will be denied by all the idiots (Score:5, Informative)
No, you weren't. There was a *very* small fringe of the scientific community that ever believed in global cooling - that the media chose to latch onto it is irrelevant.
Also only a very small fringe warned of ice caps melting by 2000 - but again, sensationalism sells news, so that's what the media latched onto.
Early on the vast bulk of scientists said "we're not really sure just how fast things will get bad, but we should probably start mitigating the risk while we collect more data". Then, about 50 years ago they had enough data to start making predictions - and those predictions have been proving accurate to within the margins of error ever since. Basically for the last several decades of the science has just been a matter of dialing in the decimal points and discovering knock-on effects.
And most importantly, NOBODY has come up with *any* alternate explanations for the warming we're experiencing that actually matches the data. Data which "coincidentally" is exactly what you'd predict from the well-known thermal retention effects of CO2. And that CO2 can be clearly laid at human's feet because it's accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate *slower* than what we know human fossil fuel consumption is producing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cooling of the past via statistical tricks?
Junk Science (Score:5, Funny)
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
It's a Chinese hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
Well, good excuse from you. Most peer reviewed papers/researches are behind a pay wall. If you have academic access, then it is not difficult to find that there are many researches on the topic. Anyway your mind has already been set to not believe, so nothing will change your mind regardless. Why bother giving this kind of excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh.
Re: Junk Science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i can spot sarcasm better than most. His joke was hardly obvious.
"It's a Chinese hoax."
AFAIK, Trump does not have a /. account.
Re: (Score:2)
You understand the Universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your political and economic ideology, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really matter whether you believe it or not? You don't have to believe the sun will come up tomorrow either, it does that without your belief. We're on a warming trend, carbon in the atmosphere is causing it and man puts a lot of that carbon there. The only problem I have with the climate change evangelists is their "the sky is falling" hysteria. Life happens and you deal with it. The oceans will rise and we have to prepare for that. It's better to start before it gets really bad because it's
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could, you know, work to reduce CO2 emissions. In the end we'll have to do it anyways, so why not start now? Why just build higher levies and give the middle finger to brown-skinned people unlucky enough to have been born in developing nations?
Re: (Score:2)
Oceans will rise. Plantlife will die out. Atmospheric oxygen won't get replenished (at least not nearly as fast.) Billions could potentially face long-term droughts and famines.
But yeah, the sky is unlikely to literally fall. Unless we also get slammed by a meteor. That would be just the cherry on top! Which is good because cherries might not exist by that point.
If the only problem with increased global temperatures was a dip in Florida real estate prices, people wouldn't really care that much. But t
Re: (Score:2)
NASA faked the moon landing, too!
Right?
Re:Junk Science (Score:5, Informative)
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
It's a Chinese hoax.
Here's the google scholar result, 1.4 million hits: https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com] Is that enough?
Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed science: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [wiley.com]
and here's another: http://science.sciencemag.org/... [sciencemag.org]
I have the opposite question: is there any peer-reviewed research showing a credible alternative hypothesis to the greenhouse effect hypothesis? If so, I haven't seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. This is what I sarcastically asked for. Of course climate ACG is real, except to Trump supporters.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet [Re:Junk...] (Score:2)
Re:Junk Science (Score:5, Insightful)
You respond to links of peer reviewed scientific papers with a link to a tabloid article... And you wonder why people don't take your views seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
All that counts is that he provided a link. It could be a link to two gay apes with a bottle of lube, but he provided a link, therefore AGW DISPROVEN!!!
You're dealing with desperate morons.
Alternate hypotheses mostly ruled out by data (Score:2)
There are alternative hypothesis if you wanted to search for it (solar cycles, plate tectonics/volcanoes, cosmoclimatology, etc.).
Indeed there are. And these have all been examined in great depth, and shown to not explain the data.
Read the literature. Or if you don't want to read the literature, read a popular summary. This one, maybe: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently don't realize that until quite recently the Chinese have steadfastly refused to indulge in any CO2-limiting treaties, thus ensuring that very few other countries will do so either.
Also, the Chinese probably *want* global warming - provided it can be kept from snowballing into a transition back to a "Hothouse Earth". Like Russia and Canada, much of their country is frozen wasteland that will benefit immensely from the warming.
The Donald says (Score:5, Funny)
If it's happening more often then it's not unusual any more, and it's not extreme either - it's just normal.
Get in your Hummers and drive, folks. It'll be awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's the solution. Let's just redefine "normal".
"Well sure, Bob, the black lesions all over your body would normally suggest you have some horrible disease, but seeing as this is the new normal, I don't think we need to worry about diagnosis and treatment. Have a great day, but make sure to pay my secretary on the way out... in cash."
Re: (Score:2)
Thats what we like to call a "pre-existing condition"
It means we're winning (Score:3)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
And I have a really good feeling that this will be the year that humanity finally gains the upper hand in our millennial struggle against the Arctic ice cap. Once the ice cap melts completely, even temporally, it will shift the equilibrium of seasonal oscillations. Every winter it will freeze a little less; every summer it will thaw a little sooner. Until our final victory is inevitable. Congratulations everyone. And keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:2)
This was taking from a Futurama script, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're interested in Arctic sea ice, I can recommend this excellent forum: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.n... [arctic-sea-ice.net]
Re: (Score:2)
We have a solution! (Score:2)
No, we're not solving climate change, we're just going to cut funding to the people telling us about it [washingtonpost.com] more and more until they stop telling us about it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're not solving climate change, we're just going to cut funding to the people telling us about it [washingtonpost.com] more and more until they stop telling us about it. ;)
I was visiting someone once and his college age daughter told us of an experience she had earlier that afternoon. She was driving along the highway and the engine started making a terrible noise. Her solution: keep turning up the radio so she wouldn't have to hear it. The reason: what else could I do?
Hy Brasil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No complaints here (Score:5, Insightful)
All that matters is short term success. Fuck the future, fuck the brown people, fuck everything but the next six minutes.
We're dealing with a generation of navel-gazing halfwits whose entire life can be described in 140 characters. And of course, because any aspect of US monitoring of climate is going to be defunded, for the next five to ten years the virginal unwashed basement dwellers and all the angry Rust Belters can continue to pretend that a lack of solid action on CO2 emissions isn't going to cause any problems whatsoever.
Well, at least the Kochs will keep making money, and after all, that's all that really counts.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You slew not just one straw man but a whole field of them. Bravo!
Re:No complaints here (Score:5, Interesting)
This thread started with a guy saying "Well its warm where I am so its all good" and this is the post you complain about?
Re: (Score:2)
You slew not just one straw man but a whole field of them. Bravo!
To be fair, you can hardly string a coherent sentence together without knocking two or three of you scarecrows off your feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
two, even if the US stops funding something others are not banned from funding it are they? Let those who believe put their money where their mouth is.
Re: (Score:2)
two, even if the US stops funding something others are not banned from funding it are they? Let those who believe put their money where their mouth is.
No, but lets not allow politicians who refuse to take scientific experts seriously --mostly because they receive donations from oil companies that lobby to them -- remove us from the front line of Global Warming research. The various branches of the US military, along with NASA (you know.. the people smart enough to send rockets and satellites to the moon and other planets..), undoubtedly believe that Global Warming is real, and that's because their scientists have found the evidence showing it's real.
Takin
Re: No complaints here (Score:4, Insightful)
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's true. The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant. Comparing predictive results of climate models to actual measurements shouldn't give anybody the warm fuzzies that c
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant.
Name one other factor in climate change that's even close to CO2.
Methane [Re: No complaints here] (Score:5, Informative)
Source [climatecha...ection.org] Not sure if source is valid, but numbers are close to what I have seen before.
Equal to CO2? No
Methane 25x
N2O 298x
Yes, but that's the effect per unit mass emitted. The effect on climate change will be the warming potential multiplied by the amount emitted, and in that respect, carbon dioxide-- from fuel burned in billion ton quantities-- is the clear leader. Amounts emitted are there a different tab on the site you linked as your source: https://climatechangeconnectio... [climatecha...ection.org]
Or, look here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio... [epa.gov]
But you can't tax cows,
Sure you could.
and farmers are a big lobby for Congress, so you ignore the methane. If you really cared you would be working on methane more than CO2.
methane emissions are also important, and people looking at responses to greenhouse emissions do, in fact, also look at how to reduce methane emissions.
The fact that you go after CO2 gives away your political agenda and shows that you don't really care about the science.
No it doesn't. It shows that people are looking most closely at the largest effect.
In fact I bet you didn't even know about methane. Gotta wonder when a "denier" knows more about the science than you do. According to you all I haven't ever looked at the science even half as much as you, but here I am giving facts you didn't know about.
Wrong on all counts. If you would actually read some of the literature, you'd see methane discussed in great detail. Including in the sites you list.
mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a foul crock of denialist horseshit you just spewed. Shame on you.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims
I'm sorry, that just is not true. The people who claim to be skeptics, on the other hand...
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Insightful)
Which has what to do with what? Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Options are offered by various economists, and each and every one is in turned attacked. Yes, there are fruitcakes out there, but so what? The fact remains that if we do not end the fossil fuel economy soon, we're going to fuck things up badly. Enough to kill off humanity? Well no, but it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad, and will eat into the economies of wealthier countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Enough to kill off humanity? Well no
Well yes, actually. Killing the oceans and the pollinators will kill off humanity.
No red lines [Re: No complaints here] (Score:2)
How many red lines have we crossed? More than Obama drew, and that's quite a few. But there always seems to be some Envirowackos standing there saying, "THIS is the final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED!"
We're not doomed. The anthropogenic component of the greenhouse effect is warming the world slowly. This is real, and the science is getting to be well understood, but quit saying we're "doomed". We're not "doomed."
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear I see this argument every time: "There are extremists shouting DOOM! so that invalidates the scientists presenting measured arguments." It's a poor argument.
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Funny)
Because that's not what they're asking for. Even your "unmodified data" statement demonstrates that you're just aping a talking point.
I will fucking repeat, because you appear to be either a fucking moron or out and out malicious. The radiation absorption properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. There is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING, let me repeat that, because you appear to be a fucking idiot, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE FUCKING THING controversial about increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere that will lead to increase trapping of energy,
For fuck's sake, the Arctic was some thirty degrees above normal seasonal temperatures for most of this winter. Most of the last twenty years have been the hottest on record. Increased absorption of CO2 in the world's oceans is changing ocean pH levels. Do you think making spurious demands based largely on bullshit you read on denier sites somehow overrides the laws of physics? Are you really that fucking stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't give a crap if you take me seriously. I consider you on the same level as a Creationist or an anti-vaxxer. You're just an idiot who is too infantile and too cowardly and too ideologically driven to see that the laws of physics don't give a fuck about ideology. CO2's properties are not bounded by what you would like CO2 to do when concentrations increase. The laws of physics make it inevitable that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an unavoidable increase in solar radiation being trapped. That's just the way the Universe works, so the fact that it's going to mean either accepting significant climactic changes or changes in the way we produce energy is irrelevant to said laws of physics. The Universe doesn't care that you're upset about greenhouse gas effects. How you feel is irrelevant, and just as irrelevant are vain attempts to create faux critiques of physical laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Salem Hypothesis [rationalwiki.org] neatly describes the sort of delusional belief that many engineering types have in their own abilities, and confusing engineering with science. Not that some engineers can't be scientists, but it's not something that just automatically comes with the qualification. The Salem Hypothesis original applied only to Creationism, but seeing as how much of the anti-science rhetoric first developed by Creationists is basically being recycled for the AGW pseudo-skeptic movement, I think it's fair
Re: (Score:2)
Last year, everyone talking about the seven year long drought in California. This was due to global warming. Now with even more global warming, California has dams at record levels and one of the largest snow packs on record.
Just because a giant storm system finally hit the upper-west coast doesn't discount global warming. The drought is still in effect for the bottom half of California:
http://www.kcra.com/article/50... [kcra.com]
Your argument is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Others make the case better. I'm just here to call out pseudo-skeptics for what they are; liars and morons. Do you think, say, anti-vaxxers, Creationists and the whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd deserve some sort of continued decent respect. At some point, people who make false and absurd claims should simply be treated like the intellectual midgets they really are.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a particularly loathing for anyone who hasn't learned grammar
How's that working out for you?
Skepticism and denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I've never seen such outright hatred displayed by the skeptics.
Yes, I've never before seen such outright hatred as that displayed by the "skeptics", either. It's pretty frightening. But the thing of it is, they're not skeptics: they claim that they're skeptics, but this is a peculiar one-sided "skepticism": no matter how much evidence you show them that the scientists know what they're doing, or how patiently you answer their arguments, they ignore it, but even the most absurd attacks on the science they jump on and believe absolutely, saying "look! It's all a hoax! It's a fraud! Lock them up!"
They're usually just asking for evidence and unmodified data, like good scientists strive to do.
That would be science. But when they then don't pay the slightest attention to the reply-- because they're trying to spread doubt, not actually asking for answers-- that's not skepticism: that's denial.
Re: Skepticism and denial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, unusual to see thoughtful, reasoned commentary on trigger-button issues.
I think you may be overly pessimistic. At its heart, this is a technology problem, and it turns out that humanity is actually very good at solving technology problems. The alternate energy technologies are getting better and better.
I think that there won't be one solution, there will be many solutions, and they will be implemented-- slowly, but incrementally-- because the techolology will do the job.
An example case is CFC useag
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
lol you are currently enjoying Mr Obama's stock market, wait about 6 months for trump's to kick in
Re: (Score:2)
Because, of course, the effects of AGW will touch you in no way. Clearly, being an AC in a wealthy developed nation makes you immune to physics.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the 2nd winter in a row with less than average snow and higher than average temps. I certainly don't mind.
The best part is that it extends boating season by a month, another month when I get to run twin 350s and burn 20 gallons an hour!
If I can keep it up I may be able to warm it up to get another month!
Climate Change Positive Feedback Loop (Score:5, Insightful)
One. Gets warmer
Two. Too hot to think
Three. Elect global-warming-denier-leader
Four. Cancel science and science-based regulation
Five. Unshackle and incentivize fossil-fuel industry and consumption
Six. Goto One.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it might be nice when your winter is 37 instead of 27, but its gonna suck when summer is 107 instead of 97.
Of course the local temperature in the particular few square miles you care about is pretty much entirely irrelevant to these discussions anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Artic sea ice is not all sea ice. Antarctic ice was increasing last I checked
Yes, it is. At approximately 1 tenth the rate of ice loss in the arctic, by volume.
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Informative)
Antarctic sea is is NOT increasing. Every single person that says this has no fucking idea what they are talking about. Much like the rest of the world Antarctica has winters and summers and ice increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The winter limits of Antarctic sea ice (ice floating on the ocean which contributes nothing to sea level in either melted or frozen state) are increasing and the summer limits are ever smaller every year with some of the largest calving off of major floating glaciers ever seen in recorded history. In fact we're on the verge of losing an ice shelf that's as big as Rhode island that's been there for 4000 years.
Winter sea ice is increasing because the increased melt water coming off Antarctica has decreased local salinity making it easier for it to freeze. The large winter ice limits are in fact an indication in SUPPORT of global climate change. 99% of people that quote this winter ice limit think it's contradictory evidence to global climate change and they are so misinformed they think they are making some sort of point. The reality is they are actually showing evidence that support it.
This is what scientists deal with, ignorant people with out even the most basic understanding of any of the science let along scientific basics quoting things they heard on talk radio as if it's proof and a valid point of discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot:
- Loss of approx. 50% of all living species substantially over next few hundred years.
- Ocean acidification and loss of shellfish and reefs.
- Movement of Earth's desert zones by 5 or 10 degrees in latitude due to expanded thermal energy and size of the north and south hemispheric atmosphere cycles by which hot equatorial air rises, dries out in upper atmosphere, moves north (or south respectively) then moves down to dry out the land below at a certain latitude range.
Re: No complaints here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, deserts heat up and expand, and you have hundreds of millions of people trying to move into your back yard, meaning you have to pay a fuck ton more in taxes to support border patrols, armies, all the while you're facing food and water supply problems because your bread basket regions suddenly are less productive, and you become more reliant on foreign sources of agriculture. Meanwhile many other costs, like insurance, start skyrocketing, or many climate-related problems simply aren't covered. Oh yes, and as mentioned elsewhere collapse of many major fisheries, which will lead to huge pressures on coastal populations in many parts of the world where those fisheries are a significant, if not primary source of protein.
Will it happen in your lifetime? If you're under thirty, very likely yes. I'm in my mid-40s, so hopefully I'll miss some of the nastier effects. My kids and grandchldren won't, sadly. But the West is pretty wealthy, so doubtless will pull through relatively alright, though tens of millions of refugees fleeing regions far more vulnerable and far less economically capable of weathering the worst of it, will start showing up, as I mention above, and the costs of keeping them out or integrating them will be huge. Some areas will simply become unlivable by even the hardier animals, and people have this habit of not just sitting down and dying when survival where they are becomes impossible.
Re: No complaints here (Score:2)
On a related note, you scumbag shills have gotten lazy; you don't bother with multiple user accounts as much as you used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Are Parker and Stone even contesting AGW anymore?
warmer and cooler (Score:2)
True... Earth has been warmer and cooler before today....
But not at the same time.
Earth temperature timeline (Score:3)
Yes, it's been warmer and cooler than this before but the rate and scale of change is unprecedented:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Re: (Score:2)
Here is my Climate Theory.
It will get warmer.
It will get cooler.
Repeat.
It is irrefutable!
We're not doomed [Re:We're Doomed.] (Score:4, Insightful)
But on a human scale, this is a long term effect: things will change slowly. If this keeps up for a century, the world of the 2100s may be very different from the world we see now. But that's a century away.
On a geological scale that is quite fast, but that's not the scales humans deal with. We're not doomed (or, at least, no more doomed now than we ever were.
Re: (Score:2)
The total change might take a century. As in: average temperature is ow X and in 100 years Y. Or sea level is now L1 and in 100 years L2.
But there are small, localized, changes as in Syria/Iraq, that happen over the course of 3 to 5 years.
Then again, if for them reason push comes to shove, as with the ice on Greenland (a Vulcano, e.g.) and the whole ice drops into the ocean over the course of a couple of years, then mankind has a problem, a serious one. One is for sure: the seal level rise won't be a consta
Re: (Score:2)
The total change might take a century. As in: average temperature is ow X and in 100 years Y. Or sea level is now L1 and in 100 years L2. But there are small, localized, changes as in Syria/Iraq, that happen over the course of 3 to 5 years.
Right. But there are always small localized changes that happen over the course of 3 to 5 years; droughts, floods, warm years, cold years. Some of which have indeed been devastating. But the human-greenhouse-gas-induced part is global climate change, not the "small localized changes".
Then again, if for them reason push comes to shove, as with the ice on Greenland (a Vulcano, e.g.) and the whole ice drops into the ocean over the course of a couple of years, then mankind has a problem, a serious one.
The greenhouse effect warming isn't going to melt the Greenhouse ice in "a couple of years". Look, you're accusing others of ignoring the science; don't ignore the science yourself. The greenhouse effect is a long term effec
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're not doomed [Re:We're Doomed.] (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll see significant change when every ounce of profit that can be wrung out fossil fuels has been made, or at least close enough to it. And then suddenly you're going to start seeing big solar farms on the Arabian Peninsula and Shell(tm) Wind Farms.
Re:Revised headline (Score:5, Informative)
If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argumen
The last 16 years have all ended up in the top-17 of hottest years. That good enough for you ?
Re: (Score:3)
They're just gonna hitch up their Hummer to that goalpost and move it again, because that's easier than taking the lifestyle hit that change would require.
Humans only live ~80 years anyway, and most people talking about this (and with money to do something about it) will be in their late 30s at least. None of them will really see significant change in the remainder of their life, so it's not real to them. Hell, most of them don't even plan for the next decade.
Adjustments [Re:Revised headline] (Score:2)
You do know that all of the adjustments to data are documented, and the source code is public, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
You do know that all of the previous data is still archived, and you can look at it, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
You do know that the much-vaunted changes are small, and make no difference to the ultimate conclusion, right? http://berkeleyearth.org/under... [berkeleyearth.org]
You do know that many different groups have looked at the data independently and gotten the same result,
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence... (Score:4, Informative)
Climate != Weather.... Weather != Climate.... Just because it's warmer today or this year, doesn't mean the climate is doing the same thing. If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argument
Correct. One warm year is weather. Two warm years is happenstance. A series of warm years, globally averaged, though, and you start thinking it's climate. A series of warm years is what has been happening.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/august-2016-global-temperature-record
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/23/were-now-breaking-global-temperature-records-once-every-three-years
https://www.ft.com/content/9962f3c0-dda2-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... [nasa.gov]