Slashdot Mirror
2014: Hottest Year On Record
Layzej writes Data from three major climate-tracking groups agree: The combined land and ocean surface temperatures hit new highs this year, according to the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United Kingdom's Met Office and the World Meteorological Association. If December's figures are at least 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit (0.42 degrees Celsius) higher than the 20th century average, 2014 will beat the warmest years on record, NOAA said this month. The January-through-November period has already been noted as the warmest 11-month period in the past 135 years, according to NOAA's November Global Climate Report. Scientific American reports on five places that will help push 2014 into the global warming record books.
CO2 levels measured in the middle of the ocean, far away from most humans:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
I'm not speculating what CO2 level is normal, what caused it, or how long it will take to go down again, but looking at that graph I would be very surprised if the average temperature temperature didn't rise.
But... but... all the science-deniers keep telling me there's been a "pause" in global warming, and ask me to explain it!
Some regions will surely become less hospitable, and some will become more hospitable.
Indeed, let's add most coastal cities to the "less hospitable" (read - "underwater") category. What you also casually ignore is we don't know what sort of feedback loops might engage as CO2 levels continue to soar.
Okay, so let's say I'm sceptic and not a denier. After a quick Google search, I stumbled on these two links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Both are clearly claiming there is no global warming since 1997. Reading it quickly doesn't provide any clue as to whether they are bullshit or not - or at least it would require me to dig into the problem, but I don't have that amount of free time right now.
Do you have any indication about what's wrong with these assertions?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
bullshit. Wind is a waste of money. We abandoned it centuries ago as a form of power due to it's inconsistency. The only reason we're seeing large wind projects being built is because of massive subsidies. If wind power generation were allowed to compete on a level playing field with all other power sources, it would become extinct in no time. Nuclear is the only viable solution to replace fossil fuels as our primary source of power generation.
A skeptic will look at a variety of sources and will concentrate on those that challenge his already-held views. You aren't doing that in this case. You quickly found something that espouses one view, and then you stopped.
This contradicts your article.
For what it's worth, I like many would greatly prefer if AGW was bollocks, but it's quite fucking obvious that it isn't. Nuclear energy is definitely the best way to go, and people who accept AGW but oppose that are people who I suspect are more influenced by ideology than by facts.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's very interesting that 2014 was so hot for most of the world, because 2014 was also the coldest year in Iowa for a long while. Which really is not good for food production; Iowa is some of the most fertile and most valuable cropland in the United States. It just goes to show why we say "climate change" instead of "global warming": sure, global average temperatures are rising, but in anybody's local area what we're actually experiencing is instability. They'd have known that in the 70s if the climate wasn't so hard to accurately model. It sure would be great though if we could know what the climate will be like in any local area after a global rise of 4 C.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
> solving the problem is NOT what most environmentalists really want.
And as long as you keep blaming them for the problem, then the actual problem will never get solved.
> Note: I'm not asking the impossible, climate change luminaries like James Hansen have called for nuclear power to be used
Not impossible, just expensive. As the CAPEX is generally three to four times that of wind, and the lead times are four to five times as long, no one is giving them the money. That's it, end of story. Start here:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf
Now turn to page 11. On-shore wind was going in for $1.40 to 1.80/Wp in 2014, it's gone down since publication. Combined with a 30% CF, that gives you an effective CAPEX/Wh of $4.66 to 6. Lazard gives $5.39 to 8.40 for nuclear, although it's gone up since publication (current average is around $9/Wp). Combined with an 85% CF, that's $6.35 to $10/Wh. Which means, all else considered, wind power costs around half that of nuclear.
And that's why no one other than the Chinese, who are handing out billions of dollars of interest-free and risk-free money for infrastructure, is building them. And even their program is on serious hiatus. The money simply isn't there.
The *actual problem* with nuclear is that practically every other option is cheaper and lower risk. It is, straight up, a bad investment. So unless you have a few hundred billion sitting in your bank account to buy one, guess what, you're part of the problem.
Okay, so let's say I'm sceptic and not a denier. After a quick Google search, I stumbled on these two links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Your first clue is that anyone who says climate is warming based on a period that not an integer number of years is an imbecile. If you are taking odd months on, at best you're contaminating the data with seasons rather than years.
Once you've appreciated that, realise that climate is an average of temperature over enough years that the noise is minimised. At 18 years it's still mostly weather. For a strong climate signal you have always needed at about 30 at least.
Anyone using less WAS doing it because they were cherry picking a period to start at the high point El Nino. It's no longer possible to do even that because 2014 exceeded that temperature. Which is why they are no reduced to the stupidity of using periods that are not even divisible by 12 months.
yeah, like skepticalscience.com is a reliable source... hah hah hah hah hah hah...
Have a Day!