Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Started 180 Years Ago Near Beginning of Industrial Revolution, Says Study (smh.com.au)
New research led by scientists at the Australian National University's Research School of Earth suggests that humans first started to significantly change the climate in the 1830s, near the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The findings have been published in the journal Nature, and "were based on natural records of climate variation in the world's oceans and continents, including those found in corals, ice cores, tree rings and the changing chemistry of stalagmites in caves." Sydney Morning Herald reports: "Nerilie Abram, another of the lead authors and an associate professor at the Australian National University's Research School of Earth Sciences, said greenhouse gas levels rose from about 280 parts per million in the 1830s to about 295 ppm by the end of that century. They now exceed 400 ppm. Understanding how humans were already altering the composition of the atmosphere through the 19th century means the warming is closer to the 1.5 to 2 degrees target agreed at last year's Paris climate summit than most people realize." "It was one of those moments where science really surprised us," says Abram. "But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago."
This is not Reddit, FFS!
How about an article on the dozens of predictions made by climate scientists that never ended up happening? The ones like " No more snow by 2012" etc?
Why always toe the line?
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm. Tsarkon
"The authors of the paper note it’s particularly interesting that global warming keeps winning the bet despite ocean cycles, solar activity, and human aerosol pollution all acting in the cooling direction over the past 15 years. Human-caused global warming has become so strong that it’s consistently overcoming these natural short-term cooling factors... In other words, betting against global warming is an almost sure way to lose money at this point."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/betting-against-gw-sure-way-to-lose-money.html
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Great Filter.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I'll wager there's still way more fossil fuel to be found than we've found already.
Play Command HQ online
We're overdue an ice age and we're heading towards a solar minimum. Again.
Perhaps you should the statements of intentions from the vast left-wing conspirators themselves, you'll be shocked
http://green-agenda.com/
Does it never occur to you that your hypothesis could be wrong? that your interlocutors may, in fact, know a lot more than you suppose - and they understand not only the argument for skepticism, but also the argument made by CAGW alarmist/propagandists ?
Based on your statements, there is a lot you clearly do not know. Read through the statements made in the link I have posted. Oh yeah, if you didn't know about the 500 million people who will survive the intended cull, you are not one of them. Do not say you were not warned.
> some magical particle humans were emitting in the 1800s
You are joking right?
One word, Coal.
Factories in the 1800 belched CO2 like never seen before... The damned butterflies evolved from white to black because of the soot. (you do understand that evolution is real, yeah?)
The dry air in 20 km height cools and sinks down north and south of the equator, causing a girdle of high air pressure north and south of the equator. But because the air is now dry, having lost most of its water vapor above the equator, it heats much faster when it sinks down. Thus, air coming up from the ground due to being heated during the day, stops somewhere inbetween, because warmer air sinks down, and the convection stops where both meet. As the air is not cool enough for clouds to form, there is no rain where both streams meet. This effect is called an temperature inversion, because the normal layering of the atmosphere with air getting cooler if you get higher is inverted.
Luckily, the zenith of the sun wanders along the year between both the northern and the southern Tropic, thus at least once a year, those regions get heavy rains. They thus have two seaons: the dry season and the wet seasons. Regions closer to the equator sometimes have two wet seasons. The wet season gets shorter and less intense if you get closer to the Tropics. Outside the Tropics, there is no wet season, thus you have desertification along both Tropics.
Before you call me naive, please get at least some basic meteorologic knowledge!
It's a strange attitude to have, because it implies that everyone else should be trying to murder them to protect themselves.
Isn't that what we've been doing for most of human history? Family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe, village against village and so on for most of human existence?
Most of European history from the Greeks onward can be seen as some kind of action/reaction to this dynamic. Established civilizations expanding their territories for both economic accumulation but also attempting to build buffers against other expanding or migration civilizations that threaten their borders.
Roman history can easily be interpreted as a continuous defensive expansionism designed to check the destabilizing influence of Germanic migrations from the North and Parthians in the East from time of Marius all the way to Marcus Aurelius. Much of European history from the 7th century through the 12th century can be defined as action/reaction to Viking expansion, from then on attempts to fix borders against expanding Mongols and Islamic armies from the conquest of Hungary, the Crusades and through the Siege of Vienna.
You could argue that almost purely economic colonialism on the part of Europeans didn't even really start until the general borders of Europe were largely established and fortified and external threats were minimized in the 17th century and even then such expansion was motivated by political and territorial stalemates of a fairly established European states and borders. The "new worlds" were conquered for their economic value but this can easily be explained as defensive maneuvers to outflank their local European rivals as well.
And the European conflicts from the 100 Years War, 30 Years War, Spanish Armada, the Napoleonic Wars all the way through WW I and II are attempts to establish hegemony and secure borders within Europe itself.
It would seem that the entire course of human history can be interpreted as a series of conflicts designed to secure specific regions against outsiders who threaten territorial independence and economic security.
Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.
I think you might have swapped "day" and "week" there...
But yes, insulation is near free compared to cooling.
What should be obvious to anyone is that you can only "produce cold" by producing even more heat in a different part of the system.
But then again, I talked to someone who kept her fridge door open during the heat wave, thinking it would help cool the house. And I know several people who will run a ceiling fan when there's no one in the room, thinking it will keep it cooler.
I blame Reagan for ruining our educational system so kids don't learn to think anymore. More kids now may know the laws of thermodynamics, but fewer are able to apply it to anything.
Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not).
Why would you think that? Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity. People having children aren't thinking of society, they're thinking of themselves.
Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?
That, in turn, is only because they are stupid and ignorant. It should be obvious that we are all living on the same planet.
Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.
Herd animals are easy to panic. That's why appeals to emotion work. If you tried them with predators, you'd just get your face bitten off.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the US we are actually poorer than in the 50's and 60's.
If that were true, why aren't more people going back and living like they were in the 50's and 60's. Yesterday I was home shopping and looked at a house built in the late 40's and greatly expanded in the 50's and thought to myself, wow, people really lived like this. I wonder how many people alive today would accept such primitive conditions?.
This was a nice house for the period, but is the kind that I see on real estates all the time that end up abandoned. I've looked at literally hundreds of these properties that are decaying or will decay because of neglect and nobody wants them. They're not expensive to buy and are easily less expensive than apartments. People could be saving so much money and building wealth at the same time,.