Slashdot Mirror
NOAA: Earth Smashed A Record For Heat In May 2014, Effects To Worsen
Freshly Exhumed (105597) writes with news that NOAA's latest global climate analysis is showing things are getting hotter. From the article: Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts say. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 15.54 C beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880. Experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.
After 15 consecutive years of no statistically significant temperature increase, the warmists were starting to become concerned.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous. No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.
Records go back to 1880. Experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming.
That's not a confusing sentence at all...
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
No, no it didn't happen. La La La La La - I can't hear you
Nullius in verba
Enough with the Slashdot propaganda.
Earth provably warmer in the "recent" (less than 12,000 years) past, and moreover that higher peak held for 3,000 years from 7500 B.C.
The hysteria and FUD and the billions of dollars and euros wasted on "climate modeling" is absurd, so is basing billions of euros and dollars of cap and trade scams upon them
I have property in both Canada and Costa Rica. Hot or cold, I don't care, as long as it kills the fucking mosquitoes.
And, the coldest period in geologic time came at a time when the CO2 concentration was more than 20 times what it is today.
And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data
Just turn up the AC.
There is still ice in JUNE on the great lakes. We still have mornings here on the east coast of the US in the 50s-60s and while we did have a few days in the 90s ... it has been 70s-80s the rest of the time.
There sensors need to be recalibrated because I am calling BS. The RSS data shows completely different results.
The question is not only if the climate is changing, but if it's directly related to CO2. Robert Essenhigh's point is quite interesting. http://bit.ly/11IsUri
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Be careful. Speaking truth to power with this administration means a visit from the IRS or the climate change police.
What, was that posted on FauxNews or the Sludge Report? /sarcasm
In my area, our records predate the NOAA. We had the coldest season ever for Dec-March. We had snow in April. We had freezing precip. in May. June has been pretty nice, but we are about to head below normal once again. For anyone who has the idea that we need to cool the Earth back down, just go away.
People seem to have this reality problem, when they can't figure out that drudge is an aggrigator and posts news from all spectrum's of the isle. From Alexjones to Motherjones and everything in between. I guess reality has a factual bias for you.
Om, nomnomnom...
1. Decide your position
2. When findings are presented that call into question your position, find any flaw with said findings. Preferably one that can't be verified.
3. Present flaw as proof that the findings are not only invalid, but through being invalidated prove your position
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
really dont give a shit about a 200 year old record. Get a dog, find somebody to love.
As long as all you blowhards die along with me, I will consider entropy the most effective form of government. Seriously, you guys need to die NOW. I don't wanna wait till the poles melt.
Hey, it's not like there are regional variations in temperature. If it's cold where you are, it must be cold everywhere, right?
And in my area, it's been a much warmer winter and spring than usual. We had heat waves back in January when the rest of the country was in that polar vortex. Stop thinking that your area represents the entire world.
Telegraph is a climate denier site.
Outcomes from surveys where technology, sensor placement and encroachment of cities even if super careful have error bars on the same order of signals from multi-decade surveys... are... mostly... useless.
They always result in the same tired predictable rumblings of fools who see what they want.
All the while very important and relatively uncontested facts such as continued decrease of ocean pH and sea level rise are summarily ignored.
why are so many people her suckered by pundits?
Pay attention:
1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.
That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.
Some of you are very disappointing, falling into ad hom attacks and bad science. Scien that can trivally be checked out. But no, some of ypu moron keeps spouting the same crap.
AGW is a scientific fact.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't get you proglodytes. You hate people, hence your support of abortion (murder) even though there is a "scientific consensus" that life begins at conception. So the earth warms and kills off a few billion people and in 500 years the earth recovers and reverts back to the mean. What is the problem? So a few species go extinct, new species will form ala Darwinism. Get over it, global warming is natural, people came from evolution so if we caused a change, it is "natural" and the "natural" system will fix it.
You can't have it both ways - either humans are part of the system or above the system - which is it?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Pssh...steroids.
Why is it that the global warming deniers can't decide whether warming isn't happening, it is happening but it isn't human-caused, or it is happening, it is human-caused, but it isn't economical to do anything about it? It can't be all 3, yet the deniers can't seem to get their story straight.
The truth is that it's the 3rd option. Deniers first argue that it isn't happening. When science proves them wrong, they then argue that it is happening but isn't human caused. When science proves them wrong again, they fall back to their real position that despite it existing and being human caused, it isn't worth doing anything about because that would take work and cost money. It's very dishonest.
So what?
Whether you believe the alarmists like Al Gore telling every one you need to live in a card board box, for the sake of his elitist friends and pay all of your income in carbon taxes, or the outright liars who claim Humans have zero affects on climate change:
One thing is for certain, postulation about whether or not it is actually a bad thing to have the earth warmer or colder isn't something either side seems to acknowledge because obviously the earth during the last 250,000 years of human existence has been way hotter and way colder than it is now.
Further more, I am more worried about plans to INTENTIONALLY overload the biosphere with idots thinking a complex multi billion year old planetary biosphere is as simplistic as what they create in the lab and draw conclusions on.
I mean crazy bat shit conclusions like spraying the atmosphere with aerosols or sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere on purpose.
THAT is what scares me, not global warming or cooling or whatever you believe.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I don't believe climate exists either.
I am not so sure you understand what "smash" means. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces in 2010 was 0.72C. The same data for this year is 0.74C. I would hardly call 0.02C as smashing.
Global warming is clouding the bigger issue of habitat destruction. Human beings have altered the planet significantly. We have taken a significant proportion of the planets biomass to devote to agriculture. The fact that aerial insectivores are doing badly suggest that flying insects are in significantly lower numbers and biodiversity. Bees are in trouble due to colony collapse disorder leading to losses of crops because flowers are not getting pollinated as often.
We have made great cities. Aside from the land these cities take, a substantial amount of resources are required to sustain them. Wood, fossil fuels and minerals are all required in vast quantities. Forests get altered, the air and water get polluted.
The oceans are in trouble due to overfishing. For most commercial fish there is only 10% or less of its original abundance. Plastic is accumulating in the ocean.
MInor in comparison are street lights. Nocturnal bugs get trapped by lights and are easy prey in the morning. Many nocturnal species of bugs are getting reduced in numbers or going extinct.
Massive habitat change will cause climate change ... and the consequences are complex and unpleasant.
Wow, I've never seen so many fucking brain-dead leftist lock-step comments in one place. When did slashdot become the IPCC cheering section? It seems that after all the number-fudging, slight of hand, embarrassingly inaccurate models (to say nothing of the Global Cooling scare right before the Global Warming scare), you would hope to see a little more healthy skepticism toward government-funded "science." Particularly when consensus is not so much a word as a fucking chant, and the solution is always to give over more of your money and freedom to the governments who fund these findings. Bottom line - not a goddamned one of us knows exactly what the climate is going to do or when/why. What we do know is there have been warmer periods, colder periods, and CO2 has been around through all of it.
The big spoiler that makes models a bit more difficult is water vapor. It is both more prevalent than CO2 in the atmosphere and more variable in the amount (CO2 is pretty uniform, water vapour varies a lot based on location, time of year, etc). Also when you look at the absorption spectra, water vapour absorbs larger bands of IR than CO2, particularly in the thermal IR region.
That's not the only extra bit of complexity, but it is one that confounds the situation.
Now before you fly off the handle and start screaming and ranting: I'm not challenging the validity of the theory here, I'm just saying you are oversimplifying things. Going after people for being stupid, but then showing ignorance of the complexity of the issue is rather silly.
The problem is that it is complex. If it were a simple system, we'd likely have a very accurate model for it. The complexity is precisely why despite general agreement on the theoretical mechanism of action there are such wide error bars on the predictions.
And of course no one can duplicate this. No one can refute it. And no one doubts it.
Listen to the fool, become the fool.
Listen to slashdot, become a fool.
really?
Here, maybe this will help. You can tell whether it's a fossil fuel or not, but not whether a person burned it, or where it came from. You can't even tell it if came from coal or oil, since both are made of C13. You simply cannot determine the original of an individual atom of carbon once it has been released into the atmosphere, only what kind of course it came from.
When you find an individual C13 molecule, you do not in fact know that human activity released it.
Note that I have argued passionately in favor of the AGW theory in this thread, so if you are moderating me down because you think I don't believe in global warming, you're an idiot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is the reason why I rarely read Slashdot anymore. Commentators are shrills for the agenda and so full of themselves they can't even debate.
Can't wait to finally get Summer from May to October. To hell with southern Europe (well, they might have matching temperatures at least).
And no, that's no invitation for either side of the fence on the Global Warming war. To hell with both of you. You, the global warmer deniers and you, the "the sky is falling" heaters. I don't give a shit anymore whether this planet goes to hell in a handbasket. Basically, the sooner the human race wipes itself from this surface the sooner the planet can start regenerating and maybe eventually even host intelligent life.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
All you have to do, apparently, is to codify the brilliance of these hundreds/thousands of Slashdot comments, and falsify the conclusions in NOAA's and/or the IPCC reports. Why are you just sitting here bloviating instead? There's actual $$$ rewards for this sort of thing.
Posting anonymously because I have no interest in the regurgitated shit shoveling that always accompanies these stories. I expect instead of making relatively modest changes to our energy portfolio, we'll continue burning hundreds of millions of years worth of fossilized vegetation (because, sure burning all that in a century or so can't have any effect whatsoever) and arguing about this until the economy collapses due to environmental degradation.
It was the British Empire back then, The Scotch and the Welsh went out and conquered the world too.
Remember the 24th Regiment singing Men of Harlech as they fought off the Zulus at Rourke's Drift in 1879
"Uh why is mercury thermometers, baromiters, and sphygmomanometer's considered the gold standard then?"
Because if you have actual molten gold in the tubes of your measuring devices you know its getting too hot...
> People seem to have this reality problem, when they can't figure out that drudge is an aggrigator and posts news from all spectrum's of the isle. From Alexjones to Motherjones and everything in between. I guess reality has a factual bias for you.
According to this statistical survey of stories on Drudge from 2002 to 2008, the hard-right breitbart.com was the largest source of links at drudge with 14.45% - sources with mild-left tendencies like WaPo and NYT only make #4 (6.26%) and #6 (3.38%) - hard-right sites like motherjones don't even crack the top 10 list.
everyone is wasting energy trying to get people to change their behaviour, it's not going to happen. only an engineering solution can lock in the environment that currently best serves the nations in power.
WooHoo! We're back baby! It's on.
Feel the fear, shitizens. Feel the Fear. Buhahahhaha!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
enjoy your hockey stick graphs fagot, lap them up like a good little bitch
You're modding me down because I pointed out the stupidity of what someone said. Hell, maybe this is even a second account for that person. Well, mod me down some more. I'll get more karma tomorrow.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When El Nino leads to a new record high temperature by a large margin (for argument's sake, in 2015), the denialists will quietly adopt this as their new standard for 'normal' and in 2025 they'll be saying "warming is a hoax because temperatures haven't risen on average since 2015."
http://xkcd.com/1321/
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
From the Telegraph? Was that next to that article about that two-headed baby?
NOAA fights back to claim the "high ground" in the war.
In NOAA's war as Nixon's, the citizens of the United States of America ... Think !
In a counter move, NOAA will demand that all USA citizens be inoculated with ... "Agent Orange."
Agent Orange will maintain Zombietification of the drugged citizens to fulfill the sexual urgings of Obama and his Junta.
After all, NOAA is just "Jim Jones at the cool-aide stand" to help the plight of the "Mourners" of the demise of "Climate Warming hysteria".
The denialist morons will be all over this thread, unscientific swill they are.
Denialist trolls: explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being much farther from the sun, if CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas with higher concentrations leading to higher temperatures.
You mean from the one group that was actually denied tax-exempt status? You know, the liberal one?
Do you still use leaded gasoline or paint because you don't think the science behind lead poisoning is "settled"? If not, why not?
Protip: Motherjones is far-left.
Your bias is showing.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'll deny until it happens and then I'll still claim it is "just nature". What do I care? I'll be dead in a couple of decades hopefully the whole world will go with me!
Thanks for pointing that out. Its a good thing Christopher Booker (author of your "story") is here to report on NOAA data fabrication.
/. favorite...get ready, its a doozy... Evolution is based on BS assumptions and BLIND FAITH and Intelligent Design is the truth!. If you include that last bit when you quote him it will be much easier to keep the stories straight. Your welcome!
AND ALSO to let us know that 2nd hand smoke and lung cancer are not related, asbestos poses no risks and the
I used to set lead type in my parents print shop as a kid, and I'm perfectly fine, even after setting lead type in my parents print shop, it had no effect on me, just like setting lead type in my parents print shop.
Speaking truth to power
Holy smokes are you president of the Christopher Booker fan club?? From his wikipedia page "...he speaks truth to power...". From the 2 minutes of research I've done on him I'd say he speaks truthiness to power. He makes his living as a professional contrarian. All of his pubilished views are the opposite of scientific consensus in a vast variety of subjects. Its possible he could be smarter than all climate scientists, cancer scientists, infectious disease scientists, and Evolutionary Biologists. But there is a much higher likelyhood that he is just full of shit.
The problem I have with global warming alarmists is not so much about the shaky evidence they have but the solutions they propose. These people are watermelons, "green" environmentalists on the outside but "red" communists on the inside. They're solution to every problem is more government, it's just that global warming is a convenient bogeyman to scare everyone into accepting more government.
Whether or not global warming is real is, IMHO, irrelevant. The problem is too much government. If the goal is reduced fossil fuel consumption then the solution is to get the government out of the way. I can get behind less fossil fuels because that means less reliance on foreign sources of oil. Many of the problems we have in this world is because of oil. Those that have the oil tend to be brutal dictators. Those the have the money to buy the oil tend to be in nations free from those dictators. Oil is the means by which wealthy free people can be convinced to give that wealth to murderous dictators.
What we need is nuclear power but, here in the USA at least, the government does not seem interested in an energy source that is low in carbon output, inexpensive, reliable, and safe. To those that will reflexively scream "NUCLEAR WASTE!" I suggest looking up waste annihilating molten salt reactors. With molten salt reactors we would not only not produce more nuclear waste we'd be able to destroy the waste we already have.
Not only does the government hold up nuclear power they hold up solar and wind. The subsidies to "help" solar and wind power do not help any more, they only hurt. We've been subsidizing wind and solar for decades to assist in its development. The problem with continued subsidies is that there is no incentive to improve. The people in these industries know that so long as they can prop up the global warming bogeyman that they will make a profit from government subsidy. At some point they have to sink or swim on their own. Allowing them to continue like this means they need oil and coal to make the money so they can skim off the top to line their pockets.
Subsidies on wind and solar are only holding them back. I don't believe that solar is a viable energy source, wind is something I can see as making a lot of people wealthy. Wind, nuclear, and hydro are what I see as the future. But the government is in the way. No more subsidies, that means for oil too. Get out of the way of nuclear power and let people build some nuclear power plants.
I don't care if the world is getting hotter. I want to see some solutions to the problem that does not involve more government involvement in my life. I don't want the government telling me what kind of light bulbs to buy or where to set my thermostat, I want my government to tell me that they are serious about the problems and will issue permits for the construction of some nuclear power plants.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data
Typically the kind of "fiddling" which goes on are poorly explained "adjustments". Rather than outright fabication. Even without that there would still be unresolved (and quite possibly impossible tor resolve) issues with the accuracy and precision of the data gathered.
Christopher Booker is shit, never trust his articles.... http://www.theguardian.com/med...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Making a body of water deeper makes it a larger (by volume) body of water - which then changes the amount of energy the must be removed (by exposure to cold winter air and the reduced sun exposure of winter in this case) to chill it to the point where its surface can freeze. Any change of depth in a body of water can also change the flow of the water (both volume and velocity) which can further alter the ease in freezing the surface. There's nothing magic here. I'm not the earlier poster, not endorsing his post, nor am I making an argument about the magnitude of the effect (like EVERYTHING in the real world, there's a lot of complexity and anybody claiming an accurate computer model is more-likely lying than not). I'm only pointing out that this is a valid issue.
"What, was that posted on FauxNews or the Sludge Report"
You clearly had nothing valid to contribute, so like a good jackbooted little leftist, you goose-stepped directly to the slurs and epithets.
The biggest worry of any leftist revolutionary is that his followers will "cool-off" and stop supporting the revolution, often by hearing any contradictory information. It therefore becomes imperative to denounce alternate information sources and convince the "useful idiots" to not listen to anything not approved by "the new order". Let me offer you some comfort, comrade: Big Brother still loves you. Big Brother appreciates your rejection of Fox News. As long as you keep seeing exactly what Big Brother wants you to see, and saying exactly what he wants you to say, it's all double-plus good...
It has been awfully hot outside. I'm thinking about switching over to Fox News, where global warming isn't happening and the summer is as cool as ever.
In fact, for the first 3 months of 2014, NOAA suddenly decided that the average temperature of the USA was over 1 degree too cold and applied an adjustment to get rid of that anomaly. Gee. I wonder what weather event happened during winter 2014 across the USA that required they have to adjust the temperature data upwards by a over whole degree. Surely it was just a coincidence!
The biggest problem for the AGW folks is that their critics ARE paying attention... and MANY are better-equipped to see through the crap than they anticipated.
"1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested."
So what? The fact that light hits the Earth is proof of nothing pro/con AGW.
"2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested."
I considered a big fat paragraph on this, but realized it was just as unimportant as point 1 in the argument about man-made global warming; you guys are SO good at these misdirections that it's easy to get tricked into wasting time on distractions like this. Like point 1, it's not relevent.
3)4)5) CO2 is transparent to visible light. CO2 absorbed energy from IR. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested. - 3 compressed to 1 by me for brevity
NOW we're starting to at least get to things that sort of matter. Yes, CO2 is transparent to and/or absorbs different parts of the light spectrum. In this regard it's no different from all the other gasses and this makes it easy for humans to study gasses optically. It is, however, NOT the most significant part of our atmosphere that's involved in the so-called greenhouse effect - Water Vapor is. Water vapor, however, is not as easily regulated and taxed and "water vapor" will not "fly" amongst even the stupidest slices of society as justification for demanding that successful western societies de-industrialize and shift their wealth and power to unaccountable international organizations and third-world "victims of colonialism".
CO2 levels are a good argument for you guys as long as you have an audience full of completely-propagandized fools, but not so good for an educated and skeptical crowd; First, because anybody who SERIOUSLY examines this stuff realizes [1] that CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature levels in rising (in the pre-manipulated data) so you guys are insisting that this warming effect can PRECEDE the asserted CO2 cause, and [2] that AGW is based upon MOUNTAINS of data manipulation; NO accurate measurements of CO2 levels or temperatures exist for most of the planet from ANY dates before the 1500's (and I'm being VERY generous here). There were NO satellites making ANY measurements of the Earth before the 1950s, NONE. The majority of the calibrated ground weather stations are tied to modern aviation (weather is critical at airports) which only began about a hundred years ago. The vast majority of global temperature data before the 1900's was from sea captains making occasional observations of individually-unique hand-made mercury thermometers in sunlight (or candlelight) on the rolling decks of sailing ships moving across water in a wide variety of weather conditions. Most of these thermometers were not even calibrated to eachother, lot alone to an independent standard against which modern instruments can be calibrated for data consistency. Because the ships were moving, the locations of the measurements were inconsistent (the measurments aboard HMS Bounty, for example, on one day were from a different place than the measurements by the same officer aboard the same vessle only a week later). Because all navigation was then done celestially AND there's a thing called WEATHER, the locations for most of the observations are wildly imprecise by today's standards (dead-reckoning was often used and days would pass when sailors could not "shoot the stars" for a reasonably-accurate "fix"). For most of the Earth even THESE limited and poor records do not date back before 1700. ALL of the other so-called "data" is not data at all - it's assumptions and conjecture based on subjective assessments of mud, tree rings, and ice cores "calibrated" exactlly the way a voodoo preistess calibrates her chicken entrails.
One of the most-basic rules of science is that you cannot mix apples and oranges in data analysis. AGW proponents, however, have NO data for BILLIONS of years
Depends which temperature proxy you look at, but on average, nope.
Of course there may have been warmer days in the "recent" past, but we have no records of that, so the article's claim stands. And your claim requires ignoring most of the various proxy reconstructions that have been done, so it doesn't hold up either.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Ice is one of the worst substances imaginable for accurate storage of trapped gasses. I know there are lots of "climate science" guys with careers based on it, just like there are "UFOlogists" with careers that are dependent upon Roswell and Area 51... but that just does not make it valid no matter how many PhDs are on the line. Ice sublimates. Ice also absorbs gasses. Anybody with an icemaker in his freezer is perfectly-aware of this. Ice is not the same even two days after it forms... it absorbs other gasses (often "food smells" in refrigerator ice makers); put another way: ice PROVABLY changes over time. Ice changes even over very short periods of time. SOME uses of ice cores (like measuring layers of ash or dust) are reasonably valid (though the use of the measurements of gaps between such layers is dubious), but gasses in ice are a big wobbly area.
The biggest problem though is that there exists no calibrated standard against which any ice core data can be calibrated: If you want to claim you know how much a chunk/block/core of ice has or has not changed over a thousand years, you need to have calibrated measurments of that ice from a thousand years ago which you can compare to the current ice... and there is simply NO scientific way to escape this problem. You do not get to make assumptions about what conditions existed when the ice formed (if nobody was there to make the measurements, then you are in fantasy land and your presumptions are as valid as a chapter of "snow white and the seven dwarves"). You do not get to make assumptions about what rates of loss or accumulation of any particular components have ocurred during the elapsed millenia, no matter how convenient and useful to your career and your political agenda such blatantly-unsupported manipulations might be. If you do not KNOW with certainty the exact state of your ice core when the ice it includes formed, you cannot accurately deduce things from what you find in it now... but of course if you HAD that data you would not be reduced to trying to "intuit" the data from the ice cores in the first place, right?
No matter what touchy-feely garbage is being chovelled now in the name of garbage like "social justice", the fact remains that WHERE you get your data, HOW you collect it, and HOW you measure it still matter. You cannot do real science if you have no fixed data and measurement standards and you mishandle the data you have by mixing together datapoints from different sources that lack a common calibration.
Geeze. Science education has apparently taken a NOSEDIVE in the past several decades... but I guess I can draw SOME comfort from the idea that younger people will probably reproduce at a reduced rate by virtue of having EXCELLENT education into the proper deployment of condoms, and they'll be less likely to do "bad" things with the hard sciences they manage to play with (like physiscs and chemistry) because they are well -indoctrinated into various feminist, social and minority studies. Older geezers on the other hand, are likely less "sensiitve" but still want REAL data before surrendering to the collective.
This is the same guy that denies the link between passive smoking and cancer, and that asbestos is dangerous. I should introduce him to my friend with mesothelioma. He certainly can't be relied on for the facts.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
"fixing" anything that is not "broken" is crazy, particularly if fixing it requires damaging the lives of millions of middle-class people who are just managing to get by in the absence of those very-expensive "fixes".
You have not proven:
[1] that anything is "broken". (People are not artificial creations of evil scientists on planet Vulcan, who were artificially-placed here and are wreaking havoc; they're every-bit as natural on Earth as birds and fish and whales and spiders)
[2] that people "broke it". (We have no design specifications for planet Earth; we do not KNOW what the "proper" temperatures and CO2 levels are.)
Even if you show that humans HAVE put "excess" CO2 into the atmosphere and are warming the planet (even over some "tipping point") you have failed to demonstrate any evidence that this is not precisely what humans, collectively as an evolved lifeform, are SUPPOSED to do. Our job in the grand scheme of things might well be to live on this world for a few millenia between the age of the dinosaurs and some future age of gigantic super-intelligent insects using our particular skills to convert the ecology of the planet from lush-and-green (plus ice caps) to toxic and brown (with primordial sludge pools) where the bugs might thrive. If the planet stayed so cool and green, its "toxic" (from the perspective of the future giant bug race) conditions could prevent their evolutionary rise! Preventing this conversion of the Earth could well be a crime against the interests of all future occupants of this planet. Of course, if you happen to have the original designer's specs for the planet and can document what constitutes "ideal", then we can talk about what CO2 levels are "bad" or "excessive"
Luntz was telling right-wingers how to deal with left-wing propaganda. He was warning them that the left-wing propaganda was reaching a tipping point at at some point the right-wing positions on certain things would become untenable POLITICALLY because it would fall on "deaf ears" propagandized not to listen. Lefties twist those words to make people think Luntz was warning that the time of scientific uncertainty was ending when what he was ACTUALLY warning was that the minds of the population were being closed.
He was NOT saying "you have a limited time to lie about reality before the truth catches up" he was saying "you have a limited time to speak to a population that is persuadable and has doubts, before the left-wing propaganda takes over and people will not absorb contrary information". With each passing year, another group of kids graduate from the Democrat-run schools with their certificates-of-indoctrination. Our schools USED to teach kid HOW to think (reading, writing, math, geography, history, civics, art, music, chemistry, physics, biology) but now our schools are pumped-full of social lessons of "justice", "multiculturalism", "ecology", etc and even the courses that used to be solid content are now thoroughly-riddled with indoctrination (even in the details of word-problems in math classes and reading assignments in English classes)
Why're you running from simple questions troll? http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
I wish I had modpoints to mod you up. Instead, I'm posting as an anonymous coward to show my appreciation.
Run the raw numbers yourself and compare against the past data for the station's location by date. Then group them.
Climate myth
More climate lies on slashdot!
I see many posts pointing to the burning of fossil fuels, and the subsequent release of CO2 as the source of global warming. Presuming that the fuel was once fossils, and the fossils were once something entirely different. Where was the CO2 back then?
I'm not a "denier", and haven't honestly taken a stand in this area, though I'd tend to believe it when I read things like this http://climate.nasa.gov/scient...
Just another day in Paradise
yes...the telegraph.
that's a real scientific authority there.....
let me clue you in: nothing they have to say about this is true.
The problem is, the credibility of NOAA and NASA is marred. They are both controlled (politically and financially) by a Federal government who time and time again proves that they are untrustworthy and are motivated by that which has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare and economics of the general population.
There is not a SINGLE person in this forum who can lay claim to any data supplied by the Scientific Community and say with all confidence it is unblemished by political motive and/or Governmental self preservation.
As long as you keep electing idiots like the current ones running Congress and the Exec, the only people on this planet who believe this shit are the like minded leftist psychos and the hopelessly gullible.
Tue 6/24/14 9:41 am. Then how come they changed the name from Global Warming Crisis to Global Climate Change Crisis? Huh?
Humanity is emitting about one Yellowstone Supervolcano per year, or two Pinatubos per day.
Even assuming that the CO2 is natural, the forcing would still be a problem. The idea that the natural CO2 cycle is little-studied is lunatic. Aside from laboratory experiments on CO2 absorption spectra measuring the "global scale CO2 cycle" is practically the entirety of climate science.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I saw the map they published. They have the western Great Lake region just slightly below normal, and the eastern great lakes above average. Lake Ontario is currently at 46F in June, well below normal...yet this map has the Lake Ontario region as "above average".
Yes, Yes, I know local phenomena != global measure. But Canada covers a big chunk of real estate. I guess I'm only considering the region that "the weather channel covers, which is Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, and the southern half of everything else. Maybe it was above average in the territories.
Everyone I know has been complaining that this summer is unsually cool. I've heard several complaints throughout June that so many days have been barely warm enough to go swimming.
I joked the other day, not to worry, we'd still hear claims that it was one of the hottest years on record. And lo and behold, just a few days later and here be the claims.
Arr...
Show us ALL the data and ALL the methodology.
I love how all you alarmists are quick to point out that weather is not climate whenever we have a record snowfall or the coldest winter on record. The second a weather event (one month average) supports your theory, it's definitive proof.
Even better is how the article blindly inserts "man-made global warming" in the tagline.
Please line up and give your money to whichever politician claims they are going to save the Earth for you. Sheep.
Rather hilarious that anyone other than a rival nation state would seek to challenge the NOAA. Right or wrong, decision makers listen to the NOAA either directly or indirectly since they do most of the US's recce.
All rites reversed 2010
Breaking a monthly record for temperature does not suggest the global temperature is increasing. There is as yet no way to measure the entire planet's temperature with fidelity. Even if you could this would not suggest humans are the cause. Even if humans were a proven cause of climate change that would not suggest it was accidental. What's more likely is deliberate climate modification with geophysical weapons systems like HAARP and others.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has broken away from temperature, proving there is no causal relationship between the two.
Your model of the sun is wrong.
You're hysterical
It's been http://stevengoddard.wordpress...> "adjusted"
From west coast to east coast Canada was a lot colder than normal for May. Every news channel reported colder than normal temperatures across the world...where the heck are they getting the numbers saying it was warmer than normal?
Face it. You can't trust anything published on the internet or other media. Trying to dig to get the actual data is about hopeless. Most of the papers on global warming refer to other papers refer to other papers refer to papers by the same author based on a computer model. Scant attention is paid to validating the models against history. Actual data collected from the field gets locked behind for-pay firewalls. I've been tracking the CO2 issue since the 1970s when I was told we needed to solve the CO2 problem by 1980 or else its all over. I've witnessed reports on the internet reporting volcanic CO2 production revised to lower the production estimate by an order of magnitude without explanation and without acknowledgement it was altered. Much of the data you see on the Web is a lie on both sides of the issue.
We all have computers or else we wouldn't be reading /. Lobby your government representatives. If a scientist accepts money from the government they must digitally sign their data and make it publicly available. If they develop computer models, they must release it open source so they rest of us and review and run it.
Global warming is probably happening, but probably not for the reasons we suspect. One eruption in Africa released more CO2 than the entire annual industrial output of the United States. In the 1980s most CO2 came from "land use change" -- the burning of rain forests. The pollution of the ocean was still unevaluated so we have no idea how much CO2 is no longer absorbed into the ocean. We're stilling coming out of the last Ice Age so Earth is going to get warmer. Perhaps it is stupid to dump more CO2 when we're already getting warmer, but is that our only global warming problem? The science has become so politically obscured that I'm afraid we're missing other real dangers.
Gawd, you are all such fucking twits, arguing about shit you really know nothing about and calling each other names.
Get a fucking life.
Then there is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
I have no idea, but there is not a consensus.
This is the same NOAA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
I guess they "adjusted" data again.
Other than the side effect of dodging simple questions, unless that's a recent development for you.
Uh huh. Here's another simple question for you to dodge: since you were fine as a kid, and the science behind lead poisoning "isn't settled", do you give toys with lead paint to your nephews at Christmas?
If not, why not?
Except you're on the warming side LOL...
Well, boys and girls, the cat is out of the bag and NOAA, NASA and many others, will now have to answer some very, very, hard questions. We now know data has been manipulated for a long time, we have been cooling since the 30's and as a result we are in the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the entire human race.
Now, go look it up yourself (all you naive and ignorant bastards.)
And on that same page:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10921695/May-was-the-hottest-month-ever-for-Earth.html
Well, boys and girls, the cat is out of the bag and NOAA, NASA and many others, will now have to answer some very, very, hard questions. We now know data has been manipulated for a long time, we have been cooling since the 30's and as a result we are in the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the entire human race.
Now, go look it up yourself (all you naive and ignorant bastards.)
Information about "Steven Goddard," the source for that article (who has no educational background in climatology) (republished from DeSmogBlog.com). Draw your own conclusions or cf. NOAA authors. My conclusion is that he's a wacko blogger who has a history of simply making stuff up. Those who desperately want to perceive a conspiracy gleefully cite his fabrications. Just imagine: What if the conspiracy theorists applied the same level of skepticism to his claims that they do to the findings of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists worldwide?
"Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute.
"Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement.
"Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science” blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information."
NOAA has the same credibility as the NSA, the IRS, the VA, and all the other government agencies -- NONE. They all lie, they all lie about everything, ESPECIALLY numbers and measurements.
Okay, there are no math majors or statisticians on /., but to fill you in why I scoff at the article....
In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (SD) (represented by the Greek letter sigma, ) measures the amount of variation or dispersion from the average.[1] A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values.
The minds on /. have told me that ONLY the average matters, to h___ with SD. Oh that cold be social disease, depending on the euphemism in current use.
Indeed. El Nino seems very strong this year after a long period of injury and change of sponsor. He declared that he feels strong and well prepared and will attempt to PR this season.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Whoosh!
The same day this comes out, the UK Telegraph runs a story about how NOAA has gone back and destroyed the temperature records by adjusting the data to prove that the computer models are working.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
So who ya gonna believe? My advice... don't believe any of them, they are all liars with ulterior motives.
Murphy was an optimist
A single Aunt Sally isn't enough for the name callers so a triple polemic is used to avoid intellectually honest discussion. LOL
You do realize there was thing identical situation where the East Anglia Institute in the UK not only fudged the corrections to "hide the decline" in global tempratures ... they were trying to keep out the people who were publishing research as they saw it.
And their problem was they couldn't find a way to discredit their opponents!
The IPCC has discredited their own reports several times as well.
People are not going to believe these global warming claims when there are so many shenanigans going on.
Reading up and down this thread, precisely as I might have anticipated, comes the shocking news that either there is a worldwide conspiracy of climatologists eager to get their $400 / year grants to study tree-ring O-14 ratios while passing up the Nobel Prize for proving 75 years of Climatology is a hoax OR there are a large number of otherwise capable brains here in Slashdot land who will NEVER accept the disaster of cheap fossil fuels until they themselves succumb to heat stroke.
Given human nature, and particularly the nature of psuedo-liberalism, I'm willing to place my faith in the 'conspirators' who point out that our children, not our grandchildren, are going to starve sometimes thanks to fossil fuel burning.
What Drudge posts is not as important as how h chooses to title it. That's where the right wing bias is injected.
How exactly?
Ezekiel 23:20
That is no proof of lack of a causal relationship, that's at most a proof of lack of directly proportional relationship.
Ezekiel 23:20
Australia is experiencing record low temperatures. I'm reading this article in Perth Western Australia; known for its heat in summer and mild winters. It's 10am and I am rugged up and still add cold as a popsicle. :D
I love irony, so reading about record heat in these conditions...
And it gets better: I said just yesterday how ridiculous global warming was with these freezing conditions! Obviously I didn't realize I was actually in a heart wave!
We had a record COLD winter this year. Will a one month record a few tenths of a degree higher make up for it? And how much money does the government propose taking out of the economy to fix a portion of a tenth of a degree?
Let me know when it's safe to assume this is not a political argument.
OH NO!! say it isn't so!! run for the hills everybody!! the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!
Seig Heil! Science continues to be held hostage by fascist politicians controlling the conversation.
I'm not familiar with Christopher Booker or his works (he might be full of shite the majority of the time, I just don't know), but it looks like he was right about the 1930s having the highest temp on record: NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record
I'm not a supporter or denier of "human-caused global warming/cooling/changing/whatever", I think people are a bit arrogant to think they have accurately modeled a system as complex as our planet's weather. To all of the fanatics on the subject, I say "tone it down, you don't know either". /shrug
I would agree with that. "Fabrication" was used in the article, and was probably a bit of a stretch. I have no idea if there was intent to deceive at the NOAA, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.