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
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
Heartland Institute deliberately misrepresenting something to influence public policy? Surely you jest!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
It wasn't just Japan. According to the article, the Japan Meteorological Society did do a study that focused on Japan, but NASA ran a similar study using different methods that got virtually the same results in a completely different part of the world.
Well it wasn't my part of the world. Hey, how about this: if we're doing a global study, let's study the whole fucking planet, eh?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
That's why I follow the Pope on Twitter.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
Here's a direct quote from TFA (emphasis mine):
Tip: When you find yourself misreading articles outright, in a way that just happens to support your opinion, it's time to sit down and have a good hard think about whether your picture of reality is accurate.
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.
Data that goes ALL THE WAY BACK to the 1800s?
Yes, the set that shows global warming starting to significantly ramp up in the 1830's - current models not yet successfully covering that period.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
This article isn't about a single observable proof of climate change so I don't get what relevance your rant has. In fact, given that the story is allegedly about climate change deniers mis-using data that shows climate change as 'evidence' there isn't climate change it's pretty fucking obvious that they are able to fight data based arguments.
I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion
The problem is that Libertarians are against government regulation, but are theoretically for being forced to pay for fucking shit up. In practice, a lot of Libertarians fall into two camps: "I want to toke up whenever I want" and "I want to dump whatever I want on everyone else". That practice leads to things like this, where they are desperate to prove the shit coming out of their smokestacks and effluent drains smells like a rose, because then they can continue to claim that they fully support being held responsible for fucking shit up, good thing they aren't doing any damage to anyone else.
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.
No kidding. "Heartland Institute cherry picks data... news at 11"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ah yes, all those super-rich climatologists picking on poor impoverished Big Oil.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Sorry you think so, I thought the data for major population centers, where the churches, and the arts were taught, went back to the 1600's. Some earlier even. But then if you are going off datasets, I thought the MWP was a full three degrees warmer then the 1990's. Which were warmer then now. And there were warmer periods prior to that. So, I'll go back to the SciFi channel and watch sharknado 2 and scream over the destruction of the world.
Well it wasn't my part of the world. Hey, how about this: if we're doing a global study, let's study the whole fucking planet, eh?
The study by Japanese scientists was a *global* temperature study, your part of the world is not on the earth?
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.
I don't see what's so funny, they're one of the few groups untainted by the widespread liberal pro-warming bias the climatologists lean on to fill their coffers.
In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
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
Actually, they're taxing the air we can't breathe.
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
Actually the summary is fairly untainted by facts. For instance:
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?
Except...
1) Arctic sea ice is actually currently above last year's level, which was already a rebound of over 25 million square km more than the previous year at the minimum extents.
2) The ocean waters in the North Atlantic hurricane region are right around average for this time of year, by no means "abnormally warm".
3) "Rashes of heat waves plague" various places every summer, and always have. NOAA recently reinstated 1934 as the hottest year in the US on record.
The article attacking the Heartland data does have a minor point, but it is absolutely true that temperatures have been essentially flat for around 17 years, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers trying to explain this pause, so it's clearly a real phenomena. We'll see if it continues, the El Nino this year is now expected to be a fairly minor event.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
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 !
This looks like a temperature map of the WHOLE EARTH to me, found on the source site after about 10 seconds of terribly difficult clicking on a couple of buttons.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Is the last sentence of the first article good enough for you?
In April, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a monthly average of 400 parts per million for the first time in at least 800,000 years.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I thought the MWP was a full three degrees warmer then the 1990's. Which were warmer then now.
What you think, is, of course, your own problem (although the "a full three degrees warmer" must come from some very creative interpretation of the record). But how do you get the ideas that the 1990's were warmer than it is now? The 1990s were about 0.2 degree C colder than 2013, and this year will most likely be warmer still. There was one exceptional year (1998) that was marginally warmer than 2013. Of course, these short-term trends are heavily influenced by noise, so the significance of these results is low. But that's no reason to make wrong claims.
Stephan
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!" The summary of this article then uses the past three months and declares it proof of climate change.
I realize that the actual article is more subtle, but I believe the point OP is making was that if you don't want "Polar Vortex" to be used as an argument against climate change, you probably shouldn't use "heat wave" as an argument in favor.
Taken as a whole, the trend is clear. Leading with a headline "last three months hottest ever" is only going to remind people in DC that they just experienced the coldest winter in 20 years and the most snow ever recorded.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
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.
Err, the first chart you've linked to shows the sea ice curve being shifted progressively lower on the chart with each passing year.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.
Are you trying to imply that corporations, such as the cap-and-trade corporations Al Gore is associated with, are NOT big business? That universities are not big business? That EPA is not big business?
I'm just wondering about your logic here.
Further, by now there has been plenty of "anti-science" demonstrated on BOTH sides. It isn't very credible to single one side out without at least mentioning the failures of the other.
I love going out with my climate scientist friends! We hit the town at about 9:00, pop open the Dom Perignon and hit the clubs. We usually roll up in a stretch Hummer while they scream out the window "We're climatoligists, bitches!" At the strip club they'll usually make it precipitate with hundred dollar bills, much to the enjoyment of the strippers. After a few well-meaning puns (let me show you my hockey stick graph), we'll head back to the champagne room for cocaine and asthma inhalers. These scientists are rolling in so much money, fame, and 'tang that it's not surprising that 97% of them are so out of it that they reach a consensus on climate change.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
And your weather anecdote constitutes global data somehow. I am suitably impressed.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
And every time we have an unusual hurricane, the people who were saying "weather is not climate" point at the hurricane and say "see, proof positive of global warming!".
Guys, weather is NOT climate. Even when the weather supports your side of the argument, it's not climate.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
they're one of the few groups untainted by the widespread liberal pro-warming bias
Well, reality does indeed have a well known liberal bias.
If an accumulation of statistics isn't your idea of direct evidence, I strongly advise you to avoid the sciences.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What the fuck are you on about. They were not talking about Japan's climate. They were talking about Japan's records for global data.
Also, NASA's global data said the same thing. Yes, they were collecting data for the globe, not for NASA.
Talk about bias.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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?
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.
There is a difference in semantics between "shows" and "claims" that you seem to not be aware of. The so-called NIPCC is a front for Heartland, and consists of a changing but minuscule group of well-known deniers. Their report is a transparent piece of propaganda for everyone who has at least a basic scientific understanding.
Stephan
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?
Wow, way to totally miss the point. I am not even going to bother putting into words why you are wrong since everyone (including probably yourself) knows what was actually meant by that analogy.
-AndrewBuck
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.
I guarantee you: The Japanese Meteorological Agency was not in Antarctica (or Argentina, or Equador, or Ethiopia, .. or even the U.S.) in the 1890s, or even the 1980s.
If you look carefully, you'll see the map that you refer to shows "temperature anomalies" of up to +/- 5 degrees C from a "1981 to 2010 baseline". (See all the blue on the map? That means many places globally were cooler from the baseline.) That hardly shows global warming. It also does not show the "global" records that you want it to.
Do you think you can treat me as though I .... wasn't an idiot?
Your second chart shows a positive temperature anomaly over most of the area covered.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Actually, they're taxing the air that plants breathe. Or the air that we eat.
"And every time we have an unusual hurricane, the people who were saying 'weather is not climate' point at the hurricane and say 'see, proof positive of global warming!'
No, actually we don't. The most anyone credible will say is that a warmer climate might mean more intense and more frequent storms.
, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history,
Are you sure about that?
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!"
Oh, sure. All the great innovations that business and corporations have developed were clearly the result of rejecting science. Idiot.
The subject line that the data covers only Japan is disproved. I didn't call you an idiot. Just pointed out that the assertion is wrong and trivially verifiably so.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming"
Probably because alarmists say things like "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" and " winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event".
(David Viner, senior research scientist, Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,2000)
http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
What gets me about cherry picking is that it's so common among the deniers that(from what I've seen and tried to understand of their behavior) they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
And what the fuck are you on about? Do you claim that the Japanese Meteorological Agency has global records (as in for a good distribution of the Earth) back to 1891? Do you think that NASA has that? (You know, the agency that goes back to the 1950's?)
You don't have just bias. You have an impossible fantasy.
Nope. 2012 was a record low minimum, but 2013 was a significant rebound. This year is slightly above 2013 levels so far, contrary to the summary's alarmism.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
800,000 thousand years? That sure sounds like a long time, but I'm just an ignorant, lowly human. Didn't some of the largest life forms in the history of the world exist when we had much, much higher concentrations of CO2?
Yep, just no humans. Or any of our current livestock.
Sounds great. No livestock, huge predators. Sign me up.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Carbon dioxide is part of the atmosphere. You cannot avoid inhaling it unless you have a very unique gill system.
It's very close to average, with the main development region flat or below normal. The highest anomalies are well north of hurricane formation territory.
Regardless, the temperatures on that map are well within natural variability, not "abnormally warm". Also bear in mind that the "anomalies" are versus an arbitrarily chosen baseline in the first place.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
What did the huge predators eat?
I'm not sure how a level that's still lower than almost all of the years that preceded it is "a significant rebound". If I was getting shorter by a foot a decade and one year I found I grew by an inch, I'd not take much solace in the fact.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
How can you possibly know when NASA was founded? Were you born in the 1940s?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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 ?
I'm repeating a few things others have said in reply to your post but adding on here to help fill up your /. side bar...
1) Like the first guy said, your chart shows sea ice area is clearly near the bottom. The summary says "trending near", not absolute lows. So you proved that point for them.
2)Your temperature graph shows quite a bit of white but on the whole, there is a lot more red tint than blue, especially considering the scale is over +/- 10C. Ask any 5 year old what the main color is for the ocean and they'll say red. Its obviously abnormally warm.
Every now and then I go down your "informed skeptic" rabbit holes to make sure I didn't miss anything in my personal conclusion that AGW is real and a problem, but every time the data YOU present always ends up refuting your point. Whats your game in all this?
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?
People who use being Libertarian to rationalize their actions mostly fall into those two camps.
Actual Libertarians, who certainly want less regulation, live in the real word, and understand that without some regulation, we'd fish to extinction and deforest ourselves to death (faster than we are). Actual Libertarians wouldn't dump their waste anywhere, because they know their rights end at their nose -- and not the public water supply.
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.)
Which is why the GW advocates should not make "The weather will get bad" pronouncements because they cannot know.
I remember all the "More severe weather" forecasts being made by the advocates back when Al Gore made his movie, problem is, just about every prediction of dire consequences has not happened. Observations have been both exactly the opposite of the predictions, and/or not anywhere as severe as expected.
Problem is though, that the GW advocates need to create some kind of crisis or nobody will care and their addenda cannot go forward, so every hurricane or drought is held up as "Proof" of GW, while the truth is, the weather has always changed over time. The knife cuts both ways though, every time there is an unusually cold winter, we laugh at the GW conferences attendees sloshing though the snow to get to their convention...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
When you've decided that intellectual integrity is the enemy, serious charges about lacking it become trite dismissals.
Not only no livestock and huge predators, but also much higher sea levels, with most of inland North America (and probably Australia) flooded year-round and under water. That'll be great for farming!
Only the shills view intellectual integrity as an enemy. On slashdot we mostly face the dupes.
But I'd probably have to start consuming more energy states recent research.
Perhaps the section on the artic sea ice was written on day 67 ? That was valid on that date :)
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.
everything you said has been debunked by actual facts.
No, it is NOT true that temperatures have been essentially flat.
The sea ice is only a "rebound" because its being compared to the previous year which was THE LOWEST SEA ICE EVER RECORDED.
Thank you for the public service of displaying your ignorance, now go away.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's more than an inch. A lot of fishing and shipping businesses in the Bering Sea and north of Alaska have closed down for a month the past 3 years. Before that, it hadn't happened in decades.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Sorry, "north of Canada".
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Sure, because they haven't collected data from other data sources, right?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Proto humans.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
OK, so you get, on average, shorter by a foot a year for 5 years then you grow 3 foot on the 5th, you are still on a downward decline base don the slope of the curve, just not as much of a downward slope.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Better make sure there's a True Scottsman around for us to verify your statement with.
That is all.
A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014
Why not? What prevents them from requesting data from other national science bodies? Is there some sort of science embargo on Japan that I don't know about?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Dinosaurs ate proto-humans? I'm talking about the period when CO2 levels were much, much higher.
North America was much closer to the equator and the topography was entirely different.
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.
I was making a joke.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Here's the quote again from the article: "The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins."
"its" is a possessive word, meaning that it belongs to the Agency. I hardly think that this Agency has combed the globe collecting temperature readings back to the days of bulb thermometers. (You know, those alpaca herders in Peru kept surprisingly good and accurate logs ... not!) I have no doubt that the dataset referred to is that collected by the Japanese Agency alone, specifically on Japanese-governed lands and territories. If you want to prove me wrong, then have at it.
It would be nice if there were a global (as in the whole Earth) dataset that could be used to prove global climate change back to the 1890s. The reality is that what is available is incomplete and of limited accuracy.
In my whole life. I guess they mean other parts of the world?
http://xkcd.com/1321/
You are a block head.
Just because their instruments and their people didn't collect the data does not mean it is not in their dataset.
If the UN did a world population count, could they use each country's census (if available) or not?
You seem to believe that they can't, and that each country's data would not be valid because the UN didn't count it themselves.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Data probably came from many places, on weather underground I see that thigh for my location was set in 1934. But how do they know that, thats unpossible!!!!!
You are wrong good sir, it is entirely possible that they got enough data from other agencies and old records to make their conclusions. You not being able to understand that does not reflect upon the study in any way shape or form. It just makes you look like you are trying to discredit a study that you do not like because it does not click with your own biased conclusions.
I have no doubt that the dataset referred to is that collected by the Japanese Agency alone, specifically on Japanese-governed lands and territories. If you want to prove me wrong, then have at it.
Here's your proof. Not that you'll believe it. It took all of 3 clicks from the first article to find it.
"JMA monitors the global climate with CLIMAT and SYNOP reports from NMHSs through the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) of WMO. Quality-checked data on temperature and precipitation are assembled to assess extreme climate events. Weekly, monthly and seasonal monitoring reports on extreme climate events with brief descriptions of disastrous events are available on this page, along with world distribution maps of temperature and precipitation. "
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t...
Additionally, they have a completely separate page for climate in Japan. Not that you'll believe that either.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Because at least for the 1890s and probably through the mid-1900s: (1) the available technology/recording was not as accurate as today's digital thermometers, (2) there was no global standards body that regulated all thermometers across the Earth, and (3) the records available would be from whatever exists after adverse historical events (wars, coups, disasters, etc.) For example, you might be able to find temperature records for India in British hands. But even if you did, the accuracy would be questionable as the technology used was bulb thermometers (hopefully) calibrated to some known reference temperature (such as the freezing point of water). You'd be relying upon the diligence of some official (or even worse soldier) who probably didn't care much beyond recording "hot" and "very hot".
A Japanese meteorologist wouldn't try to use that kind of data against the data available now (by automated stations that are calibrated exactly).
Coward: there isn't the data there to support your conclusions. Declaring there is and belittling my valid points won't change that.
After reading your description I had my first ever moment of wanting to be a climatologist.
Easy, short farming and go long aquaculture, instant profit!
If I am a block head, then I don't even want to say what you appear to be:
The U.N. didn't exist until 1948 (if memory serves). For your population count: many countries have never bothered to take a census. Their populations are inferred by whatever evidence is available.
So, pray tell, what reliable data has this Japanese Agency imported into its global dataset?
You are very right that I am biased. I am biased to studies that were conducted using reliable data. You will not get reliable data back to 1891 (as the author claims) for a majority of locations on the Earth. You may have reliable data for your particular terrestrial location; that hardly shows that there is reliable data for the entire globe.
I understand very well, "good sir".
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?
Way to move the goal posts from your challenge.
I knew you wouldn't believe it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So the UN couldn't use censuses that were taken before 1948?
Did that data just not exist?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
What happened to Arctic sea ice in 2013 is known as regression to the mean. If that trend continues over the next 10 years or so then you might have something, otherwise you're just getting excited over a blip on the long term trend.
I can't stop you from exhibiting your lack of attention. I certainly do not believe that (and again I quote from the article) that:
The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins.
That goalpost is and was 1891. Ignore it if you want to...
I was rebutting your assertions that (1) there was a reliable census taken for each individual country (2) there was a United Nations that could compile such a world census, and (3) that those (fictional) capabilities showed that there were reliable data sets for the Japanese.
And, no, generally there were no censuses taken before 1948 (and even today) for many/most countries of the world. The reason it is done historically in the U.S. is because that's how the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are apportioned (and today for other reasons as well such as for federal funds transferred to the states.)
If you're right and I am wrong, it should be easy to prove with a link. Go right ahead...
Not to mention Carbon Dioxide! Dear God, won't somebody think of the Carbon Dioxide!
People love to assume links contain valid information (based on headlines or URLs at most) rather than read them and check, so she could link to goatse every time and come across as an "informed skeptic" to some large fraction of readers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Your invocation of the word "proof" suggests you know fuck all about science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If they don't unequivocally keep proving something that supposedly has already been proven, they don't keep their jobs.
Yep that's why Einstein got fired from Science Inc. and died in obscurity. Whatever theory is established first becomes dogma forever, which is why we still believe in geocentrism, spontaneous generation and the classical elements.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Addendum: And if you do take the time to refute the supposed connection between the point presented in the post and the information in the link (or sometimes the info in the link itself), then you have fallen into a Research Glue Trap. Quick and easy for the trapper to lay down, nasty work for you to trudge through, and all it really accomplished was to waste your time and effort.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right? Except...
Except nothing. You can nitpick by look at this year or that, but look at the trend. Summer minimum extent has dropped by half and is accelerating: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
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".
Because they prefer the truth over racism.
Better let the medical community know this, the gold standard for measurements whether for blood pressure, or temperature is still mercury filled devices.
Om, nomnomnom...
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. -
Also, sea levels were much higher - like, over a hundred meters higher. Higher enough to sell ocean-front property in Kansas - here's a neat toy to visualize sea level increases with current geography:
http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/
Sadly, it's a Java Applet, meaning you'll have to fight through permissions and version updates and crap, but if you can get past that, it's a good demonstration of why melting the ice caps is a bad idea, especially if you live in Florida or Louisiana.
Well, I hear Kelp is pretty popular these days among the health-food crowd.
Did you propose a free market solution to an argument? I..I...was told that couldn't be done.
Not too familiar with Einstein's career and the massive amount of "consensus"-based opposition he had to deal with, I take it.
You say that like it's a bad thing, it was part of the system working to rigorously test new theories on fundamental laws of physics. And it worked.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.
Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking. The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.
"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.
The same process that reduces Arctic ice (warming), increases Antarctic ice (warming). The difference is that the sea ice in Antarctica comes from the land. Also there is some increase in mainland ice in Antarctica due to the increased moisture in the air (also due to warming) as normally Antarctic air is dry like a desert. Regardless, both places are losing ice in the long run. Adding Arctic sea-ice coverage to Antarctic sea-ice coverage to say that everything is ok is just trying to spin the facts to suit your politics. The science is quite clear.
Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!"
Brisbane (QLD Australia) has last week had the coldest Winter morning in 102 years, many people are saying "what global warming?" :-(
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!
I haven't seen a mercury-filled blood pressure cuff in several decades, and when they take my temperature they stick a little electronic thing in my ear.
That's nice, they're in use all over Canada and Europe. After all, who wouldn't want a highly accurate manometer to check blood pressure. Or as every doctor I've run across put's it "more accurate than the cheap chunk of plastic that stops working all the time, while being highly inaccurate." Oh and in most cases, they use one on the end of your finger. But they still use mercury thermometers for a reason.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's true that the last three months being the hottest ever in the global temperature record is not proof of global warming and could turn out to just be a blip in the record. But on the other hand it's something you would expect to happen with some regularity in a globally warming world. Chances are it's just another brick in the wall of evidence for global warming.
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.
> 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
No matter any medium-sized volcano can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do in a century of industrial production ...
I stopped reading when I got to that line. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released about 42 million tonnes of CO2. That's less than 0.2% compared to the 23 billion tonnes released by humans that year,
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?
, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history,
Are you sure about that?
Why, aren't you?
Note: he said "in history". Yes, prehistoric levels have been higher.
Try looking at actual data. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere.
Dr Roy Spencer doesn't agree that RSS is the best.
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearsâ¦we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.
I could have sworn I replied to this before, but yes I'm sure. Prehistory is a different thing.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.
Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking.
Nothing in particular. Here's the last 10 years (you know, the 10 years with the highest CO2 levels in history) of UAH data, showing a dead flat temperature trend. The point being, warming has definitely paused on around a decadal time scale. Will it last longer? That's a very interesting question. Solar activity, despite being near a maximum in the 11 year cycle, is low. The interesting thing is that the next cycle (forecast to begin roughly around 2020) is predicted to be extremely low - so low that a sunspot will be a rare event for 12-15 years (weak solar cycles are also longer). Such low cycles have historically been associated with quite significant temperature drops. So, we may in fact see flat or declining temperatures through 2035 or longer. That will be quite a shock for the alarmists if it works out that way. :-)
BTW, it may not be only lower solar irradiance that's responsible for lower temperatures, there may be other effects having to do with the solar wind and/or the solar magnetic field.
The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.
Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data. The relevant Wikipedia article contains no mention of such a thing...
At any rate, this chart shows the close agreement between the two datasets.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The same process that reduces Arctic ice (warming), increases Antarctic ice (warming).
That is one hypothesis, and an unproven one.
The difference is that the sea ice in Antarctica comes from the land.
No, almost all of it comes from freezing seawater.
Also there is some increase in mainland ice in Antarctica due to the increased moisture in the air (also due to warming) as normally Antarctic air is dry like a desert.
Right, it never snows in Antarctica...the miles-thick sheets of ice appeared by magic. Got it.
Regardless, both places are losing ice in the long run.
That of course remains to be seen. Also be clear on sea ice versus landlocked ice. Some parts of the antarctic icecap are growing.
Adding Arctic sea-ice coverage to Antarctic sea-ice coverage to say that everything is ok is just trying to spin the facts to suit your politics.
No, it's an objective look at polar sea ice based on the only directly measurable metric. Your interpretation of that is exactly that - one interpretation. Furthermore, you should reflect (oops, bad pun) on the fact that the additional antarctic sea ice increases albedo and thus has a net cooling effect - the same argument used to say that arctic sea ice loss is increasing arctic ocean heating.
The science is quite clear.
No, the science is not clear. What is clear is the desperation of those shouting "the science is settled" while stubborn reality continues to contradict the beautiful theories and models. :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
"libertarian think tank Heartland Institute". I'd like to know why libertarian organisations even have an opinion about climate change. From what I've seen, their opinion is always hostile to the idea that it's actually happening. It seems to be completely off-topic to their mission, which is purely economics. If they want to be climate scientists, why don't they do it properly and publish their research in peer-reviewed journals?
Every now and then I go down your "informed skeptic" rabbit holes to make sure I didn't miss anything in my personal conclusion that AGW is real and a problem, but every time the data YOU present always ends up refuting your point.
Don't worry, they all came away just as convinced and reassured as to the irrefutability of their conclusions.
I stole this Sig
Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data.
Dr. Roy Spencer on the divergence between UAH and RSS global temperature records.
Of course 10 or even 20 years is too short a period to form any meaningful conclusions on surface temperature trends. Natural variability is large enough to overcome the underlying warming trend in that short a period. There's a reason that the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years. Meanwhile the oceans continue to heat up without pause.
We'll see what future temperature trends bring but I doubt that an extremely low solar cycle will be enough to stop rising temperatures.
That's fun, but also hugely irrelevant.
OK, then if we narrow the scope to what is generally regarded as the historic era, we are looking at about 5,000 years. A relative microsecond in the life of planet Earth.
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.
Slashdot poster thinks AGW means that all related measures must continue monotonically, and therefore that more Arctic sea ice than two years ago disproves something. GIFs at 11.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It broke 400ppm not that long ago. That's the highest level in history. It's not anywhere near the highest level in the geological records, but the really high CO2 levels tended to go along with conditions we really wouldn't like, even with the slightly cooler Sun back then.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The summary claims that these were the three warmest months in history, measured all over the world. That isn't proof of global warming, and I don't think anybody said it was. It's evidence of global warming, sure. I'm pretty sure global warming has caused serious problems, although it's impossible to say "X event was a result of global warming".
Also, while last winter here was really cold, the theory predicts global warming, which means they average temperatures where we're freezing our asses off with temperatures where other people are fanning themselves and wishing the heat would break.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Last time I read a Libertarian party platform, it said individual people should sue companies that cause them harm with emissions. I have no idea how they expect to pay for ramping up the number of civil lawsuits by several orders of magnitude.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The weather will get bad in many places, with continued global warming. Various areas are probably suffering from it right now, it's just that we don't know which areas and how much influence.
By "GW advocate", you are referring to the nonscientists, aren't you? There's a bunch of idiots on both sides, but the science seems to be rather one-sided.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The weather will get bad in many places, with continued global warming. Various areas are probably suffering from it right now, it's just that we don't know which areas and how much influence.
How can that be given the dire predictions that have been made? Certainly if man made GW was real there would be no doubt as to the affects it caused, yet here is the unvarnished truth. "We just don't know which areas and how much influence" GW may cause or has already caused (to paraphrase your comment above). Even without knowing though, you are willing to proclaim that things will get worse. I'm not so willing to just accept the party line until there is evidence that we know enough to predict with some known level of accuracy what's going to happen from some climate model or simulation. All we've proven so far is that our models suck for predicting the future.
By "GW advocate", you are referring to the nonscientists, aren't you? There's a bunch of idiots on both sides, but the science seems to be rather one-sided.
Idiots abound, that much is certain. But I'm not so sure about one-sided science. I've seen some pretty good science on both sides. What we really have is once side who wants to claim the question is settled calling the other side names. Global Warming has become a social issue, more than a scientific one, which is dangerous to *real* science. We haven't had any lynchings or mobs burning deniers at the stake yet, but we are approaching that level of intolerance within the idiot community you mention. Thoughtful science that doesn't support the accepted "fact" is not tolerated, but dismissed outright. Which is a sad state of affairs for the real scientific community and exposes them for what they really are... Human like the rest of us..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
After all, who wouldn't want a highly accurate manometer to check blood pressure.
Someone who wants a portable device that can go to the patient wherever he is, doesn't contain a liquid, reasonably volatile poison, and doesn't require a hazmat response when dropped on the floor, as well as anyone who realizes that "highly accurate" isn't necessary when dealing with numbers that can change by 10% just by thinking about it. Be honest, is there a real difference between 121/76 and 122/74? No.
Or as every doctor I've run across put's it "more accurate than the cheap chunk of plastic that stops working all the time, while being highly inaccurate."
False dichotomy. "Not a mercury manometer" doesn't necessarily mean "cheap chunk of plastic". In fact, I've not see any "cheap chunk of plastic" blood pressure cuffs in use anywhere I've been. Yes, you can buy a cheap home unit, but then you've created your own problem if you try to use units intended for home use in a professional medical practice.
Oh and in most cases, they use one on the end of your finger.
I don't seem to have "one on the end of [my] finger". I don't know of a blood pressure cuff that goes on the end of a finger. I know of pulse oxymeters that clip on there, are you perhaps confusing the two?
But they still use mercury thermometers for a reason.
I still use a mercury thermometer at home for a reason: because I already own it and don't see a need to replace it. It is, however, less accurate than an electronic device, harder to read, takes longer to use, and requires more care in cleaning and more cleaning. It's also a hazard if broken, especially if broken while in use. Let it slip while "resetting" it and you've got a mess to clean up. Those are the reasons I've not seen one in use in a medical facility for decades, at least in the US. If they still use them in the EU and Canada, then the EU and Canada don't have the quality of medical care that everyone claims. They're focusing on "highly accurate" measurements of transient values instead of treating the patient.
Another honesty check: does it really make a difference in patient care if the patient's temperature is just 100.3F instead of 100.4F? What does that "highly accurate" get you?
I am a strident skeptic, but am interested in your statement that warming will reduce Arctic Ice while increasing antarctic ice. Do you have a link that could explain that to me?
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!
How the bleep do you expect to classify weather events on the basis of cause by global warming? (You don't know anything about climate science if you think you've seen good science on both sides.) Do you know anything about weather? It's chaotic. Without global warming, we'd have entirely different weather, so, yes, everything is partly caused by global warming. That isn't a real useful conclusion, though. What we want to know is how the weather compares, and that's real hard to do. We wouldn't have had Sandy without global warming. What would we have had instead?
What "thoughtful science" have you seen that is against global warming? Have you looked at it? Are you sure it isn't crap science? That's what I usually see trotted out by people who don't agree with AGW, unless they use baseless ad hominems or strawman arguments.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
no, the science is EXTREMELY clear.
and you are an idiot, who repeatedly quotes non-experts and non-scientists or scientists who are not subject matter experts.
reality DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE MODELS. the fact is that reality has continually proven the models right.
every single line of evidence, and we're talking about hundreds of different data sets, that scientists have thought to look at all say the same thing: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IT IS GETTING WARMER.
It's like instead of listening to Einstein about relativity, or Hawking about black holes, you've chosen to go with Bob the janitor.
Well I got news for you, Good Will Hunting was just a movie.
1) it's not unproven, it's proven by every dataset taken so far. Western antartica is decreased by warming, the west is increased, because of the shifted wather patterns of moisture over the continent.
2) No. Sea Ice does NOT come from freezong seawater. Sea ice comes from calving ice sheets, which is fresh water. if sea ice came from seawater the seas would form and experience similar dynamics as freezing lakes and rivers, with kernals of ice growing frm contact with the surrounding seas. That fact you could even state this shows how stupid you are.
3) You are apparently unaware that antarctica is the driest "desert" on the planet. No, it doesn't snow down there. precipitation is nearly nonexistant. The ice sheet is not in a constantly stay of replenishment; in fact, that's WHY the western sheet is disappearing and showing a dramatic decrease in mass. the ice sheets are ANCIENT. again: you are stupid and completely ignorant of basic facts concerning Antarctica.
4) it does not remain to be seen. You apparently missed the big press release a month ago, or so, about the western sheet losing mass at and even faster rate than expected. and again: it is NOT gaining land ice, it is gaining SEA ICE, which DOES NOT indicate cooling. it indicates the opposite, because of the source of sea ice.
Idiot, educate thyself, with actual science, from actual scientists: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.