So if I'm going to invest in Florida - how many miles inland do I need to invest to get the new ocean-front property? And does anyone have any other Algore-type information on how to make money off this thing?
November was Earth’s warmest such month on record by a huge margin
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
So if I'm going to invest in Florida - how many miles inland do I need to invest to get the new ocean-front property? And does anyone have any other Algore-type information on how to make money off this thing?
The point about El Niño is right. This was predicted to warmer than normal winter. This is weather change not climate change
I live right near the Gulf, brah. I'm not too worried about it.
Global warming predictions have been every bit as effective as end of the world predictions. Maybe the Mayans are the ones who started the global warming craze.
What does this mean? It reads suspiciously like you want to exterminate people before you will agree to recycle.
The ocean's are warmer...they will not be the CO2 sink they've been for the past 15 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels will rise accordingly and hold more heat. This IS climate change. After this El Niño the climate will reset at a new "normal" that will be higher than the old "normal". This is exactly what happened in 1998 going forward.
Seriously. By getting world leaders to the table in Paris, Obama has taken great steps in cementing his legacy and taking minimal steps in the right direction as a planet.
ISIS and such will be footnotes in history compared to what's coming down the pike
I can't help but shake this feeling that the elimination of green space from our planet is a much bigger part of the pie than some like to think.
Large ecosystems of plant life are being bulldozed and turned into concrete and asphalt ovens.
Large ecosystems of plant life are being bulldozed and turned into concrete and asphalt ovens.
Just about every 'threat' in the history of the planet is a footnote, because most last a decade or so, perhaps a hundred years, but rarely much longer than that. Human-caused climate change will be around for many thousands of years, dwarfing any 'political' or 'national' threat in spread and duration.
The Japanese were a far greater threat, and even more brutal than ISIS; only they had a navy. And an army. And an air force. And other Axis allies. ISIS is still a threat, and one to take seriously, but to make the outlandish claims they will 'take over the world' or 'destroy Western civilization' is simply laughable. It's just propaganda that politicians use to get votes. Nothing more.
Precisely. If this were just an El Nino 'weather' event, the peak temperatures would match 1998.
Instead, the NON-El Nino years have been matching 1998, and now that we have an actual apples-apples El Nino year to compare, we can see more clearly what's going on. (or, at least the general public can see - the scientists have known this all along, which is why >97% of them know that AGW is real and is something to take seriously and work on lowering our emissions and fossil fuels reliance)
I realize you are generalizing, but there is a pretty good argument against recycling many materials, plastic and glass to name a few. I still do because I have seen both arguments and can't figure out which one makes more sense so I figure I'll error on the side of reducing landfill waste while potentially produce more emissions from transporting and the recycling process.
From a broader perspective, I find it pretty telling that the leaders meet, fall short of the needed goal, don't agree to have any binding resolution, yet call it a success. How are we to believe their concern is genuine when their ideas are more regulation and the vague "more wind, solar, blah blah". Show me a vision and live your life like you truly believe the situation is dire. Until then, motives are questioned and the needle will not move one bit.
Baloney.
There is plenty of dissent and disagreement on various elements of climate change, paleoclimate, ice cores, etc etc etc. No different than any other scientific discipline. Only now that the vast majority of the evidence supports that humans are the cause of recent, unprecedented warming, there are not many scientists trying to publish anything that refutes it, because there isn't much (if any) data to support that hypothesis.
Shuttering science because it won't give the results they want has become mostly a Republican phenomenon. Not that the Dems haven't been guilty of it before, but it hasn't been an element of their party platform, either.
And the big red blob to the west of South America pretty much explains it all.
(NASA)
Last month was the warmest November on record by an incredible margin, according to NASA measurements. The global average temperature for the month was 1.05 degrees Celsius, or about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average. It’s also the second month in a row that Earth’s temperature exceeded 1 degree Celsius above average.
It was just in October that our planet first exceeded the 1-degree benchmark in NASA’s records, dating to 1880. Prior to that, the largest anomaly was 0.97 degrees Celsius in January 2007.
The recent measurements become even more significant in light of the recent Paris accord, in which 196 countries boldly agreed to limit the planet’s warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius.” The extraordinary warmth of October and November helped push this year well-past the 1-degree benchmark.
[5 things you should know about the historic Paris climate agreement]
We have known that 2015 is all but certain to be the warmest year on record, though we did not know by how much it would be. Given the November report, 2015 will eclipse last year as the warmest year on record by a huge margin.
The Japan Meteorological Agency, which tracks the increasing global temperature, also concluded that last month was the warmest November on record since 1890, relative to the period from 1981 to 2010.
El Niño played a large role in November’s — and the year’s — exceptional warmth. El Niño is an event marked by abnormally warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. The extent of the warm water is huge this year, stretching from the west coast of South America to past the international dateline, which divides the Pacific Ocean. As of November, temperatures in parts of this vast region were running as much as 4 degrees Celsius, or about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, above normal.
But the Pacific Ocean wasn’t the warmest region of the globe in November — much of the warmth measured by NASA emanated from the Arctic, where temperatures were running anywhere from 4 to 10 degrees Celsius (7 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/15/november-2015-was-earths-hottest-such-month-on-record-by-a-huge-margin/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-november-1125am:homepage/story
Buddy, you're so "died-in-the-wool" that it's frightening. How do you ever expect any rational person to take you seriously? You believe pretty much whatever your party tells you, but anything else the other party tells you (often the same thing) are blatant lies. I remember when I used to be like that. Of course, I grew out of it by my mid 20's.
How come when someone points out that we had the coldest month on record, that doesn't seem to matter to these people, but as soon as we have the warmest month, it's the end of the world?
No. If the global temperatures MATCHED the fall of 1997, with the last 'similar' El Nino, it would 'explain it all'.
This time, not even 2 decades past, we are (I believe) ~0.3°C higher in global temperatures. That is a stunning increase in just 18 years, vs. the centuries that most shifts like this would take to occur.
Most 3rd graders can tell the difference between the 2015 data point and the 1997 data point here...
Ummm....because we haven't had a globally 'coldest global month' on record in many decades?
Just because YOU had a coldest month in your little spec of the globe is not indicative of the rest of the globe.
This is akin to claiming you deserve an 'A' in a class because you 'aced a 10 point quiz during the first week', despite failing the midterm and final tests.
You do understand that the more data points you have, the easier it is for you to "misplace" some of them without anything being suspicious, right?
So what is your argument? Rather than cutting pollution directly you want to cut population with the idea that will cut pollution as a by product, right? If you aren't wanting to kill them, what are you wanting to do? Some sort of mass sterilization? I struggle to think of how your idea could work without producing far more harms than any carbon tax. Sure there are more benign ways to lower population growth, but nothing that I know of that would reduce it let alone dramatically in a short time period that would be acceptable.
Bull. I call out the Dems on their anti-GMO crap and anti-vaccination crap all the time.
I call out the Reps because they don't listen to their own National Academies' recommendations, and instead bring snowballs into Congress to dispute climate science.
Rational people take me very seriously. Irrational people, who are swayed by propaganda and too naive to tell the difference between an Op-Ed and a scientific paper disregard my posts all the time.
No. That's not the case at all. Especially when the graph I'd posted is from JAPANESE meteoroligists/climatologists. They get ZERO funding from the US government.
'Conspiracy theories' aren't very scientific, and this clearly shows how naive you truly are about science in general and how it works.
So, what would you say about a party that screams about climate change, but never really does anything to stop it?
He wants specific names of scientists who's careers have been destroyed for not agreeing with the 97%.
Ahh, I missed that post. Here's one from just a quick google.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
There were quite a few interesting articles, but I'm not going to post every single one of them here.
I see......ALL the world's governments are 'conspiring together'. Yep. That seems totally rational....
That's how the wingnut echo chamber works. They make something up, and then keep it reverberating around the chamber for years and the gullible ignorants lap it up as though it is the truth, no matter how ridiculous and irrational it is.
I don't know about them conspiring together, but they're all constantly seeking more power. That's what government does.
They think it's some rehearsed, consciously-covert operation. It never dawns on them that people, or groups, with very similar interests, will act-out the same and it doesn't require a special "meeting" in a secret room. It just happens spontaneously. Thirsty people in two different locations on the globe don't need to confer with each other to know they need something to drink.
Where's the part about 'her career being destroyed'?
Far as I'm aware, she still holds an academic position, and is able to publish her work. She makes rather unscientific, and unfounded claims in the media that she DOES NOT put in publications (because they don't pass peer review, or basic science scrutiny), but that is FAR from having her career destroyed.
For example, she has routinely repeated the fallacy that 'there has been no warming since 1998' to GOP sponsored groups. This is about as UN-scientific as it gets, because it is cherry-picking a single outlier year (the largest El Nino event in more than 50 years) as the start date. She loses LOADS of credibility with me when making those kinds of unscientific and factually unsupportable statements.
She indicates in the Op Ed that she has data which points to 'lower climate sensitivity'. Fine. Do the research and publish your findings, don't bitch about it to a UK newspaper. Claiming she cannot get funding is BS - if she wants to apply for government funding for a climate sensitivity project, do it. MANY of those grants are graded BLINDLY, where the applying authors and institutions are not visible to reviewers (same for reviewed PAPERS). So, if her stuff cannot get published, it's because it is poor quality work, NOT because her name is on it....
She has garnished the ire of many other climatologists NOT because of her scientific work, it's because of her very NON-scientific political activism. Many climatologists distance themselves from James Hansen for the same reasons...
I see. So they are all 'seeking more power' by upholding a human-caused climate change narrative.
Including China, India and another couple dozen major powers...
You act like this is the first method of controlling the people that has been adopted by another country. Why do you think the U.S. spent so much time grilling Nazi officers after the war?
And...from your link, she has been a sceptic of climate projections due to 'uncertainties' in the models.
You DO realize that those 'uncertainties' go BOTH ways (including FAR worse climate impacts). That is NOT a reason for inaction, the uncertainties are a reason for more aggressive action. You cannot cherry-pick the low end uncertainty and use that as your nominal case for actionable plans. This is simply a fundamental tenet of engineering risk management. You include the worst case possibilities, and plan around those, if you want to AVOID the failure mode and outcomes that would be very very bad.
When engineers ignore those 'worst case' possibilities, you end up with things like the Titanic sinking, Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.
Quite simply, many of her arguments are political, NOT scientific, and they are also completely at odds with the fundamentals of risk management. THAT is why she is marginalized here - not for her actual science works - for stepping out into areas where she has very little knowledge or experience and acting like an expert. I'm fairly certain I have loads more experience in risk management, having done FMEAs, PFMEAs, FTAs for many medical devices used in surgeries, MRIs, etc. Many of her public statements indicate to me that she is in over her head when discussing climate risks and uncertainties - not because she doesn't understand the climate science, but she is naive when understanding risk management basics.
