Slashdot Mirror
Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History
merbs writes: NASA has released its global temperature data for January 2016, and, once again, the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered. At a time when these kinds of records are broken with some regularity, it takes a particularly scorching month to raise eyebrows in the climate science community. It has to be the hottest hottest month by a pretty hot margin. Sure enough, last January did the trick: It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980 (the benchmark NASA uses to measure warming trends)—in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'.
However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?
Just to avoid the 'but that doesnt happen!' here we have one:
http://drsircus.com/world-news/february-2015-coldest-month-in-history/
Not arguing a side here, just pointing out one of many many obvious logical faults both sides seem to have.
It astounds me how high these extremes at both ends of this argument have climbed up their pedestals.
Right, it's just weather.
When we have a cold snap the global warming types say "it's just weather" and so when we have a warm month here and there I believe I can rightfully say that "it's just weather".
To all those people that say we need to "save the climate" I must ask, which climate would that be? Where I sit right now in the USA was at one time covered in tropical plants. At some other point in history it was under several hundred feet of water. At another point it was under a mile or so of ice. But let's not talk such extremes, then. At the time Little House on the Prairie was written the winters here were -40C. Is that what we want? I remember last winter, we had -50C wind chills, and yet that didn't seem to make the news.
Let's assume for a minute that global warming is happening, that people are causing it, and this global warming will be bad for people. Okay then, let's do something about it. Let's do something that will make a real and actual reduction in our carbon output. Let's build nuclear power plants, like one new gigawatt scale plant somewhere in the world every month. Maybe we should build one every week.
You think we can't do that? I think we can. We've got the ability to build a lot of things more difficult than a nuclear power plant. I'm not claiming we need to be haphazard about it, take your time in getting the design right, make sure it is safe and properly inspected. Just do it at a rate that actually makes a difference.
Oh, I'm sure someone will ask what we are to do about the radioactive waste? We can bury it, reprocess it, or even dump it in the ocean. Whatever we do it's got to be better than oceans rising, famines, mega-storms, or whatever else global warming might bring. We're talking about saving the world, we can't worry about a few tons of radioactive waste every year, no?
To those that think we should change out our light bulbs for LEDs, take the bus or bike to work, use low flow toilets, turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater, drive electric cars, eat locally grown foods, and so on... I say I'd rather have the global warming.
We can choose living it up in a nuclear powered world, or suffer. If you think we have any other choice I say... bite me.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We know that to be true, but 1000 wasn't in the span of "recorded history!" Dude! It WASN'T... RECORDED... HISTORY. Full Stop.
This article is yet another feeble attempt at persuasive hyperbole by the Climate Warriors on the fringe.
One thing I see missing from all of these Global Warming articles is any semblance of actual science.
Where are the sensors physically located? How many are there? Have they ever moved? Been replaced? Are the temperatures an aggregate? Mean? Median? What raw data are they gathering? Are these the same sensors that spawned the last 10 "hottest day ever" stories? Or was that a different set? How often are they recording? Etc. Etc. Etc. I'm sorry but a single number does not adequately convey the wildly varied data across nearly 200 million square miles of land and sea over a 31 day period. You just can't tell me that this impossibly massive amount of data filters down to "113," and that's supposed to scare me?
I'm not trying to debunk climate change or AGW here. But I can only see so many of these "hottest month/year/day ever," in short succession before I start to question the validity of the science behind it all.
This signature is false.
1. There is no "debate"
2. No scientist has ever claimed the climate is static.
I never claimed a scientist had, its the chicken little followers that assume it was static, they cannot understand the change is the norm because they were fortunate enough to be born in a relatively stable period.
No. The temperatures change for reasons. The constituent gases of the atmosphere change for reasons.
Reasons that are not entirely understood, pointing to a an increase in CO2 that seems to correspond to a rise in temps is a nice reasoned assumption, but there a quite a few other other causes that "may" be factors up to and including the the relative albedo of a much cleaner atmosphere than previous generations had, rotational swing on the galaxy, the suns output, ocean currents etc..The scientists claim its settled, Thats a pretty obnoxious statement considering what we dont know about climate driving events.
Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.
Have we now??? Well, feel free to believe that, I will continue to KNOW that whatever small effect we have on this chunk of rock and water, there will be counter effects built in the natural feed back loop.
When in doubt...follow the money on global warming scaremongering... who exactly IS profiting.