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.
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."
All that matters is short term success. Fuck the future, fuck the brown people, fuck everything but the next six minutes.
We're dealing with a generation of navel-gazing halfwits whose entire life can be described in 140 characters. And of course, because any aspect of US monitoring of climate is going to be defunded, for the next five to ten years the virginal unwashed basement dwellers and all the angry Rust Belters can continue to pretend that a lack of solid action on CO2 emissions isn't going to cause any problems whatsoever.
Well, at least the Kochs will keep making money, and after all, that's all that really counts.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This thread started with a guy saying "Well its warm where I am so its all good" and this is the post you complain about?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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 ?
Which has what to do with what? Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Options are offered by various economists, and each and every one is in turned attacked. Yes, there are fruitcakes out there, but so what? The fact remains that if we do not end the fossil fuel economy soon, we're going to fuck things up badly. Enough to kill off humanity? Well no, but it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad, and will eat into the economies of wealthier countries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Because that's not what they're asking for. Even your "unmodified data" statement demonstrates that you're just aping a talking point.
I will fucking repeat, because you appear to be either a fucking moron or out and out malicious. The radiation absorption properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. There is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING, let me repeat that, because you appear to be a fucking idiot, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE FUCKING THING controversial about increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere that will lead to increase trapping of energy,
For fuck's sake, the Arctic was some thirty degrees above normal seasonal temperatures for most of this winter. Most of the last twenty years have been the hottest on record. Increased absorption of CO2 in the world's oceans is changing ocean pH levels. Do you think making spurious demands based largely on bullshit you read on denier sites somehow overrides the laws of physics? Are you really that fucking stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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...
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.
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?
I don't give a crap if you take me seriously. I consider you on the same level as a Creationist or an anti-vaxxer. You're just an idiot who is too infantile and too cowardly and too ideologically driven to see that the laws of physics don't give a fuck about ideology. CO2's properties are not bounded by what you would like CO2 to do when concentrations increase. The laws of physics make it inevitable that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an unavoidable increase in solar radiation being trapped. That's just the way the Universe works, so the fact that it's going to mean either accepting significant climactic changes or changes in the way we produce energy is irrelevant to said laws of physics. The Universe doesn't care that you're upset about greenhouse gas effects. How you feel is irrelevant, and just as irrelevant are vain attempts to create faux critiques of physical laws.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I swear I see this argument every time: "There are extremists shouting DOOM! so that invalidates the scientists presenting measured arguments." It's a poor argument.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
No, deserts heat up and expand, and you have hundreds of millions of people trying to move into your back yard, meaning you have to pay a fuck ton more in taxes to support border patrols, armies, all the while you're facing food and water supply problems because your bread basket regions suddenly are less productive, and you become more reliant on foreign sources of agriculture. Meanwhile many other costs, like insurance, start skyrocketing, or many climate-related problems simply aren't covered. Oh yes, and as mentioned elsewhere collapse of many major fisheries, which will lead to huge pressures on coastal populations in many parts of the world where those fisheries are a significant, if not primary source of protein.
Will it happen in your lifetime? If you're under thirty, very likely yes. I'm in my mid-40s, so hopefully I'll miss some of the nastier effects. My kids and grandchldren won't, sadly. But the West is pretty wealthy, so doubtless will pull through relatively alright, though tens of millions of refugees fleeing regions far more vulnerable and far less economically capable of weathering the worst of it, will start showing up, as I mention above, and the costs of keeping them out or integrating them will be huge. Some areas will simply become unlivable by even the hardier animals, and people have this habit of not just sitting down and dying when survival where they are becomes impossible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.