2020 Was Second-Hottest Year On Record, NOAA Says (nbcnews.com) 105
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, showed that 2020 now ranks as the second-hottest year, with average temperatures hitting 58.77 degrees Fahrenheit -- a mere 0.04 degrees cooler than 2016, which holds the record. The Northern Hemisphere experienced its hottest year on record, surpassing the 20th century average by 2.3 degrees, according to NOAA. Oceans were also "exceptionally warm" last year, with record-high sea surface temperatures logged across parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.
Above-average temperatures also shrank Arctic sea ice to near record lows, NOAA scientists said. Satellite observations revealed that Arctic sea ice in 2020 covered an average of 3.93 million square miles, tying 2016 for the smallest on record. Though NOAA has designated 2020 as the second-hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880, there are some discrepancies among other agencies that conduct similar measurements. A NASA analysis found that global average surface temperatures in 2020 tied with 2016, while the World Meteorological Organization still has 2016 in the lead. The discrepancies among these groups owe to subtle differences in how they account for data gaps over parts of the planet that lack reliable weather stations, such as in the polar regions or over wide swaths of the ocean. But experts say these small differences are inconsequential against the broader backdrop of global warming. The planet's seven warmest years on record have all been since 2014, according to NOAA, with 10 of the warmest years occurring since 2005.
Above-average temperatures also shrank Arctic sea ice to near record lows, NOAA scientists said. Satellite observations revealed that Arctic sea ice in 2020 covered an average of 3.93 million square miles, tying 2016 for the smallest on record. Though NOAA has designated 2020 as the second-hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880, there are some discrepancies among other agencies that conduct similar measurements. A NASA analysis found that global average surface temperatures in 2020 tied with 2016, while the World Meteorological Organization still has 2016 in the lead. The discrepancies among these groups owe to subtle differences in how they account for data gaps over parts of the planet that lack reliable weather stations, such as in the polar regions or over wide swaths of the ocean. But experts say these small differences are inconsequential against the broader backdrop of global warming. The planet's seven warmest years on record have all been since 2014, according to NOAA, with 10 of the warmest years occurring since 2005.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
be dependent of foreign oil again and that will fix everything related to climate change.
Either that or they'll start wrecking Alaska.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're starting to sound like a stuck record.
The clue you're after is the 'A' part of AGW.
Dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is currently being done by people/b>. And it's a bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the cited paper. Then come on back. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "On Record" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A democratic society will never implement population control.
Population control does not have to be forced. There are pretty good experimental observations showing that simply giving people access to birth control will significantly reduce the rate of babies being born.
Turns out, most woman don't in fact want to turn out babies as fast as they can.
jump [Re: "On Record"] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A democratic society will never implement population control.
A democratic society will also never implement a carbon tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too soon to talk about population controls?
Sure, lead by example. Just subtracting you has to make some difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too soon to talk about population controls?
Population growth in the USA would be negative if we closed the borders to immigration. So, you want to see the USA stop it's population growth tomorrow? Then close the borders today. We closed the borders to all immigration before, so this isn't without precedent.
What other nations do to control their population growth is up to them. It seems many reached negative growth by people fleeing to the USA, Europe, and Canada. Mexican and South American governments have been caught encouraging mass migration
Population growth [Re: "On Record"] (Score:2)
Is it too soon to talk about population controls?
Population growth in the USA would be negative if we closed the borders to immigration. So, you want to see the USA stop it's population growth tomorrow?
No. It would probably be nice to see the world stop its population growth.
But the USA is not the world. Although you seem to think it is.
However, what it does show is that increasing affluence, increasing education, and increasing availability of birth control (all attributes of the US) will reduce population growth. So these would be good things to implement in the parts of the world that are expanding their populations, which in general are not affluence, have large numbers of un-educated people, and
Re: (Score:2)
But the USA is not the world. Although you seem to think it is.
I don't think the USA is the world. I thought I made it quite clear that the USA fixing it's population growth will not solve the population growth in other nations.
If we are to solve the problem of global population growth then every nation will have to solve the problem individually. I suggest that the USA contribute by controlling immigration as that is the means by which population is growing in the USA. We should keep the numbers of people coming in on near parity with people going out. Again, that
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to solve the problem of global population growth then every nation will have to solve the problem individually. I suggest that the USA contribute by controlling immigration as that is the means by which population is growing in the USA.
That does not solve the problem; it does not even address the problem. You are talking about addressing where people are, when the problem is how many people there are.
If I tell you that you have too many cats because you have 50 cats in your house, it doesn't address the number of cats to say "well, I'm solving that problem by only allowing 3 cats in the bedroom."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm solving the population growth problem in the USA. That is all I can do because I have no say on what other nations do. How do you propose the US lower the population growth in Mexico for an example. First we stop them from exporting their population problem to the USA. This forces Mexico to address the problem where they are.
What do you want me to do then? Declare war on Mexico and start shooting to death their so called excess population?
I'm not going to do that. Their population problem is not a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm solving the population growth problem in the USA.
You are proposing a way to solve population growth in one place by transferring it to a different place. This does not address the problem.
It's fine you don't like immigration, that's a "yeah, whatever" issue with me, but if it's your issue, sure, whatever. Just: don't pretend you are solving the population problem when you are not in any way addressing it.
That is all I can do because I have no say on what other nations do. How do you propose the US lower the population growth in Mexico for an example.
I just told you. Didn't you read the thread you're replying to?
" increasing affluence, increasing education, and increasing availability of birth cont
Listen to the engineers (Re: "On Record") (Score:2)
Geologists are not climatologists.
I'm getting the feeling that the only people that are climatologists are the people that are screaming like their hair is on fire. Is Bill Nye a climatologist? No, he studied mechanical engineering or something. Yet because he's screaming like his hair is on fire about global warming then we are supposed to listen to him.
A few botanists might have some opinions on COVID-19, but if they differ from the very nearly unanimous consensus of virologist, I'll go with the virologists.
Consensus is not science.
What makes good science is good data and precise analysis of the data. But here's a problem, the people that claim to have good data are not willing to share it
Re:"On Record" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you counter with a cartoonist? Heck, I love Munroe as much as the next guy, but yeah, I'd depend on what I can read from an actual geologist when it comes to matter of geology. Go ahead, go read the paper I cited, then come on back.
Re: (Score:2)
I am still waiting for someone to read the actual science and respond to the essence of my critique, which is that making claims about setting records based on a mere 240 years of data from a record that's 500 million years long is pretty silly. I know people like to believe they are sensible and logical, but sometimes they don't stop and breathe in long enough to think things through.
240 years is like a single data point in a record millions of years long. If I show you a cycle and then give you a single p
Re: (Score:1)
Mesozoic records [Re:"On Record" ] (Score:2)
Assuming that by "on record" they mean the 1980s -- what the heck, let's be generous, let's assume they mean the 1780s -- allow me to point out that geologists' records extend just a tad further back than that: 500 million years, and more.
Yes... and no.
Paleoclimate measurements are made by indirect means (known as "proxies": oxygen isotope ratios in Foraminifera shells, for example) and the farther back you go, the larger the error bars are on time, temperature, and location (paleo measurements are usually for one location, not global.)
So, in fact, no, paleoclimate records from geological measurements don't give you global average temperature for a specific year. They give you an approximate average over an epoch, maybe, and as you go far
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think a slow change over many 10s of thousands of years is the same as dramatically altering the climate in just 100. It's not. One is generally an okay geological event, the other is a highly destructive event that will trigger a mass extinction.
When looking at pretty pictures to try and make a point, pay attention to the scales on the x axis next time.
Herpedity derp derp derp (Score:4, Funny)
This is slashdot and I don't believe all the scientists so I'm going to argue they're looking at the data wrong. Because I know more than they do being an armchair statistician myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Herpedity derp derp derp (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot and I don't believe all the scientists so I'm going to argue they're looking at the data wrong. Because I know more than they do being an armchair statistician myself.
But we’re doing better this year, it’s not a horrific new record! Surely the danger has passed by now! Or at the very least it’s too late to act... right?
I mean, that first bite of gas station sushi tasted a bit funny, but I’m hungry so why not eat both boxes worth???
Re: (Score:3)
So last year wasn't as hot as the year before... So Earth is cooling now, see, it's all good, no need to panic.
Re: (Score:1)
You suck at math. If you've ever noticed the tides coming in and going out, which I'm sure you have if you lived near a beach for any period of time, you'll note that the high tide and low tide are (depending on where you live in the world) of a pretty vast difference in height. And you'll also notice that the highest high tides occur differently throughout the year.
If you actually sit down and collect data and do some really basic math. You'll see that the average between high and low increases. And that h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
CO2 isn't relevant to global temperatures?
Are you sure trolling correctly?
You're not meant to go with something that completely batshit insane. Maybe get a bit more training before coming back to try again OMBad.
Re: (Score:3)
...This one a climate model predicting the future, something no climate model has done accurately yet.
Climate models have, in fact, been remarkably good. As I've pointed out many times, the first modern climate model incorporating carbon dioxide and humidity was Manabe and Wetherald 1967, the grand-daddy of all models used today, and over fifty-three years of data, it's been pretty much right on the nose.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
https://climategraphs.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
https://medium.com/starts-with... [medium.com]
This one looks at later models: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Not only have they not been accurate they have been catastrophically wrong. But sure, this time right?
I've seen people claim that clima
Re: (Score:1)
Looking at the first reference from Forbes, we see no graphs showing the accuracy of the prediction versus measurements. We do read a claimed 2 deg C increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2, and the author hand-waves that down to 1 deg C because we haven't doubled CO2 (only a 50% increase).
But looking at the actual satellite data [drroyspencer.com], we see the anomaly is around half of that again, meaning the original paper was off by a factor of 2. So not only were they wrong in prediction of CO2 output, but wrong
Models are prtty accurate [Re:Herpedity...] (Score:2)
Looking at the first reference from Forbes, we see no graphs showing the accuracy of the prediction versus measurements.
Graphs were in the second link I gave: https://climategraphs.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
...But looking at the actual satellite data [drroyspencer.com], we see t...
What Roy Spencer somehow neglects to mention in his blog (it is in his papers, just not his blog) is that microwave measurements from satellites don't measure surface temperature. The microwave sounding unit measures temperature over a ranbge from 2-22 km altitude. It's not easily possible to compare this to the greenhouse effect predictions, which are for surface temperature.
He's not the only one doing satellite temperature measure
Re: (Score:2)
As I've pointed out many times, the first modern climate model incorporating carbon dioxide and humidity was Manabe and Wetherald 1967, the grand-daddy of all models used today, and over fifty-three years of data, it's been pretty much right on the nose.
Maybe we have different expectations of the 'reliability' of a model. If the model says "doubling CO2 increases global temp by 2 deg" then how come that breaks for pretty much all 4 billion years prior to the last 40? From memory, temps were relatively static between 1940 and 1980 and in fact cooled for quite a few years during that time didn't they even though CO2 was steadily increasing?
I've seen people claim that climate predictions have been "catastrophically wrong", but whenever I look at the evidence for that, I see a lot of cherry picking.
Well reading that Forbes article seems like a lot of hyperbole and cherry picking. The fact that 2020 is only the secon
Signal and noise [Re:Herpedity derp derp derp] (Score:2)
As I've pointed out many times, the first modern climate model incorporating carbon dioxide and humidity was Manabe and Wetherald 1967, the grand-daddy of all models used today, and over fifty-three years of data, it's been pretty much right on the nose.
Maybe we have different expectations of the 'reliability' of a model. If the model says "doubling CO2 increases global temp by 2 deg" then how come that breaks for pretty much all 4 billion years prior to the last 40?
Huh?
The farther back in time you go, the more uncertainty there is in the proxies used to estimate temperature, but, in general, when you look at the history of the Earth, yes, the temperature changed with carbon dioxide. Periods with high carbon dioxide had high temperatures and no ice caps; periods with low carbon dioxide featured low temperatures. The Cretaceous, for example-- the dinosaur era-- had carbon dioxide peaking at about 1000 parts per million, more than double today's value; and had temperat
Re: (Score:2)
yes, the temperature changed with carbon dioxide.
https://earth.org/data_visuali... [earth.org] These lines don't match to any level of what I'd call 'accurate', they certainly don't match the model you linked to which means it's not reliable:
For a more accurate period, over about the last 800,000 years we can measure carbon dioxide from inclusions in ice cores, and we can measure temperature from isotope ratios. Here's a graph https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/glob... [noaa.gov]
Yes, turns out that , as predicted by the greenhouse effect, climate and CO2 are strongly correlated.
Correlation != causation. In you own reference, temp leads CO2 many times.
Here's the Berkeley Earth Project comparison of measured temperature against predictions incorporating human emissions and known natural forcing functions (i.e., volcanic eruptions, etc): http://berkeleyearth.org/archi... [berkeleyearth.org]
Back to my question, who was measuring temps in the southern oceans in 1750? In the first graph, there is no real shift from about 1850 to 1920, then again about 1940 to 1980 despite CO2 rising steadily. I know of no model that explains this.
I'm not sayi
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't seem to be trying to understand anything.
If you look at the graph [nasa.gov], you'll see that there are short term variations and a long term trend. It is the long term trend that is increasing. Climate is the long term stuff. The short term variations are noise.
So what caused the short term variation? What is driving the long term trend? What defines short and long? We've had no peak since 2016, how long would that have to continue before it's considered long term? If 1940 to 1980 wasn't long term, why is 1980 to 2020? What caused the last ice aged and what caused it to melt? Why are historical 'estimates' being adjusted? What reliability is there on estimated and adjusted averages?
Your basic argument seems to be "if you can't explain absolutely everything, right now, in posts to slashdot, that means we don't understand anything."
No, I'm not going to explain short term variations, long term variations, statistical methods of separating signal from noise, ice ages, historical estimates, and the fact that 1940 had a world war.
I add
Re: (Score:2)
Your basic argument seems to be "if you can't explain absolutely everything, right now, in posts to slashdot, that means we don't understand anything."
>
My argument was summed up the last line of my previous post. Climate science is complex. Pretty much all public policy is based on models that aren't reliable. The idea of a model is try and explain things, so the less things explained, the less faith we should have in that particular model.
I addressed your original questions. If you want twenty other things answered, try reading up on the subject.
Thanks for the effort, I do appreciate it. I have read up on it, and from a semi-layman (I have a science degree so I get the basics) point of view, it just seems that hard predictions are being made on soft data and loo
Re: (Score:2)
Your basic argument seems to be "if you can't explain absolutely everything, right now, in posts to slashdot, that means we don't understand anything."
>
My argument was summed up the last line of my previous post. Climate science is complex.
This is true. But nevertheless: the fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we do not know anything.
What we do know is the basics of the greenhouse effect. This is understood, and the basic calculations of Manabe and Wetherald turns out to fit the data remarkably well.
Your original statement-- the one I was responding to-- was that no climate model has accurately predicted the future (in fact, you said that they were "catastrophically wrong".) I gave you the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model,
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. But nevertheless: the fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we do not know anything.
You've said this twice now, and that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fact we don't know everything means we shouldn't say we know everything. This is less a problem with actual science and more science reporting, which was my original claim, and science politics which is just off the wall crazy.
What we do know is the basics of the greenhouse effect. This is understood, and the basic calculations of Manabe and Wetherald turns out to fit the data remarkably well.
Sure, we know the effect of greenhouse gases under controlled conditions in a lab. But there's a few more variables in a planetary climate system.
I gave you the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model, which has been accurate so far over a run of more than 50 years, your response was "what about the past four billion years of Earth history?"
Because a reliable model should be able to do that. And I
The future is not the past (Score:2)
Your original statement-- the one I was responding to-- was that no climate model has accurately predicted the future...
I gave you the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model, which has been accurate so far over a run of more than 50 years, your response was "what about the past four billion years of Earth history?"
Because a reliable model should be able to do that.
And we could discuss that, but that was not the question. The past four billion year of Earth history is the past. The statement you made was about predicting. That means the future.
And I dispute that it is accurate, since from 1930 to 1980 the global temp record was almost static despite regular CO2 increases.
1930 is before 1967. You made a statement about the accuracy of predictions about the future. 1930 is not the future, and wasn't the future in 1967.
Basically, you made a statement, I addressed it... and you changed the subject.
Yes, we could talk about fitting paleoclimate models, or about modeling climate over the period
Re: (Score:2)
And we could discuss that, but that was not the question. The past four billion year of Earth history is the past. The statement you made was about predicting. That means the future
You made a comment about cherry picking. A model of a system should describe the behaviour of that system all_of_the_time, not only when it matches your expected results. If a model works for some time but not other times it is not reliable. That is my claim.
What changed that it only works sometimes? Shouldn't any 'reliable' model attempt to explain any gaps? Do you at least accept that the CO2/Temp correlation is suspiciously uncooperative from 1930 to 1980? And it's not all Hitler's fault? (Or if it is,
Re: (Score:2)
And we could discuss that, but that was not the question. The past four billion year of Earth history is the past. The statement you made was about predicting. That means the future
You made a comment about cherry picking. A model of a system should describe the behaviour of that system all_of_the_time, not only when it matches your expected results. If a model works for some time but not other times it is not reliable. That is my claim.
No. You made a statement that climate models were inaccurate about predicting the future. I responded with a comment about the accuracy about climate models predicting the future.
I didn't cherry pick; I addressed the statement you made.
I know you have a dozen other questions (probably more), but I wasn't giving a lecture on every aspect of climate change. I was addressing one particular statement. That statement was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you have a dozen other questions (probably more), but I wasn't giving a lecture on every aspect of climate change. I was addressing one particular statement. That statement was wrong.
Oh right, well that's a little pedantic. But that's fine, let's focus on that one point:
So if we're going with the Manabe/Wetherald model that +100% CO2 = +2Deg C, then that gives us 0.02 deg C per 1% increase of CO2 right? Does it also imply that a reduction in CO2 will reduce global CO2 temps at the same rate? Is that easy to just dial in Global Temperature just like that? Has that been tested anywhere? I'd expect a few more variables, but lets roll with this one...
1967: CO2 = 322
2020: CO2 = 414
That'
Re: (Score:2)
I know you have a dozen other questions (probably more), but I wasn't giving a lecture on every aspect of climate change. I was addressing one particular statement. That statement was wrong.
Oh right, well that's a little pedantic.
Focussing on one thing at a time may be "pedantic", but when you start out with a wrong statement, it is useful to correct that one statement before moving on the the dozen other things that you toss up.
But that's fine, let's focus on that one point: So if we're going with the Manabe/Wetherald model that +100% CO2 = +2Deg C,
If you read their paper, they say "about 2C" per doubling in the abstract, but if you dig down to the actual results, they came up with 2.36C for constant relative humidity. They rounded in the abstract. Not much of a difference, but I'd use the 2.36.
then that gives us 0.02 deg C per 1% increase of CO2 right?
No, it's logarithmic, not linear. (that's why climate sens
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of words to say you have no idea how temperature is measured.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody mod that up.
Far too few people seem to appreciate this: satellites measure the air column; if you want to get air temperature at the surface, you have to do a heck of a lot of modeling.
Re:Herpedity derp derp derp (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah your kind of full of shit there buddy.
Global temperatures are just averages and we've known how to measure those things AND calibrate since well before the modern era.
I worked on weather outposts doing software and modelling and we have had a pretty solid grasp on how to calibrate the readings for accuracy by taking in air pressure, humidity, dew point, wind speed, for a very long time. Its all fundamental physics, and its all physics known since science people still wore powdered wigs and silk stockings to official functions.
Re: (Score:1)
And by calibrate you mean not measure accurately. Since if you had accurate measuring you don't need to adjust anything. Why are historical readings always being adjust after the fact?
You can stop now. We get it. You have no idea at all how any of this works and have no inclination to find out.
Isn't there a Trump superspreader rally you're late for?
Re: (Score:3)
Global temperatures are just averages
This was my point.
It was stupid.
Averages are not accurate representations
Yes, they are. They are an accurate representation of the energy in the system as a whole.
10 stations can be +5 and 10 can be -5 and the average wouldn't change.
If you get near a point, make it.
Averages are the path to deception.
Only if you don't say they're an average. Which they did. No deception.
Re: (Score:2)
It was stupid.
No, you are... you're stupid. Do I win now? Is that how you win, simply by calling the other guy stupid?
Yes, they are. They are an accurate representation of the energy in the system as a whole.
One single measurement over millions of square km does no such thing. How many temperature measuring stations do you think think there were in the Southern Oceans in 1880?
Only if you don't say they're an average. Which they did. No deception.
One of your feet is in the fire, the other in the ice, on average, apparently you are comfortable...
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW I've also lived near the beach for 50 years and not witnessed any abnormal changes in that time
It's worth nothing. Just so you know.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth nothing. Just so you know.
Actually it's worth more than all the stories of rising oceans and cities under water that have so far never eventuated. Why won't the ocean co-operate with the scary stories?
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the scientists.
The scientists tell me that the lowest CO2 emitting energy source we have available to us is nuclear fission power. They also say that nuclear fission power is the safest energy source we have available to us. Chernobyl doesn't count against American nuclear power safety because Chernobyl was not built by Americans. Even if we include Chernobyl in the nuclear safety calculation then nuclear fission power is safer than solar and wind power.
I also believe the engineers. The engine
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the scientists are going to say 2021 will be cooler then any year since 2005 and 2022 will be even cooler. Why? The Covid shutdowns. We do not need cleaner power, we just need to stay home and quit making and buying shit.
Repudiate all dollar debt and institute a UBI. Gasoline is rationed and essential workers are moved close to their work and get enough gas to get to work or are picked up in a bus. All jet aircraft are parked and no fossil fueled ships are allowed withing 200 miles of the coasts.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how we stop climate change.
We aren't going to stop climate change because the climate will change no matter what we do. We can put an end to global warming from human activity. It's not going to happen as you describe, not in any nation where people can vote because nobody is going to vote for such shit living conditions.
What will put an end to global warming from human activity, without turning the economy to shit, is nuclear fission power. We will see nuclear power plants get built in the USA like we've never seen before. We wi
Look in the mirror (Score:2)
DUPEd with hot air (Score:1, Insightful)
2016 = election year
2020 = election year
Coincidence, I think not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have it on good authority that a secret cabal of Democrats will hold an election in 2022 then a much larger election again in 2024.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: DUPEd with hot air (Score:2)
Do they blow hot air in other elections?
Good. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
In northern Michigan where I grew up the oldest houses had a door on the second floor for when the snow drifted over the normal doors they could still get out. When my dad was a kid in the 1940s you had to shovel the roof of the barn at least three times in the winter so it wouldn't collapse under the snow load. When I was a kid in the 1960s all of the Great Lakes would still freeze from shore to shore every year and snowbanks were taller than my dad.
In 1984 my mom saw her first "Green Christmas" with no snow on the ground. They took a picture and mailed it to me in Seattle. Now there has been snow on the ground on Christmas day twice in the last decade, and Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan has frozen over solid enough to go ice fishing once in the last 14 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're right, we should do nothing and wait about a century or so and then see what the data show. Of course if you're wrong and the actual scientists are right civilization won't exist by then, so no one will every know how wrong you were.
and it should have been cooler (Score:1)
2020 year of superlatives (Score:3)
2020 sure was a year of superlatives. It was definitely the worst, shittiest, ugliest, dumbest and sickest year in a long time.
No Hockey Stick (Score:1, Troll)
Temps are flat. The warming effects of CO2 are logarithmic and not all feedbacks are positive. We know both of these facts because there is no hockey stick.
But please continue to promote the 'we're all doomed' message and the science spokes models who keep feeding your dark fantasies.
We're not doomed, but, yes, the climate is warming (Score:3)
Temps are flat.
Temps are not flat. There are a number of places you can go to see the temperature record. Here's a good one: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
The warming effects of CO2 are logarithmic
Correct. This is why the effects of CO2 are usually quoted as "per doubling". Doubling from 200 to 400 has the same effect as doubling from 400 to 800, even though the second one is twice as much CO2.
That's only important when you're in the range where CO2 varies by an order of magnitude, though. At the moment, we're still in the range where the linear approximat
Nuclear power or it's bullshit (Score:2)
I'll believe we are in a climate crisis when the politicians start acting like it's a crisis. That can start with a federal energy policy of bringing a new nuclear fission power plant online every month in the USA. We did that once before roughly 50 years ago, I would think with greater industrial capacity that we have today that this is not only possible today but would be hardly a dent in the US industrial capacity or in economic costs.
Nuclear fission power is the safest energy source we know of. Accid
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe we are in a climate crisis when the politicians start acting like it's a crisis.
Um, politicians are pretty much the last people to realize that there's a crisis.
I don't particularly disagree with the rest of your post. I'll just point out that your conclusions pretty much echo what a lot of the people concerned climate change say. https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
http://thehill.com/policy/ener... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Um, politicians are pretty much the last people to realize that there's a crisis.
I'm quite certain that politicians have been claiming global warming is a problem for a very long time. Al Gore has been beating the drum of a global warming crisis for over 20 years. He's also been a large contributor to the problem with his going on a speaking tour by flying all over the world, and in his energy intensive lifestyle.
Global warming has been on the lips of politicians for over 30 years. They will at least claim to believe it a crisis. The problem is that they are not acting like it is a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't follow. You clearly have a point that you want to make, but since I don't speak fluent lunatic, it would be nice if you translated it into English.