UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013 427
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post's account:
The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.
“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.
The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.
Time for GATT Article XX tariffs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Time for GATT Article XX tariffs (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, in a few years, they'll be emitting as much per capita as Germany 9.5t, the UK 7.7t and the US 17.5t
t=tonnes of CO2 per annum per capita..
I'm no fan of China's pollution 7t record but it seems odd to single them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time for GATT Article XX tariffs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I love this debate (Score:5, Insightful)
In any other scientific debate, you never hear about "Higgs Boson Deniers" or "String Theory Fanatics" or "Standard Model dinosaurs". As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the only scientific area where EVERY commentator acts as though they are experts. Whenever I see a
Re: (Score:2)
Climatologists spend lots of time assessing data. The problem with AGW is that while the overwhelming majority of researchers are in general accord, the results of their science would cost a lot of money, therefore the public debate ceases to be about data or theory, and simply about emotional appeals and pseudo-scientific trickery.
Re:I love this debate (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a bit part of the problem is the "A" in "AGW". Does it really matter whether the warming is anthropogenic or not? Won't the effects of warming be the same, regardless of the cause? I mean, it's not like we don't have ample historical data showing large swings in global temperatures over the course of just a few years, including to averages much, much higher than what we have now. Indeed, the geological record offers ample evidence that the most common (not "normal", because there really isn't a "normal") state of the planet's climate is quite a LOT hotter than what it's been in recorded history -- the human time period has been during a short warm period in an era of ice ages. Sure, the current warming is most likely caused by our actions, but regardless of that it could also be entirely "natural" and happen just the same, with the same effects.
I think people focus on the question of anthropogenesis because there's an implicit assumption that if it's not anthropogenic, then there's nothing we can/should be doing about it. The "can" alternative is at least possibly-logical, though it assumes powerlessness that I refuse to accept. The "should" alternative is just ridiculous.
The fact is that even if we manage to reduce our CO2 emissions to zero, we will face serious climate change eventually, and we have little idea when that might be. Perhaps even right now. Therefore, what we should be doing is learning to understand and modify the Earth's climate. The only way we can have "sustainability" is if we take control.
An obvious corollary of this view is that we should not be looking merely to emissions reduction as a way to fix the problem. First, it may not fix the problem, either because it's already too late, or because our emissions aren't the cause, or aren't the major part of the cause (note that I don't believe that, but it's possible). Second, even if it does fix this problem, at some point we'll face warming which we can't stop that way. So, in addition to trying to limit emissions, we should also be seriously researching other approaches to cooling the planet, perhaps by raising the albedo, or reducing incoming solar radiation (which we may have done a few decades ago by pumping a lot of particulates into the atmosphere, along with the CO2). For that matter, we should also be looking into methods of warming the planet. Should the local warm period end and return us to the ice ages, we may well appreciate the outcome of our recent accidental experiment in global warming via CO2 production.
Knowledge is the key. We need to understand how the system works, and how to manipulate it, because we DO need to be able to manipulate it. Or adapt to it, but manipulation will be more cost-effective in many cases, I think.
Re: (Score:3)
yes and no. the effects would not necesarily be the same, as a big part of the problem is the rate of increase.
the climate has changed over the past. many times it was tremendously slow process, taking place over millions of years, which is the same timescale at which evolution and adaptation work, so it worked out.
but then you get things like the precambrian extinction event. likewise this was a global warming event. it took place over tens of thousands of years. and that was still too fast for 98% of life
Well? (Score:5, Interesting)
The story below says "US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom" and asks 'do the associated environmental risks of new "tight oil" extraction techniques outweigh the benefits to these depressed economic regions?'
Well, do they?
March for climate (Score:2, Informative)
Climate Change!!! (Score:2)
Ocean acidification is scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Higher acidity [CO2 dissolved in water forms an acid] in seawater is known to disrupt the life cycles of many marine species — from reef-building corals to shellfish beloved by humans — by interfering with the creatures’ ability to use sea-borne calcium to build their shells.
This bit should be scaring the pants off us. Not because we'll suddenly not be feasting on oysters, but because of zooplankton that form delicate calcium-based shells. If those critters go bye-bye, we will likely see the collapse of more ocean fisheries as food sources dry up.
And, in something of a double-whammy, coastal regions in the tropics are often protected by reefs from the ravages of some tropical storms. If those reefs slow down their growth (that replaces damaged reefs structures), or start dissolving, we're going to be have a tidal wave (bad pun!) of starving refugees.
You don't need to believe in global warming to see those two issues becoming problems. You need enough empathy to see this as being a problem, even if it's not in your own backyard.
If you do believe in global warming, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the oceans will rise high enough to wipe out their homes before acidification lays a licking on marine ecosystems.
Something to add (Score:3, Informative)
The reefs in the Caribbean have been dying for decades, but not from acidification.
About a quarter of the way down on this page, http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/201... [usgs.gov] , you can see what happens as the stony corals die off. The branches of the corals break off and no longer supply refuge to small fish from predators. And there's less ... well ... hard stuff in the way to slow down waves. It's kind of depressing to snorkel or dive in Florida since you can see all the old coral skeletons lying on the ocean floor,
Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score:5, Informative)
Some "hiatus" with 2013 and 2012 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 [noaa.gov] all making the list of top 10 hottest years since we started measuring.
Not that it matters, because you repetitive dolts have exactly zero null hypotheses that you've got any hope of establishing.
Re: (Score:3)
When you climb to the top of a plateau you are at the highest point AND you are no longer going up.
Both "pause in the increase in warming" and "x of the last y years are the warmest on record" can be true statements AT THE SAME TIME.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I said. A pause in the increase. This means that the decade over decade increases are not becoming larger but staying the same. The rate of increase is not changing, but the temperature is increasing over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The math pedant in me would like to point out that, technically, a null hypothesis can never be established. Statistical tests can only "reject" or "fail to reject" a null hypothesis.
And that's the point - the null hypothesis is that there has been no change temperatures, and there is absolutely enough statistical evidence to reject that hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, sorta. A null hypothesis would be the "fallback" if the main hypothesis failed. What I'm saying is that these people who are so dedicated to denying what's going on, don't have a meaningful alternate prediction.
I'd argue at this point, man-made global warming is the null hypothesis. And the burden of proof has shifted.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd because, well, most folks (and I mean across the globe) that I know have been lauding some rather cold weather. We've seen hundred and even thousand year old records broken.
Maybe we don't necessarily agree that the temperature recordings are accurate, or rather they're accurate, but that modern satellite records (which are fairly recent and new) have not been properly synced with historical temperature records. A simple fact of which puts all models into question.
The fact that models have largely and
Re: (Score:2)
I like to class myself in the rational crowd, and I think a major blind spot between sides is regarding the degree of warming. The following are further facts I think we can agree must be recognized if someone wants to be taken seriously:
1. The instrumental record over the last 125 years clearly shows things are warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a GHG and causes warming.
3. Human activity is dumping sizable quantities of CO2 into the environment and measurable amounts are accumulating in the atmospher
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This the change you're referring to. It is explained quite well, and the total change in the data is onl\y 0.2%.
As in, basically nothing. Not that that has stopped deniers from saying 'NOAA IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you're talking 1-2 degrees over a century. 0.2% is an EXTREMELY significant change.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those warm periods we not warmer. Nor were they global in nature.
And news flash: the little ice age was also eurocentric (ie not global), and it ended hundreds of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The little ice age as well ad the medividal warmth periods all where global. ... but it happened all over the world.
Perhaps the effect was stronger in europe
Re: (Score:3)
And, yet, we've seen articles recently which say the ocean may be absorbing some of the heat, and this one saying the levels are at the highest ever and have increased by the most ever.
So, yes, you probably are a denier, because you seem to be wanting to ignore the actual evidence out there.
Do we understand our climate and all of the factors 100%? Nope. Do we have really strong indications we're causing change? Absolutely.
Will we be really screwed if we keep acting like
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we have to define "screwed". It's incautious statements like that that fuel their paranoia and claims of "alarmism". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending.
But it's way way way way costlier than doing nothing. From lower productivity of farms, to relocation of productive areas near sea level, to the fact the human workers get less done per day in hotter climates, to the diseases that spread better in warmer temperatures(ebola is one such disease), to the fact that warmer t
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what will happen. a 5C drop from the beginning of the industrial revolution would put much of the world under ice. The rise? Could we have a runaway greenhouse (as the Earth has experienced runaway snowballs in the past)? Maybe. We don't truly know where it will end, but it is going to suck
Re: (Score:2)
". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending.
it most certainly can be if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gasses. The trapped energy will increase with more greenhouse gasses. If we don't stop and work on lowering it, then it won't stop.
Now, we can do it using science, and brains, and engineering and planning. Or we can stop because the earth no longer supports humans.
Cost is irrelevant when dealing with complete collapse. The longer we wait, the more aggressive we must be.
To be clear, I
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could look at the IPCC analysis, and see that while it sucks balls, it's not an extinction event [ipcc-wg2.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure the estimate of what could happen if it warms 4C by 2100 is a large number.
However, we are currently looking at increases in the historical record being around 0.14-0.18 degrees C per decade. Considering there are 8.5 decades left until 2100, the math says we could expect about 1.19-1.53 degrees warming by then if the decadal increase remains constant (ie. the "pause" in increases). These numbers are not 4.
To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must tak
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?
If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice
Re: (Score:2)
It's also human nature. We know we're slowly buggering things up, but it'll take a while. To fix it means a large change in the way we run our world, and it will be difficult and may cause mild discomfort in the short term. On the other hand we can simply deny it's happening and continue with the business as usual which is far easier and the path of least resistance. People don't want to feel guilty for driving an SUV either, it's easier and more consistent to deny that anything is happening rather than adm
Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score:5, Insightful)
because.....why?
what exactly do they get out of doing such a thing?
There are millions of scientists involved in this worldwide.
What do they get out of it? Public funding? Research grants? Cause Lord knows we just lavish scientists with tons of public money in this country.....no wait, thats the exact opposite of what we do. and further, they dont get to pocket what little money they do get. that's illegal.
the ONLY climate "scientists" who get rich from their research and live high on the hog are those in the employ of the fossil fuel industries.
Speaking of motivations...lets look at the fossil fuel industries. unlike those "lying AGW scientists", they actually do recieve tons of money from the government. hundreds of billions a year. and they make even more in profits selling their product. and they spend billions in lobbying every year.
so yes, let's talk motivations and stakes you AC idiot.
the phrase "global million scientist conspiracy exposed by plucky group of oil billionaires" is not reflective of reality.
rather reality illustrates just how mentally deficient your post is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh please.
Millions is admittedly and obviously an expression.
And the point still stands: to deny the existence of oil and gas subsidies, to deny their massive lobbying power, to promote the myth of the rich scientist, is to deny reality.
the myth of the rich scientist pushing it for his own personal gain is just that: MYTH. much like the supposed "vaccine" or "cancer" conspiracies: the idea that thousands of scientists or doctors or researchers are all complicit in a global conspiracy, with not one person of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
saying otherwise makes you a denier.
No it doesn't - it just shows that you really don't give a fuck about any future human beings. It's the kind of selfishness that ignores even the slimmest chance that you are wrong because even if you are you will not have to deal with the consequences.
You're like a screaming child that wants their own way no matter how much someone else has to suffer. You're difficult to ignore and eveyone wants to slap you.
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize what the hiatus refers to right?
even if the hiatus as denierzs understand it were true (it's not, but just say for the moment)...it still supports the theory of global warming and does nothing to disprove it.
then consider that deniers completely misundersdtand and mischaracterize what the hiatus even is, and their position becomes even more unteneble.
Re: (Score:2)
The "hiatus" is nothing more than cherry picking of data.
One themometer won't do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score:5, Insightful)
it was cold. once. where i live.
therefore prolonged global warming is a myth.
because we all know anecdotal local data completely disproves long term multidecade global averages and trends.
Re: (Score:2)
If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?
Same reason there's always someone blaming God's wrath against immorality for disasters... because it sells.
Of course, I'm sure you're going to throw some "no true Scotsman" and say that those environmental advocates on the news aren't the REAL scientists. But if that's the case, then why aren't the REAL scientists shouting down all the fake ones?
That would be a tautological assertion that "true scientists" are defined as "those who support global warming".
Real scientists can be wrong. They are wrong all the time. But we are not discussing a scientist, nor a group of scientists. We are discussing the entire community of scientists over decades. (We are also discussing easliy accessed data, such as global average temperature).
Climate change wi
Re: (Score:2)
If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming? It seems to me that a more accurate representation of what I'm seeing on the news would be:
>
Stop getting your news from shitty sources. On NPR news, this doesn't happen. Though for some reason, I have heard conservatives consider NPR to have a liberal bias.
As to your second question, I have heard the nutty right wing rant of the jews control the media, but never heard that the scientists control the media.
Re: (Score:2)
top getting your news from shitty sources. On NPR news, this doesn't happen.
You mean this NPR?:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/07/11/how-climate-change-exacerbated-the-drought/ [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Stating that climate change had an impact is neither the same as attributing it as the single cause, nor the same as equating climate with weather. If you expect climate change to never have an impact on weather, then either your definition of weather or your definition of climate is very flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
So if we have *don't* have a drought or heat wave in Texas this year, you'll be cool with this being treated as evidence against global warming in an article?
Or, do you only accept evidence that *supports* your cause, and reject all the rest?
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe accept ALL the evidence and weigh the overall statistics instead of extrapolating from cherry-picked points. Realizing that the difference between statistical behavior and deterministic behavior is that there's a joke about a statistician who drowned in a lake averaging 2 inches deep. Because statistics are what you use when analyzing things that fluctuate a lot and occasionally do the exact opposite of what is expected. But only occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The article you linked to did not at all state that the drought in Texas was evidence of global warming.
Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to wager that you didnt watch Cosmos did you? He presented probably the simplest most accessbile explanation posssible.
Here's a good link to the clip: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nei... [mediaite.com]
That or you still dont understand the concept of averages.
It's not that "climate != weather"
It's that climate = sum(weather) / (time*area)
IE, climate is the average of weather over time or a region or both.
hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?
Do those thing represent one day of local weather, or large events on large scales that last a long time?
I'll break it down for you again, and ignore your attempt to put words in my mouth, and then tell me how I'm wrong.
-Weather is what's ouside your window. It's what's happening right now. In a very small time scale, in a very small regional-scale. Local, short term observations.
-Climate is a whole bunch of those local observations strung together. It's a very large time scale, on a very large regional-scale.
Hurricanes are a climatological event that produce extreme weather (wind, rain). They are spawned by climatological factors, but grow and self-reinforce on a large scale and themselves grow to affect climate (in a way they give vent to rather large pent up energies). Tornadoes are a weather event, but the supercells that form them are themselves driven by climate trends. A heat wave is a string of related weather events. It may be localized or cover a large area, but being a string of related weather events again points more to the climate side of the scale. Droughts again: large scale, long term, climate.
In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.
All these things are interwoven together. Ocean currents, the jet stream, warm/cold water layer mixing, warm/cold air mixing, humidity, water/air temperature gradients...all these things combine and interact to create the global climate which you see on a daily basic as weather. If an ocean current shifts it can reduce cloud formation lowering the water content of an air mass and increasing the radiative heating of the land surface immediately inland. these combined factors can lead to a lack of rainfall and/or increase in temperates. IE, drought and/or heat wave. In Cali's case, the Sierra range normally causes some preciptation as the air mass moves eastward, trapping it as snowpack, which then feeds water over the year into the arid region we know as the Central Valley. its what allows an arid region to also be good farmland inspite of its aridity. this year, there wasnt even enough moisture in the air for the mountains to squeeze any out.
The polar vortex happened because something pushed the normal wind pattern out of shape. it allowed a large mass of unusually cool air to penetrate south a long ways. The reverse also happened: a large mass of warm moist air pushed much north than normal, leading to increased temperatures in the North Pacific and Alaska, and parts of western Canada. Some climatalogical event altered the normal roughly stable route of the vortex. The vortex itself then affects large scale climate effects and drives local extreme weather.
See, the mistake here that denier consistently make is in thinking that this is a basic input output machine. It's not. It's a web of interconnected loops. Every output is the input to another stage in the machine, and every stage of the machine is linked to every other stage. Everything is in a feedback loop to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes are a climatological event that produce extreme weather (wind, rain).
This is the most perfect example of begging the question I have ever seen on /.
The whole point of the GP's argument is that hurricanes are weather, and you have countered by simply declaring hurricanes are climate, or "climatological events", whatever that means.
Here is the problem in the simplest words I can think of:
1) Climate is a set of distributions, and is defined by the parameters of those distributions at any time.
2) Weather is a set of events drawn from those distributions.
Warmist talking heads who
Re: (Score:2)
What he wrote isn't that complicated to understand and only points out the fact that many variables were brought into the equation. As human beings, we love waiting for things to be a problem before dealing with them.
How long did it take for us to decide putting our waste water in our lakes and rivers is a bad idea? The answer is thousands of years. The reason for this is that it was never an issue until enough was being dumped in. What we know is that our planet has worked well without humans for millions
Re: (Score:2)
oblig XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/1321/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't say. Honest question to deniers: when you see this "hiatus" point, do you all go "ha very clever"? Or do any of you recognize extraordinarily short term thinking that doesn't honestly reflect the reality of statistical analysis of noise affected datapoints?
Please I'd like to think there's at least one among your number who has enough hope to see the extraordinary dishonesty in this point.
Re:Talking Point (Score:5, Insightful)
People (myself included) don't want to hear it for the same reason that people get huffy when you mention that whole food veganism is bar none the best diet to avoid cancer and heart disease. They'll just point out the few that stil get cancer, and still get heart disease. Or smokers when you point out the cancer risks...plenty of smokers don't have a problem and live to healthy old age.
But, you CAN find a positive. If you point out that the hottie jogging down the street is always a non-smoker, and always either a vegan or a Paleo with higher than average vegetable intake, no one can really argue with that one, and if you ask one of them they'll confirm that observation every time.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.
I know it is frustrating when you're trying to get people to stop polluting and people want to turn a blind eye to it and keep going about their business. Yet, basing your argument on science models that can predict the climate 10 years into the future yet somehow can't predict the climate tomorrow...yeah, if there are ANY holes whatsoever in your argument when you're preaching austerity, everyone is going to focus on the holes in the argument, no matter how small or short-sighted.
I think you'll find less resistance from me or anybody else if you focus on things that elicit a positive image...like pushing increased research funds for cleaner burning engines, real fuel production alternatives like algae. Things that benefit everyone, AND reduce environmental impact. But by default I'm going to automatically assume your motive is to argue for higher taxes and economic austerity, and of course I'll get turned off pretty quick.
Tomorrow doesn't have a climate (Score:3)
That is a huge mistake people keep making. Tomorrow has weather. Predicting the weather and predicting the climate are too very different things.
Predicting the climate is akin to predicting when you will need certain repairs on your car. Climatologists cannot say exactly when the median temperature will increase by 1 K, but they can say it will happen and predict about when it will happen. The engineers at BMW cannot predict exactly when your water pump will fail, but they can tell you that eventually i
Re:Tomorrow doesn't have a climate (Score:4, Insightful)
Go and study some simpler non-linear chaotic systems then get back to us.
You cannot run a simulation of weather and integrate it to get a forecast of climate. You have to run many montecarlo simulations of weather to get a statistical picture of the forecast climate. Thinking you can predict details will always bite you in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not 'deniers' pointing out the hiatus, but actual peer reviewed scientists. They point out that the hiatus DOES matter because it's getting close to falling outside the error bars that were meant to take into account the 'statistical noise' you want to claim as excuse for inaccuracy. Surely you realize the stupidity in claiming, essentially, conflicting data doesn't contradict method X, after all, the data the method was based on is far too noisy to expect good results. Seems like your admitting to kno
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, so that doesn't actually answer the question of whether you think this innane point is meaningful.
Either own it or don't defend it.
Re:Talking Point (Score:5, Informative)
You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.
This data?
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
Looks public to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone modded me Overrated after the first mod-up for linking to information the GP requested and proving one of his points fallacious.
GP says that science is literally as political as politics and is closely comparable to a religion, remains unchallenged at +5.
WTF?
Re:Talking Point (Score:4, Interesting)
You moved the goalposts, you're the first in this thread to ask for raw data, as in unadjusted daily (not monthly) values. That's gigabytes of data you're asking for which may not exist anymore - the climate models almost certainly don't use daily values after all, that's probably useful for a local weather report but unnecessarily fine-grained for long-term climate predictions.
And couldn't unadjusted values cause errors due to the urban heat island effect? That was all the rage among "skeptics" in the early/mid-2000s.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not public? Horseshit.
You're just cheerleading for your team, it has nothing in particular to do with facts.
No one is disputing that CO2 levels are rising. No one can dispute that CO2 absorbs radiation in the IR spectrum. No one can dispute that having more CO2 will trap more heat in the CO2-rich regions. An early argument against AGW was that the atmosphere is already opaque to Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR), which is true but incomplete. Increasing the partial pressure of CO2 extends the CO2-rich
Re:Talking Point (Score:4, Insightful)
the deniers are saying "its not happening" when every piece of evidence in the world (literally, the world) says "yes it is".
in scientific debate, there are many places to have disagreement and debate.
but reality itself isnt one of them.
Re:Talking Point (Score:5, Informative)
You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.
All of the data. ALL OF IT. Is public. You are an idiot.
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.ht... [noaa.gov]
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Or even just google of wikipedia for it. It's all out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is not very accurate.
Roughly till 15 (nearly 20 even) years ago all the world, besides the USA, agreed we are in deep shit and need to do something about it.
Then suddenly the USA woke up, but instead of agreeing and supporting actions against global warming politicians stand up and said? Uh, global warming? What is that? Artificial? Man made? Wow! Impossible! We need more data.
Did you ever realize that the only country with AGW deniers is the USA? And you claim all the rest of the world are re
Make a difference--kill your yard. (Score:2)
So let's do something useful.
Anyone with a grass yard should be planting a small forest of actual trees. Carbon sinks. Much better for the environment, also because there is much less energy spent maintaining them.
Re:Talking Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Is your argument really: "Since the deniers keep denying, you'll have to eventually accept that they are right because they don't stop denying"?
You do realize that this could be applied in other areas where it would be even more obviously wrong:
"Since the Evolution-deniers keep denying Evolution, you'll need to one day accept that Evolution is wrong because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about Evolution?'"
"Since the vaccine-deniers keep insisting that vaccines are poison and don't work, you'll need to one day accept that vaccines are poison and don't work because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about vaccines?'"
Just because a group denies something strongly and repeatedly doesn't make them right.
Re:But he DOES know better than you do! Duh. (Score:4, Informative)
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
A "skeptic" group already did this. The other "skeptics" didn't like the outcome:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir... [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There have been studies on volcanoes in the past, in general the influence of volcanoes is very small vs. man-made emissions:
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The full name is "Climate Science Denier". It's funny how the only people making the connection from climate science denier to holocaust denier are the climate science deniers. It must be a defensive tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny...citing a misleading talking point to call something else a misleading talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're damn well an idiot who didn't read the link, and how this is in keeping with the models?
Re: (Score:2)
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find
Re:Talking Point (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also didn't click the link.
Good job.
Thing gets predicted.
Thing happens.
Mindless Douchebag says: "Betcha didn't see that coming"
All you can do is roll your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
The model are excellent. I'm not sure why you think a model that predicts things we didn't expect, and then was confirmed by problem is a failure.
It has strong predictive power, that has been confirmed many times.
Regardless of this press release*, the science is extremely strong. This is why you make ad hom attacks instead of discussing the science.
*I'm not sure how else you would expect an information on science to get released to the general public other then a PR release. People know about the findnig an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, first things first, before we can have an actual discussion, you have to be honest.
Claiming the models are excellent shows that you're either utterly ignorant of the topic at hand or you're flat out denying reality.
The models are constantly being adjusted and science is constantly finding reasons to account for their incorrect models that don't explain anything thats happened in the last 20 years. Denying this part of reality just makes it clear you're a 'believer', not someone who is actually thinki
Peer reviewed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You got a point, any old activist can yell "foul" from the security of their paranoia, but, it takes some checks and balances to even begin compiling criteria to even begin figuring out projections, that even resemble reality.
On the other hand, I understand, that marijuana LOVES CO2 and replaces oxygen nicely. Therefore, we should all invest heavily in the Industrial, medical, recreational marijuana industries and limit the amount of soil depleting cotton we grow, by legislation, if necessary.
THIS is realis
Re: (Score:3)
If marijuana decomposes or is smoked it releases the exact same amount of CO2 it consumed during its growth ....
So what would be the point? Besides dropping prices fro weed, ofc?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, this explanation doesn't sit well with me. I'd love to get in their heads, because I don't get them. But this explanation of their behavior doesn't seem to mesh with how they act.
They seem like people who want to imagine cynicism and naive skepticism lets them see further than everyone else. You know, like truther types do.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that the Earth is getting warmer. A lot of people do but where I and most of the "True Believers" differentiate is in the details. Things like how bad it will be and what is actually possible to do about it. So many of the True Believers foam at the mouth while screaming about the end of the world. I'm a little less paranoid. No doubt it will change the world but I'm not so sure about ending our existence. The other side is of course what to do and what it will take to accomplish these goals
Re: (Score:2)
... but creationism is still the most popular worldview regarding the origin of life among US residents(with deity directed evolution coming in at #2). We won some hard fought court battles to keep it out of science classes, but when it comes to what people believe and vote on, that problem is completely unresolved.
Re: (Score:2)
That may not be true. It seems group can actual realize the science is true. Below is a link to a graph showing belief in the science over time among the D/I/R political groups.
images.sciencedaily.com/2013/01/130124122934-large.jpg
Apparently I've become spoiled - Actual link below (Score:2)
graph showing belief in the science over time among the D/I/R political groups [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This. Something like 5-15% of people are immune to logic, and you just have to ignore them if you want to make progress. What it means is that you have to convince more of the people in the "unknown" category. The problem is that of those logic-proof people, some have a strong financial incentive to sway opinions to their side, so it becomes a tough battle.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that those concerned about stopping greenhouse gas emissions don't have a viable plan without substantially increasing nuclear power production and instead those most activist about Global Climate Change are also against nuclear and have been successful at turning back the clock on nuclear power in some places.
There is a direct correlation between the reduction in nuclear in Germany and Japan and the increased use of coal. All the gains in Solar and Wind in those countries have been eaten u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans need water. If I plunge your head into a tank of water and hold it there for fifteen minutes, you ought to be super healthy, right?
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 emissions are probably the easiest part of AGW modeling.
Re:Testable Prediction (Score:4, Informative)
Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.
Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.
In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"
http://www.climatecentral.org/... [climatecentral.org]
http://www.climatecentral.org/... [climatecentral.org]
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is no hiatus. It is cherry picking of data, literally cutting of centuries of statistical analysis at 20 years for the purposes of making some sort of rhetorical point. Among the last 20 years are years that are among the hottest on record.
Do you understand anything about statistics? Or are you so cowardly and infantile that you just latch on to any Koch-inspired meme that makes you feel better?
REALLY??? (Score:2)
Well, this was the coldest summer in my memory. I don't think I've ever experienced 50 degree weather in July/August (and I used to live further north).
Oh, this is just localized. Except, wow...I've got friends over in Europe experiencing the same. Okay, perhaps it is just the northern hemisphere of Earth. I haven't checked with my Aussie and S. American friends as to whether this year was warmer or colder for them.
But if this is in fact the highest CO2, and one of the warmest global temperature years. Som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
your post shows you have zero familiarity with how the research funding process actually works.
for starters: they dont get to pocket the grant money as income.
their livelihood is in no way dependent on research funding.
and it has nothing to do with power. you reflect the typical Civics 101 fail of more tea baggers who dont even understand what a government is.
we could end GW today, just by stopping all fossil fuel use. we have the tech today right to do it, be it nuclear or solar or wind. we oculd do it. it
Re:Nearly 3 parts in a million (Score:5, Informative)
Here's how it's measured at the Mauna Kea site. Accuracy is to within 0.2ppm, 1 standard deviation is 0.26ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
So yeah, we know it's accurate because it's using the same techniques and technology used all over the world to measure gas fractions per mole of various gasses in many different applications. If the CO2 measurements for climate were wrong as you suspect - "rounding errors" or the like - then people would be dying left and right due to anesthesiology mismeasurements; chemical manufacturing would have far higher error rates; and other very visible and common manufacturing processes would be far less reliable than they are today. This is solid measurement technology.
Human civilization developed at about 275ppm of CO2. It took us from the dawn of civilization (first use of fire, you could argue, so over 400,000 years) to the early 19th century to budge the needle beyond small natural variations from 275ppm. From the 1820's to 1910, just under a century, we gained 25ppm. From 1910 to 1950 - 40 years - we gained 40ppm more. From 1950 to today, we've gained another 50ppm and are currently increasing at about 2ppm per year. 400,000 years - tiny amounts of change. 190 years - 33% increase; that's got to register, since CO2 drives the atmospheric temperature as the greenhouse gas with the most effect.
The problem is that we are now entering a climate regime which humanity has never been in before. Our entire civilization has been built on stable climates, and that's true of the past, too. We have many, many records of civilization which did poorly and even failed when their climate changed by an amount that is a small fraction of what we're doing now. Civilization will not collapse tomorrow, or in a decade, or in a century. It will simply become more expensive, dangerous, uncomfortable, impoverished and unstable than it is today. If you're comfortable with that as the future to leave to your grandchildren, well, more power to you. I hope you build your bunker deep.
Ignoring a problem that will lead to massive changes in the world is perhaps the least conservative action possible. The fact that we are uncertain as to the total effects of these changes down the line, but we know we're messing with the entire planet, means that inaction is even *more* dangerous, because of the possible consequences. So the claim that we need to wait before doing anything is a radical, not conservative, approach.
Re: (Score:2)
You showed no evidence that the global CO2 measurements are inaccurate. But luckily, we have satellites that back up the ground collections, and agree with them. Their coverage is global.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm
Bear in mind that while there are local variations of CO2, the atmosphere is quite well-mixed, so you don't *need* a sensor every 100 square km or whatever to determine what the average CO2 levels are. Differences settle out regionally and globally, and that's
Re: (Score:2)
Further, the cite you gave actually reiterates what I'm claiming.
"The growth rates of CO2 concentration have increased in recent years. The distribution of CO2 growth rates differs regionally due to the variation of source or sink. And the spatial variation of CO2 concentration is small compared to that of fluxes. Because the atmosphere is an excellent filter of spatially and temporally varying surface fluxes, integrating short-term fluctuations while retaining the large-scale signal. High growth rate in Ea
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a terrific animation from NOAA putting the current CO2 levels in the context of the last million years or so. It takes a few minutes to watch, but see it to the end.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html [noaa.gov]
tldr: current CO2 levels are about 40% higher than the maximum levels seen in the last ten ice age cycles.