Slashdot Mirror
Report Says Climate Change Already Evident, Emissions Gap Growing
Dupple writes "Following on from a world bank report of 4 degree C warmer world comes this story from the BBC. 'The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned. "Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.'"
Here's the report in question. There also comes news we've hit record levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Wait, you haven't heard? We have Cap and Trade in California now so Global Warming is solved.
Now we've rewritten history
The one thing we've found out
Sweet taste of vindication
It turns to ashes in your mouth
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Tell about it to New York people. I've heard it is getting windier there by.
to show this is definitely not a naturally occurring cycle?
The end is nigh! Repent, sinners! Repent!!!!!!!!
I love an alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines as much as the next guy, but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.
I prefer mine with some context. Like this one.
Just look at the curve The rise is so steady every year in the last fifty has set a record and every year in the next fifty probably will too.
I love that the article includes the chart showing "Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory".
Kinda like a thermometer hanging over a boiling pot of water to show it is warm.
I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.
To name a few:
- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water
Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.
I love an alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines as much as the next guy, but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.
Yeah well, believe it or not one of the common arguments I face when talking about man made CO2 is that human emissions are nothing compared to natural forces of CO2 and a similar argument is that the Earth has a natural cycle that keeps this level of CO2 in balance and in check.
So as we watch CO2 levels steadily rise, it gives us insight into how much of these "natural processes" are effecting greenhouse gases in our atmosphere versus what we are contributing to these levels. And I think it's important to remind people that 1) these levels are steadily rising so no, the Earth is not keeping itself in check, 2) it's not just something where turn on the "remove CO2 machines" to fix it and 3) if natural processes are the cause of these levels of CO2, where is the corresponding increase in these natural processes?
Seriously people tell me all the time that one volcanic eruption dwarfs anything man could do in a decade. And I don't know where they get this shit. So tell me, where are all these new volcanic eruptions to explain this steady trend upward? Oh, we can't report that it's rising because you feel offended that it's "alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines." With all due respect, you're not helping this situation!
My work here is dung.
Rivers will turn to blood and humanity will be wiped out! Mankind will pay for his carbon gluttony!!!
I don't know why the neocons hate Obama so much. No one has embraced and expanded the power of the state and the Bush Doctrine like Obama has. Obama apologists: you can suck on a fat cock.
Yes, the reporting sucks, as usual. If the climate were perfectly stable (never is) and human economic growth continued you would EXPECT damages from pretty much everything to increase unless people in general were rational and had enough foresight to mitigate obvious problems like putting lots of expensive things next to the ocean.
Add a changing environment (hotter, colder - it really doesn't make much difference) and you're going to have more damage - unless you get smart about where to place things.
But the climate is changing - and changing fairly quickly. Whether or not mankind is really forcing the change or not, it still is going to be a big problem because we are pushing the carrying capacity of the planet at present. If you look at the history of human kind it is apparent that climate change has forced numerous civilizations to move, adapt or collapse (or various combinations). Given close to 7 billion people, moving lots of them doesn't work well. Adapting will certainly happen - some more successful than others and collapse is definitely a possibility.
Just try to ignore the media - as usual, it's not being terribly helpful.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It's too late to do anything about it, more and more greenhouse gasses are being released from frozen tundras and lakes plus India and China are in full manufacture mode.
The only thing that will turn the tide now is removal of ~6.5 billion humans immediately.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Northern Europe where *I* live can do with some warmer climate. Why should I pay more for my power because of some future possible water shortages in "[river basins of] the Ganges and the Nile"? We must *prepare* for Global Warming, which may mean, for example, helping India and Egypt to build desalination plants and to grow more food in places which were too cold previously.
I am not sure what to tell you. More people getting better lifestyles = a warmer planet. We could solve global warming right now, all we have to do is start killing things. Global warming due to human activity is a walk in the park compared to the cataclysmic climate change the world experienced 12,900 years ago when a comet impacted with the planet and dropped the temperatures near chigago in 2 years to the same levels they were when Chicago had a mile of ice on it. If it gets too warm where you live, then move. That is why animals evolved legs. I am in support of minimizing the levels of carbon dioxide as best we can, but climate change is a reality. Cataclysmic climate change is a common occurence on our planet. If you feel that creating a museum of what the earth used to be is more important than humanity advancing our civilization to the point where we can take the life forms on this planet and colonize others then you are a luddite. In the future global warming will be called terraforming and it will occur on mars.
.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.
Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....
Maps and the full article are here.
It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.
Well, except for religion.
And politicial ideology.
And conspiracy theories.
And urban myths.
And all the "I know what I know" categiries.
And... er... hmmm...
Their heads will explode.
On second thought... yes by all means, tell the Republicans!
Let us assume for a moment that what we are seeing is 100% the effect of human-produced CO2. I know a lot of people believe that already, but there is little in the way of actual proof of it being so. But just for a moment, let's assume that is the case.
Do we know that reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere - by whatever means necessary - will reverse or start to reverse climate change?
Do we know at what rate atmospheric CO2 would decrease should we eliminate producing all CO2 immediately? (However impractical or impossible that might be.)
I'd say the answers to those two is no, and no. That means that should we implement draconian means to reduce CO2 we have no real idea of the benefits, other than having (eventually) less CO2 in the atmosphere. This makes it rather difficult to make the case of for such draconian measures as they have unclear benefits after some unknown span of time. No one can say if we close all the cities to cars X will happen in 12 months or if we turn off all coal power plants Y will be the result.
There is another aspect of this. People talk all the time about there being a cult following of climate change believers and how this is nearly a religion. Religious fevor has through the ages produced some very dedicated individuals willing to go to incredible lengths in pursuit of their beliefs. Even without the specter of religion, people with very strong beliefs do things unthinkable to others. Think for a moment about Joan of Arc or Patrick (Give me liberty or give me death!) Henry. At the surface there would appear to be people (James Hanson?) that believe this strongly about climate change and the role of human energy use.
So where are the extraordinary acts? Coal-fired power plants are somewhat on the wane in the US but there are still plenty of them around and they are clearly contributing in a significant way to atmospheric CO2. Here are a number of hard targets with little or zero in the way of real defenses against dedicated individuals and yet no person or group has attacked a power plant in the name of shutting it down to preserve the climate. Some dynamite in the right (wrong?) place could turn a functioning, CO2-spewing power plant into a building that is impractical to repair in a few seconds forever removing that as a source of CO2.
Why has there not been even a single such incident? Are the believers beliefs simply not strong enough when it comes down to it?
The reality is that apparently even the believers do not believe strongly enough to commit extraordinary acts and while there is a clear benefit to ending CO2 production (less atmospheric CO2) the benefits of that in and of itself are somewhat sketchy. The costs associated with even turning down CO2 production in the US through various subtle mechanisms would be huge and life-changing for people - a nationwide cap and trade program with real caps and real costs or a nationwide carbon tax would immediately raise the price of everything in stores; food, clothing, toilet paper, everything. And why would the population of the US put up with that unless some concrete benefit can be shown with a timeline when these benefits are going to come? Any government that tried to implement this would find itself replaced.
(California may be trying to implement something on their own, but because it is not nationwide it is easily circumvented by businesses. What it does is make California increasingly unattractive for businesses and employing people - which has its own rewards as Californians are finding out.)
none
I just want to know: do you keep these in a text editor and just paste them over, or did you write this one on the spot? C'mon. You'll never be a successful troll if you're that brazen. You have to lead people on with ambiguous comments first.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Isn't that right next to a volcano? Didn't they observe a sharp rise a few years ago? The claims are interesting and all, but I think they chose to show a plot from an observation point that is exceptional.
December 1990 was one of the coldest months since records were first kept in the Silver State more than a century ago. In fact, it shares the podium with the coldest month of all, January 1937. The other winners in the "Top Ten" coldest months include January 1890, January 1913, January 1917, December 1924, December 1932, January 1949, December 1972, and February 1989. During the brutal cold snap of December 1990, at least 16 locations, with between 30 and 113 years of record, set new low temperatures for any month, with 2 to 3 times that many just missing all-time lows but establishing new minima for December. The State's long-standing December low of minus 45, set in 1924 in San Jacinto was broken, as minus 46 was recorded at Mountain City during the peak of the pre-Christmas cold snap. (The – 46 at Mountain City ranks second only to the minus 50 set in January 1937 as Nevada's all-time lowest temperature.)
I could find many, many more examples...
But I dont give a flying rubber rat about it any more.
Hippies: Go and live in your tree huts and wear your flax skirts, off grid with no help from anyone - like I often hear you talking about how you're going to do just that next summer, but never do, and continue to enjoy all the trimmings of industrialised commercialised profitised life while complaining to everyone else about how bad it all is... Cant be that bad if you're still doing it?
Scientists: Fix the problem or shut up about it.
Politicians: Continue to squabble.
Everyone else: Be a little less wasteful.
Planet: We both know you'll be fine after we're all long gone.
That is all.
Oh, my sweet summer child! What do you know about fear? Fear is for the winter, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep; fear is for the Long Night, when the sun hides for years and children are born and live and die all in darkness...
Winter is coming.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:
The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.
Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....
Maps and the full article are here.
Is that the discredited NOAA figures http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2 ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/11/18/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-almost-certainly-experienced-many-colder-than-average-months/
"And this will give ammunition to those who would write off a warming planet as little more than a hoax. Alarmism has no place in a discussion of science. We should leave that to 24-hour cable news pundits."
Bullshit.....all graphs and charts show no warming from 1997 on. Plus, what happened to all those ice sheets covering the US....were there large SUV's somewhere we don't know about 50,000 years ago.....what caused this evil warming then. Stop it.
A press release? From a kook meteorologist? Sorry, make that *the* kook meteorologist.
Troll harder.
Or do you think that the people who were asked "can you record CO2 levels" didn't think of that and correct for it?
That would PROVE it true. If the CO2 level is higher this year than in any year past, it is a record. Then if it is even higher the next year, it is again a record, and so on.... presumably every year, until we do something about it or it magically disappears somewhere.
By growing certain plants in areas that currently have little vegetation, then burying the plants so the carbon they extracted from the atmosphere remains sequestered, we can remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It's not nearly enough to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate at which we currently do. There has been some work with "artificial trees" that can remove more carbon dioxide. You can read more about carbon sequestration.
To me, it seems easier to just increase energy efficiency and find alternative sources of energy. I don't understand why so many people are against those ideas. I remember some vague talk about it "destroying the economy" if we do so, but that sounds like alarmism.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You're a complete fucking idiot, but I applaud for having the courage not to post your moronic mutterings as an AC.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you're 27 or younger, you've never experienced a colder-than-average month
Oh look. Stupid on the web. I bet that a very small portion of humanity has never experienced a colder-than-average month.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far.
Do you know the difference between "record cold" temperature and "colder-than-average" temperature? I do. Do you know the difference between a global measurement and a measurement at a spot somewhere on the surface of the planet? I do.
Aww.... bad day for me to have no mod points.
I certainly agree that it is beyond astonishing that all the values in a range would be above the average value for that range.
Localization is not the question, and in fact most climate discussion I find frustrating because it's the wrong argument. The argument should not be "Is man changing the climate?" but rather "Are we fucking things up?"
If we look at the suggested question, the answer is absolutely "yes". First, we know for a fact that Oil is not sustainable with the current population. Even if we all recycled plastics Oil vanishes faster than the earth is producing new Oil. Second, we are polluting everything. That pollution has not gotten better recently, but rather worse since we are arguing "Climate" instead of addressing our impact. This in turn has resulted in reduced controls, higher acceptable levels of pollution, and deregulation. Our pollution rate is not sustainable. Lastly, are we rendering portions of the Earth inhabitable and useless? The obvious answer to that question is also yes. Numerous studies show how we have rendered at least 10% of the Earths farming area useless for at least 100 years and that number is increasing. The same goes for Oceans and dead zones in them.
Look at it this way. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that coal power is bad for people's health. Both the powdering process for the coal, and the burning of the coal pollute the environment something fierce. We do so knowing it's bad because it makes some people a whole lot of money regardless of the impact. The excuse to continue has nothing to do with "is it bad" but rather "it's cheaper than wind power (which could be argued rather heavily from the angle of wind not being as profitable to the same people making money from fossil fuels)".
We need to get back to the real issue, which by the way was prominent in the 70s and 80s by the way.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Look, I know I can reduce the emissions on my boat but I rather like smoking a cigar while sailing...
At the end of the day man-made or natural.
If your house it going to be underwater in 10 years time it would be nice to know before you redecorate it...
So who gets to decide the "correct" temperature? Some has been politician making money off of it?
No good deed goes unpunished.
...As an individual, is to reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals. We breed billions of cows and pigs, and feed them unnaturual diets--which greatly increases their flatulence. So we're pumping massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere that wouldn't be there otherwise (Cows in particular are methane machines, and there would be nowhere near as many as there are now if not for humans). Methane is 20x better at trapping heat than CO2, and recycles out of the atmosphere in 7 years instead of 100. We could see immediate effects on global warming.
But in addition to that, most deforestation is being done so that cattle has grazing land. That's where most of the Amazon is going now--not to make wood or paper, or even just room for people, but so that cattle have grazing land, and cheap beef can be exported to fast food chains. Fast food chains are shrinking the lungs of the world.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Just finished reading Carbon Crunch. Helm is an economist from Oxford who assisted the European Commission in preparing the Energy Roadmap 2050. :Dieter claims coal is the #1 emissions problem, that and political cowardice. The U.S. and EU have done their utmost to shift manufacturing to least (wage) cost countries where 'energy' development is coal intensive. It makes U.S. and EU politicians feel good to be able to say they've decreased emissions when in fact all they've done is use the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to shift the location of source by financing infrastructure where labor is exploitable. If you measure emissions by consumption instead of production, the wealthy western countries are still financing the majority of the world's carbon emissions, even thought point sources have been moved to where the particulate fallout has been moved.
Currently there is no such thing as clean coal (anywhere, not even on the drawing board), and the shift to natural gas is inadequate to decrease emissions in the west and too expensive for the developing world. Wind & Solar only exist on the subsidies that have been used to prematurely pilfer the cookie jar for 'investors.' Even T. Boone Pickens understood this when throttled his headlong plunge into wind turbines.
Dieter likes to talk about Carbon taxes as superior to the failed EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). And he's clear that over decades of trying, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Darbun, et al, have all utterly failed to accomplish anything meaningful. He's just scratching ink into paper to tell you how and why. The taxes he'd like to see, and the emissions trading he and his ilk implemented are only designed to make consumption more costly. If the political will is sufficient to implement the taxes he now advocates, and the revenues aren't diverted to rebuild the catastrophic long-term infrastructure and property damage at the world's ports and coastlines, perhaps we can find a safe, peaceful means by which to upgrade the world's energy infrastructure.
In the mean time, maybe we can get the Pope to advocate for birth control and get used to watching wealthy people show up to red carpet events by mass transit.
But if if makes you feel better to replace your lawn mowers with electrics, go right ahead. Anyway you look at it, your great-grandchildren, should they still be able to read and have access to unadulterated historical accounts of the 21st century clay foot dragging contest, will probably not be impressed by anything done to date.
I wonder whether this is true for any thirty-ish day range, or only true for calendar months?
If you had read and understood what the article stated
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word experienced.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
U.S. carbon emissions are already below the Kyoto desired levels. So in any discussion where you want to lower CO2, look to other countries first - the U.S. has already done its bit.
P.S. it's particularly stupid to think you can for 99% of people replace airline travel with train travel. The extra time simply makes it impractical, and people can already drive shorter distances (I'll drive anywhere within ten hours rather than flying).
Basically, stop trying to make the U.S. be Europe - it simply does not fit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The very question itself suggests you have no idea what you're talking about
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
actually that would be the 2nd best thing you can do.
The #1 best thing would be to stop breeding. The world would benefit by following the example set by Slashdotters.
Huh. That's funny because where I live, we have received colder than average months two winters in a row. We're talking freezing temperatures in a place that rarely gets frost on the windshields! In fact, I believe we even broke a record low from the 1930s the winter before last.
http://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Also you're comparing geological time-scale climate change with dramatic recent climate change. Answers for your questions exist, even if you don't wish to see them.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
This definitely one of the front runners in the "really stupid objection to global warming" competition. It only takes about 10 seconds on the internet to discover that Mauna Loa is only one of many CO2 monitoring stations. It's valued because it is one of the longest running, but there are many, many others that provide cross checks to verify that it isn't only recording volcanic emissions (even if, by some bizarre coincidence, those were increasing). It only takes a little more time to learn something about the many controls done by the Mauna Loa observatory to ensure that their measurements are not corrupted by volcanic CO2.
Or you can simply go to Skeptical Science, who has already done the work for you, and laid out links to the references that you can verify yourself, just in case you've a mind to make another really stupid objection (like "They're a warmist site, so you can't believe anything they say")
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements.htm
Bullshit? The only thing that's bullshit is your assertion that "all graphs and charts" show no warming from 1997 on.
Try educating yourself
Seriously, everybody likes to point to America, yet, our emissions continue to go downwards. OTOH, ALL of the decreases in emissions are overcome by China ALONE. Worse, the western nations have taken an insane attitude towards nuke power.
If the west really wanted to solve this, they would simply put a tax on all goods based on the CO2 per $ of GDP (and not PPP) that are emitted from the nation that the item and parts come from.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It would be even weirder if all New York City's carbon dioxide emerged from the same location.
But is global warming good or bad? That all depends on your point of view. Sure, if you've build too close to the surf you're going to suffer. But if you live in other areas, colder areas, you will benefit greatly from global warming. The planet has been much warmer in the past and during those times life diversified, bloomed and flourished. Change is merely inconvenient to those who are too stuck in their ways to adapt.
Mod up; That is spot on.
Here's some history to illustrate your point: San Gimignano "della belle Torri". Watch the photo.The rich lived in "beautiful" towers high above the common people. Note that the towers had no windows. That was too dangerous. They hade some slits to be able to shoot arrows at attacking commoners. And first-floor walkways in case you wanted to visit another rich family, without having to risk walking outside amongst the people who hated your guts.
I've been there, and it was very impressive, but I wouldn't want to live like that; would you?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Climate != Weather.
In fact, with climate change, we'll have the average highs and lows diverging constantly.
Just because the earth is warmer doesn't mean that the weather will be warmer. We'll just have more bitterly cold winters, followed by brutally hot summers (remember, the 4C average is a global year round average temperature). So the brutal heat of summer will have its temperature offset by frigidly cold winters.
The weather will be stormier because oceans need to cool off, and they do that by hurricanes to dump the ocean warmth into the cooler atmosphere (standard heat engine - except the "work" being done is destructive).
That's why "global warming" is a really bad term - yes the earth is warming, but the global rise accounts for the highs and lows, and why extremely frigid winters are to be expected even as the earth warms up - because you'll compensate by brutally hot and long heatwaves.
"Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change"
Why do you need an "early warning" for somethjing that has already been happening for thousands of years?
Also, we haven't hit "record" levels of CO2. There has been 20-30x as much in the past.
""Following on from a world bank report of 4 degree C warmer world"
The 1990 IPCC predictions failed dismally. How retarded do you have to be to be duped twice by the climastrologists' crystal ball?
...As an individual, is to reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals. We breed billions of cows and pigs, and feed them unnaturual diets--which greatly increases their flatulence.
Yeah... blame it on the cows.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Calm, well-reasoned, fact-based debate beginning in 3, 2, 1... (first, these important messages from our sponsors)
Flamefest starts NOW!!! Yee Haw!
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Unsurprisingly enough, it's the exact same way we determine the "correct" distribution of money.
This has been addressed elsewhere, but I'll bring it up, because that meme, while well-intentioned and does convey something important, is problematic in how it's been formulated.
October was the 332nd consecutive month (27 years, 8 months IIRC) with an above-average global average temperature. Local extremes exist, of course, within each global average. So while it is true to say that those of us under 27 have never experienced a month with a global average temperature colder than average, it is not true to say that we personally have never experienced a month which was colder than average.
I understand the fact that local extremes exist, and always will. However, the GP clearly stated that anyone under the age of 27 would have never experienced a colder-than-average month. You cannot experience the global average, because you are not omnipresent. While I am over the age of 27, I have just recently experienced colder than average temperatures, as has any child who was living here in the past 2 years. Therefore the statement is patently false, and absurd. If you start out your entire post with something that is obviously false, why should I even continue reading what you have to say?
Therefore the statement is patently false, and absurd.
I'm glad you latched on to the most important part of the meme (the GP was just parroting a meme which has been making the rounds lately), which was the problematic formulation, and not the message it was trying to convey.
Why start out your statement with a meme that makes absolutely no sense? It doesn't strengthen your argument at all, and allows you to be easily dismissed as a global warming wacko. And yes, there are global warming wackos. There are extremists on both sides.
To be specific the average you are talking about is the 20th century average (which your quote says). Every month since March of 1985 has been warmer than the 20th century average (1901-2000) for that month.
Anybody ever notice the irony that conservatives keep talking about not wanting to "crush future generations with debt" when talking about the US National Debt, but are rabidly against the notion that they are actively working to crush future generations in an entirely different, but equally difficult to survive way?
Quite simply, there are two arguments:
The difference: There is no consensus among economists about how burdensome the national debt really is - macroeconomics simply doesn't work the same way corporate or personal finances do. Nobel Prizes are still awarded to Keynesian economists, as well as monetarists and adherents of the Austrian school. Even though these schools of economic thought have radically different and conflicting viewpoints, each school continues to win Nobel prizes. There simply is no consensus as to how economies actually work.
On the other hand, among climate scientists, the conclusion is nearly unanimous with an overall consensus of over 98%: The climate is warming, and human burning of hydrocarbons is the cause.
The vast majority of climate deniers come from people who have no credible qualifications; a dentist shouldn't have to argue about how to pull a tooth with a businessman with a string and a door.
Yet climate scientists have to argue with crackpots with a meat thermometer and a solo cup.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Perhaps it's time to take a step back and a deep breath?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
As the article says - 'The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.'
Perhaps it's time to take a step back and a deep breath? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html As the article says - 'The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity. So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.'
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
No, the best thing you can do for the environment is not 'reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals'. The best thing you can do for the environment is support representative democracies and capitalism. Only representative democracies produce a body politic that can force a government to conserve the 'environment'. There are a lot of things I don't agree with in the way of environmental goals that others find imperative, and (like it or not for me) in a representative democracy these goals will likely move forward. It is fashionable to condemn capitalism, but with capitalism comes disposable income and people give money to environmental causes they find important. The 'cows are evil' thing is a left-wing extreme environmentalist vegetarian pipe dream that has been masquerading as a legitimate concern for the environment since the 1970s. People like hamburger and steak. So you're wasting your time. Oh, and the same suspects have been saying the Amazon was going to be destroyed for 30 years as well. So think it over and try to understand how silly anyone sounds who says something as infantile as 'Fast food chains are shrinking the lungs of the world'.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
I can't believe anything some "official" or "expert" says anymore. Too many lame people with dumb ass agendas that use the fear mongering tactic to scare people into doing what they want.
I have had enough!!!!
Fuck you people that think you can scare me into thinking like you do. Fuck you people that think fear is a good motivator to change what we do to something that you like.
Fuck off.
Be seeing you...
History will tell you that every generation see themselves as the chosen ones for the next big catastrophe.. It happens over an over. Let's see... It was nukes, commies, god, witches, the muslims, plague, Y2K, asteroids, jews, virus, aliens, jesus returning, famine.. Oh but now it's different... "Oh! You have a really limited model?? Of a really, really complex system?? And sort-of ok data for only a fraction of it's existence?? On a computa?? With a graph and everything?? And a Phd?? And funding to protect....?? And power to grab by those who fund you....??? And good intentions....???" "Wow! You must be right!!!! .........this time"
Really???
I held that same belief until I reminded myself that emotions and feelings have no place in facts. So I did my research using both sides of the argument and, like I've always done no matter the issue, I dropped my belief in the face of evidence.
:)
I always try to follow a very logical way of thinking but sometimes I get caught up by my emotional brain and ignore fact checking. I'm only human, but I'm trying everyday to fix that
I held that same belief until I reminded myself that emotions and feelings have no place in facts. So I did my research using ...
In your research, you didn't stumble over a possible solution that doesn't involve a forced global conversion to a vegan diet?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide. When the levels are high it makes the plants grow faster and then the accelerated plant growth turns converts it back into oxygen. It is a self balancing system. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it stays on the ground. It doesn't float up and cause global warming. Global warming is a scam.
That's not as silly as some of the bullshit professional economists paid to have the "correct" opinion have come up about that place. I've heard one state seriously that the financial problems were due to the union in charge of prison officers asking for a wage increase. The real problem is of course as obvious as wanting to spend more than earnings - fine for extraordinary costs when the money can be recovered later but not fine for ongoing costs and no sign of extra money to cover it in the future.
As someone outside the USA I'm curious, who was it that completely fucked up the Californian tax system? Was it Reagan or was it broken before he turned up? Hollywood's almost total tax avoidance on top of weird restrictions really have cut the revenue stream down towards the sort of trickle that third world governments have to live off.
The best thing you can do for the environment is get sterilized. That's not politically correct to talk about.
I tend not to be a defeatest, but we're going to burn every drop of oil. Then we'll switch to nuclear. Efforts wasted on legislation are better spent on developing new techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere on a geo-engineering scale. Humans are smart, but we're reactionary.
..don't panic
That would be freezing weather, ice age stuff.
Why start out your statement with a meme that makes absolutely no sense? It doesn't strengthen your argument at all, and allows you to be easily dismissed as a global warming wacko. And yes, there are global warming wackos. There are extremists on both sides.
I think the "meme" nicely reveals the stupidity of people who can't differentiate between a global climactic average and the temperature in their own fucking back yard.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
...As an individual, is to reduce/eliminate the consumption of farm animals. We breed billions of cows and pigs, and feed them unnaturual diets--which greatly increases their flatulence.
Yeah... blame it on the cows.
Moo-y fuckers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Rather than squabble about whether there is or isn't anthropic climate change, lets try a different tack. Any time you climate alarmists make a claim, lets have the facts: (1) Who measured the alleged increase? (2) What was the methodology? (3) How big was the sample set? (4) How many peer reviews has it undergone and who did them? (5) Have the measurements been corroborated? (6) Name at least one falsification strategy that is currently being tested.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3633447.htm
Examines the past 100 years of Australian climate data. Very interesting program and good to show to anyone who needs convincing that warming has already been taking place.
However, the GP clearly stated that anyone under the age of 27 would have never experienced a colder-than-average month.
So wich word would you have chosen instead of experienced?
As a non native english speaker I had choosen experienced, as in german we would use the same word, regardless whether I'm actually experiencing it while being present or if I experience it while reading it in the newspaper or sitting at a beach somewhere else. The month in question and the fact in question is still present, regardless where on the globe I reside.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And yet there is still no warming ...
15 years of stagnant temps and the last 10 have been downward trending.
So how many years of rising CO2 levels and cooling temps does it take to show that CO2 does not cause global warming?
15? 20? 25? 30? Pick a number and lets check in at those points in time and see how it is going.
By the way the USA has drastically reduced its CO2 by switching to gas instead of coal for a lot of electrical generation. China, India and others are where the growth is coming from. Good luck telling them what to do.
And no, it's not the methane from the elephant's farts, although grain eating livestock *are* responsible for a large amount of it.. Rather, it's the seldom discussed methane that's bubbling up from the sea floor, and deep lakes all over the world, in ever increasing amounts. Methane is a *far* more serious problem than CO2, having far more of a greenhouse effect than CO2, even though it (carbon dioxide) is obviously a problem, particularly in the oceans, the fixes exist to lock it up. All the naturally stored methane however (as hydrates), is sufficient to create an extinction level event in a few short years, were it all released.. And, it *is* being released. Notice all the bubbling lakes and ocean lately? All it takes is a few degrees warming to the seas,to start thawing the Methane Hydrates currently frozen at the sea floor.Deep lakes can also have stores of methane in them.. same as permafrost.. I think the media's continual focus on carbon dioxide, to the exclusion of anything else, is doing the world a disservice.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia.
Actually my local bureau had this to say about the minimums in Western Australia: "a very much below average July, with record low mean minima at some sites". A little research goes a long way - you may want to try it some time before making sweeping statements. Also, we've had record lows and amazing cold snaps flashed around the world in the last 10 years. I can recall a particularly severe cold snap in the UK in that period.
It seems to me that we can't just export our CO2 for the cold snaps then get it all back again for the heatwaves. It may be wise to look for alternate causes that fluctuate much more than CO2. Of course if we find out that it is predominantly a solar cause, should we then complain to the Sol government and ask them to turn it down a little? ;)
No, we should stop eating meat raised in " a deviant, historically abnormal food and farming system." According to farmer Joel Salatin, "grass grazing herbibores are the foundation of how soil builds: herbivore pruning, perennial disturbance-rest cycles, solar-grown biomass, and decomposition." Without their activities and input -- no veggies! Also, "The rainforest, by the way, is not being cut to graze cattle. It’s being cut to grow transgenic corn and soybeans. North America had twice as many herbivores 500 years ago than it does today due to the pulsing of the predator-prey-pruning cycle on perennial prairie polycultures." http://grist.org/sustainable-farming/farmer-responds-to-the-new-york-times-re-sustainable-meat/
However, the GP clearly stated that anyone under the age of 27 would have never experienced a colder-than-average month. So wich word would you have chosen instead of experienced? As a non native english speaker I had choosen experienced, as in german we would use the same word, regardless whether I'm actually experiencing it while being present or if I experience it while reading it in the newspaper or sitting at a beach somewhere else. The month in question and the fact in question is still present, regardless where on the globe I reside.
I would not word it like that at all. The GP used experience as a verb, which implies:
to have experience of; meet with; undergo; feel: to experience nausea.
The only way to clearly state what the GP meant is to say that "There has not been a record low in the global average in 27 years." Trying to suggest that any one person hasn't experienced a record low, even as a global average doesn't make any sense. The reason being that no one is omnipresent, and therefore cannot experience a global average. They can only experience local climate/weather. The other definitions imply learning through common knowledge or human experience, but that doesn't make much sense in this context either.