Slashdot Mirror
Paris Climate Deal Adopted
jones_supa writes: 195 countries have adopted the first global pact to fight climate change by reducing emissions. Countries will have to publish greenhouse gas reduction targets and revise them upward every 5 years, while striving to drive down their carbon output as soon as possible, under the ambitious climate-change pact announced Saturday morning at UN talks in Paris. The agreement commits countries to keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and hopes to limit it to 1.5 C, with the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050. The 31-page text called the Paris Agreement (PDF) was distributed to countries for them to assess, then agreed to at a plenary session.
...a list of the countries that have signed it.
I know this will work! Countries will need to publish targets and and submit a plan on how they plan to meet those targets! So they can plan, and publish and plan, and keep regular publishing of updates to how well they are on target for the plan! Governments are really good at publishing and plans, so I guarantee this will keep a taxpayer supported staff of hundreds busy for the foreseeable future. Mission accomplished!
I hate to say it, but we're too late for 2 C. Even if we call a halt to CO2 emissions, the gas already in the atmosphere is likely to carry us up and over. To make matters worse, the carbon capture technologies coal plants were supposed to get don't work as well as advertised. Even if we do hold to 2 C, btw, we are going to have long term sea level rise.
Global warming at this point is inevitable. Even probably 5 C warming. Some are arguing 8 C by the end of the century. However, its not the end of the world. Just a radically different one.
(yeah I've been following this very closely for over a decade)
Amusingly, coccolithophores, the calcium shelled plankton, everyone has been really worried would be seriously impacted by the rise in carbon dioxide causing oceanic acidification actually grow MORE in raised CO2 environments.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
el nino does that sometimes, I remember the last el nino year we didnt get any snow til late january
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Now we need conferences to control our planets orbit and another to control the sun.
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
Until I get the time to painstakingly go over the document and we see some real results across the board I'm just going to assume its all pillow talk. Besides the USA doing their own usual workarounds (changing locations for manufacturing), letting China and India do their own thing wont really pan out for this whole 2C thing. 2C is likely an unachievable fantasy at this point.
James Hansen is highly skeptical that this agreement will lead to anything tangible. Mostly because it consists of promises without any enforceable mechanisms. I am inclined to agree with him. It looks like large dog and pony show mostly aimed at reducing public pressure without committing to anything.
more conspicuously is how it will be enforced.
Just another second banana
didn't read so i'm just guessing.
Just another second banana
There's no consequence for not complying with the pact, what's the point of a toothless pact?
Ken
That's the way any sensible false prophet works: predict things so far into the future that you won't be around if they turn out to be false. Global warming is a non-problem, but this so-called "deal" to respond to it is laughable. I guess they get to have their fig leaves and the world can hopefully move on from this silliness and start worrying about real issues, like addressing poverty, education, Islamism, free trade, etc.
It worked with the ozone layer.
Gernany is roughly 15 degrees centigrate warmer than it used to be 35 years ago. However that period around 1974 was extraordinary cold, in comparrison to that time it is now nearly 45 degrees warmer .... so I really wonder where this "2 degrees average increase" is aiming for
Bahahahahahaha, 45C warmer.... On an extremely warm summer day in the south maaaaaaybe you can reach 40C, you're saying in the 70s it was -5C and below all year long? And they still easily have freezing temps, so where it's -5C today they had -50C? You don't even pass the giggle test.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Data here:
Berlin temperature record: http://climatereason.com/Littl...
Hohenpeissenberg temperature record: http://climatereason.com/Littl...
Yes, well, I will hijack this post to say that this is a political/ceremonial agreement, not a scientific one. The good news is that oil is loosing its sheen, down below $40 a barrel. Yes, we have past peak oil, in a much better fashion than anticipated.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
with all your citations it is clear that you are correct... oh wait
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Agreement criticized for imposing no sanctions on countries that fail to reduce emissions
Finally the war on terror is one step closer to being over.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Oh fucking jesus. If we move to alternatives and create more carbon sinks, we'll largely stop CO2 emissions. Quit trying to shove your personal obsession into the mix.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Know what? All sides of any thread on the subject of the Earth's climate and what may or may not be happening to it, and who/what may or may not be responsible for it? And I mean all sides of it, is full of utter stupidity masquerading as 'opinion' and 'fact'.
You want 'facts'? You want 'informed opinions'? You're not going to find it here. Why? Because nobody here is a scientist specializing in climatology, and while it's possible, I find it highly unlikely that anyone who posts here, myself included, is academically qualified enough to interpret what climate data has been collected, if you could even find such analysis to be scientifically valid in any significant way. All I see in any discussion thread like this one? Beliefs, plain and simple; you're expressing your belief in this-or-that theory (which you have neither the credentials nor the background to explore and prove/disprove yourself using the scientific method), or belief in one scientist or the other (which is about as useless as the above mentioned belief-in-a-theory), or (my 'personal favorite', said with sarcastic overtones) belief in the words some non-scientific pundit or other's 'belief' one way or the other. All the above may as well be someone saying 'God says it's one-way-or-the-other', or just roll a six-sided die, 1-2-3 means 'no global warming', 4-5-6 means 'there is global warming'.
Face the truth: Nobody is deciding anything about Earth's climate, one way or the other here. All everyone is doing is venting a bunch of hot air, using it as an excuse to fling around personal insults against anyone who doesn't agree with your 'opinion' on the subject, and generally wasting theirs and everyone else's time accomplishing absolutely nothing.
You want to actually do something of real substance with regards to investigating possible long-term changes in the Earth's climate, and what may or may not be affecting it? Go get a real education in the sciences, with a focus on climatology (and whatever other subjects are useful in this case) whether you get degree(s) in them or not, go collect your own data (or at least investigate, in a scientific manner, the validity of the data collected thusfar) do your own experiments, and come to real science-based conclusions, publish your findings, and face the judgement of the world scientific community, just like with any other scientific research. Otherwise you're just 'armchair quarterbacking' to no effect.
**********
Don't like what I had to say here? Tough for you. Deal with it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
No the data does not show that. This is nothing more than a lie by evil men and adopted by simpering retards like you. The data shows the exact opposite, and the fact that the only cites you can produce are immoral and evil denier sites and that champion of Christopher Booker's vile pseudoscience shows you to either be a waste of oxygen and pathetic halfwit, or a monster .
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Unless China stops building out their new coal plants right now, there is no way to stop this.
In fact, all nations really need to stop building new coal plants. These are the bane of the emissions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The AC's citations were just as valid as the GP. As in, not at all. "realclimatescience dot com", an op-ed in the Telegraph, and some blog? Please. Those aren't citations, those are jacking off into a sock.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, 15C is NOT 60F. More like 27F.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Don't stop him. He's on a roll.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, we passed Peak Oil because it was a warmed over retread of 1970s shortage scares, where physical scientists stick their noses in economics and make literally ignorant predictions about economics.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
..when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
How much CO2 was expelled into the atmosphere by all these assholes flying to Paris to do something that could have been done over the internet? Do empty gestures have to be done in person?
Meanwhile, Al Gore's not selling that waterfront property that he claims will be inundated if I don't buy a fucking prius.
I'm glad we won't have to hear about Climate change anymore and work on things like stopping bombing people.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
By "peak oil" I mean peak price, unless production suddenly stopped. And yes, physical scientists should stay away from the voodoo of economics.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, 15C is NOT 60F. More like 27F.
It seems you're both pretty terrible at communicating this clearly.
15C is 59F.
0C is 32F.
A change (+/-) of 15C equates to a change (+/-) of 27F.
www.gaiageek.com
FWIW the GS economists (who have a decent record predicting such things) expect it to stabilize around $45 a barrel......but because of surplus production, it could drop down to $25 a barrel by spring.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Oh fucking jesus. If we move to alternatives
No one wants nuclear.
create more carbon sinks
How many of those do we have to create?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is an interesting article that discusses the history behind the two degree increase.
From what I can see, it's just a convenient way for politicians to talk about it, because let's be honest, 99% of politicians don't really understand radiative forcing anyway. link to get around paywall.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Since the last big El Nino (1997) RSS shows a slight decline in temperature. So maybe not forever - but definitely for the last 18 years. And curiously enough, if you look at the RSS data prior to that big El Nino you see basically a flat line, too. We don't have the "continual rise" in temperature so often modeled and predicted as we have, it appears, flat (or actual declining) temperatures with occasional big events that cause a shift in the baseline. Something none of the current models used for the COP21 talks even considers.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What does the RSS record show since, say, 1997 - the last big El Nino?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because nobody here is a scientist specializing in climatology ..and we know from the climategate emails that even if they were, most of them aren't trustworthy.
some citations are better than none, and if thats true, debate the info, not the source. calling someone a liar, without any context whatsoever is utterly useless
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That's a hell of a lot of wrong packed into a very short message.
(400/285 - 1) *100 = 40%. Not 0.03%.
Organically cycled CO2 has a half life in the organic sequester lasts of the order of decades, but increases don't disappear from the atmosphere until weathering has removed it, and that has a half life of thousands of years. The reason why the organic cycle doesn't remove it is because organisms die and decay and release that Carbon they soaked up. Rocks can be subducted, taking it away for a million years.
You want 'facts'? You want 'informed opinions'? You're not going to find it here. Why? Because nobody here is a scientist specializing in climatology, and while it's possible, I find it highly unlikely that anyone who posts here, myself included, is academically qualified enough to interpret what climate data has been collected, if you could even find such analysis to be scientifically valid in any significant way.
You are begging the question. If you assume that there are no ways to conduct analyses that are scientifically valid, then of course you won't find someone who can do that on Slashdot. However, your premise is false; there are piles of publications with valid mathematics and statistics that have been published in this area. Just go to Google Scholar and start investigating; you'll find lots of values for glacier loss, global mean temperature changes, changes in ocean temperature and acidity, etc.
Now, are people who have already done the research going to post on Slashdot? Maybe not - like you said, threads seem to devolve quickly, and you can never win an argument with someone on the Internet, so they might just stay away.
My advice: Ignore the media when they talk about climate change. Have you ever cringed when you saw a story about your field, and how horribly wrong they got it? That's what they do with climate change as well - you just don't know it. So, my advice is: Go to Google Scholar and dig up the original publications, or check out some of the information the NOAA or NASA releases. Then, after you look at the raw data, draw your own conclusions.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
the list of such countries being led by the USA. The rest like China and Russia will simply falsify their emission data.
With satellite-based carbon dioxide measurement, this is going to be more difficult than it used to be.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/
Granted, if we want to be pedantic about what "nitrogen" means then that's not nitrogen gas (N2).
Correct. Hydrogen is not the same as water, and nitrous oxide is not the same as nitrogen.
Absolutely not. If your citations are carefully chosen to misrepresent, then none would be better.
And none are better than using three opinion pieces to represent anything like a scientific argument, unless your science is the study of propaganda.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course globalization strip mined the wealth out of those places and "redistributed" it in the first place. And the US had nothing to do with how those tin pot dictators got into power either right?
if they are that bad, they should be easy to tear down. not as easy as calling out a strawman or an ad hom, but easy none the less
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm not saying it's not possible to do a scientifically valid analysis, I'm saying nobody here is qualified to do so, or if they are there's no way for them to prove they are, unless they want to go public with who they are, show their bona-fides, and present their work. You notice how much of that is happening here (zero). Furthermore, the types that infest places like Slashdot are also going to scoff wildly at any actual research that's already been done, and scoff even more at the people who did the research, citing ulterior motives and conspiracy theories, much in the way that Ted Cruz, noted nutbag, says that 'climate change' is all just a liberal conspiracy to grab power and money.
The really sad thing is, by the time the Earth itself makes it obvious whether there is such a thing as 'global warming' or not, it'll be way too late to do anything about it. What little comfort I can take on the subject, is that I'll be long since dead before that day comes, so I won't have to suffer through it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
..the old libertarian geezers of Slashdot who whine about conspiracy theories on every climate-related post here.
Whatever happened to global warming?
Calm down cuz. Some of us here are qualified to understand climate data. The way you're talking you make it sound like there's a high church of Climatology and we have no choice but to believe what the high priests say.
That's not necessary. If Feynman could explain QED well enough that a layman could understand it, then laymen/women can also understand climate science, it's much simpler than QED. The difficult part IMNSHO is actually statistics: figuring out how to accurately average out all the temperature readings collected across the planet, etc.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
FWIW the GS economists (who have a decent record predicting such things) expect it to stabilize around $45 a barrel
OPEC no longer has any control over oil prices. The world's swing producers are now American frackers. The cost per barrel of fracking has gone way down and is continuing to fall. It may temporarily plateau at $45, but then it should continue to creep downward as new innovations are implemented.
I'd just like to see the science and economics that tells us that reducing carbon emissions is the optimal strategy. The lack of thought into this astounds me, that nobody is even considering other ideas, never mind conducting research.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
No one wants nuclear.
The Chinese do, and so do that Indians. They matter far more than America and Europe.
How many [carbon sinks] do we have to create?
One big one would be enough: Just sprinkle some iron sulfate on the surface of the ocean. The plankton bloom would not only suck up all the excess CO2, but would also cause a surge in fish stocks that could meet the world's need for protein.
Obama will never submit it to the Senate. It doesn't have the force of law behind it.
LOL! Obama punked the Environmentalists and the World. They think they have an agreement but all they have is Obama's worthless promises.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It may temporarily plateau at $45, but then it should continue to creep downward as new innovations are implemented.
That's true, the reason it's plateaued at $45 is because that is the cost of production.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You want to hold yourself out as a qualified expert on climatology?
I don't even want you to believe me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
One big one would be enough: Just sprinkle some iron sulfate on the surface of the ocean. The plankton bloom would not only suck up all the excess CO2, but would also cause a surge in fish stocks that could meet the world's need for protein.
Any idea where I can find more information about this? Perhaps a paper that's publicly available?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Communism. Fascism is inherently a national movement, communism - or socialism in general - international. Furthermore, there's no clear charismatic leader but faceless bureaucracy associated with this deal, although I suppose that's also compatible with the Illuminati. Then there's the religious possibilities to consider - which you should had considered beyond a vague reference to "sky fairy" - perhaps the Vatican is trying to cause hardship in hopes people will seek salvation? Or you could simply blame this on lizard men from Regulus trying to de-industrialize the world in preparation for their occupation.
Seriously, put some effort into your conspiracy theories. Don't just post the first buzzword that comes to your mind. That's neither a good smokescreen nor entertaining.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
in slashdot comment threads on climate-related posts seems to be inversely proportional to the square of the post's age, and exponential in the number of USA citizens participating in the thread. One also notes such phenomena as the denial or neglect of simple laws of nature, the denial of the 119-year old findings of a well-respected scientist, ignorance of the basic tenets of technical, even polite discussion, and a statistically not insignificant tendency to adhere to conspiration theories. Slashdot discussion threads on climate, climate change and climate policy are, to an engineer, to a scientist or even to a concerned citizen, some of the most disheartening places on the internet.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
One big one would be enough: Just sprinkle some iron sulfate on the surface of the ocean. The plankton bloom would not only suck up all the excess CO2, but would also cause a surge in fish stocks that could meet the world's need for protein.
Any idea where I can find more information about this? Perhaps a paper that's publicly available?
You can look to the large dust storms in Australia that blow iron dust out to sea as a starting point. Iremember that being talked about mainly because the ocean is iron poor and that oceanic metabolisms still use iron for living things to move oxtgen around. Sorry I don't have any more detail than that.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Thanks. I'll take a gander and see what I come up with.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
All we get are these suggestions like "you'd better stop doing what you're doing now and enjoying an easy life. We'll tax you for it otherwise!"
If governments were really serious about controlling emissions, they would be willing to directly pay for carbon sequestration - that is, forget carbon credits and all that, simply establish companies that would use solar/wind to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and pay them per ton removed. After all, this would be a good investment, right? Spend $10 now to prevent $100 damage due to war/famine/whatever in 100 years is a very good deal for society (well, relatively, that's about 2.3% compounded return). If the future is so "catastrophic" this is what the government should be doing.
But we don't see plans like that, which would cause change "overnight" as people would be falling over themselves to start building atmospheric condensers. Instead we get suggestions do "live with less". It's no wonder there is so much push back - most of it is on the policy, not the science (I think people push back on the science because it is used to justify onerous policy.)
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
They tried that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Killing an entire deep-sea ecology?
Probably not a Good Idea.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We don't have the "continual rise" in temperature so often modeled and predicted as we have, it appears, flat (or actual declining) temperatures with occasional big events that cause a shift in the baseline. .
That's what you get if you superimpose a cycle on top a continuous rise
How long has the rise gone on - and what's the cycle? A single big stairstep in the satellite record is all we have. Before that - flat. After that - flat. Are we going to spend trillions of dollars to have a potential 0.15 deg C reduction in temperatures in 85 years, based upon a single observed step?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually, ocean temps have been steadily rising this entire time.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Nitrogen helps keep us all cool.
Without it, we would have a 98% oxygen atmosphere, briefly,
before everything caught fire.
--
I exhaustively researched this topic until I found a blog post supporting my beliefs.
And declining temps are, historically, a bad thing. You can pretty much map periods of peace and prosperity to warmer temps, and periods of war and mass migration to cooler temps. Most crops like it warmer and wetter rather than cooler and drier. Cooler temps equate to famine, with its predictable results.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It's been done thousands of times just here on Slashdot, yet you (among others) still pretend ignorance. So why bother? You're either not going to read it, not going to understand, or not going to acknowledge it.
Why should we waste our time explaining yet again why his sources are either deliberately deceptive or shockingly incompetent. Why bother when the people, like you, who lap it up seem incapable of understanding plain english, mathematics or science?
But because I'm an optimist, I'll throw in one reason why all three of those links are absolutely wrong. If you start a trend with an outlier, your trend will be wrong. Period. End of story. 1997-1998 was the strongest El Nino on record, anyone who starts a temperature-based trend line starting in those years is either indescribably incompetent or a manipulative asshole who's trying to trick you.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It show that you know how to cherry-pick facts to deceive people.
1997 and 1998 were unusually warm starting a trend in those years produces deceptive results. Confirmation bias incompetence or malicious intent?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Hadn't quite finished the coffee - I should have added, the above (directly fund carbon sequestration) should be part of the solution, not the only piece. I'd also have policies to reduce the production of new "polluting" activities, but I wouldn't directly tax/ban existing things; they would wear out on their own. That is, I'd use sequestration to mitigate the existing install base and only allow "clean" stuff going forward.
This should be way more politically palatable, when you aren't asking people to give up something they already have.
PS: Zoning laws might also need to be revised. Lots of farmland / forest being turned into retail space doesn't help the climate much (at least to first-order effects).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Drive a lot lot less. Fly a whole lot less.
If we stopped flying tomorrow, completely 100% no more flying it'd not make much difference. 9% of oil use in the US is flying. The answer is really simple, just unpalatable. Raise the tax on fuel to $5 per gallon ($0.50 per year for 10 years, indexed on inflation after that). You don't need complex rules against cars and such. Just make the cost direct. You want to use less fuel? Tax it heavily. People will stop driving when they don't need to.
The indirect nudges to people don't work. Make fuel expensive, and the only people driving F150s will be people who absolutely need them. People will drift to more efficient vehicles, and drive them less. Use the taxes collected to fund high-speed trains for commuting and travel. It should be faster to train between Dallas and Houston, or Boston and DC than to fly. When you have that down, flight will fall without having to over-regulate anything.
Learn to love Alaska
Killing an entire deep-sea ecology?
That is conjecture. Many scientists that have studied the issue believe that the deep ocean oxygen depletion will be minor (and your source actually says that). It will probably be better than more oceanic CO2. Iron fertilization of the oceans is something that has enormous potential, and should be researched much more aggressively.
Climate believes in Americans less strongly than in other countries, I suspect. It's the really poor countries whose margin of error is thin, and who get wiped out entirely. The US suffers losses that aren't clearly distinguishable from ordinary disasters, except perhaps for a slight increase in frequency, and we have the money to cover it. We'll survive, literally. Other places literally won't.
Yep! But we need to spend $13.5 TRILLION over the next 15 years so we can cut the predicted temperatures by 0.05 deg C - an unmeasurable amount. So spend trillions, wait 85 years, get nothing. That sounds like a great plan - if you want to force massive wealth redistribution....
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Redistribution being the keyword there... except if these anti-carbon trolls have their way, it'll be the poor and developing nations that suffer most. Energy is wealth. China understands that; it's why they're building coal-fired plants right and left.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
..the old libertarian geezers of Slashdot who whine about conspiracy theories on every climate-related post here.
Whatever happened to global warming?
It got re-branded in response to the nit-picking skeptics who claimed it was falsified every time there was a cold spell.
I stole this Sig
It started testing poorly in focus groups when the globe stopped warming 18.8 years ago.
If you look back, you'll find that all the temperature increases over the pas 100 years have come from El Nino bumps. I wonder what's actually happening. It's certainly not the slow, even heat of CO2.
BINGO. It's not CO2 - it's some sort of natural phenomenon. Given that, is it even possible to fight it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Based on recent headlines in the news, Iran *really* wants nuclear energy...
It's irrational exuberance without https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... role
Casteism
Fossil fuel, not Coal is the culprit;
http://qz.com/568450/fossil-fu...
Casteism
Yes, with geo-engineering. We can alter the temperature within two years for about 1/1000th the cost of CO2 reduction. But, the religious folks don't consider that to be proper repentance for their notional sins committed against Mother Gaia for enjoying a high standard of living. So, we're scheduled to squander tens of trillions of dollars of borrowed money on a plan that not only won't work, but that we won't actually go through with it in any serious way.
18.8 years?
What a bizarrely specific period. Do I smell cherries?
Anyway, the trend since 1997 is (HadCRUT4) 0.093 +/-0.099 C/decade (2sigma), so it is just possible that there has been no warming over this ridiculously short period.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Oh fucking jesus. If we move to alternatives
No one wants nuclear.
Speak for yourself.
Oh, and by the way, Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The RSS satellite temperature record shows no warming since January 1997.
There is no RSS satellite temperature record.
Satellite data is the most accurate/unbiased vs. land measurements which are corrupted by urban heat islands, scattered measuring locations, inconsistent equipment+calibrations.
Unfortunately satellites don't measure temperature.
They measure microwaves. From these microwave measurements two teams attempt to work out what the temperature might be at different levels in the atmosphere, notably the lower and mid troposphere. Both of them have frequently "adjusted" their results.
UAH is based on a huge, often modified, piece of spaghetti Fortran. (The code for the current version is still not published).
RSS is "validated" against the output of a climate model! Yes folks the gold standard denier dataset is partly based on a model!
Neither dataset matches the radiosonde data taken from actual thermometers at the altitudes the satellites are supposed to be "measuring".
Thanks, but when I want to know the temperature I'll stick to a thermometer.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Wait, wait.
A few posts ago you said the temperature was not increasing. Now you say it is increasing, but not from CO2?
What?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If you look back, you'll find that all the temperature increases over the pas 100 years have come from El Nino bumps. I wonder what's actually happening. It's certainly not the slow, even heat of CO2.
Try plotting a graph of the addition of a straight line increase and, for example, a sine wave. (Yes, I know El Nino/La Nina/ENSO is not a sine wave, this is just for example).
What you see is the line goes through flattish bits (where the sine wave is going down, countering the trend), mixed with rapid jumps where the sine wave is going up, adding to the trend.
Or to look at it in a more physical way -- El Nino can't be the cause of the warming -- it just moves heat from place to place, it doesn't make more heat.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Eh, I'm no-one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This Monty Python thing was a hint -- I'm in France. "No one wants nuclear" looks pretty silly when you read it in France.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That's a really obscure hint lol. Yeah, France does a lot better with nuclear than Germany, for sure.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
why waste time with idiots who would self asphyxiate if he said oxygen was good?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
right on cue
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
who keeps modding this idiot and his bs up?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
He can't decide which line of ignorance to stick to.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
there are not enough facepalms in the universe to adequately respond to your ignorance.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
We have global warming. It is causing climate change. More specifically, it's causing climate to change at a very fast rate, removing much of the ability of plants, animals, and third-world nations to adapt to it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The claim that we can alter the temperature seems way optimistic. We've looked at ways of lowering the temperature, and found problems with them. One or more of the schemes might well work, without causing worse effects, but I'm not confident about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It is possible to explain global warming simply. It isn't rigorous, but QED (the book) wasn't either. Lots of people, including me, have explained it in simple terms. You know what? It doesn't seem to do any good.
Also, QED (the field) is much simpler than climate science. Never underestimate the complexity of a large chaotic system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Much more efficient to use solar/wind to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere will take a lot of energy, and it's hard to sequester a gas. Changing it to C and O2 will take considerably more power than we got doing the reverse, because of inefficiencies.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You know what? It doesn't seem to do any good.
What would you consider to be "good?" Maybe your understanding of the topic is lacking, and that's why you have trouble explaining it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, a few posts ago I said it was flat after the singular El Nino event. And in fact flat before the El Nino event. If you actually read what I wrote - and not what your knee-jerk expectation wants to see - you'd understand my two posts are completely in line with each other. But strawmen are so much more fun to attack, are they not?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Please correct me, then. I've linked directly to the RSS record. What is wrong? Where is the error? Is your "correction" more accurate than my summation of the RSS record?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Those who look at your empty huffing posts and say "huh?" What is your response other than attacking with slurs?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, I've explained it simply on Slashdot a few times, and nobody seems to pay attention. My understanding is not deep, but it's sufficient to show that we are warming things up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My mind will never grasp the absolute power of stupidity. And stupidity in numbers is even more funny!
None of those reasons. I rely on what's known about carbon dioxide, its increase, our part in its increase (including the change in isotope ratio as evidence, but I can leave that out). I don't have to refer to computer models, I don't say what we should do, and I don't think or claim that scientists are always right (although I don't have any instance where that many scientists were that wrong about something they were measuring). I'd be happy if people would generally agree we've got a problem and then try to work out what to do about it.
Really, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we've known that for more than a century, and can verify it simply. We know the atmospheric concentration has gone from about 280ppm to 400ppm. I can easily show that burning fossil fuel is a sufficient explanation for the increase. We're changing the atmosphere in a way that should warm things up, and things are warming up. At that point, people should agree that AGW is going on, and might be a problem. If we can get to that point, we'd be a lot further along than we are now.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd be happy if people would generally agree we've got a problem and then try to work out what to do about it.
Well maybe there's your issue. It's not clear, after all, that we even have a problem. I've had no problem convincing people when I say, "We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally increase the temperature. We don't know by how much, or if it will be a problem."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I was more wondering how the average is calculated, as in my country the average has raised most certainly far above +2 degrees.
I mean as a layman I would say:
o one measurement every 24h, divide by 24 yields average at that spot, for this day
o having a grid covering a country, you can average over the whole country
o do that 365 days a year and divide by 365, you have the average of the temp of the year in that country
o scale that to the globe
Obviously it is done either in a complete different way or the ocean has an absurd high effect in masquerading the change of the "global average".
Gut feeling for german: the average temperature increased in average by something like 10 - 15 degrees centigrade (versus something like 35 years ago).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I was more wondering how the average is calculated
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you.
I downloaded the datasets once and started looking at them, and figuring out an "average" is tough. Here's one map from NASA that gives some idea of Germany but I'm sure there are others.
There are so many complications. Some averages are only for land, others try to take into consideration land and oceans. Of course, ocean temperature records don't go back as far, and in some cases involved a ship dropping a bucket into the ocean and sticking a thermometer in the bucket.
Then of course there are thermometers that disappear over time, and urban heat islands, and heat islands from improved irrigation.
I pretty much gave up trying to understand how to average out the temperature record, and now I just look at the satellite record and consider it more accurate (of course, that only goes back to the 70s, but you can't have everything).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hm, two things immediately jump into my mind:
1) the pacific west of south america, that looks like a typical El Nina phenomenon, not like something anomal
2) the subtitle of the headline is: "with respect to a 1971 - 2010 base period"
So, they use the "average of 1071 - 2010" as "base" ... not really easy to grasp. If that is the case the red +4 and +5 degree spots are "fake" and should be significantly higher.
Interesting is also, that over Arctica, we seem to have not much data (of that time period).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yeah. I was trying to find a graph of temperatures in Germany, but that was the best I could find before I got bored lol, sorry
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No lroblem, lol. ... they do amazing stuff and the basic courses about climat are quite informative (not that you would need them if you work there as a mere software developper)
It is quite difficult to google in our times. For some reason the machine is misinterpreting search terms, ignoring quotes and thinks stuff shown/clicked-on often is more important.
Guess I should again apply for a job at dmi.dk
E.g. the europeans have a few dozen special 'space probes' orbiting relatively low. The use them to target GPS satellites and measure the refraction of the signals going through the upper atmosphere. That makes it possible to make conclusions about composition _and_ temperature in the higher atmosphere. Pretty amazing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.