Slashdot Mirror
UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post's account:
The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.
“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.
The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.
You don't say. Honest question to deniers: when you see this "hiatus" point, do you all go "ha very clever"? Or do any of you recognize extraordinarily short term thinking that doesn't honestly reflect the reality of statistical analysis of noise affected datapoints?
Please I'd like to think there's at least one among your number who has enough hope to see the extraordinary dishonesty in this point.
it was cold. once. where i live.
therefore prolonged global warming is a myth.
because we all know anecdotal local data completely disproves long term multidecade global averages and trends.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
because.....why?
what exactly do they get out of doing such a thing?
There are millions of scientists involved in this worldwide.
What do they get out of it? Public funding? Research grants? Cause Lord knows we just lavish scientists with tons of public money in this country.....no wait, thats the exact opposite of what we do. and further, they dont get to pocket what little money they do get. that's illegal.
the ONLY climate "scientists" who get rich from their research and live high on the hog are those in the employ of the fossil fuel industries.
Speaking of motivations...lets look at the fossil fuel industries. unlike those "lying AGW scientists", they actually do recieve tons of money from the government. hundreds of billions a year. and they make even more in profits selling their product. and they spend billions in lobbying every year.
so yes, let's talk motivations and stakes you AC idiot.
the phrase "global million scientist conspiracy exposed by plucky group of oil billionaires" is not reflective of reality.
rather reality illustrates just how mentally deficient your post is.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I love the global warming debate. You are either an environmentalist nut-job or an anti-science global warming denier. We spend almost no time analyzing reports, comparing data and questioning our preconceived notions (a.k.a. rational thought), and instead dig around the internet for articles supporting our side of the argument and name-calling anyone who has any doubts about the methods or conclusions from our pet article. /. article where global warming is the subject, I can rest assured that at least 95% of the comments will either be by or in response to trolls. It's like I'm on reddit or something.
In any other scientific debate, you never hear about "Higgs Boson Deniers" or "String Theory Fanatics" or "Standard Model dinosaurs". As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the only scientific area where EVERY commentator acts as though they are experts. Whenever I see a
Okay, first things first, before we can have an actual discussion, you have to be honest.
Claiming the models are excellent shows that you're either utterly ignorant of the topic at hand or you're flat out denying reality.
The models are constantly being adjusted and science is constantly finding reasons to account for their incorrect models that don't explain anything thats happened in the last 20 years. Denying this part of reality just makes it clear you're a 'believer', not someone who is actually thinking for themselves.
We can't even start a discussion until you actually accept reality, the models fucking suck. Its a massive, huge, unbelievably big system that we know pretty much dick about. Pretending the models are excellent is just wrong. They are better this year than they were last year, but excellent they are not.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Honest answer from a denier. I've found myself jumping on the climate change skeptic bandwagon, and there are a bunch of different reasons for that, none of them having to do with the actual hard data or the models, or any of the details of the science, except for some specific tidbits that enable my skepticism. (For example, most of the models I've looked at predict milder summers and warmer winters in my particular area, and flooding in areas, not nearby, where people I don't like currently habitate)
People (myself included) don't want to hear it for the same reason that people get huffy when you mention that whole food veganism is bar none the best diet to avoid cancer and heart disease. They'll just point out the few that stil get cancer, and still get heart disease. Or smokers when you point out the cancer risks...plenty of smokers don't have a problem and live to healthy old age.
But, you CAN find a positive. If you point out that the hottie jogging down the street is always a non-smoker, and always either a vegan or a Paleo with higher than average vegetable intake, no one can really argue with that one, and if you ask one of them they'll confirm that observation every time.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.
I know it is frustrating when you're trying to get people to stop polluting and people want to turn a blind eye to it and keep going about their business. Yet, basing your argument on science models that can predict the climate 10 years into the future yet somehow can't predict the climate tomorrow...yeah, if there are ANY holes whatsoever in your argument when you're preaching austerity, everyone is going to focus on the holes in the argument, no matter how small or short-sighted.
I think you'll find less resistance from me or anybody else if you focus on things that elicit a positive image...like pushing increased research funds for cleaner burning engines, real fuel production alternatives like algae. Things that benefit everyone, AND reduce environmental impact. But by default I'm going to automatically assume your motive is to argue for higher taxes and economic austerity, and of course I'll get turned off pretty quick.
The real path to male liberation
the deniers are saying "its not happening" when every piece of evidence in the world (literally, the world) says "yes it is".
in scientific debate, there are many places to have disagreement and debate.
but reality itself isnt one of them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Is your argument really: "Since the deniers keep denying, you'll have to eventually accept that they are right because they don't stop denying"?
You do realize that this could be applied in other areas where it would be even more obviously wrong:
"Since the Evolution-deniers keep denying Evolution, you'll need to one day accept that Evolution is wrong because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about Evolution?'"
"Since the vaccine-deniers keep insisting that vaccines are poison and don't work, you'll need to one day accept that vaccines are poison and don't work because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about vaccines?'"
Just because a group denies something strongly and repeatedly doesn't make them right.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Why go by an artificial boundary? What if china split up into 5 or 10?
And, who is buying all of the produce made in China? EU's emissions could be counted as 40% higher if you consider the fact that we have externalized our pollution to China.
Per capita is the fair measurement. US's per capita CO2 is dreadful. Nearly 1 in 3 new cars in the US are SUVs, I think that's indicative of a lot of people in the US either not giving a **** or being ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
Asia is the highest emitting continent, but the finger pointing is.. pointless, we need standards / taxes that target CO2 emissions and those standards should be global (Doesn't mean I support TTIP, I certainly don't).
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Have you looked at the data?
heading:
Climate data (raw)
The *first* link, which is to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) "v2" data is not raw temperature data. I know that the site claims that its raw data, but only precipitation data is within the main data set. Within the "v2" set is a subfolder with temperature data in gridded (processed) format, and the readme for the gridded data specifically mentions that if you want actual raw temperature data to look at the GHCN data set (yay thats what we are doing....?) Unfortunately as I already pointed out, in the v2 data set there is only precipitation data and gridded (processed) data.
Above the folder that is linked to are links to other data. The GHCN has gone through two significant changes since its inception in 1992. They are affectionately called "v1", "v2", and "v3." The v1 data is culled and processed data presenting only monthly mean temperatures (most stations do daily recording.) This data also only goes up to 1997 at which point v2 took over. So v1 contains culled and processed data and as I already pointed out, the v2 data does not include unprocessed temperature data either. So the raw data must be in v3, right? Let me quote the readme file for v3: "A new software processing system is now responsible for daily reprocessing of the dataset. This reprocessing consists of a construction process that assembles the data in a specific source priority order, quality controls the data, identifies inhomogeneities and performs adjustments where possible." and of course this is again monthly mean temperatures, not the raw station data.
This sort of story is true for every single link. Some of the links are literally to bitmap images of graphs, rather than to data. Others are links to only the most recent measurements at each measurement station (which itself isnt comprehensive), rather than to the hundred+ years of supposed historical data.
They claim the raw data is available, and go so far as to pretend to link to the raw data, and that of course gets people like you to shout down people that want the raw data.
Now to be perfectly clear what just transpired. People are asking for the raw data and are saying that the climate scientists wont release it. You then responded by linking to the blog of those very same climate scientists that it is claimed wont release the data (realclimate is run by Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc.) This blog claims to link to the raw data but actually does not. And finally, yuou tried to shout down someone that wants the raw data by yourself claiming that the raw data is available by citing the blog of the people it is claimed wont release the raw data and does not itself link to the raw data but claims that it does link to the raw data.
Do you feel at all duped?
"His name was James Damore."
That's not moving goalposts. If you ask for the data, you expect you'll get the original recordings, not a bunch of values that have been adjusted arbitrarily at someone's whim without an explanation of those adjustments and a means of extracting the original values.
Go and study some simpler non-linear chaotic systems then get back to us.
You cannot run a simulation of weather and integrate it to get a forecast of climate. You have to run many montecarlo simulations of weather to get a statistical picture of the forecast climate. Thinking you can predict details will always bite you in the ass.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'