The World Was Cooler In 2021 Than 2020. That's Not Good News. (wired.com) 146
2021 was actually cooler than 2020, points out Wired science journalist Matt Simon. So is that good news?
No. One reason for cooler temperatures in 2021 was likely La Niña, a band of cold water in the Pacific. It's the product of strong trade winds that scour the ocean, pushing the top layer of water toward Asia, causing deeper, colder waters to rush to the surface to fill the void. This in turn influences the atmosphere, for instance changing the jet stream above the United States and leading to more hurricanes in the Atlantic. The sea itself cools things off by absorbing heat from the atmosphere.
The Covid-19 pandemic may have had an additional influence, but not in the way you might think. As the world locked down in 2020, fewer emissions went into the sky, including aerosols that typically reflect some of the sun's energy back into space. "If you take them away, you make the air cleaner, then that's a slight warming impact on the climate," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a Thursday press conference announcing the findings. But as economic activity ramped back up in 2021, so did aerosol pollution, contributing again to that cooling effect. The 2021 temperature drop "may be possibly due to a resumption of activity that produces aerosols in the atmosphere," Schmidt said...
Today's findings are all the more alarming precisely because 2021 managed to overcome these cooling effects and still tally the sixth-highest temperature. And while global temperatures were cooler in 2021 than the year before, last year 1.8 billion people lived in places that experienced their hottest temperatures ever recorded, according to a report released today by Berkeley Earth. This includes Asian countries like China and North and South Korea, African nations like Nigeria and Liberia, and in the Middle East places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. "We talk a lot about global average temperatures, but no one lives in the global average," says Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. "In fact most of the globe, two-thirds of it, is ocean, and no one lives in the ocean — or very few people at least. And land areas, on average, are warming much faster than the rest of the world...."
Last summer in western Canada and the US Pacific Northwest, absurd temperatures of over 120 degrees Fahrenheit killed hundreds of people. According to Hausfather, the heat wave in Portland, Oregon, would have been effectively impossible without climate change, something like a once-every-150,000-year event.
It's a fascinating article, that looks at trouble spots like Antarctica's sea level-threatening "Doomsday Glacier" and a warming Gulf of Mexico, mapping the intensity of 2021's temperature anomalies along with trend graphs for both global temperatures and land-vs-ocean averages. It touches on how climate change is impacting weather — everything from rain and floods to wildfires and locusts — as Bridget Seegers, an oceanographer at NASA, points out that "Extremes are getting worse. People are losing their homes and their lives and air quality, because the wildfires are bad."
But Seegers somehow arrives at a positive thought. "There's just a lot going on, and I want people to also feel empowered that we understand the problem. It's just this other issue of deciding to take collective action....
"There's a lot of reasons for optimism. We're in charge. This would be a lot worse if we're like, 'Oh, it's warming because we're heading toward the sun, and we can't stop it.'"
(Thanks to Slashdot reader Sanja Pantic for sharing the article!)
No. One reason for cooler temperatures in 2021 was likely La Niña, a band of cold water in the Pacific. It's the product of strong trade winds that scour the ocean, pushing the top layer of water toward Asia, causing deeper, colder waters to rush to the surface to fill the void. This in turn influences the atmosphere, for instance changing the jet stream above the United States and leading to more hurricanes in the Atlantic. The sea itself cools things off by absorbing heat from the atmosphere.
The Covid-19 pandemic may have had an additional influence, but not in the way you might think. As the world locked down in 2020, fewer emissions went into the sky, including aerosols that typically reflect some of the sun's energy back into space. "If you take them away, you make the air cleaner, then that's a slight warming impact on the climate," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a Thursday press conference announcing the findings. But as economic activity ramped back up in 2021, so did aerosol pollution, contributing again to that cooling effect. The 2021 temperature drop "may be possibly due to a resumption of activity that produces aerosols in the atmosphere," Schmidt said...
Today's findings are all the more alarming precisely because 2021 managed to overcome these cooling effects and still tally the sixth-highest temperature. And while global temperatures were cooler in 2021 than the year before, last year 1.8 billion people lived in places that experienced their hottest temperatures ever recorded, according to a report released today by Berkeley Earth. This includes Asian countries like China and North and South Korea, African nations like Nigeria and Liberia, and in the Middle East places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. "We talk a lot about global average temperatures, but no one lives in the global average," says Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. "In fact most of the globe, two-thirds of it, is ocean, and no one lives in the ocean — or very few people at least. And land areas, on average, are warming much faster than the rest of the world...."
Last summer in western Canada and the US Pacific Northwest, absurd temperatures of over 120 degrees Fahrenheit killed hundreds of people. According to Hausfather, the heat wave in Portland, Oregon, would have been effectively impossible without climate change, something like a once-every-150,000-year event.
It's a fascinating article, that looks at trouble spots like Antarctica's sea level-threatening "Doomsday Glacier" and a warming Gulf of Mexico, mapping the intensity of 2021's temperature anomalies along with trend graphs for both global temperatures and land-vs-ocean averages. It touches on how climate change is impacting weather — everything from rain and floods to wildfires and locusts — as Bridget Seegers, an oceanographer at NASA, points out that "Extremes are getting worse. People are losing their homes and their lives and air quality, because the wildfires are bad."
But Seegers somehow arrives at a positive thought. "There's just a lot going on, and I want people to also feel empowered that we understand the problem. It's just this other issue of deciding to take collective action....
"There's a lot of reasons for optimism. We're in charge. This would be a lot worse if we're like, 'Oh, it's warming because we're heading toward the sun, and we can't stop it.'"
(Thanks to Slashdot reader Sanja Pantic for sharing the article!)
Coal burning (Score:3)
Re: Coal burning (Score:2)
I can't help but notice that 2 decades into the 21st century, we are dealing with a 19th century problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't our new multi-billionaire friends with access to their own spaceship factories do something USEFUL to combat client change, like build a solar shield to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the planet? That would probably reduce global warming more than promising to buy or produce more electric vehicles.
Simpler Explanation: Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
If every time there is a slight downward fluctuation in temperature, you try to do some analysis that makes it sound worse and do not do the same thing when there is an upward fluctuation to perhaps make it seem less-bad you are introducing a bias. The long-term trends are bad enough to concern anyone - just stick to them and explain what a statistical fluctuation is.
Re:Simpler Explanation: Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
A one-year variation is neither good or bad. Average temperatures over a year fluctuate based on weather patterns. Averaging over the year reduces these variations but does not eliminate them. Climate change is only visible on longer time scales.
Wish I had mod points, +1 insightful.
It would be good if more people (on both sides of the debate) would keep this in mind; one year, or even two or three years, is not really the issue. Climate change is a long term thing, the issue is the long term trend. The slope of the line is what matters... any single year's data point is just noise.
The press, however, does love writing about breaking records. "Hottest year ever!" is a headline. "This year's data continues on a trendline that's been going on every year for the last few decades" is not. But the record years aren't really the issue, the issue is the long term trend.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be good if more people (on both sides of the debate)
Which debate?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The optimistic viewpoint that humanity is in charge of vital actions to keep the planet livable strikes me as most peculiar
Really, why? There is plenty of evidence that species can - and indeed have - radically changed our planet given by the fact that the air is full of oxygen. Before photosynthesizing algae evolved the Earth's atmosphere was radically different and yet one of the most primitive lifeforms there is completely changed the entire planet by emitting a waste product it had no use for. Is it really so hard to believe that we can't do the same?
Of course, keeping the planet liveable is not entirely under our contr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your premise has promise but you can't just look at a few decades and call it a trend when there have been hundreds and thousands of years of different climate trends. Beyond that, I have a huge problem with the author claiming that "we are in charge". Are you? I highly doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your premise has promise but you can't just look at a few decades and call it a trend when there have been hundreds and thousands of years of different climate trends.
The Milankovitch cycles are well explained by various physical phenomena such as precession of the Earth's axis of rotation etc. These do indeed tend to happen over thousands of years. However, the recent data show a rapid upward trend in temperature on the scale of decades that is not at all consistent with these natural cycles and which is far more rapid.
As for being in charge think of it like driving a car. There are certain things you have no control over which may cause you to crash but there are a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pity a comment cannot be +1-ed beyond 5.
In fact, in terms of climate even 10 or 20 years are nowhere near the scale on which you can make conclusions. Yes, we had an anomalously warm decade in 2010-2020.
The last 30 years were warmer than the previous 30. Each ten year period warmer than the previous ten. I am not sure what more information you require. There's a clear trend.
Re: Simpler Explanation: Statistics (Score:2)
In regards to the article, it doesn't support their headline (but it's Wired so that's pretty much a giv
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.
Confirmation [Re:Simpler Explanation: Statistics] (Score:5, Informative)
...Going back to climate - can you make conclusions based on extrapolating data from 10 years in a system
The conclusions aren't based on extrapolating from ten years. The conclusions are based on measurements of the infrared properties of trace gasses in the atmosphere and well established principles of heat-transfer physics, physics which we use to understand the temperature of all of the planets with atmospheres, not just the Earth.
The measurements are just showing that the calculations are accurate.
...and, by the way, it's more than a ten year trend. Here's the graph in the article we're discussing [wired.com], and for comparison, here's a a graph from a bbc article [bbci.co.uk]
By the way, there are a couple of more cycles ahoy.
A lot of people have tried to find cycles in temperature data, but they are very hard to substantiate in the actual data. In any case, though, the present temperature record is way above any historical cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Why - it operates on a 10-11 year cycle.
Erm? Nope?
What fucking cycle are you talking about?
Going back to climate - can you make conclusions based on extrapolating data from 10 years in a system with a known 10 year cycle?
There is no such cycle and never was.
Optimum? [Re: You're a climate nutter] (Score:2)
The CO2 level is rising because of rising temperature. This is evident when looking at 1500 year climate history.
Yep, pretty much true. This is well understood.
The optimum for humans
The optimum for humans is absolutely unknown. Really, we don't know what the optimum is. It's not even clear we know how to define it.
would be ~quadrupled CO2 levels because plants just grow better.
A partial truth. Liebig's Law of The Minimum [arcosaspec...erials.com] says that plant growth is constrained by the least available resource. This can be carbon dioxide (in greenhouses, for example, where all the other resources like sunlight, water, nitrogen, etc. are provided by the greenhouse growers and the temperature is optimized for the plants), bu
Thermal expansion of water. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Thermal expansion of water. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They are wrong, it is actually the thermal expansion of the ocean.
At the moment perhaps (but I doubt it).
In future: definitely not.
If al ice in Antarctica and Greenland etc. melts we have a sea level rise of 150m - 200m. Has nothing to do with warming ocean.
Re: (Score:1)
All of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is not going to melt. For that to happen the temperature rise would have to be extreme. As the temperature rises and weather patterns change there will be melt but there will also be other places that glaciers start to build. Not enough to compensate for the melt but enough to make it so these dire predictions have no chance of becoming reality. But the fact is we do not know exactly how it will work out - and that is the biggest problem.
The ocean is an aver
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can simply google it. ...
And 5km is 5000m not 200m
Re: (Score:2)
Heat transfer into the ocean is not so simple. We still do not understand it - at least that is what experts with PhDs on the subject have told me. Basically, the ocean has layers and temperature can change significantly between these layers. You can actually observe this when scuba diving. There will be a point where the water suddenly gets noticeably colder over a very short distance.
Heat from warm layers is constantly mixing with adjacent colder layers but there are also large periodic mixing even
The solution is in the summary! (Score:3)
This would be a lot worse if we're like, 'Oh, it's warming because we're heading toward the sun, and we can't stop it.'"
If we want to cool things down, we just need to move a little further away [youtu.be]!
history (Score:3)
I'm skeptical of this conclusion.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Mt. Pinatubo released a large amount of aerosols high in the atmosphere and it still took 15 months to create 1F of cooling.
Re: history (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, sure, "China". No connection to all the crap the US is putting in the atmosphere. It is just those evil commie CO2 molecules. Fine capitalist CO2 would never cause anything like global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea that US emissions are any different in their effect from Chinese ones is of course ridiculous. But it is a readily verifiable fact that China is emitting around 10 billion tons of CO2 a year, which is about double the US emissions of around 5 billion. And its rising.
And it is obvious that if 5 billion tons is having an effect on global temperatures, 10 billion must have a larger effect. Perhaps even double?
The other big difference between China and the US is that China doesn't seem to think ther
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why the problem is so difficult: you are right, it is not enough for any single country to address the problem.
But when we try to make international agreements to get people to act together, people object, too.
And the answer "it's a hard problem, so let's give up and not solve it" has negative consequences as well.
Re: history (Score:2)
No, you're the problem [Re: history] (Score:2)
Most of the west continues to drop our emissions. At this time, we need ALL nations to not increase their emissions, and esp for nations like China, to drop theirs as well.
True, we are "dropping", but the west is still a factor of two above the emissions per capita of the less-developed nations like China. Saying they have to reduce emissions and we don't means we are saying either "we require you to do what we ourselves cannot", or else it is saying "we forbid you to reach our standard of living, you have to stay poor".
If we are fine with saying "you emit half as much per person as we do, but you still have to drop, we don't," they are going to interpret "reduce emissions"
Re: No, you're the problem [Re: history] (Score:2)
Re: history (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that US emissions are any different in their effect from Chinese ones is of course ridiculous.
How does GHG gases operate? They prevent heat from being reflected back out into space, and then traps it locally.. The larger the buildup of CO2 in an Area, the more the heat builds-up.
atmospheric gases/particles are moved by winds. Now, what winds flow to Western coast of North America, where the localized heating is occurring? [wikipedia.org]
This is why China was caught cheating on CFS/Freon production, even though they promised to stop it in the 90s (and don't claim that they did not know; that QUANTITY of CFCS was [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Thanos. Your Infinity Gauntlet is in the next room.
Re: history (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the population which has a similar overall standard of living as compared to the US average, their numbers are similar or even higher.
Simply nope. Sorry, you are completely wrong.
Re: history (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the westerlies [wikipedia.org]
What winds flow into west coast of North America? It is NOT American.
Clockwork pt 2 (Score:1, Troll)
Temperature rises: bad
Temperature falls: bad
More hurricanes: climate change, bad
Less hurricanes: climate change, bad
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look a denliaist cherry picking bits of TFS out of context to sow FUD without actually raising any useful point.
Re: Clockwork pt 2 (Score:1)
Oh, I found it very useful. And since the author was speaking categorically, the charge of "cherry picking" is pretty funny.
Re: Clockwork pt 2 (Score:1)
So true. The narrative must be maintained! These climate change posts on slashdot have become a regular feature. Perhaps the site gets paid a commission?
Also moves 1.5C completely out of reach (Score:1)
It seems that the aerosol/dust effect is currently cooling earth by around 1C. Take into account that 1.5C is pretty much "locked in" without that effect being taken into account, and that the aerosol/dust will need to go away, we already have 2.5C ensured. That comes with some of the really nasty effects and a lot of people dead or needing to flee.
All that talk about limiting it to 1.5C is just a smokescreen so some people (enemies of all of humanity is too kind a term for them) can get richer than they al
"There's a lot of reasons for optimism" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not seeing any reasons, to be honest.
If the global pandemic only shaved off around 4%-7% of emissions, with the economic impact it had - and as soon as we saw lifting of lockdowns etc. in various regions, the output ramped back up and again - how do we globally, make these reductions willingly?
We don't, because it quite simply isn't going to happen.
In case those who are so optimistic hadn't noticed, many third world countries have no options but to continue burning fossil fuel.
These are the same regions where just 10-15 percent of people have been vaccinated, whilst 60-70 percent have been in wealthier nations.
Do the math - do you really think wealthier nations are going to foot the bill for the sheer scale of a transition away from fossil fuels, when they couldn't even foot the bill for global vaccination programmes?
Hell, no.
We're absolutely going over 1.5c and will probably see 2c before the century is out or higher, depending on tipping points.
It's going to be a case of "last chance saloon", as humanity rushes into some sort of grand scale terraforming project to reduce CO2 or find another way of cooling the planet.
If we were to stop ALL CO2 emissions tomorrow, we're looking at 20 to 30 years before we even notice a global temperature decline - and in fact, there would be an increase, as the effect of global dimming is no longer prevalent.
It is going to require engineering at an unprecedented scale to solve this problem, so, it's more likely humanity is going to have to live with the consequences for centuries to come - and it's a potential civilisation end scenario - if we can no longer grown grain at scale, game over.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're definitely right on one thing. Global emission reduction is obviously not going to happen. It was obvious to many of us before COP26. It was obvious as long ago as Paris to anyone who looked at the numbers. But after COP26 it is undeniable.
People can try to spin it, but the big and growing emitters have not signed up to targets in tons that will result in any reductions. Anyone thinking clearly about this has to accept that the world is headed for emission totals well north of 40 billion tons a
Re: (Score:2)
This is not just "california"... (Score:2)
This is a global issue - and it's a chaotic one, as the results of a warming planet are not felt equally.
It isn't just about drought, it's about ALL extremes and the guaranteed impact of an increasing number of extreme events.
The worlds food production, in terms of the "bread baskets", is flexible.
If one of the main regions has a poor harvest, others can take up the slack.
What happens when multiple regions do?
It's about the averages.
The so-called "once in a generation" extreme weather event, the "once in a
Erruption of Hunga Tonga will cool the earth (Score:3)
The erruption of Hunga Tonga volcano this morning was absolutely massive, and on the scale of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Like in 1991, so much ash has been blown into the air all the way up to the stratosphere.
This will likely result (like in 1991), cooler temperatures around the world for the next few years (folks in northern climates probably remember the year without a summer in 1993).
Also look to much more rain in California over the next few years (ending the drought) due to colder temperatures, like happened last time as well.
You'll also get airplane windows that are hard to see out of as they will all get scratched up again, like they did in 1992-1994 flying through all the ash in the upper atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
Not clear from the information I've seen so far.
The Hunga Tonga volcano certainly shot a lot of ash and water vapor into the atmosphere, but so far I haven't seen any of the reports saying it put sulfates into the atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols are the cooling mechanism of explosive eruptions like Pinotubo.
Possibly some later reports will give more information.
Re: (Score:2)
(folks in northern climates probably remember the year without a summer in 1993).
If you mean e.g. Germany, the 1990s were all extremely hot years.
Re: (Score:2)
(folks in northern climates probably remember the year without a summer in 1993). If you mean e.g. Germany, the 1990s were all extremely hot years.
And now we have the eternal summer, and if anything it's made people take climate science less seriously
Here's some actual science for you (Score:2, Troll)
I think the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters" [amazon.com] by Steven Koonin does an excellent job laying out the actual science behind climate change. Do yourself a favor and give it a read, especially if you have any concerns about catastrophic climate change.
On a slightly different note, there's a thread here about how a change in a trend of only one year's duration means nearly nothing since it's so short. In global climate terms, the minimum meaningful time period fo
Re: (Score:2)
I think the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters" [amazon.com] by Steven Koonin does an excellent job laying out the actual science behind climate change. Do yourself a favor and give it a read, especially if you have any concerns about catastrophic climate change.
Thanks, will check it out
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah,
then go check out Patrick Moore's Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
Then Bjorn Lomborg.
And in the end read the IPCC report. Shouldn't take longer than the 2 books.
Re: (Score:2)
he minimum meaningful time period for detecting a long-term trend is around 10,000 years.
Nope it is not. Otherwise you never really would detect trends.
That's roughly half the period length of the ice house/hot house cycle that the globe has been repeatedly going through for as far back as we can measure it.
That is nonsense. Perhaps you want to look up how long a typical "ice age" and a typical "warm period" is.
What would be good news? (Score:2)
Even cooler ?!?!? (Score:2)
Damn it. If this keeps up we'll have an epidemic of people putting up their thumbs going "Eeey".
This is un-falsifiable crap - not scientific. (Score:1)
Surf's up dude (Score:2)
Extreme climate change means storm swells,
so surf's up dude
Prediction Confirmed (Score:2)
I've been saying for 10+ years that the weather would be turning cooler. And it will CONTINUE to be cooler, until 2050 or so. And no, it ISN'T good news, since more people die of cold than of heat, and this will be ESPECIALLY problematic as everybody is preparing for heat, and the cold is likely to catch people off-guard.
Cold is especially bad because it will limit crop development, and lead to famine.
Science != Statistics (Score:2)
"Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same numbers to draw different conclusions" --Evan Esar (b. 1899)
Re: Solar Output (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Negligible.
A 68.5 TRILLION EXATON fusion reactor in open space.
Negligible.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Over here I found another Lynwood ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Solar Output (Score:2)
You realise theres more than one form of pollution, right? Are you trolling or really this mouth dribbling thick? Hard to tell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is the influence of solar output
Small. The variation of solar output over the 12 year solar cycle is about plus or minue 0.03% (and the year to year variation smaller). Not enough to change climate much. Yes, we measure solar output and have a record of these measurement that have been done for decades. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
or slight variations in heliosphere pressure due to interaction of the solar atmosphere with interstellar medium?
Very very little effect. The heliosphere is not coupled to the atmosphere,(do recall that the heliosphere has a density of about ten to the 19th times lower than the atmospheric density)
It seems there are two potentially significant variables that are inadequately accounted for.
Believe it or no
About 1/3rd *at most* (Score:3, Interesting)
About one third, or less, of global average temperature increase could potentially be attributed to solar activity, if one were really trying. One third is being generous. That's the number one might reach if you were trying to argue the opposite of "the sky is falling" articles.
Understand I'm *not* saying it actually DOES account for that much. I'm saying that even if one were trying to spin as much as you can, and you were looking at how much is *possible* rather than what's likely, that's the biggest num
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have direct satellite measurements of solar output from 1978 onward. There's a small 11-year cycle and no clear trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the cycle was stuck for over 15 years in a minimum.
No idea if that has changed. Did not pay attention.
The difference between a solar max and min is not even 1% - has most certainly no effect on "climate".
Re: (Score:2)
Also, keep in mind that 0 C is 273 Kelvin, and 1% of 273 is 2.73 degrees.
But we are talking about a planet that is fluctuating between 10C (my estimate) and +/- 10.01C by changes in the sun output - so no idea what your point is.
the primary cause of global warming also claim that there are positive feedback mechanisms at work.
Yes. As more CO2 makes the planet more warm. Which causes more water vapour, which makes the plant even more warm. Which causes perma frost and under sea methane hydrate sources to eva
Re: (Score:1)
What is the influence of solar output or slight variations in heliosphere pressure due to interaction of the solar atmosphere with interstellar medium? It seems there are two potentially significant variables that are inadequately accounted for. The sun doesnâ(TM)t revolve around the world, but so much of our climate research pretends it does.
Wow, you should tell the people who have been taking this into account for decades that they neglected this. I am sure they'd be very happy to hear from you.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think scientists who do climate research have fraud degrees and do not study the obvious?
Errm, regarding Heliosphere, I suggest to read up where that ends and where the Earth is ... just a hint.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash: Climate scientists found gaslighting us into thinking everything is bad so they can get more grant money into researching why everything is bad.
I will point out that this article is by a Wired reporter [wired.com], not a climate scientist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um. Carbon in the atmosphere is how plants grow. Plants being able to grow sounds like something we shouldn't "delete".
I don't recall, when there were 280ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere there being no plants. Maybe I am wrong. 450ppm is an issue for many other natural systems, though. One thing that often causes an issue with plants growing: drought.
Re: (Score:2)
There a multiple effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere. For one thing, it acidifies the ocean which are at the base of the food chain. Shellfish have it harder to create shells. Coral reefs go bye-bye, thereby increasing coastal erosion. CO2 causes global warming, we know that. However, when the Earth warms, the atmosphere contains more water vapor and water vapor is the biggest cause of global warming. It turns out CO2 controls that cycle.
An acidified ocean decreases the amount of phytoplankton in the ocea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. you are probably one of those that will deny it is real right up to the point it kills you. Just out of curiosity: Do you also believe the earth is flat, COVID is a scam and vaccines cause authism?
Re: Gaslighting is the new "science" (Score:1)
You probably believe that virology is science based. Well I know it is not.
Your superstitions do not make virology scientific.
The same can be said for the alarmist climate modelers who simply ignore most emissions (vulkanos etc.) to get to their ridiculous conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
"You probably believe that virology is science based. Well I know it is not."
There you have it folks, this guy on Slashdot knows that virology is not science based. Read
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]
and come back here and say that.
Re: (Score:3)
Well. you are probably one of those that will deny it is real right up to the point it kills you. Just out of curiosity: Do you also believe the earth is flat, COVID is a scam and vaccines cause authism?
Please tell me how global warming is going to kill us all. For the record: at the start of carboniferous period the CO2 levels were 8x of what they are today, and I don't recall geology suggesting Earth was a lifeless rock back then, on the contrary, it was a lush jungle.
Just a teeny tiny irrelevant detail you seem to have overlooked: No humans in the carboniferous period. Seriously. Are you stupid or what?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
5+ degrees won't kill you. It might kill the things you rely upon for food. And +5 is an average, in your region, it might be 20+. That's what I'm hoping for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And Covid causes Death, that we know from statistics. Your anecdotes mean squat. They are anecdotes. There is a reason we do not do science by anecdotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Pet peeve: learn what gaslighting actually means. It isn't simply a term for "shit I don't like".
Re: (Score:2)
Pet peeve: learn what gaslighting actually means. It isn't simply a term for "shit I don't like".
We've got terms for that. Communism and Socialism
Re: (Score:2)
A Conspiracy!! Damn, you rumbled us out. Go to Fox News and collect your gold star.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, the "the world was cooler in 2021 than 2020" is clickbait; from the graph you can pretty easily see that the difference is down in the noise.
What's new, and I hadn't seen before, is the graph showing ocean and land temperature: https://media.wired.com/photos... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:1)
These days, you can immediately dismiss anything that is blaming "China". 99% probability it is a direct lie or misdirection. Your statement is too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: What is being missed (Score:2)
WindBourne lying as always (Score:1, Insightful)
America is responsible for about twice as much CO2 than China. [ourworldindata.org] Despite being only 1/4 the population of China. That make Americans 8x times more responsible...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that it is Alaska and northwest Canada that is doing the mass Temperature changes. Why? Not because of Canada, America, or Europe dumping large quantities of CO2. It is because China's GHG is not just massive, but increasing.
All three produce large amounts of CO2 in aggregate, although that of China has been increasing, 2017 figures in Mt are North America (USA, Canada, plus the not-mentioned Mexico): 6232, Europe: 5858, China, 10877. In terms of trends, the USA is now at 1990 levels, advanced European economies are 20% down on 1990 levels, China is up 3.5 fold. Everyone has more to do.
However, you have to caveat the above based on where energy-intensive work consumed in a country is done. The USA exported manufacturing to Mex
Re:heat waves happen (Score:5, Funny)
"That happens. In order for it to be cool in one part of the country it has to be hot in another part."
I guess with a grade school education, this makes sense to you.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And you came all this way just to say that. Maybe you could try pissing in the wind next. You'll at least get a chance to wash some of the misogynistic vitriol off yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
How is this insightful?
Dunning Kruger experts on /. are just as bad as those on Facebook.