Earth Shattered Global Heat Record In 2023 (apnews.com) 227
The European climate agency Copernicus said Earth shattered global annual heat records in 2023, flirting with the world's agreed-upon warming threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius. "On average, global temperatures in 2023 were 1.48 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial times," reports the Associated Press. "If annual averages reach above 1.5 degrees Celsius, the effects of global warming could become irreversible, climate scientists say." From the report: The record heat made life miserable and sometimes deadly in Europe, North America, China and many other places last year. But scientists say a warming climate is also to blame for more extreme weather events, like the lengthy drought that devastated the Horn of Africa, the torrential downpours that wiped out dams and killed thousands in Libya and the Canada wildfires that fouled the air from North America to Europe. In a separate Tuesday press event, international climate scientists who calculate global warming's role in extreme weather, the group's leader, Imperial College climate scientist Friederike Otto said "we definitely see in our analysis the strong impact of it being the hottest year."
The World Weather Attribution team only looks at events that affect at least 1 million people or kill more than 100 people. But Otto said her team was overwhelmed with more than 160 of those in 2023, and could only conduct 14 studies, many of them on killer heat waves. "Basically every heat wave that is occurring today has been made more likely and is hotter because of human-induced climate change," she said. [....] Antarctic sea ice hit record low levels in 2023 and broke eight monthly records for low sea ice, Copernicus reported.
Copernicus calculated that the global average temperature for 2023 was about one-sixth of a degree Celsius (0.3 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the old record set in 2016. While that seems a small amount in global record-keeping, it's an exceptionally large margin for the new record, [Copernicus Deputy Director Samantha Burgess] said. Earth's average temperature for 2023 was 14.98 degrees Celsius (58.96 degrees Fahrenheit), Copernicus calculated.
The World Weather Attribution team only looks at events that affect at least 1 million people or kill more than 100 people. But Otto said her team was overwhelmed with more than 160 of those in 2023, and could only conduct 14 studies, many of them on killer heat waves. "Basically every heat wave that is occurring today has been made more likely and is hotter because of human-induced climate change," she said. [....] Antarctic sea ice hit record low levels in 2023 and broke eight monthly records for low sea ice, Copernicus reported.
Copernicus calculated that the global average temperature for 2023 was about one-sixth of a degree Celsius (0.3 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the old record set in 2016. While that seems a small amount in global record-keeping, it's an exceptionally large margin for the new record, [Copernicus Deputy Director Samantha Burgess] said. Earth's average temperature for 2023 was 14.98 degrees Celsius (58.96 degrees Fahrenheit), Copernicus calculated.
Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:3, Interesting)
They reported one-sixth of a degree difference averaged over the entire globe for a period of an entire year? With what margin of error was this average computed? How many sites were sampled to arrive at the average? Where were these sites located, what percentage in urban areas vs rural? Do they include satellite measurements, or just land? Do they include sea-based? Geographically, how distributed?
This is what gets me about these layman science articles from corporate media sources such as the AP. You read the article, and it's full of photos of people sweating under the hot sun and all these wild-a*s claims, but never any information about the numbers themselves. Never anything you can use to tell if you're just being fed junk science or real data.
Frankly, I am highly skeptical of these claims. These people have a vested interest in climate fear mongering, they make a living off of it. I'll see the actual proof, please, or don't bother making claims.
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree that I would have liked links to the source articles/studies, rather than just other AP articles, but they weren't hard to find. The article mentions each of the source organisations and mentions scientists involved in the studies. That information makes for easy searching.
I will add that highly sceptical of someone proposing a conspiracy theory about "these people" and their "climate fear mongering" to justify his complete lack of effort to look for any evidence ("proof" is a term we scientists try to avoid) he demands. One could flip it around and ask that he provide his evidence for climate fear mongering.
Re: (Score:3)
Why even make me search for it? Why not tell us right out: what is the margin of error for their measurement, and how did they calculate it?
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why even make me search for it? Why not tell us right out: what is the margin of error for their measurement, and how did they calculate it?
Because an AP news story is just that, a news story for the general public. It's not a scientific journal written for people who think they understand statistics (and I'm not necessarily calling you out by saying people who "think" the understand it, but the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of the population do not understand this even if some think they do).
If you want an article with information to suit your level of statistical understanding then you shouldn't be reading the AP. It's not written for *you*. It's written for everyone else. Go search for the scientific journals if that is your level of understanding. You can subscribe directly to them and get all the mathematical details right there in your inbox.
In other news, why don't we talk about knitting on Slashdot?
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:4, Funny)
why don't we talk about knitting on Slashdot?
Here ya go: Netflix Creates DIY Smart Socks That Pause Your Show When You Fall Asleep (netflix.com) [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
So you are asking me to trust you?
No. ... What? Did you even read my response in the slightest? I'm asking you to get a news source appropriate for the level of information you're after. AP isn't it. AP is for someone else. Stop complaining about something not targeted at you and go to the actual source.
Are you really distracting from the fact that your margins of error
Stop frothing at the mouth and re-read my post. I am not distracting anyone from anything. You are with your pointless complaining about a source of information not targeted to you. The original sources for this information are available alo
Flirting (Score:4, Interesting)
It shattered, shattered I say existing heat records, made life both miserable and at the same time deadly, and can you believe it, it flirted with the 1.5 deg C temperature limit that your domestic partner reminded you we had already agreed upon.
Get with the program, peasant!
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:4, Insightful)
You got your way, dude. We’ve done nothing, the planet is headed towards 3-5 C warming, humans are gonna have to re-jig literally everything and head towards the poles so modern civilization can survive, half the species aregonna go extinct, and in about a century we’ll be geoengineering the planet just to cope. Uncle. I give. You won. Could you please just take a victory lap?
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And those numbers arenâ(TM)t gonna go down for decades, since the projected reduction curves are hilariously based on assumptions that we can revamp our entire energy infrastructure with a wave of our hands.
Well, stuff like that does not change overnight. By the way, weren't the environmentalists so against nuclear power for some reason? I think one of their arguments was that it takes a long time to build, well, sure, but if they were not against it, some power plants would have already been completed.
Now it's the same song again - "nuclear takes too long to build, we need a solution NOW", which will be repeated 20 years later.
Wind and solar alone will never be able to replace gas, coal and nuclear, because there are times when there is no wind at night. Again, the wishful thinking comes - "but we will just build storage, have smart grids so we won't need electricity on nights with no wind". Yeah, right.
Oh, by the way, IIRC enviros also oppose hydroelectric power plants. So, maybe it's not the CO2 they oppose but they want to make the grid unstable so that there are frequent outages? Or they want some kind of perfection and oppose everything not perfect enough, even if it would be good enough.
Or, maybe it was wrong to combine environmentalism with Marxism? Instead of figuring out how to generate power with less pollution etc, instead the same people were planning to take away private property, take away cars (whatever power source) and make people use public transport, live in cramped apartments and lease everything (so, pretty much back to the USSR, but somehow worse).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Instead of figuring out how to generate power with less pollution etc, instead the same people were planning to take away private property, take away cars (whatever power source) and make people use public transport, live in cramped apartments and lease everything (so, pretty much back to the USSR, but somehow
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is - there is a big difference between changing the power source and the other stuff. I'm not attached to coal or gas power. I don't really care, as long as electricity does not become too expensive (though they have been saying that solar and wind power is really cheap now and is cheaper than coal, so, yeah, why would I want to pay more for coal power if I can get cheaper wind power?). Maybe solar, wind and nuclear combination would be cheap and zero-emissions, that would be awesome.
However - in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are the delays and cost overruns because of inherent problems with construction or is it because some people hate nuclear power plants and try in every way to delay them (pointless regulations, lawsuits etc)?
So, too expensive to build, too slow, so let's burn coal for 50 years instead? I'm OK with that. It seems that the enviros are idealists, but while they wait for the ideal and refuse anything that's good enough but not ideal, let's do the bad thing. For example- Germany closing its nuclear power plants
Nuclear proliferation (Score:2)
The real problem with nuclear is the waste disposal, which could be solved by reprocessing, but we don't have that because of fears of nuclear proliferation.
And don't get started about "why do the existing nuclear powers get to keep their nuclear weapons?" The international framework for arms control has something in it for everyone, and the existing nuclear powers who make nice with the framework are not allowed to test, so the potency and reliability of their stockpiles is diminishing over time.
But
Reprocessing [Re:Nuclear proliferation] (Score:2)
The real problem with nuclear is the waste disposal, which could be
[mostly]
solved by reprocessing, but we don't have that because of fears of nuclear proliferation.
This is absolutely key. Unless we reprocess waste, there isn't enough uranium to solve the energy problem with nuclear power.
If this is to happen, we need to reprocess waste to recover and reue the unburnt fraction of the fuel, and we also need to either start commissioning breeder reactors (which also have proliferation problems), or else develop the thorium solution. (Of these, the thorium advocates do make a very good case.)
Why so expensive? Re:Why do they never tell yo...] (Score:2)
Are the delays and cost overruns because of inherent problems with construction or is it because some people hate nuclear power plants and try in every way to delay them (pointless regulations, lawsuits etc)?
Yeah, would be nice to have a good answer to that question. The nuclear advocates have been saying the next generation nuclear plants will be much cheaper, but we sure haven't seen that happen so far. The top level look seems to say that regulations and lawsuits aren't the main cost driver. Regulations and oversight turn out to be necessary, but it's hard to guess which ones are "pointless" without a very detailed analysis. The quick answer is, if we built five or ten nuclear plants a year, following the r
Re: (Score:3)
Wind and solar alone will never be able to replace gas, coal and nuclear,
No one except folks on the fringe or folks such as yourself making up lies to deflect have said that. What has been said is we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and wind and solar are the way to do it. This isn't a binary system. As difficult as it is to believe you can have wind and solar for large portions of electricity production while at the same time having a limited amount of fossil fuel plants for load balancing and
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear? [Re:Why do they never tell you about...] (Score:2)
Well, stuff like that does not change overnight. By the way, weren't the environmentalists so against nuclear power for some reason?
"were" is the correct verb tense. Nuclear power is now more controversial, with indeed some of the old-timer environmentalists still opposed, but a lot of the newer ones supporting it, and a significant fraction simply saying "there are arguments both for and against."
(for myself, I try to avoid talking in depth about nuclear power; the advocates aren't willing to admit it has any problems, while the opponents aren't willing to admit that problems have solutions.)
...
Or, maybe it was wrong to combine environmentalism with Marxism?
Not sure who you're referring to. Marxists
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I won't have to pay for it. I just create a company, make a nuclear plant, reap the profit and as soon as the plant needs to be dismantled and becomes a pure cost sink, POOF goes my company and, well, hope you like the plant you just inherited.
Re: (Score:2)
Geoengineering [Re:Why do they never tell you...] (Score:2)
Between migration and geo-engineering, the latter is far, far cheaper, and therefore far more likely to be the "solution."
Workable plans for geoengineering at the scale required to deal with climate change have never progressed beyond very top-level back-of-the-envelope analyses, and realistic cost estimates simply do not exist.
Put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it continues to warm the Earth for a hundred years, and possibly more. Put in a geoengineering solution like, for example, reflecting some of the incident sunlight, and you have to keep replacing and maintaining that for hundreds of years... as well as putting n
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please just take a victory lap?
No. Now shut up and if you could, please die. Your usefulness is up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is false that "we" have done literally nothing, that kind of hysteria isn't helpful
Done nothing about what? What is that? Then tell all present how it is false to claim whatever it is you refer to. Thank you for your clarification.
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:4, Insightful)
You won because you ignored the facts and instead do as conservatives do: you applied simple answers and ignored nuance. I hope your house has a wood frame, because it's easier to build a boat with wood than with concrete.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hope your house has a wood frame, because it's easier to build a boat with wood than with concrete.
I hate to be crass, but wouldn't your rather the people with OP's attitude have the concrete version?
Re: Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have a spot on my raft for you as well. Take care!
Arch conservative Xi Jin Ping (Score:3)
Those arch conservatives are everywhere, in China, India and all over Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
Second: don't mistake my description of you conservatives with excluding the
Re: Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody ever said that a vaccination stopped diseases, but the numbers demonstrated that there were fewer fatalities where it was more widely distributed
Point of fact, the entire media industrial complex, the government and its agents, and the CEOs of the manufacturers at one point or another have all said just that! The vaccines were 100% effective, when in fact the manufacturers did no reasonable studies to see if it actually did reduce infection at all! You don't remember how they basically bucked the eff
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the same as a "media industrial complex".
The complex in the military industrial complex is about the co-dependent relationship between the military and the large industrial base required to support a high tech military. You can't have the type of military the US wants/needs without it, but that creates perverse incentives and then tends to grow merely to support itself.
What you are talking about is not a "media industrial complex", because it lacks the co-dependent industrial base and doesn't for
Re: (Score:2)
Who made either of these two claims? Please cite a source.
Seriously, dude, if you have to build a strawman so you have someone to argue with, your arguing skills are weak. That wasn't funny when the religious dimwits did it and it didn't get any funnier now that you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the first, but Joe Biden claimed the second -- repeatedly: https://www.wral.com/story/fac... [wral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If taken literally the what biden said isn't true per se. It is still possible to transmit the virus when vaccinated. The chance is severely lower, but it is still possible.
Looking overall, and you'd do that as the president, he's perfectly right. Virus spread in pandemics is all about the bulk effects. If a given population has enough inoculation then the virus will stop spreading. So he's right in saying that if you're vaccinated you don't transmit the disease. Just don't read it as an effect on the leve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"- Global warming is caused by CO2 alone"
Nope, there are other greenhouse gasses, but CO2 is the main one.
Methane is also a problem, (and humans are causing more of that), but once the world is warmed up enough, there will be a lot more coming out of tundra and undersea deposits, and we will be in big trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
"- Global warming is caused by CO2 alone"
Nope, there are other greenhouse gasses, but CO2 is the main one.
More specifically, CO2 is the main one that humans have control over.
Globally, of course, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, and responsible for the fact that the average temperature of the Earth is above freezing. But this goes into and out of the atmosphere by natural effects (evaporation and condensation respectively), and doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long.
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
They reported one-sixth of a degree difference averaged over the entire globe for a period of an entire year?
Yep. Measuring over more data points-- the entire globe-- reduces the error bars. Averaging reduces error bars: The more measurements you average, the smaller your error in the mean.
With what margin of error was this average computed? How many sites were sampled to arrive at the average? Where were these sites located, what percentage in urban areas vs rural?
You know, all of these are exhaustively dealt with in the actual literature. This particular press-release was from the European Copernicus [copernicus.eu] programme, but there are four other major research institutions that collate global data, and a dozen others that look at regional climate. The Copernicus summary that's being discussed is here: https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu] but if you want just the one-figure graph showing the result, look here: https://apnews.com/article/cli... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So what is their error bar?
And what are their error bars for historical data?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the betting he'll vanish from this thread, then pop up back on the next story asking exactly the same questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Using the same account name or one of the likely 100s of other accounts with a randomly generated username?
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want the "numbers" then a social media site like /. is not the way to go. Nor the typical lay media that gets reported here.
If you want real climate science without all the political bullshit and willful ignorance go to Real Climate [realclimate.org] where only real scientists discuss the real research they are doing.
Of course I doubt that many of our our participants here will ever go to that link. It is much more comfortable to hang on to their own cherished "common sense" positions which they believe will place them at the apex of any scientific debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
I've never heard of, nor have I ever thought of Slashdot as a "social media" site....??
LOL...anti-social at best?
Re: (Score:2)
What category would you put it in? What is so amazingly different about it than, say, reddit, X, 4chan, fark, or for that matter, disqus? Or any of dozens of others?
The clique is different. The moderation is a bit different. The community feedback needs to be re-written but never will be. It doesn't support pictures.
But at the end of the day it is a social media site. Now I'm curious to know what you thought it was.
Re:Why do they never tell you about the numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
All you need to know is that things are getting worse & they'er going to get much worse because of global heating & we may be able to prevent them from being catastrophic (i.e. Catastrophic as in mass famines & the possible collapse of civilisation) by quickly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. There's not even any serious debate about this fact anymore.
We're still at the "re-organising deck chairs on the Titanic" stage of effective action on climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually there has been times, perhaps 80%, when the poles have been ice free and tropical. Peak seems to have been ocean temperatures of the mid 30's Celsius at the poles with CO2 levels about 4000 ppm. Not the conditions we have evolved to live in.
Hmm, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] seems it peaked at 7000 ppm and dropped to 4000 ppm causing a mass extinction.
There's lots of cycles in Earths history and most of the time the Earth was fairly inhospitable to humanity if it had existed.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to argue that the earth was much warmer some million years ago: Yes, it was. It also had a far, far higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
It also had no humans crawling all over it, and if that's not a requirement, well, then there is also no problem.
In the eternal words of George Carlin, "save the planet" is bullshit, the planet is gonna be fine, it's just we that are gonna be fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I am highly skeptical of these claims. These people have a vested interest in climate fear mongering, they make a living off of it. I'll see the actual proof, please, or don't bother making claims.
That's admirable. It's wise to at least question the likelihood of any information.
That said, a couple things. One: thirty seconds of Google gave me this: https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu] which has a nice section regarding data access where it spells out how access to the data is granted. So... you didn't really try.
Two: if you're not willing to do that work and you're not willing to license the data, you're not entitled to dispute that data. If you're not qualified to analyze the data, you're not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If one can only know what one cannot doubt and one cannot know what one can only assent to, why should I trust those numbers? Remember Feynman in Cargo Cult Science describing how oil drop experiments repeated Millikan's error for decades because Very Serious Scientists threw out data to get closer to their idol, Millikan's, reported data?
How can you take the social element out of science? Behind every number is there not a social act, subject to all sorts of arbitrary and fickle social manipulation?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
BTW, you're arguing against trying to prevent massive numbers of unnecessary deaths. Reflect on that for a while. Consider it. Let it sink in. Think of which your family members, colleagues, friends, neighbours, etc., or even you, you'd like foreign politicians to decide knowingly to let die from preventable
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you're arguing against trying to prevent massive numbers of unnecessary deaths.
They're not unnecessary, it's the Rapture!
Itâ(TM)s the standard. It is rock solid, and for most use cases fast enough.
They'll all go to heaven.
o decide knowingly to let die from preventable starvation, disease, extreme weather events, mass migrations, civil unrest, wars, etc..
The godless Jesus hating Satan worshiping scum will get what they deserve. I'm sure there's a Bible verse where Jesus told us to hate our neighbo
Re: (Score:2)
As I always say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Living in the extreme North of the US 48, as I always say: "Why move to Florida when Florida is coming here".
Re:As I always say... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's so much I could say in response to this. I could point out that it would take a lot more than 1.5 C of warming before Wisconsin stops getting snow in the winter, so why do you think the presence of snow is evidence against climate change? Or I could note that the current weather at this moment in one place tells you nothing about long term climate trends, so why would you base your beliefs on it? Or I could point out that no scientists are actually predicting the end of the world from climate change, just a lot of suffering for a lot of people, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. Or I could even observe that a lot of people really are predicting the end of the world, and have been doing it continuously for 2000 years, but no matter how many times Jesus fails to appear, they just keep predicting it will happen Any Day Now. Your scorn would be better directed at the people who keep making wrong predictions, not the ones who keep making right predictions.
But I suspect that no amount of logic would have the least effect on you, because your beliefs aren't based on logic. Am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I can't believe we have to keep repeating this statement to all the neckbeards: weather != climate.
Also, one more time for the cheap seats in the back, yes the earth's temperature has gotten warmer and cooler in the long distant past, but over a tremendously longer timeline:
https://m.xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
you lugnut.
That's unfair. Lugnuts are actually useful.
Re: (Score:2)
The doom sayers would have better luck if they waited until summer to make their prognostications.
But the summer won't be in 2023 anymore. That's not how calendars work. If you want 2024 statistics wait for them like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth Shattered Global Heat Record... (Score:3)
Earth Shattered Global Heat Record Again In 2023.
Fixed the title.
Correction: Man Shattered Global Heat Record Again (Score:2)
Ah yes, those highly-accurate digital thermometers (Score:3, Informative)
of the pre-industrial era...
We need REAL science, not quasi-political pseudo-science garbage that produces a line like "On average, global temperatures in 2023 were 1.48 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial times,". In order to make that statement, you must claim to have temperatures from pre-industrial times that are accurate to 1 percent of a degree Celsius. Decades ago students learned in their initial college science classes that you do NOT get more precision by doing a bunch of averages. If I take a measurement with a thermometer with 1 degree resolution, and then repeat it many times and sum-average I do NOT get a more precise temperature and I do NOT get to claim to have a temperature measurement resolution of 1 percent of a degree, all I get to claim is that I have a more accurate (error reduction) measurement (removing things like instability in the instrument) of my 1 degree accurate instrument and can be more certain the number is 43 rather than 44 ... I DO NOT get to claim the number is 43.2641 no matter how many digits my calculator spews.
This is basic
It's also not acceptable to average measurements of temperatures/heights/etc over a wide-area using a grid of sample locations when you know that there are significant localized variations between sample points. This means that the over-all "average tempaerature" or "average height" etc can be changed dramatically simply by moving the data sampling locations a little bit. For example, I get different temperatures at the same time of day with the same thermometer, depending upon which corner of my property I take the measurement on. The property is steeply sloped and the vegitation varies. If I report the temperature of my property as the average of 3 data points, and choose the NE, NW and SE corners, I get one "property temperature" but if I use the NW, SW, and SE corners, I get a very different "property temperature" - and the difference is tenths or even full degrees, not hundreths of a degree.
I despise the people abusing science for their own political agendas, and in the process, damaging the reputation of ACTUAL LEGITIMATE SCIENCE in the minds of the greater public. This stuff needs to end, and some actual adult scientists need to step-in to replace the dimwits who took on the top academic science positions post 1965ish.
NOTE: I am NOT making any argument here about whether "global warming" is happening, or man-made, or any of that...people are free to rant and rave on that from their political corners all they want. I am saddened that I even need to add this note because there are some people here with political agendas that blind them so badly they cannot read a full comment properly enough to notice what is actually being said and instead simply want to rage that somebody is saying something that crosses their damned POLITICAL lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should there be anything wrong with feeding the trolls, right?
Re: (Score:2)
> I am NOT making any argument here about whether "global warming" is happening, or man-made, or any of that..
Yes you are. You're using the 'concern troll' method to undermine confidence in the current scientific consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point.
We don't give a shit about having the temperature of 1716 to 1% of a degree of accuracy.
"1.48 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial times" means:
- almost 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial times
- 0.18 degrees Celsius higher than 1.30 which was the previous record (2016/2020)
Re: (Score:2)
"Prove it, and by the way, I'm putting "proof" on the far side of a very high barrier." That's fine. But what you're really doing is stating the obvious - in a complex system you can't "prove" anything. You can only point to where the preponderance of evidence seems to imply you're headed.
Reminds me of Russell's Teapot.
Re: (Score:2)
These alarmists seem content to refer to a small band of time during the little ice age as the 'pre industrial period', ignoring the fact that it was still significantly warmer across the world during the time of human emergence and the growth of early civilizations.
Nevermind that the earth was more hospitable then to plant and animal life due to said temperatures.
5 minutes of reading could dissuade the smart alarmists, if they'd only bother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
Re:Ah yes, those highly-accurate digital thermomet (Score:4, Informative)
>We need REAL science, not quasi-political pseudo-science garbage
OK, so try this. I omitted the rest of your ramble because you clearly have no understanding of math. You postulate that the stated pre-industrial average is incorrect because thermometers from that era would be accurate to 1 degree at best, correct? Setting aside the fact that wouldn't be the case - as you could design a fairly wide ranged mercury thermometer if you so chose - we're not dealing with a single day. We're dealing with an average of 365 - the number of days in a year.
One degree of temperature divided into 365 days yields 0.002739xxxx. So 1.48 is well within the calculable range of precision of a single-degree accuracy thermometer when dealing with a yearly average of daily samples.
Fossil fuels lobby bots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We should be doing things that actually make a difference.
Things that actually make a difference are illegal.
Climate mitigation policies are a political issue & so we need to put pressure on our political representatives
Tried that already. They claim before election they're going to move on climate issues and then when they get into office they make the problem worse, reliably. You can't solve this problem by voting. Too much money is arrayed against you.
Only direct action can help now, and I for one am not sneaky enough to get away with that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
We do know people have sockpuppet accounts here. You can also see a big difference in creativity of user names between some of the climate denial accounts and other people on here. So you're making a very safe bet.
However.
Don't forget some people are just fucking dumb.
Global Sea Surface Temperatures (Score:2)
This is the graph that causes me fear:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/... [climatereanalyzer.org]
Note that the 2024 start is about .45C above 2023, which itself was a runaway record year (the sort where the scale on the graph is adjusted).
The ocean is where all of the excess heat ends up. It really heated up last year, and didn't let up.
Super convenient (Score:2, Interesting)
It's super convenient for alarmist purposes when you narrowly define "pre-industrial periods" as what we otherwise know as the several hundred years directly prior to the industrial revolution - which coincidentally was the direct cause of economic and social collapse across the world when it started.
If a person - any lay person - were to take about about 5 minutes [wikipedia.org] they could quickly see that we are at the height of a warm period during a historically cold era. There is no evidence that humans are influenti
Re: Super convenient (Score:3)
22k years is a pretty tight window for global climate. You need to actually look at ALL the data, not just a small snapshot that supports your view.
Human civilization as we know it started around 10k years ago. 22k years ago, we had significant glacial advancement. It was likely the warming of the Earth that made it possible for civilization to come about.
On the other hand, humans evolved about 200k years ago. Now, that was much colder then, BUT, we evolved near the equator. I don't have numbers, but let's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody cares to debate anymore.
We know we can't take the Earth's temperature within the error bars needed for the models so ... much more data needed.
People can bicker all they want until then but given the geological record it's dumb to subsidize infrastructure on the coast.
Private unsubsidized vacation homes? Enjoy.
But devolving into arguing about cow farts and hurricanes doesn't solve anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, no one cares to debate any more. The evidence is clear, and true.
So, of course, your fallback position is "but we can't do anything about it, oh well".
Re: (Score:2)
A Nazi for having an opinion that may differ from yours?
Or are you using sarcasm?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about being modded down and abused by the ignorant rabble, jdawgnoonan. If Slashdot were the open, tolerant, factually-oriented discussion forum that it isn't, your comments would be calmly accepted or perhaps argued over.
I completely agree with you, and I am sure many others do too - others who see nothing to be gained by exposing themselves to the insults of the vulgar.
But it does serve a useful purpose to run up the flag from time to time, even if it is inevitably going to be spat on, torn to
Details [Re:Rabid fans incoming] (Score:4, Informative)
Damned iOS keyboard. I meant to say that climate science has more in common with religion than with science.
If all you ever look at is the headlines and the popular science summaries, I can see how one might think that.
The actual scientists have a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem. When they try to explain the actual science, 99 percent of people simply zone out (or, more accurately, scroll away to something more exciting). People (like you) keep saying they want to see the actual details of the science, but the reality shows that no, it turns out that they don't. Details and error bars aren't what interests people. People skim over the very very top level and say "this isn't science!" Right. This is popularization.
We are discussing here (1) a slashdot summary, of (2) a popular science article from AP news that references (but doesn't link) (3) a press release [copernicus.eu] from the Copernicus project, which is summarizing (4) an annual report Global Climate Highlights 2023 [copernicus.eu], which is summarizing the science, but with (5) the actual science details in the references.
So, what we're discussing here is five steps removed from the actual science.
Yes, when you're discussing a popularization of a summary of a summary of a summary of the science, the details get blurred.
If you want the science, and for some reason don't want to just go to the IPCC reports (which are free), try an introductory textbook. Most of them aren't free online (textbooks tend to be expensive), but try https://geo.libretexts.org/Boo... [libretexts.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's a fair point, but I don't see too much to quibble with in the Slashdot summary - except perhaps "If annual averages reach above 1.5 degrees Celsius, the effects of global warming could become irreversible"
There's nothing particular about 1.5C. The warming that has been locked in due to emissions to date is very close to the amount of warming that has occurred to date (ATTP [wordpress.com]). That has been true for a while and will remain true beyond 1.5C.
Re: (Score:2)
May one inquire why your purported knowledge doesn't stand on its own rather than let itself be led by personal and strawman attacks? Should I have a nice day? Have I been trolled?
Re: (Score:2)
leakage [Re:Rabid fans incoming] (Score:2)
And the administration blows up a pipeline, causing the largest release of methane ever.
A little misleading. If you're talking about the 2022 Nord Stream explosion, while it was indeed the largest single leak of methane ever, the total amount leaked into the atmosphere was only equal to one or two days of methane leakage from oil and gas production.
Re: (Score:3)
human beings migrate to warmer climates (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet America, warmer climate migrates to you.
Good science [Re:Good engineering] (Score:2, Informative)
We have 5 billion years of Earth history... We also have about 200 years of data sampling... We develop some models based on
...the well-understood physics of heat transfer, and verified by...
this 200 year support
Fixed it for you.
Models [Re:Good science [Re:Good engineering]] (Score:2)
You seem to think
We also have about 200 years of data sampling... We develop some models based on this 200 year support
This is simply in error. The models are not based on the temperature measurements, they are based on the physics of heat transfer (including the experimentally measured absorption properties of trace gasses including carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane.) The various Earth temperature measurements can be used as a check on the model, but it's not what the model is based on. And,
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) Or, if you prefer new testament, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3).
The Bible also records a few thousand years of the history of some of the people on the earth, and includes limited prophecy about the future of mankind.
In no place does it say th
Re: (Score:2)
In the beginning [Re:Good engineering] (Score:2)
In no place does it say the earth was created X thousand years ago.
It says that Adam and Eve were created six days after the creation of the heavens and the Earth; it lists how many generations from Adam and Eve to Jesus, we know (within an error of a few years) how long ago Jesus was born, and for most of those generations, it lists how many years the progenitor in that generation lived. So, you can calculate from the information in the bible the number of years ago the Earth was created.
Or just look at the Jewish calendar, which conveniently they have been keeping from t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thermometers, ice cores, isotopes. Because each of these approaches measures slightly different things - atmosphere versus ocean, gases versus isotopes, temperatures hundreds of years ago versus temperatures millions of years ago, seasonal versus annual versus time-averaged temperatures - matching them up with one another and building one continuous record of temperature through Earthâ(TM)s history is a difficult task. This problem becomes even harder as we move further back in time because our abilit
Re: (Score:2)
It comes down to the personalities in as much as "not being a massive fucking moron" is part of one's personality. So, I don't recommend you try.
Re: (Score:2)
>Should we provide funds ... even though they are not profitable?
Economics is behind all three of your points, and my response is to point out that the economics are (fatally) flawed. None of the profitability calculations include the costs of climate change - they're 'externalized' which is a simple code for "a few people are maximizing profits while fucking over everyone else's futures".
To fix this, we need to start 'de-externalizing' those costs. Which means government intervention with legislation,
Re: (Score:2)
No. You'll get it when you have a power outage for a few days, like we did here in the DC 'burbs last year, in the middle of summer. Oh, and your computer will overheat and shut down.