Slashdot Mirror
New Tool Allows Scientists To Annotate Media Coverage of Climate Change
Layzej writes: Have you ever been skeptical of a climate change story presented by a major media outlet? A new tool holds journalists to account for the veracity of their stories. "Using the Climate Feedback tool, scientists have started to diligently add detailed annotations to online content and have those notes appear alongside the story as it originally appeared. If you're the writer, then it's a bit like getting your homework handed back to you with the margins littered with corrections and red pen. Or smiley faces and gold stars if you've been good." The project has already prompted The Telegraph to publish major corrections to their story that suggested the Earth is headed for a "'mini ice age' within 15 years." The article has been modified in such a way that there is no more statement supporting the original message of an "imminent mini ice age."
Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
This argument of yours have been completely debunked by science over and over. The main thing you're ignoring is how long things stay in the atmosphere. If your reasoning was correct we would already be boiling because water vapor leads to greenhouse, leads to more evaporation leads to more greenhouse etc. etc.
We aren't because there is a massive negative feedback system that counter-acts the effect of water vapor as a greenhouse gas almost entirely. That system is called "rain". Water has a relatively high boiling point and returns to liquid form fairly easily, so water doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long before it rains (or snows) down again. The average time a water molecule spends in the atmosphere is only about 11 days.
On the other hand CO2 has a much lower boiling point - it does not return to liquid form in the atmosphere, it doesn't rain down - and the average lifetime of a CO2 particle in the atmosphere is decades - but centuries are not at all unknown.
A small effect over a very long time will always have a bigger total impact than a large effect over a very short time.
Of course, just to throw your argument into even further debunked teritory - CO2 warming increases evaporation as well as increasing the lifetime of water in the atmosphere (hotter air means it takes longer before it rains down again) - so the impact of water vapor on temperature is aggravated by CO2 - not independent there-off.
Source:
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And your claim that it shows stabilisation of temperatures is false. The temperatures are going up and down every year different from the one before. Not stable at all.
Since climate is 30 years average, a 15 year period cannot make any claim on the climate. It might not be weather, but it isn't climate.
As to "normal variation", well yes, look at other 15 year periods. Despite a definite upward trend there, there are 15 year periods with no difference from the start to the end or even dropping over that period.
Since we're now a year and a half on from the end of that graphic, what has happened since then? Was it a 17 year "stabilisation"? No. It's up again. By a lot.
Downloaded that pdf too.
For a start it only shows the northern hemisphere whereas NOAA showed both hemispheres. But it shows the end of the graph is definitely higher than any time on the graph beforehand. But it also ends before 2000, and according to your NOAA graph it got warmer since then too. Plus data since 2013 show it is even warmer now. Which means your claim of "it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today" is wrong.
Your source for your claim does not support your claim and doesn't appear in the paper you supplied, so it was your own claim manufactured in contradiction to the source of proof you had for that claim.
That applies to both sides.
Potentially, but not as much as you seem to think
When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation."
The problem is those responses are actually reasonably true. In a noisy data set like yearly temperatures, we expect there to be periods of slow temperature growth and periods of fast temperature growth due to short term variability so "that's not climate, that's weather" is true, 30 year averages are generally used to minimize year-to-year variability that can drown out the long term trend. We have had a confluence of natural factors working together to slow the surface air temperature growth over that period. Perhaps more importantly it's important to look at more than just the air temperature since the atmosphere only contains a small fraction of the heat content the earth can store.
Or when they point out evidence that it was just as warm 1000 years ago as today, it will be derisively dismissed.
That's a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction, so it only covers half the world, and one of the authors of that paper, F. C. Ljungqvist, doesn't agree with your analysis:
But then there are those on the same side who will mention a 20-100 year period because it suits their argument.
Potentially, but those are periods that are long enough to cancel out year-to-year variability, though, I can't actually remember seeing anyone use a period that was longer than 30 years. Maybe it's not that the period suits the argument but that when you look at periods longer than 20 years, the evidence strongly supports one side in this debate? If that's the case, then the people who look at and accept the evidence have little choice but to end up on the same side of this debate?
Fanatically anti-fanatical