It’s about 50°F warmer than normal near the North Pole again(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
It’s about 50°F warmer than normal near the North Pole again
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/02/10/its-about-50-degrees-warmer-than-normal-near-the-north-pole/?utm_term=.65377b890ed3
13 comments
if the right wing is correct and these climate shifts are not due to our present efforts then the problem is far worse than if it were the result of pollution, and the effort to counter-balance the environmental shift will require much more social and economic adjustment.
The real question is not just about debating what is causing a rise in average temperature over the past half century, but whether there is anything we can do to change it. Deniers say people are not to blame so do nothing; the rest of us say people are the majority cause so change our behavior. The problem is we only have one earth, either we do nothing and all die eventually, or we do something and possibly we don't. In the long run the latter seems a far better bet: at worst we have a cleaner environment and a slightly slower economy versus a barren planet filled with roaches.
> whether there is anything we can do to change it
There is zero question if there is anything we can do to change it.
The question on the social level is if we will, as a species, regulate the behavior of individuals and institutions.
On the individual level the question is if you and I will choose to take responsibility and choose our behavior as individuals and stop saying, if a billion other people don't change it doesn't matter what I do so I won't change. We can all take responsibility for our personal actions. If people in previous generations had, we wouldn't face these issues. They didn't so we do, but maybe we can for future generations.
There is zero question if there is anything we can do to change it.
The question on the social level is if we will, as a species, regulate the behavior of individuals and institutions.
On the individual level the question is if you and I will choose to take responsibility and choose our behavior as individuals and stop saying, if a billion other people don't change it doesn't matter what I do so I won't change. We can all take responsibility for our personal actions. If people in previous generations had, we wouldn't face these issues. They didn't so we do, but maybe we can for future generations.
While I share your sense of personal responsibility being key to any hope of mitigating the impact for future generations, a recent project I've been involved with has left me feeling quite cynical about the chance of any meaningful impact.
The project was related to measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation industry. Everyone is excited about the massive savings (potentially the largest single saving in the State) but the numbers are pathetic when you put them into an equivalency calculator (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc...).
My takeaway from the project has been that without dramatic and systematic change at a societal level nothing else really matters. At best we can mitigate and try to slow the impacts of climate change. The Sustainability Manager at my work has told me that the industry/literature/academics are also shifting towards talk of mitigation and resiliency now instead of prevention.
I hope I'm wrong but global GHG emissions are massive compared to the solutions we currently have.
The project was related to measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation industry. Everyone is excited about the massive savings (potentially the largest single saving in the State) but the numbers are pathetic when you put them into an equivalency calculator (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc...).
My takeaway from the project has been that without dramatic and systematic change at a societal level nothing else really matters. At best we can mitigate and try to slow the impacts of climate change. The Sustainability Manager at my work has told me that the industry/literature/academics are also shifting towards talk of mitigation and resiliency now instead of prevention.
I hope I'm wrong but global GHG emissions are massive compared to the solutions we currently have.
[deleted]
I always dislike comments like this from the article: “Something is very, very wrong with the Arctic climate.”
The climate can't be "wrong" it has no agency. The impact of human CO2 production on climate can be "unprecedented" or "destabilizing" or "ill advised" but the word 'wrong' implies that there is a 'right' climate. We know that the climate changes on the planet, we emerged as the more annoying form of hominid during an ice age after all. "Something" caused that ice age, and "something" caused it to end, and that something could not possibly have been us. So who is responsible becomes less important in my mind as responding while we can with effective ways to live and prosper under different climates.
The climate can't be "wrong" it has no agency. The impact of human CO2 production on climate can be "unprecedented" or "destabilizing" or "ill advised" but the word 'wrong' implies that there is a 'right' climate. We know that the climate changes on the planet, we emerged as the more annoying form of hominid during an ice age after all. "Something" caused that ice age, and "something" caused it to end, and that something could not possibly have been us. So who is responsible becomes less important in my mind as responding while we can with effective ways to live and prosper under different climates.
If a tree falls on your head it can't be "wrong", the tree has no agency. If a human cuts down the tree, knowing it is likely to fall on your head ... is who is responsible really important? Trees fall on heads all the time.
What about important questions, like effective ways for others to prosper while some are crushed by the massive industry of human-felled / human-crushing trees? Whether we could or should stop felling trees onto people is a question beyond science or human judgement on which to opine.
This sort of "climate trolley problem" is the final stage of pseudo-rational climate change denial, before it was "it isn't happening", now we're in a postmodernist semantic argument in the face of human destruction of our biosphere. How intellectual.
What about important questions, like effective ways for others to prosper while some are crushed by the massive industry of human-felled / human-crushing trees? Whether we could or should stop felling trees onto people is a question beyond science or human judgement on which to opine.
This sort of "climate trolley problem" is the final stage of pseudo-rational climate change denial, before it was "it isn't happening", now we're in a postmodernist semantic argument in the face of human destruction of our biosphere. How intellectual.
A charitable interpretation would be to project the right/wrong axis onto compatibility with our continued flourishing. If you accept human flourishing as "right", the arctic climate is quite wrong.
It's a bit of a reach through and I pretty much agree with your point.
It's a bit of a reach through and I pretty much agree with your point.
> So who is responsible becomes less important in my mind as responding while we can with effective ways to live and prosper under different climates.
The hard fact is this: about a thousand politicians have the collective ability to make a large percentage of the planet no longer viable for humans for hundreds of years.
You likely know it to be true with regards to nuclear arsenal. Why would it be so hard to accept that the same goes for gas emissions?
Humans can burn or cut down phenomenally large forests — they have, and still do, at an increasingly faster rate, thanks to more and more sophisticated technology. Humans can, and do, drill into methane pockets underground, releasing large amounts of gas. And, of course, oil.
The second law of thermodynamics is a fact of life. There is no fully sustainable energy consumption scheme. Those we rely most on currently come from accidental geological events; primarily, the lack of bacterial enzymes able to consume lignin prior to the end of the Carboniferous.
Just like diagnosing a disease is necessary to get the meds needed to survive, understanding the mechanisms of our planet's viability is necessary for our sake.
The hard fact is this: about a thousand politicians have the collective ability to make a large percentage of the planet no longer viable for humans for hundreds of years.
You likely know it to be true with regards to nuclear arsenal. Why would it be so hard to accept that the same goes for gas emissions?
Humans can burn or cut down phenomenally large forests — they have, and still do, at an increasingly faster rate, thanks to more and more sophisticated technology. Humans can, and do, drill into methane pockets underground, releasing large amounts of gas. And, of course, oil.
The second law of thermodynamics is a fact of life. There is no fully sustainable energy consumption scheme. Those we rely most on currently come from accidental geological events; primarily, the lack of bacterial enzymes able to consume lignin prior to the end of the Carboniferous.
Just like diagnosing a disease is necessary to get the meds needed to survive, understanding the mechanisms of our planet's viability is necessary for our sake.
Those two somethings need not be the same.
We emerged during an interglacial. Which happens regularly during Ice Ages.
However we are now seeing conditions that could end the Ice Ages. And the "something" causing that is us.
We emerged during an interglacial. Which happens regularly during Ice Ages.
However we are now seeing conditions that could end the Ice Ages. And the "something" causing that is us.
Hit 70 today in Denver.
Correction, it was actually 82. Absolutely insane.
You know, the last few Februaries were like that. Warm up around 60'ish and then it will trigger the trees and plants to start blooming, followed by winter hell in March. Remember last year we had that 2 ft snow in one day? Interesting times.
It is crazy! It was 68F(20C) at 8am.
We're supposed to have another few warm days next week.
We're supposed to have another few warm days next week.
the whole global warming thing seems to be a very contended issue but i think theres one thing we can all agree on, people need to stop using Fahrenheit
That's 50 F, 28 C.
I'm loving this winter. It's only snowed 3 times and has been below freezing for only a few weeks. In love with this winter, though I've been sick more times this year than quite a while.
Meanwhile in Sydney, I'm sweating it out @ 45c (113F) in the middle of a heatwave like never before.
In Adelaode we tapped 38c, then had 3 days of record breaking rain which plonked it down to below 20c, which we followed up with four days at about 40c.
It's hard to dress correctly.
It's hard to dress correctly.
And yet in Melbourne we're possibly going all summer without hitting over 40 degrees.
(Lots of high 30's, but no 40+)
(Lots of high 30's, but no 40+)
I used to live in Adelaide. Seriously f that place.
I recall one summer, maybe 5 years ago, ten days straight above 35 with day time temps in the 40s. Trees were dying from heat stress after a ten year draught.
Ah, this is it, from 2009:
Adelaide, South Australia Edit Average daily maximum 27 January – 7 February: 40.5 °C (104.9 °F) – (11.1 °C (20.0 °F) above average)[9] 13 Consecutive days over 33 °C (91 °F) 6 Consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F) 4 Consecutive days over 43 °C (109 °F)
That's right, 13! consecutive days above 33!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Aust...
I recall one summer, maybe 5 years ago, ten days straight above 35 with day time temps in the 40s. Trees were dying from heat stress after a ten year draught.
Ah, this is it, from 2009:
Adelaide, South Australia Edit Average daily maximum 27 January – 7 February: 40.5 °C (104.9 °F) – (11.1 °C (20.0 °F) above average)[9] 13 Consecutive days over 33 °C (91 °F) 6 Consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F) 4 Consecutive days over 43 °C (109 °F)
That's right, 13! consecutive days above 33!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Aust...
Hoping the summer doesn't go above 80 much... Hate that humidity. (Indiana)
I'm fine with 110 in Arizona.
How humid is it there?
Since October I've had to wear a jacket at work inside because of the air conditioning moreso than outside because of the weather.
That sounds miserable. Give me a good cold winter with snow rather than a miserable non-winter that is damp, wet and slushy. Dry cold is far better than than damp thaw weather.
Ditto! We are approaching temperatures that could actually support the hardiest of palms. We can start replacing the spruces with palms soon.
The downsides being ticks becoming common, warmer temperatures enabling more diseases spreading in both human and animal populations, a few native animals dying (they can't breed without certain things such as ice, and their natural defense mechanisms do not work), and Gulf stream probably slowing and causing a new ice age. Ah yes, there's always that. But then again, not going to happen on my lifetime so who cares... :)
The downsides being ticks becoming common, warmer temperatures enabling more diseases spreading in both human and animal populations, a few native animals dying (they can't breed without certain things such as ice, and their natural defense mechanisms do not work), and Gulf stream probably slowing and causing a new ice age. Ah yes, there's always that. But then again, not going to happen on my lifetime so who cares... :)
So what's the excuse from the denialists today about why we shouldn't worry?
Just as cold weather in the winter doesn't disprove global warming. A warm day at the North pole doesn't prove it either. Weather != Climate.
A single cold day doesn't disprove global warming. An entire winter worth of cold days kind of does.
Likewise, a single day of warmth doesn't prove global warming. An entire winter of warm days does.
>"Extreme temperature spikes such as this one have occurred multiple times in the past two winters, whereas they only previously occurred once or twice per decade in historical records"
It sounds like this is becoming a trend, which is what is worrisome.
Likewise, a single day of warmth doesn't prove global warming. An entire winter of warm days does.
>"Extreme temperature spikes such as this one have occurred multiple times in the past two winters, whereas they only previously occurred once or twice per decade in historical records"
It sounds like this is becoming a trend, which is what is worrisome.
There are known weather patterns that have cycles of many years. El Nino is one such example.
The problem is that it is not just a warm day
http://ak-wx.blogspot.com.es/2017/02/arctic-update.html
http://ak-wx.blogspot.com.es/2017/02/arctic-update.html
Ok, but if your neighbour comes to your door covered with blood, toting an axe and wittering about his dead wife nothing is proved either.
The guy is a stand up fella, real family man, pillar of the church.
Do you open the door, hug him and invite him in?
The guy is a stand up fella, real family man, pillar of the church.
Do you open the door, hug him and invite him in?
What fancy computer model predicted this?
If they can't predict this, climate science must be wrong.
Of course global warming is real. But modeling the effects is very hard. I think deniers conflate the models with the trend.
If they can't predict this, climate science must be wrong.
Of course global warming is real. But modeling the effects is very hard. I think deniers conflate the models with the trend.
The news organizations feed people stories to reaffirm the their conclusions about global warming they made a long time ago. It feels good to feel like you're right all the time, so they shovel shit you already "know" along with additional stuff they want you to believe. So how's it feel to be used like that?
Edit: I know I've written things in the past that arguably deserved being downvoted, but this time it is uncalled for!
Edit: I know I've written things in the past that arguably deserved being downvoted, but this time it is uncalled for!
Perhaps the downvote is by your implication that it is just fabrication from the news organizations
> While this week’s sharp temperature spike resulted from the arrangement of these intense weather systems, scientists say such spikes are probably becoming more frequent and intense. Rising greenhouse-gas concentrations are increasing average temperatures and shrinking Arctic sea ice. Earlier this week, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported January Arctic sea levels were the lowest on record.
This entire paragraph is why people deny global warming.
They admit we don't know if this is unusual. In fact we know it's a normal occurance, just it's 'probably' happening more often yet.... jump to Global Warming.
This is not science, this is politics and it's why people go hard the other way.
This entire paragraph is why people deny global warming.
They admit we don't know if this is unusual. In fact we know it's a normal occurance, just it's 'probably' happening more often yet.... jump to Global Warming.
This is not science, this is politics and it's why people go hard the other way.
If you think this is not science, your conception of what science is is flawed. People deny anthropogenic global warming because they don't want to look at the details, take the time to really understand the issues.
Most people have no clue about anything going on around them except for what pays the bills (and even then). I was listening to some random radio host telling how "stupid" doctors and healthcare administrators are, that we should be concentrating our efforts on "prevention" rather than fitting a brand new hip onto a 96 year old person. He then went on to cite cancer patients in particular: we should not cure cancer, we should prevent it. His recommendation? "Preventative" MRI and SCANs for everybody over 30, because these would help "detect cancer" earlier.
I don't have to explain to you how clueless that man is/was. But there you have it. The general population is clueless about everything and people speak out of their asses all the time. So in a sense, you were right, but it's the other way around: the problem is politics and human nature, not science.
Most people have no clue about anything going on around them except for what pays the bills (and even then). I was listening to some random radio host telling how "stupid" doctors and healthcare administrators are, that we should be concentrating our efforts on "prevention" rather than fitting a brand new hip onto a 96 year old person. He then went on to cite cancer patients in particular: we should not cure cancer, we should prevent it. His recommendation? "Preventative" MRI and SCANs for everybody over 30, because these would help "detect cancer" earlier.
I don't have to explain to you how clueless that man is/was. But there you have it. The general population is clueless about everything and people speak out of their asses all the time. So in a sense, you were right, but it's the other way around: the problem is politics and human nature, not science.
The article specifically states this is a normal occurrence.
It happened 100 years ago, it happened one thousand years ago.
It ponders perhaps it's happening more often, but brings no evidence to the table on this possibility while reporting on this natural occurrence.
If you think this is science, to use examples that have always happened to convince people of change, your conception of what science is is very very flawed.
And my point is, climate deniers can see this. They see through this fake pulp for the masses (I mean seriously the article even admits it's a normal occurrence) and use this to reinforce their opposite cult views.
It happened 100 years ago, it happened one thousand years ago.
It ponders perhaps it's happening more often, but brings no evidence to the table on this possibility while reporting on this natural occurrence.
If you think this is science, to use examples that have always happened to convince people of change, your conception of what science is is very very flawed.
And my point is, climate deniers can see this. They see through this fake pulp for the masses (I mean seriously the article even admits it's a normal occurrence) and use this to reinforce their opposite cult views.
I don't think his point is that global warming study is not science, rather that no science is presented in the article (or the part he quoted, anyway).
An outlying temperature is just one data point, and on its own it doesn't really open the door to reliably talk about global warming.
An outlying temperature is just one data point, and on its own it doesn't really open the door to reliably talk about global warming.
Honest question about MRIs and scans: why is it clueless? I understand that implication is they are not effective (?)
Here's some food for thought:
What type of cancers are you talking about? What subtype? What population are we talking about? What subpopulation? What is the difference between an early diagnostic and prevention? Are CTs and MRIs the right tool for the job? Who is most at risk? How often do you screen your target population? How do you make sure they actually come and do the exams? How do you measure success? Are you ready to deal with the outcomes of the diagnosis?
These are just basic questions really. Some people devote their entire life to these hard topics. The radio host sounded like an "expert" with "great ideas" to an equally clueless audience when really he just has no idea.
What type of cancers are you talking about? What subtype? What population are we talking about? What subpopulation? What is the difference between an early diagnostic and prevention? Are CTs and MRIs the right tool for the job? Who is most at risk? How often do you screen your target population? How do you make sure they actually come and do the exams? How do you measure success? Are you ready to deal with the outcomes of the diagnosis?
These are just basic questions really. Some people devote their entire life to these hard topics. The radio host sounded like an "expert" with "great ideas" to an equally clueless audience when really he just has no idea.
At some point, the scan has a higher likelihood of finding a false positive than a true positive. Interventions on false positives can themselves cause harm, both psychological and physical.
If we ignore the fact that they obviously are not preventative (they can't find a cancer that doesn't exist yet...), and as such it's rather silly to present it as an alternative to treatment, there are still a multitude of issues:
- Early detection, for the sake of argument assuming that the proposed screening program would in fact be effective or could be adjusted to be effective, does not always improve survival rates. There is a diminishing rate of return from pushing the detection earlier and earlier.
- Any screening needs to deal with false positives. Telling someone they may have cancer leads to suffering, and may in some cases trigger more serious effects. E.g. consider someone suicidal who is told they may have cancer, and decides to end it. Or "just" decides to engage in more high risk behaviours, increasing risk of harm. And for something that is rare, even a very small rate of false positives during large scale screening might cause disproportionate suffering, and might end up causing significant harm.
- False positives require further investigation, and if not ruled out with reasonably low impact methods like biopsies may result in over-treatment. This is particularly serious for cancer, where many of the treatment alternatives have a substantial risk of causing death.
- The screening also needs to deal with false negatives. Someone who is told they don't display any symptoms of cancer may pay less attention to signs later on, and may end up discovering their cancer later than they otherwise would, increasing risk of death.
All of these affect overall outcomes, and you need to tally up the effects of all of them before you can say if a screening program will be overall positive or overall negative.
One outcome of actually analysing this, for example, has been a push towards ending large scale mammography screening, because newer surveys that takes the above effect into account shows that while it does in fact reduce mortality somewhat for those who actually have breast cancers that would kill, it causes sufficient overdiagnosis to kill many otherwise healthy patients. Here is one article that covers this problem [1].
The problem is that people often assume the worst case outcome of a screening program is that it won't be effective, but the worst case outcome is that you kill more people than you save.
[1] http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/17/1957
- Early detection, for the sake of argument assuming that the proposed screening program would in fact be effective or could be adjusted to be effective, does not always improve survival rates. There is a diminishing rate of return from pushing the detection earlier and earlier.
- Any screening needs to deal with false positives. Telling someone they may have cancer leads to suffering, and may in some cases trigger more serious effects. E.g. consider someone suicidal who is told they may have cancer, and decides to end it. Or "just" decides to engage in more high risk behaviours, increasing risk of harm. And for something that is rare, even a very small rate of false positives during large scale screening might cause disproportionate suffering, and might end up causing significant harm.
- False positives require further investigation, and if not ruled out with reasonably low impact methods like biopsies may result in over-treatment. This is particularly serious for cancer, where many of the treatment alternatives have a substantial risk of causing death.
- The screening also needs to deal with false negatives. Someone who is told they don't display any symptoms of cancer may pay less attention to signs later on, and may end up discovering their cancer later than they otherwise would, increasing risk of death.
All of these affect overall outcomes, and you need to tally up the effects of all of them before you can say if a screening program will be overall positive or overall negative.
One outcome of actually analysing this, for example, has been a push towards ending large scale mammography screening, because newer surveys that takes the above effect into account shows that while it does in fact reduce mortality somewhat for those who actually have breast cancers that would kill, it causes sufficient overdiagnosis to kill many otherwise healthy patients. Here is one article that covers this problem [1].
The problem is that people often assume the worst case outcome of a screening program is that it won't be effective, but the worst case outcome is that you kill more people than you save.
[1] http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/17/1957
They certainly aren't preventative!
CT scans use between 150 and 1100 times the radiation of a normal X-ray. Each scan is the equivalent of a year's typical radiation dose.
Essentially, CT scans increase the risk of cancer.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-ct-scans...
Essentially, CT scans increase the risk of cancer.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-ct-scans...
> People deny anthropogenic global warming because they don't want to look at the details
There's a reasonable argument that we're fairly clueless about how most natural systems actually work. I heard recently that plate tectonics wasn't even a theory until the 70s! It's a tricky situation because the political aspect of global warming is both the only way to solve it and the thing getting in the way of it being solved.
I think people intuitively understand that science doesn't have this figured out. Which isn't to say the science is wrong! But papering over those gaps in knowledge by immediately ascribing all data to global warming does more to hurt the cause than help. It's easy to be a skeptic when there are so many low quality articles like this being produced.
There's a reasonable argument that we're fairly clueless about how most natural systems actually work. I heard recently that plate tectonics wasn't even a theory until the 70s! It's a tricky situation because the political aspect of global warming is both the only way to solve it and the thing getting in the way of it being solved.
I think people intuitively understand that science doesn't have this figured out. Which isn't to say the science is wrong! But papering over those gaps in knowledge by immediately ascribing all data to global warming does more to hurt the cause than help. It's easy to be a skeptic when there are so many low quality articles like this being produced.
Agree. I think that this is further driven by two factors in the discovery system.
First Scientists are (I think) moral. So they find some evidence for AGW and then think "oh gosh if this is true my kids are going to have a problem" and then try to raise the profile of the topic to (essentially) help their kids out. On issues like "dog tooth growth" there is no driving moral imperative and so no tree shaking.
The other factor is money, scientists are human. Scientists need grants, appealing to politicians gets grants, stirring up news media gets grants. There has been a lot of grant getting in this space - the top 5% of folks working in the field have got grants in the most professional, highly targetted and useful way possible. The 5% worst applications funded, not so much.
However, this process is all about getting the science done - it seems to me as an outsider that the science has moved from not done but in the news to mostly done but roped around with personal positions, sacred cows and so on (like all science). I think that practitioners in the field think this too as they still want to work in it. In contrast I was will one of the leading Quantum Physicists a few weeks ago, I understood very little of what was said but smiled when he announced "I'm not working in Quantum Computing now as the theory is all done"! Compare...
The problem isn't the professional, ethical and well supported by science messages being put out by most AGW people now; it's the wild (probably correct, but wild) assertions that came out 15 years ago. These were slammed and unpicked by skeptics, leaving a residue of mistrust.
Unfortunately without one (assertion, flap) you don't get the other. This is where Feynman was wrong - PR does sometimes trump (geddit?) nature.
No one seems to be thinking about how Science should accommodate and learn from this. Which, given the Scientific method, is odd.
First Scientists are (I think) moral. So they find some evidence for AGW and then think "oh gosh if this is true my kids are going to have a problem" and then try to raise the profile of the topic to (essentially) help their kids out. On issues like "dog tooth growth" there is no driving moral imperative and so no tree shaking.
The other factor is money, scientists are human. Scientists need grants, appealing to politicians gets grants, stirring up news media gets grants. There has been a lot of grant getting in this space - the top 5% of folks working in the field have got grants in the most professional, highly targetted and useful way possible. The 5% worst applications funded, not so much.
However, this process is all about getting the science done - it seems to me as an outsider that the science has moved from not done but in the news to mostly done but roped around with personal positions, sacred cows and so on (like all science). I think that practitioners in the field think this too as they still want to work in it. In contrast I was will one of the leading Quantum Physicists a few weeks ago, I understood very little of what was said but smiled when he announced "I'm not working in Quantum Computing now as the theory is all done"! Compare...
The problem isn't the professional, ethical and well supported by science messages being put out by most AGW people now; it's the wild (probably correct, but wild) assertions that came out 15 years ago. These were slammed and unpicked by skeptics, leaving a residue of mistrust.
Unfortunately without one (assertion, flap) you don't get the other. This is where Feynman was wrong - PR does sometimes trump (geddit?) nature.
No one seems to be thinking about how Science should accommodate and learn from this. Which, given the Scientific method, is odd.
> It's easy to be a skeptic when there are so many low quality articles like this
It isn't "low quality."
This article reports about the current weather conditions, it was not intended to "prove" anything about the cause of climate change. You expect from the news article something that nobody can give you (understanding of the causes) unless you have the capability and the wish to acquire it.
When the weather conditions reach all-time high, it's news. Especially if it matches the much longer trend.
See my other post here for the links to the graphs with the context.
It isn't "low quality."
This article reports about the current weather conditions, it was not intended to "prove" anything about the cause of climate change. You expect from the news article something that nobody can give you (understanding of the causes) unless you have the capability and the wish to acquire it.
When the weather conditions reach all-time high, it's news. Especially if it matches the much longer trend.
See my other post here for the links to the graphs with the context.
There's a reasonable argument that we're fairly clueless
about how most natural systems actually work.
Hold on a second, even given that global warming exists, there is no way this warm period is caused by global warming because you can't equate local weather to general climate.
The fact that the arctic or any region is experiencing warmer than usual weather lately doesn't mean that climate change is happening or that the weather is a result of climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-sk...
The fact that the arctic or any region is experiencing warmer than usual weather lately doesn't mean that climate change is happening or that the weather is a result of climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-sk...
No, it doesn't.
The causality is unidirectional; there is no entailment in the sense that a period like this could occur without global warming or without global warming effects being responsible for this particular episode.
However, the prior probability of this event is influenced by the warming of the system overall. The expectation that an event like this will occur in a given season is higher if you have a warmed planet than not.
That doesn't mean that it will happen, or that if it happens it's because of global warming. If there is global warming this event is more likely and should be expected more often.
The causality is unidirectional; there is no entailment in the sense that a period like this could occur without global warming or without global warming effects being responsible for this particular episode.
However, the prior probability of this event is influenced by the warming of the system overall. The expectation that an event like this will occur in a given season is higher if you have a warmed planet than not.
That doesn't mean that it will happen, or that if it happens it's because of global warming. If there is global warming this event is more likely and should be expected more often.
> there is no way this warm period is caused by global warming because you can't equate local weather to general climate
No. There's no way that some warm or cold period can only be caused by global warming (or that it can disprove it). Since thevformer are extremes at the specific point in time, the later is the trend (averages, compared year-to-year).
But some period can be so extreme that it's a big news if it breaks the records compared to all previous measurements. This is the case this time. If it breaks the records in the direction of the trend, it can point to trend getting even stronger. You won't know if the trend actually got stronger until you make new averages, but it is worrying enough.
To compare with something you know: you drive every day 1 hour between two places. You know that your speed at some specific point in time never gets under some value, for example, you never had to stop. If you stop somewhere and wait 1 minute, it doesn't mean you won't have chance to speed up and still get on time. The average can still be the same. You'll know when you're there. But if you day to day have to wait, first day 1 minute, the next 2 minutes, after some number of days you can know that you can't think "maybe I'll still be on time" when you break the wait "record" of all previous days. Now, the climate is one level above: it's not even how fast is one car but how fast are all cars everywhere, if we speak about the whole Earth climate. That's why the denier claiming "but I feel I drove this small route here faster" (i.e. "it seems warm in my town now," not even comparing the actual historical measuremens) is not disproving "it's warmer every year on the whole planet."
The averages are here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-temperature-t...
No. There's no way that some warm or cold period can only be caused by global warming (or that it can disprove it). Since thevformer are extremes at the specific point in time, the later is the trend (averages, compared year-to-year).
But some period can be so extreme that it's a big news if it breaks the records compared to all previous measurements. This is the case this time. If it breaks the records in the direction of the trend, it can point to trend getting even stronger. You won't know if the trend actually got stronger until you make new averages, but it is worrying enough.
To compare with something you know: you drive every day 1 hour between two places. You know that your speed at some specific point in time never gets under some value, for example, you never had to stop. If you stop somewhere and wait 1 minute, it doesn't mean you won't have chance to speed up and still get on time. The average can still be the same. You'll know when you're there. But if you day to day have to wait, first day 1 minute, the next 2 minutes, after some number of days you can know that you can't think "maybe I'll still be on time" when you break the wait "record" of all previous days. Now, the climate is one level above: it's not even how fast is one car but how fast are all cars everywhere, if we speak about the whole Earth climate. That's why the denier claiming "but I feel I drove this small route here faster" (i.e. "it seems warm in my town now," not even comparing the actual historical measuremens) is not disproving "it's warmer every year on the whole planet."
The averages are here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-temperature-t...
[deleted]
But when a region so huge as the Artic or the Antartic have a trend of increasing temperatures we can start to think that there is a change
Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of running a double-blind placebo controlled trial on the relationship between CO2 emissions and the climate.
Venus already gave evidence. The Mariner missions gave us the atmospheric observations that clued us in to the possibility of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the first place.
You really should look at the diameter of Venus cf. Earth and the relationship between core temp & surface distance from that temp.
Are you saying venus atmospheric temp is due to heat from the core leaking out? This is not the case, the heat absorbed from the sun and the heat radiated by venus is basically identical. Its atmospheric temp is pretty much entirely due to greenhouse effects mostly from co2.
We know the greenhouse effect is real (just walk into a greenhouse and you'll know), so the only remaining question is whether CO2 causes a greenhouse effect in the earth's atmosphere. That should be reasonably easy to prove right? Sounds like basic chemistry (which I never did).
Basic models with albedo and heat generated by the core shows that the Earth should be much colder than it is now. The greenhouse effect is studied since the 19th century and explain why the planet is not at freezing temperature all year round. That's pretty solid science and is also validated by studies of other planets.
The remaining parts are: (1) Do humans induces a rise of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? and (2) is the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere provoking a rise in temperature on global scale?
It's my understanding that (1) is a simple yes: just do an accounting of the number of carbon atoms, and you realize that getting atoms of carbons out of the rocks to the surface of the planet at industrial scale means that there must be more carbons either in natural carbon storage (forests, oceans) or in the atmosphere. Since forests are not growing and the absorption of CO2 by the oceans does not seem to be very efficient, it means humans are increasing level of CO2 above themselves. Carbon doesn't magically disappear. It has to be somewhere.
(2) is the one that get difficult. There are a lot of arguments for (a lot of data points to rise both in CO2 and temperatures, a lot of models show the same thing) but all of this is modeling and correlation when what we are doing in extrapolation: is the relationship between CO2 and temperature going to stay the same as it is, or does some counter-effect going to kick in and make things smoother, or on the contrary, some effect on the atmosphere will accelerate global warming? Until we have a perfect model of the atmosphere or until we have actually got there and realize we have screwed up things or not, we can not say we have a scientific proof, and we can't be sure at which speed it's gonna happen.
But the amount of circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming and there is so much at stake that in my opinion it is not reasonable to act like it's not happening or like you need hard mathematical proof to consider it a reality.
The remaining parts are: (1) Do humans induces a rise of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? and (2) is the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere provoking a rise in temperature on global scale?
It's my understanding that (1) is a simple yes: just do an accounting of the number of carbon atoms, and you realize that getting atoms of carbons out of the rocks to the surface of the planet at industrial scale means that there must be more carbons either in natural carbon storage (forests, oceans) or in the atmosphere. Since forests are not growing and the absorption of CO2 by the oceans does not seem to be very efficient, it means humans are increasing level of CO2 above themselves. Carbon doesn't magically disappear. It has to be somewhere.
(2) is the one that get difficult. There are a lot of arguments for (a lot of data points to rise both in CO2 and temperatures, a lot of models show the same thing) but all of this is modeling and correlation when what we are doing in extrapolation: is the relationship between CO2 and temperature going to stay the same as it is, or does some counter-effect going to kick in and make things smoother, or on the contrary, some effect on the atmosphere will accelerate global warming? Until we have a perfect model of the atmosphere or until we have actually got there and realize we have screwed up things or not, we can not say we have a scientific proof, and we can't be sure at which speed it's gonna happen.
But the amount of circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming and there is so much at stake that in my opinion it is not reasonable to act like it's not happening or like you need hard mathematical proof to consider it a reality.
The scientists calculated the contribution of other causes, not only of CO2, and here is how it compares to CO2:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
> We know the greenhouse effect is real (just walk into a greenhouse and you'll know)
Until now it was my understanding that greenhouses are warm because they are shielded from the outside by glass walls so only the sun can shine in but warmth can't go out. Are you now saying that greenhouses are so warm because of their CO2 levels?
Until now it was my understanding that greenhouses are warm because they are shielded from the outside by glass walls so only the sun can shine in but warmth can't go out. Are you now saying that greenhouses are so warm because of their CO2 levels?
> Are you now saying that greenhouses are so warm because of their CO2 levels?
No, what the OP says is that CO2 acts like a greenhouse
No, what the OP says is that CO2 acts like a greenhouse
Check out Venus.
I have to agree completely with this comment. A Global Warming denier will read this as saying:
"Specific circumstances caused this, but probably Global warming is making things worse."
SO this isn't evidence of Global Warming and even mentioning it is just going to piss people off. I even accept that the statement is completely true. I'm convinced such spikes really are probably becoming more frequent and intense due to Global Warming.
However we're not talking about how I would read and understand this but how it would be perceived by a skeptic. On that score aaron695 is spot on.
"Specific circumstances caused this, but probably Global warming is making things worse."
SO this isn't evidence of Global Warming and even mentioning it is just going to piss people off. I even accept that the statement is completely true. I'm convinced such spikes really are probably becoming more frequent and intense due to Global Warming.
However we're not talking about how I would read and understand this but how it would be perceived by a skeptic. On that score aaron695 is spot on.
Even if it were politics (which I don't think this is), what would we loose by upping our overall energy efficency and reducing our reliance on fossil energy (plus be more considerate of nature etc.)? I have never really thought about it, so I'm really curious about your thoughts, but as a cynical I would guess we only "loose" our coziness because it would require change which we humans seem to don't like.
Concerns about global warming are really concerns about dramatic temperature variances that occurs too quickly for humans to adapt to.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-temperature-t...
These are averages over the whole year. The graph to consider specifically for Arctic is this one:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/arctic.jpg