Slashdot Mirror
Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels (metoffice.gov.uk)
Layzej writes: Based on data from January to September, the HadCRUT dataset shows 2015 global mean temperature at 1.02 degrees C (±0.11 degrees C) above pre-industrial levels for the first time. The Copenhagen Accord recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius (PDF)." Physicist Ken Rice points out that the next degree Celsius may be closer than we think. "It's taken us about 160 years to warm by about 1 degree C. This is associated with emissions of about 550GtC (550 billion tonnes of carbon, or ~2000 billion tonnes of CO2). Current emissions are around 10GtC/year. If we continue emitting as we are, we will double our cumulative emissions in about 50 years. If we continue to increase our emissions, it will be even sooner.
There is a target to keep warming below 2C as there is an expectation of large negative impacts at that level of warming. We're now 1C away from 2C. The next 1C will come much faster than the first at the current trajectory.
We're talking about 1880-s - at that time they were able to measure hundredths of a degree. With regular mercury thermometers.
Here's a comparison of the HADCRU data mentioned in the article to the satellite data (UAH) and to another surface station data set (GISS). They all show warming of about the same magnitude over the last few decades: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
You do realize all of that climate gate conspiracy bullshit has been discredited and that you're linking to something from 2009, right? ALL of that drivel which claimed to show manipulation was pretty much bullshit.
So either you like to trot this out because you haven't kept up to date, or you know damned well you're posting links to stale information which has been discredited.
Because, really, a Telegraph article from 2009 about how the Russians have confirmed that climate data was manipulated? That's about the least quality source of information you could pick.
In which case I assume you know you're full of shit. If you don't, well, you should fix that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So warmer than the early 1800s which were colder than the early-to-mid 1400s?
The only reason for claiming that the early 1800s are the correct zero-point is to support a (false) claim that the only reason for the change can possibly be industrialization.
There was a slow cooling for about 6000 years, followed by an abrupt change in trajectory over the last century. The warming over the last century has been attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.
Global warming pause Is now such a widely understood concept that even the IPCC talks about it.
first link is entitled: A Pause In Global Warming? Not Really - Forbes
Second link to wikipedia which notes:
While hiatus periods have appeared in surface air temperature records, other components of the climate system associated with warming have continued. Sea level rise has not stopped in recent years,[14] and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. There have been repeated records set for extreme surface temperatures.
It also notes that the start of the "pause" was an exceptionally high preiod, higher than expected. This makes the "pause" substantially shorter than you think, since the beginning of the pause is actually the measurements being hoter than expected. What remains isn't remotely outside the bounds of general statistical variation.
If you want to realy understand things, you have to stop overinterpreting short segments of noisy data.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you really want to understand things, you have to understand what you're reading.
The IPCC never said that global warming had paused -- it was merely increasing at a slower rate than expected over about a decade. The general trend was still upwards, and the decade where it trended slightly less steeply was interesting and unexpected, but it still fits with the general overall trendline of the previous decades quite well given the variation in sampling. If you're reading that trend as flat, there is something wrong with your eyes.... or at the very least something wrong with the software you're using to plot a trendline -- even if you only plot the data during the period mentioned by the IPCC.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
"The Pause was an idea from a 2013 UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that concluded the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998 to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012."
It is beyond ridiculous to imply the temperature change was flat for decades given any real data. It may even be premature to describe the temperature change as slowing without more data points to corroborate it wasn't merely an anomaly -- likely brought about through unusual El Nino, La Nina, and other weather patterns which have multiple year cycles.
NOAA investigated this pause/slowdown and used blind studies and multiple statistical methods to prove the cherry-picked period is well within statistical noise and the slowdown or pause is bunk:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
If mercury itself can be made that accurate and we did it over 100 years ago, I tend to struggle why in the hell we would use anything else today.
Mercury thermometers could break occasionally. Mercury_poisoning
And Mercury is not an abundant element to find especially because it is liquid at room temperature.
From the NASA article:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
So there are some losses, but the accumulation is still growing faster. That's straight from NASA. How you debunk that without completely ignoring their results is a mystery to me. But you seem determined to do so! No thanks, I'll take NASA's statement and study that say ice volume is actually accumulating. Slower, but still accumulating overall.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!