The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11C per
decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3;
Cohen
et al., 2012)
. Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST
(Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related
questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.
Now tell me how the hell you read that as if there was no temperature increase?
So, CO2 is a pollutant according to: the US EPA, Wikipedia, the EU, and many more. Just like dumping mercury in the water is a pollutant even if it occurs naturally. Ozone is also a pollutant at low altitude, even tought we need it at high altitude. Your definition is full of contradictions.
Anyways, the myth that global warming stopped has been debunked many times.
A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future
When announcing the annual World Meteorological Organisation climate report in March 2014, the WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said that there had been no pause, with 2013 continuing a long-term warming trend showing "no standstill in global warming". 2013 had been the sixth warmest year on record, and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record had occurred since the start of 2000
38% sure it was the warmest year ever. If it wasn't, it was probably the second or third warmest year ever. Even if it was the 10th, it would still means a lot.
Many species are disappearing because of human activity (urbanization, deforestation), but no necessarily because of warming. Life on Earth isn't threatened by global warming (it will adapt). The main reason to fight global warming is for ourselves, not for other species.
The massive extinction you are speaking about started millenials before man-made global warming.
And one last time: there is no "too much greenhouse gasses". I have presented the arguments why. Just because you say "I don't agree" isn't going to make it go away any more than its going to make the current ongoing extinction event go away.
Just because you think your arguments are valid doesn't mean they are.
Pollution is a broad term. I guess many different definition exists. The following list CO2 as a pollutant, specifically because of its greenhouse gas effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...http://www.skepticalscience.co...http://www.scientificamerican....
If we weren't emitting more CO2 than what the system absorbs, we wouldn't list it as a pollutant, of course.
The problem is that the speed at which we emit them is so great that natural cycle of adaptation in ecology appears to be unable to keep up with it, causing a massive extinction event which will eventually hit us as species.
Nope. You don't understand the problem at all. The problem isn't that the Earth won't be able to keep up with it. There won't be any massive extinction event. As you said, previous levels of CO2 have been reach in the past. The problem is an economic problem. It will cost more (in future lost productivity) to mankind to do nothing than to lower CO2 emissions.
There is no such thing as "too much greenhouse gasses".
There is. Just like there can be "too much" pollution in a river. Pollution is always a question of quantity.
The climate science is never settled, because there can always be new improvements and discoveries (better models). However the current level of confidence that the Earth is warming because of man activity is high enough. Therefore we can say that the science is settled on the matter, for all practical purposes.
As much as you dislike the UN, the IPCC is a very credible autority on the matter.
And as much as you dislike the Stern Review, it's the most comprehensive report so far. It is not perfect, but it's much better than your one-liners arguments that you are using to discredit it.
Metal is also a natural element. Therefore throwing a beer can in the wood isn't pollution, by your logic? This is ridiculous.
Because there are too much greenhouse gases is the reason why all greenhouse gases must be considered pollution. If there was no problem with them at all, then I agree it wouldn't be pollution.
18 years is not long enough. Also, it only works when you start in 1998 because it was a very hot year. But 2014 was even hotter, so it is wrong to say there has been no warming during those 18 years.
You don't understand. We are talking about economics/politics here. Not climate science. The part on climate science is already settled (the Earth is warming quickly and man activity is responsible).
When we will have a real "proof" that climate change is costly, it will be too late. That's why politics is based on the most probable scenario. We do not have a proof that the Earth won't explode next year. But since it's unlikely, we do not plan our politics as if the Earth was to explode next year.
The most probable scenario, although it is not 100% prooved, is that it is cheaper for mankind to lower CO2 emissions than to do nothing, as stated by reports such as the Stern Review.
Oil consumption to produce energy to produce fertilizer is pollution too. I agree it's the totality of the CO2 pool that matters, it's exactly what I was saying. But there is a distinction between releasing CO2 by burning wood that took 20 years to grow (relatively short term) and burning oil that took million of years to form. We can easily plant new trees to capture CO2 but making oil from the air CO2 is currently not feasible.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back to dialup? Can't you get cellular or something else?
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11C per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012) . Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.
Now tell me how the hell you read that as if there was no temperature increase?
You are kidding right? Where in the AR5 did you read that global warming stopped?
I never said all pollutants were equals. But yes, both are pollutants.
Nope, there isn't. Please read post #49666747 again. It's also on of the top myths this site.
So, CO2 is a pollutant according to: the US EPA, Wikipedia, the EU, and many more. Just like dumping mercury in the water is a pollutant even if it occurs naturally. Ozone is also a pollutant at low altitude, even tought we need it at high altitude. Your definition is full of contradictions.
There has been a slowdown in increase. Not a stop of global warming. Many factors can explain that.
No, why?
I understand avian flu wasn't the best idea since people feared birds. But what's wrong with Ebola?
http://sks.to/stopped
http://sks.to/pollutant
A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future
When announcing the annual World Meteorological Organisation climate report in March 2014, the WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said that there had been no pause, with 2013 continuing a long-term warming trend showing "no standstill in global warming". 2013 had been the sixth warmest year on record, and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record had occurred since the start of 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
38% sure it was the warmest year ever. If it wasn't, it was probably the second or third warmest year ever. Even if it was the 10th, it would still means a lot.
Wait what? No massive extinction event?
Many species are disappearing because of human activity (urbanization, deforestation), but no necessarily because of warming. Life on Earth isn't threatened by global warming (it will adapt). The main reason to fight global warming is for ourselves, not for other species.
The massive extinction you are speaking about started millenials before man-made global warming.
And one last time: there is no "too much greenhouse gasses". I have presented the arguments why. Just because you say "I don't agree" isn't going to make it go away any more than its going to make the current ongoing extinction event go away.
Just because you think your arguments are valid doesn't mean they are.
Pollution is a broad term. I guess many different definition exists. The following list CO2 as a pollutant, specifically because of its greenhouse gas effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.skepticalscience.co... http://www.scientificamerican....
If we weren't emitting more CO2 than what the system absorbs, we wouldn't list it as a pollutant, of course.
The problem is that the speed at which we emit them is so great that natural cycle of adaptation in ecology appears to be unable to keep up with it, causing a massive extinction event which will eventually hit us as species.
Nope. You don't understand the problem at all. The problem isn't that the Earth won't be able to keep up with it. There won't be any massive extinction event. As you said, previous levels of CO2 have been reach in the past. The problem is an economic problem. It will cost more (in future lost productivity) to mankind to do nothing than to lower CO2 emissions.
There is no such thing as "too much greenhouse gasses".
There is. Just like there can be "too much" pollution in a river. Pollution is always a question of quantity.
Its settled on the basics, like CO2 traps IR and causes "some" rising"? But not settled as to how much? And if this is bad in any way...?
It is not settled on how much. However we are confident that it will rise enough to have impacts. And yes, in a bad way.
The IPCC is not credible and has not been credible EVER.
Yeah, I've been hearing the same on Fox News.
The climate science is never settled, because there can always be new improvements and discoveries (better models). However the current level of confidence that the Earth is warming because of man activity is high enough. Therefore we can say that the science is settled on the matter, for all practical purposes.
As much as you dislike the UN, the IPCC is a very credible autority on the matter.
And as much as you dislike the Stern Review, it's the most comprehensive report so far. It is not perfect, but it's much better than your one-liners arguments that you are using to discredit it.
Metal is also a natural element. Therefore throwing a beer can in the wood isn't pollution, by your logic? This is ridiculous.
Because there are too much greenhouse gases is the reason why all greenhouse gases must be considered pollution. If there was no problem with them at all, then I agree it wouldn't be pollution.
18 years is not long enough. Also, it only works when you start in 1998 because it was a very hot year. But 2014 was even hotter, so it is wrong to say there has been no warming during those 18 years.
There are many kind of pollutions. It can be local or global. Greenhouse gases are one type of pollution.
You don't understand. We are talking about economics/politics here. Not climate science. The part on climate science is already settled (the Earth is warming quickly and man activity is responsible).
When we will have a real "proof" that climate change is costly, it will be too late. That's why politics is based on the most probable scenario. We do not have a proof that the Earth won't explode next year. But since it's unlikely, we do not plan our politics as if the Earth was to explode next year.
The most probable scenario, although it is not 100% prooved, is that it is cheaper for mankind to lower CO2 emissions than to do nothing, as stated by reports such as the Stern Review.
It's not a problem as it won't be the doom of life on earth. But yes, it will be costly.
Oil consumption to produce energy to produce fertilizer is pollution too. I agree it's the totality of the CO2 pool that matters, it's exactly what I was saying. But there is a distinction between releasing CO2 by burning wood that took 20 years to grow (relatively short term) and burning oil that took million of years to form. We can easily plant new trees to capture CO2 but making oil from the air CO2 is currently not feasible.
How could anybody in England own land here, when it belonged to the native Americans?
In 1776, it didn't. NYC, Boston, and other major cities weren't owned by native americans.
Who cares about a single monthly data? 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. All the top 10 hottest years occured since 1998.