State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019
carbonbrief.org
carbonbrief.org
I don't know how you convince these people. Luckily, they're on their way out, but they still represent a large portion of the voting population for at least the next decade. Do we need more intense floods and forest fires every single year until they finally admit that maybe there's something to this climate thing?
>how you convince these people.
Four easy steps:
- show them the hockey stick graphs from models,
- show them the graphs from actual measurements,
- point out 2019 is colder than 2016, and probably than 2017, as per the article,
- point out the graph looks pretty close to a cluster of sine waves when watched at any scale
Congratulations, now they are convinced for life. You can celebrate that with them by watching the 2006 An Inconvenient Truth for all the beautiful animations.
Snark aside, the gist is: people who have been following news for some two decades or more don't generally get alarmed that easily.
Is this some kind of backhanded admission that you will never admit global warming ever, whatever happens to the global temperature? Any graph can be arbitrarily closely approximated by a series of sine waves, that's the basic idea of Fourier Transformation.
I'm convinced the only possible savior at this point would be a Superpower aggressively enforcing environmental regulations to the point of going to war over it, but that seems unlikely.
It could feasibly handled economically. I've wondered if a stronger world govt a century or so down the line saying eco friendly or tariffs. I can't speak to liklihood, but it seems feasible.
I think we need stronger policies that cannot be swayed by public opinion or we're screwed. There's no room for error at this point.
I don't like where that path leads. I mean, you're not wrong that it would be able to solve the problem faster but I don't think the end justifies the means.
It led to not allowing the Californian public to vote both for tax cuts and increases in public spending, unless there is a budget surplus. It also led to the UK not having the death penalty.
And current flooding issues are generally nothing like what occurred before effective flood-control measures were put into place. And current forest fires are generally nothing like what occurred before effective fire-control methods were put into place. Being young, you've grown up in a fairly "controlled" world, so (much like anti-vax folks who don't understand what the world was like before vaccines came along), you have no life experience dealing with the world as it existed before those other controls were put into place.
> In many ways, OHC represents a much better measure of climate change than global average surface temperatures. It is where most of the extra heat ends up and is much less variable on a year-to-year basis than surface temperatures. Most years set a new record for OHC and 2019 has been no exception so far, with the first three months showing the warmest OHC since records began.
> Changes in the amount or rate of warming are much easier to detect in the OHC record than on the surface. For example, OHC shows little evidence of the slowdown in warming in the mid-2000s, seen in surface temperature records.
No, I haven't.
edit - I am only half joking. The war on drugs is not noted for its logical underpinnings, but if it has any, they are largely predicated on worrying about future consequences. If our official political stance is going to be 'yolo, fuck the future consequences', we may as well be consistent.