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
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.
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.