Slashdot Mirror
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."
It was God punishing people for practicing science so boldly in the open, no doubt.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
What about his face?? Such a cliffhanger..
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?
I am officially gone from
Minor correction: the O in NOAA is Oceanic, not Oceanographic.
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.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
"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.
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.
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's a pretty charitable depiction.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
Cold temperatures in Celsius. Hot temperatures in Fahrenheit. It's the natural way.
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:
We are now at step 4.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?
save the planet
The planet's fine. WE are fucked.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
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.
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.
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".
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.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?
505.928 Kelvin is better.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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).
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
Easily solved: use the much colder methane ice from Titan instead.
Blank until
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
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
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????
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.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
1936 was an outlier. It happened "every 7 decades or so".
The last decade, setting YEAR AFTER YEAR records was NOT an outlier.
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.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
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.
Climatologists do get to work with some pretty precisely determined average temperatures owing to the central limit theorem.
"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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
"Is that Fahrenheit or Celcius?"
"First one, then the other."