Ocean Temperatures Are Off the Charts (phys.org) 216
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: In a world of worsening climate extremes, a single red line has caught many people's attention. The line, which charts sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean, went viral over the weekend for its startling display of unprecedented warming -- nearly 2 degrees (1.09 Celsius) above the mean dating back to 1982, the earliest year with comparable data. Ocean temperatures are so anomalously high that Eliot Jacobson, a retired mathematics professor who created the graph using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had to "increase the upper bound on the y-axis," he said. "I've been doing this for a long time, but this one was like, 'Oh my God, look at this,'" Jacobson said of the graph. "What is going on here?" He and other researchers said there are several factors that may be contributing to the off-the-charts warming, which is occurring alongside other climate woes including record-shattering wildfires in Canada, rapidly declining sea ice in Antarctica and unusually warm temperatures in many parts of the world, not including Southern California.
Underlying everything is human-caused climate change, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. But atop that are a handful of other potential factors, including the early arrival of El Nino; the recent eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano; new regulations around sulfur aerosol emissions or even a dearth of Saharan dust. "The North Atlantic is record-shatteringly warm right now," Swain said during a briefing Monday. "There has never been any day in observed history where the entire North Atlantic has been nearly as warm as it is right now, at any time of year." Nearly all of the Atlantic basin is experiencing anomalous warmth, including the Irminger Sea southeast of Greenland, the western Mediterranean Sea, and the tropics "all the way from Africa to at least the Caribbean," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "We are definitely in record territory," Johnson said. And it's not just the Atlantic, as global sea surface temperatures are also climbing to new highs, NOAA data show. "The primary cause of the warming we are seeing right now is an El Nino event on top of overall human-caused warming," Mann said.
Though concerning, the conditions aren't "completely out of left field" based on global warming trends, Swain said. "The long-term trend is not going to stop, and we are stair-stepping up our way to much warmer oceans and a much warmer climate, and there still hasn't been a great deal of momentum away from that," he said. "We're still moving in a pretty alarming direction, overall, when it comes to to warming."
Underlying everything is human-caused climate change, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. But atop that are a handful of other potential factors, including the early arrival of El Nino; the recent eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano; new regulations around sulfur aerosol emissions or even a dearth of Saharan dust. "The North Atlantic is record-shatteringly warm right now," Swain said during a briefing Monday. "There has never been any day in observed history where the entire North Atlantic has been nearly as warm as it is right now, at any time of year." Nearly all of the Atlantic basin is experiencing anomalous warmth, including the Irminger Sea southeast of Greenland, the western Mediterranean Sea, and the tropics "all the way from Africa to at least the Caribbean," said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "We are definitely in record territory," Johnson said. And it's not just the Atlantic, as global sea surface temperatures are also climbing to new highs, NOAA data show. "The primary cause of the warming we are seeing right now is an El Nino event on top of overall human-caused warming," Mann said.
Though concerning, the conditions aren't "completely out of left field" based on global warming trends, Swain said. "The long-term trend is not going to stop, and we are stair-stepping up our way to much warmer oceans and a much warmer climate, and there still hasn't been a great deal of momentum away from that," he said. "We're still moving in a pretty alarming direction, overall, when it comes to to warming."
It looks like we're going to need some new charts (Score:5, Funny)
Re: It looks like we're going to need some new cha (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It looks like we're going to need some new cha (Score:4, Insightful)
40 years of data collection, statistically analyzed by actual scientists, is still a lot better than one comment from bill_farty on slashdot.
If you go on a 1000 miles trip by car across the US, and on the last mile, you see that your car is accelerating toward a big wall of concrete, are you the kind of guy that will say: "Haha! The first 999 miles were ok, and we still didn't crash; surely the wall doesn't exist!".
Re: It looks like we're going to need some new ch (Score:3)
The climate trolls are out in force (Score:5, Insightful)
I had thought that the climate trolls had given up on shouting "climate change isn't real!" because the evidence is pretty much overwhelming, and they had moved on to saying "yes, it's real, but it's not as bad as people are saying." But, from the chorus of deniers posting comments here, apparently climate change denial is back. Maybe these are bots? I don't know. It's annoying to keep on debunking uninformed arguments that were already debunked decades ago.
Nevertheless, I really wish that there were a middle ground between the "climate change isn't happening, and if it is humans didn't cause it, and anyway so what, there were natural climate changes in the past" deniers and the catastrophists "it's the end of the world." No, it's not the end of the world.
Climate change is real. Scientists are still working at refining details, but the overall picture is clear: the driving factor is trace gasses put into the atmosphere primarily by burning fossil fuels.
Anthropogenic climate change occurs much faster than natural climate cycles... but, nevertheless, it's slow by human time scales. It's noticeable on a scale of decades, and will cause significant changes on a time scale of a hundred years. But, it's not an immediate crisis of "we have to stop it right now or we'll all die!"
Bottom line, I guess, is please pay more attention to actual scientists, and less attention to both the denier trolls and the catastrophists. It's here, it's real, we will have to deal with it one way or another, but it's not the end of the world.
Climate change can be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Climate change can be good (Score:4, Informative)
Climate change is only bad if your current climate is good.
It is indeed a truth which people tend to gloss over that climate change will be good from people in some places, while it will be bad for other people in other places.
Your example is a poor one, however, because so far the global warming trend has had serious negative effects in India, with record-setting heat waves [dw.com] (see: "2023 Asia heat wave" [wikipedia.org]), and droughts alternating with torrential rains destroying crops [climaterea...roject.org].
I expect Canada, Alaska, and Siberia would be better choices for you to cite as examples of places that may benefit from warming.
Re:Climate change can be good (Score:4)
This is one of the enduring fallacies of climate change: that temperature increases just shift climate zones a little. We need to stop talking about temperature and start talking about energy and entropy (or better yet, chaos) - the amount of energy associated with a 1 degree C rise in air and/or ocean temperatures is staggering. That energy corresponds to a massive increase in chaotic behavior, which our planet is not well adapted to. While that might mean one or two pleasant summers in Delhi, it could also mean a tropical cyclone, a summer with 55 degree days, or a drought...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Since human climate change is driven by what we've been doing to Earth's atmosphere over the last century and a half, it is the most relevant data we need to estimate the progression of it. Why would data from hundreds of thousands years ago be relevant for any kind of assessment what's happening now? I fail to see any logic.
Re: (Score:3)
Chart (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chart (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks. It boggles the mind that a person writing about a chart does not include it in their article...
Re:Chart (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, clicks are everything, content is irrelevant. Of course, longer-term all reporting goes to hell that way, but apparently the people doing it do not care or do simply not understand that.
Re:Chart (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the updated version: https://twitter.com/LeonSimons... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Non-geoblocked article:
https://archive.vn/f2J9J [archive.vn]
Re: Less Hype Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect they're referring to 2 deg F, not C, although they don't actually give units for that "2 degrees", and the chart itself is in C. I don't know if F was intentionally used for effect, but it really shouldn't be, for this very reason.
In other news the temperature is over 1000 mK above the 1982 mean!
Re: (Score:2)
Careful. Appealing to people to uphold certain standards in the way they present arguments usually leads to them declaring you their sworn enemy.
I keep doing that very thing and not once has it lead to anything other than vilification.
Re:Less Hype Needed (Score:5, Informative)
it is barely over one degree above the mean, not two. If you overhype statistical fluctuations
Human beings generally have two flaws:
1. They get freaked out by big numbers. Like all the people thinking Meta is going to go bankrupt because they spent $10bn on VR/AR
2. They don't understand the significance of small numbers. Like you who think that a mean deviation over 1degree isn't significant and doesn't have a *MASSIVE* impact on the planet.
This isn't overhyped, it's under-understood.
If you overhype statistical fluctuations like this then you open the door to climate deniers claiming next year that global warming has gone away because ocean temperatures have dropped compared to this year which is equally wrong.
Nope. Climate and weather definitions still come in play. Sure while the single seasonal observation is one of weather, the climate shows most statistic deviations are positive compared to the mean of measurements. That's climate. The science also shows the weather swings getting more severe.
A jump up this year, followed by a big dip next year still points *towards* climate change. The only deniers on this side are doing nothing but repeating the same debunked shit they always have.
Re: (Score:3)
They get freaked out by big numbers. Like all the people thinking Meta is going to go bankrupt because they spent $10bn on VR/AR
That's not freaking out, it's just wishful thinking.
They don't understand the significance of small numbers. Like you who think that a mean deviation over 1degree isn't significant and doesn't have a *MASSIVE* impact on the planet.
No, they do not understand statistics, like you who looks at a chart with 40 lines with one outlier and immediately concludes that one outlier is significant. The problem with only one outlier given 40 sets of data is that you have way to know whether it is due to a random fluctuation or due to a significant underlying change. Without doing a detailed analysis, a visual inspection of the tracks suggests a typical variation of +/- 0.5 degrees from the mea
Hurricane risk? (Score:2, Informative)
IIRC the risk of hurricanes goes up with increasing sea surface temperatures. The next hurricane season might be a big one.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the risk of hurricanes goes up with increasing sea surface temperatures. The next hurricane season might be a big one.
If the excess heat causes greater wind shear, that would mean fewer or shorter-lived hurricanes even if global warming causes many more storms
Re: (Score:3)
I think I remember that ... I think they called it a study, but what it was a study of was simulations. The problem is that it's not clear that the simulations are accurate. We're talking about simulation of weather conditions that have never actually been studied, and some of the phenomena have "cliff edges" where at some point the activity changes drastically. It's not quite like a boiling point or a melting point, but it's analogous.
We can't really trust the simulations when they enter ranges of the d
Re: (Score:2)
Higher SSTs do increase the risk that any hurricane that forms will become a strong hurricane. But an overall increase in hurricane occurrence depends on more than just SSTs.
For example, if those SSTs occur in conjunction with non-conducive atmospheric conditions (higher wind shears, stronger SALs) then hurricanes could have a harder time forming resulting in lower overall occurrence. But any storms that did form would have a higher chance of becoming monsters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but significance if you live, say, on Florida or the Gulf Coast is not entirely clear.
As you can see from this map [noaa.gov] of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, hurricanes often start off the coast of Africa, and make their way west across the Atlantic, more often than not turning aside before making landfall in the US. 2020 was a record year for Atlantic cyclones, with 30 named storms, 14 full-fledged hurricanes, and 7 *major* hurricanes, and none of them happened to hit Florida with hurricane force winds.
T
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't true unless there is some fact based evidence.
Fact based evidence
Well that's just scaremongering.
I mean it is what it is. COVID is still a thing too and it was the fourth leading cause of death in 2022. I mean you do whatever with the information you want. Point being hurricanes get really shitty with sea surface temperatures. So it's not unrealistic to think that there's a possibility the hurricanes will be a bit rough this year. Just like drivers get really shitty at driving with increased c
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it is what it is. COVID is still a thing too and it was the fourth leading cause of death in 2022
That's false. If you add some qualifiers in there it becomes true but without them it is false. And now you have just lied (even though there is probably a good fact buried somewhere in there and I don't think you meant to lie). And that's how the news turns a run-of-the-mill fact into a scary story, by leaving out those all important qualifiers. See how easy that is to do. It is amazing how adding or removing just one word can sometimes completely change the meaning. For instance, the (capacity) cost
Re: (Score:2)
> COVID is still a thing too and it was the fourth leading cause of death in 2022.
It DISPLACED flu/cold. If you lumped COVID in with regular flu/cold it wouldn't change any rankings.
"...we didn't really understand the fatality rate. We didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly kind of like the flu is." - Bill Gates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More news = less informed.
Ignorance is strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Pot
Kettle
Black
Carry on, comrade brother!
pretty bold statement (Score:2)
I wonder if the world will end gradually or all at once. I think i might just live long enough to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you live for billions of years. You might live long enough for the earth to become noticeably more uncomfortable for humans and all the bad things that will stem from that though!
GREAT (Score:2)
Now my climate taxes are going to up. JFC!
or...not. (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, all climate reporting is now tainted by implied or actual bias.
For example, accuweather insists: https://www.accuweather.com/en... [accuweather.com]
(even included a picture of a poor weeping evacuee from a hurricane! - bonus ESG points)
Yet, the reality seems to be completely different: https://climatlas.com/tropical... [climatlas.com] ....none of these show anything like what Accuweather is i
Frequency: https://climatlas.com/tropical... [climatlas.com]
Energy: https://climatlas.com/tropical... [climatlas.com]
Accumulated energy: https://climatlas.com/tropical... [climatlas.com]
Trust has been broken (Score:2)
not listening (Score:2)
There have been so many cries of wolf for the past 40 years, even over the past century or more, that I stopped listening a long time ago. Since I see no change in the actual CO_2 increase rate, it's irrelevant to me, because que sera, sera. I don't see anyone being able to change it.
Re: everything is human-caused climate change (Score:3)
Re: everything is human-caused climate change (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In their defense, they do not know what a discussion in good faith actually is. Their idea of a discussion is to blindly trumpet what facts they think they have, ignore anything the other side says, and go back to blindly trumpet their alleged facts while intimating their "opinion" is just as valid as any other, ignore anything the other side says, attack the other side as being disingenuous, ignore anything the other side says, claim the other side is blinded by their hate, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah the old "the Nazis were socialists" trope, the final stage of historical-revisionist right-wing nutjobbery. A cursory search of history outside of Conservapedia would show that the Nazis persecuted and purged socialists as their political arch-nemeses.
Meanwhile, in recent years capitalist economies around the world let an average of 15 million people starve to death each year. Even if you use the 100M death count dreamed up by a frothing partisan hack who still came up so short of a spectacular-sounding
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the old "the Nazis were socialists" trope, the final stage of historical-revisionist right-wing nutjobbery. A cursory search of history outside of Conservapedia would show that the Nazis persecuted and purged socialists as their political arch-nemeses.
They purged Left-wing Socialists, so that their own right-wing socialism had no competition. While Socialism is usually tied to left-wing politics, there's always been strains of right-wing socialism that fused social conservatism with a dominant social-welfare state. Marx complained about these strains, calling them Bourgeois Socialsim [wikipedia.org], and he loathed them because they undermined his anti-church, anti-family push. There are still prominent examples of this kind of socialism in the world, from some Israeli
Re: (Score:3)
...Meanwhile, in recent years capitalist economies around the world let an average of 15 million people starve to death each year....
Sorry, but this one is a "no". Modern capitalism certainly has its flaws, but it turns out that world starvation isn't one of them. In modern times the amount of starvation in the world has been reduced to the lowest in recorded history [ourworldindata.org], and most of the current famine in the world is not due to capitalism, but due to war. [nationalgeographic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That estimate is extremely low, probably because it only counts victims of recognized famines. A quick search shows a recent estimate of 9m/yr due to starvation, rather than people who died in recognized famines:
https://www.npr.org/sections/c... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And all 9m are due to capitalism?
So, every single one of those starving people is in a capitalist country and not some shitty third world dictatorship or socialist shit hole?
Ok, bro.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you expand it from just Communists to Socialists generally, you get to include the Holocaust.
Huh, so you believe what Hitler said. Interesting. I bet you believe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, too. It must be, it's right there in the name and a murderous dictator chose that name.
Evans "Third Reich in Power" - read (Score:2)
There were lots of socialist programs in Nazi Germany. It was the key feature of their domestic program, demonstrating concern for the individual that was not obvious in the Weimar Republic. Being intellectually lazy and not knowing about them works with the stupid masses. It won't work with anyone actually educated. Go ahead, find out what "Strength through Joy" meant.
Mostly a political thing i'm sure, if the Nazis did it then it's evil and one of your favorite words is wrecked. Hitler loved dogs an
But, whatabout Mao?! [Re: everything is human-...] (Score:2)
This is a classic " whataboutism [merriam-webster.com] " tactic, bringing up something else totally irrelevant in a deliberate attempt at derailing the discussion.
Yes, other things in human history are also bad. Whatabout Genghis Khan? He arguably perpetrated the worst massacre of human population in human history. And, ya know what? It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Khan: if you were a Mongol it was good times until their empire collapsed.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Re: lefty hand wringing is off the charts on slash (Score:3)
Solar output is steady [Re:lefty hand wringing...] (Score:4, Informative)
guess what the real driver of "climate change" is. Hint, it's yellow and up in the sky, and its been changing the climate for a very long time.
Hardly worth responding to anonymous coward trolls, but just in case anybody else is unaware, we measure the solar intensity and have been measuring it routinely for decades. It has not changed significantly, other than the well-known 12-year solar cycle.
The solar output had not "been changing the climate" because the solar output has not been changing.
Re: (Score:3)
One key differentiator between climate change driven by insolation (more sun due to solar variance or orbit) and climate change driven by CO2, is that they don't effect the stratosphere in the same way.
In a nutshell, if the Earth was getting more solar radiation, that would warm both the tropophere and the stratosphere. But if the troposphere were warming because of greenhouse gasses, the stratosphere would cool. And in fact, that's exactly what happened; the stratosphere has been cooling at about 0.5C/de
Solar output graphed [Re:Solar output is steady] (Score:2)
As I said: you can clearly see the well-known 12-year solar cycle, but overall, no, the observed global warming over this period is not due to changes in solar irradiance. (and please pay attention to the scale on that graph: even the solar cycle is only plus or minus 0.07% change in irradiance.)
...ever hear of the maunder minimum or the little ice age? those were periods of very low activity. guess what, the earth cooled.
People quote that a lot, but the "little ice age" in Europe started before the Maunder sunspot minimum, so
Re: Surface temperatures fluctuate all time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boiling oceans isn't interesting but I'd like to try some slow roasted whale, please.
And can I get a refill on my tea? Thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would that be true? Warmer surface waters will transfer heat down below, i mean that just logically follows, also no-one is claiming the "coeans are literally boiling"
https://research.noaa.gov/2020... [noaa.gov]
researchers analyzed a decade of hourly temperature recordings from moorings anchored at four depths in the Atlantic Ocean’s Argentine Basin off the coast of Uruguay. The depths represent a range around the average ocean depth of 3,682 meters (12,080 feet), with the shallowest at 1,360 meters (4,460 f
Re: Surface temperatures fluctuate all time (Score:2)
Re: Surface temperatures fluctuate all time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Surface temperatures fluctuate all time"
From the data shown [twitter.com], this particular year is well outside of the previously-observed temperature fluctuations.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC (it's been a long time) at a certain amount of pressure water wants to have the temperature of just above freezing. Ice takes up more room than water, so the pressure keeps the water from freezing.
Note that this is only an energy barrier, and it can do things analogous to tunneling through when the temperature gradient is large enough.
This argument is sort of in the opposite direction to the current situation, but it's also true that warmer water wants to take up more space, so pressure acts as an ene
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but unfortunately most sea life, which the base of the food chain, lives in the upper regions where the water is getting warmer. Don't believe me this is an issue? Check in with the fishermen along the U.S. East Coast. They complain they have to travel further north to catch the fish that used to be real convenient like close by. Damn, now why would those naughty fish do that? Maybe they have a secret pact with the scientists who are clearly left-wing, George Soros influenced, etc., i.e., the usual li
Re: (Score:2)
Using the same reasoning, forest fires are fine
they fertilize the soil. some plants only release their seeds after forest fires. but of course humans have decided that theyre bad, or at the very least have proscribed an acceptable annual amount. confused logic
Re: (Score:2)
And most plants do not release their seeds after forest fires because they have been burnt to a crisp, what's yer point? And if forest fires are so good at fertilizing the soil, let's burn down all the forests and we'll have more fertile soil. Confused logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there needs to be a balance, fire is mostly bad for (most) other stuff, life and reasons. anyway, thanks for introducing me to pyrophytes and pyrophiles. fascinating, i had no idea!
Re: (Score:2)
Even when it's good for the ecology, that's only true at a certain range of frequencies and intensities. Too hot and it kills the seeds before they are released, not hot enough and it doesn't trigger the release, too frequent and stuff doesn't have enough time to mature, to rare and the intensity of the fires is too hing.
There are ecologies that are based around frequent fires...but even in those ecologies most of the plants and animals don't survive in the burned area, so it's depending on surrounding unb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
16 seconds? Nah. We have at least 20-30 years before it really gets shitty here. Where floods flush away all those expensive coastal real estate and the rest of the world gets their shit blown away by some climate related crap.
But by then I'm likely dead, so why should I give a shit?
Sucks to be you, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a great time to be libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Me? Fight? Over what?
By the time the shit hits the fan, I'm dead. Why would I want to fight anymore if even the people whose kids will suffer from it can't be assed to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As unappealing as those systems already are, they are also incompatible with Democratic political systems. You can't take away a free individual's economic agency without ta
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you could keep most of capitalism, but with some changes. E.g. no personal liability when you lead a corporation is for me the biggest single thing I'd change. The combination of "I have a responsibility to the shareholders" and "I have no personal liability if I destroy the earth to please said shareholders" has been proven quite destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could go with the proven mixed/hybrid strategy given it's excellent track record.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's almost as if giving radicals of any type control of a government is a bad idea.
I sense a great disturbance in the force (Score:2)
And replace it with what, a system that has been proven to produce nothing but suffering and mass slaughter, like Socialism?
I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if 10 million Swedes laughed in unity at the silly American who thinks only absolutes, and then suddenly went back to enjoying their wonderful lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same Sweden that just elected a right wing nationalist government [wikipedia.org]?
Yeah, I thought it might be.
Perhaps that disturbance you sensed was 10 million Swedes laughing in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are probably thinking about is planned economy like the Soviet Union had, where the government managed economic activities with five year plans.
Re: (Score:2)
No economic system cares. Not one. The abstraction, "money", that they deal with makes that impossible.
Actually, I could make a more inclusive statement, but that would depend on the precise meaning of "care" that you are using. But for a common meaning, no bureaucratic system can care. Only individuals have that capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Which economic system would you propose instead of capitalism that "cares"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because communism's always failed every place it's ever been tried.
This is how we know it's REAL communism.
Re: (Score:2)
Communism does not pretend to care. Ask anyone who has ever lived in such a place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the USSR and now China were/are HUUUUUGE polluters on a scale the capitalist countries could only dream of.
You really need to do some reading befor saying shit like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is very good at responding to future needs. It is the basis on modern capitalism.
For example, my favorite restaurant orders raw food before I get there. They are predicting I will show up for lunch and already have food in the fridge waiting to be cooked for me,
They do not wait for me to show up and then call their distributor and make me wait until morning's delivery for lunch today.
Restaurants that are poor at predicting the future will either have spoilage or hungry customers and go out of b
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous. That wasn't a "scientific consensus," it was a philosophy [nasa.gov] that pre-dated the scientific method.
Stay in school, kids!
Re:Stupid Humans (Score:5, Interesting)
debunking another widely held claim.
More lies from the usual fuckwits. This is not a widely held claim. I challenge you to find a single reputable source that makes the claim. People claim it's the highest in recent history which is true. And the rate of change REALLY matters. You are intentionally conflating several different things in order to cast doubt on the whole.
Here is the recent history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And of course the XKCD chart:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
You have to go a REALLY long way back before the CO2 levels were higher
https://earth.org/data_visuali... [earth.org]
No take your spreading of bullshit elsewhere, shill.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are right but I feel like you are missing something important here. The article was clearly fearmongering even though AGW is real. However, the solution that gets pushed is clearly bunk. Renewables can't replace base-load and unless there is a breakthrough that rewrites the laws of physics to a greater degree than has happened in 100 years, they won't. Neither side can lay claim to "following the science/data" completely. One side likes the problem but hates the solution, the other side hates pr
Re: (Score:2)
The observation data they're basing this "fact" on covers just 40 years out of the 4.5 billion year history.
True. Your point is? This happens to be the 40 year period in which we live and are most interested in; and for which we have good data.
There's already been physical proof in ice core samples that CO2 levels on the planet have been higher than the post industrial revolution era,
Correct. And at those previous times, when CO2 levels were much higher, temperatures were also much higher.
There were also times in the geological history of the Earth that CO2 levels were much lower, and temperatures were much lower.
There's a lot to be learned from paleoclimatology (although you do have to keep in mind that for present climate we have direct measurements
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, astronomers very quickly accepted De revolutionibus orbium coelestium because it made many important calculations easier, although theological objections persited far longer. It is true that throughought the 1500s astronomers like Tycho Brahe continued to propose alternative models like "geo-heliocentrism". This was not some kind of illegitimate attack on the Truth, it was scientists doing their job.
This is what people like you who cite changes in the scientific consenus as if it were a gotcha
Re: (Score:2)
You've got the wrong century. The heliocentric theory goes back to Aristarchus and was the scientific concensus*. Earth-centric cosmology was the religious consensus. Schools don't even teach the accepted religious doctrines properly. Just about everyone who was educated knew that the Earth was a spheroid (often they thought it was a real sphere, for Idealism reasons). And they knew the approximate diameter. And they knew that ships couldn't make a non-stop trip the distance from Western Europe to Cat
You're going back to the 30s (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an article explaining why you're lying with statistics [forbes.com]
Christ it's embarrassing to see this shit modded up to +5 on /..
Re:You're going back to the 30s (Score:5, Interesting)
Christ it's embarrassing to see this shit modded up to +5 on /..
Slashdot is not about science. It is about people who love gadgets and shiny stuffs, and think that because they have the last smartphone, and used not to suck too much at maths in high school, then that means they are actual scientists.
No, Just no. (Score:2)
This isn't about scientists, this is about politics. This crap about the 1930s is a standard talking point out of the right wing noise machine. I know this because it took me 2 seconds on google to find that article debunking it.
It's the same sort of tactics you see from religious extremists when they do apologetics. Like the "Young Earth" lunatics who argue the flood wasn't just allegorical. They've got a han
Re: (Score:2)
Here of all places we should be smarter than that.
We should, if it was indeed a science and technology forum. This has just been a facade in the past years, the number of people who can actually understand and talk about science with a scientific background has been dwindling since the 2000'. Mostly because it takes too much time to debunk false information [wikipedia.org], and smart people tend to have better things to do than try to educate stupid people over the internet.
In the end, there will be only amimojo, gweihir, thegarbs, and a few others left here.
I'm not asking for a scientific background (Score:2)
And when I see anti-science B.S. here you damn well bet I'm gonna call that shit out. We all should. We need to stop letting these bastards get away with it on a day to day basis. Enough giving "the benefit of the doubt". When you see an obvious anti-science talking point the person throwing it out needs a verbal smack down. They should be ashamed of themselves. They're either being stupid, evil or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's a site where people argue about Science and Technology. These arguments are based off of articles on the internet, and are as reliable as such articles usually are...i.e., even when they attempt to be honest, they oversimplify things.
I think that most of the stories that get to the "front page" are attempting (at least in the minds of their authors) to be honest. But NONE of them are. Too much detail gets lost in transmission. However they're great for spurring arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like you don't understand what the term "comparable data" means.