Slashdot Mirror
The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record
New submitter NatasRevol (731260) writes The last three months were collectively the warmest ever experienced since record-keeping began in the late 1800s. From the article: "Taken as a whole, the just-finished three-month period was about 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average. That may not sound like much, but the added warmth has been enough to provide a nudge to a litany of weather and climate events worldwide. Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East." Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing.
bizwriter also wrote in with some climate related news: A new report from libertarian think tank Heartland Institute claims that new government data debunks the concept of global climate change. However, an examination of the full data and some critical consideration shows that the organization, whether unintentionally or deliberately, has inaccurately characterized and misrepresented the information and what it shows.
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
sudo apt-get install popcorn
lolololololololol, were you expecting anything else?
Data that goes ALL THE WAY BACK to the 1800s?
#fail
lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?
...surely the recent "Polar Vortex" and cooler temps I am experiencing means that Global Warming is a hoax!!! Rush Limbaugh told me so.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Those aren't year over year increases, they are deltas from the 1951-1980 mean - and they have indeed been flat for a while.
C'mon, I believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat - but let's not make stuff up.
#DeleteChrome
The submitter is a bit disingenuous to post a story about Japan's climate and then extrapolate it to the world and then uses another suspect study as an illustration of skewed science. You can't have it both ways. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Maybe Japan has an increased temperature due to the radioactivity due to Fukishima and the simultaneous release of a new Godzilla movie.
Heartland Institute deliberately misrepresenting something to influence public policy? Surely you jest!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
By typical cherry picking of data ranges that the AGW denialists use to "prove" that AGW is a hoax, I guess this means we are doomed by the end of the year?
...there shouldn't be one. As a Libertarian myself, I realize that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Thus if there is any science to politics (Can't say I think it's a good categorization of it) the only science Libertarian think tanks should be dealing with is political science.
Seriously, it's as related to Libertarianism as it is to the Catholic Church (actually, if anything, it'd be more related to the Catholic Church, being as their bible claims a man upstairs built the environment, after all).
It sucks to see an opinion posted from such an institute at all. The only appropriate posting would be one demonstrating how Libertarianism would interact with this science.
As for if *I* "believe" or not, I am much more set on global climate change than global warming. It's the only science I've actually seen be correct every time, and it explains the differences in the environment in the area I live, which would be one of the areas dragging down the average. However, I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion, because that would make no more sense than trying to find the socialist opinion on if the colour blue is nice.
In the 1970's "Intellectuals" betted on the wrong energy source in the markets that would stop Global Warming.
Climatologists need to stop with this nonsense. I believe in Climate change, but at the same time, I can completely understand the confusion on the part of the general public. Climate change has no direct evidence and there never will be. What we do have is an accumulation of statistics that make it virtually impossible for there to be any doubt that the climate is changing due to our activity.
Stop presenting easily refuted direct evidence. How long will it be before they have to make some minor adjustment to these numbers and that will be all over the news?
Produce the statistics as a whole, explain them and let the opponents try to fight THAT.
Its not the absolute amount of increase in the average temperature - its the *rate* at which the temperature is changing. The amount of increase that we've seen over the last 100 years or so has typically taken about 5,000 years in the past (according to geologic indications). This is the fact that the anti-climate-change people try so hard to ignore.
We we do in 100 years what typically takes 5,000, it doesn't take much in the way of math skills to realize that we are on a bad path.
the hell you say...
Dear reality-based people,
You're talking to fantasy-based idiots who don't care about reality, they just want an excuse to keep treating Earth as an infinite resource and bottomless dump. They'll find an excuse to ignore this just like they find one to ignore all the rest. I'm sorry but the only thing that will make them shut up is when the changes punch the whole world in the teeth... Perhaps when I'm an old man and I tell stories about how California's central valley used to be one of the world's breadbaskets, and how the world's cities used to have beaches instead of shorewalls, and how the ocean used to teem with life before acidification killed most of the diatoms.
But at any rate, the idiots have "won" in that it's almost certainly too late to prevent some degree of disaster. All we can do now is treat the symptoms, and do our best to avoid any of the really bad ideas for treating them.
Facts:
1.Burning hydrocarbons: CnH2n+2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O +nCO2
2. CO2(atm) absorbs sunlight, increases vibrational energy, energy is released as atmospheric heat, warms up earth (just a little tiny bit, fine)
3. Even tho earth has it's own heat cycles, best not mess with it too much
Thus:
1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
3. Captains of Industry win on both sides: need hydrocarbons today & then drive new markets in energy efficiency. conservatives win on making money, Liberals win on job creation and paying for Obamacare
Therenow, everyone can go about their summer carefree.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
It's even worse here.... Since 3am we've gone up 10 degrees! By evening, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'
Miami is fucked. NYC, unless they build some wall, is fucked. So where are the debates on how to build the containment walls? Or the storm-proofed shelters? Or the projected increase in FEMA budget?
Or, you know, we could spin our wheels yet again bleeting on and on if humans caused this pickle or not. It doth not matter.
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Single data points cannot be used to make an argument - on either side - even if you're actually right. Intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the debate has made global warming/climate change a toxic topic.
Studies have been done on this before where the data was "managed". Certain readings that would show no temperature increase were not included citing "old equipment" or claimed that data was not relevant to their sample set. Certain instruments that would not support a desired result would have the equipment moved from the sheltered spot it was in to a much hotter area, for example over asphalt. Environmentalist have also been caught in changing the temperature reading on certain devices to be more favorable, which they called "statistical normalization" and "variance correction". Somehow this doesn't happen to equipment that supports their conclusions. Environmentalists can have the data show anything that they want.
"The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function."
You're joking right?? The Heartland Institute's NIPCC reports use the same research papers cited by the IPCC and shows how the IPCC conveniently skews data and ignores all the data in between.
If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Hardly used, great condition.
First, clean up the data and explain the continual adjustments. You know, those adjustments that keep making the past look colder, and the present look warmer - despite effects like UHI. Make the raw data available, along with the methodology used in the processing.
Then, and only then, should anyone believe pronouncements about "warmest months ever".
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I really wish the pro-AGW side wouldn't focus on these events so much. It's pretty much irrelevant whether a month or quarter were "the warmest on record" and only leads to deniers pointing out all the "coldest on record" events as they happen.
AGW is about long-term trends. Focus on that.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I remember my father talking with their friends. They would complain about high taxes and say about the politicians, "They'd tax the air we breathe if they could." They would all shake their heads. (c. 1960's)
Now these politicians have found the way to tax the air we breathe00it's called the Carbon Tax.
Conveniently omitted from the report is a mention of Antarctic ice — which continues to set a record after a record.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The climate has been changing on this planet for ~4.5 billion years, Get over it.
You should avoid to breathe carbon *oxyde.
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
Well, yes, yes we are. (filter error: 'Don't use so many caps' I'm QUOTING the OP you moronic filter bastard!)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
"/earth is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can."
-- Unix fortune file
Actually, they're taxing the air we can't breathe.
What is the margin of error?
It will be a while before the digging into the data can begin and folks can confirm the results but based on previous efforts, my guess is that the "record" will be seriously skewed. It used to be that in the world of climate getting accurate measurements and letting the data speak for itself was derigeur. More and more (especially in climatology) the process seeems to be to massage the data to ensure that it conforms to a preconcieved theory. That's confirmation bias, not science. For some history of this sort of manipulation with examples.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/nasa-rewrites-the-past.html
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
For the itellectually uncurious, the links will be ignored, and what's presented there shrugged off as akin to Holocaust denial. And in this way Science becomes a religious crusade instead of a methodology used to understand the natural world. Eisenhower's warnings are still spot on ~50 years later.
Latest from the NOAA site: The contiguous U.S. average temperature for the first half of 2014 was 47.6F, 0.1F above the 20th century average. This ranked near the middle value in the 120-year period of record, and marked the coldest first half of any year since 1993. Just sayin'. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
...monthly temperature will vary as much as +/-3F from the 150y avg...
e.g. we barely had the warmest summer ever by c. 0.1F preceded by one of the top 20 coolest summers, and last winter's 4th coldest (3rd coldest was 110y ago, 5th was 20y ago along with 6-10 over the last 20y) and snowiest to boot...
These temperatures are just not outside of norms for this forecast area, and that 4th coldest winter and coolest summers, well that's after the urban heat island affect appeared c. 30y ago...
I see that the GISS temperature series is quoted to maintain the "hottest quarter" narrative.
See for example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
Much of the data has been created by infilling gaps, homogenization, and other adjustments. They cool the past, add adjustments to the present, and drop stations out of the network creating a warming signal.
It is no coincidence that the cleanest most reliable temperature measurement system for the USA the CRN (climate reference network run by NOAA) shows NO warming over the last decade, confirming that there has been no warming as seen in other temperature records for 13-17 years. (The 17 year is a satellite record also without adjustments by the global warming partisans).
The CRN has triple redundant air aspirated sensors in pristine observation sites spread uniformly through out the USA, so no adjustments are needed. Despite CO2 rising. The computer models are broken. See...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
The claim that the latest X period is the warmest is like a 30 year old man claiming that the last 5 years of his life have been the tallest in his entire record. Yet hes is not growing anymore !
Wow, so now AGW people are comparing the warming "trend" to sin(x)? A function that trends literally exactly even over time?
And here I thought they were just ignorant of physics. Guess they can't into math either.
When the word "globally" is used in context with a subject that directly affects the globe, it's not a metaphor for (local) completeness, it means "everywhere on the globe." This is basic English.
It's been a consistently cool and wet spring and summer in the northern plains of the USA. This data is relative to the region of the northern plains, and is comprehensive within that region, but not globally. This data cannot, by itself, be interpreted as a global indicator, regardless of if it agrees or disagrees with the global data. One would not say "It has been globally cool and wet" based upon data for the northern plains.
Global climate data (you know, for the globe) will include data from all regions of the globe in order to determine a global average weather datum of any kind -- temperature, rainfall, etc. Anything less is regional. "It has been regionally cool and wet in the US northern plains this spring and summer."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Whether or not it is anthropogenic, it is global warming alright. I am assuming nobody has any doubts about that. The solutions are still the same and applicable, turn down our carbon emissions, find ways to cool down the atmosphere.
I hope i am missing something here but you can and do breath carbon gases.
Anecdotal, extrapolating the last tick of the clock, ridiculousness. The Chicken Little 'Sky is falling, we need Communism to save us' crowd ignores the fact that the globe is not warming, and there is no Global evidence of Global warming for decades... Which is coincidentally, is how long we have untainted data from Satellites. ... Global Warming. That's right, if it shrinks it proof of Global Warming and if it grows it's proof of Global Warming. Nice. At which point, the details of the argument is irrelevant.
Instead they focus on local events that they claim are caused by a global phenomena that can't be measured on a global scale with global instruments. NOW, they get the last one single data point and they want to talk about the Global Averages. Right...
Also fun, Antic Arctic Sea Ice Extent got smaller and the crowd screams evidence of Global Warming. Right now, the Antarctic Sea Ice extent is at an all time record high, and they blame it on
And your weather anecdote constitutes global data somehow. I am suitably impressed.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
This is the coolest St. Louis July I can remember. It's 75 degrees today. Last year on fourth of July the moment you stepped outside you instantly started dripping. This year it was absolutely pleasant.
Weather is not climate. Three months is far too short a period to be meaningful. Unscientific pronouncements do nothing to advance your position, whatever it may be.
The essence of today's Slashdot, it appears, is a horde of know-nothings pontificating magisterially on trivial and meaningless statements in the media. YMMV, of course.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from temperatures being fairly steady (e.g. a fairly small positive growth rate) over the past decade-ish. The preceding hundred years have been a very steady upward trend, and if that was some sort of fluke wouldn't the temperature have started regressing to the mean by now? It seems more likely to me that whatever long-scale effects are causing the upward trend have been attenuated by some short-term system.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
you can and do breath carbon gases
Stick your head in a smoke stack and see how long that idea holds up for, or even just hanging out in some of the worse areas of China.
While technically many people would suffocate in an atmosphere which contained zero carbon dioxide (it triggers the breathing reflex when enough builds up in the lungs. You can breathe deliberately, but not while asleep.) excessive carbon dioxide is not breathable. Additionally, the majority of the producers of carbon dioxide are also pumping out hundreds of other pollutants into the atmosphere at the same time, the vast majority of which are very much not breathable. This is why people can die from being closed into a car where the exhaust system is leaking into the passenger cabin.
If I raised your core body temperature by 2C indefinitely you would eventually keel over and die. Don't underestimate small changes when they act globally.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You have two religious factions bickering. No amount of evidence for either Global Warming or the opposite will ever convince anyone. So here's my suggestion:
If you think Global Warming is real, move inland and arm yourself to shoot those that try to follow once the waters rise.
If you think Global Warming is a myth, move to the shores and enjoy the surprisingly cheap real estate.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, they're taxing the air that plants breathe. Or the air that we eat.
Well, here it's gotten CLOUDY! Soon the earth is going to turn into a vapor-shrouded hellscape where nothing grows and humans are forced to scrounge around for food in a post-apocalyptic hellscape! ;)
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
So.... what was trollish about this, exactly? Heartland is a GOP thinktank -- anyone with an ounce of honesty knows this. How does pointing that out qualify for a down-vote?
Carbon dioxide is part of the atmosphere. You cannot avoid inhaling it unless you have a very unique gill system.
You mean the plants that we're clear-cutting to farm cows? Uh-oh.
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
You mean kinda like climate pseudoscientists are skewing the data by cherry picking the part of the graph that goes up, while blatantly ignoring the history that shows global temperatures going up and down in similar fashion?
You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.
This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
Need Mercedes parts ?
Take the same chart from Forbes that goes back to 1900. Cut 1995- present and insert in the middle of the series. Do you still see a trend? Or do you just see a lot of noise around the median?
ok, so how hot was it?
I am eventually going to keel over and die anyways.
I remember 100+ degree days in Connecticut in the late 80's and 90's. Now I am much further south in Pennsylvania and rarely recall such days. So yes it is hard for me to believe that this is the hottest of all.
(And yes, I understand weather is not climate, but I am pretty sure this post is insinuating weather is climate so STFU.)
But I'd probably have to start consuming more energy states recent research.
OK, I'm calling bullshit on all this "hottest since" crap.
How can you say temps are above "above the 20th-century average" and in the same breath, accuse others of cherry picking because they choose some other time frame? It's all cherry picked. 20th Century, Since Industrialization, Last X Decades, etc.
Depending on what dates you pick, you can claim we are at record lows or record highs. And for that matter, the larger the data set, the more accurate is the Average...no? So why only go back to the twentieth Century? Why no the 19th, 18th, 12th? back to when dinosaurs walked the earth? More data, the better!
This isn't Science. It's politics and public perception management.
The Army Corps of Engineers is part of the executive branch and serves the desires that congress funds; it's every-bit as political (NOT by the intention of its personnel, but by the orders it follows) in its actions as any other part of government given that it is commanded and funded by politicians. The Army Corps made a mess of New Orleans pre-Katrina NOT because it wanted to but because of the orders and funding given to it by the politicians. The current wave of politicians are all-in on "global warming" so they are issuing orders and funding activities related to "climate change".
There's no magic here - just follow the money and the trail of orders.
Me too. I'd just rather postpone that day as much as possible, and have a good time while getting there.
On an achy day, my mother used to say, "Never grow old." However upon further consideration, I think growing old is usually preferable to failing to.
(Many caveats apply, "Growing old" is meant in the physical sense, of course making lifestyle choices to retain capacity. "Growing old" in the mental sense is also something of a choice.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Time to check the real estate records; are large entities buying up land about a mile inland from existing shoreline?
If they were smart, environment groups should do just that; it would swell their coffers selling increasingly valuable land - after being able to loudly gloat that they were quite right all along.
I Googled the above recommended search and RTFA. Seven Midwestern states and 5th through 10th coldest winters on record (not absolute coldest) while two western states had their warmest and 4th warmest records.
Yes, the winter sucked where I live in Minnesota, but then just about every winter sucks here. Just to be clear, your back yard is not the entire planet. So while you may be in Minnesota with me complaining about how much it sucks, states like Alaska and countries around the world are basking in record warmth.
The world does not consist of what you can see out your kitchen window.
They claim it is the hottest ever recorded, and use the x+20th century to illustrate the point. Their cliam is that from the 18th, when the data was recorded to now we are at a global maximum, however for the 20th century we are also at a local maximum..
the other issue is we care about what it is doing on a long scale, but not entire earth long. If the hottest temp was 2k C on earth that is good to know, but trying to determine if we are working our way there now using that datapoint would not help us.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
How is it that we're into July and there is still ice on Lake Superior....the entire great lake system is colder than average...antarctic sea ice has just set a new record....and personal anecdotal evidence is a very cool start to Ontario summer. Personally, I find it hard to believe....
You can breath it, you just cannot process it to make energy. Breathing is the act of taking air into the system
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Is that how global warming works? It raises your core body's temperature?
And here I was thinking human's have the ability to control their body temperatures, silly me.
MABASPLOOM!
You mean the raw data that was "adjusted" to make it not seem so hot in years past so today's weather could be claimed as warming? Please tell me another lie you lying bastards. Science indeed by any other name is just a pseudo rose. Wake me up when your climate models can predict within .01% what the weather will be like for the next year. Till then keep on massaging your data-sets and lying to yourselves.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
In my whole life. I guess they mean other parts of the world?
http://xkcd.com/1321/
0 is 1981-2010 average, which would explain why 1951-1980 are all not anywhere near 0.
Deniers need to be put on record for future reference. Put their beliefs on record.
Then their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren can be ashamed of them for being the gullible selfish pricks they are. Just as people don't like to think of their ancestors who were criminals, racists, murderers, Nazi, etc. Plus people who live long enough can be reminded what idiots they are (sadly, that won't stop them from being elected to office, at least in the USA.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
But why is it "just weather" during a couple of very cold months and "global warming" during a few warm months?
I simply don't believe any of these fucks any more.
I should move where you have gone. This summer has sucked in the real world.
More propoganda from the religion of man made climate change. Good riddance.
Well, since everyone seems to be in an Anonymous Coward mood...
Obviously, we don't know. Some data indicate long-term temperature increase, other data show clear and unmistakable cooling despite skyrocketing CO2 levels.
Warmists are moved by hubris : "WE CAN raise the temperature through our industries, because we are SO powerful". No matter any medium-sized volcano can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do in a century of industrial production, or that global temperatures in the remote past were 25% higher than today (without any human activity), shhhh, we're the man, we MAKE and DESTROY things, nature is OURS. We can, therefore we do. Also, we are sooooooo good that we can actually PROVE IT (or try to). Well, news for you : if we could, we wouldn't have inaccurate models with unpredictable values. We would know. But guessing is fine I guess, unless you turn your whole obsession into a career-destroying crusade. The Earth isn't a "model" ; but we surely love to hurt and harm eachother.
Skeptics are moved by hubris, too. They believe that the crowd is always wrong, because it's a crowd, and they'll exploit every data inconsistency, every little bit of scientific sloppiness, to make their point. They often believe themselves to stand above the crowd, and will go to extreme lengths to prove it. They will discard any data that doesn't go their way, because their way is their own and doubting is their religion. Fine.
The truth is we don't know. We can't know. The Earth is simply too complex a system, the multiple interactions too numerous, too subtle, for us to understand their network of dependencies. Every time we argue about this we get the same results: equally viable data thrown at eachother's face, equally rigorous CÃ measurements debased and utilized for political gain. And plenty of anonymous cowards (which tells a lot ; seriously, even a conversation about race would see MORE contributors using their real name).
We don't have a fucking clue.
Except for this : life on earth will go on for a long time after our species has bit the dust.
So fuck you warmist twats with your arrogant, self-righteous posturing. And fuck you skeptics, with your arrogant, superior posturing ; the Earth will outlive you both, and so will civilization, in all likelihood.
Coldest June ever recorded in the Antarctic, a full 6.6 deg C below normal. That drop would offset a ~2.2 deg C rise in Asia (given that Asia is about 3X the size of Antarctica). Most curious!
I must be in the wrong part of the globe. Last fall was the coldest we've had in decades, it snowed 5 feet on October 1st. All winter was rough, and spring was cold and wet. Summer hasn't been warm yet either. I wish you could all share some of that global warming, we could use it up here! Besides, I'm inland far enough that the polar icecaps melting would just mean beachfront property for me anyway :D
the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
It is because that's when they launched the satellite. But I'm guessing you believe there is a conspiracy to hide data from 1978 showing lower sea ice? I'd also wager a guess that you have doubts as to the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.
Just the fact that people in the past have tracked down my comments just to mod them down is a pretty good indication that they take me seriously.
Only you could think that getting modded down is a sign that people take you seriously.
I don't like the sort of people who own beach houses.
By that definition, you can also breath Soviet V-gas, but most people who aren't trying to prop up a failed nitpick wouldn't call it "breathing".
Hey! there are some groups that like the warmer lakes that we are creating...
Men may argue and/or deny climate changes all they want but other species will just adapt and eat your brain. :-)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/kansas-resident-dies-brain-eating-amoeba-swimming-warm/story?id=14489468
The zombie apocalypse is here but they are really really tiny zombies!
There's that same cherry picking..."long scale, but not earth scale".
There is simply no rational reason behind claiming something the "hottest since" because "since" can be anything and it will change the truth of the statement depending on what you pick.
As for the "ever recorded". That's a joke. Because we haven't recorded anything with any measure of reliability except for the last 100 years of so. Proxies suck, we all know that. We are talking tenths of a degree here and no one can be that precise from a frikin tree ring.
Hi there, We grant seekers AHEM uh... scientists at the Japan Meteorological Agency Thought we would help out the IPCC which has reported no significant warming in the last 17 years or so by switching to quarterly scare tactics AHEM uh... warnings. Please believe us as we only want more funding grants AHEM uh... to help you citizens.
Sincerely :D
The Japan Meteorological Agency
REALLY
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Did you propose a free market solution to an argument? I..I...was told that couldn't be done.
For Christ sakes. It's naturally part of the atmosphere and Co2 actually plays an important role in biological function.
Comparing that to Soviet V-gas is like comparing a firecracker to a Nuclear Missile.
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years"
That is the dumbest statement I have read all day. You are taking 3 data points at the end of a 204 datapoint series, where each datapoint has massive error bars - one which contains seasonalities of several frequencies, and claiming that those 3 datapoints puts to bed a 'fact' which is based on the 204 data points!
Not to mention the issues surrounding the measurements (Urban Heat Island Effect, most readings were taken in the Northern Hemisphere, hardly any reading over the most of the Oceans which comprise 2/3 of the area, measurements become very sparse as we go back in time, etc...). But hey! You have 3 data points which vaguely support your beliefs and so they must "put to bed" any doubts.
The fact is that we do not know whether the temperature will now rise in the manner suggested by the IPCC, even though they got it wrong for decades, or whether it will continue along the plateau or whether, shock horror, it might fall. It is very difficult to predict the temperature over more than a few weeks/months.
The fact is, that the IPCC predictions in the past of temperatures were a lot higher than they turned out to be. They got it wrong over, and over again. But hey! You have 3 data points which are slightly high, not within any significance above the error in the measurement, but hey, it does support your belief. But is it science?
You have 3 data points with huge error bars. Have you got a Ph.D. in Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data? If you have then you should ask for a refund.
And I can prove it. Here in the Southern Hemisphere the last three months have been much colder than the preceeding three months, so there!
Like picking one year 1750 as the proxy for "preindustrial times" meaning from 10,000 BC to 1750. And shifting the baseline from 2000 in the first IPCC report to 1950 and then 1750 so you can claim past non-anthropomorphic warming as anthropomorphic warming when your predictions turn out to be wildly exaggerated.
Of course if the temperature has warmed and then remained stable, variability will produce the hottest quarter, period between the 17 of February and 26 of April or whatever without proving further warming. They are only publicising this trivia to distract people from the missing predicted rise in average surface or troposphere temperatures over the last 17 years and counting.
Don't be stupid. Plants breathe oxygen just as we do. Some also use CO2 for nutrition via photosynthesis but that isn't actually breathing and in the dark they don't use it but still need oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You'll just have someone come by and point out that comparing science to religion is total BS. But like deniers, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Hey
Yes, it is hotter in some places than others. If you cherry pick hot areas and then say 'but the 17 year pause must be wrong', then you are using the incorrect logical means to derive your conclusion.
The UN-IPCC has ruled out so many factors which could inform the population to the looming quietening sun. The UN-IPCC AR5 report clearly states that the sun does not drive temperatures, and is always constant and never changing. Also ruling out the tilt in the earths axis which would explain why the 2000 temperature sensors on the ground (in the middle of car parks, middle of air ports, on underneath air conditioning units and painted black in some cases) always confirm the biased opinion that the gas which we are exhaling to keep alive is causing the planet to die.
I'll remind everyone again: Science is about observation, hypothisis and experiment.
With AGW the hypothisis is basically: CO2 absorbs energy (who would have thought corporial elements would absorb energy?), it then warms up at a vertical line and mixes with water vapour over the equator. The heat is trapped and is forced downwards to influence cool areas beneath and cooking the planet.
So how can you test this? Equator was mentioned, so lets talk about that: after 20 million weather balloons have been launched around the planet since 1978. If you compare the temperatures between then and now and generate a graphic and give it an intuitive colour scale you will notice that the air over the equator has gotten cooler since the 1970's.
But you will not hear that kind of argument from the people in authority. They have rents to pay and they have noticed that if they argue that the world is cooking (approaching termperatures closer to the middle ages or year zero or any other time where it was hotter and CO2 could not explain it) and play to people's irrational believe in fear then you end up with another religion where we all decide to kill each other for no good reason.
Where is the common sense? Greenland is melting, but the volcanic springs are so warm and refreshing... Antarctica is growing and growing. The sun's activity for the last 2 solar cycles is quietening.
But the weather has been hot for 3 months here, here and here, therefore it's not weather but climate. For 17 years the temperatures have gone up and down like a swing set and all that activity leads to a net 0 effect. If you draw a graph for the last 30 years to now, the result is something like a net warming of +0.1 or somethign like that, if you do the same with 35 years its -0.4 degrees. You can cherry pick all you want and argue that the way forward is to invest in dead technology or use up all our reserves of rare-earth minerals to create solar panels which take 8 years on average to "double" efficiency.
Yet all the AGW computer models have not predicted the ups and downs of the temperatures of the world. Models by Dr James Hansen in 1990 are so wrong that one has to wonder why he has a job in science at all. And it is only going to get worse with the current generation of models contain fudge variables so they can more closely match temperatures of the past and then project 89 degree up turns of temperature. It is as if they were looking at Venus and then deciding to ignore it has atmospheric pressure of 400 HA and then saying 'because it has carbondioxide' they can justify making fairy tails. But they all do the same thing: predict that the sun does not change, that rain does not fall anywhere on the planet, that clouds are made from Indian rain dances or from tree's growing on hills.
All I know is that the driver of climate is the sun. That the CO2 gas is the width of a human hair on the san francisco bridge and everyone is freaking out that there is a hair there.
Fun and games. Please can you stop posting this crap and stick to actual science? Just pointing out that the AGW hypothesis is unprovable based off real world observations just simply is not enough to pursuade people to ask questinos. Look a
> The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points
> and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing
> two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a
> steady state function.
Totally, 100% false. I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and assume they don't know what they're talking about. Check for yourself...
1) download the file of monthly anomalies from ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly...
2) import into a spreadsheet
3) take the slope() function for the 3rd column for the range Sept 1996 to June 2014
You get a very slightly negative result.The slope() function uses *ALL THE POINTS FROM THE START TO THE END*. I repeat, the submission is flat out wrong.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Wake me when we surpass the highest-ever recorded temperature on earth, set in Death Valley about a century ago.
Most "records" are BS that only gets reported because a computer is tracking all this data, and can very easily spit out a record for SOMETHING, whenever desired, with no effort. Nobody would keep track of how much it rained on Tuesdays in April, but a computer will be happy to spit out that "record"-setting event, and news-models are so desperate for many hours of cheaply acquired content, daily, that they'll tell you about this new "record".
When Death Valley hits 135 ÂF, wake me up. Until then, fuck off with your BS "records" all the god-dammed time...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Welcome to England!!
I can't say anything for the rest of the world but this has been the cooler and more rained summer in Lombardy in several decades, for sure since before WWII. From here it doesn't look global warming, it seems global cooling.....
I would prefer to have a lifespan that wasn't measured in tens of hours.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The climate here has a 27C variation from the average summer high and the average winter low. A 2C variation in local climate does not of as much a consequence as a 2C variation in the human body.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Which causes insanity like this:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/212003-epa-pentagon-agreement-may-jeopardize-wildfire-assistance
People who think people are the problem are free to off themselves, thereby doing a fabulous community service in more ways than one (unless they choose cremation, of course).
Part of the problem is the continued use of the phrase 'Global Warming' that tends to focus on local temperature spikes during the Summer, rather than 'Climate Change', which encompasses extreme events occurring throughout the year. These include incursions of cold air, such as the vaunted Polar Vortex (which, incidentally is making an appearance over North America as we speak...), sea-surface heating and cooling associated with El Niño and La Niña, thawing of the Arctic permafrost, long-term drought, wild fires, and sea level rise from Greenland glacier melt. Incredibly, there have been accusations by right wing politicians in US coastal states like Florida and Texas who claim that sea level rise is a hoax, and use evidence of lower than normal temperatures during the previous winter and current summer to 'prove' their point. Maybe the fact that glacial melting cause is taking place outside of their voting districts is a sufficient reason, in their minds, to ignore this effect.
This "data" has already been proven to be manipulated.
This is just more leftist anti-business pro taxation movement by the radical progressives that have hijacked the once
reputable Democrat party. It's already been proven to have been manipulated by job threats via email.
do some research, America already has the largest tax rate for corporations (35%) in the world.
This is a push to execute the cloward-piven strategy of overloading businesses, law enforcement, and banks to reign in
a system of communist (progressivism) that has been proven to NOT WORK. Even Putin has been quoted as to saying what America
is trying to do will never work, and it's been tried before.
Look at Greece, USSR, and various other countries.
Where I live the last 3 months were actually record cold that has been seen since records were implemented!
So let's just all shoot ourselves in the head now. Or... maybe... we could expend some brain power figuring out how to live longer and, y'know, not die so soon.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
more CRAP to scare the low information sheep.