Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme and Unusual' Climate Trends Continue After Record 2016 (bbc.com)
From a report on BBC: In the atmosphere, the seas and around the poles, climate change is reaching disturbing new levels across the Earth. That's according to a detailed global analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It says that 2016 was not only the warmest year on record, but it saw atmospheric CO2 rise to a new high, while Arctic sea ice recorded a new winter low. The "extreme and unusual" conditions have continued in 2017, it says. Reports earlier this year from major scientific bodies - including the UK's Met Office, Nasa and NOAA -- indicated that 2016 was the warmest year on record. The WMO's State of the Global Climate 2016 report builds on this research with information from 80 national weather services to provide a deeper and more complete picture of the year's climate data.
This is the 2nd winter in a row with less than average snow and higher than average temps. I certainly don't mind.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
Thanks for more climate lies Slashdot!
It is all cyclical.
When you visit 99 doctors who say you have cancer and one who says your lump is natural, and besides you just don't believe in medical science be cause religion/ideology/economics... whatever. That's pretty much the situation were in with climate science and climate change deniers. WAKE UP! Start treatment!
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
It's a Chinese hoax.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If it's happening more often then it's not unusual any more, and it's not extreme either - it's just normal.
Get in your Hummers and drive, folks. It'll be awesome.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"The data manipulation will continue until everyone agrees with our pre-ordained conclusion."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
And I have a really good feeling that this will be the year that humanity finally gains the upper hand in our millennial struggle against the Arctic ice cap. Once the ice cap melts completely, even temporally, it will shift the equilibrium of seasonal oscillations. Every winter it will freeze a little less; every summer it will thaw a little sooner. Until our final victory is inevitable. Congratulations everyone. And keep up the good work.
using our resources against us is not new... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather
There was a chance but it has passed.
Usually we get what we deserve.
It's called weather, dumbasses. It changes!
Are Parker and Stone even contesting AGW anymore?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
True... Earth has been warmer and cooler before today....
But not at the same time.
But on a human scale, this is a long term effect: things will change slowly. If this keeps up for a century, the world of the 2100s may be very different from the world we see now. But that's a century away.
On a geological scale that is quite fast, but that's not the scales humans deal with. We're not doomed (or, at least, no more doomed now than we ever were.
during the inquisition. Climate scientists ought to be embarrassed. But they are without shame.
Yes, it's been warmer and cooler than this before but the rate and scale of change is unprecedented:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
Climate != Weather.... Weather != Climate.... Just because it's warmer today or this year, doesn't mean the climate is doing the same thing. If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argument
Correct. One warm year is weather. Two warm years is happenstance. A series of warm years, globally averaged, though, and you start thinking it's climate. A series of warm years is what has been happening.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/august-2016-global-temperature-record
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/23/were-now-breaking-global-temperature-records-once-every-three-years
https://www.ft.com/content/9962f3c0-dda2-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
BS
Fear mongering.
No, we're not solving climate change, we're just going to cut funding to the people telling us about it more and more until they stop telling us about it. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
All I know is each year for the last few years the winter has been getting longer and longer where I live. It gets colder earlier in the Fall and stays colder later into Spring.
If that's the case, then I don't see how the earth is going to flood the way some people keep acting about it.
With ocean warming no more will phytoplankton be the most abundant life in the seas! For too long has phytoplankton been removing our precious earth warming CO2 from the atmosphere. Well no more and good riddance I say!
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet, because the background of cluelessness camouflages it. You should know that by now.
Honestly, I've never seen such outright hatred displayed by the skeptics.
Yes, I've never before seen such outright hatred as that displayed by the "skeptics", either. It's pretty frightening. But the thing of it is, they're not skeptics: they claim that they're skeptics, but this is a peculiar one-sided "skepticism": no matter how much evidence you show them that the scientists know what they're doing, or how patiently you answer their arguments, they ignore it, but even the most absurd attacks on the science they jump on and believe absolutely, saying "look! It's all a hoax! It's a fraud! Lock them up!"
They're usually just asking for evidence and unmodified data, like good scientists strive to do.
That would be science. But when they then don't pay the slightest attention to the reply-- because they're trying to spread doubt, not actually asking for answers-- that's not skepticism: that's denial.
How many red lines have we crossed? More than Obama drew, and that's quite a few. But there always seems to be some Envirowackos standing there saying, "THIS is the final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED!"
We're not doomed. The anthropogenic component of the greenhouse effect is warming the world slowly. This is real, and the science is getting to be well understood, but quit saying we're "doomed". We're not "doomed."
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
Source Not sure if source is valid, but numbers are close to what I have seen before.
Equal to CO2? No
Methane 25x
N2O 298x
Yes, but that's the effect per unit mass emitted. The effect on climate change will be the warming potential multiplied by the amount emitted, and in that respect, carbon dioxide-- from fuel burned in billion ton quantities-- is the clear leader. Amounts emitted are there a different tab on the site you linked as your source: https://climatechangeconnectio...
Or, look here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
But you can't tax cows,
Sure you could.
and farmers are a big lobby for Congress, so you ignore the methane. If you really cared you would be working on methane more than CO2.
methane emissions are also important, and people looking at responses to greenhouse emissions do, in fact, also look at how to reduce methane emissions.
The fact that you go after CO2 gives away your political agenda and shows that you don't really care about the science.
No it doesn't. It shows that people are looking most closely at the largest effect.
In fact I bet you didn't even know about methane. Gotta wonder when a "denier" knows more about the science than you do. According to you all I haven't ever looked at the science even half as much as you, but here I am giving facts you didn't know about.
Wrong on all counts. If you would actually read some of the literature, you'd see methane discussed in great detail. Including in the sites you list.
One. Gets warmer
Two. Too hot to think
Three. Elect global-warming-denier-leader
Four. Cancel science and science-based regulation
Five. Unshackle and incentivize fossil-fuel industry and consumption
Six. Goto One.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
There are alternative hypothesis if you wanted to search for it (solar cycles, plate tectonics/volcanoes, cosmoclimatology, etc.).
Indeed there are. And these have all been examined in great depth, and shown to not explain the data.
Read the literature. Or if you don't want to read the literature, read a popular summary. This one, maybe: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
Apt
You do know that all of the adjustments to data are documented, and the source code is public, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
You do know that all of the previous data is still archived, and you can look at it, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
You do know that the much-vaunted changes are small, and make no difference to the ultimate conclusion, right? http://berkeleyearth.org/under...
You do know that many different groups have looked at the data independently and gotten the same result, right? https://www.skepticalscience.c...
if i had mod points you would have them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Something that determines how much water you'll get, and when you can plant crops should not be taken lightly.
US AirForce connections are needed. Correct information needs to get to those who are unknowingly leading an arial spraying assault which will wipe most of humanity from the surface of the Earth.
For nearly a decade I've paid some attention to the skies where certian non-commercial jets which don't show up on the commercial maps of current traffic are filling the skies with particulate matter.
One of the best explanations I've seen for this behavior is found at (0) http://geoengineeringwatch.com...
Apparently out catastrophic severe weather is being geo-engineered in part by these jet trails.
Another source of useful information is http://theglobalreality.com/ where Josh Reeves has mentioned one of the payload disbursments is sulferhexaflouride. This payload has 23,900 times the effect of CO2 gas (1) (2)
It appears that the US is desperately trying to keep this information un-reported by the main stream media. It appears that the US is trying to hold the rest of the world hostage to their demands using horrible weather, earthquakes as threats.
I would appreciate any tips that can lead to finding those in charge of of the chemtrail campaign in the skies. jb@joebitcoin.org and PGP key ID (4).
There is little time to effect change, in fact it may be too late already.
Add to all this that US employees in the weather forcasting industry are under a gag order (3).
(0) Weather Engineering watchdog site http://geoengineeringwatch.com...
(1) SulferHexaflouride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(2) Aresol spraying of SulferHexaflouride 23,600 times more than CO2 http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
(3) Gag Order http://www.geoengineeringwatch...
(4) What can I do http://www.geoengineeringwatch...
(4) PGP Public key ID for jb@joebitcoin.org https://sks-keyservers.net/pks...
I know global warming is true because Trump says it's not. Everything that piece of shit says is a lie, so I just believe the opposite of whatever he says.
These events are neither extreme nor unusual. The Earth has been through MANY glaciation cycles. The current glaciation cycle peaked about 12000 years ago and has been waning since.
Climate alarmists always use the weasel words "on record," conveniently lying by omission, since records go back barely more than 100 years. They are getting alarmed over high frequency noise in a system with a mean time constant of millions of years, and over potentially losing funding when they are discovered for the frauds they are.
Does anybody here think it was a bunch colder than the year before? Sure is where I live in Canada. We've had record snowfall and it's still happening. I'd like to know where it was supposed to be warmer last year because it's clearly not a universal phenomenon.
Please list your location and whether it was warmer or colder. I'll start:
Vancouver, bloody cold, got half a meter more snow than usual.
Michael Mann has gotten $6 million PERSONALLY promoting AGW. He is also currently asking for even more money for grants to study the "settled science" from the government. I'm sure he isn't even close to the only one. He is the one I've looked at to see if these "scientists" are getting rich or not.
So basically you lied, and I just called you out for it.
If we could get people to agree on some very basic facts then catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would no longer be a threat.
Of all the energy sources we have available to us right now only one of them is inexpensive, does not rely on favorable geography, reliable, carbon free, and is plentiful. That is nuclear power. It's not without it's problems but if CAGW is a real threat then any problems with nuclear power should pale in comparison. We know how to deal with nuclear waste. We have plenty of nuclear fuel. To those people that think nuclear weapons are a threat I must ask, what do you propose we do with the weapons we already have? Would not destroying the fissile material be preferable to keeping them under guard forever? The only way we have to destroy fissile material is in a nuclear reactor. It not like we haven't turned nuclear weapons into electricity before, the term "megatons to megawatts" should be familiar to some reading this.
Nuclear reactors alone won't solve the problem since we cannot power automobiles and aircraft with nuclear reactors, we need a fuel like we get from petroleum for that. Good thing the US Navy solved that problem. They have a device capable of extracting CO2 from the environment and turning that into hydrocarbons. This is a fuel that is a direct replacement for fuels derived from petroleum and natural gas. All powered by nuclear reactors, of course. This synthetic fuel, when burned, will release the CO2 back into the air which can then be recaptured by the fuel synthesis devices, closing the carbon cycle. No additional CO2 would be added to the environment. If carbon sequestration is something people want then we can take these hydrocarbons and pump them back into the ground.
This gets to why I don't believe that CAGW is a real threat. There are people in Congress that know the US Navy has built these hydrocarbon synthesis devices. These people also know that the US Navy has an impeccable record operating nuclear reactors. When the US Navy went to Congress asking for more nuclear powered ships, and additional funding for their fuel synthesis research, it was denied. The cries for something to be done about CAGW largely comes from the Democrats. The denial for more nuclear powered Navy ships, and more civilian nuclear reactors, largely comes from the Democrats.
We know what the problem is. We know where to find the solution to the problem. Why haven't we solved the problem already? Democrats.
If there are Democrats wondering why they got an ass kicking in the last election then I propose they look at their policies on how to deal with CAGW. If Democrats want to start winning elections again then I propose they look at making some small compromises on how they deal with nuclear power. To keep up with the rate at which we are retiring coal fired power plants, and account for future growth in energy needs, then we need a new gigawatt scale nuclear reactor in the US every month. If Democrats are not willing to allow that to happen then I propose they start to get used to losing elections.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Fake News!, Fake News!, Fake News! Climate change is not real, until President Trump says so. And he will say it the day after he apologizes for something, which will happen the day after hell freezes over.
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
400PPM is the most recent one that passed
Precisely what was predicted to happen when 400 was passed? Citation needed.
400 ppm is clearly a number that was picked because it is a multiple of 100. It's milestone, not an example of "this is a final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED".
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect.
Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
If your main point here is "there may be even worst effects that we don't yet fully understand, and some of these effects could be triggered on short time scales," I won't disagree with that.
The science is pretty solid: the average temperature of the world is getting warmer, we know what it causing it, and there will be effects, some of which will be negative.
Meh. Blowing away mod points for this but statements like this is what keeps keeps the deniers in business. No. We do NOT know what is causing it.
Well, except that you're wrong. We do know what is causing the temperature rise. We know this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is by analyzing and ruling out alternate causes based on data. There are no proposed alternate explanations that fit the data. None. This is the way science is done: a hypothesis is accepted when you can rule out the competing hypotheses based on evidence. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere fits the data. No other hypothesis does.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
To fit just one of the many many data sets, the measured global temperature data (and you do know that heating has to fit data such as diurnal variations and measured downwelling infrared, not just global temperature, right?), let me remind you of the constraints a hypothetical alternate hypothesis would have to fit:
(1) It would have to explain why the greenhouse gasses are not heating the atmosphere,
(2) It would have to propose a different mechanism to explain the measured temperature rise that just coincidentally fits the models
(3) It would have to come up with an explanation for why the amplifier required in step (2) does not apply to the greenhouse effect.
*footnote 1: and the measured temperature rise fits the model very well. The denier community repeatedly claims it does not, but this denial is done by cherry picking of either the data or the models.
*footnote 2: item 2 will require an amplification mechanism, because we measure the input to the climate (solar energy, etc.) and know that the unamplified input can't explain the rise.
Many people have been looking for such an alternate hypothesis for several decades now. None have been found that haven't been quickly ruled out be measurements.
If we did, we could model it accurately.
No, if you mean "if we knew what caused it the error bars on the prediction would be zero," that's an assertion going one step too far. You can know the cause of something and nevertheless still have error bars on predictions. The remainder of your post is accurate:
What we do know for certain is that CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. We are adding LOTS of CO2 to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is part of a chaotic and finely balanced system. CO2 is adding heat to that system (so we do actually know some of what is causing the heating). In summary: We know that we are altering a system and by how much. We are unsure of other factors, some are even still unknown (how does the ocean absorb heat, distribute it, and eventually release it). Regardless of the unknowns, the facts that we do know indicate that our current practices are affecting the heat status of the planet.
Is heating of the planet a problem? That is not for Science to say. Science deals with facts and theory, not judgements. My personal opinion in all of this is that we need to be concerned about our "waste" products to ensure that the planet (the only place we can currently live) remains a livable location.
Went to the waterfront the other day, a place I've been working at and visiting for almost 50 years. Every pier I ever worked on is still above water. Every beach I ever walked on is just as wide as it was when I first visited. The price of real estate is higher than ever before and the demand for spots with a sea view is higher than ever.
I'll believe in rising seas from global warming when I see some evidence of it. Especially when millionaires begin to have trouble selling their (now) waterfront homes to buy new ones 5 or 50 miles inland.
I've also been to the Antarctic more than once. Just as cold and frozen as ever.
Once again we are told the sky is falling, great, so now what do we do? Obviously we stop burning fossil fuels and problem solved, right? This is not just a US problem but most Progressives act like it is. Millions of man hours of observations by thousands of researchers have proven that man made climate change is real. Unfortunately very little research has been done of the ramifications of banning fossil fuels. The utopia of small organic farms and electric cars and mass transportation is unrealistic and no thought at all is giving to the unimaginably complicated and enormous transition cost.