July Heat Set U.S. Record

gollum123 sends this excerpt from CNN: "The July heat wave that wilted crops, shriveled rivers and fueled wildfires officially went into the books Wednesday as the hottest single month on record for the continental United States. The average temperature across the Lower 48 was 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.3 degrees above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported. That edged out the previous high mark, set in 1936, by two-tenths of a degree, NOAA said. In addition, the seven months of 2012 to date are the warmest of any year on record and were drier than average as well, NOAA said. U.S. forecasters started keeping records in 1895. And the past 12 months have been the warmest of any such period on record, topping a mark set between July 2011 and this past June. Every U.S. state except Washington experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, NOAA reported."

Comments

Hopefully it's an outlier

[SomeJoel]

I certainly hope that this heat was an outlier, and not "the new normal".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

It was God punishing people for practicing science so boldly in the open, no doubt.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. It's a coincidence. Not related to AGW or anything. I'm sure it's just the sensors being closer to pavement. Also, it hasn't felt any hotter for me, so it must just be the crazy greens trying to take all our money for their solar companies. Just keep letting me burn my dinosaur.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Penguinisto]

Urgh.

Okay kids, time to brace for the usual arguments:

"Itz teh global WarminGz!"

"Iz nawt! Itz teh outLiarz!"

"Yoo Dunt no SHIT abut SCIENCE!"

(rinse, repeat, ad nauseum...)

Seriously. Get a grip.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[J Story]

In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?". Between then and now, States have had record cold temperatures as well. This report would be just one more Jeopardy! item, were it not for the political hay that will be made of it.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Hatta]

Unless you know some way for the atmosphere to clear all the heat trapping CO2 we've been dumping for the past 100 years, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[cpu6502]

This July's record heat is only 0.2 degrees higher then the previous record. Let's not blow things out of proportion. (Unless you think the record set in the 1930s is indicative of global warming too?)

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Splab]

And the fact that weather is setting records across the globe year after year right now, is not a concern because equipment used in 1936 had almost the same reading?

You know what, global environment change might be man made or natural cycle, but if it turns out to be man made, I hope you will do the honorable thing and let someone who tried to save the planet have your spot.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Internetuser1248]

No it is god punishing you for using fahrenheit.
25.33 degrees for those that both care and didn't already type '77.6f in c' into google.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sycodon]

That's a pretty charitable depiction.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rrohbeck]

Yeah. Unless we break the PETM global average, this is really "Meh!"

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Internetuser1248]

Well you know what they say: 'make hay while the sun shines'. Maybe a bumper hay crop may offset some of your corn losses. Mind you, you are talking about political hay. I think there is a glut on the world market at the moment, at least of the US variety of hay.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[BasilBrush]

In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?".

Never read The Grapes of Wrath I take it.

0.2 degrees higher than the the hottest month on record is certainly a notable event.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[BasilBrush]

Cold temperatures in Celsius. Hot temperatures in Fahrenheit. It's the natural way.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

What the critics are saying:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Forty Two Tenfold]

save the planet

The planet's fine. WE are fucked.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well PV=nRT. Increased heat will increase pressure.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Obfuscant]

And the fact that weather is setting records across the globe year after year right now, is not a concern because equipment used in 1936 had almost the same reading?

I think the fact that the previous record was set in 1936 pretty much disproves your "fact" that the weather is setting records "year after year". "Year after year" to most people means "every year or two", not "every 7 decades or so".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Smauler]

depends how cold it is....

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[c0lo]

Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?

505.928 Kelvin is better.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[NeutronCowboy]

The 5 stages of denial:

1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, the alternative is worse, so let's just get on with it.

Alright - we're at step 2 of the denial process! Looks like we've made progress in the last.... 25 years or so. I hope step 3 won't take another 25 years.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Smauler]

Incidental temperatures fucking are a coincidence. More storms, less rain, cold winters, whatever - it's not the issue. That's the argument AGW denialists have been using for years, ok?

Headlines like this prove nothing - the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist, and localised weather is not really a good indication of it (though some, especially those in the media, try to make it so).

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[NeutronCowboy]

I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[AlienIntelligence]

This July's record heat is only 0.2 degrees higher then the previous record. Let's not blow things out of proportion. (Unless you think the record set in the 1930s is indicative of global warming too?)

Yeah, the new records they set in the Olympics were only milliseconds faster.
Let's not give them a medal or anything. Cause you know.. you don't want to
blow it out of proportion. What's a record anyway, if they are so close to each
other. Amirite?

-AI

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Farmer Tim]

Easily solved: use the much colder methane ice from Titan instead.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[AlienIntelligence]

I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.

FWIW, a graph tends to be of more value if you evaluate and potentially take out outlier points.
If you are looking for trends. Also, some toss lowest and highest as well.

Just saying.

-AI

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[arkane1234]

Actually, it's because the sun is on a direct collision course with earth.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[arkane1234]

The dust bowl was not caused by temperatures, it was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion.

It kinda was something other than nature that exasperated the situation.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think the fact that the previous record was set in 1936 pretty much disproves your "fact" that the weather is setting records "year after year". "Year after year" to most people means "every year or two", not "every 7 decades or so".

Back in 2009 they were saying the it had been the warmest decade ever recorded, and the years between then and now haven't been any less exceptional either.

So yeah, "setting records year after year" is a pretty accurate good description.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[MightyYar]

Always been a Rankine man myself...

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[dkleinsc]

Once and for all!

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Muros]

the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist, and localised weather is not really a good indication of it (though some, especially those in the media, try to make it so).

Where do you propose to define the cut-off point between weather and climate though? One is the average of the other. You can lose a lot of detail when you average everything.Don't know about where you live, but where I am, the weather has been strange,. Two of the last three winters had countryside buried in snow and ice for weeks on end where we usually get occasional frosts. So far this year, we've had dry sunny weather in spring when it usually rains, and it has been pissing rain all summer so bad that my father (cattle farmer) gave up on the land ever drying out and started making silage last week, ripping the ground to shit with tractors while still having to give fodder to the cattle. In the middle of the summer. Maybe its just a few strange years in a row in my little local area. But the weather has been really fucking weird for a few years. And people all across the world are saying the same thing.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

For now it's still an outlier but in 10 or 20 years it may be the new normal.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[jcoy42]

No, poster is correct. It's called winsorising. It's common to toss out the top and bottom 5% just to discount anomalies.

But you don't discount it after you see the data because you don't like it, you plan to discount it before you collect the data and more importantly you do it indiscriminately and equally on both sides of the data set. Not just points you don't like after you see the data.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[budgenator]

3 decimal points on a thermometer, you had better be carefull or people will confuse you with a climatologist.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

It's not surprising that record cold temperatures are still being set when the record is only a bit over 100 years old. Since the 1980's however the number of hot records being set has outnumbered the number of cold records being set by a considerable margin. If there were no global warming you'd expect the number of hot records and number of cold records to be approximately equal.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[budgenator]

This July's record heat is only 0.2 degrees higher then the previous record. Let's not blow things out of proportion. (Unless you think the record set in the 1930s is indicative of global warming too?)

Yeah, the new records they set in the Olympics were only milliseconds faster.

Since the stopwatches only have tenth of a second resolution, we have to average the results of a 100 timers to get to milliseconds.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Dahamma]

I could see tossing the outliers if you think they are *recording* anomolies. Tossing accurate measurements because they don't fit the nice linear graph you want to draw is just bad science.

Taking out *valid* outliers doesn't give a graph "more value" to those wanting to understand the meaning behind the data, just to those wanting to use the data to justify their preconceived conclusions...

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Dahamma]

Incidental temperatures fucking are a coincidence.

I'm pretty sure if you ever see incidental temperatures fucking it's a very deliberate act.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[budgenator]

Funny, I've heard of a lot of computer simulations, all predictting dire global warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but I've never heard of a simulation of what might happen if we actually managed to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Everybody assumes that if CO2 is predicted to cause continued warming, then reductions would cause cooling. but has anybody checked it out? Perhaps we can't get there from here!

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[microbox]

I think the fact that the previous record was set in 1936 pretty much disproves your "fact" that the weather is setting records "year after year". "Year after year" to most people means "every year or two", not "every 7 decades or so".

This argument is pretty vacuous, since you are talking about a single record. A single point does not a trend make or disprove.

Each year we have cold records broken, and warm records broken. There are 1000s of records that are being tracked. We are breaking warm records twice as often as cold records. Scientists predict that that ratio will increase, based on a physical understanding of the world that has undergone sustained and deep statistical analysis.

But by all means, believe what you want. A single data point.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[yester64]

It wasn't so much about the temperature as more with the trend. The trend is going up, but who is to say. Just buy a better sun factor with your suncream and everything will be fine.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

Interesting statement Do you have a cite discussing this or is it the result of your own mental quantifiers?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Cyberax]

Well, there are such simulations. They show that it's almost impossible to actually do this because a lot of "carbon sinks" would become "carbon spigots" once you reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration. But if you do this using some sort of magic - you'll get very rapid (months, not years!) cooling effect. (temperature will

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

Well, my cite would be James Hansen's recently published paper. He specifically discusses the shift of the normal distribution of temperatures toward the hot end of the scale due to global warming. The numbers I used were just pulled out of my ass but temperatures are distributed in a normal distribution (aka bell curve) with average temperatures most common and extreme temperatures the least common. It doesn't take much of a shift in the normal distribution to significantly increase the chances of a specific extreme temperature occurring.

This post on Hansen's Sunday Op-Ed in the Washington post lays it out fairly well. Look down the page a bit at the graph titled "Shifting Distribution of Summer Temperature Anomalies" for an illustration of what I was talking about in the GP post.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

You can denigrate Hansen all you want but most of his predictions have proven to be on the conservative side.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[JDG1980]

Unless you know some way for the atmosphere to clear all the heat trapping CO2 we've been dumping for the past 100 years

Step 1: Plant a shitload of fast-growing trees.

Step 2: When they reach maturity, cut them down and bury or sink the wood. (Or use it for furniture or housing if it's suitable.)

Step 3: Repeat.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[NeutronCowboy]

That's the point - you either decide beforehand how you account for systematic errors and potential faulty measurements, and discard data on both ends of the spectrum. You don't just say "I'm lopping off the bottom part, and now the data proves that another data set has a lower average."

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[dwillden]

The athletes don't get medals for setting new records, they get the medals for winning their event, regardless of whether or not they set a record.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Simploid]

In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?". Between then and now, States have had record cold temperatures as well. This report would be just one more Jeopardy! item, were it not for the political hay that will be made of it.

yeah, and that's without even considering inflation!!

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

"Headlines like this prove nothing - the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist,"

No, it really doesn't. It hasn't been proved, just marketed better than the other theories (which seem to explain things better).

If you're so sure of this tell me what % of carbon is mans contribution.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[dbIII]

That's right, what do those NASA guys know?
Sorry kid - YOU are the crazy guy on the street corner from that long string of weird posts you've put here.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

It did this in the 80s. El Nino.

The drought in the us has everything to do with bad land management and very little to do with the weather; they accelerated biological succession about 5000 years because of insane industrial processing of the land before figuring out what an "ecosystem" is.

They did this in Babylon too, the dumb shits, and that's why you can't see the hanging gardens. They blamed the gods of course, you can blame the Mayans or CO2 or whatever gets you through the night but the actual science is a bit more complicated than that.

Very few thigs in this world are static - coastlines, temperatures, ice levels, they bound around all over the place, they always have and always will. Why would anybody think these things are static or predictable?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

Yeah, about that deep statistical analysis. I went to Waterloo in the 80s in the math faculty and I went back 2 years ago just to have a look around, and found myself in the stats department, a hall with about 12 offices.

You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.

Follow the money.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

Pretty much. "Survival of the fittest" means that which can adapt best, not that which is most fit for a certain static set of conditions (which doesn't really occur in nature).

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

"0.2 degrees higher than the the hottest month on record is certainly a notable event."

No, it's a data point and doesn't matter. Trends do.

If you cut down all the trees you get a desert. No matter what the climate.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

How about I just pay attention to the scientists who don't remind you of a cross between a used car salesman and a TV evangelist preacher.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

Actually, you are the crazy one here. You must be having conversations in your head and thinking I was actually there or something. I never said a NASA guy didn't know anything, I said I do not pay attention to him because he pulled some crap in the past in order to increased the perceived value of his statements and validated by saying his opinion matters more then exaggerating claims.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

You are aware there's two major types of plants on earth, low co2 ones and high co2 ones right? (Go look up CAM plants in Wiki)

And you are aware the IPCC sort of ignored the fact that plants eat co2 right?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

"n particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3C cooler compared to the present sims."

It took 10 years to drive this point into their skulls and they haven't even noticed all plants aren't created equal yet. They will.

A decade ago suggestions plants might eat co2 with a positive feedback was scoffed at - because of one paper that tried to bring dead grass back to live in a desert and failed (no water, ahem). It was at that point I knew something wasn't right and the more you look the less right it gets. But if you only believe what Time prints you get what you deserve.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

This is Dysons suggestion. You could also make homes out of the wood. Just a thought.

Actually if we hadn't cut down or otherwise nearly all the trees in the world things might be a little different right now.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

Bonus. I live in Canada. Bring it.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are all missing the point. He was pointing out that the majority of the US was actually hotter in '36 than today, except that Texas brought the average down. Get it? Sheesh.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[fatphil]

I thought that was just a réaumur.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[fatphil]

Screw you, slashdot, and your broken double-escaping of my e-acute.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[fatphil]

Exacerbated, though I like the idea of a dust-bowl being exasperated.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

Actually, if you are looking for trends, the succession of highs and lows is often far more predictive. The middle is often muddled.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

Because as we all know, people you don't like couldn't possibly have any insight into the statistical thermodynamics of gases.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

Well, you are earning your username.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

The fall of the Akkadian period is directly related to a global period of cooling and a shift from wetter to drier conditions. The Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, there was no agrarian collapse. As for agriculture, there are still people's living in the reed swamps near the Persian gulf using an agricultural system largely untouched for the last 5000 years.

As for static and predictable: human civilization is the gift of one of the longest stable climate periods in the last million years, screwing that up would be an event of, quite literally, biblical proportions.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

40 years ago they would have been throwing the "n" word around just to prove that they don't pay attention to any of that liberal science that says that we are all human.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

The future is fucked, there are plenty of people doing quite well making the death bet.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[tbannist]

No, it's a data point and doesn't matter. Trends do.

It's still a notable event. It could be an outlier, but every outlier is a notable event as well.

If you cut down all the trees you get a desert. No matter what the climate.

Actually, you usually don't. Usually the trees grow back (it takes time), sometimes you get grass land or savannah. The problem may be that you don't understand what a desert is. It's classified as "a landscape or region that receives an extremely low amount of precipitation, less than enough to support growth of most plants", cutting the trees down usually doesn't have that much effect on regional precipitation patterns.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

"Because as we all know, people who0 have exaggerated claims, participated in fraud, and justified it with how they "felt about the situation", couldn't possibly have any insight into the statistical thermodynamics of gases."

FTFY.

And it isn't that they won't have any insight, its that I do not want to spend the effort weeding through the bullshit to find it from the exaggerations.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[microbox]

You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.

Sounds like bullshit to me. These mathematicians could advance their careers by publishing -- something that academics are under pressure to do.

Follow the money.

Indeed. Follow the money. But really, you just gotta know what a cognitive bubble is to understand how "skeptics" can firewall themselves from their elementary mistakes.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

Sorry, "Fuck That, Fuck You" is not an answer. I note that you don't supply any links, because then everyone could see that your source for your allegation is commieblaster and other denialist sites.

You're pathetic.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[ralphdaugherty]

We'd have to cut it nearly in half to get back to 1850 pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels. btw, all of that CO2 since then is from fossil fuels whose carbon has not been in atmosphere since before dinosaurs. This is what people do not understand, for example your question.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

Maybe it would be helpful if you cited an example of Hansen's exaggerated claims. Then we could talk about something of substance rather than you attacking Hansen for perceived character flaws.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[hazah]

Now I'm confused... can someone please explain to me how this could possibly be understood as flamebait? I also don't get the joke either, and all that was meant is basically "why".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Red Flayer]

I also would like to mention that tillage technology & methods played a big role. There was a big push of settlers moving west who tilled their soil extremely fine before planting... once they started clump-tilling instead, the dust problem wasn't near as bad.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Plumpaquatsch]

No, poster is correct. It's called winsorising. It's common to toss out the top and bottom 5% just to discount anomalies.

But that is exactly what they didn't do. They only took out a low value state instead one low and one high. And they also didn't pick the lowest "below average" value (Maine, which had an actual all time record cold for that month), but that of the largest state with below average temp - which means more low station values to drop.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[mcgrew]

No it is god punishing you for using fahrenheit.

It's a story about temperatures in the US, on a US-based web site, using US nomenclature. If it were about records in Europe, C would be more appropriate, but it's about the US. And as you noted, Google ain't hard to use.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sexconker]

They looked at the data THEN decided they didn't like certain data points. That's not Winsorization, that's bullshit.
You're dumb, and dumbshit slashdot modded you +5 because you included a wikipedia link.

Furthermore, Winsorization itself is bullshit. ALL data is valid unless you have an actual reason to discount it (known to be an inaccurate measurement, etc.). The desire to make data fit a preconceived model is what drives people to discount data, and discounting data results in shittier models.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

sigh... James Hansen (with a couple democrat staffers in 1988) has been involved in turning the AC units off in congress claiming they were broken on the historically hottest day of the year in order to exaggerate his clams of global warming. The day wasn't an accident either, he admitted in an interview that they looked up the day and month that was statistically the hottest and orchestrated a scheduling to make sure it was that day so congress would be baking in the heat when he went and told them the world is getting hotter.

Then there is the work of other scientists like Dr. Hoerling who come right out and say he's exaggerating perception and not doing science.

There is a wealth of well known information about him. I suggest you learn for yourself.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

Actually, it's fuck that, fuck him and yes, it is perfectly good enough for all that he deserves. Obviously you don't think so, so you can continue to suck his cock all you want.

When other scientists who do not exaggerate things like Hansen's co worker Dr. Hoerling come right out and say Hansen's latest puke of an article isn't science, I tend to not care about your insistence on honoring the shill.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

Right, the climate changed. it does that. See also "biological succession".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

I'm just telling you what I saw. The math is a butt of jokes. Call them yourself to verify this. Google is your friend.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[rs79]

I'm sorry, you seem to be unaware of what happened or don't understand biology or both because this makes no sense and is nothing to do with what happened. They do actually have books for this sort of thing.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Dahamma]

If we are comparing record Julys, then there aren't many data points, and maybe it is OK to toss a low temperature.

Records are almost by definition outliers, so tossing them out defeats the whole point.

And as I said, if it's a possible measurement anomaly, that's one thing. But no reason to talk in generalities here, it was a simple *temperature* measurement where no one is contesting the data point or measurement technique, just whether it should be ignored since it was "not normal".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Grumbleduke]

If you're so sure of this tell me what % of carbon is mans contribution.

Last time I checked, 100% of carbon has been contributed by a star. It forms when three helium nuclei fuse together, but that requires something like 100MK of temperature, and an awful lot of helium close together. You don't tend to get that outside large stars. The carbon is then scattered throughout the universe via supernovae. Of course like all science, that's just a theory. It hasn't been proved, and unlike global warming, no one has measured it occurring directly, so it could be completely wrong.

Oh wait, you were trying to talk about something completely different; global warming/climate change and the impact human activity (particularly the burning of fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) is having on average global temperatures. If you want scientific opinions on it (rather than the general public's, politician's or the media's - and when it comes to science, what they have to say is pretty meaningless), this is probably worth a read.

I'm no scientist, but to be blunt, it doesn't really matter how much of it is our fault. Imagine there is a leak in the roof of your house, but it just so happens to be over a bathtub. The bath seems to be filling up with water, (but gradually, sometimes going down, but trending upwards). Some of that water is coming in via the roof (because it is raining), and some is coming from the taps (which you have turned on because you were going to have a bath). Do you:

(a) turn the taps off, make sure the plug is out, and hope that the water drains fast enough so that the room doesn't flood before the rain stops (and maybe try to fix the hole in the roof when you can),
(b) leave the taps where they are, arguing that the tap water is probably not having much of an effect (you can't prove it is), or
(c) turn the taps on full, using the above argument, but also pointing out that you want to have a bath, and it's easier (and faster) to run the bath from the taps, and if it floods, well that's someone else's problem, at least you'll have had your bath.

Of course, even if science does say global warming is happening, is going to be pretty disastrous for our civilisations (but not for the planet; we'd need to really screw things up before we cause damage that affects things in geological time-spans), and humans are contributing to it, that doesn't mean we should stop. That's the political decision, and it is up to politicians and the general public to decide what to do (as it should be). The best scientists can do is present them with facts, theories and suggestions, if they don't want to listen, that's their choice. The 'evil' (and I use the word reluctantly) side to the "climate change" debate is those politicians who, in order to cover their decision to ignore the scientific advice for their own goals, try to distort the scientific message by spreading misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Scientists should deal with the science aspects, politicians with the political. When politicians try to meddle with science, you tend to get problems (although strangely enough it doesn't seem to be a problem the other way around...).

[Disclaimer: I am not a scientist (although I may have been one in the past), but am, in theory, a politician. I do, however, remember learning about global warming, its causes and local effects (hotter summers, colder winters etc.) in school, along with the other major problem at the time, the hole in the ozone layer. We were taught that the science said the former was partly due to the burning of fossil fuels, and the latter by the use of CFCs. In the mid 90s, production of CFCs was banned in much of the world, and it looks like the rate of ozone depletion is decreasing as a r

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

Hah, I hoped you'd come up with something more recent than 24 years ago. That doesn't have anything to do with science. Why don't you come up with an actual scientific point that you think he's exaggerated. There are a few things he's said that seem a bit extreme to me but they all involve predictions for sometime in the far future (50-300 years out) so it's impossible to judge them yet. I've followed what Hansen has said fairly closely over the years and as I said he's been pretty much a bit on the conservative side with is actual scientific predictions.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[HArchH]

...who WAS washing...

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[HArchH]

Less than a half degree warmer than 1935.

Any form of energy used results in the release of heat.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[HArchH]

Sorry...didn't see your same point already posted.

Science abhors a vacuum. It requires the generation of an explanation for everything and the answer "I don't know yet" is apparently not acceptable.

Not unlike "dark matter" and "dark energy" which I heard described as "I don't know #1" and "I don't know #2". Refreshingly honest.

People here seem to forget why hypothesis and theories exist and don't appreciate the value of differing opinions. Like children, perhaps?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[HArchH]

We've only been keeping records for 150 (?) years. Geologically that's nothing. That's even nothing related to the time since the last ice age ended, back when global warming was thought to be a good thing. (not sure who thought that though. :)

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[HArchH]

Perhaps, just for consideration, we really do not understand?

Say it with me...it won't hurt...

"We do not know"

"We do not know"

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

Why? I never said his science was wrong, although many others have pointed to his flaws in the past and he has had to correct it. You do not think his latest BS is actually science do you? No, it's an opinion he is making while pretending it is science. This is obvious considering that in 2004 the blame for Europe's weather changes was placed on changes in the north Atlantic current and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation which has a cycle of about 70 years and was known for a while that weather patters would change with it. So here we have your preacher cherry picking a time span that falls within this 70 years pointing to the changes in weather claiming it's proof of global warming when the entire time before the claim was claiming weather is not climate and you couldn't use weather to prove or disprove climate change- until something magically changed now.

Does that mean he has lied? I don't know, but it does mean that I'm not jumping at his claims like premature ejaculation in a whore house full of teen age kids getting their first piece. Hansen is a shill and doesn't deserve to be trusted. You badgering me will not change my mind, it will only make you look the same.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[notonthegrid]

Let's experiment... Let's bulldoze NYC and surrounds, and maybe San Fran and surrounds, into the ocean. Replace all that asphalt with grassy knolls and trees, and see if that makes a difference in the temp readings we take from those areas.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[MightyYar]

You need to take that up with Dr. Seuss... :)

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[tbannist]

Maybe if you were to provide some details or evidence as to what you're talking about? You wrote "If you cut down all the trees you get a desert. No matter what the climate." Which is clearly false on the face of it. Maybe you'd like to provide some mitigating context? If you're specifically talking about the Dust Bowl, the causes are more complex than "cut down all the trees [and] you get a desert".

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[microbox]

Call who in particular. Tell me which professors you are talking about, and I will get in touch with them.

Google is the perfect friend of the cognitive bubble. You know what that is, right? Well, let's put this to the test. Let's find out who these professors are, what they really believe, and why.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[Stirling Newberry]

Sorry the truth bothers so many people around here. 1936 was the hottest summer on record, as well as the most active atlantic tropical season until 2005. However, it was one of the coldest winters. Rather than being like this year, that has had record or near record months, one right after another.

Nice to see that you are a sock puppet as well as a dishonorable cheat for moderating with another account while trolling as an AC. I hope you are getting paid well for the amount of negative karma you are racking up.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[budgenator]

Even calling our present levels 400ppm, that would be 200ppm, 180ppm is iceball Earth levels, 150 ppm is extintion levels where plants sufficate and die. the 1850's were more like 280 ppm, my calculator says 280/390 is 0.72, a bit over a quarter, not a half.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

Hansen's latest paper is a statistical analysis of long term changes in global temperatures. That is exactly what climate science is about, the statistics of aggregated weather events. Individual weather events such as an extra cold winter storm or a heat wave are not climate but when you examine the patterns of many events over time it is climate. As I said you can denigrate Hansen all you want but his work has stood up well compared to actual observations.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[gzuckier]

lol. Hansen.. I tend not to put much faith or credit in people who use stage tricks to exaggerate a point then claim it was justifiable because of his own belief in the urgency of it. He's sort of like the crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is going to end on a specific date then running out in front of a bus on that day.

Hmmmmm..... PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references; PNAS, random guy on Slashdot who makes a lot of insinuations without any references; ..... whose opinion on Hansen's work should I believe? just too hard to decide.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[gzuckier]

You realize that you're talking about Senator Timothy Wirth, not Hansen, right? Wirth tells the "funny story" about what he did the day when Hansen was to speak, I know you guys think all us AGW folks are in collusion, pawns of the all-powerful climatology lobby and all.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

And as I said, when another scientist who isn't Hansen makes the same claim, I would be interested. Until then, I'm uninterested.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

No, I'm talking about Hansen and Wirth, who's staff coordinated with Hansen. Hansen has admitted to it and even said that exaggerating the effects of AGW was acceptable in the beginning because he thought the urgency of it warranted it to get the word out. You can't say Hansen isn't an activist, he's constantly getting tossed in jail for his activism and rewarded shit tons of money for his activism from Global warming groups. Remember all the crapstorm a few years ago where he had to redo his ethics reporting to the government because he wasn't disclosing those sources?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[lsatenstein]

It was God punishing people for practicing science so boldly in the open, no doubt.

In other words, Believing in GW Bush, who put his head in the ground and flatly stated, "Global Warming, what's that? It is a myth! Go petroleum companies go!".

The predictions that I read are than within 25 years Arizona will be inhabitable in the summer, Texas shortly thereafter or even before, and the american desert will expand significantly in size.
Its not all the USA's fault. Big contributors are China, India, Russia, and Pakistan. But the USA stopped burning coal for electricity, and used more solar and wind for energy, it would make a very small but important dent in global warming.

As for agriculture, my recommendation is for cultivators (can't say farmers as farmers have disappeared, to be replaced by large corporations), to visit Israel. Israel has same weather almost all year round as Arizona, but Israel is drier. Israel has a water shortage, but they use drip irrigation to raise crops. They also have a very large tree planting program, to reclaim desert and actually moderate high temperatures..

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

Why don't you do this thing called think for yourself and examine all the criticisms about Hansen and all the support for him out there then make any decision you think you are trying to make. I said I tend not to put much faith or credit in him or people that act like him, not that you couldn't. Seriously, hanging him as infallible and irreproachable because he got a membership or title is about as silly as basing everything on a single person's online opinion.

Politicians, preachers, cops, judges, are all people who have memberships and titles and even though we expect them to be infallible and irreproachable, tend to end up being self serving and corrupt quite often. I bet if you think about it, you can find more.

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

Not that I expect it to sway your opinion but here are some comments on the paper by other scientists:

The science in Hansen’s study is excellent “and reframes the question,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

        Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen’s paper an important one that helps communicate the problem.

        White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper’s findings in a statement: “This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful.”

          Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen’s study “an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments.”

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[riverat1]

And here is one you'll probably laugh at because of the source:

James Hansen’s latest findings linking extreme weather to climate change is science society cannot afford to ignore.

by Michael Mann, via The Daily Climate

The first scientist to alert Americans to the prospect that human-caused climate change and global warming was already upon us was NASA climatologist James Hansen. In a sweltering Senate hall during the hot, dry summer of 1988, Hansen announced that “it is time to stop waffling. The evidence is pretty strong that the [human-amplified] greenhouse effect is here.”

At the time, many scientists felt his announcement to be premature. I was among them.

I was a young graduate student researching the importance of natural – rather than human-caused – variations in temperature, and I felt that the “signal” of human-caused climate change had not yet emerged from the “noise” of natural, long-term climate variation. As I discuss in my book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, scientists by their very nature tend to be conservative, even reticent, when it comes to discussing findings and observations that lie at the forefront of our understanding and that aren’t yet part of the “accepted” body of scientific knowledge.

Dire warning

Hansen, it turns out, was right, and the critics were wrong. Rather than being reckless, as some of his critics charged, his announcement to the world proved to be prescient – and his critics were proven overly cautious.

Given the prescience of Hansen’s science, we would be unwise to ignore his latest, more dire warning.

In a paper published today in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Hansen and two colleagues argue convincingly that climate change is now not only upon us, but in fact we are fully immersed in it. Much of the extreme weather we have witnessed in recent years almost certainly contains a human-induced component.

Hansen, in his latest paper, shows that the increase in probability of hot summers due to global warming is such that what was once considered an unusually hot summer has now become typical, and what was once considered typical will soon become a thing of the past – a summer too improbably cool to anymore expect.

We need to view this summer’s extreme weather in this wider context.

Not random

It is not simply a set of random events occurring in isolation, but part of a broader emerging pattern. We are seeing, in much of the extreme weather we are experiencing, the “loading of the weather dice.” Over the past decade, records for daily maximum high temperatures in the U.S. have been broken at twice the rate we would expect from chance alone. Think of this as rolling double sixes twice as often as you’d expect – something you would readily notice in a high stakes game of dice. Thus far this year, that ratio is close to 10 to 1. That’s double sixes coming up ten times as often as you expect.

So the record-breaking heat this summer over so much of the United States, where records that have stood since the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s are now dropping like flies, isn’t just a fluke of nature; it is the loading of the weather dice playing out in real time.

The record heat – and the dry soils associated with it – played a role in the unprecedented forest fires that wrought death and destruction in Colorado and New Mexico. It played a role in the hot and bone-dry conditions over the nation’s breadbasket that has decimated U.S. agricultural yields. It played a role in the unprecedented 50 percent of the U.S. finding itself in extreme drought.

Other threats

Climate change is also threatening us in other ways of course, subjecting our coastal cities to increased

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[gzuckier]

Why don't you do this thing called think for yourself and examine all the criticisms about Hansen and all the support for him out there then make any decision you think you are trying to make.

I did. Feel better now?

Re:Hopefully it's an outlier

[sumdumass]

There you go then.

All except Washington

[toejam13]

According to this report, global warming will make western Washington even gloomier than it already is. So while the rest of the nation bakes, people in Seattle will be perfectly comfortable while they're being glum.

Re:All except Washington

[rrohbeck]

Sorry, coffee is one of the plants severely affected by global warming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-502303_162-20121250.html

Re:All except Washington

[bobcat7677]

I live in the Portland, Oregon area. I can tell you it's not much less gloomy and wet here. Record rainfall in both June and July. Now it's the beginning of August and I am wearing a coat in the middle of the day to stay warm. Feels more like an ice age then global warming here.

Re:All except Washington

[DarthBling]

It's been pretty cool here in the Pacific Northwest all year. In fact, we just had our first day above 90 degrees last Saturday here in Portland.

Re:All except Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the Portland, Oregon area. I can tell you it's not much less gloomy and wet here. Record rainfall in both June and July. Now it's the beginning of August and I am wearing a coat in the middle of the day to stay warm. Feels more like an ice age then global warming here.

Its ike 72 degrees outside man, move around

Re:All except Washington

[houghi]

There is a "hell freezing over" joke somewhere. Oh wait, DC?

Re:All except Washington

[Boronx]

Isn't that a reason to buy futures?

Re:All except Washington

[fredgiblet]

I live in Vancouver and work in Portland. You're either full of shit or you moved here from California. TODAY isn't bad, last week was terrible.

Re:All except Washington

[Smauler]

Can't believe anyone from the UK hasn't replied yet - June was literally absurd in terms of rain here - Where I live, we get an average of 12 inches of rain per _year_, distributed evenly between the months, on average.

Re:All except Washington

[TapeCutter]

The last two years have been the wettest on record here in Oz, this was preceded by our worst and longest drought. That's what climate scientists mean when they say extremes will be more common. James Hansen has a new paper in the Journal of Science (it's pay-walled) that estimates the recent level of extreme events we are seeing have only a 0.1% chance of happening in the absence of AGW, (N hemisphere only). He uses the concept of loaded dice to illustrate what this means, it's not a difficult concept to grasp and is backed up by solid evidence published in a highly regarded peer-review journal. Arguing about the 1930's dustbowl is irrelevant, it's not about comparing single events in a particular region, it's about the rate at which those (and more extreme) events can be expected to occur. One dustbowl per century is tragic but manageable, one per decade would be catastrophic.

Re:All except Washington

[riverat1]

You are obviously not a native if you're wearing a coat when it's warmer than 50 F.

Re:All except Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that the random Indian attacks.

For all you people roasting away, enviously looking at the tv weather report thinking it must be so nice out there, it really sucks living out here. Summer is too cold. Too many hipsters, riding their white-rimmed fixie bikes, wearing their skinny jeans. Too many rednecks (oh wait, that's only in Kent, Lynnwood or Clackamas). Too many granolas.

The beers are ok, as long as you like pale ales. No, not really. The beers all suck and taste the same. Different than corporate beer, yes, but they still all taste the same. And coffee. Do you really want to get into a hipster argument about whether Starbucks is better than Peets, Tully's, or McDonald's? No.

And, there are hardly any Walmarts. If you're lucky, a tiny Safeway or Albertson's, you know, where normal people buy groceries.
The traffic sucks compared to where you live, 24x7. And mass transit is just rolling freakshows every day.

You think it's fun watching "Portlandia" and laughing at it, thinking, it can't POSSIBLY be like that? Well, it is! And the taxes are insane and ludicrous. As soon as October hits, you'll be trying to book your vacations to Reno, Wichita, Baton Rouge, anywhere with sunlight, while you're hopelessly trying to use your computer monitor as an indoor sun light. And all they play on the radio and every pa system is Heart, Nirvana, Presidents of the United States, Alice & Chains, and Soundgarden. Better like salmon for Thanksgiving. They don't sell turkeys for thanksgiving out here. Bunch of pinko-commie tree huggers with "sustainable" salmon.

You've been advised to stay away.

Re:All except Washington

[budgenator]

Not to worry, I just put a down payment on a rich volcanic soil coffee plantation in Iceland; take that Juan Valdez!

Re:All except Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about, it was 97F on Saturday in Portland. Not what I would call rainy or gloomy. And whats this about a coat?

Re:All except Washington

[Mindcontrolled]

We have seen a southward shift of the Jet Stream during summertime for the last couple of years, which leads to increased rainfall over UK. You better get used to it, this seems to become the new normal - Faroer/Iceland-style summers for you guys, sorry.

Re:All except Washington

[dbIII]

If there's no coffee I don't care if there is a future.

Re:All except Washington

[rs79]

So.... areas that can grow coffee can't any more because things got warmer but places that just wern't quite warm enough to grow coffee didn't get warmer? How does THAT work?

For each acre you lose you pick one up somewhere else. Call me when Greenland competes with Yirgacheffe.

And about those tropical fossils under the north (and south) pole(s)...

Re:All except Washington

[rs79]

That's because you guys got north america's summer rain. The weather went sideways, literally because of El Nina. it does that.

Re:All except Washington

[fatphil]

> And about those tropical fossils under the north (and south) pole(s)...

You do realise that what is currently the south pole was level with Australia and abutting India when some of that fossil record was being laid down?

Re:All except Washington

[tbannist]

Actually, it's probably because of blocking weather patterns that are being caused by a decrease in temperature difference in Arctic and the Tropics. The Arctic air currents are breaking the blocking patterns up like they used to because the currents are weaker. The Arctic is warming faster than the Tropics, in part because of declining sea ice, as you may have noticed ice is white and water is not. As the sea ice declines, the water absorbs heat from the sun that would have previously been reflected by the ice accelerating the heating trend.

Also it's either El Nino or La Nina, and according to a quick Google search we are currently neutral (between the two conditions), but it looks like we're building towards an El Nino condition for the fall.

Re:All except Washington

[rrohbeck]

It takes a couple of centuries for an ecosystem to adapt, to build soil for example.
Even if you had tropical temperatures in Greenland today it'd all be just rubble.

Re:All except Washington

[rsmith-mac]

Huh? July's rainfall wasn't a record. In fact it was far below average.

http://www.brucesussman.com/portland-weather/july-2012-portland-salem-astoria/

Now June on the other hand was above average, but that wasn't a record.

Re:All except Washington

[rs79]

You do realize there are fossils everywhere right? Why are you trying to be deceptive?

Re:All except Washington

[rs79]

I think it's pixies but I have no proof. You?

Re:All except Washington

[fatphil]

I think the one who mentions a territory that used to be tropical is the one who's trying to be deceptive.

Re:All except Washington

[tbannist]

I think it's pixies but I have no proof. You?

Try doing some reading.

What about the rest of the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

America may be baking, but what about the planet as a whole? Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?

Oooo! I do I do!

Signed,

Greenland

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[ilsaloving]

I dunno about other areas, but I've read that Europe is also suffering from a very intense heat wave.

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that the entire planet will heat up uniformly. Some areas may even become unusually cooler.

The biggest concern is actually an increase in natural disasters like hurricanes.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Sandman1971]

We Canadians, you're neighbours to the north, also recorded record heat and record (lack of) rainfall in July.
Hopefully August will be better. As I type this, it's been raining heavily for the last 20 minutes. We've had more rain in the last 20 mins here in Ottawa that we've had the entire month of July. I'm pretty sure I heard my grass cheering.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Troed]

Hi,

Northern Europe here. We've not seen summer yet this year. It's just cold and wet.

regards,
Sweden

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[styrotech]

Far from it. Here in NZ it is noticeably colder than it was just 6 months ago. In fact nearly every one of the last six months has been colder than the month before!

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Saija]

Here in Colombia, South America, we are experiencing a summer longer than previous years. This summer is hotter and dryer than other years with some max temp of 36 celsius.
Hopefully last-july and august are the "meses de las cometas"(months of the kites) wich brings some air flows refreshing the sunset

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming [...]

Begs the question: Who's blaming this on global warming? The CNN article isn't. Hell, even the summary isn't.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[RabidReindeer]

Define global warming. Define stoped.
The last ten years the sun e.g. was in a cold cycle is noww slowly gettig hotter again.
There are dozens of effects finally defining the local temperature.
That has nothing to do with GLOBAL warming.
Why don't you look a bit around over the rest of the GLOBE to get an idea how bad it already is?

There are also dozens of effects finally defining whether you get lung cancer.

However, we're pretty sure that smoking is one of the more significant ones now.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[arkane1234]

It's kinda like coming home and before she says anything, instantly telling your wife you didn't touch that woman at all tonight...

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Yaztromo]

America may be baking, but what about the planet as a whole? Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?

For the record, average global warming doesn't mean evenly distributed global warming. All it requires is that there are more degrees increase times area of landmass in regions that are hotter than previously than there are degrees decrease times area of landmass in regions that are colder than in previous measurements. That is, if we take measurements in ten regions and find that six of them have a 2 degree increase and four of them have a one degree decrease, the average would be a 1 degree net increase in temperature.

Yaz

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[DerekLyons]

We Canadians, you're neighbours to the north, also recorded record heat and record (lack of) rainfall in July.

Maybe in the part of Canada you're in. But do keep in mind that Canada spans an entire continent...

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[suss]

So far, summer in the Netherlands has been unusually cool and wet.

I think we had 3 days of hot weather.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Vreejack]

Can't speak for the summer, but Eurasia had a hell of a cold winter. It snowed in the middle of the Mediterranean, and Moscow had its first winter in years.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[OhANameWhatName]

I'm pretty sure I heard my grass cheering

Stop smoking it, that'll help.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Define stopped.

I'll use it in a sentence.
Global warming stopped in 1998

(The warmest Junes were in 2012, over the land; in 2010, over both land and sea; and in 1998, over the oceans.)

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Troed]

I live in Örebro. Let me know where that warmth is supposed to have been - because this has been a very very cold summer so far.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[dbIII]

You haven't seen summer yet this century.

regards,
Australia
PS. That's not a summer. THIS is a summer.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[rs79]

"I dunno about other areas, but I've read that Europe is also suffering from a very intense heat wave."
"Northern Europe here. We've not seen summer yet this year. It's just cold and wet."

And you wonder why real scientists just giggle at Hansen and his PR campaign that even supposedly intelligent people have swallowed hook line and sinker.

The state of science eduction in the US is utterly appalling, matched only by the intellectual laziness of believing any old crap you read without *actually checking it out*.

Facts matter.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[rs79]

Turns out not. Ever notice people who don't smoke get lung cancer too?

Smoke is one of a number of things that a carcinogenic and mutagenic but the body usually takes care of this. in 2004 we found out there's a cytochrome B enzyme, the CYP1B1 variant, and that it only occurs in cancer cells, and a phytoallexin in some foods is converted to picotaneol which happens to kill cancer cells but not regular cells. Gene 53 controls this and low and behold gene 53 is deactived in nearly all cancer patients. This theory just panned out with trials in SF of Potters new prostate drug, so good they stopped the trials and just gave it to everyone and that was V1.0 of his drug, V2.0 works in the general case. So it's not so much smokes cause cancer (so does gasoline, those organics are generally why non-smokers get it) as it is the body lacks the raw materials to make the molecules that get rid of cancer. Long story short, spraying fugicides since wwii did it, since plants make this phytolallexin in response to mold.

So, bad example, try a car analogy, they go over well here.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[bungo]

As others have pointed out, northern Europe is having a cooler than average summer so far.

The jet stream that brings warm air from the US over the Atlantic is currently keeping static over London, usually at this time if year, it's over far northern Scotland, 1k km north.

This has the effect of bringing the cooler arctic air south over northern Europe, instead of the normally warmer air from northern Africa.

This is an unusual condition, but it is not possible to say that it is caused by GW or not.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[RabidReindeer]

Turns out not. Ever notice people who don't smoke get lung cancer too?

Smoke is one of a number of things that a carcinogenic and mutagenic but the body usually takes care of this. in 2004 we found out there's a cytochrome B enzyme, the CYP1B1 variant, and that it only occurs in cancer cells, and a phytoallexin in some foods is converted to picotaneol which happens to kill cancer cells but not regular cells. Gene 53 controls this and low and behold gene 53 is deactived in nearly all cancer patients. This theory just panned out with trials in SF of Potters new prostate drug, so good they stopped the trials and just gave it to everyone and that was V1.0 of his drug, V2.0 works in the general case. So it's not so much smokes cause cancer (so does gasoline, those organics are generally why non-smokers get it) as it is the body lacks the raw materials to make the molecules that get rid of cancer. Long story short, spraying fugicides since wwii did it, since plants make this phytolallexin in response to mold.

So, bad example, try a car analogy, they go over well here.

Ah. So Global Warming is a myth, Smoking doesn't cause cancer and your day job is in a pretzel factory.

Care to explain why the Earth is flat, next?

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Dixie_Flatline]

This is why the nomenclature has changed in the last few years. It's not a matter of 'Global Warming' as much as 'Global Climate Change'. It isn't just a tactic to dress it up, there are changes happening that will make SOME areas colder and some areas warmer, but the global average temperature will go up.

Air and sea currents move a lot of energy around, and if they're diverted or stopped all together, you'll see cool water move to different areas of the ocean, and cause localised cooling where there wasn't any before. Similarly, places that historically were near cool water might see a big change as the water heats up, and they don't get the same weather effects from that body of water.

Weird weather seems to be everywhere this summer...which is actually what climate change models predict.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[angel'o'sphere]

*Cough* newscientist is not a science site imho ...
Global warming will stop when there is an equilibrium of energy input and output reached. That will be somewhere after 10 to 30 years AFTER we STOPPED completely emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[riverat1]

Do you ever wonder why people giggle at you and your complete misunderstanding of what Hansen is saying?

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[riverat1]

I keep hearing about the "nomenclature" change from global warming to climate change but if that's true they why did they call it the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it as created in 1988 instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming? I guess you could say global warming is a subset if climate change.

Also, the big global climate models don't predict weather, weird or not but climate. They project possible climate changes based on different scenarios and their main output is a 30 year running mean of global temperatures for a given scenario.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[shutdown -p now]

Oh my God, Sweden is right here in Seattle! Who knew?? ~

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm pretty sure that Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia (2011) from the National Academy of Sciences, contains all the gory details on the time to equilibrium. It's on a much larger timescale than you think.

Cite this, cite that. It's almost as if slashdotters expect me to maintain thousands of dollars in journal subscriptions just to back up my trolls, flames ,jokes and asides.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[rs79]

No, we're too busy LOL'ing when Hansen opens his mouth while playing "spot the PR".

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[rs79]

No, global warming isn't a myth, you said that, not me, the climate is changing, you know like it always has? Why is another story and CO2 has about as much to do with it as putting a suitcase in your trunk then demanding more gas money from passengers for fuel.

Nor did I say smoking does't cause cancer, I said that it did along with lots of other things but that the problem wasn't that it was the inability of the body to make cellular repairs because of the lack of a precursor to an unusual reaction we just learned about.

The earth isn't flat, the ancient Greeks knew that and only the insane and deliberately obtuse pull out the flat earth thing and have for many thousands of years. But I'm sure you're not one of them.

I hope you fix whatever's bothering you and have a nice day.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[rs79]

That's far far too simplistic to be taken seriously. It isn't like that, but if you think it is there's a whole lot of catching up you need to do before you can even talk about it; it'd be like explaining second order differentials to somebody who can't multiply. And who probably shouldn't.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Jeremy Erwin]

And yet, some people are comforted by such nonsense

but if you think it is

Whoosh!

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Anthony]

NASA have a map for that.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[riverat1]

Why don't you take something scientific he's said and try to debunk it if you can. Mostly he's been on the conservative side with his predictions.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[Dixie_Flatline]

While it's true that climate models don't predict the weather per se, they do implicitly forecast what sorts of weather we will see as a result of climate change.

If, for instance, the climate model predicted that the average temperature of Earth would drop by 20 kelvin, you can bet that the implication is that what we'll see is a lot of snowy weather.

It's good that people are starting to learn that climate and weather aren't equivalent, but the former certainly leads to the latter. A study of climate is a study of broad, long term weather trends. You can't say that we'll see more drought in certain areas of the world without implying that there will be less precipitation. They can't tell you the days where it will or won't rain, but they CAN tell you it will rain less.

As for the actual history of the name, I couldn't tell you for sure. But I suspect it was scientists hedging their bets. They knew climate was worth studying and that it might be changing, but picking a name for the panel that pre-supposed a possible climate change direction would have been unscientific.

Re:What about the rest of the world?

[riverat1]

The earliest use of the term "climate change" I'm aware of was a 1956 paper by Glibert Plass titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" so it's been around for a long time.

I agree that GCM's may be able to tell you something about expected changes in average precipitation for broad regions. But with a horizontal grid size of around 100 x 100 km they're not very precise. There are smaller regional climate models that offer more precision

Choose, denialists

[GameboyRMH]

Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

CHOOSE

Re:Choose, denialists

[Penguinisto]

This, right here.

Of course, I'm hoping you didn't expect differently.

Re:Choose, denialists

[Bob-taro]

Nice. Conversely:

Choose, believers: Either a cold winter disproves AGW or this doesn't prove it. CHOOSE

I've heard the similarly inconsistent arguments from both sides of the debate.

Re:Choose, denialists

[Anonymous Coward]

I choose "cold winter doesn't disprove AGW" — where we learned that "weather is not climate" — which also applies now.

Re:Choose, denialists

[GameboyRMH]

I hope you're being snarky.

http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2011/noaa_globaltemp_2010.jpg

Maybe there was *a* summer as hot in '36 but it's definitely hotter overall than '36.

Re:Choose, denialists

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should learn to read. Even the summary says it correctly. Every single month of THIS year is hotter than the hottest one of a random year on record.

Re:Choose, denialists

[LordLucless]

No, no, no, not enough suffixes. It should be believerists. Apparently, "deniers" wasn't perjorative enough, so you need to whack some extra letters on the end to make the term sound even more dramatic.

Re:Choose, denialists

[jd.schmidt]

Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

CHOOSE

To be fair, they did choose, they think cold winters don't disprove AGW, but rather are examples to them of how such information is unknowable. It is just used as a zinger to say "show me how your AGB model predicted this". If anything it is more frustrating to me. I normally reply "show me your everything is OK model."

Re:Choose, denialists

[Qwertie]

A hot summer does not prove AGW, nor does a cold winter disprove it. In fact, any number of hot summers does not prove AGW; at most they only prove that warming is occurring.

To prove that the Global Warming is Anthropomorphic requires a lot of additional evidence, which has been gathered. There is now a strong concensus among scientists that "man-made" is the only explanation that fits.

Re:Choose, denialists

[BasilBrush]

Since the temperature isn't any hotter than it was in 1936

In what way is 0.2 degrees higher temperature than July 1936 not hotter?

The global alarmists said (in 2001) that we would soon never see snow.

Who precisely said that, and what specifically did they say.

You don't seem to be too good with the facts.

Re:Choose, denialists

[BasilBrush]

Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Anyone who talks of climate trends with anything less that a 30 year view is an idiot. However for those idiots that say "Global warming has stalled for the last 10 years" it's nice to rub their faces in their own shit.

Re:Choose, denialists

[Oakey]

It was Dr David Viner at CRU;

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."

Re:Choose, denialists

[LurkerXXX]

Anyone who says a warm summer proves it, or a cold winter disproves it, doesn't understand the science. At all.

Talk to the actual scientists. There's very good consensus that it's real.

Re:Choose, denialists

[AlienIntelligence]

It's not just that this year was incredibly hot, it's not even that the last year was also very warm. It's that the top 10 hottest years are all since 1998 with 2012 looking like it will be the hottest.

Obviously that's not true if we beat a record from 1936.

-AI

Re:Choose, denialists

[LordLimecat]

AnthropGENIC, not anthropomorphic.

Anthropomorphic indicates "having the shape of man".
AnthropoGENIC indicates causation by man.

Just a minor difference.

Re:Choose, denialists

[BasilBrush]

And yet he doesn't say "we would soon never see snow."

"Heavy snow will return occasionally," says Dr Viner, "but when it does we will be unprepared"

Which is pretty much where we are in England.

Re:Choose, denialists

[Fjandr]

The 1936 record was a monthly average record, not a yearly record. Even if we didn't beat it, 1936 wouldn't be in the top 10 yearly records while 2012 will almost certainly be.

The monthly records prior to 2012 were not all in the same year. The new monthly records are now all from the same year.

Re:Choose, denialists

[budgenator]

0.2 degrees is less than the amount the temperatures were adjusted.

Re:Choose, denialists

[rs79]

Yeah. I gotta say I don't give much credence to people who don't even understand the big words they're using or pull the proof by authority crap, logical fallacies being what they are.

Re:Choose, denialists

[BasilBrush]

Really? You're still hanging on to that old cannard?

Re:Choose, denialists

[riverat1]

In 1936 perhaps there was a 0.1% chance of those hot temperatures occurring but now is 2012 perhaps the chances of the same heat occurring are 1.0%. That's what illustrates global warming is occurring, the shift in the chances of some weather event happening. Climate science is statistical in nature so you have to look at it in those terms. (Numbers were made up by me but I'll bet they're in the right ballpark).

A few people may have said those things but most scientists did not believe that at the time. I pay attention to what scientists say but take it with a grain of salt until I see further confirmation.

Re:Choose, denialists

[riverat1]

The 1936 record was only for the continental US, not the globe.

Re:Choose, denialists

[budgenator]

FTA

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6F, 3.3F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4F.

What they are not saying is that this was computed using the data from the old COOP/USHCN network; if they had used the new high quality, U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the results for CONUS, July 2012 is mean temp of 75.74F, of course don't believe me just go to Report Page download some data and see for yourself; it doesn't take a PhD to load a .csv into a spreadsheet and to a Tmax + Tmin /2.

well that settles it..

[spiffmastercow]

i'm moving to washington!

Can we swap?

[pswPhD]

Over in England, We have had the wettest April through June since our records began [BBC News]. Please send us some sunny weather!

Re:Can we swap?

[ukemike]

Over in England, We have had the wettest April through June since our records began [BBC News]. Please send us some sunny weather!

Well we might not be able to send any sunny weather over, but we're making a pretty good effort at stalling the Atlantic thermohaline cycle. That'll stop your rain for you.

Re:Can we swap?

[BasilBrush]

It's long been predicted as the most likely scenario that global warming will make Britain wetter. Britain's weather mostly comes from the Atlantic, and warmer weather causes more evaporation, which turns to rain as it hits land masses.

Re:Can we swap?

[rs79]

Along with the predictions that it would desertify except for the ones that said it would glaciate.

How are those 20 foot searise by the end of the century predictions looking?

What does the guy who said we're already past the tipping point and are going to burn feel about all this? Ok, right, he became a skeptic once he learned a bit more science.

Now there's a thought.

Re:Can we swap?

[BasilBrush]

Along with the predictions that it would desertify except for the ones that said it would glaciate.

By 2012? Who were they then? These vague claims that someone made some prediction are worthless unless we know who, whether they had widespread peer support, and what precicely the prediction was and in what time scale.

The mainstream scientific opinion for the last 20+ years that it would get hotter and wetter have indeed been right though.

Re:Can we swap?

[riverat1]

There is no 20 foot sea level rise prediction for the end of the century, just maybe 3-6 feet. The 20 foot SLR comes from how much sea level would rise if all of the ice on Greenland melted but that will take several hundred years under any realistic scenario.

Re:Can we swap?

[rs79]

Doesn't sound like you were there 20 years ago, that's not what I saw. Just one theory that hasn't panned out but got a lot og big-industry funding. Cause, you know, big business is nothing but concerned for the environment.

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." - from 3 months ago. But if you believe one data point changes all that or that the commonly held theories as to why are accurate than I think you have some reading to catch up on.

Re:Can we swap?

[rs79]

Oh. So there are no WMD. Dammit, fell for it again.

Actually they're saying 1 meter in 500 years now. And that's with about a 5% confidence factor, their most accurate guess so far.

Re:Can we swap?

[BasilBrush]

Doesn't sound like you were there 20 years ago

You're wrong. I followed The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 as closely as it was possible to in the days before WWW was significant.

Lovelock displays the kind of honesty you never, ever see in the deniers. There is still no doubt that AGW is real, but when increasing knowledge and the collection of more data adjusts the estimates of the timing and details of it's effects, climate scientists say so.

Deniers on the other hand keep on repeating the same old lies.

Re:Can we swap?

[riverat1]

Who is saying 1 meter in 500 years?

Re:Brace yourselves

[AwesomeMcgee]

What about his face?? Such a cliffhanger..

Re:Choose

[dkleinsc]

That's easy: I choose to accept all evidence that fits my predefined worldview (whatever that may be), and pretend any contradicting evidence doesn't exist or is incorrect.

Hey, it works for a lot of other things, why should AGW be any different?

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Antibozo]

Minor correction: the O in NOAA is Oceanic, not Oceanographic.

Re:Brace yourselves

[xevioso]

His face smells. Possibly because of global warming.

Hello from Oklahoma....

[rts008]

This may set a record for the national average, but it has been cooler and milder than last summer here in Oklahoma.

Our avg. July temp. is 91-94 F, but the past 3 or so summers it has been 7-10+F over avg.

Here is an example :this July.
And here is Aug. this year(so far...note the diff between avg. and observed)

Glad to share! ;-)

Living in Seattle is Killing Me

[sandysnowbeard]

"Every U.S. state except Washington experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, NOAA reported." Run, children, run from the Pacific NorthWest. Do not come here, the sun does not shine.

Re:Living in Seattle is Killing Me

[Anonymous Coward]

the sun does not shine

That star gets on my nerves. It ruins expensive stuff; car interiors, house paint... basically anything not made of rock. You end up blinded by it driving east or west. Two sets of expensive eye wear required; one for exposure to the naked fusion reactor and one for everything else. Expose yourself enough and you get any of several forms of skin cancer. Trying to work on the property in the summer is hell.

Try to appreciate your clouds.

Re:Living in Seattle is Killing Me

[frank_adrian314159]

Run, children, run from the Pacific NorthWest. Do not come here, the sun does not shine.

No! Do not listen to the infidel! That's just the shadow from the mighty Balmer's lifted chair, ready to be flung at a moment's notice!

Re:Living in Seattle is Killing Me

[LordLimecat]

It ruins expensive stuff; car interiors,

Unless Im mistaken, car windows tend to block UV rays for this very reason. Certainly my transition lenses do not activate at all when in the car.

A new cherry-pick start

[amorsen]

In 2017 we will hear "5 years of falling temperatures" and in 2022 "no temperature rise for 10 years" and so on. Just like 1998.

Re:A new cherry-pick start

[Mikkeles]

Your climate model intrigues me and I would like to subscribeto your newsletter.

Re:A new cherry-pick start

[riverat1]

The Escalator graphic illustrates this point perfectly.

Re:Choose

[rrohbeck]

You mean, the worldview of your wallet?

This is nothing to worry about . . .

[Kimomaru]

All we have to do is water everything with Brawndo. It's the thirst mutilitator and it has elecrolights.

AGW Converts

[arthurpaliden]

Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

"The results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature are in and Richard Muller, the study's director (formerly an AGW skeptic) declares, 'Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

CEO Exxon admits AGW is real and burning fossil fuels causes it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/exxon-ceo-climate-energy-fears-overblown/

The natural progression:

• 1. There is no such thing as global warming!
• 2. Global warming is theoretically possible, but it's not happening.
• 3. Global warming is happening, but we are not the cause
• 4. Global warming is happening and we are the cause but it's no big deal.
• 5. Ok, we should probably do something about this global warming before it gets worse.
• 6. We're really fraked now.

We are now at step 4.

Re:AGW Converts

[BasilBrush]

52 million years ago is easily long enough for tectonics to feature. The continents weren't in the same places they are now, and ocean currents around Antarctica flowed very differently.

Oh, and it was also a time of high CO2.

So I wouldn't go thinking you've made some great rebuttal of AGW there if I was you.

Re:AGW Converts

[Kimomaru]

Actually, it's "if I WERE you".

Re:AGW Converts

[LurkerXXX]

You do realize weather patterns were slightly different 50 million years ago when the continental layout was different, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg

The Gulf Stream and most of the other major currents which move warm/cold water that sets up our weather system were very different then. Any place being much hotter or colder than what we experience 'there' now isn't suprising at all.

Re:AGW Converts

[Attila Dimedici]

The only problem is that Richard Muller has never been a skeptic of AGW. The reason they get away with calling him a skeptic was because he said that AGW alarmists should not lie about the science in order to convince people (while saying that he was a firm believer in AGW).

Re:AGW Converts

[BasilBrush]

If that's the best you've got...

Re:AGW Converts

[dbIII]

It doesn't matter since they don't really believe in this argument anyway, they are just throwing it up in a "fight fire with fire" way to piss us off. After all, 50 million years ago is earlier than the science deniers belief in a 6000 year age of the entire universe.

Re:AGW Converts

[rs79]

Meanwhile the gaia theory guy became a skeptic. THERE IS BALANCE IN THE FORCE.

Re:AGW Converts

[riverat1]

No, Richard Muller was a skeptic in the true sense of the word. He was willing to change his opinion once he examined the evidence in detail. A person who is unwilling to change their opinion regardless of the the evidence is not truly a skeptic but instead is an ideologue.

Re:AGW Converts

[riverat1]

Lovelock did not become a skeptic, just a realist. He was way over the top before.

Re:AGW Converts

[Attila Dimedici]

What opinion did he change? He has believed that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man since at least 2004 when he said "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)..." Looking for more information I find him to be a believer in global warming at least as far back as 2000. I was unable to find any references where he expressed skepticism about man caused global warming, merely skepticism about the science of some of the alarmists, while agreeing with their general conclusion that there was man caused global warming.

Re:AGW Converts

[Rakarra]

We may yet conclude, although it would be embarrassing for us as a society to admit, that the the conclusions we assumed on AGW were wrong all along

Hey, I'd love to find out you're right, I really would. But at the moment we have no reason to think you are and every reason to believe you aren't.

Re:Brace yourselves

[rickb928]

That's not his face. Common mistake.

And he's not a he. Less common mistake.

wheu shore is hawt out there huh (spits tobacco)

[Bigsquid.1776]

Yep shore is... hot yesterday... gonna be hotter t'marruh I hear... uuuuuh huh... (spits tobacco)

ITT people talking about how hot it is outside. The pinnacle of intelligent conversation.

Up next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Atlanta Weather

[Botia]

From Kirk Mellish, the only weatherman I have ever known to have any sort of accuracy, speaking about weather in metro Atlanta when the heat wave hit:

Fortunately this does not mean the whole summer will be hot. Remember in May when it turned unseasonably hot and everyone was saying "OMG its gonna be killer hot from here to fall" and I said history does not support that. Well, until now June has been cooler than normal! After this heat wave, the rest of the summer will be closer to normal but with both more heat waves and some spells of below-normal temperatures expected through August. So relax, hot spells happen in summer in the south. We won't know what kind of summer it was until September!

I'm ready.

[rickb928]

I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.

First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.

Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data. This was a good reason to either acllerate the adoption of advanced technologies, or to eschew them in favor of a sustainable lifestyle in the coming freeze. Oh, and to get as much oil as possible, just in case. And of course it would cause calamity and chaos, we would need to share resources, and we might get by, but don't count on it. Oh, and women and children woudl be affected the most.

Next, it's Global Warming, with now massive evidence of the causes and impacts, much more data, and warnings that we need to do everything to both prevent and adapt to it. We need to abandon our technology, improve it, change fuel sources, use fuels that don't cause other harms, and do it all now. NOW. Oh, and women and children will be affected the most, and the soonest.

Well, if AGW is real, which it seems to be, then I'm ready to both prevent it and mitigate the consequences of what is going to happen no matter what we do.

Just one thing.

So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special. I can deal with that, but so far ther eis little real discussion of the problems of the rest of world hell-bent on achieving the same special life as I have. I don't begrudge them that. But I'm concerned that they are going to tip the climate over the edge sooner than I could have, and will not readily listen to complaints that they are ruining things for all of us.

I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.

And I will get the nagging feeling that deep inside this, the truth is, that most of the AGW movement is very, very happy that I am paying for my profiligate lifestyle. Because I neither deserve it, nor shoudl it be even permitted. That bunch has been at it since the Nuclear Winter debate, in one fashion or another.

Because that is the way it's going. The so-called 98% are taking it in the shorts, while the top 1% cling to their place at the top. And the bottom 1% scheme to take all of that and more from the top 1% first, and then from whoever they designate as their next targets. And when the top 1% is ruined, then it's the next 1% and the next.

Soon enough, it will be me.

All so a very few can have their way, and rule us all. They hope.

Then again, this may not work out that way. If sensible people prevail.

Re:I'm ready.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have to give anything up to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? I have never seen a plan for reducing emissions that calls for such a thing. If you get your electricity from a nuclear power plant or solar plant, you can have your lights and air conditioning on just as always. If your car is electric or runs on biofuels, you can drive it just as much. I think this is the biggest sticking point in the "debate" -- I think most people want to deny that the warming is happening because they don't want to change their lifestyle. But we don't have to.

Re:I'm ready.

[bhlowe]

As soon as Al Gore gives up his mansions and jet setting lifestyle, I'll join you in turning off my computers and air conditioner.

Re:I'm ready.

[Guano_Jim]

Wow, what a downer.

I'm a lot more hopeful. I think the challenges brought on by climate change are going to unleash a wave of human creativity and problem-solving the likes of which we have never seen before. We're going to adapt and thrive, and our grandkids are going to wonder why we dilly-dallied for so long in the first place.

But then I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.

Re:I'm ready.

[rickb928]

The glass is always full...

Re:I'm ready.

[quantaman]

I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.

First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.

Has the Nuclear winter hypothesis fallen out of favour? If it hasn't, then science warned about a catastrophe that could occur if we had a large scale nuclear war, fortunately for a variety of reasons, including the warnings of scientists, nuclear war was averted.

Looks like the science did good there.

Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data.

No it wasn't. The new Ice Age was never a popular hypothesis, there were a small handful of papers when scientists were still trying to figure out the long term effects of atmospheric CO2. The Ice Age made a bit of a splash in the media as hypothesis sometimes do, and then it was very quickly discarded when science settled on the AGW consensus.

Next, it's Global Warming, with now massive evidence of the causes and impacts, much more data, and warnings that we need to do everything to both prevent and adapt to it.

Unlike Nuclear winter we haven't solved this problem, and unlike the new Ice Age there's not only a consensus, but a consensus that has lasted for decades.

We need to abandon our technology, improve it, change fuel sources, use fuels that don't cause other harms, and do it all now. NOW. Oh, and women and children will be affected the most, and the soonest.

Well, if AGW is real, which it seems to be, then I'm ready to both prevent it and mitigate the consequences of what is going to happen no matter what we do.

Just one thing.

So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special.

Yeah, that sucks, but unfortunately that's reality. Cheap energy has side effects and if you want to reduce those side effects either the energy has to cost more, or you need to use less.

I can deal with that, but so far ther eis little real discussion of the problems of the rest of world hell-bent on achieving the same special life as I have. I don't begrudge them that. But I'm concerned that they are going to tip the climate over the edge sooner than I could have, and will not readily listen to complaints that they are ruining things for all of us.

There's been a ton of discussion, the world can't sustain 6 billion 2012 American lifestyles. And saying the rest of the world has to stay poor because the first world already screwed the planet is really unfair, and saying the first world has to lower their standard of living is a very tough pill to swallow. Probably the reason you haven't heard discussion is because taking a serious look at the topic means that we need to lower our standard of living a lot, while they raise theirs, and that's not a conclusion many people want to come to so it's often undiscussed.

I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.

And I will get the nagging feeling that deep inside this, the truth is, that most of the AGW movement is very, very happy that I am paying for my profiligate lifestyle. Because I neither deserve it, nor shoudl it be even permitted. That bunch has been at it since the Nuclear Winter debate, in one fashion or another.

Because that is the way it's going. The so-called 98% are taking it in the sho

Re:I'm ready.

[hondo77]

So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special.

Huh?

Re:I'm ready.

[DerekLyons]

I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.

You may been watching, but you haven't been paying attention. The "new Ice Age" came first, and was completely media hype - with absolutely no evidence. Nuclear winter came next, but with only a modest amount of data (which relied on some pretty big assumptions) and great deal of hype.

Re:I'm ready.

[dbIII]

So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special

You are losing that anyway unless the country climbs out of a very deep hole.

Re:I'm ready.

[rs79]

Um, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Prove me wrong: what causes glaciation?

Re:I'm ready.

[rickb928]

Nuclear power in the US is not yet in favor. Expanding nuclear is not yet an accepted solution.

Electric vehicles have a massive carbon footprint. we are being crazy with electric vehicles, and real solutions are 10 years away.

We do have to change our lifestyles.

Re:I'm ready.

[rickb928]

Um , I was born and raised on land that bore the scars of glaciers. Easily taught in high school science, and before. I'm not ignorant, my friend.

Re:I'm ready.

[rickb928]

Most of what i give up will be replaced by more costly things. What I don't give up will be taxed , cost more to make, deliver, and dispose of.

Re:I'm ready.

[DavidHumus]

I'm not sure the "nuclear winter" scenario really counts as part of the climate debate as it's more about atomic weapons. I guess it really is unfair to focus mostly on the bad effects of global nuclear war.

The "they used to tell us we were heading into an Ice Age" is a favorite bogus argument of deniers. There was a single peer-reviewed paper in the '70s proposing this hypothesis which made the cover of Newsweek but was retracted less than a year later (see http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change-ice-age-fears-of-1970s.html).

As for the fears of a liberal conspiracy to take away our profligate llifestyle, all I can say is: don't worry little scaredy-cat, selfishness will prevail as it always has.

Re:I'm ready.

[rickb928]

Here is the problem....

First, that old ice age warning was shorter-lived than the current warming debate, but was for the time a moderately intense debate. And it did not go so quietly aa many claim.

Second, the cause of a cooling climate, back then, hardly mattered.

As for the conspiracy theories, well, that's your focus.

Re:I'm ready.

[riverat1]

If global warming is real your lifestyle is going to change whether you like it or not. Wouldn't it be better to proactively try to change it in a way that makes things better rather than try to cope with changes forced on you unwillingly by global changes?

Re:I'm ready.

[riverat1]

What makes you think anyone is asking you to turn off your computers and air conditioner?

I'll agree that there are a few extremists who would say that but that's not most people including Al Gore.

Re:I'm ready.

[riverat1]

Maybe nothing will change until it has to. By then the change that is forced on you will be at best extremely unpleasant and could be catastrophic as far as any individual is concerned.

Sophistry

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?". Between then and now, States have had record cold temperatures as well. This report would be just one more Jeopardy! item, were it not for the political hay that will be made of it.

The article presents yet another piece of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, yet you argue as if it's the only such evidence. Obviously, no single anomaly or measurement is persuasive by itself, but the weight of the collective evidence is very clear, and this anomaly only makes it clearer. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

FTFY

[PeanutButterBreath]

The 5 stages of denial:

1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences

Re:FTFY

[RabidReindeer]

The 5 XXXx 6 stages of denial:

1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences
6. It's happening. We're DOOMED! Why didn't those damned greenie hippies DO something about this while there was still time????

Re:FTFY

[Stirling Newberry]

Just because life will go on, doesn't mean your life will go on.

Damn cold, too!

[bhlowe]

Watch out for isolated snow storms in South Africa.

It's gettin' hot in hurrr

[logicassasin]

so take off all yo clothes...

(C-walks to the pool in the back yard)

... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Whew! Thank goodness!

[AlienIntelligence]

I sure am glad global warming doesn't exist, this could have been SO much worse.

-AI

Re:Whew! Thank goodness!

[qu33ksilver]

Reminds me of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". And btw, wasn't there an article on /. about a certain melt in the antarctic ice mass ? (I can't remember for sure whether it was in /. or not) Wonder if that was fake too..

Re:Test equipment calibration?

[arkane1234]

Somehow, I don't think the measurement of temperature was really off back then since it was dont with what we consider medical style technology. (mercury, etc)

It IS "every year or two"

[mangu]

1936 was an outlier. It happened "every 7 decades or so".

The last decade, setting YEAR AFTER YEAR records was NOT an outlier.

Re:It IS "every year or two"

[rs79]

I was a math major. Give me that data and I can write you two reports, one that shows it's hotter than normal and one that shows it's about the same if not a little cooler. And these guys get to pick which stations data to use, that's even better.

How can this be!

[Arancaytar]

North Carolina passed a law against global warming. This is illegal!

ready steady go

[manaway]

I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.

This is what the beginnings of thinking beyond yourself feels like. To consider others, including the generations who are not your direct descendents. You do not live long enough to see the results. You will not be thanked in anyone's memory. You will find no thrill since your contribution is miniscule, while impotence prevents you from influencing others to do more. Your giving up a "profligate lifestyle" is without personal benefit even as deniers and the ignorant enjoy profits and luxuries. You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.

We've seen what the rich 1% do with the world. And you're right, it's past time to have more "sensible people prevail."

Re:ready steady go

[LordLimecat]

You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.

Ive generally stayed out of these arguments, because they seem irrelevant and a waste of time. Certainly pollution is bad, and speeding the adoption of cleaner technology is a very good thing, and certainly I will strive to reduce my footprint. Arguing endlessly over the details just doesnt seem productive.

But if the hope of environmentalists is that the world around-- including the many billions in developing countries-- are going to join us so that we might stand a chance of preventing disaster, then those environmentalists live in a dream world. We have already seen time and time again that regardless of how much "sense" communism makes you simply cannot get people to go along with it, for even a medium-term return. What on EARTH makes anyone think that India and China will give up a booming economy and lifestyle for a return that wont come for centuries?

Re:ready steady go

[rickb928]

Exactly. But we cannot stop them . And we will be blamed.

Record highs to record lows

[microbox]

Between then and now, States have had record cold temperatures as well.

That's why you want to look at the rate of record highs to record lows. There is a field that works out how to understand if we are looking at trends or outliers. It is called statistics.

Re:Record highs to record lows

[tbannist]

You know what's really cool about Skeptical Science? They already did that. I'm surprised that someone who claims to have a degree in mathematics is foolish enough to believe that tree rings from a single country are a better measure of temperatures than a global network of thermometers.

Re:Record highs to record lows

[rs79]

Ok you explain the tree ring data then.

As for the link, it doesn't seem to be what you say.

I did the same thing though, here it is: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/

Re:Record highs to record lows

[tbannist]

So you are actually talking about the recent Scandinavian tree ring data? They wrote about that too. The problem appears to be that you're comparing one regional proxy of summer temperatures (with a 100 year smoothing filter) to a combination of global proxies of annual temperature (with a 40 year smoothing filter). Additionally, given that Scandinavia is around 55-70 degrees North, a trend from that region is highly likely to report amplified cooling (or warming) when compared to the global trend because the poles tend to cool (and warm) faster than rest of the planet.

Additionally, you might want to watch this video on the Medieval Warm Period.

Heatwave Center was SIXTH hottest on record

[itsybitsy]

"Missouri was the most anomalously hot state in July, yet measured maximum temperatures were only sixth hottest on record – five degrees cooler than 1934."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/heatwave-center-was-sixth-hottest-on-record.

"Warrenton, Missouri is located right at the hottest of the hot in July, 2012. ... Average temperatures in Warrenton during July were six degrees cooler than 1901, 1934 and 1936, and almost one degree cooler than 1954. ... July 2012 wasn’t anywhere near as hot as July 1936."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/record-heat-fraud-ground-zero.

Re:Heatwave Center was SIXTH hottest on record

[T Murphy]

It's entirely possible to set a national record for hottest month without breaking a single state or local record (though I don't know how many such records were actually set this July). You just need simultaneous above-average temperatures over a broad portion of the country, not necessarily extreme temperatures.

Re:Heatwave Center was SIXTH hottest on record

[riverat1]

There were 3,135 new hot records set in July for the continental US. They outnumbered cold records by 16.6 to 1.

Glass half-empty, glas half-full -- but of what?

[zooblethorpe]

The glass is always full...

While those of good nature with light in their hearts
Find goodness in each of life various parts,
They see each blessing as a bountiful bowl;
A half glass of water they see as half full.

But I say these folks need a stick in the eye!
Beat them in the head till they break down and cry.
Tell me not to be cheery! To you I say this:
My life is a glass that is half full of piss.

(everybody now!)
Tallu tallary ta tippy tarye,
I shan't feel better till the barrel is dry.
So fill up me tankard with that good foamy bliss!
Me life is a glass that is half full of piss.

(With apologies / thanks to The Poxy Boggards.)

Blame

[jimbrooking]

Clearly this is all Al Gore's fault!

US Record

[formfeed]

All I see is a headline with a new U.S. record !

Go team USA!

Central limit theorem

[mdsolar]

Climatologists do get to work with some pretty precisely determined average temperatures owing to the central limit theorem.

Re:Central limit theorem

[budgenator]

Climatologists do get to work with some pretty precisely determined average temperatures owing to the central limit theorem.

given certain conditions, the mean of a sufficiently large number of independent random variables, each with finite mean and variance, will be approximately normally distributed. Central limit theorem

I'm not at all sure that
1. Tmin+Tmax/2 is a representative average temperature,
2. the decimate of thermometers used over the years would count as "sufficiently large number",
3. the adjustments, homogenization and gridding of the raw data blows randomsness and independance out of the water as well; but I'm open to rational arguements.

In other news, Snow in Johannesburg...

[flyingfsck]

...meanwhile, all nine provinces of South Africa got snow at the same time and severe flooding in the Karoo desert. Obviously this must be the start of the next Ice Age and it is clearly all due to Man Made Global Warming...

Re:In other news, Snow in Johannesburg...

[Dixie_Flatline]

That's why it's actually 'Climate Change' not 'Global Warming'. If you read up on the subject, the prediction is for some areas to get colder, some to get warmer, the average temperature of the Earth to go up, and for strange weather events to increase. 'Global Warming' is a bit of a misnomer, in that it's easy to get confused and think that it means just everywhere on Earth will simultaneously get X degrees warmer. Those extra degrees represent extra energy in the system, and how the energy is dispersed is what drives the weather and the climate.

So, yeah. Those things that you said aren't just unsurprising, they're exactly what we can expect more of as the climate changes due to an average surface temperature warming.

What a bunch of wusses. Here's how to win.

[ajaxlex]

Deniers are not only sociopaths, they're also crying terrified babies. For some reason, they've forgotten what a properly primed market can do. We are seeing adoption of renewable energy sources far in excess of predictions just 8 years ago. Why's that? Some governments are properly incentivizing the research and development of transformative technologies.

Meanwhile, the entrenched interests continue to muddy the situation with studies from the Heartland Institute and other wholly self-serving tools. We _can_ turn things around, and still have a very good standard of living. But the people who profit from the status quo aren't interested in seeing their golden goose fly away.

Amory Lovins of the rocky mountain institute has been teaching businesses how they can save energy and money _at the same time_ since the 70s. He's just published a new book ( a must read for anyone who doesn't want to wring their hands and whimper ) called "Reinventing Fire". It shows how we can transform our economy and enjoy GDP _growth_ - by eliminating inefficiencies, and rewarding new technologies and systems.

We made this mess. If we are willing to try without fear, we can certainly clean it up.

Only 150 years out of 4.54 billion?

[Relayman]

July may have been the hottest month in the United States since 1871 but that doesn't even include the Middle Ages. Give me a break!

You could say, "The world's population has never been less than 1.5 billion people" by using estimates of the world population but only going back to 1871,

Re:wheu shore is hawt out there huh (spits tobacco

[dbIII]

What's with it with you kids revising history? Global cooling was little more than a joke from journalists that didn't know any better that got printed along with all those "next year we'll having flying cars" bullshit. Even those those "in search of ..." false documentaries had more credibility.
I also have an American technician on a visit here that is doing that spitting thing all the time at work and it makes everyone want to hit him. Does that stuff happen a lot?

Oh yes you did - look at where he works

[dbIII]

With that pathetic backpedal above but you didn't quite manage to move the goalposts far enough. I suppose "lol. Hansen" and "like the crazy guy on the street corner" is not quite equal to "didn't know anything" but it doesn't really matter which way you twist your words to win your silly troll game. I'm not playing whatever silly game you are and instead pointing out that if you are going to compare reputations like you tried above you are going to come out very far behind.
Sorry kid, you are too full of shit the play the "that idiot, what does he know" game and doing it against someone at the top of a completely different field is nothing other than childish.

Re:Oh yes you did - look at where he works

[sumdumass]

I don't need to back peddle. We have been through this before, it's why you decided you had to show the entire world how pissed you are at me and put that foe dot on.

I simply do not go to the same church as you do and do not bow down to worship every fucktwit who preaches your gospel. Get over it. Hansen is a politically motivated self interested buffoon who doesn't interest me. HE could tell me there is a spider on my sleeve and I wouldn't pay attention until someone else told me it was there or I saw it for myself somehow. HE is nothing but a shill that happens to work for the government. His actions show this, not my ignorance or anything else you can imagine to make yourself feel good about hanging on his every thought.

Re:Oh yes you did - look at where he works

[dbIII]

I simply do not go to the same church as you do and do not bow down to worship every fucktwit who preaches your gospel

Ah, the Ian Plimer approach of pretending that climate science is a religeon and then making fun of religeon. WTF is it with you people?

Re:Oh yes you did - look at where he works

[sumdumass]

I'm sorry that your actions have inspired that reaction so many times that it has a common name for you to refer to.

Perhaps if you look at yourself you will find WTF is it with you people. Usually, when you are confused to why people are treating you a certain way, self reflection helps you figure it out.

I'll give you a hint, it has a little to do with your comprehension skills and overly zealous approach to all things global warming advocacy. You see, not only did i not say Hansen didn't know anything, I never proceeded to make fun of your religion either. Yet somehow you perceived it and made the accusation.

what to do

[manaway]

Agreed, let's not have another endless argument. You ask what can we do to make the booming economies and lifestyles of India and China change, and the countries join us in preventing disaster. I think the question is too broad, and not only can I not answer it, no one can. Don't get me wrong, I like big picture utopias of cheap basement fusion, solar roofs and deserts, windmills with molten salt storage, underground homes, workers keeping the income instead of CEOs and shareholders and bankers, and... However, back on earth in the present: if you get specific, find something you're really interested in, then you can sort out approaches, figure out how to apply your skills, start gathering resources.

For example: I watched a documentary about a grade school kid who could hardly believe that a village in Kenya had no water. I guess he figured out what not doing anything leads to, so he had a fundraiser and built a manually operated (no CO2!) local well. Then he raised money for another. And toward the end he flew to the country to celebrate the 50th (or so) well. Another example: Women Helping Women started in the 1990s with one educated but poor person, now it's up to some 600 people in 20-something countries.

I won't presume to suggest what you should do, as I have no idea what you're capable of. You say these arguments are a waste of time. Maybe you've mastered the craft of endlessly detailed arguments, and are ready to move on. To participate in some productive task. Get on the phone or your feet and pick a project. Some are so desperate for people that they'd even be grateful for help from you or me. Or start one. If it doesn't work out, try another.

Re:what to do

[rickb928]

We cannot MAKE China or India do anything.

Re:what to do

[manaway]

Yes, this. The only country one can change is one's own.

Futurama

[ThatsNotPudding]

"Is that Fahrenheit or Celcius?"
"First one, then the other."

most hot years during solar activity maxima

[peter303]

The 1930s solar maximum was very strong as well as the US drought and temperatures. I think this drought and temperature has surpassed that.

Re:most hot years during solar activity maxima

[Krojack]

Depends where you live. In my area people are all complaining because it's the hottest it's ever been, according to them. This is false unless they lived and can recall the summer of 1921 which was even hotter according to records.

Still wasn't the hottest on record where I am

[Krojack]

The record was set back in 1921 in my area. Was global warming a problem back then also? o.O

On a side note, it's very very dry here like most if the US however my area isn't anywhere near being in the top 10 driest years on record. This according to the local weather man about two weeks ago.

Re:Still wasn't the hottest on record where I am

[shutdown -p now]

The record was set back in 1921 in my area. Was global warming a problem back then also?

Global warming means that global average temperature is rising. Which it is. It does not mean that it's necessarily warmer in your particular neck of the woods, though. In fact it may well be noticeably colder due to weather pattern disruption. It's just that more places grow warmer rather than colder.

Re:Still wasn't the hottest on record where I am

[Krojack]

I guess I worded that wrong. I should have said "man made global warming"

My point being, weather patterns like what we're going though now, have happened for hundreds of thousands of years. Up and down, warm and cold spells. Melting and freezing of ice glaciers. Hell there is even proof that Greenland's ice glaciers haven't even existed in the past and plants grew there. Also proof that the ice glaciers have had sudden melts in the past (before man) just like the recent melt that was just recorded.

Doesn't matter if the heating will occur over the next 10 years, 50 years or 500 years. Someone will cry and others will try to profit off it. It's similar to how every single year the news media hypes the current year as being the "WORSE EVER FOR HURRICANES" ever since Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Only one hurricane hit the USA since and it wasn't even a major one.

I myself will continue to enjoy life while driving my SUV yet also recycle as much of my trash as I can.

Realisticaly

[DarthVain]

You forgot mine:

It's probably happening, however the potential reprecussions are severe enough that we should do something just in case.

To many people think of in terms of absoultes (it is or is not happening). I think more people need to think in terms of risk, of what might be potentionally happing, and what the results are from doing nothing.

Something like this, using the analysis and data available it is very difficult to prove with any absoulte certainty, however we can look at probable causes, and potentional outcomes, and make decisions based on that.

Re:Realisticaly

[HArchH]

The risk is that some loon will do something of global scope that plunges us into a glacial ice age.

Re:Realisticaly

[DarthVain]

There is that as well, all should be weighed against each other. But I would agree, the human track record for implementing "fixes" to our enviroment hasn't been great. The theme has usually been "unintended consequences "... That is why I would be against pretty much against any "geoengineering" project. Dumping stuff into our oceans or atmosphere seems to be to be a very bad idea, that will have long lasting consequences, many of which we probably do not have a clue about.

However there are plenty of passive things that can be done.

Anyway I think it is all moot, as politically I don't think enough of the world can get it together to do anything meaningful one way or another. The developing countries are going to continue to develop expanding industry, emmisions, carbon, etc... and they would argue it is there turn, who are we to tell them they can't, when we all got rich doing it 50-100 years ago. Then there are finite resources, etc... I see things getting bad before any actually change is forced. I'll probably be an old man by then however.

Re:Test equipment calibration?

[riverat1]

Maybe.. just maybe... scientists are well aware of the issues with changing instrumentation and the potential for that to introduce errors. Maybe that's one of the main reasons to make adjustments to the raw temperature data. Also, for most climate studies an accuracy within 1 degree is plenty good.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[pubwvj]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

You say "Record Temperatures" but what you FAIL to mention is that the record is only by 0.2ÂF and the previous date is during the 1936 dust bowl. That's a mere two tenths of a degree which is well within the margin of error.

Stop being an alarmist. Shame on you.

Let's get back to the point

[dbIII]

When Hansen is saying the stuff you "lol Hansen" at, it is part of his job for NASA. If it was really such an extreme fabrication as you suggest then he would be out on the street and no longer be working for them.
Trying to deflect your "I know better than NASA" bullshit by personal attacks on the person than points it out is quite pathetic really.

Re:Let's get back to the point

[sumdumass]

so manipulating the environment in order to make a claim about the climate have more impact then it otherwise would is part of his job huh? Getting arrested and leading protests is part of his job.

Bullshit. Hansen jumped the shark in the beginning and the reason he hasn't been fired is because it's near impossible to fire government employees not directly related to security.

Ever wonder why the US doesn't believe in the seriousness of global warming? It's because Hansen attempted to defraud us from the start and it's almost impossible to not look for the fraud in the claims ever since.

Not Really An Issue

[hidave]

I didn't read all the comments, but from the ones I read, no one has recognized that the US represents a mere 2% of the earth's surface. A few weeks of hot weather in one year on a tiny fraction of the earth's surface is hardly anything to get excited about. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/editorial-hansen-is-simply-wrong-and-a-complete-and-abject-failure/

it's an outlier

[JBaustian]

The drought and abnormally warm temperatures in the Midwest started nearly a year ago, and it was clear from the beginning that the cause was a shift in the jet stream. The midwestern US was receiving the heat and precipitation normal for New Mexico and west Texas, because nearly all the weather patterns were flowing directly from there. We weren't getting Pacific storms, Alberta clippers, or flows north from the Gulf of Mexico.

Do the global warmists have an explanation that incorporates a shift in the jet stream?

What's up with Washington?

[HArchH]

Those idiots in the State of Washington better get with the program. Otherwise they are going to be left out in the cold.