Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Could Cross Key Threshold in a Decade, Scientists Say (reuters.com)
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week. But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre. Reuters reports: With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said. That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. But other changes -- such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables -- could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said.
And the decade before that too, come to think of it.
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.
A decade out... funny how that 10 years number always seems to figure into these things.
Dark Reflection
Keep the conspiracy theories to the tabloids.
Look, there he is! I'm super-duper serial, guys!
We sure do get a lot of these "Climate change may/will/has crossed that line already/tomorrow/next week/next year/next decade"
Experts say if that happened, it would be bad. Al just smiles.
stop predicting, and stop revising predictions.
we get it. something's going to happen, and by then you will have predicted it.
and stop telling us that while every cold year did not refute anything, the hot ones are, in fact, confirming.
Whose Scientists? Theirs or Ours?
How about taking steps to cut the birth rate in key polluters like China and India with populations which are already insanely huge? If we're thinking about cutting things related to / causing climate change, certainly that's one of the most effective moves that could be made.
...in 2006 by Al Gore? "...unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return", Gore said.
...in 1999, by James Hansen, telling us that the 2000's would rival the 1930's for the highest ever... of course, then we went into a "hiatus" of global warming. Original article.
...in 2006, by this group, saying, Extinction is OUR choice, unless... .... within the next 8 years we have STOPPED using fossil fuels, PLANTED millions of trees, ended logging, and PREPARED our cities and agriculture for the inevitable sea rise. OTHERWISE OUR CHILDREN MAY NOT SURVIVE!
...in 2006, by the Independent?
...in late 2006, by Mother Jones?
..in 2004, by James Hansen? Article
Or maybe just google all this from 10+ years ago, telling us we'd all be dead in 10 years. google.com
Let's stop with the hysteria and stick to facts. I'm not against cutting CO2 emissions, I am against needless panic mongering.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
@jnaujok - look at the years. They are all election years. This isn't about physical/environmental science, it is about the science of social engineering aka votes.
And I dont remember where, that any prediction that gives a sufficiently large amount of time before it is to be affirmed (5 years?) will be forgotten by enough people or vague enough in anyone's memory that it doesn't have to be based on facts at all.
Thank you. You said it all perfectly. I hope your post gets bumped to 5 Informative.
I love climate porn.
Is this another attempt to push a fruits-and-vegetables diet based on old superstition and ignorant observation? 400 years ago, nobody knew what micronutrients were; they knew if you didn't eat your fruits and vegetables, you got pellagra and scurvy--and you got pellagra by eating too much corn, too, so you needed to eat something else.
Today, somehow, people who eat diets with a lot of meat and don't overeat have few health problems. It's pretty simple: eat beef, eat chicken, eat fish, be healthy. There are a few micronutrients that are hard to get unless you're eating organ meats, certain fruits, or high-calorie shit like Hi-C fruit drinks--notably Vitamin C--but meat has a surprising amount of stuff like potassium and magnesium, so much so that you have to get into esoteric vegetables nobody eats to substantially beat the micronutrient profile of meat per calorie. There are only a few things an all-meat diet would leave you short on, and they're generally the things vegetables are actually pretty high in.
Has anyone noticed that meat-diets never produce deficiency diseases, yet someone is waiting in the wings to tell you you're doing vegan and vegetarian diets wrong because a lot of people get sick really fast on those diets? That's only counting malnutrition; things get weird when researchers do studies on constipated people and find out that a high- and moderate-fiber diet makes it worse, while a low-fiber diet improves things dramatically, and a no-fiber diet completely eliminates the issue--exactly what fiber isn't supposed to do.
So yeah, vegetarian diets are healthy--if you eat the right things, eat enough of them, eat massive amounts of them, and maybe take some supplements. Mainly-meat diets are healthy, if you don't eat too god damn much--honestly, Taco Bell and Burger King try to sell you 75% of a day's food as a so-called meal, so you're eating for two or three people by the end of the day, hence fast food making everyone fat (how did you think it happened?). They want us to go from the "you get fat if you eat too much" diet to the "you get pellagra and rickets if you don't diversify your nutrition correctly" diets (nobody gets scurvy; Vitamin C deficiency isn't a real thing anymore unless you try really, really hard).
Amateurs.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There is not "hiatus." Get your head out of your ass. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-...
and stop telling us that while every cold year did not refute anything, the hot ones are, in fact, confirming.
No single year that's colder than average in one particular place is significant, nor one that's hotter than average in one particular place. The important feature about global warming (or, if you prefer, global climate change) is the global part.
A year that's warmer than average averaged across the whole Earth is indicative... but not conclusive.
A whole sequence of years that are all unusually warm, averaged across the whole Earth, however: that is significant.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Climate change is all about the money (raising taxes, creating new taxes, etc.).
I remember when I used to come to Slashdot for the comments, but now it's full of science-denying idiots. Oh well, back to Hacker News. :)
Is that the threshold of finally having the balls to own up to the hype and scaremongering?
You're missing a main point - we can't magically undo 150 years of CO2 creation when we decide the effects are noticeable. There will be a time when actions are taken to reduce the effects, but that won't stop the effects from increasing for the foreseeable future. Will it cause our extinction? Doubtful. Will it cause extinctions and much harm? It's already happening. Even with the asteroid 65M years ago, it wasn't a dino free world the next day. The extinctions took several 1000s of years, IIRC, and then another 1.5 million or so before the biosphere started seriously diversifying again. So, to put that in perspective, recorded history only barely covers 5000 years.
If scientists came and told the average couch potato that unless they stopped driving their gas-guzzler today, their great great great grandchildren might be living in an arid desert barely scratching out a living and dying of thirst, I'm sure exactly 0% would stop driving their gas guzzlers. The average couch potato can barely conceive of issues next week, much less several generations away. Look what it took to get chloro-flouro-carbons out of use.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This argument just needs to die. It's not going to happen unless we're talking about some sci-fi book/movie. China does this, but they are a communist country too, so their people gave up their choice in any matter what so ever just simply by being born in the country.
To the contrary. You do not need to "give up choice" to limit population. Demographic studies have demonstrated that there are three things that have been shown to reduce population growth.
1. Prosperity. Demographics shows that affluent people, on the whole, have fewer children than poor people. You want to reduce population growth in poor countries? Address the poverty.
2. Education. Demographics shows that educating people reduces the birth rate. Most effectively, educating girls (who in many countries with high population growth have no access to education at all)-- but in general: population growth rate decreases with education.
3. Access to birth control techniques. This actually surprised the demographers, who hadn't predicted it, but the data is pretty firm. Independent of the first two factors, simply give people access to means of control over their own reproduction... and they, in general, have fewer children.
So, that's it: how to save the world: bring people out of poverty, give them education, and give them access to birth control.
You don't need the totalitarian bullshit.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It really doesn't matter if this is true or not. Either way, it won't be fixed in time. The bottom line reality is that Russia, China, Brazil and India simply don't care. China does care a little but only a little. None of them are going to reduce emissions if it harms economic growth. They've all been clear that they think it's unfair that the more developed countries who got there faster got to pollute all they wanted to with no consequence in the past. So everybody should really hope that the climate change folks are mistaken because this is simply not solvable with those 4 at a minimum being unwilling to do anything about it.
Look, the "point of no return" is completely arbitrary - how much CO2 do you want in the atmosphere? However much we put in there, it will remain for 10's of thousands of years. Today is a point of no return. So is tomorrow. So is the day after, and so on. The only thing that's been changing is how much CO2 is up there and will remain up there. In other words, this isn't evidence against the greenhouse effect (which is well-understood, tested, and resoundingly supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field). This is evidence that humans tend to move goalposts when they blow past a deadline. There is right now little doubt that the Earth's environment has been altered and will continue to be altered by the elevated CO2. People will die, cities will flood, animals will go extinct. This will all almost certainly happen, the only thing that remains to be seen is the extent to which we increase CO2 levels before switching to renewable energy sources and the extent to which our environment changes as a result of the greenhouse effect. Make no mistake, we have long-since crossed the line of no return and are moving further into dangerous territory with each passing day.
Let me show you Earth, perhaps you'd like to learn something of reality? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What most people don't get is that CO2 takes about 100 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. And about 20 years to impact the cycles.
The climate change you see today is from what we did from 1900 to 1990. It's already baked in. The changes we do today affect 2035 to 2135.
However, planting trees or algae farms which we then store and don't use has an impact immeadiately.
Seaweed is actually a great carbon store.
In terms of immeadiate impacts, the best you can do is:
1. stop eating beef, unless it's free range beefalo or beef in non-pastoral settings (yes, cow farts do impact the climate, but it's what they eat especially that matters). Side effect: healthier for you in terms of heart risk and diet, bonus points.
2. stop flying on old inefficient airplanes except for turboprops. Use high speed rail where it exists, or boats.
3. replace all your old inefficient money wasting appliances with new high efficient energy star appliances. As a personal example, I cut my utility bill in HALF by doing this, and the new stuff is WAY QUIETER and uses less hot water. And my clothes wear out half as fast. massive cost savings here. Fridge, washer, dryer.
4. get a hybrid or plug in car or truck. In Canada they have 2017 model plug in trucks. Same goes for business. Saves TONS OF DOLLARS on fuel and maintenance. Plus, if you buy high end cars, the added electric power makes your car a speed demon! Ultra fast!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Inhale my funky rothschild vagina, so I can tax everyone on earth for their "carbon footprint"
Let's not talk about CO2 ppm, or anything like that, let's compare against a negotiated, arbitrary, manmade number.
This is why you climate people fail.
Every year is an election year. It's just a matter of how big the election is.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
sustainable diets, with less beef
Give it up Vegans, cattle eat grass. Grass is very sustainable.
My fellow Americans, we're screwed, blued, and tattooed.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The Left has an issue for Red Lines...they keep drawing them and no one cares.
I thought it was already over since we passed 400ppm.
Always 20 years away.
Going for popcorn to watch my Karma get trashed now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...
We're constantly being treated to this and when the prediction doesn't happen... no apology... no admission... nothing. Just a goal post move.
Will they admit in 50 years what they haven't admitted over 20? Will they admit over 100 what they won't over 50?
I suspect that only death by old age is going to resolve this because some people are going to keep this shit up to their graves.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Oh, wait...
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...
Your source does not discuss New York - or any other place - being underwater in any amount of time. It mentions a point of no return but does not detail a specific consequence that happens when that point is passed. Do you have a source that supports your hyperbolic claim?
I suspect that only death by old age
Very highly unlikely as nobody has died in the US of old age since the 1950s.
So Richard Betts is not playing "Blue Sky" anymore?
There's more. In 1989, we only had ten years to fix the problem.
There are some people who are climate deniers, who say that humans can't affect the climate. Those people are fools.
There are other people who refuse to believe that there is plenty of propaganda going on. Those people are also fools.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not saying I know how to accomplish this.
The "hiatus" in global warming was produced by choosing 1998 as the baseline year. Why was 1998 a good year to use as a baseline? Because it was, by far, the hottest year on record when it happened, shattering the previous record (1997) by 0.13C.
Now this is a news for nerds site, so I don't have to explain why cherrypicking an outlier as your baseline is dishonest. People who swallowed that are either dishonest or mathematical ignoramuses.
I will go out on a limb right now and say that since El Niño has passed an next year will be less warm, sometime around 2020 we'll be hearing "No significant warming since 2016."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Dietary recommendations to make everyone eat a vegan diet has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with immasculating men, robbing them of their aggression and initiative, and making them docile and malleable -- essentially turning them into women. Furthermore eating a vegetarian diet is not actually healthy; it is more or less impossible to get enough high-quality, complete protein every day. Over long periods of time, eating a strict vegetarian diet, people begin to suffer from malnutrition because of amino acid deficiencies, the most notable effect of which is a progressive cognitive deficit; your thoughts become clouded, unclear, and your memory deteriorates. This coupled with the fact that on a vegetarian diet you inevitably end up eating too much carbohydrates, and the end result is fat, weak, low testosterone males, with no leadership ability, no ambition, no ability to be aggressive (even when it's appropriate and warranted to be so). Face it: It's a conspiracy to make the world peaceful by destroying one of the two genders. No good will come of this! Humans are omnivores, plain and simple, and science does itself a disservice by failing to acknowledge this plain and simple FACT.
Bottom line: We need meat. Don't listen to vegan rhetoric, keep eating meat, and keep demanding meat!
I believe in general in Global Warming, however I've always been very uncomfortable with the dire tone of the weather predictions and the certainty in which they are stated. Here's how I would say it:
1. Fact: We are producing increasingly more CO2 since the 1800s
2. Fact: In a closed unchanging system this would create global warming.
3. Fact: We know of no mechanism that would remove that much C02 from the atmosphere, however, we are a bit uncertain about how much exactly will be extracted by natural processes.
4. Left unchecked and without counter measures, all manner of bad things could happen (famine, flooding of low level areas), however one would expect that countermeasures for these will be taken, such as dutch style sea walls around all low lying coastal cities in the world.
5. Some of our computer models predict awful scenarios such as storms, however our computer models are highly imprecise even under unchanging conditions, and all the more so in a world with changing temperatures. They are our best guess of what would happen, but the degree of uncertainty is pretty high.
6. There is no such thing as point of no return. This is not a nuclear chain reaction that cannot be stopped.
7. It is difficult to predict what will be the impact of some lands turning into deserts while others become feasible land for agriculture.
8. It is equally difficult to predict how wildlife will adapt to this. Will they migrate? become extinct?
9. Surprisingly and contrary to what we would expect we do not see a linear direct correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature. Modeling this correlation remains one of the big open questions of science today (a similar thing happened with fluorocarbons where initially the chemical processes involved were not very well understood. the persons who resolved this conundrum eventually won the nobel prize of chemistry).
Seriously, we need to fix this.
we need to punish the west, who emits less than 1/3 of emissions, and make them drop theirs.
At the same time, we need to allow the rest of the world to grow MUCH faster than the west can drop theirs.
And then we need to blame the west for all this.
Oh wait, that is what the far left CURRENTLY DOES.
Until the far left gets done giving China blow jobs, this will only get worse.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not a single prediction made about Climate Change has come to pass. Is anyone going to remember THIS prediction in 10 years? Probably not.
Doomsday is always just a decade or so away; but somehow when the time comes, it's still a decade away. According to the propaganda in the 90s, the glaciers are supposed to be gone, the sea level should be a foot or so above where it is, and tornadoes and hurricanes should be ravaging the landscape. What happened to it all? Well, it's still a decade away, because not enough suckers voted to turn over control of their lives and their wallets to the left. Until that happens doomsday will remain a decade away. It will never be too late to give in and bend over.
If this sounds familiar, it is. All you need to do is turn on one of those late night infomercials on TV and you will see and hear the exact same pitch: This opportunity won't last; it's your last chance; have your credit card ready because you must act now!!
Who cares about a single year ... the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years.
"Both parties are populated by people who believe the other party is entirely populated by insane people."
They're both right.
Give it up! In the 90's, we have a decade, or the Earth will fall into the abyss. Earth's polar ice is melting. We're all doomed! Ice is thicker than ever. Hey you stupid scientist...try turning your attention to THE SUN! It's what controls the weather on earth, not the puny humans. lDIOTS...
So stop using electricity and do your part. Be a leader. Just don't be like the leaders we have who fly everywhere and burn everything they can
Hey /., what is with the one month old repetitive "news", instead why not report of something newsworthy and recent like this: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...
Yes, that's right, huge fraud in the "global warming" research field.
It is plainly silly that global warming is responsible for poverty.
Where is Chicken little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf when they are needed.
Who cares about a single year ...
The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.
the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years
Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, maybe I should say something like, "both parties are populated by people who believe they are sane"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If only there was a thing that used CO2 from the atmosphere. What a wonderful thing that would be. A thing that would be so beautiful to see.
Imagine if that thing thrived under CO2, that would be crazy cool. As long as it didn't cost more to manufacture than economics dictate. If it could some how or way generate something useful, then we would probably have a way of maybe mitigating CO2. People would probably want at least one of those things.
Even if it didn't generate something useful, it would still be kinda cool. If it could maybe drop solidified CO2 onto the ground every year or so, we could collect those things and bury them or maybe pile it up. A huge pile of something. At least it wouldn't be in the atmosphere trapping upwelling IR.
If it could generate oxygen part of the time, but that's too silly to consider.
Just to let everybody know, its 2016 and we've still yet to physically prove that carbon dixoide + water vapour ends up with the NOAA's prediction that they feedback into each other and therefore man made global warming ("just look at venus!")
This is the most recent study into the man made global warming hot spot over the equator.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/
They have yet to detect what is written in the Nobel Peace prize winning work from UN-IPCC and Hadly CRU mentioned above. So 97% confidence with zero percent proof equals what again?
This AGW is just another conspiracy people take seriously.
And they will be right. Do you not understand the difference between warm and warming? If I have a fever, I am warm. When my temperature goes from 98 to 102, I am warming.
From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming. The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph. If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.
So, show us a model with a straight line from 1998 to 2016 and, here's a thought, get rid of the ones that don't.
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming..
Year to year warming is dominated by statistical noise, which is what I suspect you are trying to say when you say that there was no warming between 1997 and 1998; however for what it is worth 1998 was significantly warmer than 1997, so by your definition there is "warming".
The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph
If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward.
If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.
This is what logicians call "equivocation", which is making up your own definition of a term to make your argument true. What most people understand "global warming" to be is an underlying upward trend in temperature created by increases in greenhouse gases. This is overlaid on both year-to-year variability and of course ENSO. Comparing an El Niño year to a La Niña or non-ENSO year is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to compare individual years to determine whether there's an underlying warming trend, then you need to compare El Niño years to prior El Niño years, etc. Or you an take a moving average with a window that's large enough to average out any ENSO events.
If you take a ten year moving average, in the last 40 years that ten year average has dropped three times: in 1975, 1993, and 2008; remained the same as the prior year once: in 2000; and has increased 36 times. If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down. 2008 by the way was an anomaly in not only was it an unusually strong La Niña, it was a rare ten year period with *four* La Niña years in it. If you take a twenty year moving average the last time that average went down was 1965.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down."
Except we're not talking about a warming trend, we're talking about runaway man-made global warming. If it is man-made than it should, as the models predict, continue to go up. Man hasn't taken a hiatus, so unless the models are wrong, you got some explaining to do.
"If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward."
A horizontal line means that there was no warming. Moving back to 1997 or even further doesn't produce a warming rate, or upward slope, that correlates with the CO2, man-made hypothesis.
Still waiting on that model that shows a peak and trough between 1998 and 2016 and the next one you seem to agree is going to happen.
Communism depends on overpopulation to keep up the illusion of economic growth, so the only factor that will save us is off the table.
Last year the extent to which plants have been stimulated by additional CO2 (and this varies by photosynthetic pathway) was calculated. It was determined to be sufficient to off knock a few percent of the increase in CO2. To fully eliminate the increase contributed by the USA would take a planting program ten times the current one, every year, forever. The problem becomes the fact that this is not sustainable.
If you plot a line that is a fit from 1980 to 1997, extend it, then display temperatures through to 2015 then the temperatures of the last decade fall on that line, or very close to it.
There is no hiatus unless you plot a line from the outlier year of 1998, but that flies in the face of 150 or more years of understanding of modelling trends.
NASA researchers agreed with the hiatus ... no fear though, they found a way to make the model fit the data.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/...
"We conclude that use of the latest
information on external influences on the
climate system and adjusting for internal
variability associated with ENSO can almost
completely reconcile the trends in global
mean surface temperature in CMIP5 models
and observations."
If only those things wouldn't take a huge amount of good soil and water. If only the 'solidified CO2' wouldn't be burned a few years later.
El Ninhos and La Ninjas have no effect on global temperature.
They are local phenomena, albeit quit big ones. And both have no effect at all on global average temperature. They not even have an effect on average temperature in the areas where they occur. Both phenomena are just spots of hot water and cold water in the Pacific. One year distributed like this and the other year distributed like that.
There are excellent maps you can google for (e.g. Australian weather and climate institutes) which show the various distribution patterns.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Take a look at the plot on the page you linked - specifically, at the grayed-out annual mean temperature - and you'll see that there was a clear hiatus: after 1998, there wasn't another equally hot year until 2007, and not a significantly hotter year until 2015. The black line, showing the five-year average, levels off in 2003, and doesn't start rising again until 2011.
Look, I'm pretty sure global warming is a real thing, but when you tell someone
There is not [sic] "hiatus." Get your head out of your ass.
and then link evidence showing that there *was* a hiatus ... you're not exactly making a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
You prefer 'Pause' ? Take out the spin and what you have is decades of CO2 increase without corresponding increases in global average temperatures. No correlation, no causality.
I haven't seen any evidence of a "panic attack" by politicians where they "open the flood gates to immigration from the poorest excuses for countries."
So far, exactly the opposite has been true: recently there has been panic attacks by politicians where they close all the borders to immigration from the poorest countries.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The reason why "Climate change" is a hoax, because the ones that are doing all the yelling about it are the worst offenders.
and then you force us to click on the link to read what the damn target is in the article. Is planted clickbait? Does Slashdot check for this shit? Go to hell where the Siberian swamps and ocean floor methane hydrates are boiling and the global temperature rise to more 20 degrees. In a few short years we all be there.
So what's "noticeable"? The problem is that the changes occur so slowly we aren't likely to notice.
I live in a major city - we had our first major snowfall over two weeks ago and temperatures have been at or below 0C for nearly a month. There are still THOUSANDS of kilometers of land (many million square km) between me and the north pole, btw. Also, this snow cover will likely last until next May (8 months out of the year).
What does this mean? We are still largely a cold planet. Most of the rabid AGW activists seem to live in California where it's warm all year and perhaps a slowly rising ocean is a threat. Sucks for them, the rest of the world has to put up with long harsh winters. A warming trend seems like a good thing, and if you're telling me I'll live to see a point where we don't have winter like conditions for over two thirds of the year, we're all just going to laugh.
Too hot or too cold? Too hot, apparently.
"Climate change" is ambiguous, and could be misinterpreted.
How about changing the name to something more specific?
How about "global warming"?
Just a suggestion.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
That's a cute speculation.
What I posted, however, is observational data.
Demographics shows that affluent people, on the whole, have fewer children than poor people. Period. Independent of "advanced" societies, or "cultural programming."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
As 1998 is only the sixth hottest year, drawing a line to any of the hotter ones (all more recent) will not be horizontal. 2016 isn't over yet, but as every month so far has also been record-breakers, it'll probably be the new hottest.
As the models have predicted, temperatures clearly are still going up, just like they have been for many decades. Cyclic random noise from periodic oscillations like ENSO, PDO, and NAO, are not factored into the models (as they're random), but have no long-term effect on the trend (as they're oscillations).
CO2 going up one year doesn't automatically mean land temperatures also go up that year, not when there's other cyclic factors at play - but at smoothing windows longer than the oscillation periods, the observational record fits within the models' predictions - particularly when you add in the other observed external factors like volcanic & man-made aerosols, and solar & ENSO cycles.
So what's "noticeable"? The problem is that the changes occur so slowly we aren't likely to notice.
Yep we won't notice In case you're too lazy to read those, they go from pending flooding to already uninhabitable and cover descriptions of vanishing land due to rising seas over the last 80 or so years.
I live in a major city - we had our first major snowfall over two weeks ago and temperatures have been at or below 0C for nearly a month. There are still THOUSANDS of kilometers of land (many million square km) between me and the north pole, btw. Also, this snow cover will likely last until next May (8 months out of the year).
So, from this we can surmise that you live at least 3k km south of the north pole. Given that London or Tokyo are also just over 3000 km south of the north pole and aren't covered by snow for 8 months, we can also surmise that you live inland and possibly at altitude. You might just as well complain that you suffer from heat, year round snow, or daily rainfall and high humidity and live 13k km south of the north pole (all are possible, it's merely geography)
A warming trend seems like a good thing, and if you're telling me I'll live to see a point where we don't have winter like conditions for over two thirds of the year, we're all just going to laugh.
You could just move as it appears you severely dislike your climate instead of advocating that the rest of the world become potentially uninhabitable to make your apparently miserable location bearable.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.