Maybe it would have happened regardless of whether humans had even come to exist
Unlikely, though. The volume of arctic sea ice in september (the seasonal lowest point) is only a quarter of what it was a few decades ago, and much more fragile, and that's a direct consequence of human caused global climate change. If there were 4 times as much ice, it would not react that dramatically to a few months of warmer weather.
Almost, but not quite. The Antarctic *land* ice is melting faster, and making the surrounding ocean fresher which will then freeze easier in the winter.
Yes, I forgot to add that we will also stop extracting fossil fuels from the ground when we get a cheaper alternative. We're still a long way away from that, though.
No, I don't believe it's "too late". I believe too few people are willing to make sacrifices now in order to improve a far away future to make a difference. That was true 30 years ago, it's still true today, and it will be true 30 years from now.
No, it's just a matter of proper statistical techniques. The global temperature has been in a linear rising trend since the '70s, and there was no statistically significant deviation from that trend in the last 13,15,18+ years.
If you believe otherwise, please show the maths.
The greenhouse effect and AGW are true. However, there's nothing we will do to change the course. Global CO2 emissions will stop when the fossil fuels are all extracted from the ground, not a moment sooner. At best we can tinker a bit to slow it down, but that only means delaying that end point by a few years.
Skepticism is good. Just denying evidence you don't like is dumb. If you have good reasons to believe the other sensor data is bad too, go ahead and show us.
The enormous deviations right at the end of the plots you linked should trigger a healthy bit of skepticism. And indeed, reading on their main page it says:
Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.
Why the "but...but...but" ? Obviously, this is a weather event. However, the likelihood of such weather events is made much more likely by climate change.
Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities
That doesn't follow at all. Men and women have, on average, completely different interests. For instance, when I go for a walk or bike ride in the weekend, I see plenty of people fishing along the canals. Over the years, I must have seen hundreds of them. I don't recall ever seeing a woman among them. Fishing is a very low barrier kind of activity. All you need is a cheap license and some starter gear for less than $100, and then find a free spot along the water. The fact that so few women are fishing can only be explained by the fact that most of them think it's a stupid and boring activity.
On the other hand, knitting and crocheting are very low barrier activities too, and they are mostly done by women.
On the other hand, if you send an e-mail to a small group of people, e.g. trying to solve a problem together, it's very annoying if one or more people to use Reply instead of Reply-All, and the rest of the group misses part of the conversation.
I'm not sure it makes sense to dig up coal, burn it, then capture the CO2 with plants, turn that into biochar and bury it.
It would be smarter to leave the coal in the ground, and build some more solar panels instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I agree it's best to avoid the popular media and listen to what actual scientists ("the AGW cultists") have to say.
Maybe it would have happened regardless of whether humans had even come to exist
Unlikely, though. The volume of arctic sea ice in september (the seasonal lowest point) is only a quarter of what it was a few decades ago, and much more fragile, and that's a direct consequence of human caused global climate change. If there were 4 times as much ice, it would not react that dramatically to a few months of warmer weather.
Almost, but not quite. The Antarctic *land* ice is melting faster, and making the surrounding ocean fresher which will then freeze easier in the winter.
Yes, I forgot to add that we will also stop extracting fossil fuels from the ground when we get a cheaper alternative. We're still a long way away from that, though.
I have no idea what things you find obvious. Just show why you think the data is wrong.
Hint: they're talking about differences. 20C * (9/5) = 36F.
No, I don't believe it's "too late". I believe too few people are willing to make sacrifices now in order to improve a far away future to make a difference. That was true 30 years ago, it's still true today, and it will be true 30 years from now.
No, it's just a matter of proper statistical techniques. The global temperature has been in a linear rising trend since the '70s, and there was no statistically significant deviation from that trend in the last 13,15,18+ years. If you believe otherwise, please show the maths.
The greenhouse effect and AGW are true. However, there's nothing we will do to change the course. Global CO2 emissions will stop when the fossil fuels are all extracted from the ground, not a moment sooner. At best we can tinker a bit to slow it down, but that only means delaying that end point by a few years.
You missed the word 'both'.
Skepticism is good. Just denying evidence you don't like is dumb. If you have good reasons to believe the other sensor data is bad too, go ahead and show us.
They do have electric trains, you know, and they don't use batteries.
Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.
Why the "but...but...but" ? Obviously, this is a weather event. However, the likelihood of such weather events is made much more likely by climate change.
Given that male/female are divided in 50/50, both should mostly be represented in equal ratios in most activities
That doesn't follow at all. Men and women have, on average, completely different interests. For instance, when I go for a walk or bike ride in the weekend, I see plenty of people fishing along the canals. Over the years, I must have seen hundreds of them. I don't recall ever seeing a woman among them. Fishing is a very low barrier kind of activity. All you need is a cheap license and some starter gear for less than $100, and then find a free spot along the water. The fact that so few women are fishing can only be explained by the fact that most of them think it's a stupid and boring activity. On the other hand, knitting and crocheting are very low barrier activities too, and they are mostly done by women.
How do you explain the lack of men in nursing and teaching ? Genetically less intelligent ?
On the other hand, if you send an e-mail to a small group of people, e.g. trying to solve a problem together, it's very annoying if one or more people to use Reply instead of Reply-All, and the rest of the group misses part of the conversation.
In that case, it should be a simple matter of renaming the distribution list.
I've read one estimate where the global, yearly CO2 generation is 800Gt (Giga tons). Human actions account to 30Gt (~4 % )
You've read incorrectly. Before human actions, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were stable.
The amount of power they're taking is very small
In that case, you could easily run the streetlights with solar panels. Or, for that matter, a simple power cable buried under the sidewalk.
The problem is that they'll eat more to compensate. And food energy is terribly inefficient.
We're talking about the *net CO2 increase*. Human activity is responsible for more than 100% of that.
When CO2 levels were much higher than they are today, the Sun was less powerful.
I'm not sure it makes sense to dig up coal, burn it, then capture the CO2 with plants, turn that into biochar and bury it. It would be smarter to leave the coal in the ground, and build some more solar panels instead.
If only those things wouldn't take a huge amount of good soil and water. If only the 'solidified CO2' wouldn't be burned a few years later.