There's a Heatwave In the Sea and Scientists Are Worried (bbc.com) 115
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The month of June and the first few days of July were hotter than any in recorded history, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Residents in the south of the US and southern Europe have been enduring sweltering temperatures, bringing excessive heat warnings, wildfires and plummeting air quality. However, records are not just being broken on land -- but in the water. Global ocean sea surface temperatures were higher than any previous June on record, according to a report by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, with satellite readings in the North Atlantic in particular "off the charts." Last month also set a record at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the biggest difference between expected and actual sea surface temperatures. Water temperatures around Florida, in particular, have been particularly warm. Scientists have also been tracking a large ongoing marine heatwave off the west coast of the US and Canada since it formed in May.
While the heatwave has since lessened in the north-east Atlantic, according to non-profit science organization Mercator Ocean International, another in the western Mediterranean now appears to be intensifying, particularly around the Strait of Gibraltar. This week, sea surface temperatures along the coasts of Southern Spain and North Africa were 2-4C (3.6-7.2F) higher than they would normally be at this time of year, with some spots 5C (9F) above the long-term average. Extreme marine temperatures have also recently been observed around Ireland, the UK and in the Baltic Sea, as well as areas near New Zealand and Australia. More recently, scientists suspect a possible heatwave south of Greenland in the Labrador Sea. "We are having these huge marine heatwaves in different areas of the ocean unexpectedly evolve very early in the year, very strong and over large areas," says Karina von Schuckmann, an oceanographer at Mercator Ocean.
Carlo Buontempo, director of the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service, says scientists expect big temperature variations in the Pacific Ocean associated with the El Nino weather pattern, a phase of planet-warming weather which is just beginning, although NOAA is monitoring a large heatwave in the Gulf of Alaska that has been sitting offshore since late 2022. But what we're currently seeing in the North Atlantic is "truly unprecedented", says Buontempo. Scientists are still trying to unravel its full causes. [...] More broadly, experts say the persistence of recent marine heatwaves is a worrying sign about how climate change is unfolding, alongside heatwaves on land, unusual melting of snow cover in the Himalayas and a loss of sea ice. Von Schuckmann notes that, even if humans stopped pumping CO2 into the air tomorrow, the oceans would continue to warm up for many years yet. "I am concerned as a climate scientist that we are further than we thought we are."
While the heatwave has since lessened in the north-east Atlantic, according to non-profit science organization Mercator Ocean International, another in the western Mediterranean now appears to be intensifying, particularly around the Strait of Gibraltar. This week, sea surface temperatures along the coasts of Southern Spain and North Africa were 2-4C (3.6-7.2F) higher than they would normally be at this time of year, with some spots 5C (9F) above the long-term average. Extreme marine temperatures have also recently been observed around Ireland, the UK and in the Baltic Sea, as well as areas near New Zealand and Australia. More recently, scientists suspect a possible heatwave south of Greenland in the Labrador Sea. "We are having these huge marine heatwaves in different areas of the ocean unexpectedly evolve very early in the year, very strong and over large areas," says Karina von Schuckmann, an oceanographer at Mercator Ocean.
Carlo Buontempo, director of the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service, says scientists expect big temperature variations in the Pacific Ocean associated with the El Nino weather pattern, a phase of planet-warming weather which is just beginning, although NOAA is monitoring a large heatwave in the Gulf of Alaska that has been sitting offshore since late 2022. But what we're currently seeing in the North Atlantic is "truly unprecedented", says Buontempo. Scientists are still trying to unravel its full causes. [...] More broadly, experts say the persistence of recent marine heatwaves is a worrying sign about how climate change is unfolding, alongside heatwaves on land, unusual melting of snow cover in the Himalayas and a loss of sea ice. Von Schuckmann notes that, even if humans stopped pumping CO2 into the air tomorrow, the oceans would continue to warm up for many years yet. "I am concerned as a climate scientist that we are further than we thought we are."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
China could hit back with, wasn't it a US president that withdrew with the Paris agreement?
Sorry but the elephant in the room is the Republican Party (no pun intended).
Truth in media laws to prevent Rupert Murdoch propagandizing climate change denial might convince the rest of the world to take your country seriously.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And the withdrawal was apparently a good thing.
According to the 2020 (end of Trump's term, but pre-covid data) and 2022 UN reports:
The US was the only single country to show a decrease in emissions over 10 years in the 2020 report (page 5). The only measurement that beat us was ALL of the EU being averaged. Brazil was not included in this report and has some concerning spikes in the other, but good luck finding a hard number.
Over 20 years, the US has dropped our per capita by almost 20%. China more than
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, so let's do nothing so we all fry sooner. Brilliant!
Re:Perfect excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was the only single country to show a decrease in emissions over 10 years in the 2020 report (page 5). The only measurement that beat us was ALL of the EU being averaged.
I don't think you understand how "average" works. If all of the EU averaged had a better measurement for decrease in emissions over 10 years, then at least some countries in the EU had to be under the measurement of the US...
Over 20 years, the US has dropped our per capita by almost 20%. China more than doubled over the same period. 2020 page 6, 2022 page 8
Let me tell you a story. This is the tale of two guys, the first one being obese (weighing 250 kg on the scale), and the second one being extremely thin (weighing just 30 kg soaking wet). Both of them have access to the same food reserve, which does not get replenished: the quantity is limited. The obese guy, after what he perceives as an intense weight loss regime, proudly announces that he has lost 20% of his weight: he now weighs 200 kg! Of course, he continues to eat burgers three times a week and eats way too much. Meanwhile, the thin guy has been improving his diet during this time, and he has gained 2.36 times his weight: he now weighs 70.8 kg (let's be precise, shall we).
They both realize that the food reserve is running out. Suddenly, the obese guy says to the thin guy (who is no longer thin but has a normal weight, whereas the obese guy is still obese): "Yes, but you see, I made efforts, and I lost weight! So, here's what we're going to do: I'll claim 90% of the remaining food for myself, sound good to you?"
This fat guy sure does sound stupid in his reasoning, right? Well, this is the exactly what you are saying.
The fact that there are more skinny guys, and that their overall food consumption is higher, doesn't mean that the few obese of you get to eat 90% of the cake... Especially when the skinny guys (China) are trying harder than you to contain their food consumption (leaders in solar/wind deployments, leaders in nuclear deployment, the world factory for solar panels and wind turbines materials...).
The US. Home of the free, and of people looking for excuses. Stop being a snowflake dear.
Re: (Score:1)
Over 20 years, the US has dropped our per capita by almost 20%. China more than doubled over the same period. 2020 page 6, 2022 page 8
Let me tell you a story. This is the tale of two guys, the first one being obese (weighing 250 kg on the scale), and the second one being extremely thin (weighing just 30 kg soaking wet). Both of them have access to the same food reserve, which does not get replenished: the quantity is limited. The obese guy, after what he perceives as an intense weight loss regime, proudly announces that he has lost 20% of his weight: he now weighs 200 kg! Of course, he continues to eat burgers three times a week and eats way too much. Meanwhile, the thin guy has been improving his diet during this time, and he has gained 2.36 times his weight: he now weighs 70.8 kg (let's be precise, shall we).
They both realize that the food reserve is running out. Suddenly, the obese guy says to the thin guy (who is no longer thin but has a normal weight, whereas the obese guy is still obese): "Yes, but you see, I made efforts, and I lost weight! So, here's what we're going to do: I'll claim 90% of the remaining food for myself, sound good to you?"
This fat guy sure does sound stupid in his reasoning, right? Well, this is the exactly what you are saying.
The fact that there are more skinny guys, and that their overall food consumption is higher, doesn't mean that the few obese of you get to eat 90% of the cake... Especially when the skinny guys (China) are trying harder than you to contain their food consumption (leaders in solar/wind deployments, leaders in nuclear deployment, the world factory for solar panels and wind turbines materials...).
The US. Home of the free, and of people looking for excuses. Stop being a snowflake dear.
Let me tell you a story of John Smith, an investor in your world, who's planning his factory producing widgets. He has to decide between two technological processes, for making widgets: one costs 1$ per widget and entails the emission of 1 kg of CO2, the other costs 0.80$ per widget, and entails the emission of 2 kg of CO2. He also has to choose whether to build it in China or USA. In USA, because Americans in your story are a nation of greedy obese fat bastards, the world government decides CO2 is taxed at
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I fail to see how your story is relevant to the discussion we had, which was about whether the US should be accountable for its emissions without using the excuse that "Look, China is emitting CO2 too" in order to justify doing almost nothing.
If your argument is that CO2 should be taxed a flar-rate everywhere, and for places which don't agree, impose taxes to compensate for that to importations, then I do agree. But this is a different topic. Interestingly though, this is what the EU is trying to do [europa.eu],
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I fail to see how your story is relevant to the discussion we had, which was about whether the US should be accountable for its emissions without using the excuse that "Look, China is emitting CO2 too" in order to justify doing almost nothing.
If your argument is that CO2 should be taxed a flar-rate everywhere, and for places which don't agree, impose taxes to compensate for that to importations, then I do agree. But this is a different topic. Interestingly though, this is what the EU is trying to do [europa.eu], albeit with little success IMHO. The other problem (not for me, but for some people I guess) with that, is also that it tends to hurt consumers in the short term: the manufacturing of what they buy has been outsourced to countries like China, India, ..., so that it could be cheaper and cheaper. If people have to start paying for negative externalities (like CO2 emissions, pollution related to mining, etc...), they might not like seeing that their smartphone suddenly costs x2 or x3.
They might also start making better choices, like maybe not replacing their iphone with every model. And buying locally.
It might also make them more receptive to ecology, because right now I guarantee to you a lot of opposition is a knee-jerk reaction caused by bad experience. Experience that whenever some sort of green tax, regulations or whatever is proposed, upon closer inspection, it's just a leftist wealth redistribution scheme, (like EU carbon trading, Kyoto treaty, you name it) which does sh*t for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that there are more skinny guys, and that their overall food consumption is higher, doesn't mean that the few obese of you get to eat 90% of the cake... Especially when the skinny guys (China) are trying harder than you to contain their food consumption (leaders in solar/wind deployments, leaders in nuclear deployment, the world factory for solar panels and wind turbines materials...).
You were doing fine until you got here. China is building more of that stuff, but they are also building more fossil fuel plants and you conveniently left that out because it was troublesome for your narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
China is building more of that stuff, but they are also building more fossil fuel plants and you conveniently left that out because it was troublesome for your narrative.
Nah, you just missed the point. Yes, they are burning a lot of coal (in absolute quantities). And this is reflected in my "story" with the fact that they increased their CO2 emissions by x2.36 since 2020 (I didn't list the reasons, but of course this is the main one).
However, this is irrelevant to what the story was trying to demonstrate:
- the fact that even with that coal burning, China is still emitting about a quarter the CO2 per capita than the US (the skinny guys are eating less than the fat guys, even
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that even with that coal burning, China is still emitting about a quarter the CO2 per capita than the US
All that means is that China is treating its people even shittier than the USA is, in order to be able to profit from supplying goods to the USA (and others) and they are selling out their future to do it, because their economy will otherwise collapse sooner than later because it's built on those emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
All that means is that China is treating its people even shittier than the USA is
It may mean that, but again, that's not the point. Or it may also mean that the US way of life and its related CO2 emissions are really not sustainable, and that what you call "shitty" is an example of what we might expect for later (either voluntarily, but I don't think it will happen that way, or forced upon us by the feedback loops we are feeding).
they are selling out their future to do it, because their economy will otherwise collapse sooner than later because it's built on those emissions.
Every economy, and GDP itself, is built on energy consumptions (note that I am not yet talking about emissions). That energy can either come from fossil fuels
Re: (Score:1)
You missed the part where the slim guy decides to invite all his friends, and they are numerous. India's population has increased with billion since 1945, from 400 million to 1,4 billion today. Pakistan and Bangladesh are even worse (percental-wise), 500-600 % increase since then. Meanwhile, modern European countries' population increased 10-15 in the same period, excluding migration.
China's density is about 150 person/km2, US is 35 (and Europe around 70 while India is at above 400 while Bangladesh's densit
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where the slim guy decides to invite all his friends, and they are numerous. India's population has increased with billion since 1945, from 400 million to 1,4 billion today.
I know it makes you feel good to imagine population growth is the culprit, because it allows you to think you have nothing to do with the problem.
The worsening of climate change, which can be seen through the increase in our energy consumption (80% of which is fossil fuels), is explained by two dynamics:
- The increase in the population, certainly, but especially in wealthy countries, simply because that's where energy consumption per person is highest. This accounts for 40% of the aggravating effect.
- The i
Re: (Score:1)
FYI, I am from Scandinavia where, e.g., the electricity (not energy) is basically carbon free (due to hydro and nuclear).
Yes, indeed some countries have lesser rights than I have. I only need to adapt my consumption so that me and my countrymen's is sustainable within the limits of this country. Despite our emissions are quite average for Europe, at around 4 tons/capita (the European average is 5 tons/capita, while USA has 15 tons/capita), which is ten times more than Bangladesh (0,5 ton/capita), due to the
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few flaws in your reasoning. The main one being that you think you (in Scandinavia) can live in isolation to the rest of the world.
I only need to adapt my consumption so that me and my countrymen's is sustainable within the limits of this country.
In that case, I guess you don't get to enjoy phones, TVs, EVs, clothes, coming at a cheap price (compared to their real value, if negative exernalities were taken into account) from those other "poor countries". Even if you could manufacture some of those in your country, there are a good part of modern goods (mostly electronics) for which you just don't have the min
Re: (Score:1)
You are completely missing the point. To simplify things, land area can be used as a proxy for how much emissions that are sustainable (there are probably differences between rainforest, desert, taiga etc). The population of Bangladesh must not exhaust the land of Bangladesh while Australians or Mongolians must no exhaust their countries capabilities to absorb emissions.
Regarding imports/exports, it has nothing to do with this. Trade consists of voluntary transactions. China is free to impose taxes on negat
Re: (Score:2)
The US was the only single country to show a decrease in emissions over 10 years in the 2020 report (page 5)
Yes, the only one, apart from the others that have also done so, e.g. UK roughly 600Mt CO2e in 2010 to roughly 400Mt C02e in 2020. Germany, roughly 900Mt CO2e in 2010 to 770 in 2020. France 256 to 200. And all the others I can't be bothered to look up. The French have done the least in an absolute sense, but their emissions are so much lower than most other populous Western nations I think they can be forgiven.
Re: (Score:1)
Over 20 years, the US has dropped our per capita by almost 20%
USA, 1990: 19.4 t/capita, 2019 14.7 - about a 25% reduction. Germany, 12 to 7.9 - roughly a 35% reduction. UK - 10 to 5.5 (45% reduction). France - 6.1 to 4.5 - 25% reduction. USA per capita emissions have been coming down, which is excellent news, from the 2000 peak, but its reduction in percentage terms has not been impressive. If we look at absolute numbers, which are also relevant - they are (in order): 4.7, 4,1, 4.5, 1.6. So around the average for Western European nations apart from France which was si
time to go all in on nuclear power! (Score:1)
time to go all in on nuclear power!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Perfect excuse (Score:5, Interesting)
The US is going green at a tremendous pace
You made me smile, the world’s biggest producer of oil is going green at a tremendous pace. You can see it going greener by years here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure how relevant is per-capita production,
Just ask any other leftist about why China should be given a free pass on CO2, and you'll learn.
neither why finding a random country not going green would make usa going green.
No, but picking on US, and giving a free pass to Norway does make YOU a hypocrite.
I'm sorry if your gf dumped you for a norway citizen, I'm sure you will find love again very soon.
Yeah, you really didn't need to plainly state you're a moron, I kind of got the gist from everything else you wrote.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but picking on US, and giving a free pass to Norway does make YOU a hypocrite.
This is a thread, there is a parent post claiming usa are going greener. I didn't pick USA from nowhere. The norway thing is just a basic straw man fallacy. In the same way i don't know why the word leftist is now a central point of this thread.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Perfect excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
And we're right back to the tragedy of the commons justification for doing nothing. Find someone else to blame, and deflect from any action. Sociopathic nihilism at its most destructive.
Re:How we used to measure seawater temp (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you! Your brilliance is a beacon of hope in these dark times. I'm sure the scientists who develop and apply climate models will be excited to learn about this from you. Will you call them, or shall I?
2024 will be even hotter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA says next year will be even hotter as El Nino's effects kick in.
Yup. Picture yourself in a car, rolling down on a big descending slope. Chances are you will be accelerating, until you start hitting the brakes.
Fun thing with climate change: hitting the brakes (reducing CO2 emissions) will start producing effect about 20 years after you hit the aforementioned brakes. In the meantime, you can scream all you want. Not hitting the brake is also an option though: you will just accelerate further, until you actually die and either bring everyone down with you, or someone more
I am not worried (Score:4, Funny)
Why worry when I know Leo Di Caprio and lots more wealthy people are worrying for me? They are everywhere, with their private jets and yachts, looking for solutions to the hardest problems we ordinary people are suffering from!
As a side note... I am on the market for a yacht... Nothing big, 36 meters to start with... What non-diesel model is best for me?
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note... I am on the market for a yacht... Nothing big, 36 meters to start with... What non-diesel model is best for me?
I'm sorry but you need to buy a private island first and make it a wild life sanctuary (aka the private garden of your villa)
Re:I am not worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, the biggest promoters of "climate science" are said "wealthy hypocrites". But, as recognized by people moderating this, I was being sarcastic there.
On a serious note... The climate is changing, so some problem (for humans defying nature by living in places we did not inhabit in earlier times) exists. But is CO2 our problem? Are humanity's actions a problem? Are we sure there? Isn't CO2 basic food for plants and aren't we seeing our planet greener and greener, so more oxygen is produced as we speak?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-diesel? That's crazy talk. Gasoline is hygroscopic, it's one thing to use it on a lake where you can get a tow easily, and another thing entirely on the ocean.
Basement dweller (Score:1)
Wonder who will be having the last laugh, cool as a cucumber in a non-AC cooled basement?
We don't float down here, but we're quite cool, and you will all be joining us soon. -_-
I think going underground should and will be more of a thing, though that's no excuse to continue being a bunch of polluting swine.
World government (Score:5, Interesting)
Nation states have proven that they fail to handle problems which are trans-national.
Even in principle, why should a kid born in a ghetto in Nairobi have far fewer opportunities in life than one born in an affluent suburb in California?
For thousands of years, much of the world was run on empires. Then came nation states. They have now outlived their usefulness.
There are not 195 countries. They are a mental fiction. A mass delusion. There is one planet.
But human egos are programmed to be divisive. That's fine... for the first hundred thousand years, when we went from being tribes killing each other, to empires killing each other, to nation states killing each other. The groups got bigger. But a bigger group also means a bigger power game. Now we've run out of space. There's nowhere left to conquer.
We need to return to understanding nature, and to understanding our own humanity.
We must have a world government.
Re:World government (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that humans have somehow evolved and changed for the better. The problems we have right now with inefficient, corrupt, clown-circus governments will simply be translated to a global entity when we end up with a single world government.
Technological progress outpaced us and, though we didnt change much from our nomad tribe days, we now have nuclear weapons and the god-like power of world destruction.
We will return to understanding nature and our humanity eventually, when all else will fail us.
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that humans have somehow evolved and changed for the better.
Their thinking is based on the idea that humans have not changed. That's why we need unified government. Unfortunately such a thing is as dangerous as it is necessary. Humans are mostly too selfish for it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU works pretty well. Remember checks and balances? The EU has 27 countries holding each other accountable.
If anything, it didn't give itself enough power to deal with the likes of Erdogan.
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask the countries of the former soviet union, britain, france etc how they felt about being part of an empire. Clearly you have little understanding of human nature and how local culture and nationality matters to people.
Mitigating climate change doesn't require the clapped out communist utopia you're dreaming of and in fact all powerful government tends to give less of a shit than less powerful ones about giving the people what they need.
Okay ... (Score:2)
... are we ready to go fully nuclear then?
Or are we going to just keep hectoring and milking it for politics?
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear would be bad for the oil companies profits so they will keep financing opposition to it.
I don't even read these anymore (Score:1)
The predictability of these climate doom articles is inversely proportional to their failure to predict the climate. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Re: (Score:3)
You know who is really good at predicting future disasters? Insurance companies -- it's literally their job, in that if they can't predict problems accurately, they will either price premiums too low to cover their future payouts, and go bankrupt, or price them too high and get undercut by the competition, and go bankrupt.
And guess what? Insurance companies increasingly think climate change is making many areas uninsurable, so they are leaving those markets [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You'll note that there are far less pro-oil people posting outright denial. The parent post is getting harder to find, because it's so demonstrably false. Now what's more common is blaming China, with the inference that until China comes on board, we might as well just puke GHGs.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies simply go by their experience. A lot of losses from hurricanes? Raise premiums or leave the market. A lot of losses from floods? Raise premiums or leave the market. A lot of losses from wildfires? Raise premiums or leave the market.
They did NOT raise prices based on doom predictions; they raised prices based on experience. They don't care if these losses were ultimately due to climate change, natural cycles, or the wrath of god; they just care that they happened, so they have adjus
nothing new (Score:1)
The last time I went swimming on the Atlantic coast of FL, the water temp was over 90degF (32C). That was over 40 years ago.
I'm not worried (Score:2)
And I suspect that the manatees crowding around power plant water outlets [sciencephoto.com] trying to keep from freezing their asses off are probably enjoying themselves too.
Testable predictions (Score:1, Flamebait)
Thunberg, Greta (@GretaThunberg). “A top climate scientist is warning climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” Twitter. 21 Jun 2018.
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
WE ALREADY DIED
WE ALREADY DIED
WE ALREADY DIED
WE ALREADY DIED
Al Gore made some testable predictions as well.
For example, Gore said during a speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 that there was "a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years." The former vice president made similar comments at least twice before in speeches, citing research.
Then there's AOC (in 2019):
“Millennials, and Gen z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we’re like ‘the world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'”
Another Al Gore prediction:
In his film "An Inconvenient Truth" for example, he says: "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro."
If climate change is really a science, if the science is really settled, what testable predictions does it make?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
funny how none of those people are actual scientists.
Re: (Score:1)
funny how you can't read.
The actual quote starts with: "A top climate scientist is warning...."
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you give a shit what celebrities say?
How about instead of attempting to claim the whole enterprise of atmospheric physics is a sham because , uh, celebrities are hiding that physics isnt real in the sky, how about we actually focus on what the science says?
And the science isn't promising right now.
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't follow politics as closely as some people, so I don't know how she meant it, but I parsed her statement as "A top climate scientist is warning that if we don't stop using fossil fuels over the next five years, climate change will wipe out humanity [at some point in the future]."
I'll agree with this statement, but it's also a strawman thrown in by both sides. We can't test climate change. We don't have two earths. We have to rely on other methods to determine if we're screwing ourselves (via environmental changes) or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard disagree. We have to look at more than 5 years of data. And when we look at hundreds / thousands of years of data, things get murkier as to what the "temperature should be today".
I'll leave this [xkcd.com] here to show what I'm talking about why we can't just predict the next 5 or 10 or 100 years so easily.
Re: (Score:2)
I like that xkcd but I find it a bit misleading. It has a nice blurb about about the limits of the data, and how spikes in the data (the older data especially) would get 'smoothed out'. Then it points out a recent spike in the data, the kind that got 'smoothed out' of all the other data. That comic is not just a graph of history, it is trying to make a point and that makes it less about science for me.
Re: (Score:2)
The graph is a composite of reconstructions with limited temporal precision and the instrumental temperature record, with very high precision.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally better to have a longer series of data even with slightly less quality as it defines trends better. It's a bit like if you were plotting a course and your first 50 bearings were +-1 (one standard deviation) degree but now they are +-0.2 of which you have ten. As long as the distribution around the true value is Gaussian, then the more inaccurate individual measurements have greater predictive power for your course due to the number of them even though if you calculated 1/accuracy they would,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Propaganda is necessary. Few people change their behaviour on account of rational arguments. If you need to influence the masses then you must use propaganda, and fear, and emotion in general. Exaggeration is necessary. That's just where we are as a species. It cannot be about science. It has to be about "the science", which is a narrative about expert knowledge, because people still respond, to a large extent, to authorities. If you are questioning it then good for you, you are in the minority of critical
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Testable predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
“A top climate scientist is warning climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”
I'm not a native Burger speaker but I'm pretty sure it means in 5 years, it is too late to mitigate climate change in order to avoid a bad ending of humanity. True or not, I don't know but why playing dumb?
If climate change is really a science, if the science is really settled, what testable predictions does it make?
Well none of your quotes are from scientists. I'm sure you can find paper from scientists with incorrect predictions though(in every domains in fact). The most obvious, basic and easily testable prediction made by climate scientist being: when co2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the temperature increases. You don't really need more to understand and acknowledge we have a problem.
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's weird that when you want to talk about what scientists predict, you quote politicians.
Scientists' predictions have *statistical dispersion* -- that is to say the predict a range of possibilities with different probabilities. These predictions are also (very sensibly) *contingent* -- a model run is only valid for a specific scenario in which humanity does certain things.
Now if you pick out *after* the fact what actually *actually* did, the consensus models for climate change pretty much nail it; reality fell within the box of the box-and-whisker plot. But what politicians on both sides is that they pick outlier results and hold them up as *representative*. Liberal politicians portray them as future scenarios we are headed for. Reactionary politicians take outlier outcomes from scenarios that didn't happen as failed predictions.
What we *should* treat as a representative is inside the whiskers of the plot for the emissions scenario we appear to be on. Those are the the outcome that are *likely* to happen. And they're not good. We're talking summers like the one we're having now becoming the norm every time we have an El Niño, which is every 3-5 years. We're talking about adding about 1% to the base rate of inflation; 3% when we look just at food. We're talking about widespread political disruption of low to medium income countries under that economic stress.
These aren't extinction level events for humanity; but they're the thing that climate denialists really hate: changes that forces you to adapt.
Re:Humanity was already wiped out (Score:5, Interesting)
Selective reading or deliberate denial... you decide.
What you should say is "we are already dead". We didn't die yet. It's like your doc telling you that if you don't stop smoking within the next year, you'll damage your lungs beyond repair and will die from it. You won't die within the year, but there simply won't be anything you could do afterwards that could stop the decay and your eventual demise.
So, in a way you're correct. Enjoy the rest of your life. You can now even continue smoking. It just won't matter anymore. You are already dead. You just didn't die yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in a way you're correct. Enjoy the rest of your life. You can now even continue smoking. It just won't matter anymore. You are already dead. You just didn't die yet.
I like your analogy. The only thing I don't agree with is the "you can now even continue smoking". Because in this analogy, to continue smoking has an impact not only on the smoker, but also the future generations, who never even smoked.
Also, the more you keep smoking, the more painful the death, even for the smoker.
Re:Humanity was already wiped out (Score:5, Insightful)
We finally have arrived at stage 4 of the climate denial, we've done it. Last stage, we can stop worrying.
First stage was: There is no climate change, so there's no reason to do anything.
Second was: Ok, there is climate change, but it's not relevant.
Third was: Ok, there's considerable change now, but it's not man made.
And the fourth now is: Ok, it's man made, but it's too late to do anything.
The beauty of it is that, no matter what stage you were on, you didn't really have to do anything. Ain't living in denial great?
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't living in denial great?
I deny that.
Re: (Score:1)
Selective reading or deliberate denial... you decide.
What you should say is "we are already dead". We didn't die yet. It's like your doc telling you that if you don't stop smoking within the next year, you'll damage your lungs beyond repair and will die from it. You won't die within the year, but there simply won't be anything you could do afterwards that could stop the decay and your eventual demise.
So, in a way you're correct. Enjoy the rest of your life. You can now even continue smoking. It just won't matter anymore. You are already dead. You just didn't die yet.
OK, so it's shit science, because it's not falsifiable. As Pauli would say "not even wrong". Because even if in 100 years we're still alive and kicking, you can still claim "we're already dead, you just WAIT a bit longer".
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't care. I just need that planet another 20, maybe 30 years and I don't have any kids. And it will last those 20-30 years. Somehow. If everything fails, I need a better AC.
What's your excuse?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Screaming? Please. I'm mostly sitting here with my popcorn watching the screamfest between deniers and people who still want to live here 50 years from now. Consider me a well entertained spectator.
Re:Humanity was already wiped out (Score:4, Informative)
The scientist and Greta didn't say we'd die in 5 years, they said if we don't stop we will have started a chain reaction. They mean feed forward loops in the climate with respect to heat. Since I doubt you know what that means, if you heat up the planet enough, the poles start to melt and release all the carbon currently trapped there. More heat, more releasing.
Re: (Score:3)
The ocean temperatures rising means we've hit the thermal absorption capacity of the oceans. It's been known for some time that the oceans were saving us from the worst effects of increasing CO2 concentrations, by acting as a massive heat sink. The question was just what was the capacity of the oceans to continue to absorb excess heat, and I guess we're getting our answer. And now that it's likely the oceans have reached that capacity, next up will the worst parts of the feedback loops in the form of permaf
Re: (Score:2)
While methane breaks down faster in the presence of UV radiation, while it's in the atmosphere it is a much stronger GHG.
And let's not forget that when it breaks down, it's mostly into CO2...
Re: (Score:3)
Stop anthropomorphizing the planet, it really hates it when you do that.
The planet doesn't give a fuck about us. Because, well, it doesn't give a fuck about anything. It just is. And it will be long after we made it uninhabitable for us.
In the eternal words of George Carlin, save the planet? The planet doesn't need saving. The planet is fine. We, well, we're fucked.
But that's ok. I kinda feel a species like ours shouldn't exist anyway. The planet probably would agree if we could ask it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're one of those people who think science is just some arrogant form of believing, right? And that a lab coat is kinda like a priest's frock?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that heat wave in the southern U.S., a mere figment of our imagination. S. Europe sweltering, a mere statistical anomaly. China and S. Asia heat wave, why they just are believing propaganda. Iran becoming a desert? Ha, I'll bet they enjoy it.
But now you bring up that BBC is a bunch of pedos because it's a GQP talking point and has fuck all to do with climate change. However it is effective amongst the intellectually challenged to change the subject so they can honk on about that.