Statistics tell us what is normal.Who decided what normal was?
Indeed and for most of earths lifespan Earth has been uninhabitable, it's looking like we are returning to the norm.Statistics tell us what is normal.
Uninhabitable for whom? I take it you are referring to complex, multi-cellular eukaryotes. The Earth has been inhabited since at least 3.3 Ga and possible 3.9 Ga, so roughly 70% - 90% of its existence.Indeed and for most of earths lifespan Earth has been uninhabitable, it's looking like we are returning to the norm.
I don't think it will be that bad. But a lot of species will go extinct and mankind is likely to suffer quite a bit as well.Indeed and for most of earths lifespan Earth has been uninhabitable, it's looking like we are returning to the norm.
Who decided what normal was?
Normal, at least in terms of global temperatures, is an average of 30 years of temperature measurements.
The WMO breaks things down nicely:
GCDS_1 WCDMP | WMO
Climatological Normals have long filled two major purposes. Firstly, they form a benchmark or reference against which conditions (especially current or recent conditions) can be assessed, and secondly, they are widely used (implicitly or explicitly) as an indicator of the conditions likely to be experienced in a given location. The Technical Regulations and earlier editions of Guide to Climatological Practices contain a number of explicit definitions, as well as terms which are not formally defined but have a clear meaning. These terms are:
Averages: The mean of monthly values of climatological data (which may be monthly means or totals) over any specified period of time (no specific definition).
Period averages: Averages of climatological data computed for any period of at least ten years starting on 1 January of a year ending with the digit 1 (Technical Regulations).
Normals: Period averages computed for a uniform and relatively long period comprising at least three consecutive ten-year periods (Technical Regulations).
Climatological standard normals: Averages of climatological data computed for the following consecutive periods of 30 years: 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2010, 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2020, etc. (Technical Regulations).
The world wide temperature has been a steady two and a half degrees above normal for twenty years.
If normal is the average temperature of the last 30 years, then how can this statement below from greatcloudlives have any significance?
I can't see that the average of the 20 years out of an average of 30 years would be that far off the 30 year average. would the ten remaining years be that much colder?
If one waits a year perhaps the world wide temperature for the twenty year period will be much less than two and a half degrees above normal? Normal may well have moved up or down a bit or the twenty year period may have moved down or up a bit. Which might be the case if this year is extremely high or low in global temperature and the year that is removed from the equation was extremely low or high in global temperature. Supposing there is a normal temperature that the global temperature is supposed to be would be much different than just averaging the last 30 years and calling it it normal. Using the 30 year model we will always be close to normal whether the average temperature is boiling hot or ice age cold.
Just today there was a report that it's methane that is the worst offender. That was known to some extent, but now the scientific community says that it's methane from the oil, gas and coal industry that it mostly to blame. So the world has been clamouring for CO2 reduction at great expense and for little benefit. Ah science, you've done it again.Not consistent with the evidence. There's considerable evidence for a greenhouse effect coming from CO2 and other gasses. Just this time it's being released by us and not volcanoes or other natural sources.
Just today there was a report that it's methane that is the worst offender. That was known to some extent, but now the scientific community says that it's methane from the oil, gas and coal industry that it mostly to blame. So the world has been clamouring for CO2 reduction at great expense and for little benefit. Ah science, you've done it again.
Huge recalculation of methane emissions has a silver lining: 'We can deal with it'Can you link to the report?
Methane has been a known greenhouse gas and warming contributor for decades (the first IPCC report from 1990 covers it and its global warming potential, for instance).
Methane has a warming potential about 80 to 100 times that of carbon dioxide. However, its effect is more short term, as methane only has a atmospheric dwell life of somewhere between 9 to 12.5 years (compared to about 200 years for carbon dioxide).
Thus, it will have a warming impact over 100 years of about 25 to 30 times that of carbon dioxide.
However, methane is a lot less common in the atmosphere. Current concentration is about 1900 parts per billion (0.0000019% of the atmosphere), compared to about 400 parts per million for carbon dioxide (0.0004% of the atmosphere).
Thus, there is 2000 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than methane and it will stay in the atmosphere almost 20 times as long.
This is why CO2 is the primary focus.
Just today there was a report that it's methane that is the worst offender.
Ah science, you've done it again.
So the world has been clamouring for CO2 reduction at great expense and for little benefit. Ah science, you've done it again.
Not consistent with the evidence. There's considerable evidence for a greenhouse effect coming from CO2 and other gasses. Just this time it's being released by us and not volcanoes or other natural sources.
Volcanic action is active & accounts for a large portion of what they have measured because that's where the instruments are.
The sun is indeed the culprit behind this. Greenhouse gases on a planet type like the Earth can't exude that much effect.
Earth has no ceiling unlike it's twin Venus.
Except that isn't true.Volcanic action is active & accounts for a large portion of what they have measured because that's where the instruments are. The sun is indeed the culprit behind this. Greenhouse gases on a planet type like the Earth can't exude that much effect. Earth has no ceiling unlike it's twin Venus. We also maintain 3 large repositories: the oceans, vegetation, & limestone/calcite. Venus lacks all these. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas but CO2 follows warming, not precedes warming. When warming occurs, this facilitates both mechanical & chemical weathering of rocks, in which case limestone can release its CO2.
It isn't. It's anthropogenic.
-CryptoLutheran