Slashdot Mirror
NOAA: Global Warming 'Pause' Never Happened
Taco Cowboy writes: The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever. Researchers from the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have published a new study in Science saying there was no "pause" in global warming. Dr. Thomas Karl points out that the warming rate over the past 15 years is "virtually identical" to warming over the last century, and updated observations show temperatures did not plateau.
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
What is the temperature of the Earth *supposed* to be?
IOW, what is the *ideal* temperature for the planet, and while you're at it, show your work explaining how that particular number was derived.
It seems to me that the AGW folks chose temps circa 1850 or so as the gold standard, at least partly (but to me probably mostly) because that's about when decent measurements and record keeping began. Of course this ignores all temperature variations that preceded that.
I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so. You may see that as a ludicrously arbitrary data point, and it is -- in the abstract. We don't live in an abstract world, however. We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed. You might not care about such things, preferring the smug safety of your abstract world. But most of the rest of us DO actually care whether the world we live in -- the civilization we have built -- will continue to be viable.
TL;DR: Take your smug abstraction and shove it up your sociopathic ass.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The only thing your post proves is that you are utterly ignorant of basic biology and paleontology. Proving yourself stupid on two things at once ... you should run for Congress. The republican party loves candidates like you.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Anti vaxxers like Rand Paul ? I'm. Not saying the democrats are always pro science but the republicans are always anti science and never pro science.
What is it about Republicans them makes so anti-science? I don't think they are uniformly anti-science, but rather they think of science in different ways depending upon the end result they are aiming for. In general:
1. Science conflicts (in their eyes) with Christianity (many Muslims believe it conflicts with Islam in the same sense). Science tells them we evolved which contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible.
2. Science costs money. This conflicts with their general idea that the Federal government spending money is somehow bad. They do not think of Science as an investment. Rather, they believe Science just happens spontaneously by universities and companies, with a preference for the latter because then they can see something tangible. This is very close to them thinking that all theory is wasted, just produce something from the research, no one needs no stinkin' theory.
3. Scientists are mostly left of center. Well, those at unis are, so Republicans will be damned if they are going to support them via Federal research grants.
4. Science conflicts with their thirst for profits so they can retire in luxury, preferably before they are 40. Science says there are external costs that should be considered (global warming, etc.) which, if they were paid for, would reduce them to retiring at 65. This is dangerously close to their belief that G-d said in the Bible that man shall have dominion over all the Earth and all its creatures...which they interpret as being able to screw it up to their hearts content. And if they screw too hard, Jesus will come back to save them or tell them to stop screwing because they are producing too many mouths to feed...Jesus will provide, they can generate as many sprogs as they like.
5. They are essentially that crowd of hacks you saw in high school that were part of the cool crowd who miserably failed to learn anything, last of all science (the Left has a lot of these as well). So they do not know what to make of it. Science is confusing, it takes a lot of time to understand much less so, to do, so better relegate it to the uncool crowd they remember from high school that they never liked in the first place.