31–40 of 133 posts
"This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast,..." No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
That graph literally shows the average for 1981-2000 and the last 4 years, which are consistently and significantly below the average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA testified to the US Senate in 1988 that "higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution". [1] So, with more than 30 years of taking the issue seriously, what do you suppose we should do, from a risk-management perspective? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-beg...
There's one big issue inhibiting any sort of productive change on this issue. "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2030. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of…
Is anyone making more accurate predictions? Most people that disagree with NASA seem to saying anything from it's fake news to blaming other sources. How do you explain the observed warming?
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."
Hard to tell without units but this line leads me to believe he was talking in degrees Fahrenheit and your comparing it to degrees celcius:
> The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this unique to human caused climate change or does it happen each time earth heats up?
That doesn't feel particularly relevant to the possibility of destruction of our species. Regardless of whether or not this has happened before, it is unprecedented in human history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA testified to the US Senate in 1988 that "higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution". [1] So, with more than 30 years of taking the issue seriously, what do you suppose we should do, from a risk-management perspective? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-beg...
There's one big issue inhibiting any sort of productive change on this issue. "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2030. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of…
I'm not sure why the onus for absolute accuracy has to be solely on the side that's urging action against climate change. The opposition has no such regard for accuracy or even basic truthfulness - and they've been brutally effective so far in squashing action. Are you really saying numbers are the reason we haven't won this argument yet? Most people don't go by numbers, they go by their gut.
At least the climate change predictions have been in the right direction - temps have actually increased, just not by as much as they had previously thought. EDIT: It seems like the numbers weren't even that far off - other replies have pointed out the discrepancy is largely due to Fahrenheit - Celsius conversion. And climate around the world really has worsened.
> we've seen the temperature increase by 0.62 degrees since 1989.
Let's count ourselves fortunate, and not waste the time we've been given.
"This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast,..." No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.
When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No?
"This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast,..." No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Yes it is: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_chan... "Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does your statement follow from the graph you link? It clearly shows the years 2015-present are more than 2 standard deviations below the average from 1981-2000.
Arctic sea ice is also long-term cyclical and has no relationship to carbon dioxide. It's currently the same thickness as it was 60 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I could downvote this 100 times. I wonder how future generations will explain our decision to just stand in front of an oncoming freight train. I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.
The intro to The Road Warrior postulates that two great warrior tribes went to war and that the world's reliance on oil was fatally crippled as a result. Not a word about climate change anywhere. When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No?
Got a full quote in context? You "skeptics" have a tendency to miss things like "as soon as" and "if this trend continues".
This is an emergency; it's well past time we started acting like it: https://rebellion.earth/
It may well be an emergency, but inconveniencing [1][2] the very people you are attempting to persuade (the voting public) is not a strategy that is likely to work. In my opinion it will make them deaf to the underlying message (Although, I can provide no suggestions for strategies that might work!). [1] e.g. preventing them getting to work or flying to a holiday [2] Extinction Rebellion Protests: What happened? - ht…
Funny. Seems like it's working, remarkably quickly, to me:
Michael Gove, the current Environment Minister, met with the protesters and accepted the need for urgent action, and other points. Far more than might be expected from the rather extremist position of today's Tory party.
The opposition have acknowledged all their points, and pledged to make climate emergency policy. They are currently trying to force a vote on calling a climate emergency in the Commons.
The organisers have turned up for interview on most of the UK's serious news outlets, including, I think, twice on the Today programme. Even those who've studiously avoided the topic are now talking about it.
Oh, and public opinion of ER appears to have risen since the Easter protests. On that basis, I sincerely hope ER continue, and can step up their actions to more locations and companies too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA testified to the US Senate in 1988 that "higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution". [1] So, with more than 30 years of taking the issue seriously, what do you suppose we should do, from a risk-management perspective? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-beg...
There's one big issue inhibiting any sort of productive change on this issue. "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2030. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of…
This quote seems suspicious. The only place I see it is in this AP article, as a quote from this one person, and from a bunch of denialist websites that link to this article. I couldn't find any original source for the number (or any indication whether it is Fahrenheit or Centigrade, which of course makes a large difference.)
If the quote was from 1989 then it was presumably referring to the IPCC report of that year, for which Wikipedia quotes:
under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
which would be 0.6 to 1.5C over 30 years, or roughly 1F-3F. So the 7 degrees seems to be nothing to do with the IPCC report, and it is unclear where it comes from (or even what unit it has, but since he is from NY it seems plausible that it is F rather than C). Perhaps he was misquoted? Or he was quoting extreme outer bounds of the probability distribution. Building a case of inaccuracy on one poorly attributed number seems excessive.
In reality, temperature trends have tracked IPCC predictions remarkably closely, and that fact is far more significant than a single poorly attributed quote.