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.
Is it possible that 160 years ago that we were in the midst of a cyclical cool down and now we're on a cyclical warm up?
Also known as one degree warmer than the Little Ice Age.
You know, because scientists from more than about 10 years ago simply didn't know how to accurately take temperatures?
Another thing to consider -- many reading sites are in "concrete jungles" were it is noticeably hotter than much of the sites with native foliage.
& who indeed measured broadly enough to be statistically good measurement?
Scientists.
& who determined that it was not one of many long term cyclical changes that have occurred for millions of years.
Scientists.
& who will pay the cost of all the government activity? Every reader of Slashdot along with everyone else.
Yes, it's much better to pretend that nothing happens and then scream for the government help once your house is underwater or your tap runs dry in a drought.
& what if their efforts do not work?
And what if they do work?
So what?
1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)
And
3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.
After we start investigating every single motor vehicle manufacturer out there and find out how many of them (all of them?) have been cheating emissions testing to meet mandates, how much CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses' humans are actually responsible for.
Oh, and all you climate change-deniers out there? Get yourself a CPAP mask, hook it up to the tailpipe of your car, and see how healthy it is for you to breathe that. Regardless of 'global warming' being a thing or not, isn't it time we started moving away from internal combustion engines? And burning coal? Even natural gas isn't that great in the long run. Time to grow up, everyone, and stop using these baby technologies that are poisoning us regardless. Redesign fission power plants so they're safer, operate them safer, build lots of them. Continue to develop fusion technology until it's practical. Better electric storage technologies so plug-in electric vehicles are more practical. Keep researching and developing high temperature superconductor technology, to eventually improve the efficiency of electric vehicles (and everything else that uses lots of power). Solar and wind to fill in the gaps while we're working on all the above (and by the way how would high temp superconductors improve solar?). Don't know about you but I'd welcome a motorcycle with a 500 mile-on-a-charge range and a superconducting powertrain, that would out-perform the best superbikes currently available.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
...but what a load of hogwash. Today, we are one entire degree warmer than "pre-industrial temperatures", which they define as around 1850. Coincidental, I'm sure, that the "Little Ice Age" ended around 1850, meaning that they could hardly have picked a colder point in time. I should certainly hope that we are warmer than that! The Little Ice Age saw the largest glacier extents for thousands of years, devastating many communities as they were inexorably covered with ice.
Note, also, the temperature graph in that article - a lot more than one degree drop from temperatures a couple of centuries before, which brings us to the next point. They label today's temperature range as "uncharted territory", despite the fact that the planet was almost certainly warmer than this during the Medieval Warm Period, and before that during the Roman Climate Optimum.
The rest of the TFA is all about beating the panic-drum.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
lol.
Gasoline is such a small part of emissions. You want a real target? Look at the meat farming industry!
A vegan driving a hummer makes far less emissions than a meat-eater driving a bicycle. ;)
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Scientists? Which Scientists? What equipment did they use. Where is their raw data collected from pre-industrial times?
Answer: there isn't any. You are lying. The claim isn't being made through measurements from the pre-industrial age. It is arrived at by MODELING. More misleading crap.
Really? Here is a graph you should really have a look at. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels have not been at current levels in the past 650,000 years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?
Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?
Droughts are natural and they havent been increasing in frequency or intensity, unless you can otherwise prove it.
Same goes for hurricanes.
Tropical disease spreading has not been linked to an increase of 0.8c, that would be rediculous.
Food prices have skyrocketed because of so called GREEN initiatives like wasting maze/corn for fuel production.
Look it up. The rise in world wide food prices is directly linked to the idiotic ethanol projects.
it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.
Nuclear is the only proven technology. With nuclear power you have France having demonstrated for many decades that nuclear can provide nearly all the electrical power for a large modern country. Hydro is a proven technology, but it has already been largely tapped out in much of the world and hydro can disrupt river ecosystems. Solar and Wind just don't cut it without either some other large scale supplies of energy... which hydro can't provide... or a massive overbuilding of Solar and Wind to account for the variability. Solar and Wind just can't cut it alone by a long shot, so its either Natural Gas, then coal or Nuclear.
If you can't offer a realistic solution then you are part of the problem.
You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.
Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data. There's no there there, there is only subjective modeling, at best. Suggesting that such a model is hostorically accurate to within a fraction of 1 degree is silly. You know it, I know it, and every scientist worth their salt knows it. The only people who hold that laughable position are those who need the hype. The situation could be WAY worse than a 1 degree change, or nowhere near that bad. It doesn't matter which position you embrace, the point is that talking about "a" global temperature is nonsense in that context.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.