Slashdot Mirror
Earth Hit Record Hot Year in 2016: NASA (news.com.au)
Earth sizzled to a third-straight record hot year in 2016, government scientists have said. They mostly blame man-made global warming with help from a natural El Nino, which has since disappeared. From a report: Measuring global temperatures in slightly different ways, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last year passed 2015 as the hottest year on record. NOAA calculated that the average 2016 global temperature was 14.84 degrees Celsius (58.69 degrees Fahrenheit) -- beating the previous year by 0.04 Celsius (0.07 degrees F). NASA's figures, which include more of the Arctic, are higher at 0.22 degrees (0.12 Celsius) warmer than 2015. The Arctic "was enormously warm, like totally off the charts compared to everything else," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, where the space agency monitors global temperatures. Records go back to 1880. This is the fifth time in a dozen years that the globe has set a new annual heat record. Records have been set in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2010 and 2005.
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS! Isn't that the oft-repeated timeline?
No.
This is a long term effect. The timeline is many decades.
We're all going to be slightly warmer in 10 years.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.
Pretty significant, since it was the last 150 years.
Don't worry, deniers. With 2015's El Nino now over, you can look forward to cooler temperatures in 2017, and then when 2018 rolls around, you can declare that 2017's lower average global temperature proves that global warming has ended (again). Patience is key. Good luck!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Trump announces he's firing half of the staff at NOAA and NASA.
(and bans either organization from owning a thermometer.)
Except for the problem that the majority of action researchersin these fields reject your "natural oscillation" claim.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you want to discredit research with your false comments? Really. Some effects are already present and other effects will hit the net generation. Massive sea level rise, which would require to relocate many of our larger cities on this globe will be necessary in 200-300 years. Anyway, we will have problems with food supply long before that.
Exxon knew about it 40+ fucking years ago. EVERYONE knows it's real, even people with a multibillion dollar interest in pretending otherwise, which they did for DECADES NOW.
It's OVER. The issue is settled, mankind's massive emissions affect mankind's environment, Earth.
The only question now is what the fuck are we going to do about it, and who can we trust not to line their pocket on both sides of that line?
So far I've got zero ideas in Neo-Trump's America. I see a can getting kicked again, best case.
You're vastly understating the timeline here.
We're actually going to be 20C warmer in six months, in contrast to the UN disastrous projection of 2C... someday.
This civilization-ending temperature rise is already gaining widespread awareness, even though some are trying to keep it from the public with an insidious codename...
It's called "Summer".
I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.
The Goddard Institute for Space Science data is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
A press release from Columbia University about the findings is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I thought governing via Twitter saved all that hot air. Henceforth it is decreed that no government record or communication shall exceed 140 characters.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist with Berkeley Earth, said “The record temperature in 2016 appears to come from a strong El Nino imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated.”
The MSM is only fake when it doesn't line up with your world view.
Henceforth it is decreed that no government record or communication shall exceed 140 characters.
For most civilian functions of government, I could actually live with that...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/peter...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If you make it illegal or just ban climate change it wont be a problem right?
http://www.livescience.com/50085-states-outlaw-climate-change.html
Right, so you're saying that because a car wheel rotates on itself the car itself can't drive up a hill. Got it.
Not overly to be sure, but only an idiot would think that pumping around 40 GIGATONS of CO2 per year isn't going to have a significant effect on the environment. I think the entire atmospheric CO2 cycle is only around 700 gigatons. That represents around 5% increase each year. Imagine if you increased the salinity of your blood, the temperature of a pond, or practically aspect of anything by 5% a year, it wouldn't take long for disaster to ensue. Luckily the planet can generally take quite a beating, and has done so many times before, but the puny lifeforms clinging its habitable margin between being cooked alive/crushed (about 10 miles down) and freezing/suffocating (5 or so miles up) don't tend to fare so well (see the couple dozen ELE in the past 500 million years).
Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.
All of the data is available on the GISS site, which I assume you haven't bothered to look at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/
The site includes the source code for the analysis and a discussion of what all the data corrections are, why they were done, and what the data looks like before and after corrections.
You might want to start with the FAQ on how the data analysis is done, here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
If you don't like the way NASA does the data analysis, there's an independent analysis from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, here: http://berkeleyearth.org/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
you may have that "distinct memory" but what you don't have is any reference to any actual scientists having said that, ever.
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS!
If by "WE" you mean the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, then yes you'll be extinct.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
NASA scientist said by 2010 in 2000. Go on, google that.
NASA scientist have names. Care to give one who was warning about imminent ice cap disappearance in 2012
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin. They are doing quality work there; however, the reporting of their efforts leave a lot to be desired.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
No, that'd be the straw man you've been swallowing for the past ten years.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic...
I suppose you can argue that that since he used the word "could" rather than "shall", it make his statements null and void. But they sure sounded scary at the time.
Well, since the winter in this area is milder this year and regardless of the state of winters past summers have run about the same, we'll be less warmer than this winter come summer in comparison to the winters and summers of years past. Or to put it a clearer way, the difference in temperature between this winter and this summer will be less than in ones gone by.
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
You're aware that the "feedback loop theory" you're referring to is the assumption of constant relative humidity, right?
If you want to suggest that this feedback doesn't exist, you are making the assumption that humidity decreases as temperature increases. Unless you can come up with a plausible mechanism for that, I'd call that an "unproven, unsettled" theory.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Fine then. You'll love living in a 100% CO2 environment then.
Year to year changes are "NOISE." California had a drought for several years (virtually a blip in time) and then come the rains. It happens over an over.
Sun spot cycles are repetitive. Mega-Rains come to California every 160 years or so. Last time was 1862, so 2022 look out. These are formed over decades of hot water buildup in the Eastern equatorial Pacific.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
How these longer term cycles & their variences affect the Earth don't seem to be of concern in current evaluations where people are only interested in year to year or decade to decade changes.
Long term cycles are not "sexy", but may hold the fate of nations in their hands because of long term weather changes to dry or wet which cause massive changes in growing regions which means food for billions of people.
Click here to see the uncorrected data graphed alongside the main corrected analyses (source: Berkeley Earth via Ars Technica).
Hopefully this makes it abundantly clear that the raw data still shows an obvious warming trend even before known problems are removed. It also shows how little difference the corrections have actually made, particularly in the last 75 years.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
This afternoon, I watched clips on Youtube from the 1992 Presidential debate. It's not that far in the past, but there was a massive difference in the tone from 2016. The three candidates did go after each other, but were respectful and focused on the issues, mostly the economy. The debate had real substance and addressed the real issues rather than being characterized by personal attacks. All the AC comments at -1 on this story make me feel the same way about public discourse. Those comments are at -1 mostly because they are attempting to prevent rational discussion of the issues.
There are still uncertainties about global warming, notably the effects on certain types of extreme weather (such as cold air outbreaks), the role of positive feedbacks (like the release of methane) and mitigating factors (such as aerosols), and the societal impacts in the 21st century. Although computer models are continually improving, there are still significant limitations in what can be simulated in the configurations used for climate simulations. Specifically, the need to simulate longer periods of time comes at the expense of the resolution of the models, meaning that processes resolved in models used for weather prediction may not be resolved in global climate models. However, the idea that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause warming really should be settled by now, as the greenhouse effect is a long-established matter of physics and chemistry. But it doesn't mean there's no room for rational discussion on a lot of issues. And certainly the solutions to our global warming problems should be up for debate, because it's not at all clear that carbon taxes and other proposed are good and effective solutions.
The problem is that we aren't discussing those issues. If every aspect of global warming was settled science, there would be no reason for any further research, yet there's a lot of funding going toward studying climate change. However, that there some topics that can be debated should not be considered a license to deny basic physics and chemistry. It seems like a deliberate attempt to prevent the discussion from ever reaching the real issues.
In many of these discussions, the credibility of the scientists is more on trial than the actual science. Much of it is based on statements that are misleading at best. For example, data sets and methodologies used by federal administrations like NOAA and NASA are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, along with other requirements for accountability and transparency. Data sets collected by researchers receiving NOAA funding are obligated to release those data sets to the public within two years and keep them archived. The claim that scientists are keeping data secret and cutting corners with their methodologies is almost completely invalid, yet the claim keeps being made.
I'm reminded that we once focused our discussions on actual issues and were capable of rational discourse despite our disagreements. That 1992 debate featured large disagreements on economic issues between Perot, Bush, and Clinton. Bush clearly lost the debate, but it was because the discussion was about the economic plans of the candidates, and Bush came across as very out of touch with the economic issues facing the middle class. He lost on the issues, which is incredibly refreshing compared to what we see in 2017. Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion on so many other topics, including climate change, has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, to the point that we never actually get to discussing the issues. That's a damn shame.
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin.
I think you're mis-reading the numbers on that figure. The numbers in red aren't error bars, that's the change since 1750. (each individual element is listed in the form "123= 108.9+14.1", where the first number is the total, the second number is the estimated value in 1750, and the third number is the change since 1750 (printed in red). Note that all that matters from photosynthesis is the difference between the input and output (labelled "net land flux"), which they point out is known to a better accuracy than the component parts.
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago. We can see that very clearly in many different records, but possibly most clearly in the global sea level, which drops when the glaciers increase and rises when the glaciers melt.
One thing we know for sure, the present warming is not because the Earth coming out of the glaciation.
Now, now, Trump, go have your hot chocolate and go back to beddie-bye. Melania will be in to tighten your diapers and tuck you in shortly.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
We have very good measurements of solar output. We know with very high certainty that the current warming is not due to a change in solar output.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
All of this fear mongering is just to push forward the globalist agenda of bringing down western civilization.
So, have you considered attacking the "globalist agenda," rather than attacking the science and the scientists?
Climate fluctuations are cyclical, and solar output DOES have a lot to do with the climate.
Of course it does. Nobody is challenging that point. But we measure solar output, and it is not the cause of the current warming.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Deniers will use whatever word they can to deny reality. And if they can't find a word, they'll just make one up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.
Looks like the grandparent poster should have flagged it as sarcasm.
For the humor impaired: Buzzfeed and CNN are regarded as having been more "fake" than the Washington Post.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Solar output in fact has decreased since the early 60s.
Also according to the Milankovitch cycles we should be in the middle of a cooling period, although the actual effect is quite complex (e.g. it makes a difference whether perihelion occurs in the austral or boreal summer). So it is also possible that we might be in for slight warming over the next twenty thousand years. But even if we were in for dramatic warming due to orbital resonance, that would be on the order of 0.1C/century, much lower than the changes we've observed.
You left out volcanoes, which are a natural source of CO2 (as well as cooling particulates).
If you add up all the known sources of natural climate variation you end up with no warming trend since 1900 (source).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We're actually going to be 20C warmer in six months
No. The globe does not warm or cool by 20C as the seasons change. In fact, when the Earth was just 4.5C cooler, your house was under 1/2 a mile of ice. XKCD described this as an "Ice Age Unit"
And PeOTUS Trump wants to defund NASA, since "it engages in bad science", and will very likely get his way through the rubber-stamp Congress he'll enjoy.
Sort of makes me glad that I won't be here for four years. I don't think four years of this sort of attitude and thinking will be very enjoyable to me. Still, for those that voted for Mr. Trump, I'm glad you got your guy. I hope you stay glad and that I'm wrong about him. I wasn't wrong about POTUS Obama or George W, though.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Here's how 2012 ended up. Looks like he was not too far off!
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.
You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you? >By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.
The graphs show nothing of the sort. Look at it more closely and pay attention to the scale. http://geology.utah.gov/wp-con... The smallest time division on that graph is 50,000 years, and the temperature has been warm for about a quarter of a division.
The article summarizes it clearly: "Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago" which is pretty much what I just said.
Here's a good graph showing the sea level rise at the end of the glaciation. You can see the warming very clearly, and it's pretty much over by eight thousand years ago.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.o...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yea. What happened before 1950?
The Second World War.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You want evidence of the last glacial maximum? Srsly?
(Dec 2007) This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic...
I suppose you can argue that that since he used the word "could" rather than "shall", it make his statements null and void. But they sure sounded scary at the time.
Did you notice the qualifier "At this rate"? It was more of a comment on the substantial drop in the sea ice minimum in 2007 as it was a prediction of the future. But coincidentally 2012 does happen to be the record year for sea ice minimum.
I'll see your Nobel Laureate, and raise you 36 Nobel Laureates.
Not that any of their opinions matter half as much as a practicing climatologist's, since expertise in the field is the only way to reach an informed conclusion. By contrast, your chosen authority freely admits:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned..."
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I often wonder how accurate their temperature monitoring is. Are their thermometers better accuracy than .01C? What is their drift?
Anyone who knows about metrology knows you need at least 10x the accuracy of your measurements to put the errors down in the noise a bit.
They're talking about hundredths of a degree, are they really calibrated that accurately down to millidegrees? I doubt it.
When you're averaging a large number of measurements it's reasonable to have a much higher precision than the precision of the individual measurement itself. The clearest example of this I know of is baseball batting averages. A batter either gets a hit or an out, that is an integer 1 or a 0. But batting averages are typically expressed to 3 decimal places (thousandths).
Is it losing that much energy or is the energy just going someplace else like into the oceans?
If they're talking about a monthly anomaly then it's the average for the whole month that they're talking about, the highest of any individual days.
Republicans have different weather system where humans have not changed the planet in any negative way, and therefor don't have to be responsible for anything, and don't have to pass a working planet to our children.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You changed the AC's definition. Glaciation is different than ice age. Ice ages refer to parts of history where there are ice caps at the poles that last over entire years. There have been times in earth's history when that was not the case and life continued.
One thing we do know for sure. The earth is warming, humans are contributing, but we don't know how much of each of the climate factors are contributing. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And you're aware that constant relative humidity isn't applicable in a complex atmosphere where the frequency of thunderstorms increases with surface temperature, right? Meaning, the hotter it gets at the surface, the more thunderstorm cells form. And thunderstorm cells, incidentally, tend to move massive amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. Almost like the opposite of a feedback loop....
Your numbers are wrong. CO2 doubling from pre-industrial level of 280ppm (to 560ppm) is supposed to generate 1.2C. source: https://scienceofdoom.com/2010...
Because the effect is logarithmic, it takes more and more CO2 to barely budge the temperature as CO2 concentrations rise. To generate another 1.2C in temperature rise, we would then have to increase CO2 to 1120ppm. To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Here's a good primer on the economics of climate change (costs and benefits) http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/...
Yes, that was the time of the dust bowl it was caused by a combination of severe droughts and poor farming techniques many of the record high temperatures where set that year and are still the record high today. It only takes one year with a long record low temperature winter and short mild summer to drop the average temperature which happened a couple times in the 1970s though some how it's still a steady and consistent increase. The weather isn't that consistent or predictable I doubt any data that doesn't show occasional dips and peaks.
is supposed to generate 1.2C
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
As pastafazou noted, there is weather. That is the primary drawback of applying a two-dimensional static model to a three-dimensional dynamical model with among other things, ways that higher humidity can lead to relatively efficient heat pumps to space.
Skepticism is a hallmark of Science. Consensus is not science at all. Tell me, who is being more scientific, the skeptics or those running around saying "90% of scientists say ____________"?
For reference, Piltdown Man was once "Scientific Consensus" and taught in Universities and printed in Text Books. E=MC2 was once rejected as "Science" by many in the "science" community.
Stop pretending that it is "settled" (no such thing, scientifically). All science, even accepted science needs a critical eye. Anything else is religion.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
When "scientists" make predictions that do not come true, that SHOULD put a question on their "science". Those that reject skeptics are not real scientists. Science requires rigorous questioning, anything else is ... religion. ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You are conflating "weather" with "Climate" and only AGW proponents are allowed to do that.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, that is indeed one of the strawmen used by science-denying dimwits.
When deniers call themselves "skeptics" it's a misuse of the term.
So what you're saying is that you're a politically-motivated, science-denying moron.
This graph starts in 1980. it counts number of events as well as cost. Look at the trend.
So he was of by a handful of years. He was warning of a possible serious consequence of climate change. One that now looks more certain than ever. Still very serious...And not irrelevant because it's a few years later than one scientist earned might be possible. Step back from the tree and see the forest.
Only boring people are ever bored.
You changed the AC's definition. Glaciation is different than ice age.
I didn't change AC's definition. I did, however, use accurate terminology in my response, instead of replying in the commonly used but inaccurate terminology in which AC had phrased his post.
By the correct definition, we are still in an ice age, in that the poles of the Earth have ice caps. But with that definition, AC's post would have made no sense: we are NOT "climbing out of an ice age."
However the commonly-used definition of an ice age is the period when glaciation has advanced across temperate regions. This is one, but by no means the only, place where the common language differs from terminology used by experts. I don't bother correcting people when they say that they are conserving energy, either*.
*(Energy is conserved as a law of nature; you don't need to do anything to "conserve energy.")
Thunderstorms are impressive, but at their basics, they are just a manifestation of the convective transfer that establishes and maintains the adiabatic lapse, which has been incorporated into climate models for the last fifty years. Convective heat transfer is the cause; thunderstorms are merely a manifestation. That's the way (or much of the way) heat is moved in the atmosphere: by convection.
And, yes, convection is pretty well understood. Your proposal that convection represents a "new" feedback mechanism that atmospheric scientists have never thought about, and that therefore invalidates all the previous models, is a little naïve. In any case, however, precipitation represents 100% humidity. To "invalidate" the feedback effect of humidity, you need to show that humidity decreases with temperature. Saying that thunderstorms increase will, if anything, serve as a demonstration that humidity increased with temperature.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It's not an issue of my math improving. It's an issue of you not understanding how logarithmic functions work. The increase in T when CO2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm is calculated to be 1.2C. But we're already at 400ppm, and the increase in T so far is very close to 1C. The remaining 160ppm increase will increase T much less than the 120ppm to get us to 400ppm already increased it. Unfortunately I can't find the original paper I had read that calculated the temperature increase to be ~0.1C when going from 400ppm to 500ppm CO2, but the 1.2C per doubling will give you very similar results.
That's not exactly what AC said. I assure you that it will almost certainly be more than 20C warmer in six months where I live. Six months after that, it'll be something like this temperature or probably colder.
Or, tl/dr: Whoosh!
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Random errors (including imprecise measurements) average out. Systemic errors are caused by something, and anyone claiming systemic errors needs to provide at least a clue as to what could be causing them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd settle for simply voting in people who listen to science. No need to change your precious lifestyle, just stop blocking the modernisation of our infrastructure, and the rest will follow from there.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The formula is log(T_f/T_i)/log(2)*1.2. Going from 400 ppm to 560 ppm would result by your model in almost 0.6 C (while the corresponding temperature forcing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm would be just over 0.6 C, it's less, but doesn't seem like "much less" to me - YMMV).
Ugh, I meant C_f/C_i where C_f and C_i are final and initial CO2 concentrations. And it's 1.2 C. So the formula is: log(C_f/C_i)/log(2)*1.2 C = short term change in temperature from the change in concentration of CO2.
Perfect response from someone who clearly intends to ignore any & all science that doesn't suit their pre-existing beliefs. And it's particularly ironic that your chosen straw man excuse is based on cases where well-established evidence and scientific consensus were also blatantly ignored in favour of the political leader's desires.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'm afraid Poe's Law rules climate discussions.
depends on what you call "slightly" and what you call "significantly," I suppose.
At the moment, the warming rate is 0.18C per decade.
The projections for a century from now will depend on assumptions of what amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere over the next century, which is going to be a guess.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Except it's been used by everyone to tell 'deniers' that it's really happening. Climate change has been constant and consistent. It's not man made.
Learn to adapt. Just because the globe is and always has been changing doesn't mean it't the *end* of the world.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
The weather service can't predict the weather 10 days in advance let alone 10 years.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
That's because it's much easier to predict an average over a long term than a specific point at a specific place.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I distinctly remember being told multiple times that the ice caps would be gone by 2012.
With all due respect, we know your memory is worth shit, Mr. President, Sir.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Except it's been used by everyone to tell 'deniers' that it's really happening. Climate change has been constant and consistent.
No, it hasn't.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Keep on denying it.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Keep on denying it.
Keep talking to yourself. Just add "I have to kill myself" to your other ramblings.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You must be fun at parties!
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.