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.
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.
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.
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.
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.