Slashdot Mirror
CO2 Levels Likely To Stay Above 400PPM For The Rest of Our Lives, Study Shows (inhabitat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A new study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are likely to remain above 400 parts per million (ppm) for many years. Specifically, scientists forecasted that levels would not dip below 400pm in "our lifetimes." The CO2 concentrations of "about 450ppm or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2 degrees Celsius over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels." However, lead author on the paper Richard Betts said we could pass that number in 20 years or less. In an article on The Guardian, he said even if we reduce emissions immediately, we might be able to delay reaching 450ppm but "it is still looking like a challenge to stay below 450ppm." El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels, but it's likely we'll see higher CO2 levels than the last large El Nino storm during 1997 and 1998 because "manmade emissions" have risen by 25 percent since that storm, according to The Guardian. Met Office experts predicted in November 2015 that in May 2016 "mean concentrations of atmospheric CO2" would hit 407.57ppm -- the actual figure was 407.7ppm. The NOAA reported during 2015 that the "annual growth rate" of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm. NOAA lead scientist Pieter Tans said, "Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years. It's explosive compared to the natural processes."
Well, this will surely be a nice conversation of well considered opinions and knowledgeable people. The sad thing is that this will generate more comments than anything else today. This is what people seem to respond to.
If Trump would shut his trap, CO2 emissions would be reduced dramatically...
The science is in, the numbers are not fake, this is not a hoax. This is going to have serious global repercussions and it will never go away. We can't even yet stop contributing to the acceleration of emissions, they CONTINUE to grow year by year despite much-touted international accords. The science community agrees this will not be enough, and we are failing at this course correction necessity.
At some point, the people being paid and those paying millions to put out the unreasonable position that this all is "no big deal" or "not certain to be a problem" or "not caused by human industry" etc, those people have to be dealt with. I make no suggestions beyond that general observation, that this is untenable.
then we will all be safe!
In other news, life goes on normally.
In other news... water is wet, cheese is good, and just breaking: there's a sale at Pennies....
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The article answered every question except the one impacting my life.
Maybe that means - NO!
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Trump will win the presidency. He isn't facing any real competition, and even many Democrats can't bring themselves to vote for either of the potential Democratic candidates. So at least a portion of them will be voting for Trump, in addition to nearly all Republicans who do support Trump. Much of America has become tired and disillusioned after 8 years of leftist rule, and want something different. That gives Trump a win that is nearly guaranteed at this point.
LOL, keep dreaming. There's an awful lot of Republicans who won't be voting for Trump.
CO2 has been this low only once in the past 600+ million years - about 300 million years ago.
It has averaged probably 1,000-2,000 ppm, if not higher, for the past 200+ million years.
Actually the holy book would be the IPCC reports. The nice thing about anthropogenic global warming as a religion is that it has actual scientific evidence to back it up. If you want to suggest that the primary cause is something other than human activity you need to come up with some actual scientific evidence of your own that holds up under scrutiny.
Please, everybody, calm down, take a pill, fire up a fatty...The solution is simple. We just have to stop polluting and quit voting for corrupt politicians. Everything else will fall into place. All parameters will return to nominal, all anxieties dispelled, all boredom amused. Paradise can be ours if we truly want it. Show simple respect and live happily ever after.
It is all water at this point. and well... there's no going back. We're here for a good time, not a long time.
I think Mussolini is a more apt comparison.
I'm Donald Trump, and I approved this message.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And your evidence for this is???
Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.
The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.
None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.
Now I know why. Oh god!
we need LEARN FUCKIN ENGLISH
Well you obviously need to.
Only if the end of the story is a lifeless corpse swinging from a meat hook.
Trump's post-election fate is likely a fade into obscurity. He's destroyed his TV career, unless it's as a Fox News comedy set piece, and with all the Republicans walking away, I doubt even Fox is going to have much to do with him.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh, no need to respond to that, That was an robot auto-responder. It simply searches for the string IPCC and then writes a canned response to try and troll the discussion.
We still remember the leaked emails. Also, his -1 is proof enough.
The more you try to silence these people the more you look like fools yourselves.
You are right! Falsifiable science. Let's see how those disaster scenarios played out from 30 years ago... Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought.
You mean the cooked reports that were "adjusted" to produce a specific trend out of a flat line?
Whoops, Heh, heh, there he goes again! Cute little bugger!
CO2 Levels Likely to Stay Above 400PPM for the Rest of Our Lives
Umm, but Ray Kurzweil told me if I take 200 pills per day and survive to the Singularity (which, apparently, is coming soon to a neocortex near you), then I'll live forever. And so will you.
Does that mean CO2 levels will stay that high forever? Just wonderin'...
you're confusing a situation where Hillary had nothing to gain from viciously fighting Sanders head-on
Only the US Presidency. Let's review your post here. By your own words, we have Clinton struggling against a "non-entity".
Let us remember that she lost a number of states and didn't get enough votes for a definitive win until the California primary.
Look, the problem is that the opportunity cost (in dollars) is increasing for fossil fuel usage (although it is masked by rapid renewable energy transitions and more efficient buildings, vehicles, appliances, manufacturing, and other transportation).
The sooner you get with the program, the faster the inflection point kicks in. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, especially once you remove all fossil fuel subsidies and exemptions. Including fuel in India, China, Phillipines, USA, Canada, Mexico, etc. Including parking and road subsidies for fossil fuel vehicles and low tax airport regimes.
It generally takes the average person or business about three (3) years to convert from a subsidized fossil fuel "lifestyle" to a more efficient and cost-saving renewable energy "lifestyle". The cost savings for building heating/cooling, data center power/cooling, transportation, and process usage depend on the artificial subsidies and exemptions and contract lease rates for fossil fuels. As a personal example, switching to green buildings usually cuts energy costs to about 1/10th fossil fuel methods, and my own personal electric and heating and transportation expenses are about half what they used to be. There's a capital expense cost to switch, but you can regenerate that just from savings in 3-5 years in most locations.
It's not how hard it is, it's just that you hate change. Not changing costs you money, but you're used to wasting that money, like the inefficient communists you are. So buckle down, start switching over, and reap the rewards.
If even half of the world does that, it will only be for a few decades. Which if you're one of those "ooh change is bad" old folks, tough. Do us a favor and get with the program, cause excuses don't cut it no more.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So...how do we know the historical concentrations of CO2? By measuring trapped air in polar ice?
Nope. The Democrat nominee will be selected by the superdelegates and the superdelegates don't want any change.
The IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific group.
The IPCC data blah blah trolling the bot blahedy blah.
Doesn't a warmer climate equal more women in bikinis? Doesn't more CO2 equal more plants? I always thought that planting groves of giant sequoias would be a good way to sequestering CO2. I think I remember reading that each sequoia is capable of sequestering like 2,000 tons of CO2 for 3,000 years.
Nice to see that someone hates me :) I think value is in the eye of the beholder. I guess some folks with mod points liked what I said. If you don't like what I'm saying then come up with some credible evidence to counter it.
When it comes to CO2 and its role in global warming no one has come up with any credible evidence to counter it. Lots of people try to claim it's the Sun or it's just natural cycles but the never present any solid evidence for their claims. Science is all about being able to back up your hypotheses with real evidence.
Why don't you go back to Europe?
ROTHFLMAO! The "leaked" emails were an exercise in quote mining and taking things out of context. The more you try to make them into something significant the more you look like a fool yourself.
At 0% body water content, you are dead. but at 100% immersion in water, you are dead as well. All signs point to there being a very narrow range of "optimal". Comparing the low-end of the scale and extrapolating well beyond where that data is valid just makes you look like a moron. Or a liar. Which is it, do you not know basic statistics, despite quoting them, or do you understand, and are lying to further your political agenda? Bonus points for lying, then accusing the other side of lying.
Learn to love Alaska
Everyone who doesn't believe in our global warming religion is going to get cooked by it just as bad as those who do believe. It's an equal opportunity phenomenon.
The IPCC reports are basically a compilation and review of the current literature in the field of climate science. When they come out they are already a year or two behind the most current science.
You realize how much like a doomsday religious preacher that sounded right?
So you like to pretend.
However, its just not true.
A compilation by bureaucrats of cherry picked literature. Often misrepresented.
But woe to the scientists that speak their minds and disagree with how the IPCC have presented their work. Because they just arent heard from again... funding denied.
Some idiots just don't understand that soon it's will be unbearably hot for everyone on the planet, and for some reason they refuse to take our word for it.
You are right! Falsifiable science. Let's see how those disaster scenarios played out from 30 years ago...
Quoting that article, "But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." "
["0.5 degrees to 2 degrees" translates to 1.25 degrees plus or minus 0.75 degrees.]
the article continues:
So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2F over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen.
So, as I read what that article says, Hansen predicted 1.25 plus or minus 0.75 degrees temperature rise, and according to the article you just quoted, the data showed 1.1 degrees temperature rise.
I can't see how you conclude "Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought." Looks like his prediction was right on the target.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Targeting CO2 emissions has always had a very long-term scope and we should continue to find ways to reduce them. However, in such urgent circumstances, we need to find greenhouse gas emissions that respond quickly to reducing their output. According to a UN report, 51% of greenhouse gases comes from animal agriculture, i.e. meat and dairy production. We don't all need to go vegan but we do need to stop eating such unhealthy and unsustainable amounts of meat.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan BTW.
He probably doesn't realize it but everyone else does and that's why no one takes these people seriously.
Of course I was just being snarky. But if you're not an old fart like me the reality of global warming and the concomitant climate change it causes will have a significant effect on your life whether you like it or not.
The only people who think the climategate emails were all that significant are the climate science deniers who have motivation to think so. They have nothing to combat science with actual science so the have to attack the practitioners of science instead.
Don't get hyperbolic about it. Things will continue to change slowly and some years will be better than others but in 20 or 30 years you can look back and see that things have changed.
Do you have any idea how big and long lasting the conspiracy would have to be to sustain your assertion? If they're good enough to keep it going for over 30 years for all scientists around the world you might as well give up.
And regarding bureaucrats the WG1 which is about the scientific basis for AGW is done by scientists, not bureaucrats.
Ok then, we will take your word for it.
This is the end of the discussion I suppose, now that there is consensus, right?
Just stop regurgitating the same baseless nonsense in every comment, will you.
Everything you have posted here is non-verifiable.
https://youtu.be/XM0uZ9mfOUI
You don't have to take my word for it. But you ignore the scientists word at your own peril.
No, it's just not verifiable on the short time scale you want to use. Tell me how nothing has changed in 30 years. (Actually you'll have to tell someone else, I'm old enough it's unlikely I'll be alive then.)
"annual growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm": This would mean that annual growth went up from e.g. +2.00 ppm/y to +5.05 ppm/y.
That *would* be dramatic. But I guess what they meant to say is: "Annual growth rose *to* 3.05ppm" or "CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm".
All you said is "I don't understand this!". Thanks for trying to play.
Read it again. 0.6 degree Celsius, not 1.1. Barely within range with none of the disastrous consequences predicted.
Wrong. Hilary would have won if there were no superdelegates.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
To quote Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter: "We are screwed, blued, and tattooed."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Now take the opposite of everything the AC said, and you'll have a statement much closer to reality.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
what with that economic growth, budgetary surplus, a relatively stable economy, no wars....
That was just soo much worse than the years under Bush Jr....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Failed computer models that don't reflect reality is not evidence.
Not how funding or science works.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels
Wow, just when I thought I had heard global warming blamed on absolutely everything, and absolutely everything blamed on El Nino. But I never even considered blaming El Nino for carbon emissions.
The medical term for what you're doing is called "projection".
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.
Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.
"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.
Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.
Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.
Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well the inverse is true as well, there really is no evidence that that the past warming will continue to dangerous levels a century from now as there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now. There are some computer simulations that didn't predict the current warming hiatus, and none of those simulations have demonstrated any predictive ability.
You know that sucking sound? that is money that could have been spent on remediating real environmental problems getting spent on sending Government Bureaucrats to parties all over the World called Climate Conferences.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You read it again, and this time pay attention to which part is actual data.
The text I quoted in italics is verbatim from the link you posted: According to the article, the prediction was 1.25 degrees; the measurement 1.1 degrees.
The 0.6 number is a different number, extrapolated from data that can't be directly compared to the prediction (in fact, it doesn't even include 1958.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
Bill Clinton was thwarted by a Republican congress. He wanted to tax, borrow and spend as much as any other Democrat.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The "hiatus" has been debunked over and over and over. That you would claim otherwise shows you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you're more than willing to lie to make a point. Neither is attractive. Pick one.
This is great for trees and other plants. More CO2 to breathe and warmer temperatures to foster growth. Maybe vegetation will take over the world if we just stop eating it.
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
Bill Clinton was thwarted by a Republican congress. He wanted to tax, borrow and spend as much as any other Democrat.
-jcr
And Hillary Clinton will likely be in the same situation. I'm sure what the downside is yet.
Plants will do better and it'll be a greener world.
Win win.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now.
That's been debunked over and over again. Why does it keep getting reposted? Why do you actually believe this?
You can't cherry-pick a single unusually hot year, claim it's the average, then say temperatures are still hovering around average. That's not how statistics work.
So look at what happened when we had a Republican President with the same Republican Congress. We found a lot of new ways to spend trillions of dollars, and the deficit went way up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What's happening is a scientific issue, and what it means is that we're warming up the surface of the planet very fast and we'll have very serious problems stemming from that. What we're gong to do about it is a political issue, but it's very unlikely to be helpful as long as so many politicians (at least in the US) deny the science.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I notice that you and dave420 both say it is debunked, but without any links to a debunking. That is very interesting...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Huh?
You do know that the "greenhouse effect" is a radiative physics effect, and the physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not identical to the way a glass greenhouse works (which is by allowing energy in the form of light in, but suppressing convection).
On a greenhouse on the surface of the Earth, heat transfer is in the form of convection and radiation (and to a small extent, conduction). For the Eartt radiating to space, of course, convection stops at the top of the atmosphere.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Let me guess it's one of these
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming
3) Chinese coal use
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’?
6) Volcanic aerosols
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
43) Ocean Variability:
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then”
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
Save time just pick a number.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Is the NOAA good enough? Why Did Earth's Surface Temperature Stop Rising in the Past Decade?
1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year, which brought up temperatures in late 1997 and 1998, and once the El Nino subsided, temperatures trended back more closely with 1996-1997 levels. The ocean is a massive heat-sink and has been absorbing much of the additional heat generated, and the El Nino's altered currents bring some of that heat back to the surface during those years.
Thank you, I will take a look.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well the inverse is true as well, there really is no evidence that that the past warming will continue to dangerous levels a century from now as there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now. There are some computer simulations that didn't predict the current warming hiatus, and none of those simulations have demonstrated any predictive ability.
Except that with 2014, 2015 and 2016* we will have 3 years in a row of the hottest year on record. How does that fit in with your "18 years of no warming"?
That you think the global climate models should be able to predict a warming hiatus just shows you don't understand what climate models are capable of. The effects of natural variability are currently impossible to predict ahead of time. Things like the dominance of La Ninas, a slightly higher rate of volcanic aerosols being produced and a slight drop in solar insolation combined to slightly reduce the rate of warming during the so called hiatus. If you pick out individual model runs that by coincidence happened to better match the natural variability of those 18 years (mostly matching the pattern of La Ninas) they match the evolution of temperatures over that period pretty well.
But in the long run the effects of natural variability tend to average out to a net effect of zero and that's what climate models do, model the climate effects over the long run. That's what climate models should be judged on, their projections over the long run. Since the classical climate period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization is 30 years that would be an appropriate period for them to be judged on.
One other comment on the so called hiatus, there has not been a significant change in the temperature trend by standard statistical tests. Here is an analysis by a statistician who used several different statistical techniques to try an find a statistically significant change in temperature trends. None of them showed a significant change.
*Yes, I know that 2016 isn't over yet but January through May of 2016 have been so hot globally (around 1.15 C anomaly) that the rest of the year would have to average a temperature anomaly below 0.66 C for it not to set a new record. That's extremely unlikely.
The people speaking out against the science behind the IPCC reports are doing bad science, since the evidence is on the side of the IPCC. Bad scientists should not be funded. There is no global scientific conspiracy, and anyone familiar with scientists will realize that. There is no way to keep people from publishing papers somewhere or other. If some scientists made the earthshaking discovery that the IPCC's conclusions are wrong, and could back it up with evidence and reasoning, they couldn't be silenced, and they'd be famous.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wonder if anyone can answer this How much of the current mixture of gas(air) is there on Earth gravitational limit currently? How much can Earth's gravity hold at its maximum limit? I am assuming we are at its maximum and gas seeps into space as it is added if it can escape its orbit.
You totally copy pasted that shit. Shill if I ever saw one!
Point to accurate modeling (with reasonable error bars) of cloud feedback that supports your point. (source)
A good place to start would be the IPCC report. The quick summary: cloud feedback is, indeed, the largest single source of uncertainty in the models. But that is incorporated in the error bars.
Again: the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything. The way science progresses is by increasingly more accurate models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... if you're interested.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Thanks for saving the planet. Have another toke!
It hasn't been debunked, 1997 - 1998 was an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures, 2014-2016 was also an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures. and It's an area of frenzied research. The warming hiatus is real, unpredicted and it's unclear if it end or continue. All you have to do is look at Google Scholar and it's 35,500 results to see it's an area of emerging research.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds