First time the world has exceeded 1.5C for an entire year

[stargrazer9889]

3 charts of earths atmosphere

 

https://scied.ucar.edu/

 

Edited February 9 by stats
weblink added

[RPCVguy]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

It's not just ice cores. There are lots of ways to get independent correlation from various biological processes. And they confirm each other. I don't know if you are familiar with the hockey stick controversy. Michael Mann, a climatologist, published a study that showed a sharp rise in temperatures. Denialists jumped all over it. Subsequent studies, drawn from different sets of data have all confirmed this. 

 

Interesting news today about Michael Mann:
"After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages."
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1230236546/famous-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-his-defamation-case

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, stargrazer9889 said:

3 charts of earths atmosphere

What's your point?

 

Is it that CO2 is about 400 ppm in the atmosphere,  so it's not significant?

 

According to ACGIH [1971], Patty [1963] reported that hydrogen cyanide at 110 to 135 ppm (120 to 150 mg/m3) might be fatal to man after 0.5 to 1 hour or later, or dangerous to life; 45 to 54 ppm (50 to 60 mg/m3) could be tolerated for 0.5 to 1 hour without immediate or late effects

[RPCVguy]

2 hours ago, stargrazer9889 said:

 CO2 is nearly a trace gas, less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere and methane is a

trace gas. I wish media outlets would state this fact. Oh but does this mean that trees will grow in the arctic as they did in the distant past?

 just curious.

Harvey

If you think a trace gas can't have a large effect, you've never noticed how a small mosquito can affect you .
Greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but absorb and re-radiate infrared light (heat.) Human industrial activities have caused the concentration of CO2 from the inter glacial peak of 280ppm to 420ppm, that is a 50% increase in the insulation layer of CO2. Methane and nitrous oxides have also increased. The result is that day by day more heat energy is getting stored in Earth's systems. The imbalance, expressed as watts per square meter over the planet now exceeds 1.5W/sq.m. The cumulative effect is huge. 90% of that heat is stored in the oceans. Warmer oceans lead to more intense storms.

 

Edited February 9 by stats
unsourced, no weblink graphic removed

[Danderman123]

38 minutes ago, stargrazer9889 said:

 CO2 is nearly a trace gas, less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere and methane is a

trace gas. I wish media outlets would state this fact. Oh but does this mean that trees will grow in the arctic as they did in the distant past?

 just curious.

Harvey

If global temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels increase, trees will grow in the Arctic. But, by then, cities such Miami and Bangkok may be abandoned.

 

You know that increases in CO2 cause global warming, right?

Edited February 9 by Danderman123

[RPCVguy]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

If global temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels increase, trees will grow in the Arctic. But, by then, cities such Miami and Bangkok may be abandoned.

Yep, a problem for habitability in the tropics as temperatures and humidity approach having days near human metabolic limits. That's especially bad for workers outdoors and those without access to air conditioning. Those with AC better hope there are no blackouts.
As for the Arctic, the soils may not support what we would hope to grow, and in many areas of the Arctic, trees are toppling as the subsoil thaws, heaves, or turns to a muddy mess.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Yes it is clear. As far as Florida is concerned, consensus now is that hurricanes, while fewer, are stronger, develop more quickly, drop more precipitation and last longer. Also, sea level rise means flooding in Florida even in the absence of storms.

 

What proof is there of that?

[uttradit]

8 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

Basic fact - when we take deep ice cores, study very old tree rings and examine sea and lake sediments we're able to understand thousands of years of climate change.

 

IMHO - this is not an area of opinion, this is an area of fact. These are not even disputed by the conspiracy-addled (once you explain it to them with pictures).

 

Pro Tip - when the subject is science, you should restrain from commenting in case you sound like a person who doesn't know anything.

Stop using cars and planes then.

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

If you think a trace gas can't have a large effect, you've never noticed how a small mosquito can affect you .
Greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but absorb and re-radiate infrared light (heat.) Human industrial activities have caused the concentration of CO2 from the inter glacial peak of 280ppm to 420ppm, that is a 50% increase in the insulation layer of CO2. Methane and nitrous oxides have also increased. The result is that day by day more heat energy is getting stored in Earth's systems. The imbalance, expressed as watts per square meter over the planet now exceeds 1.5W/sq.m. The cumulative effect is huge. 90% of that heat is stored in the oceans. Warmer oceans lead to more intense storms.

What makes the denialism of this fact remarkable is that the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was first proven by the Great Irish Physicist John Tindall in the 19th century. 

[uttradit]

35 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

If you think a trace gas can't have a large effect, you've never noticed how a small mosquito can affect you .
Greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light, but absorb and re-radiate infrared light (heat.) Human industrial activities have caused the concentration of CO2 from the inter glacial peak of 280ppm to 420ppm, that is a 50% increase in the insulation layer of CO2. Methane and nitrous oxides have also increased. The result is that day by day more heat energy is getting stored in Earth's systems. The imbalance, expressed as watts per square meter over the planet now exceeds 1.5W/sq.m. The cumulative effect is huge. 90% of that heat is stored in the oceans. Warmer oceans lead to more intense storms.

Fine, cut back on your use. Stop using gadgets, cars etc

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Yep, a problem for habitability in the tropics as temperatures and humidity approach having days near human metabolic limits. That's especially bad for workers outdoors and those without access to air conditioning. Those with AC better hope there are no blackouts.
As for the Arctic, the soils may not support what we would hope to grow, and in many areas of the Arctic, trees are toppling as the subsoil thaws, heaves, or turns to a muddy mess.

Also, anincrease in kidney disease as high heat grows more prevalent

https://time.com/6303020/chronic-kidney-disease-climate-change/

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I think its too early to conclude that California wildfires are caused by climate change. The fires are prompted by heavy winter rains and low summer rainfall. It is not clear that climate change is causing more winter rains or summer droughts.

 

In the past decade, California has had years with both record-high and record-low precipitation – swings consistent with climate change projections. Notably, 2012 to 2015 set a record for the driest consecutive four-year period, while 2017 was one of the wettest years on record.

The wildfire problem in California is due to poor forestry management. 

 

California's water issues are due to poor management. 

 

Climate change may be driving rain patterns to change, but that's not what's causing the fire and water problems. 

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

13 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

Steady on, you know rational posts don't go down well with most people here!

[Liverpool Lou]

10 hours ago, JCauto said:

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

 

Basic fact - when we take deep ice cores, study very old tree rings and examine sea and lake sediments we're able to understand thousands of years of climate change.

 

IMHO - this is not an area of opinion, this is an area of fact. These are not even disputed by the conspiracy-addled (once you explain it to them with pictures).

 

 

   Even if there were thousands of years of temperature records, which is what this OP relates to, thousands of years is nothing compared to the billions of years that the earth has existed.

 

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, koolkarl said:

Once it hits 2 degrees, the human race will follow the dinosaurs into oblivion.

Why?  +2° didn't cause the oblivion of the dinosaurs!

Edited February 9 by Liverpool Lou

[uttradit]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why?  +2° didn't cause the oblivion of the dinosaurs!

Only 0.5 on top of now. Like moving from Bangkok to Cambodia or vice versa. You can't even feel 0.5 degrees.

[rattlesnake]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

 

All one needs to do is read books such as Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000 by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. The world has always been through cycles of cold and heat.

 

We are currently entering a warmer cycle, yes.

 

But the doctrine put forward by the likes of John Kerry? A political agenda, solely based on "findings" by dubious bodies such as the GIEC, which will not stand the test of time.

[thaicurious]

14 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

 

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/ 

particularly https://skepticalscience.com/66-million.html

"A massive new review of ancient atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and corresponding temperatures lays out a daunting picture of where the Earth’s climate may be headed. The study covers geologic records spanning the past 66 million years, putting present-day concentrations into context with deep time. Among other things, it indicates that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide consistently reached today’s human-driven levels was 14 million years ago—much longer ago than some existing assessments indicate. It asserts that long-term climate is highly sensitive to greenhouse gas, with cascading effects that may evolve over many millennia.

The study was assembled over seven years by a consortium of more than 80 researchers from 16 nations. It appears today in the journal Science."

 

[uttradit]

3 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/ 

particularly https://skepticalscience.com/66-million.html

"A massive new review of ancient atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and corresponding temperatures lays out a daunting picture of where the Earth’s climate may be headed. The study covers geologic records spanning the past 66 million years, putting present-day concentrations into context with deep time. Among other things, it indicates that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide consistently reached today’s human-driven levels was 14 million years ago—much longer ago than some existing assessments indicate. It asserts that long-term climate is highly sensitive to greenhouse gas, with cascading effects that may evolve over many millennia.

The study was assembled over seven years by a consortium of more than 80 researchers from 16 nations. It appears today in the journal Science."

 

So stop using devices that produce co2 then.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/ 

particularly https://skepticalscience.com/66-million.html

"A massive new review of ancient atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and corresponding temperatures lays out a daunting picture of where the Earth’s climate may be headed. The study covers geologic records spanning the past 66 million years, putting present-day concentrations into context with deep time. Among other things, it indicates that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide consistently reached today’s human-driven levels was 14 million years ago—much longer ago than some existing assessments indicate. It asserts that long-term climate is highly sensitive to greenhouse gas, with cascading effects that may evolve over many millennia.

The study was assembled over seven years by a consortium of more than 80 researchers from 16 nations. It appears today in the journal Science."

 

 

May be headed, well that proves it. 

[uttradit]

41 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, anincrease in kidney disease as high heat grows more prevalent

https://time.com/6303020/chronic-kidney-disease-climate-change/

An increase of 0.05 degrees affects the kidneys does it? No it doesn't.

[thaicurious]

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

All one needs to do is read books such as Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000 by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. The world has always been through cycles of cold and heat.

 

We are currently entering a warmer cycle, yes.

 

But the doctrine put forward by the likes of John Kerry? A political agenda, solely based on "findings" by dubious bodies such as the GIEC, which will not stand the test of time.

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

"Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age....

 

...Climate has indeed changed in the past with various impacts depending on the speed and type of that change. Such results have included everything from slow changes to ecosystems over millions of years - through to sudden mass-extinctions. Rapid climate change, of the type we're causing through our enormous carbon dioxide emissions, falls into the very dangerous camp. That's because the faster the change, the harder it is for nature to cope. We are part of nature so if it goes down, it takes us with it.

So anyone who dismissively tells you, “the climate has always changed”, either does not know what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead you."

[uttradit]

1 minute ago, thaicurious said:

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

"Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age....

 

...Climate has indeed changed in the past with various impacts depending on the speed and type of that change. Such results have included everything from slow changes to ecosystems over millions of years - through to sudden mass-extinctions. Rapid climate change, of the type we're causing through our enormous carbon dioxide emissions, falls into the very dangerous camp. That's because the faster the change, the harder it is for nature to cope. We are part of nature so if it goes down, it takes us with it.

So anyone who dismissively tells you, “the climate has always changed”, either does not know what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead you."

What snake oil are you selling?

[thaicurious]

8 hours ago, johng said:

Bear in mind when they talk about removing carbon from the world...Human beings are carbon.

 

If carbon dioxide is so bad why do they use raised levels in greenhouses and produce much higher crop yields ?

 

How is it that C02 levels where at least 5 times higher in the age of Dinosaurs than today's levels

temperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher  ?  man made ?   nope.

 

 

see also https://skepticalscience.com/Does-high-CO2-in-past-contradict-CO2-warming.html

 

[thaicurious]

10 minutes ago, uttradit said:

What snake oil are you selling?

science is not snake oil. calling science snake oil is snake oil.

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, uttradit said:

An increase of 0.05 degrees affects the kidneys does it? No it doesn't.

Can you share with us where I stated or linked to an article that claimed that an increase of 0.05 affects the kidneys?

[uttradit]

2 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

science is not snake oil. calling science snake oil is snake oil.

You are producing co2 with each post. 

[uttradit]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Can you share with us where I stated or linked to an article that claimed that an increase of 0.05 affects the kidneys?

 

The temperature doesn't rise more than 0.05 without several years passing. Please think about it.

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, uttradit said:

You are producing co2 with each post. 

 

Still less hazardous to humanity than the endogenous gas of your posts.

[uttradit]

7 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

Still less hazardous to humanity than the endogenous gas of your posts.

You were told 30 years ago about co2. Why are you still using cars, planes and gadgets? Because you don't think it's a big deal. 

 

So it's snake oil.