This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured (scienceblogs.com)

GregLaden writes: Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record-breaking months. Now, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA have identified October as an extraordinary month. October 2016 is significantly warmer than any other in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880.

Comments

Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

(Oh, and trying to stop it is like trying to stop the Earth from rotating)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[dywolf]

Not the point.
Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Glock27]

You'd better take a long look at my post below regarding satellite measurements. The recent trumpeting of warmest this and that is highly suspect - including the "2014 is the warmest year on record" claim.

It's enough to make you think there's a hidden agenda or something...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[phishybongwaters]

I'm in Canada, and we're seeing the effects clear as day, longest warmest summers I've ever experienced, harshest winters when they hit.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault. Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.

True science needs deniers:

That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. - - Jacob Bronowski

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along! Our views on global climate change are based on we *think* is right, based on the facts that we have today. In another 100 years, things might look very differently. Hey, using blood-sucking leeches to treat sick folks seemed like a good idea a while back! The gag is, blood-sucking leeches are back in fashion in modern medicine: it turns out that they are very useful in restoring blood flow to skin transplants.

Even Einstein himself, probably one of the most gifted minds that ever walked on this planet, had problems with that newfangled Quantum Theory:

Einstein: "God does not play dice!"

Niels Bohr: "Stop telling God what to do!"

Erwin Schrödinger: "So, is like, my cat dead or alive . . . ?"

Einstein: "If I had my way, all those cats would be dead! They pee on my furniture, and shit in my shoes!"

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Im in Texas and it was the coolest, wettest summer I've ever experienced!

But our experiences are nanoseconds in the geological sense.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Jason Levine]

And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. Also, warmer weather means less lakes freeze over which means more lake effect snow. So a warming climate CAN lead to more snow despite the claims of certain politicians who claim that seeing snow outside proves global warming wrong.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[rs79]

Try going outside. You appear to be in a condo in Vancouver. You may be on heroin.

It's been so cold in Canada in the last three years we've broken dozens if not hundreds of cold record temperature records:

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...

We've not broken one for warm/hot, just record cold.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

"Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot."

The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years."

Frost in late may/early June? Welcome to Canada, eh?

http://www.quintenews.com/2015...

Niagra falls has frozen about 7 times in 200 years. Last year and the year before were two of those times.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Plus, you know, the Arctic sea ice has grown so much - because it's unseasonabley cold and hs been for a decade according to the NOAA - that we have to redraw the maps becvause of eht INCREASE IN ARCTIC SEA ICE. There's more of it now than when "global warming" started.

I'd have to say, as a Canadian living in Canada you don't see a lot of global warming here. More like the next ice age.

One scientist who predicted this in 2008 had his work vetted by CERN and NASA and botttom line: 27 more years of this cold then it'll warm again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

Look at the number of temperature records set for cold and hot worldwide. I believe that explains why they're so desperate to prove a hot climate record. It's because they keep trying to prove one, keep being corrected when it's pointed out it's not really a record in a field of so many cold weather records.

Can't say there's any sign of warming in Canada. The current Indian Summer, a first in a decade is not a sign the planet is warming, Sparky.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not talking the right change, if you are calling summer, winter. That is seasons, like salt and pepper. Which is funny, we had early frost in the Midwest. And the usual tree changes were early, along with the first snow contests. No winner yet. Trees aren't bare yet, so looking for an early season. That will not be entered into the record books. But, if I remember right, the 1(880's had the big killing blizzards in late fall that killed the cowboys and school kids returning from school, supposedly went from barefoot go to school, to zero in hours.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[RabidReindeer]

True science needs deniers:

No, True science needs challengers.

You can deny the Gravitational Theory all you want, but if I drop an anvil on your head, you're still dead.

On the other hand, if someone challenges that gravity must inevitably operate in such and such a way and that leads to development of anti-grav technology, that's True science.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!

Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.

For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.

And this is the hallmark of the true science denier: he wants to use the fact that science is allways in motion to promote the notion that nothing is ever certain. I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.

Einsteins theories have not supplanted Newton's theory gave an extension for elementary particles. BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Opportunist]

Yeah, and allow me to debunk it: They want to continue living on this planet.

I know, I know, it's so obvious once someone says it...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Maritz]

Yeah but snow is COLD. Come on man.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Maritz]

The fact that you think that any of that is evidence against AGW speaks volumes.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Maritz]

Yeah congrats you're playing the role of the creationist, but in the climate arena. Take a bow son.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[NotDrWho]

The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.). Most proponents today sound less like reasonable people and more and more like shrill cultists holding up placards proclaiming the end is nigh.

It also disturbs me that AGW proponents have not only created an echo-chamber for themselves within the university system, but have also carefully tailored what appears to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's very difficult to conceive of any data that could contradict it. And when data DOES come along that seemingly does contradict it--rather than reconsidering the hypothesis itself, proponents merely "adjust" the data until it nicely fits the hypothesis again.

Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot. This very report cites October as the hottest October on record as evidence of global warming. Will it therefore be evidence AGAINST global warming if this December is the coldest December on record? Or will the same people who cited this report as AGW evidence suddenly dismiss that as "just a minor weather pattern, not related to climate."? Or maybe the data would somehow be cleverly be "adjusted" until December turns into the hottest on record instead (you see, that initial data didn't take into account a huge adjustment for ocean currents being very strong in the Indian Ocean this year, therefore we have to adjust it up several degrees to compensate).

I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else curious that they reference October 2016 in the article, not 2015? I'm not sure that I can trust this information, maybe it needs another correction. :-)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[AthanasiusKircher]

True science needs deniers:

That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. - - Jacob Bronowski

Your quotation is not the attitude of a "denier" -- it is the attitude of a curious mind who is not a "believer" and is willing to ask questions. Yes, this is a generalization, but most "deniers" of climate change aren't necessarily well-versed in the details of climatology, but are nevertheless convinced that they have found the "truth" which apparently has escaped the notice of most experts in the field. And, more importantly, they will seek out any random data points -- no matter how irrelevant -- to support their predetermined belief .

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along! Our views on global climate change are based on we *think* is right, based on the facts that we have today. In another 100 years, things might look very differently.

I think you've missed the entire point of the Scientific Revolution. With Newton came a new possibility in science, namely the acceptance of a mathematical model as a description for reality, even if the "real world" causes couldn't be nailed down completely.

This is what got Galileo in trouble, for example. It wasn't that he was interested in the Copernican mathematical model -- the Church was fine with people using whatever mathematical predictive models they wanted. But Galileo was tried because he wanted to assert that he had found the TRUE order of the cosmos, not merely a better mathematical model.

Newton changed that. Rather than Aristotle's physics, which asserted that everything in the universe tended toward rest in its "natural place," Newton said that things were driven by "unseen forces" like gravity, which previously had been associated with occult and magical phenomena (not the stuff "scientists" of the day would dabble in).

But Newton got around this problem by admitting that he wasn't necessarily asserting the TRUTH of the reality of these unseen forces... only that his mathematical model worked better assuming they existed. And it had great predictive power. This became the model for modern science.

And that's a fundamental distinction that's often lost on people who misunderstand scientific methodology -- those Newton-like mathematical models are rarely falsified completely. The explanations for exactly why they occur may be falsified or explained in a different way, but the math is often what drives science these days.

In that sense, Newton's math model of physics was never falsified -- it was merely tweaked by Einstein to accommodate weird phenomena at unusual speeds and under other conditions rarely observed back in the 18th century. Similarly, we could even say that phlogiston as a mathematical model was never really falsified -- the explanation changed from a substance in combustible materials to a gaseous fuel (oxygen), but the weird mathematical properties ascribed to phlogiston (negative mass, etc.) still modeled the phenomena.

To return to the present case -- there is a real trend and climate scientists have mathematical predictive models to describe it. Yes, the explanations of what exactly is going on may change, but it's unlikely that the underlying mathematical patterns will be completely "falsified," just like Newton's mathematical models are still taught in schools, because they basically work for common scenarios.

Also, there's lots of climate data, and humans have natural cognitive biases that lead them to find patterns in even random data. That's why we need experts who spend most of their days sifting through this data to try to separate the real trends from random data points.

But then the "denier" comes along and says, "Uh, but what about this one? But what about this one?" The denier wants to cherry-pick data points or data sets to s

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

http://www.vancouversun.com/te...

64 temperature records smashed in B.C.
Weather experts are now predicting June will be Vancouver's hottest on record
Vancouver Sun June 30, 2015
Fuck you.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Mary Mother of Jesus! Somebody is actually running this argument.

Oblig.

At least try FFS. I want at least a medieval warm period and little ice age argument in here. What did you have for breakfast? They say you are what you eat. When I look at you, I see a cream cheese bagel! I expect more out of my trolls!

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Einstein has been proven by experiments in short time. Tony Wazzup and his merry band of geologists have not been after many years.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, here in Maine, it's cold. It was so cold one day in October that it started spitting snow. I wish we'd see some of this warming.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[breech1]

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!

Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.

You were doing ok until the `but'. Relativity applies to everything (matter + energy) in the universe, not just elementary particles. If you were able to move close to the speed of light, you'd see the weird effects of SR. If you were traveling near a massive object, you'd see the effects of GR. You see relativistic effects in measurements made.

For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.

Because 1) it's way easier and 2) the error isn't large for slow moving (relative to c) objects or objects far away from other massive objects.

I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.

Yes. And that's what gave Einstein his fame. He was able to explain the problems physicist knew about with E&M waves moving at a constant velocity and the precession of Mercury and so on. in the proper limits, relativity reproduces Newtonian mechanics.

BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.

Not quite. Quantum and Newtonian are not complementary. The same rules about relativity reproducing Newtonian effects also apply to quantum. That is, in the limit of large quantum numbers, quantum mechanics is to reproduce Newtonian mechanics (see: Correspondence principle).

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Global Warming...it causes EVERYTHING!!

Nice little circular theory you got there.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).

IOW you were fine with it until somebody noticed that there could be real life consequences. Then you locked up, because that's something only religions talk about, but not real science - that lives in a world of spherical cows in a vacuum on a frictionless surface.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot.

I agree with you to some extent that an individual data point shouldn't be trumpeted as being evidence of anything for a long-term trend. But I would note that this is NOT what TFS says. It says (1) October is the hottest October in the past 135 years (that's based on 135 data points, not one), and (2) there have been many such record-breaking months recently.

That's not an individual data point. That's a bunch of data seen in a 135-year context. You can argue that 135 years is still a short time window for climate, but still, it's more than a random single data point.

This very report cites October as the hottest October on record as evidence of global warming. Will it therefore be evidence AGAINST global warming if this December is the coldest December on record? Or will the same people who cited this report as AGW evidence suddenly dismiss that as "just a minor weather pattern, not related to climate."?

If December is the coldest December on record globally, it would certainly be MAJOR news. Those who dismiss accounts as "weather" usually are talking about... well, the WEATHER.

For example, there were all sorts of headlines this year in February in the U.S., with claims about it being one of the coldest or even THE coldest on record, particularly on the east coast of the U.S. That's true.

But, if you look at global average temperatures in February 2015, I believe it was near the HOTTEST on record. Someone will certainly come out to correct me, but I'm reasonably sure it's been about 30 years since we've had a month where GLOBAL temperature even below average, let alone setting a record for "coldest." So if something like you say happens, it will be VERY unusual indeed.

The globe is a complex system. If you introduce more energy into the system, it will do all sorts of things. Some areas will get hotter. Others will get colder. Some will get wetter. Some will get dryer.

What you can't do is look at some random anecdotal weather pattern -- even if extends for a month or more across one side of a continent -- and claim that we should take that as evidence that GLOBAL temperatures aren't going up.

Seriously. There IS a difference between "weather" and global average temperature. One hot month in October is NOT news. Saying it is the hottest month on record in a series of years that have "hottest months on record" does seem to point to a broader trend. If you can't tell the difference between that and the fact that you had a lot of snow last winter, I don't know what to say.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[dave420]

It's called "an overwhelming body of evidence, which some people ignore on ideological grounds".

It's not an echo chamber, it's science. If someone can demonstrate AGW is not happening, they will find fame and fortune in these exact same institutions. They will be lauded and given wealth and opportunity beyond measure.

All your examples are just ignorance of what the scientists are actually talking about and what they're doing. Blaming them for that is, well, ridiculous. Judging from what you've written you have a lot of knowledge of this subject missing, so no wonder you get so confused. It would look like a scam to me, too, if I knew as little as you do on the subject. I don't mean to sound rude, but there is simply no other way to put it.

The fact you will ignore scientific discoveries because they sound weird to you and confuse the evening news with scientific journals speaks more of your grasp of science than any science in particular.

And yes, people who actively deny scientific findings (using a medium born from the same method) will usually garner criticism, and rightly so. The irony is palpable.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Vidar Leathershod]

You know, other people who are disagreeing are at least attempting to make an intelligent argument. You are posting little "quips" that you must think are very clever barbs. The first is this accurate predictor of the quality of your future posts,

"You see the difference between here and Ars on the climate threads. Slashdot is full of spastics like you who can't face reality and take comfort in spouting meaningless shit like this. Beyond pathetic."

That's actually hilarious, since Ars is kind of known for being an echo chamber, full of armchair scientists. The difference is that Slashdot is full of armchair scientists of a more varied and diverse background. The next is this well-sourced, point by point refutal of the parent's argument,

"The fact that you think that any of that is evidence against AGW speaks volumes."

And the amazingly awesome straw man,

"Yeah congrats you're playing the role of the creationist, but in the climate arena. Take a bow son."

Next, a challenge,

"Make your own prediction, let's see what happens. Put your money where your mouth is."

Then, an apology,

"Sorry, your disingenuous characterization of people who accept the overwhelming evidence is fucking pathetic. Nobody wants this to be true. There are people who accept it, and people who immaturely and childishly talk shit because they're too fucking cowardly to face up to it, and you are clearly of the latter."

Aren't you the big man? Spend a few more years out of high school, and perhaps you can join the rest of us immature adults here in some vitriolic discourse of a more elevated sort.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[CrimsonAvenger]

For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.

I take it you are unaware that you have to take Relativity into account when determining satellite orbits?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[clonehappy]

Fuck you.

How eloquently you have rebutted the GP's argument. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Regardless, weather isn't climate, so fuck both of you.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that October 2016 was the hottest on record at that point. Severe weather incidents continue increasing right up until the year from hell. Summer does not come that year, not really again until 2029. I remember August 2018 when the first officially category 6 hurricane, Valerie, devastated Boston, Philly, and Toronto. That was the first rollout of the FEMA concentration camps.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[AthanasiusKircher]

By the way, as a further set of datapoints, I'd have a look at this NOAA report with a list of months with greatest deviations from the previous global average.

You'll note that 8 of the top 10 of them occurred in the past 5 years. And this report is from September, so once October is included, it will likely be 9/10 of the most significant upward deviations occurred in the past few years.

One October data point is not the news. The issue is that data point taken in context of the larger and well-established trend.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet dollars against cookies that you have never worked inside a university.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[silentcoder]

Its really easy to falsify. Put some co2 in a jar. Put some ordinary air in another jar. Leave both in the sun for an hour. Measure their temperature.
If the co2 jar is not hotter than the air jar as predicted then you falsified the theory. Good luck with that.
Everything else is basic thermodynamics.. if the rate at which energy leaves the system is reduced it heats up. No matter how big or complex the system. Of course you could try to disprove thermodynamics instead...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).

IOW you were fine with it until somebody noticed that there could be real life consequences. Then you locked up, because that's something only religions talk about, but not real science - that lives in a world of spherical cows in a vacuum on a frictionless surface.

Wow. NIce strawman. Would probably be visible from space if you set it on fire.

Like you're trying to burn the heretic. How DARE he be skeptical of AGW.

If AGW is so "settled", why is NOAA hiding its deliberations?

"Settled" science CAN BE DONE OPENLY.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

dywolf - Tell me again how we can compare data from modern observations using satellites, carefully calibrated digital equipment, thousands of locations with data recorded back in 1880??? Do you even know what life was like back in the 1880's?

You keep expecting us to accept the junk you are proposing. Yeah, it's junk. Garbage.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean we are all going to die if we don't elect more democrats?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in most case, it's not necessary. It's mainly used for GNSS constellation (maybe for some interplanetary/away from earth orbit missions). I've seen a lot of stuff on the one I have worked on (LEO/GEO but only in telecom) like deviation of the spherical model of earth gravity (J2, ...), Sun/Moon gravity, solar wind/radiations, atmospheric stuff in LEO (drag/lift), ... but I don't remember having seen any relativistic effect.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many if not almost all challengers have ended being labeled as deniers. This was done specifically by AWG supporters in an effort to marginalize any opposition to their plans to gain power and money. Even those would like the the label "lukewarmers," someone who suggests what is happening is at the bottom of the range of projected warming end up being called a denier.

If you are a scientist today who challenges AWG, you can expect not to get any funding from government sources and even if you do manage to do the research, it will be rejected out of hand from any of the major journals, who in turn, don't want their government funding streams to be disrupted.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer. The Warmists are grasping at straws because even the El Nino hasn't broken the pause, there still hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the RSS satellite data for 223 months.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[pipingguy]

Therefore, end capitalism!

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[phantomfive]

I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.

The key is to recognize what is supported by evidence, and what is still hypothesis.

Strongly supported: adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally cause warming.
Hypothesis: adding CO2 will cause so much warming that there will be a disaster.
Hypothesis: our computer models can accurately predict the climate of the future.

A lot of people have trouble with the idea that parts of AGW theory can be well established, but other parts are highly conjectural. It's ok to accept some parts while doubting other parts.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[BECoole]

Not the point.
Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.

What are you talking about? Climate has changed in a matter of hours.

Mastodons have been found frozen with summer fruit still in their mouths. That means they were in a temperate climate one moment and within the next few hours, frozen for the next several thousand years.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[pipingguy]

Good luck converting the True Believers, those who wield CAGW as a political weapon and those who are making money off it.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the earth is a mason jar.

Facepalm!

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[smooth wombat]

"How come you can make-um snowballs in summertime?"

"Well, you see Hiawatha, it's too cold to make 'em in the winte'."

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[CaptainLard]

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton.

It still is! Newton's laws work just fine for explaining pretty much anything a human can put their hands on. Einstein took it a step further to explain what humans can put their advanced instruments on.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[pipingguy]

"I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science."

Bingo! Of course, your comment in fact did get modded up, so this upmod too, is further evidence of catastrophic climate change.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[AmiMoJo]

The deniers will only ever be happy if we build a second earth, reset it to 1800 and re-run the last couple of hundred years with the industrial revolution as a baseline for comparison.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[pipingguy]

"It's not an echo chamber, it's science. If someone can demonstrate AGW is not happening, they will find fame and fortune in these exact same institutions. They will be lauded and given wealth and opportunity beyond measure."

Pull the other one.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

North America has often been getting our (Europe) dose of winter the last couple of years. Last couple of years temperatures where I live never got below the freezing point. Now its mid November and we have been getting almost 20 degrees C (68F) on some days. In central Europe winters have been noticeably warmer and we barely get any snow anymore.

Seriously, anyone doubting climate change and global warming, simply educate yourself and read the Wikipedia articles on it. They are scientific, to the point and unbiased.

Unless you are one of those people who think that reality and science has a liberal bias... then there is no helping you.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Billly Gates]

A science denier is the US is religious and feel God is saying otherwise and think scientists have an ideological agenda because they don't deny evolution.

This started due to Reagan courting them in 1980 and creating the religious right. When oil interests lobby it is merged with religious theology as it came mingled together.

This is dangerous as their eternal security is at stake for thinking differently from the church which is one with this. So expect strong opposition and shows how screwed up the right became by merging religion for power

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[CaptainLard]

The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).

So what? The science is still there no matter how much perceived crap is on top of it! The greenhouse effect still traps radiated heat from sources such as incident light (see: your car with the windows up in the sun). CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in atmosphere (see: Venus). The carbon cycle has recorded itself in all sorts of ways so we have a general picture of whats "normal" (see: tree rings, ice cores, fossil record). Humans are currently contributing carbon to the atmosphere that is NOT part of the usual cycle (see: oil rigs digging 5 miles into the earth) but was sequestered a long time ago when conditions were drastically different.

If you stop worrying about how some guy says some data point may be off by 0.3% and look at what we know about the physical world we occupy it should be obvious that we should be spending time and money on reducing our carbon footprint.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because, according to AGW zealots, EVERYTHING is evidence of AGW. And AGW has exactly ZERO contraindications.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in most case, it's not necessary. It's mainly used for GNSS constellation (maybe for some interplanetary/away from earth orbit missions). I've seen a lot of stuff on the one I have worked on (LEO/GEO but only in telecom) like deviation of the spherical model of earth gravity (J2, ...), Sun/Moon gravity, solar wind/radiations, atmospheric stuff in LEO (drag/lift), ... but I don't remember having seen any relativistic effect.

GPS & GLONASS might disagree with you here...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Chas]

Sorry?

Wikipedia?

Unbiased?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

When somebody like you calls the adjusted, normalized field data average monthly temperature data, my head just wants to explode. Even the Climatologists call it "Data product".

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[swillden]

Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.

Actually, your point is half false, and half irrelevant.

Greenland ice core records show that the planet has, in relatively recent history (geologically), seen much faster temperature changes. Up to a 7C rise in 40 years, IIRC, and without any obvious cause. That's the false part.

The irrelevant part is whether or not it's our fault. Suppose we had exactly the same temperature rise, with potentially exactly the same impacts on human life, but that it happened due to some sequence of events that we did not cause. Would that mean that we should sit back and do nothing about it?

Of course not. If your house is burning down, it doesn't matter whether you started it or not, you put out the damned fire.

In this case, we need to understand that the planet's climate is not and has never been stable. We have compelling evidence that it not only has been dramatically hotter and colder, but also that human-affecting changes can happen on human time scales. This means that we must either learn to stabilize the climate, or accept that we're going to have to live with whatever chance brings us, or some combination of the two.

Now is a really good time to start learning to actively manage the climate. We've proven that we can affect it, the next step is to work on affecting it in ways that benefit us, rather than harm us.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS and GLONASS might agree with me, especially when I said "It's mainly used for GNSS constellations". But if you don't know that GNSS stands for "Global Navigation Satellite System"... so GPS, GLONASS, Gallileo, BeiDou

(I will keep that in mind and not use this acronym without explaining, next time)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[oh_my_080980980]

douche bag post comment...news at 11....

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.

I suppose that is why "correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury" (Tests of general relativity) was one of the first bits of supporting evidence for General Relativity, the planet Mercury is hardly an elementary particle.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton.

It still is! Newton's laws work just fine for explaining pretty much anything a human can put their hands on

. . . so . . . either you are not human . . . or you don't have a cell phone with GPS . . .

. . . or you have no fucking clue, whatsoever, which is probably the case . . . S T U . . . P I D . . . how did you do on your SAT?!

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[CaptainLard]

I personally haven't touched a satellite (who's orbit is reasonably approximated by Newton), a transistor on a die or felt a photon quatumly interact with the electrons in my hand but I have thrown a baseball, driven in a car, sat at my desk, and basically moved around the earth in a way that Newton can closely describe.

I'm guessing you're in high school (or closely removed from) based on your attitude and mention of the SAT and your 100% or nothing view of the world. Someday you'll see it helps to look at things with a little nuance. Till then carry on splitting hairs for inconsequential victories while letting everyone know you're angry in your well fed and sheltered existence.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, you know, the Arctic sea ice has grown so much - because it's unseasonabley cold and hs been for a decade according to the NOAA - that we have to redraw the maps becvause of eht INCREASE IN ARCTIC SEA ICE.

You obviously didn't read the article, or if you did, you didn't understand it.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[hey!]

The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).

It's easy to have this perception if you haven't really been following the details of the debate, other the bowdlerized version in the (now emasculated) press.

The debate goes back over a hundred years. AGW was well and thoroughly debunked in the early 20th century, and on solid scientific grounds. For example it was "known" that CO2 was in equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere; the bulk of any increase in atmospheric CO2 would be absorbed into the oceans.

So what happened? Well, lots of things. Oceanographers went out and observed the ocean and realized that it's buffering capacity was much less than thought. We gained access to the upper atmosphere, which debunked the scientific consensus that increases in surface temperature would get mixed away. In the 50s we got the technology to make precise enough measurements of atmospheric CO2 to track its increase. And from the 60s on we gained the ability to track and correlate large bodies of data whereas researchers until then were limited to manually processing small quantities of data with pencil and paper. That's the most important point and I'll come back to it in a moment.

AGW became a political issue when An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006, and it seemed to many of us like everything we learned about climate in our obsolete 1960s textbooks was being tossed out overnight. But it wasn't overnight. If you go back and follow the debate from the mid-50s using Google Scholar you'll see it took almost four hard-fought decades for the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion to shift from against to in favor of AGW.

Well, what about the "dogmatic" dismissal of all the evidence against AGW? Well, complex systems always generate contradictory-looking data points. Let's say we tracked the state of the retail economy heading into the Great Depression by following a single representative company: Woolworths. The worse people said things were getting in "the economy", the more out of touch with reality they'd seem to us to be: Woolworth's gross sales in the so-called "Great Depression" kept going up. But if you looked at the big picture consumer spending had plummeted by 25% and retail prices had taken a nose dive, and this explains while Woolworths was thriving; it was displacing traditional retailers with higher overhead that couldn't survive the shock.

Much of the "debunking" climate data -- where it stands up to scrutiny -- is of this sort. For example take a look at this graph of temperatures in Greenland. The temperature spike you see at 1000 YBP is the famous "Medieval Warm Period", and if you go back to 7000 YBP and 8000 YBP it was even warmer. So does that disprove that the world is getting warmer? Are climate scientists who shrug this off being dogmatic?

No, because Greenland isn't the whole world; nor is the North Atlantic region that warmed in the MWP. This gets back to my point about data processing; you need to crunch a lot of data to get the global picture, which as far as we know looks like this.

It seems dogmatic if scientists don't believe what we want to be true and which we can back up with evidence. But there's always evidence in something like climate to support any position you'd like to take. It's the pattern of evidence that matters.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[TonyXL]

So basically whatever happens (more snow, less snow, more ice, less ice, etc.) the cause can be attributed to global warming. Got it.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Jason Levine]

No. Not everything is attributable to global warming. However, the mere presence of snow in one place at one time doesn't disprove global warming. If it did, then I could prove that nobody is starving in the world because I'm feeling full right now.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[NetNed]

True science doesn't use the term "Deniers" to describe those that question methods used and not used to come to their conclusion. Religion uses terms like that.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.

But nuclear is still off the table. Arithmetic denier still doesn't get it that the alternatives are (1) coal, (2) nuclear, or (3) end of technological civilization. News at 11:06.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[tnk1]

I think that is mostly incorrect.

Yes, many religious people are conservative, but I have yet to see where God has made a pronouncement on AGW. In fact, the Catholic Church seems pretty accepting of the possibility that it is happening.

The real problem is that they feel that this is a political issue, not a scientific one because the science is hard to grasp and easy to misrepresent. At the same time, they feel that a crisis is being rammed down their throat in order to push an agenda which increases government regulation and oversight over what people are doing.

To most people, these pronouncements on AGW are effectively taken on faith, not investigation. Yes, you can read lots of peer reviewed papers, but all that says is that some other scientist agrees with the author. If that produces something tangible like a cell phone, these people will eat that stuff up. If all it does is produce calls for a policy agenda that they don't like, you don't have to believe anything religious about it to be suspicious about it.

That's why people keep trying to point at this or that weather system as "proof" or "refutation", even though climate change is going to be much more complicated than a simple hot or cold spell. They don't understand the science, and they are less inclined to go along with it unless they can somehow touch it.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

People who believe that satellite data is the gold standard for temperatures don't understand all the manipulations and adjustments required to produce a temperature from the microwave emissions of O2 molecules in the atmosphere. They require far more adjustments then surface temperature measurements with thermometers. Even one of the principle scientists for RSS, Carl Mears says he trusts the surface temperature records more than the satellite records.

A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). Link

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Stephan Schulz]

"You can believe every single major american scientific society, or you can believe the senator with the snowball"

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the sense that all weather can be attributed to the sun, sure. Hey wait a minute! This is all the sun's fault! Let's bomb the sun in retaliation!

It's amazing what lengths you're willing to go to avoid learning anything about climate.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[silentcoder]

You think there is something magical about mason jars that make them defy the laws of physics ? Or is it the earth that somehow magically follows different rules ?

We use those rules to predict the core temperatures of SUNS. They work for everything, in the same way, that's why we call them "laws" of physics.

They aren't the "suggestions" of physics. They are not the "guesses" of physics".

But trust a denier to somehow believe they are the wishful thinking of physics.

The laws of thermodynamics do not change depending on the size of the system.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Stephan Schulz]

Does that mean we are all going to die if we don't elect more democrats?

Not the point. You don't get to ignore reality because it has implications that seem inconvenient to some political positions, and or some entrenched interests. There are plenty of free market approaches to manage pollution, as long as you are willing to grow out of the inane assumption that a) the capacity of the world is infinite and b) you have a natural right to dump your pollution onto the rest of us.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Stephan Schulz]

Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.

Actually, your point is half false, and half irrelevant.

Greenland ice core records show that the planet has, in relatively recent history (geologically), seen much faster temperature changes. Up to a 7C rise in 40 years, IIRC, and without any obvious cause. That's the false part.

Greenland ice core records show changes in the temperature in, well, Greenland, and really only in some very few spots we sample in Greenland. "The planet" is about 235 times larger than Greenland (by surface area), To visualise this:

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppgpppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

ppppppppppppppp

pppppppppp

Can you even spot Greenland (the "g")? I find it somewhat interesting that the same people who complain about insufficient coverage with weather stations or proxy samples used in the standard climate and temperature reconstructions that show global warming are happy to make wild suggestions about climate based on very few and limited samples if those support their denial. As e.g. "Pluto is warming! It's the sun!" - based on two (2) very indirect measurements of local density of Pluto's atmosphere during transits of Pluto in front of stars. No, not measurements of temperature, just of local atmospheric density...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[NetNed]

So tell me this, the claim last year was that is was the warmest year ever by .02 degrees Celsius. Nasa said that number had a 38% chance of being right and a accuracy tolerance of ± .1 degree Celsius. That's pretty simple math there. No need for Newton's laws or Einstein's theories. When a tolerance is higher then the number claimed, do you know the chances of that number being right? If you think it could lots of engineers and mathematicians the world over would like to have a chat with you.


BTW, science doesn't use the word "denier", but religion does. ;-)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

December will be "seasonally adjusted", as well as "geographically adjusted" to wherever they can make it fit.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[swillden]

Antarctic ice core records confirm the Greenland results. Yeah, just two points, but points rather far apart, so it at least not a localized phenomenon.

Anyway, what is it that you're trying to argue? That rapid climate change cannot possibly happen without human intervention? Please see my second point, about why anthropogenesis or the lack thereof is irrelevant.

Climate change is occurring. We don't want it do. We must do something about it. The cause of the change really doesn't matter, except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution... but it's obvious that merely reducing carbon output is *not* going to be enough, so the solution to which it points us is insufficient. We must do more.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

Don't worry. 2015 is going to blow last years record out of the water and if the strong El Nino years of 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. In 2020 the climate science denier's meme will probably be "no warming since 2016".

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's articles like these that are meant to stir climate hysteria given the fact that 1) the record only goes back to 1880 which 2) gives any day, week, month or year a very high chance of either becoming the coolest or warmest on record given how short the time frame is.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are thousands of peer reviewed journals arguing against AGW which climate extremists choose to ignore:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. ...

So does that mean California's several-year drought is evidence against global warming? B-)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Stephan Schulz]

Antarctic ice core records confirm the Greenland results. Yeah, just two points, but points rather far apart, so it at least not a localized phenomenon.

I'd love to see your sources for simultaneous temperature changes by 7 degree C in 40 years in both Greenland and the Antarctic. I'm not aware of these, but I certainly may have missed them.

Anyway, what is it that you're trying to argue? That rapid climate change cannot possibly happen without human intervention? Please see my second point, about why anthropogenesis or the lack thereof is irrelevant.

I'm arguing that our best evidence is that the current episode of climate change is likely unprecedented, and that it is largely anthropogenic. I'm sure that the Chicxulub impactor also had a massive (if different) influence on climate, but I'd like to get through this warming episode without the predominant life form taking a major hit.

Climate change is occurring. We don't want it do. We must do something about it. The cause of the change really doesn't matter, except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution... but it's obvious that merely reducing carbon output is *not* going to be enough, so the solution to which it points us is insufficient. We must do more.

I'd certainly rather stop messing with a critical system that we only partially understand than to try to actively mess with it. Biosphere 2 should tell us that it is not easy to actively control an ecosystem. Especially if we don't seem to agree on the cause of the change in the first place - your "except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution" is not a trivial aside.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

What I like best about satellite data vs surface station is surface stations generally (but not always) compute "average" for a day by Tave = (Tmax-Tmin)/2+Tmin resulting in a synthetic number based on a very temporally sparse dataset, then these temporally sparse averages and adjusted by ill defined methods. the data product is also spatially inhomogeneous so the products are gridded. There are numerous thermometers in North America and Europe, few in Africa, Asia and South America, and almost none on the oceans. Data gridding has the effect of spreading the ill-defined adjustments over great distances, often as much as 1200Km but normalises the data into 3 degree cells which are then again averaged to get a global temperature. Most most cases averaging, averages is also a poor technique.

So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.

Satellites on the other hand sweep the Earth every 98 minutes, the temperature sensing radiometer is frequently recalibrated to both a platinum wire thermometer and the cosmic background. the Dataset is rich both spatially and temporally and little gridding is required.

Additionally Mears and Spencer don't automatically trust their results, as you pointed out, which I think means they are more objective in it's handling.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[david_thornley]

So go find the raw data. There's plenty of it available.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, honest readers and open-minded thinkers, do not feed this troll. As usual, the paid shills have arrived to poop all over intelligent discussion.

Set your browsing levels up to at least 2 on any stories having to do with climate change. Your brain will thank you later, as you will still believe in the existence of sincerity and honesty.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[david_thornley]

There is going to be a year whose measurements are the highest. That was what they meant. The measurements can be unrepresentative in some cases, and so there's always going to be fuzzy measurements. Also, barring catastrophic heating, one year is not likely to smash previous records; it's going to be a little warmer than the previous warming year. Hence the numbers you're having problems with.

Exactly what did NASA say about the accuracy tolerance? Was it that the global temperature could be off by that much? If the measurements have a fixed bias, there's no problem, since what we're interested in is how they change.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[david_thornley]

That term isn't used for people who question the methods used. That term is used for people who refuse to believe that AGW could be happening, and who are willing to believe that 97% of climate scientists are politically motivated liars more than they're willing to believe what's happening.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[IceAgeComing]

All those articles mentioned are actually just blog posts. The article hopes you will lose interest and not actually look those papers up in your closest university library. Because they will not be there.

The link you posted has been analyzed and shredded to pieces already, so please update your bookmarks:

https://greenfyre.wordpress.co...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[david_thornley]

More to the point, our experiences are of small dots on the globe. Where I live, we had a cool summer, but that was certainly not true across the world.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, true science needs people who will put up, or shut the fuck up. You don't get to say 'it's not that' without saying _why you think that is_. 'Hurr durr yr a libtard' is not a scientific observation. Einstein didn't say 'but Isaac Newton lives in a big house paid for by grant money!'

It's not the sun. It's not our orbit. It's not volcanoes. It's not deforestation. It's not ozone pollution. It's not aerosols. It's not wizards or balrogs. if it's not manmade greenhouse gases doing something my six-year-old kid can observe in a soda bottle terrarium, what is it? Because if your answer is 'all the scientists in the world conspiring to be wrong all at once for the better part of the last fifty fucking years', that's quite a claim, and you're going to need some fucking evidence.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that makes the original guy look like he was shilling pretty hard...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Rakarra]

So, Im in Texas and it was the coolest, wettest summer I've ever experienced!

This is due to the high-pressure systems in the Pacific that are caused by unusually warm waters in the West Pacific Ocean. That feeds a high-pressure ridge that pushes storms that usually would hit the US West Coast north into the Arctic instead, where they get chilled and then head back south through the Midwest. It's a large factor in both the West's deep drought, as well as the storms that absolutely socked the South, Midwest, and Northeastern US in the last couple years. All thanks to warm water elsewhere! Fortunately, that's created a temperator differential which has fed what looks to be a record El Nino this year, so it's likely the West will get the flooding they need, and that might give the rest of the US a break.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Rakarra]

Fine, then how about NOAA, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Japan's Meteorological Agency agreeing Jan-Mar 2015 to be the hottest Jan-Mar on record, globally of course. Abnormal high temperatures in Europe, Asia, Western Canada, Alaska, and the Western US, while abnormal cold temperatures hit central and eastern US and Canada.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, journals are not blog posts and Mike Kaulbars of Greenfyre is a well known eco-terrorist and doesn't have a phd in anything:

"My experience is that many people are impressed and supportive of the radical militant actions that we do. ...I make no secret of my militant activism, arrests etc; [...] ...we do break the law. [...]

In a few weeks I, and 50 others are off to jail. ...I do what I do because of a "pure, true love for the Earth."

- Mike Kaulbars, 1990

Regardless, scroll down to actually see the list but just in case you try to deny that the list exists again, I'll post it here:

Highlights: (A sample selection of papers from the list)

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69-82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)
- Willie H. Soon

Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation (PDF)
(Statistics, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-18, July 2010)
- Ross McKitrick

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)
- Nicola Scafetta

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)
- John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase, David Douglass

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu

A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner

Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp. 2099-2115, April 2011)
- Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon

Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)
- S. Fred Singer

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF)
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Modern Environmentalism: A Longer Term Threat to Western Civilization
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 6, pp. 1063-1072, October

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Rakarra]

This is what got Galileo in trouble, for example. It wasn't that he was interested in the Copernican mathematical model -- the Church was fine with people using whatever mathematical predictive models they wanted. But Galileo was tried because he wanted to assert that he had found the TRUE order of the cosmos, not merely a better mathematical model.

Well, that and he basically called the pope a simpleton in his writing. The pope didn't lead the charge to get Galileo in trouble, but he stopped protecting him from those who were.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Rakarra]

Thank you, Roland Emmerich, but you should really register a Slashdot account.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, using an eco-terrorist’s blog (greenfrye) is a pretty stupid example....

Just because he's too lazy to read through the journals he resorts to pointing to extremists which is pretty typical of alarmists.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.

I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.

Here is a NOAA page on their temperature data.

This page at Berkeley Earth describes their data set and some of the adjustments.

As far as the sparseness of some regions of the globe goes we don't care so much what the actual temperature is globally as much as we care about how it's changing over time. If the global temperature is derived in a consistent manner then it's probably a reasonable representation of temperature change.

Satellites because of their orbital inclination don't cover the polar regions at all and have to deal with issues of observation angle for near polar readings. Also they have to make adjustments for clouds and high elevations messing up their readings.

I don't disbelieve the satellite readings, I just don't see any good reason to trust them over the surface measurements, particularly over the time period since the satellites went up (1979) when the surface systems have also been improved to higher standards.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Most of the articles I read, especially on scientific topics, are written in a professional, yes, unbiased, matter-of-fact way.

But of course, if your perception has been decalibrated so much off common-sense that scientific statements seem "biased" to you, then there might be something wrong with your sensory input stimuli. I believe one of the most common cases of this psychological disorder in the US is prolonged exposure to Fox News channel.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Mr.CRC]

The scientific method has no bias. But if you think that the human implementation of the scientific method is free from bias, then there is no helping you either. Humans don't suddenly become saints when doing science.

P.S. What I said in no way implies any particular view on AGW.

Re: Climate has never not been changing.

[Mr.CRC]

I found some variables on the floor. Did you loose them?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Mr.CRC]

If we have models that predict AGW, then why is climate engineering a bad idea compared to political means, for which there are no working predictive models at all? At least climate engineering would be science based.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I sat at lunch, at Princeton, while you were still still swimming around in your dad's balls . . . the folks at the lunch were physicists and philosophers, and they were fighting about the "Arrow of Time", which is is much beyond anything than your can comprehend

You, Sir, are a totally idiot! Post your credentials . . . maybe a local community college in New Jersey . . . .?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[BoogieChile]

Ahh, the old Gish Gallop> , eh? Never gets old, that one.

I'll just leave this here. Your sea ice claims are well wrong.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[scruffy]

The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton.

What bullshit! The problem with gravity, its mysterious action st a distance, continues to this day. Physicists are still looking for gravity waves/gravitons with no success yet.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "credentials" are vague enough to place you as a lunch lady at a specific university and you're asking somebody else for credentials?

Did you even get a degree? Was it just a bachelors? What was your major? Supply your own credentials before demanding them from others.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

http://www.vancouversun.com/te... [vancouversun.com]
64 temperature records smashed in B.C.
Weather experts are now predicting June will be Vancouver's hottest on record
Vancouver Sun June 30, 2015

How eloquently you have rebutted the GP's argument. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Why yes, I have. Thank you. And Fuck off.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

Additionally Mears and Spencer don't automatically trust their results, as you pointed out, which I think means they are more objective in it's handling.

given how often they've fucked up tha's not supprising.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

E&E? Peer reviewed?

Hahaha...

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

So, when exactly was the last coldest month on record?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

E&E is most definitely peer reviewed:

Energy and Environment editorial board

Editor
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK

Editorial advisory board
Dr Maarten Arentsen
University of Twente, Netherlands

Professor David Ball
Middlesex University, UK

Max Beran
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, UK

David Cope
Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, London

Richard S Courtney
RSC Environmental Services, Cornwall, UK, formerly Senior Materials Scientist, UK Coal Research

Dr Wolfgang Eichhammer
Fraunhofer Institute (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany

Professor Ying Fan
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Peter F. Gill
Chair of the Energy Institute London & Home Counties Branch and ex Chair of the Institute of Physics Energy Group

Professor Hilary I Inyang
Global Institute for Energy and Environmental Systems (GIEES), The University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, USA

Professor Mark Kaiser
Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University, USA

Professor Aynsley Kellow
School of Government, University of Tasmania, Australia

Professor Atle Midttun
Norwegian School of Management BI

Dr Mithra Moezzi
Ghoulem Research, USA

Professor Julian Morris
International Policy Network; Buckingham University, UK

Prof. Dr Arthur Rörsch, former vice president of the Netherland Organisation for Applied Research

Dr Simon Shackley, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr Malin Song, Longhu Scholar of Anhui University of Finance and Economics (AUFE), Director of Research Center of Statistics for Management, AUFE, Anhui Bengbu, China

Steve Thomas
Public Service International Research Unit (PSIRU)

Professor James Woudhuysen
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

Dr ZhongXiang Zhang
Distinguished University Professor, College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

Wow. A list of names. Where does any of that describe E&E's reviewing policy?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

All of it is on Multi-Science:

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

authors' instructions
submission of papers

Manuscripts should be submitted to the relevant editor. Acceptance for publication is subject to the manuscript being an unpublished work. Submission of a manuscript is taken to imply that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Submission and acceptance of a paper implies the transfer of copyright to Multi-Science.

language editing

Your chances of your work being accepted for publication are greatly increased if the work is written in clear and correct English. If you feel your work would benefit from professional language editing, before you submit the manuscript, we recommend you contact www.stallardediting.com

manuscript preparation

The manuscript must be written in English and should not, normally, exceed 6,000 words. It is essential that all submissions should include two elements: a Word document, or LaTex files; and a PDF.

The metric system is to be used throughout and if it is necessary to quote other units then these should be added in parentheses. The use of unnecessarily complicated notation and formulae should be avoided and the material should be presented in the simplest possible manner.

The manuscript is expected to be written in correct and easily readable English. An author who is not proficient in English is advised to seek help in editing the manuscript before typing. Both English and American spellings are acceptable, but each paper is expected to follow one style consistently.

running order

Title: in concise form, with wording helping automatic searches, but no superfluous words.

Authors' names: first name in full, other initial(s), family name in full.

Authors' affiliations: postal addresses, e-mail addresses.

Abstract: of less than 150 words written as a 'free standing' paragraph and containing key objectives and conclusions.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SECTIONS: CAPITALISED HEADINGS; lower case sub heads

X. CONCLUSION

References

illustrations

The original and one copy of each illustration must be provided. Line drawings must be in a form suitable for direct photographic reproduction. Hand-written lettering is not acceptable. The illustrations should preferably require the same degree of reduction. Please check a copy of the journal to ensure the lettering is large enough to be legible after reduction of the illustration to fit the page or column width. Each illustration must be clearly numbered with the title of the paper written on the reverse side. Captions for illustrations should be typed in numerical order and placed at the end of the manuscript.

It may be possible to reproduce electronic illustration files produced within a programmes such as Excel. If possible please use standard typefaces within the illustration (for example: Arial, Helvetica, Times, etc.).

photographs

Good quality, clearly reproducible, photographs are encouraged. Electronic files, such as TIFF, JPEG and BMP, are accepted, but please ensure the resolution is equal or above 300 dpi at the required size of reproduction.

equations

Equations should be numbered sequentially in brackets (..) to the right margin. Within the text, an equation is referred to as 'eqn (..)', or equations as 'eqns ( .. - ..)'.

references

References to published work should be numbered sequentially in the order of citation and a reference list in numerical order should be given at the end of the paper.

For an article in a journal, the entry in the reference list must contain the following details:

Name(s) and initial(s) of the author(s), title of article, title of journal (underlined), year of publication, volume number (followed by the issue number in parentheses, if known), initial and final page numbers of the article.

The entry in the reference list for a book must contain the followin

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have to ask NASA and NOAA. They only seem to release the data in a processed form when it suits their preconceived argument (very pro-AGW). It's not like they have a webpage that lists the global mean temperature for every month going back 100 years. They only release this stuff in chunks when it suits their support of AGW. If this December were to be the coldest December in history, you can bet you wouldn't hear about it from them. And if you did, you can bet they would find a way to pre-massage the data to say what they want (perhaps by combining it with other months until it registered hotter, or making up some horseshit excuse to adjust the temperatures up for that month, or whatever).

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

It's not like they have a webpage that lists the global mean temperature for every month going back 100 years.

They don't? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

Strange. Nowhere in there is the word "peer" or "review".

Boy, do you know how to cut'n'paste though.

I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?

-- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there

-- Roger Pielke Jr.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

By month, from January to December, coldest months in record are respectively: 1909 1911 1911 1909 1909 1885 1904 1912 1904 1912 1910 1916. (GISS data)

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Eunuchswear]

Wow, you mean that:

It's articles like these that are meant to stir climate hysteria given the fact that 1) the record only goes back to 1880 which 2) gives any day, week, month or year a very high chance of either becoming the coolest or warmest on record given how short the time frame is.

is total bollocks, the coldest months on record all happened long ago while the hottest ones are all happening now.

Who would have guessed it.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[ssam]

He said "Newton's laws work just fine for explaining pretty much anything a human can put their hands on".
So it would seem that you are the idiot who can't read. Someone needs to go back to pedant school.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, nothing is ever certain. There's always the potential that something will come along that turns our existing models on their head. But certainty is unnecessary; we don't need our models to be perfect for them to be useful. What matters is that they are able to, as much as possible, explain existing data and accurately predict experimental data.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Chas]

Ah, the old "You must watch Fox" canard.

No. Sorry, my commentary was simply on the perceived lack of bias by Wikipedia and it's editorial staff.

Nothing more.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.

Because the raw unaltered field data is unavailable, so nobody can replicate the adjustments to confirm that the adjustments made are actually the adjustments described in the relevant, even the
U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) are Quality Controlled Datasets, and the bottom line is I just plain don't trust the "Rockstar" Climatologists
Karl and Peterson refuse congressional subpoena,
Mann is a narcissistic asshole who blocked me on Facebook for no good reason, I simply said "Well Doctor, discovery will be interesting" in a thread about Mann vs. Steyn, The Climategate Emails revealed them to be sophomoric at best, conspiring to perpetrate a con on the world at worst wasting billions of us taxpayers money.
There is nothing there that convinces me that anything published by any "Working Climatologist" as Lewandowski et al said should be trusted as accurate without overwhelming evidence and Cronie reviewed papers hiding behind a paywall isn't my definition of overwhelming evidence.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[NetNed]

ITS MATH!!!! When a tolerance is bigger then the number claimed that means the number claimed has NO CHANCE of being even close to accurate. The tolerance given was enough that it could have also been the coldest year ever. NASA produced those numbers after the first announcement and barely any news source posted them, because frankly it would pour water on the flames of the claim. It's false advertising. Seriously, look up tolerances and how they work. Science is and always has been debatable otherwise we'd all think the world was still flat. Math has it's room for debates, but tolerances is not one of them.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

And last month was the hottest month on record, but they were only 38% certain.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[swalve]

The Catholic Church is, in a lot of areas, the religious left. There are some exceptions. But they have been more for science than against it over the years. Your evangelicals? Not so much.

Here is why the religious don't like the idea of anthrogenic global warming (as well of a lot of conservationism/ecological problems): as the story goes, God made the earth for us. All the rocks and plants and animals are there for us to enjoy and make use of. Now, God is omnipotent, they assure us. So if God is omnipotent and created the earth for us, He and His Noodly Appendages would never allow us to fuck up the planet to the point that it would threaten our survival or comfort. We live in God's walled garden. He won't let us do anything that would permanently harm that garden.

So, to suggest that we DO have the power to affect the earth itself is denying the power of God.

We will never win by arguing with people who reject the premise of the argument. Zealots of all kinds need to be nodded at, patted on the head and ignored.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have no idea how the peer review process works let alone how to publish an academic journal...

You can start here:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/03/how-to-get-published-in-an-academic-journal-top-tips-from-editors

And you can look on TR to see that it is in fact a peer reviewed journal otherwise it wouldn't even be listed:

http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0958-305X

And that alleged quote from Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is taken way out of context. This is the correct interpretation,

        "My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom."

        - Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

and,

        "My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

        I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

        The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

        I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

        In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

        - Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

The problem with Alarmists, is that they always try to take things to the extreme with anything and everything.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, the reason I copy and paste these things is because alarmists are well known to ignore hyperlinks. Which the user IceAgeComing above has already attempted above and yourself since you refuse to read through the E&E website. You could have easily read their mission statement to see what kind of academic journal they are yet you choose to remain ignorant of the facts and rely soley on the slander and libel from other sites.

Also, here is how an academic journal gets accepted as being an academic journal:

By Jim Testa, VP, Editorial & Publisher Relations

updated 5-2012

Thomson Reuters is committed to providing comprehensive coverage of the world's most important and influential journals to meet its subscribers' current awareness and retrospective information retrieval needs. Today Web of Science SM covers over 12,000 top tier international and regional journals in every area of the natural sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities.

But comprehensive does not necessarily mean all-inclusive.1
Why Be Selective?*

It would appear that to be comprehensive, an index of the scholarly journal literature might be expected to cover all journals published. It has been demonstrated, however, that a relatively small number of journals publish the majority of significant scholarly results. This principle is often referred to as Bradford's Law.2

In the mid-1930's, British mathematician and librarian S.C. Bradford realized that the core literature for any given scientific discipline was composed of fewer than 1,000 journals. Of these 1,000 journals, there are relatively few with a very strong relevance to the given topic, whereas there are many with a weaker relevance to it. Those with a weak relevance to the given discipline or topic, however, typically have a strong relevance to some other discipline. Thus, the core scientific literature can form itself around various topics, with individual journals becoming more or less relevant depending on the topic. Bradford understood that an essential core of journals forms the literature basis for all disciplines and that most of the important papers are published in relatively few journals.3,4

More recently Thomson Reuters analyzed the 7,621 journals covered in the 2008 Journal Citations Report®. The analysis found that 50% of all citations generated by this collection came from only 300 of the journals. In addition, these 300 top journals produced 30% of all articles published by the total collection. Furthermore, this core is not static. Its basic composition changes constantly, reflecting the evolution of scholarly topics. Our mission is to update journal coverage in Web of Science by identifying and evaluating promising new journals and, whenever necessary, deleting journals that have become less useful.
The Evaluation Process5

Many factors are taken into account when evaluating journals for coverage in Web of Science, ranging from the qualitative to the quantitative. The journal's basic publishing standards, its editorial content, the international diversity of its authorship, and the citation data associated with it are all considered. No one factor is considered in isolation, but by combination and interrelation of data, the Thomson Reuters editor is able to determine the journal's overall strengths and weaknesses.

The Thomson Reuters editors who perform journal evaluations have educational backgrounds relevant to their areas of responsibility. Because they monitor virtually every new scholarly journal published, they are also experts in the literature of their fields. The evaluation of a journal for coverage in Web of Science begins with the submission of current issues. The publisher must deliver three consecutive current issues, one at a time as they are published, to Thomson Reuters. Issues may be submitted in print, online, or both. Publishers may send print issues to the following address: Publication Processing, Thomson Reuters, 1500 Spring Garden Street, Fourth Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

What for? In 18th century it was fine to throw yours garbage on the streets from your windows, because if the garbage not in your house, then it was fine.

Today it is fine to throw all sorts of harmful chemicals into atmosphere, it is not like you can see them in the air you breath. More so a significant amount of people intentionally like to poison themselves through smoking with wide variety of harmful chemicals (probably hope that they will evolve into superhero under their influence or something).

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[dryeo]

Actually I believe it was first used for the germ theory of disease deniers, people who were in denial that little living things could cause illness or even existed and refused to even look in a microscope, little well experiment by washing their hands before entering the operating or birthing room.
The history of the germ theory of disease is quite interesting, at first most of the evidence was statistical in nature, acceptance would be expensive and mean the changing of habits so well respected scientists, surgeons and such were in total denial about it as it is expensive to move and fix water supplies, and the very idea of washing your hands before surgery or after using the toilet was revolting to some.
Here we are now and most everyone accepts that some diseases are caused by invisible beings and it is a good idea to practice cleanliness.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

you wanted to say that this year we still expect El Nino, it haven't started yet. So buckle up, it is still going to get hotter.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

Because the raw unaltered field data is unavailable, ...

Have you looked here. They certainly haven't thrown out the original raw data. That's the base starting point for any adjustments they make.

You may not trust climate scientists but have you ever considered the size of the conspiracy that would be required to perpetrate such a fraud? At least thousands of scientists over the whole world for at least the past 30 or 40 years? If they're that good at it you might as well give up.

I don't disagree that Mann has a prickly personality but the trial has nothing to do with his science. It's about Steyn accusing Mann of "molesting" the data in an obvious comparison to Jerry Sandusky who was also at Penn State. Discovery in the trial won't find any evidence of scientific malfeasance just as all of the other investigations of Mann and the Climategate emails found essentially nothing.

The paywalls on scientific papers is unfortunate but if nothing else you can go to the libraries of most research universities and read them. Even if they're behind paywalls.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

As of today, the warm ocean temperatures that define El Niño have surged to a stunning three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in the central tropical Pacific, the highest level ever measured. By one measure, this wicked El Niño is the strongest ever recorded: What it means

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

Individual scientists may have their biases but when you get more than a few of them together the biases tend to cancel out.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. ...

So does that mean California's several-year drought is evidence against global warming? B-)

What part of "can hold" did you not understand? The "can" part?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer.

Bwahaha. You mean like 1998 was a extremely strong El Nino - and there supposedly was no warming since 1998? Well, apart from this year, which is much warmer than 1998.

From two years on, you will claim "No warming since 2015".

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

I sat at lunch, at Princeton, while you were still still swimming around in your dad's balls

You were a janitor at Princeton, and now you are a senile old git, is that you point? Not understanding a sentence containing the phrase "pretty much" says much more about you than the claim you just made.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

True science doesn't use the term "Deniers" to describe those that question methods used and not used to come to their conclusion. Religion uses terms like that.

And it gets used for people who repeatedly deny facts. Even by true Scotsman scientists.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Mr.CRC]

If you assume random biases. What is the basis for that?

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[riverat1]

Probably better than assuming all the bias is in one direction. One of the best ways to make your name in science is to discover something that makes a significant change to the current dogma.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet none of the models have been 'verified', not a single 'long-term (5 year+) 'climate prediction' (both warm and cold) has come to pass, and AGW has NEVER been elevated to theory.

As it currently stands, it remains as nothing more than an overzealous hypothesis ripe with hysteria.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

Bwahaha. You mean like 1998 was a extremely strong El Nino - and there supposedly was no warming since 1998? Well, apart from this year, which is much warmer than 1998.

From two years on, you will claim "No warming since 2015".

This year, It looks like your definition of much warmer and mine must differ, what I see is BEST and GISTEMP show slight warming, every other is nearly flat or slightly cooling like RSS. There is even discussions about whether the warming prior to the 1998 El Nino was statistically significant.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Bwahaha. You mean like 1998 was a extremely strong El Nino - and there supposedly was no warming since 1998? Well, apart from this year, which is much warmer than 1998.

From two years on, you will claim "No warming since 2015".

This year, It looks like your definition of much warmer and mine must differ, what I see is BEST and GISTEMP show slight warming, every other is nearly flat or slightly cooling like RSS. There is even discussions about whether the warming prior to the 1998 El Nino was statistically significant.

Too bad you didn't actually look at the data, you would have seen that some of the WFT series are sadly a "little" out of date. Both WTI and BEST don't contain any 2015 data.

Leaves us with 3 series, two showing an obvious climb in temperature, and one showing a small decrease. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

And that last series happens to be RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3 - and it doesn't show actual surface temp, but some convoluted calculation of temperature in the lower troposphere using microwave radiance: "TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 2 for the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the difference involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results."

But because it shows just what deniers want to see, it's the one series they like.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[budgenator]

As I said, "It looks like your definition of much warmer [woodfortrees.org] and mine must differ, " because all I see is some "It might be getting warmer but it hard to tell for sure" and it certainly not Apocalyptic thermogheddon warmer.

Re:Climate has never not been changing.

[Plumpaquatsch]

You know what: you cling to your not-really-temperature-of-the-air-3-miles-up is going down, and I'll stick to actual thermometers at 6 feet above ground going up, and we'll see if you will claim "no warming since 2016" in 4 years as I predicted.

2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome! I'll book my holiday for October!

Back to the future..

[malkavian]

Nice to know that next year will be even warmer.. I've been enjoying the warm October we've had here in 2015..

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

October 2016 is so hot that the heat has flowed back through time to make the scientists start sweating it today.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just over in WI, and my energy bills are going up because super cold winters and super hot summers. The avg may have only gone up a little bit, but the std-dev has gone crazy.

Re:Back to the future..

[jones_supa]

Same here in Finland...some days of last month felt almost summery.

Re:Back to the future..

[PopeRatzo]

keeping academics awash in a government funding jackpot

Those filthy rich scientists, awash in money. Yes, they're the problem. Greedy goddamn climate scientists and their grubby-handed grad student research assistants. Living like kings while the honest energy industry has to scratch out a subsistence with nothing but hard work and grit.

I'll tell you, this world is upside-down.

Re:Back to the future..

[dave420]

You seem to be in the "I don't understand it, but from my limited personal experience and assumption of knowledge I'm pretty sure it'll be fine" camp.

Anything that helps reduce your heating bills is fine with you? So you'd be fine with someone murdering you then, as that will lower your bills to 0 indefinitely - clearly there are limits to what you'd accept to lower your bills. Hyperbole aside, the warming you are experiencing comes with a price, and that price is a lot more than your heating bills. No-one is denying the climate hasn't changed in the past, only that when it has changed this quickly we weren't around to experience it, and that a climate change will mess up humanity's requirements from the land - such as farming where we have the suitable land, infrastructure, and skills to make use of it. Our crops are also suited to our current climate - more CO2 and heat will cause lower staple crop yields, and make pests more dangerous to the crops.

But I guess you can ignore all the science, focus on your temporary heating bill dip, and be happy. That's easier and doesn't require all this horrible thinking.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you're turning my comment into a strawman that you can attack. To summarize: I think global warming exists, I think the climate is constantly changing with or without human intervention, and I think whether it gets warmer or colder you'd have a group of people panicking over it. These are the people that always need to be panicking about something, and if there's nothing appropriately scary enough they'll find something. Humans are resourceful, adaptable, and intelligent - that's what got us to the top of the food chain. We'll be fine no matter what happens. Everyone loves to try to make headlines with the scare stories, but nobody seems to tout the good things that could come of it. I'm not ignoring any science. I just don't appreciate how a certain group of people has hijacked the science, combined it with sensationalism, and is trying to make a huge issue out of it.

Re:Back to the future..

[kwiecmmm]

The Earth has feedback mechanisms to keep things cozy.

Yeah but these feedback mechanisms have serious consequences as well.

The oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic because they are absorbing some of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The warmer oceans are causing some species to die off http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/unusual-warming-kills-gulf-of-maine-cod-151029.htm

And we don't know what all of these feedback mechanisms are going to be and what their consequences are going to be either. But if we start having mass die-offs of phytoplankton, most animals will die off including us.

Earth's feedback mechanisms, are made to cope with temperature change over tens of thousands of years, not in a century or two. So either we can change now to help stabilize this change before it gets really bad or we can just sit back and watch it happen and continually adapt to all of the changes, while we kill off a lot of different species and alter the planet completely.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

How many hundreds of millions of dollars did Al Gore make off that scam again?

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a nincompoop.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh... don' t be so sure about that. It's a hell of a shakeup; even if you personally don't notice. The industry I work in (aquaculture) had a pretty lousy year due to unusually warm conditions (which screw with the lifecycle of fish, and create ideal conditions for toxic algae blooms). If this is the new normal, we're fucked.

Re:Back to the future..

[Coren22]

He lives in a mansion and flies around in his own personal jet, so it must have been pretty lucrative. When climate scientists have their conferences over videophones, maybe we can take them seriously.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Gore went from a net worth of $1.7 million to $200 million in a matter of 13 years...I wish my net worth grew like that.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when was Al Gore a climate scientist?

Re:Back to the future..

[Coren22]

That was meant as a separate thought, but didn't get separated. I would never accuse Gore of being smart enough to be a climate scientist.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here in Finland...some days of last month felt almost summery.

Yep. Kuopio just got its first dusting with snow, and temperatures are just above freezing. Usually, the first snow arrives in mid-September and by now we're well into significant freezing temperatures. There was hardly even an overnight frost in October. It's more than a month out of whack.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the Earth have coping mechanisms? Why would the earth care?

Re:Back to the future..

[sjames]

Just think of all of those stinging and biting insects that are not going to die now that the weather is milder.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

So what i got from that was 10% water warming and 90% overfishing. Got ya. The fact of the matter is that only catching larger fish contributed more to the issue than global warming did. Older fish lay more eggs per year, yet the current state of fishing culls them all. Combined with the evolutionary effect of constantly culling larger fish selecting for smaller less fertile fish and you have fish stocks that are balanced precariously on edge.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the science related to increased CO2 for plants. The answers may amaze you.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not feed the troll.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your criteria for 'credible on climate science' is wealth, with more wealth equalling less credibility?

I take it you don't believe a single word espoused by wealthy energy companies, then? Oh wait, you believe everything they say.

Because you're a _fucking moron_, that's why.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore started off with millions, and made more millions. That's how America is supposed to work, aren't you paying attention?

In his case, he did it by putting his money where his mouth is. And for some reason, the entire right-wing media caucus holds that against him.

Re:Back to the future..

[Coren22]

Did you actually read the comment I responded to, or are you spouting off like a "fucking moron"?

Re:Back to the future..

[Coren22]

He made millions by espousing an ideal that people need to cut their carbon emissions, while producing more carbon that (according to snopes) 12 average houses in the same region, and flying around in his own personal jet (which is an enormous waste of energy and maximizes his carbon emissions used on travel).

I am trying to point out that the man made millions off of being the largest hypocrite on the left.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you what I read that everyone on slashdot has read too. Your greatest hits fails list apk put up. A good laugh at your expense for me. They show you're a failure in computers.

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just averaging out for the coldest February on record in 2016. I did that with going 88 mph

Re:Back to the future..

[Coren22]

LOL, thanks APK for the new signature, it will look great with all your failures...

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Back to the future..

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but this is the level of thinking far too many people operate on. Purely about them. Purely about what they can see...and the tiny bit they can remember. No thought for the future. No real understanding of consequences beyond touching hot things or sharp edges. Cigarettes? Booze? No problem.....cancer is so far away they can't imagine it.....until the pain or coughing starts and the doctor gives them 'that look'. Of course, along the way, their kids begged them to stop smoking.....but they didn't listen.

I reckon as long as people stupid enough to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol to the point of being drunk exist.....the planet is fucked. If they can't control themselves within their own corporeal realm (their body...) then they can't even imagine the community, the region, the country....the planet.

Re:Back to the future..

[ebvwfbw]

Been to a campus lately? You'll probably get mad. I know the lab I used in the 1980s. It was just like it was in the 1940s. Today the entire campus it seems has been replaced by up to date everything. I bet even the mice are updated and new.

Re:Back to the future..

[PopeRatzo]

Been to a campus lately? You'll probably get mad. I know the lab I used in the 1980s. It was just like it was in the 1940s. Today the entire campus it seems has been replaced by up to date everything. I bet even the mice are updated and new.

It probably wouldn't do to use the same mice they used in the 1940's.

Re:Back to the future..

[Plumpaquatsch]

He lives in a mansion and flies around in his own personal jet, so it must have been pretty lucrative.

He lived in a mansion long before he ever heard of Global Warming. And he never owned his own personal jet for that matter, and mostly flies commercial these days.

Early release?

[JonnyCalcutta]

How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?

More importantly, should they really be releasing the results so long before the rest of us get some sweet October next year action? Its totally ruined the surprise.

Re:Early release?

[JonnyCalcutta]

Just to add - a simple typo like that is enough to give my conspiracy liking friends a hard on until next October.

Re:Early release?

[Nutria]

IIRC, back about 20 years ago, the Chinese released audio of a successful rocket launch a few minutes before the rocket actually launched. Big chuckle in the West. Reminded us all of Soviet fakery.

Re:Early release?

[Anonymous Coward]

W\hen failure is not an option, its perfectly logical to release the information beforehand.

Re:Early release?

[jones_supa]

It's not a typo. They reviewed October 2015 and made a prediction for October 2016.

Re:Early release?

[serviscope_minor]

How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?

No, no, it's the third release candidate, so it's feature complete. There were a couple of issues in the tracker that we had to work out, but it's on the whole pretty much identical to the final beta relase in 2012.

If you're still on that, there's no hurry to upgrade, since there were no CVEs between now and then. If however you're having a problem with excessive numbers of flying insects still being present, I suggest you upgrade as those bugs have been worked out and fixed.

Re:Early release?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, it's the third release candidate, so it's feature complete.

It may be feature complete, but is it Turing complete? ^u^

Re:Early release?

[JonnyCalcutta]

Was it a good review? Should I pre-order or wait to get it on sale?

This includes estimates?

[Anonymous Coward]

So their "estimate" is the highest ever recorded?

Re: This includes estimates?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my estimate is much higher.

Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. "

There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago. In addition, the "estimate" of sea surface temperatures are done by models. And models have been proven to be complete utter bunk. How would they possibly have "estimated" what sea surface temperatures were from the 1880s? Therefore the conclusions reached are complete nonsense.

Although I 100% agree with AGW, the science is suspect.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there would be measurements of sea surface temperatures over many decades. This is done for good reason.

Even before meteorology was a science, people had a good reason to want to know sea surface temperatures. They affect fishing, which is a source of money and food. In shipping routes, it would affect when they might see ice on the waters, which is a hazard. Sea surface temperatures were measured then. I'm aware of data sets going back to the 17th century. You can easily get this data online for free.

Today, ships still do measure sea surface temperature, in addition to buoys. This data is of particular interest in tropical regions because of the importance to hurricanes. Measurements are done as water is cycled through the engine rather than lowering a bucket overboard to sample the water. For that reason, there is a positive bias to the raw observations during the past several decades. As a result, the temperature record is actually revised downward in recent decades to counteract the observation bias. Despite what some people think, adjustments to the data to remove biases work both ways. Not all are upward. Also, global sea surface temperature data generally comes from the many satellites in orbit. This data set only goes back a few decades, but it's a great data set.

Re:Why this is wrong

[PopeRatzo]

There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago.

Daniel Fahrenheit (1686-1736) just called to say you're a fucking nincompoop.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. There would not be measurements over many decade. Most buoys are taking submerged temperatures. I know people think there has been some massive array of measuring points all over the globe, but there really hasn't been anything like that. There are more now then there were, but in the 1800s? NO WAY. That is why they MODEL it.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Modeling may be the best option for a global gridded data set, because some areas may have limited historical observations. However, there are plenty of observations dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. The actual methods of taking the observations have changed over time, but there's a lot of historical data. If there's a potentially significant area where there isn't a lot of historical data, it's measurements of heat transport in the deep oceans.

Ships most certainly did measure water temperature in the 19th century. This was done by hanging a bucket overboard to fill it with water, bringing it into the ship, and sticking a thermometer in the bucket. Measurements in the later half of the 20th century from ships are automated and involve measurements in the intake port. These automated measurements of temperature are adjusted downward because of the heat from the engines otherwise producing a warm bias. Buoy measurements are taken at a depth of 3 meters, but are shallow enough to still be considered sea surface temperatures. Even satellites receive some infrared radiation from a few meters beneath the surface of the water because it's not all absorbed by the water.

It's actually a fairly good data set, especially for the 19th century. It's subject to a lot less error because there aren't issues with how observing stations are sited. We have a far better understanding now of things like urban heat islands that can bias the data. Sea surface temperature data sets generally don't have biases like that. They may be somewhat sparse, but even measurements on land were fairly sparse until aviation required a good network of land observing stations at airports. That's why, to this day, a large amount of surface observations on land are taken at airports. And that wasn't necessary until the 20th century.

It's generally accepted that global average temperatures were cooler in the 19th century, especially in the first half of the century. After all, it was the end of the Little Ice Age, which was due to natural variability in volcanic activity and solar output. Sure, there's more uncertainty in the older data sets because of less precise equipment and fewer data points, but they're still useful.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago.

Daniel Fahrenheit (1686-1736) just called to say you're a fucking nincompoop.

He didn't say there weren't thermometers; he said there wasn't a global network of thermometers at a standard height.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ships most certainly did measure water temperature in the 19th century. This was done by hanging a bucket overboard to fill it with water, bringing it into the ship, and sticking a thermometer in the bucket"

This was not global or accurate. To say that you can detect a 1C variation in global temperatures using buckets of seawater and non-calibrated thermometers is ridiculous.

The reason I say this is that many people think there is a hyper-accurate grid of temperature monitoring points evenly distributed around the globe. There isn't. And there certainly wasn't in the 1800s.

Modeling might be the best option, because there is no other options. But models are not accurate. This has already been proven.

Re:Why this is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"I call BS; they haven't boiled it down to something a 3-year old can explain!"

The real world is messy enough that your answer has never had, and will never have, 15 significant digits, that's true. Using it as a reason to discredit research is wrong, however. You might call it a straw man, in fact.

You see, despite the fact that different thermometers were used, over many decades, with some locations being added and subtracted over time, and with the oceans being undersampled relative to the land surface, we can still say: temperatures have been going up significantly over the past few hundred years. No, we can't give you a precise temperature, but we can give you a pretty tight range.

2016 huh

[Anonymous Coward]

So tell me since you have the time machine out, does it cool down after that?

Re:2016 huh

[Maritz]

Make your own prediction, let's see what happens. Put your money where your mouth is.

Data manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

The data are being manipulated to make it look like the Earth is getting warmer. The NCDC "adjustments" to the GHCN temperature data produce almost the entire warming. Look at Steven Goddard's blog for details about this. In other words, the warming is fictional. There has been no substantive warming since 1998. Global temperatures have been essentially flat. Were it actually the hottest month rather than a consequence of data manipulation, it would simply be an extreme weather event, nothing more. The Earth isn't getting warmer due to human activities. There isn't a correlation with greenhouse gases, otherwise there should have been warming after 1998.

Re:Data manipulation

[tshawkins]

Now here is man that actualy could do with a few weeks inside a tinfoil hat...

Re: Data manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind that you're cherry picking your baseline year (1998) and ignoring what >99% of climate scientists agree upon.
You're as willfully ignorant as people who claim germs don't exist.

Ever "Measured."

[Anonymous Coward]

Measurements only go back to about 1880. We're still in the high frequency noise of recorded data. We need another 10,000 years of measured data before we can really start to understand any kind of trend.

NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Glock27]

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[tshawkins]

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH
RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Yoda222]

Which part of the statement "This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured" is the uah data supposed to completely "lack of correlation" with? When I look at the global temperature in the uah data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt , Globe column) and take only October (month=10), I see that October 2015 is indeed the warmer, with a delta of 0.57 degC with 1981-2010, where the previous warmest were 2012 and 2014 with 0.37 each.

It's relatively difficult to see that in your plot, as you give a plot with all temperatures, including October and the other 11 months of the year.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Glock27]

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

Certainly. However, since the last adjustments, the surface datasets of record have been diverging from the satellite measurements:

The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again

Interesting that this is taking place going into another big climate conference complete with demands for "climate justice", and also while we're on the eve of a solar Grand Minimum...

A quote from that last linked article:

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[CaptainLard]

Lottery Commission: "Congratulations! You just won our largest ever estimated jackpot! $539M is greater than the next biggest jackpot by 0.08% +/- $2k! We'll know for sure in 2 weeks."
You: "Yawn. I only deal in absolutes and percentages greater than (some moving target)% and spend all my time pointing out anything less than perfect information delivered by time travelers from the future. As you can imagine the internet keeps me too busy to deal with that worthless jackpot."

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's "no revisionist `adjustments'", why are they at Version 5.4 and 6.something?
It's beyond ironic that deniers praise satellite datasets as the holy grail when they don't directly measure temperature, are repeatedly adjusted, and don't measure the whole globe. It's almost like they have some hidden agenda.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Glock27]

The most important thing influencing policy in these datasets are the trends. Both major satellite datasets show much less of a warming trend from the mid-90's until now than the recently "adjusted" surface datasets. No doubt this is a strong El Niño, we'll see if it can beat the massive average temperature spike in 1998. It's not close so far.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out over the coming decades...

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[0xdeadbeef]

Click here for the warming trend scientists don't want you to know!

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Yoda222]

So when you said before "complete lack of correlation", what you meant was "not 100% correlation", right?

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[pastafazou]

Just a quick question about this...if the satellite record shows .57 degC, and the GISS record shows a full degree, what does this mean, exactly? The discrepancy between the two values is greater than the error margins of the two sets. So how are we supposed to trust that the information is accurate, when we get contradicting values that go beyond the supposed error margins?

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Yoda222]

The biggest difference is the reference. The GISS is the deviation with the mean measured between 1951-1980, and the satellite data use the mean between 1981-2010.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[bdeclerc]

1) Satellites don't measure the same thing as ground thermometers (satellites measure the lower troposphere in its entirety, surface thermometers measure the surface temp) so it's not entirely unsurprising they don't give identical numbers to within an error margin.

2) Satellites don't measure polar temperatures very well, and polar amplification makes the temps at particularly the north pole go up faster than average - so a lower total response from the satellite data is expected.

3) People are freaking out over minor adjustments to the surface record which are well-supported by evidence (for example corrections made for a change in the time-of-day of the measurements at some stations at some point, or stations moving from city-centers to airports outside the city center) but the whole satellite record itself is full of far bigger corrections, the raw data of the satellites isn't a directly measured temperature but a remote sensor reading, which is influenced by a whole bunch of internal (sensor drift) and external (observation angle, satellite orbital height, weather conditions) factors. It's almost a miracle that they manage to get a useful data-series out of these satellite sensors.

Honestly, the only reason deniers try to argue that the satellite record is "more accurate" is because it shows a higher peak in 1998 and less total warming, allowing them to fiddle with the results to make it appear there's no warming at all - except that nowadays even the satellite record no longer supports that conclusion.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[pipingguy]

The Klimate Kultists have a handy-dandy lookup table to respond to any questioning of their religion (but of course, they Fucking Love Science!).

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[bloodstar]

Surely you must realize that satellites do not measure temperature directly. Instead they measure various wavelengths of light, and then use a weighting system to interpret the data Of note, most of the spectral readings are of the lower troposphere and *not* the surface. Additionally, there is a major issue of contamination from cloud cover when trying to use satellite data. That you put forth the idea that there are no revision or interpolation or adjustments shows an appalling lack of understanding of exactly how satellite meteorology works.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?

Couldn't you get around some of this by researching when killing frosts happened?

Perhaps the instruments weren't well-calibrated, and perhaps the testing procedure wasn't that rigorous, but I'm pretty sure people notice when their crops die.

If killing frosts happened later in spring and earlier in fall in the past, that would support global warming, at least in temperate climates.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

He who controls the datasets controls the agenda. Controlling the adjustments of the past lets you set the change of the present. Controlling the delta of the present allows you to dictate the results of the future you want.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[budgenator]

And the first satelite was launched when?

Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans. Is Current Warming Natural?

Anything that happened before 1950 temperature wise in regards to human activity is buried under natural variability; so the reality is of the time when measuring a human influence was possible, there has not been any statistically significant warming for the third of the time while a third of all of the CO2 has been added by Humans is without apparent effect other than the planet becoming greener.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one cannot ignore that the 'hottest x on record' is not actually the hottest x in human history since the record is only going back to 1880. Not to mention, since the time frame is so short, any month, day or year has a very high chance of becoming either the coolest or warmest on record.

If any thing, this article is meant to stir more climate hysteria.

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

...no revisionist "adjustments".

Now that's 'beyond ironic'. Are you a fucking retard or what? Not only are temperatures derived from raw satellite data in an incredibly indirect way, but the records have had all sort of adjustments over the years. There have been problems with the sampling altitude introducing errors; time of day issues; problems due to limited lifespan of satellites and stitching together of different records; instrumental biases etc. Some of the issues have been mistakes made by Roy Spencer and his team; others are just the sort of thing that one has to deal with when working with complex measuring systems. But to imply that no adjustments have been necessary is delusional.

And who the fuck modded up this imbecile?

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[bdeclerc]

Article title "hottest ever measured", not "hottest in human history", so your objection is to your own imaginary headline, cool that, bro!

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except variations in solar output contributes three-fifths of sweet fuck all to observed rises in global temperatures. Click here and scroll down to 'Is it the Sun?'

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

(Hint - it isn't, you fucktard.)

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro.

But most idiots seems to confuse the two...

Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements...

[Plumpaquatsch]

That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

UAH RSS

The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments".

Bwahaha, that's a good one. First of all, they don't even measure temperature.

No Snow

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully this means no snow for my city this year, I'm so tired of putting on chains for the commute..

Re:No Snow

[PopeRatzo]

I'm so tired of putting on chains for the commute..

I've heard of harsh employers, but having you put on chains is kind of excessive.

NO SUBJECT GODDAMMIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings from the future!

Great news for sceptics

[Yoda222]

This is a great news for "climate skeptics". They will be able to use the 2015 (or maybe 2016, if next year still benefits from el nino) for the next five years in the following sentence: "2015 was an outlier", and if the next el nino is not as strong as the current one, they will be able to use 2015 in their favorite argument in the 10 years after that: "the warming stop in 2015. There is a flat line if you use 2015 as reference".

2015 is the new 1998

.

Re:Great news for sceptics

[cbeaudry]

But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

If after this el nino, the avg. temperature curve is flat from about 1997 to present, with 3 el ninos in the mix and 2 large ones at that, it most certainly is an important observation.

The el nino is one thing, unfortunately for those cheering at "the warmest october evah", the la nina might just wipe the smirks of their faces... we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, the alarmists will be smiling and happy that nature is finally cooperating with their models for a brief period.

Re:Great news for sceptics

[Maritz]

Sorry, your disingenuous characterization of people who accept the overwhelming evidence is fucking pathetic. Nobody wants this to be true. There are people who accept it, and people who immaturely and childishly talk shit because they're too fucking cowardly to face up to it, and you are clearly of the latter.

Re:Great news for sceptics

[geantvert]

This is unfortunate but you are probably right.
Hopefully, I may live long enough to assist to a clathrate gun event that would put an end to that nonsense.

   

Re:Great news for sceptics

[pastafazou]

Calm down there spazzy boy, you might burst a gasket....

Re:Great news for sceptics

[dave420]

There is a third type, too: People who are so convinced of their brilliance, but who are woefully ignorant of the science at hand. That mixture of arrogance and ignorance can cause people to deny something very obvious and spout all kinds of nonsensical ramblings in their own defence. There are plenty in this very discussion.

Re:Great news for sceptics

[danbob999]

But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

OK let say 2015 is an outlier. Then the hottest year ever recorded is 2014. And if 2014 is also an outlier, then 2010 and 2005 are both tied as the hottest years. Then 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009 and finally 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Why are all the hottest years in the 2000s (save 1998, which is close enough)? Why are all the coldest years before 1920? Sounds like a trend.

Re:Great news for sceptics

[tbannist]

But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).

Head height thermometers

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing... head height refers to 2m temperature, which has been the standard level for such observations for a very long time. A thermometer in shade at a height of 2 meters is the worldwide standard and has been that way for a long time. It doesn't mean that every station is sited well, but there's a very good effort made with stations installed recently. That said, the observation record is far older than eight years. You're trolling.

Re:Head height thermometers

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that a troll? You just SAID IT YOURSELF:

"good effort made with stations installed recently"

Re:Head height thermometers

[budgenator]

A little less than 7.5% of the surface stations are situated well enough to expect a temperature measurement error of less than 1K, a little more than 6% of the stations are situated so poorly that an error of up to 5K can be expected. The recently installed stations are sometimes connected via ethernet cable, making it impossible to locate them far enough from buildings to get a good siting.

Settled Science

[Anonymous Coward]

..so why do we keep having new articles about how things are getting hotter, etc? I think lots of people are tired of climate FUD. If this was a really urgent issue to get the levels down in the atmosphere why shouldn't we jump on the nuclear power bandwagon for now until green tech catches up? Sometimes a perfect solution isn't possible.

Re:Settled Science

[pastafazou]

...because it's not about finding a simple solution any more. Once you get the politicians involved (big thanks to Al Gore), it turns in to "how can we use this potential threat to our advantage". It's now progressed from a simple solution (build more nuclear and hydro) to a multi-trillion dollar industry of conferences, research grants, earmarks, kickbacks, subsidies, and taxes. This nonsense battle has been going strong for more than a decade. We could've just built a dozen reactors and shut down a hundred coal fired generation plants. But that doesn't get the politicians the long term revenue streams they want for their reelection campaigns.

Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodology

[kenh]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the measurements are accurate, and that our data from 1880 is as accurate as today's data - it isn't, but let's just say that.

We have data that goes back about 135 years - how long has man been on the planet? The most 'conservative' estimates I've heard, which are resoundingly mocked by many here is around 10,000 years, which would put our sample size at about 1.35%. If man has been rolling around the planet longer than that (and we know he has), the sample size becomes even smaller.

So October 2016 was the warmest in the past 135 years... So what? If you're going to argue that a single anomalous weather event neither proves nor disproves 'climate change', how can you infer anything from data for one month out of 135 years, when the devices used to collect the data have improved in accuracy and scope over the sample period? (How did they average surface temperatures across the seas - they didn't have a global network of weather satellites for the first half of the sample period.)

Re:Glad to hear it.

[drinkypoo]

Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!

Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.

Where is the raw data to support the warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the data that's ALWAYS adjusted hotter in the present and colder in the past. No raw data gives the impression that somebody is trying to hide something.

Doc Brown's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly all that time traveling from 1885-2015 has wreaked havoc on the climate. All that energy from flux capacitor discharge has to go somewhere. Turns out our atmosphere has been absorbing it all along.

I guess the climate change people were right. It is our fault -- or at least one person's fault.

Re:Glad to hear it.

[RabidReindeer]

I don't like winter either, but running the A/C all through September was just plain insane!

Especially since I don't turn it on until temperatures top 85 degrees.

Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know the global thermometer measurement group was so accurate and complete in the 1890's.
I wonder what they used?

Re: Good to know

[kenh]

Guys in fishing boats dropped thermometers to a random depth under the water surface and recorded their temperatures as accurately as they cared to (maybe to the closest half a degree?) whenever they chose to.

What you have a problem accepting conclusions based on an ever-changing measurement methodology/technology?

Re: Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys in fishing boats dropped thermometers to a random depth under the water surface and recorded their temperatures as accurately as they cared to (maybe to the closest half a degree?) whenever they chose to.

What you have a problem accepting conclusions based on an ever-changing measurement methodology/technology?

FishingBoatGuy1: "Hey Johnny! Get your lazy deck-swabbing ass outside and measure the temperature."

FishingBoatGuy2: "Fuck you it's cold out! I'll do it after it warms up, asshole!"

Perhaps a built in bias.

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.

or you live in Oklahoma

All the way back to...

[kenh]

October 2015 was the hottest month in that entire database, which goes back to 1891.

Gosh, the warmest month in 124 years - that's like saying last Thursday was the warmest day in the last 4 months - so what? Add in the fact that our techniques for gathering surface temperatures were based on random samples taken by fishing boats four months ago and have steadily improved to currently being measured with satellites circling the globe for the last few weeks of my recorded history of temperatures.

NB it got pretty flipping hot prior to 1891, hotter than it was in October, 2015.

Re:All the way back to...

[bdeclerc]

We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.

We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last 100+ years very very well starting from first principles (not statistic curve-fitting as some would want you to believe)

We have direct temperature series going back much further than 124 years, only they're local, not global, still, they show that the current circumstances are pretty much unprecedented as far back as we can measure.

It's not because we don't know everything that we know nothing...

Re:All the way back to...

[Ol Olsoc]

October 2015 was the hottest month in that entire database, which goes back to 1891.

Gosh, the warmest month in 124 years - that's like saying last Thursday was the warmest day in the last 4 months - so what?

You should move to Canada where at least until recently, they would have made that secret knowledge, and it wouldn't have pissed you off.

Now that being said - you are right. October's weather was just that - weather. Not in any way indicative of anything but temperature readings.

Now if we shift to what would be indicative of climate, we need to look at trends. And once we get enough record or nearly record months of data, then years of data, we can make an intelligent assessment of what is going on.

And yet, instead of using the data freely provided to cherry pick what you like out of it, the answer for denialists is so simple, it is mind boggling to think it hasn't been done yet.

Th greenhouse effect is a fact. Proven by thousands of schoolkids in science fairs. There are certain gases that act to retain energy in proportion to their abundance in the atmosphere. Some are more common but less "powerful", like CO2. Some are less long lasting, yet much more "powerful" like methane.

The greenhouse effect is critical to our existence. If there were no mechanism to retain some of the energy that hits the earth, our dayside would be hot, while our nightside would lose heat at a fast rate. So to deny the effect is to make a need to invent another reason the earth's atmosphere retains energy that hits it.

So here is the simple task for the deniers. Given that the greenhouse effect is real, you come up with a hypothesis why it fails when taken on a global scale, then you try to falsify it.

If AGW does not exist, greenhouse warming must fail on a global scale. Moreover, it must self regulate to maintain enough energy in the atmosphere to allow us to exist, then fail at some point, and renders the atmosphere incapable of accepting any more energy.

Pretty simple. Do the science. Whoever proves that the greenhouse effect fails at global levels is looking at a Nobel prize.

Which in the end - why do the cherry picking,or character assassination political tactics, when you can topple the entire house of cards with one well done reproduceable experiment?

Re:All the way back to...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if your taxes are trending higher (like the temps are), I'd bet you would absolutely freak out.

Maybe we should try that. Taxes are 10*(temp differential) from now on. So this year, they're 57%. But two years ago, they were only at 37%. So, nothing has changed.

I'm guessing a lot more people would be on board for finding solutions to stop dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere *every year*.

Re:All the way back to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, just when I ran out of mod points
+1 Insightful

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Maritz]

You see the difference between here and Ars on the climate threads. Slashdot is full of spastics like you who can't face reality and take comfort in spouting meaningless shit like this. Beyond pathetic.

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Oligonicella]

Does that hold true if you think they're morons?

Cui bono?

[Opportunist]

Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

What's in it for you, specifically? I can see why corporations would fight accepting human created climate change tooth and nail considering that emission control is coming up right behind such an admission. What do you have to gain or lose from siding with whatever side you're not on that you go into full blown shitstorm mode whenever the topic comes up?

And this is by far not the only topic that gets people worked up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have no problems so you have to create some to get worked up about, so you feel like you still exist?

Re:Cui bono?

[fredrated]

I think mental illness plays a large part.

Re:Cui bono?

[Opportunist]

I don't even think that would be it. It seems more that people feel compelled to take sides in debates, no matter what. Whether you're for or against something is secondary as long as you can get worked up over it.

Re:Cui bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon credits and carbon taxes and carbon exchanges are very profitable and require every government on the planet to harmonize their laws and regulations according to an un-elected global government.

Re:Cui bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that the miniscule amounts of CO2 emitted by man is causing global warming and using that to shut down all coal power plans benefits the nuclear power industry. Giving out billions of dollars in government subsidies to "green energy" companies that couldn't survive without it benefits the people who own and invest in those companies. Carbon taxes greatly enrich some people. Doesn't Al Gore partly own the carbon tax exchange?

Re:Cui bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the "other side" lie

It was PR financed by some of the more badly run oil companies starting in the 1990s because they were worried about being hit by new regulations. Younger slashdotters wouldn't have noticed it because it's always been there for them. When lobbying turned it into a political issue things got very tribal and have degenerated to a ridiculous level which would be so funny if it wasn't so serious. An economist has been held up as an expert of climate FFS - plus a sudoku puzzle composer who also claims to have a cure for AIDS and be a member of the British House of Lords - it has gone was below rock bottom and people are making a lot of money by being professional liars on the topic. Meanwhile the actual experts that end up freezing their arses off boring holes in ice sheets are paid buggerall.

Re: Cui bono?

[silentcoder]

Miniscule ? According to the american geohysical union the total co2 from volcanoes is 0.25% of what human fossil fuels contribute.
If that is "miniscule" what the fuck would you define as large ? Everybody choking to death on smoke ?

Re:Cui bono?

[tbannist]

Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

If you really want to know, you should probably read or watch Merchants of Doubt (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.

What's in it for you, specifically?

Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.

Re:Cui bono?

[david_thornley]

Personally, I'm hoping that various countries move to reduce the warming, and it helps if there isn't all the shouting against it. Also, I like scientists in general, and when the deniers assume that virtually all climate scientists are frauds falsifying their results for political purposes, because that's pretty much what they have to assume to deny global warming, I get annoyed.

Re:Cui bono?

[Opportunist]

Yes, but WHY? I hear time and again that all the scientists lie, but WHY? What's in it for them? Do you get rich by saying that the climate is changing and it's man made? How? By hoping for grant money? From whom? There is exactly nobody out there who has any interest in you telling the world that they should stop blowing CO2 into the atmosphere. If you're in it for the money, argue for the other side. Their pockets are far, far deeper.

It's a bit like the question whether tobacco smoke is bad for you. If you wanted to make the big bucks as a scientists in that area, being on the payroll for Phillip Morris was certainly more lucrative than trying to blame them.

Re:Cui bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

One side wants to control you. Control how much hot water you have every day. Control how much electricity your house can use. Control how many mpg your car can get if it wants to drive on a state freeway and how many emissions the pig put out that your bacon came from. It wants to control how you travel, how far you travel, and it wants all the governments of the world to line up and suck their cocks to get just a little bit more power for their citizens. They are after total power.

These fuckers lie because they believe their ends justify any and all means. They will lie about literally ANYTHING as long as they get their way.

Re:Cui bono?

[david_thornley]

I'm not a denier, and believe the scientists are doing a very good but not perfect job, just like any group of scientists. However, let's take the assumption that there is no global warming (because we're emotionally unable to accept it, we hate the politicians who talk about it, or it would interfere with our paycheck) and look at the situation. Almost all climate scientists say AGW is happening, so there has to be some reason why they're wrong. They're either stupid or corrupt, and once politics is dragged in it's possible to pretend that the scientists are lying for political purposes (BTW, the scientists I've met were not about to change any of their findings for political reasons). It's also important to claim that prominent climate scientists lie. The data is showing global warming, so it's necessary to discredit it. If there are adjustments, they have to be adjustments in favor of warming (which they may or may not be). We also want to look at the data to pick holes in it; one typical argument is to assume that all the indicators have to be monotonically increasing or decreasing, and so if 2015 summer Arctic sea ice turns out to be slightly smaller in extent to 2014 summer Arctic sea ice (I haven't checked to see if it's true) that shows that we're not warming up and summer Arctic sea ice is rebounding.

If someone stops to think about this, it's almost like a reductio ad absurdam. I find it exceedingly more believable that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the Earth (pretty much undisputed by scientists since the late 19th Century), our burning of fossil fuels is putting more CO2 in the air (borne out by the decrease in C-14 in the atmosphere, and validated by comparing the stuff we're burning to what it takes to raise CO2 by a part per million), and that the surface is globally warming up (as shown by temperature readings and climate change).

Re:Cui bono?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess there are a lot of people who's jobs may be on the line on one side and people who are worried about the future they and their children are going to have.

Hey NASA, what is our chocolate ration?

[Anonymous Coward]

You told me that it was increased to 25 grams, but some skeptic told me it used to be 30 grams.

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[shabble]

As pointed out else-thread...

So October 2016 was ..

.. minus 11 months ago.

no no

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Norway october was colder than september, so I don't belive it.

Where does the sun go at night?

[truck_soccer]

You can't answer THAT, scientists.

It's been an interesting November as well

[Ol Olsoc]

Note - part of this is about weather, not climate.

Part 1 - Here in the northeast, the leaves are finally off the trees. I've been exercising my motorcycle with 100 mile rides every few days, took a big ride yesterday. Mid 60's temps. Almost too warm for my leathers. We haven't had a real frost yet, just a couple nights when the more vertical surfaces would get a kiss. Hot peppers in the garden still producing. Insects and butterflies still doing their thing. Hunters in T-shirts when once they would hope for tracking snow. I suspect that with the recent La Nina - or is it Nino - going away, the last couple cold (actually normal) winters will retreat now.

Now on to the climate part. Minus the last couple winters, what I wrote above has become the new norm.

And that's the thing. Part 1 above is just relating some really nice weather in a part of the country where its supposed to be fairly chilly this time of year, with a few killing frosts by now. It's just weather.

But coupled with the weather over a longer term, with the previous two winters now being the anomaly - Now that is climate.

And as we find out that the major players in inserting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - such as Exxon - admitted years ago, but hid or lied or sowed doubt, it is getting harder to be a denier every day.

Meanwhile, I think I'll take another long bike ride today. looks like another mid-60's sunny day.

You are confusing panic and fear for zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. The scientists are starting to freak out. They tried talking science and being calm about it and people didn't understand/react. They are trying to get your attention but you are thinking they are just being drama queens.

Re:You are confusing panic and fear for zealotry

[NetNed]

Sooo the "97%" of the scientist number that falsely classified peer review studies to get that number, along with loaded questions, was them (or just John Cook) trying to "talk science" to get people to understand? Yes, I don't think you understand science. Maybe we should talk about the "2014 warmest year ever" claim to that NASA even said only had a 38% chance of being right and the .02 degrees Celsius higher yet the tolerance was ± .1 degree Celsius? Maybe we can all argue how math works to? But hey, I don't want to be mistaken for a drama queen because math is math and you can't argue it.

Re:You are confusing panic and fear for zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is is that this article was designed to stir climate hysteria since any day, week, month, or year has a high probability of becoming either the hottest or coldest on record given how short the time frame is.

Re:You are confusing panic and fear for zealotry

[Yoda222]

There are currently 136 February month in the record (1880-2015, included) As there is a high probability (according to you) that February 2016 will be one of the hottest or coldest on record (I assume you want to say that the probability is 1/137 for each possibility?)

If I offer the following bet: you give me 100$ is February 2016 is one of the 10 warmest in history, and I give you 100$ if February is one of the 40 coldest in history. Do you take this bet? (you can change to any month of 2016 or 2017, if you want. We can also bet for 2030 if you want, but then I will probably forget before the date)

Re:You are confusing panic and fear for zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

If 97% agreed that AGW drives climate change then AGW would have been elevated to theory...which it hasn't.

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[bdeclerc]

We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.

We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last 100+ years very very well starting from first principles (not statistic curve-fitting as some would want you to believe)

We have direct temperature series going back much further than 134 years, only they're local, not global, still, they show that the current circumstances are pretty much unprecedented as far back as we can measure.

It's not because we don't know everything that we know nothing...

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[pastafazou]

It doesn't matter about the small sample size in terms of man's history, that is irrelevant. What does matter, however, is the accuracy of the measurements. There are large concentrations of temperature stations in populated areas, and very sparse recording stations in the inhospitable regions of the world. For example, there are 46 stations responsible for all of Antarctica. That's one station for every 304,000 square km. The same situation can be found in the Arctic, the Himalaya's, the Sahara, the Gobi desert, the Amazon...and yet their global temperature is supposed to be accurate to ±0.05C. The satellite record and the GISS surface temperature record disagree by more than a half degree, and yet we're supposed to believe that GISS is accurate to five one-hundredths of a degree!

Lots of talkers in here.

[Anonymous Coward]

But apparently no thinkers. Lots of claims of flawed models. Adjusted data. But no proofs or suggestions of improvement of current models. Interesting how many of you are smart enough to see the flaws in the data but not intelligent enough to offer a solution.

Is it just me...

[bcothran]

Is it just me that wonders how accurate NASA's global temperature records were in 1880?? I can see them saying it goes back as far as we have accurate records to ___, but 1880? I can't imagine how accurate this could have been - I mean the phone wasn't invented until 1876.

Re:Is it just me...

[geantvert]

Ho my god! You are right.
Modern phones can give you the local temperature but I am pretty sure that phones could not do that in 1876.

Re: Is it just me...

[bcothran]

Communication idiot - they'd have to actually contact weather centers across the globe to get temperatures. Yeah they could be use log books, but consolidating that kind of stuff would be a mess on a global scale unlike today. Don't be an ass.

Re: Is it just me...

[bcothran]

The telephone was just an example which has made communication on a global scale in a timely manner doable. How many weather stations did the US have in 1880? At which point did we have enough data points where we can honestly compare to today? 1890? 1920? 1940?

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in Oklahoma, you're also one.

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL at 'one month'.

That's a lot of typing for either an idiot or a troll.

SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is Slashdot going to post this crap once a month proclaiming that interpolated, estimated, revised, and combined data sets show each moth is the Hottest Eeeevurr!!

Lets get real here people, they've polluted the data so badly they can't even provide the original, unedited data. NOAA essentially threw out high quality, well calibrated data collected from purpose built devices by combining it with low quality, uncontrolled data from ships. Image if some drug company took data derived from blood samples measuring a drug level and decided they needed to "adjust" it with samples taken from urine.

Agenda driven Science is what it is.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a new mod designator.

P, for Pansy ass moderator can't accept the premise of the post and wants to hide it from everyone.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well with run away global warming, every month will be the hottest ever on record. Get used to it.

Re: SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems they have prematurely released this article as it states that October 2016 has been the hottest month.... October 2015 sure has been cold for me !

Re:SO...

[CauseBy]

Mmm hmm. Agenda. We all totally WANT gas to be expensive. That's why we created this international conspiracy of millions of scientists and politicians and activists, the largest and most successful conspiracy in history, all to make you pay more at the pump. Good thinking.

Re:SO...

[sycodon]

It's clear that somebody wants energy to be more expensive

And this is Slashdot, where calls to increase the gas tax are ubiquitous.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

What else can we expect when careers, grants, and taxes are driven by sticking to the global warming claims?

Re:SO...

[rochrist]

Actually, it's about ethics in game journalism.

Re:SO...

[CauseBy]

I support an increase in gas prices to reduce carbon in the air, not because I want gas to be expensive. If it were no impact, I'd want the cheapest gas possible.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the temperature will drop significantly in the next couple of weeks, proving that there is no such thing is global warming.

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Ol Olsoc]

I don't like winter, so this is excellent news!!

Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!

I had no idea that Bill O'Reilly posted on Slashdot. You can't explain that!

So exactly how does your attempted arson disprove AGW?

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Ol Olsoc]

Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!

Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.

In this case, I suspect the only people surrounding him are those nice young men in the clean white coats.....

That's weather, NOT (natural) climate change.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's weather, NOT (natural) climate change.

Fail. Again.

Re:That's weather, NOT (natural) climate change.

[oh_my_080980980]

Climate change is a multiple measurements over time. It shows a TREND. The temperature reading October is one data point. That data point compared to other data points going back to 1891 show October was the warmest October recorded. So you data analysis skills are severely lacking.

The Problem With Climate Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate Science has a big problem. That is that they can't seem to come up with a theory that is falsifiable. At first, they said if the pause continues for 10 years then it might mean something. Then, as ten years approached, they changed to twenty years. Now, as we approach 20 years, some are suggesting 50 years. Others are trying their best to just make the cause go away. BTW, out of 5 major studies on the Pause, only one, NOAA, claimed the Pause doesn't exist.

Here is an example of your typical Climate Science paper.

Money Shot:
However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.

So, it will snow more, or it will snow less. Either way, Climate Changes is the cause.

How can anyone take this seriously?

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually it has, it just doesn't fit your argument...

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[TwoEyedJack]

Their "theory" seems to be that if it is indeed getting hotter (note there is no consensus on this point), the only possible explanation is CO2 from human activity. This is essentially an appeal to correlation to prove causation. Correlation never proved causation. Ever. This is junk science, pure and simple. Experimentation on a global scale is technologically impossible. So we are left with modeling. Without a proven model, correlation is fundamentally incapable of proving causation. The model needs to be far more sophisticated than the current weather models that use partial differential equations and are good for pretty much three days then blow up due to not knowing initial conditions well enough. Laymen somehow think it is easier to model climate than weather. This is nonsense. Climate is nothing more or less than the integral of weather, and if you cannot solve for a function, you cannot solve for its integral except in trivial linear systems. Weather and climate are chaotic. Let's face the fact that some things are simply unknowable with our current technology.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can enlighten us? Because so far, they claim everything that has or will happen is the result of AGW.

Odds are that any other theory that claims to account for all possible outcomes would be rejected outright.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Stephan Schulz]

Their "theory" seems to be that if it is indeed getting hotter (note there is no consensus on this point), the only possible explanation is CO2 from human activity.

Counterfactual nonsense. Arrhenius gave a first theoretical treatment back around 1896, and a reasonable quantitative analysis in 1908, long before we could measure an effect. The basic physical mechanisms are well understood and can be and have been demonstrated in the laboratory. Of course, Earth is a large and complex system, so there are confounding factors. But the claim that the idea of causation is due to the observed correlation is plain wrong. The basic greenhouse effect and first-order feedbacks (e.g. ice/albedo and absolute humidity) can be described and modelled very well, mostly from first principles. If you think there is no causal effect, you would need to explain why basic physics is wrong. Yes, birds fly, and humans can organise a room. The first does not disprove gravity, and the second does not disprove the second law of thermodynamics....

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[TwoEyedJack]

First of all, probably unlike you, I actually have a degree in physics, with minors in math and chemistry. The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward. The "basic greenhouse effect" is laughably simplified compared to what actually happens in the atmosphere. If your assertion were true, the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep. It does not. Not even close. What you are saying is that there exists a massive non-linear partial differential equation that determines how hot it will be tomorrow, and the only driving factor we need concern ourselves with is the concentration of a trace gas that responds to the same wavelengths of radiation as water vapor. Only you can't show me the equation and want me to take your assertion on faith. This does not even pass the laugh test.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the models have failed. So I guess they don't understand it as well as the would have us believe.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Stephan Schulz]

First of all, probably unlike you, I actually have a degree in physics, with minors in math and chemistry. The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward. The "basic greenhouse effect" is laughably simplified compared to what actually happens in the atmosphere. If your assertion were true, the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep. It does not. Not even close. What you are saying is that there exists a massive non-linear partial differential equation that determines how hot it will be tomorrow, and the only driving factor we need concern ourselves with is the concentration of a trace gas that responds to the same wavelengths of radiation as water vapor. Only you can't show me the equation and want me to take your assertion on faith. This does not even pass the laugh test.

I'd suggest you don't try to pull academic rank on me - for all you know, I could be a dog. Nothing of what you said supports your original statement, namely that our idea that CO2 causes higher temperature is based on correlation. It's not. It's based on theory, and we now find that the observations correlate well (if not perfectly) with the theory. I don't know why you get the idea I would claim that "the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep" - no-where have I said or suggested that. By that argument I could claim that "bullets never kill people, otherwise there would be no dead before the invention of guns". Especially over hundreds of millions of years we have a thinks like different continental configurations, differences in Earth orbit, and even an significant increase in the luminosity of the sun, all of which contribute their own long-term trends. That said, we do find a general correlation between warmer temperatures and CO2 in the geological record - again, not a perfect one, but, as you say, the world is complex. "The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward" - and yet, we send people to prison based on the speed with wich a body cools and the path a bullet takes. We never have perfect information, but that does not mean that we do not have good information.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya...that's a failed refutation.

1. Observations don't match the models, which are the only validation available for the theories.
2. Previously, the Sun was discounted as an influence, now you are claiming it can influence?
3.CO2 lags warming temps. Ice core data, the only DIRECT measurement of CO2 concentrations show it.
4. No one wants PERFECT information, only information that can be checked and verified. Temperature records have been fiddled with so much that the original data is many times unavailable.

So in the battle between a Physicist and a Windows, MCSE, I'll go with the Physicist.

Re:The Problem With Climate Science

[Stephan Schulz]

So in the battle between a Physicist and a Windows, MCSE, I'll go with the Physicist.

Whoosh!

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.

Yes, just like the handful of sane people in Germany in the 1930s were, right?

THIS NO TELL ME HOW MOOSE AND SQUIRREL GET BABY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me how!

lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe you

ever measured

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice warmest ever measured. A measly 150 years is pretty small in the cosmic timeline.

I'd be concerned....

[Anonymous Coward]

...if it weren't for the fact that NOAA has been caught adjusting past temperature records to make it appear cooler in previous decades.

What a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I sounds like the effete global elite they are having that climate meeting in Paris in the nick of time, even while their dominions are being subsumed by the terror of the muslim caliphate. The lure of extracting global taxes from a dazed population of drones is that strong. I wonder what 'adjustments' were made to said temperature data?

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah, so where suppose to agree with what some moron posts on-line....try again Potsy...

The thought police are coming...if we let them!

[CheckeredFlag]

A recent Rasmussen poll states:

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming.

Seriously? 32% of Americans are not opposed to imprisoning scientists having theories that differ from the political establishment?!

Ridiculous you say? It's already happening with a number of climate scientists calling on Obama to bring racketeering charges on skeptics:

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

Have we really not progressed from the inquisition of Galileo? Time to wake up, America!

Re:The thought police are coming...if we let them!

[david_thornley]

We're not talking about skeptics, we're talking about deniers. Many of those deniers libel climate scientists constantly. Also, if companies did know about global warming, and deliberately denied it for their future profits, they have been fraudulent. Nor was there any mention of prison, except by you. (I was unable to access the poll, since it was on what my work filters deem a political site.)

Re:The thought police are coming...if we let them!

[CheckeredFlag]

Penalties for racketeering are up to $25,000 in fines and 20 years in prison so imprisonment is implied.

Science has always progressed through rigorous debate of differing theories. However, these debates should be done in the labs -- not in courtrooms with the intent to destroy any opposition.

Re:The thought police are coming...if we let them!

[david_thornley]

There's a difference between having a difference of opinion and knowing something and advertising something contradictory. It appears that Exxon knew about global warming while it was denying it I don't know that RICO is the correct remedy here, but there should be some way to go after frauds. (Someone who has no opinion about AGW, or has an opinion and is willing to look at evidence is a skeptic or, I don't know what the right word is, someone who has an opinion based on the evidence.. Someone who denies it categorically is a denier. Someone who knows it's happening and lies to customers about it to increase profits is a fraud. One of these three is doing something potentially illegal.)

Let's wait and see

[blbordelon66]

Let's wait and see if October 2016 is, in fact, significantly warmer than any other on record. Personally, I think predicting something like that almost a year in advance is just bad science :)

October 2016?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is NASA measuring future temperatures? That's impressive.

Re:October 2016?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, really, you should stay for some of the other articles here, not just the ones you are paid to troll in. Because it's pretty obvious there is a huge herd of AC shills swarming all over stories. Take your stupid FUD somewhere else where the readers still don't know what that means.

If you're a thinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Think on this. Do you really believe you can express dynamical control using political structures? To what state would you set as a control point of earth's climate, Woodstock 1968? Until you can do this don't pretend to tell me you are solving anything with your $ trillion dollar global plans.

1880...

[TonyXL]

Can they explain the millions of warming cycles that occurred when humans weren't on earth yet?

Re:1880...

[iggymanz]

The data from 1880 are useless, "weather stations" at the time would often write "morning" and "noon" and "evening" and then a temperature from an unknown thermometer which could have been replaced many times, with gaps of a decade or more in record......truly useless data for any serious purpose, but dweeb types imagine "oh but but but statistics!" could make something useful from such rubbish.

Re:1880...

[ssam]

Isn't that what the Berkeley Earth study tried to show http://berkeleyearth.org/about...

Evidence for AGW

[Tenebrousedge]

No, the evidence for global warming is the increased CO2 levels. The effects of global warming are everywhere because, you know, global warming...

If you want to contradict global warming, find some way for the Earth to lose heat by means other than radiation. Or prove everything we know about radiation wrong. Make sure your theory reproduces the existing temperature records/trends perfectly too. And after that I'd like a unicorn -- it should be an easier task.

You can prove the central thesis of AGW in your basement. It's not like it's hard to find CO2 (or H2O, if you want to test the feedback too). It would be nice to live in a world where humans were not emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases, or at least limiting ourselves to something that precipitates readily like H2O. Unfortunately people are stupid. Case in point: you.

Re:Evidence for AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Nononono.

I didn't say "global warming" or "climate change". I said AGW. Anthropogenic/Anthropocentric Global Warming (aka "It's All Our Fault")

A small, but significant, differentiation.

Honestly, I'm not against the basic tenets of AGW mitigation. Reduce carbon emissions, increase sequestration, and try to leave the planet "cleaner" than we found it.

Also, if we can find a way to do it that DOESN'T involve crashing the economy and destroying world order, BONUS!

Re:Evidence for AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

We're burning gigatonnes of carbon. CO2 levels are rising. Which part do you dispute? There have been lots of studies to determine this. See here, here, and here.

Determining what percentage of the CO2 is from burning fossil fuels is actually easier than you might think; the isotope ratio is much lower for carbon sources that haven't been in the atmosphere for millions of years. Humans burn about one cubic mile of oil per year. Do you really think that has no effect?

Sorry, all bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

One, the earth's atmosphere is not immiscible, therefore you don't need fine grained and dense sensing network to gain the temperature average. The hot air is fairly homogenous over large distances. We call them "Weather systems".

Two, we don't require measuring the body temperature all over the body to determine if you're running a fever. And for the same reason, we don't need to do the same to see if the earth is warming.

Three, your claim of 7.5% is false, based on Tony Watt's ridiculous "paper" that he retracted and still refuses to release the raw data on, because it didnt prove what he wanted. If you take what Watts considered "good" (your 7.5%), then the trend is HIGHER than the GISS trend, indicating that, if anything, the set is OVER corrected and given a cooler bias than reality.

It's 100% false to claim that there is an error of 5K. And irrelevant.

Re:Sorry, all bollocks.

[budgenator]

Hasn't got anything to do with what Watt thinks constitutes as quality siteing, the standards are published by NOAA

Re:Sorry, all bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Climate Network? Nothing there says that the other stations aren't reliable. Go read all the 36plus studies into the historical temperature records. Your claim is asinine and based entirely on blather. Look at the evidence, not your denier friends.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they did. You did not listen,

Scientific Method

[Anonymous Coward]

To all of the people saying that 'the science' proves X - you are mistaken. The scientific method has never will never and can never PROVE anything. What the scientific method can do is disprove conjecture(aka hypothesis) to point humanity in the general direction of the truth. So in closing, if you think AGW, Newton, Einstein Bohr or any number of theories that have been in existence have EVER been proven you have no clue what the scientific method is about or what it can do. In other words, science is never EVER settled.
P.S. Critical thinking is important now more than ever.

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/4... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ Migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Stupid, mine doesn't to get new data. Only hosts itself updates need it vs WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's technology to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET said hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Continued in #2/4... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/4... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

---

"your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

---

"won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

---

"the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

---

"What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Hasn't happened..

---

"They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

It works there!

Telemetry tracking (Killing 10 by itself) Win10 = Win8: A flop - who're you fooling other than yourself?

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #3/4... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/4... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates another antivirus I turned over on false positives (1/8 over time) & they were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap also) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> To be continued in part #4/4... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/4... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015/quote>

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVE I AM... apk

Coren22 'ate his words' vs. me 2x again today

[Anonymous Coward]

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures on me SCREAM you're butthurt!

---

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it: Only things it puts non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED?

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

APK

P.S.=> You fail... apk

Statistical magic

[Anonymous Coward]

We have been recording Earth's "global temperature" for less than 50 years; the Earth is far more than 1,000,000,000 years old (I'm being lazy here and giving AGW supporters a huge benefit). Do the math, then look up the current guess for the Earth's age (pick your multiple of the 1 billion I cited as an extreme minimum) and re-calc to see an even more accurate approximation of "completely insignificant".

All of recorded human history is a blink-of-the-eye relative to the Earth's age and our era of scientific instruments measuring global temps is a teensy sliver of recorded human history. The sample size used in all these chicken-little "the sky is falling!" stories is statistically so insanely insignificant as to be laughable - except that is suits a political agenda shared by both big government and the mainstream press and the army of "climate scientists" whose entire careers depend on them supporting the notion of impending climate calamity.

Anybody in even beginning classes the "hard sciences" or in engineering would get an easy "F" trying to cite a number that tiny as a significant measure of anything in the real world.

And the periodicity of climate events is ....

[fygment]

... unknown. So "records from 1880" may seem long in human years but really, it isn't. And it certainly can't be used to signal a 'trend'.

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally the consensus :

1) Envelope under consideration spans pre-USA to 65 years from now : 1750-2080
2) IPCC and NAS have stated that up to 1/2 of the expected increases are part of a natural warming trend.
3) Agreements are in place to cap GHG emissions circa 2030 and reduce from there.
4) MIT has an emergency temperature reduction plan if the expected increases are exceeded.
5) IPCC and NAS have requested that political demagogues back away from the microphones.

Given all of the above, an average surface temperature increase is natural and expected. What can be dome about it is a separate issue.

It takes a community decades to fund a power plant, and they have decades of operational life. There is no magic or political money machine to simply override sovereign nations and replace their power plants.

We know the G.W. Bush administration blocked Solyndra funding on technical merit alone, multiple times. Allowing the green progressive democrats free access to funding would be a tragic, ugly scenario.

It's worth remembering that the UN was tasked to handle the Syrian Refugee Crisis, and several nations around Syria pledged to accept the refugees. Millions upon millions were invested in camps, registration systems, agreements, local economies, etc. Look at the disaster of incompetence that ensued.

And now they want to manage climate change.

Thanks to El-Nino

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the rigged numbers coming from NOAA/NASA here are the real numbers from the UAH/RSS satellites. Yes a 2 year el-nino will drive temperatures up and the following la-nina's will bring them back down. NOTHING to do with CO2. In our inter-glacial period (the last 10,000 years) 95% of the years have been warmer than 2015. We have been getting colder for 6,000 years now and it isn't going to stop getting colder.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/global-temperature-report-october-2015-warmest-october-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/

Warmest Octobers, Global
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.43 C
1998 +0.40 C
2003 +0.29 C
2005 +0.28 C
2014 +0.26 C

Warmest Octobers, Northern Hemisphere
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.64 C
1998 +0.48 C
2003 +0.46 C
2005 +0.35 C
2013 +0.33 C

Warmest Octobers, Tropics
Date Warmer than seasonal norms
2015 +0.53 C
1987 +0.40 C
1998 +0.37 C
2009 +0.34 C
2003 +0.33 C

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

+ Migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

"figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

---

"it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it!

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

---

"Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Stupid, mine doesn't to get new data. Only hosts itself updates need it vs WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

---

"90's technology to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

"I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET said hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

---

"your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

---

"won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

---

"the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

---

"What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

Hasn't happened..

---

"They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

It works there!

Telemetry tracking (Killing 10 by itself) Win10 = Win8: A flop - who're you fooling other than yourself?

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #3/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

You tried using Computer Associates another antivirus I turned over on false positives (1/8 over time) & they were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap also) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

* YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

APK

P.S.=> To be continued in part #4/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

"introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

How can my program do it?

Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

(For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

(Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

---

"maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

"You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt! You did it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

"the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

"maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

"I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

"I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

Childish sigs = all you've got!

"I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

&

"You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

&

"I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

"written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

You're 30++ & haven't done either!

Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

APK

P.S.=>

"I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

You PROVED I AM... apk

Re:Glad to hear it.

[Rakarra]

Does that hold true if you think they're morons?

I guess it's a corollary to the old saying I've heard repeated a few times before: "If you have several bad roommates in a row, then you're probably the bad roommate."

Translation...

[TaleSpinner]

"Once again, we have massaged the data to prove the dubious claim that we have a new winner for 'hottest month' by a statistically insignificant amount in a swamp of data loaded with noise, and we're so proud of ourselves. The 'pause' never happened either, you know, we fixed that, too."

The bitchslapping of Dave420... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

Some /.'ers made you "eat your words": They use my hosts file engine saying it's good vs. your bullshit:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

(LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!)

* What's that you said I have quoted from you above Dave420?

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making me look good: You always say something I can put away with undeniable facts that prove you wrong... lol!

... apk

The bitchslapping of Dave420... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

Some /.'ers made you "eat your words": They use my hosts file engine saying it's good vs. your bullshit:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

(LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!)

* What's that you said I have quoted from you above Dave420?

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making me look good: You always say something I can put away with undeniable facts that prove you wrong - lol!

... apk

Re:Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodol

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your temp graph. The entire Holocene has been WAY hotter in the last 10k years than the previous 120k, so what?
http://b.static.trunity.net/files/111301_111400/111302/ACIA_figute_2.15.png So what you want to do is take high frequency high resolution data from the last 50 years and tack it onto the graph above, which is low frequency, very low resolution and say it "fits" or is significant in any way? And what models currently have got the last 50 years of temp rise correct? The IPCC AR5 graphs still way overestimate "modeled" temp rise as compared to observed.
Again, the entire HOLOCENE IS UNPRECEDENTED, did big oil cause it in the first place? But hey, I am just like a holocaust denier, right?
Simple modeling my ass, simple modeling has said sea levels will be +100 feet in 2100.