Slashdot Mirror
This Was America's Warmest Winter On Record (slate.com)
hondo77 writes: On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its official assessment of December, January, and February's temperatures across the United States, and the results are striking: Not a single state in the U.S. had a cooler than average winter. (NOAA treats Alaska and Hawaii separately, due to shorter weather data records there -- though both states were significantly warmer than normal this winter. Weather records for the contiguous United States go back to 1895.) NOAA blames the recent warm weather on a record-strength El Nino "and other climate patterns," most notably, global warming. As a whole, this winter in the lower 48 was about 4.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average: a sharp contrast to the previous back-to-back frigid polar vortex winters, especially in the Northeast.
This winter was during an El Nino. Not likely to happen next year.
Just saying. Take the global warming bs and shove it up your ass.
Global warming has nothing to do with how much snow is in your driveway, the snow in your driveway this year is "weather", not "climate". Measure it over the next decade, then get back to us.
You know what? I have no idea if warming is caused by humans or not. And it really doesn't matter.
If there is a warming trend, human caused or not, we should be dealing with the evacuations and necessary work to deal with rising sea levels.
We're not going to be able to stop it. It's time to figure out who is going to be underwater in 5-10 years (if anyone) and get them out. If there is a problem with warming coming, that is the solution. The rest of it is just babble.
Now, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, feel free. I just don't want to be sent back to the 18th Century to stop something that's going to happen no matter what we do.
I am all in favor of less CO2 emissions and more efficiency. I just think it is a waste of time, at this point, to make that what we throw all our money at, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference in the short term.
Based on that logic, any anonymous coward comment is just as credible as anything else posted on the internet. Of course, there's a massive amount of nonsense spewed from anonymous cowards here. You need to have a way to evaluate the credibility of a claim.
I'll cite Bayes' Theorem as a way of evaluating the credibility of a statement. Person A has made many statements about a particular topic in the past and has been shown to be correct. Person B has made many statements about the same topic in the past and has frequently been wrong. If Person A and Person B both make new statements about the topic, without knowing anything specific to the new statements, the probability of Person A's statement being correct is higher than the probability of Person B's statement being correct. This is based on prior probabilities.
Steven Goddard has made many less-than-accurate statements about climate change in the past. Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.
We have records going back through geological time. Those will show evidence of a much warmer Earth. That alone is not what bothers me about this global warming scam, its what the government wants to do about it.
Pick a government of your choice and I can much more likely than not show you how that government is scamming it's citizens based on the threat of global warming. I say this because for most every government the solution that they see for global warming is more government. I say we need LESS government.
I've been reading about global warming and the proposed solutions for it for a very long time now. If we are to assume that global warming is happening, that global warming is bad, and that human activity is to blame then I see only one solution that will reverse this trend and not destroy the economy.
That answer is nuclear power. Any other solution is a scam, a means to redistribute dollars from my pocket to those of campaign donors through taxation and subsidy.
Electric cars, ethanol, windmills, solar panels, cap & trade, or whatever else the government has taxed and spent before is nothing compared to what a fleet of new nuclear reactors could do. I keep hearing politicians talk about an "all the above" strategy to combat human caused carbon in the air but they don't really mean that because none of them consider nuclear power as part of the "above" options. Any plan to reduce human caused carbon output that does not include nuclear power is not a serious plan. I guess that alone is what makes me think global warming is a scam, the powers that be don't seem all too concerned about actually solving the problem. If they were concerned then we would not see them flying in airplanes or living in big houses. If they only practiced what they preached then I could be convinced of the hazards that global warming might bring.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Look, thanks for all the time you squandered typing that. Every person who read that either already knew that, same way you did, or they didn't know, because they're too stupid to understand the concept that modern science started several hundred years ago, and there were lots of people historically who were ready, willing, and able, and who DID devote their entire adult lives to taking minute, and very precise and accurate measurements of things much of which will never matter to 99.999% of the people, like the number of facets of a bee's eyes, the actual number of legs on a millipede, how many petals there are on a sunflower... etc., going back to before Newton.
They will not respect the data they produced because it disagrees with the narrative they've been fed, and because they're too stupid to think for themselves. They've outsourced it to others, and those others are insane, and actively WANT global climate change to occur so their imaginary friend's son can come back and rule the world. Like I said... They're insane.
The insane are leading the stupid, and probably not a few who are both stupid AND insane. You are NOT going to educate them because to quote Ron White:
"You can't fix STUPID."
Run by people dependent on funding from the current politicos.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You mean to tell me I should believe the people that are claiming to predict what our environment will look like in 10 years when they can't even predict the weather for the next 10 days?
Yeah, I know right? Like I told this math idiot the other day, probability theory is BS! You expect me to believe you can tell me the average of a million rolls of a die when you can't even predict what number will come up on the next 3 rolls? Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
Forget the entire "data has been manipulated" debate (cause that will never end). Look at it purely from a risk management perspective: There are 4 variables 1. If scientists are all WRONG and we DO NOTHING = We keep on going as we are now. 2. If scientists are all WRONG and we TAKE ACTION = We will have a cleaner environment (but we wont all die). 3. If scientists are all RIGHT and we DO NOTHING = We all slowly die out. 4. If scientists are all RIGHT and we TAKE ACTION = We slow and possibly reverse the effects. Considering 3/4 options will result in a benefit for all mankind, then that's a good outcome. If 1/4 of the variables is right, we are all dead - gone. That's a dam high risk to take based on a "If MIGHT be a hoax". We are crazy NOT to take action when the risk of all mankind being slowly killed is at stake.
And it was still warmer than every other El Nino winter on record. Your point?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except for the small fact that so far their models have proven to be very very wrong.
A broad, vague statement that demands a citation before it can even be discussed.
Until they can show any form of prediction, iterative models are garbage.
The process of scientific investigation includes making predictions (right or wrong) and then learning from them. Wrong answers are not "garbage" -- they're a baseline that allows scientists to plot the course towards more correct ones. And iteration is the process that improves them. If you oppose iteration, then it's clear you have an anti-science agenda.
And no, iterative models cannot be wrong in the 5 year timeframe, but right in the longer term (except by sheer chance), because errors are cumulative.
*FACEPALM*
There are many models of many things that cannot make accurate short-term predictions, but become more accurate in the longer-term. Oh, look!
All pretty much scientific method 101 here kids.
I'm doubting you ever took any science courses beyond high school.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This El Nino was actually weaker than the 1998 event, but the recent winter was still warmer, suggesting the record temperatures have their source elsewhere.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Translation: "I don't understand science. I don't want to understand science. I assume all scientists are corrupt, because they are saying things I don't like to hear, even though their methods have increased my life expectancy massively, and provided me this computer which I use to loudly proclaim how wrong they are."
The NOAA historical data has been shown to have altered, this is different from the previous time it was altered. http://realclimatescience.com/...