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.
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.
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.
The earth is an oblate spheroid, the moon was landed on by the US in a number of Apollo missions starting in 1969, and a group of asshole al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked planes on 9/11/2001 and destroyed the WTC towers and impacted the Pentagon after flying low over my fucking head as I drove to work that day. Please don't be an ass.
However, I'm not a scientist. I don't disbelieve in human causes for the warming, but I have zero first hand ability to judge whether it is true or not. And to be honest, it is entirely irrelevant to me.
The point I was making is that ultimately, the requirement to reduce the warming of the Earth to merely two degrees is a distraction. And the bickering about who caused it is an equal distraction. Assuming we did cause warming, this happened over the period of industrialization. Fixing such a process isn't going to happen in the desired time frame. If we're dropping all our eggs in that basket, we're going to lose.
I want to make very clear that we're doing what it takes to make sure the people impacted are taken care of. We can bicker about what caused it, but we should be preparing to get people out of there and mitigate the damage.
To deal with the outcomes, all we have to prove is that warming is happening. If it is, then we have all the answer we need to start the process of mitigating the damage. I don't care if it is CO2, sunspots, or cow farts that is causing it. That's a problem someone else can work out. Let's get a pricetag together for what needs to be done and get on it. This doesn't have to be a disaster, but it will be if we ignore it until it is too late.
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."