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.
Nobody is getting rich of government grants. Nobody. Maybe you should break out of your news bubble and stop listening to the people shoveling this crap at you.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
It's a Chinese hoax.
Here's the google scholar result, 1.4 million hits: https://scholar.google.com/sch... Is that enough?
Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed science: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
and here's another: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
I have the opposite question: is there any peer-reviewed research showing a credible alternative hypothesis to the greenhouse effect hypothesis? If so, I haven't seen it.
If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argumen
The last 16 years have all ended up in the top-17 of hottest years. That good enough for you ?
No, you weren't. There was a *very* small fringe of the scientific community that ever believed in global cooling - that the media chose to latch onto it is irrelevant.
Also only a very small fringe warned of ice caps melting by 2000 - but again, sensationalism sells news, so that's what the media latched onto.
Early on the vast bulk of scientists said "we're not really sure just how fast things will get bad, but we should probably start mitigating the risk while we collect more data". Then, about 50 years ago they had enough data to start making predictions - and those predictions have been proving accurate to within the margins of error ever since. Basically for the last several decades of the science has just been a matter of dialing in the decimal points and discovering knock-on effects.
And most importantly, NOBODY has come up with *any* alternate explanations for the warming we're experiencing that actually matches the data. Data which "coincidentally" is exactly what you'd predict from the well-known thermal retention effects of CO2. And that CO2 can be clearly laid at human's feet because it's accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate *slower* than what we know human fossil fuel consumption is producing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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...
How did such nonsense get modded up?
It doesn't matter what you think about Obama or Trump, anyone who follows the major American stock indexes (the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ Composite) will know how wrong your statement is.
The indexes were generally flat most of 2014 and 2015. Near the end of 2015 they took a steep dive downward due to oil-related economic developments. They made somewhat of a recovery during early 2016, but remained generally flat throughout the summer.
During late August of 2016, when it was anticipated that Clinton would win the US presidential election, a decline started. That continued right up until the election in November of 2016. Trump's somewhat unexpected win caused a complete reversal of this trend, causing the markets to hit new highs.
Even if the exuberance following Trump's win isn't as remarkably strong as it was right after the election, it has still been a remarkable run.
It's absurd to attribute it to Obama, though. He presided over stagnant markets for the last few years of his administration, with a notable decline and a failed recovery at the very end.
The currently levels were only reached after Trump won the election, and they actually reversed the declines we had been witnessing at the end of Obama's tenure!
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.
Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Ask MightyMartian.
And don't give me this BULLSHIT of wanting specific cites from climate scientists. If the Alarmists make general claims while arguing this, then those claims are fair game for debunking.
Examples:
1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall
All claims made by your proxies in the political arena and even in Science. ALL Fails.
You can't stand by while people use these arguments to advance your fucking political cause and then turn around and try to weasel out of it by claiming that "well, actually, no climate scientist made those claims". Sorry, but you climbed into bed with them so their statements are your statements.
Antarctic sea is is NOT increasing. Every single person that says this has no fucking idea what they are talking about. Much like the rest of the world Antarctica has winters and summers and ice increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The winter limits of Antarctic sea ice (ice floating on the ocean which contributes nothing to sea level in either melted or frozen state) are increasing and the summer limits are ever smaller every year with some of the largest calving off of major floating glaciers ever seen in recorded history. In fact we're on the verge of losing an ice shelf that's as big as Rhode island that's been there for 4000 years.
Winter sea ice is increasing because the increased melt water coming off Antarctica has decreased local salinity making it easier for it to freeze. The large winter ice limits are in fact an indication in SUPPORT of global climate change. 99% of people that quote this winter ice limit think it's contradictory evidence to global climate change and they are so misinformed they think they are making some sort of point. The reality is they are actually showing evidence that support it.
This is what scientists deal with, ignorant people with out even the most basic understanding of any of the science let along scientific basics quoting things they heard on talk radio as if it's proof and a valid point of discussion.