Slashdot Mirror
India Records Its Hottest Day Ever As Temperature Hits 51C (123.8F) (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A city in northern India has shattered the national heat record, registering a searing 51C -- the highest since records began -- amid a nationwide heatwave. The new record was set in Phalodi, a city in the desert state of Rajasthan, and is the equivalent of 123.8F. It tops a previous record of 50.6C set in 1956."Yesterday (Thursday) was the hottest temperature ever recorded in the country... 51C in Phalodi," said BP Yadav, a director of India's meteorological department, on Friday.
nuclear winter will do that + cool us down for some time.
If this trend continues, and it looks like it will, we will see "environmental refugees" increase. It will become more difficult to support life in certain parts of this planet, places that have had human civilization for quite a long time.
Sure, technology could alleviate many of the problems of living in a place with extreme heat, but that requires money and political will.
We have already seen the warnings about areas of the Middle East becoming uninhabitable later this century.
Where will these people go?
Who will support them?
How will governments deal with the crisis?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
You know it's a bad sign when the weather report for the day is "sous-vide".
Um, "shattered"? Really? By my calculations, the old record was 123.08 degrees Fahrenheit. The new record , as the OP stated, is 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit. I know this type of record often deals with miniscule differences in measurement, but "shattered" still seems a bit much.
The only cure is more cowbell...
The rising sea levels will soon put a soothing cool around their ankles, nothing to worry about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The only way to make progress is to start with yourself....I think I learned that from a self-help book.
Facts will never get in the way of ideology...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
If that does come to pass, then I think any of the deniers who are still alive and live there will be sufficiently wealthy to move to a more agreeable climate. They will have the same concern for other residents of those states in that future as they do in the present; none whatsoever.
You mean the fact that a temp within the margin of error of standard liquid in glass thermometers when perfectly calibrated and positioned is not in fact any sort of record shattering event as described by the article?
Now the PHB's won't have to even bother with H1B paperwork...the new hires can just claim climate-change refugee status.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Ever notice how high temps are "proof of AGW", but low temps are "just weather"?
Well, hate to tell you this, but one day's high temps are "just weather" too.
Is AGW happening? Probably. Is THIS proof? Nope, it's just weather. Local weather, at that....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
While I don't deny anything, the fact that somewhere on earth a 60 year old record was broken by a fraction of a degree doesn't mean much.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
I’m starting with the man in the mirror //
I’m asking him to change his ways //
And no message could have been any clearer //
If you wanna make the world a better place //
(If you wanna make the world a better place) //
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change //
(Take a look at yourself, and then make a change)
You think they run hot, try using an original Pentium 1. You could toast bread by laying it on top of the PC case.
I disagree on the terrorism part when looked at over a longer period of time. It's only currently that a lot of terrorist are muslims, most likely due to the wars we're fighting in the middle east.
But what the hell's up with the greenhouse gas argument? Do you get gassy from schawarma or something?
Eat the rich.
Look at how many temperature records have been broken over the last 20-25 years.
http://imgur.com/gallery/5IbCK...
Eat the rich.
That's why it's preferred to call it climate change.
Because "global warming" implies that extreme cold is impossible, when in fact, AGW actually means you not only get extreme heat, but extreme cold (polar vortex? That's balmy).
Basically weather gets more extreme - summers get hotter, summers get extremely cold, winters get summer hot, winters get arctic cold, etc.
Like I said, I don't deny anything but statistically meaningless. I don't have the chops to statistically calculate the number of records you would expect to be broken for the thousands of temperature measurements but someone does.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
Weather isn't climate when it doesn't fit the narrative. Weather is climate when it does. Cue the armchair scientists.
Meanwhile, I don't think anyone really gives a crap if it's man made climate change or not. We need to treat the planet better either way.
It's called "climate change" because the climate is becoming more extreme, not just warmer.
For instance, it could cause the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift to shut down and stop carrying warm water to Northern Europe, which would cause our local climate to change, bringing it much close to what it should be at our latitude, without those warm currents. Loot at a map how northerly Scandinavia is compared to northern US (even Alaska) and Canada, and then compare our climates.
Should the currents stop, Scandinavia will become a frozen wasteland.
Eat the rich.
Will remember that next winter when people are talking about global warming.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Would've figured it was higher due to being closer to the equator. The high for a U.S. city (i.e. not Death Valley) is 128 F (53 C). Several cities matched or exceeded 121 F during that heat wave. Yeah, India tends to have more humidity than Arizona, but a quick check of the weather in Phalodi says today's humidity is 11%, indicating it's also a desert-like environment.
I have no problem with High temps or Low temps... it's just data... math applied to data appears to scare people... (and we aren't doing statistics here)
When math is used to compute an average, and we look at that average over time, and the average over time increases every year....
I don't know what else to call it. I can't help it if our measurement units, number of collection locations, frequency of collection, and distribution of results is too fast for people to spin a counter story. I believe the undeniable solution would be to start a pari mutuel betting pool, and have people automatically bet a portion of their wages each week on the predicted change in temperature "races" the nature of this wagering is that the "favorite to win" will approach a 1:1 odds, and long shot picks will pay more, but the consensus is that it's unlikely to happen.
If it was your bet (and you have historic data to help you decide) would you bet that the next global "average" temperature recorded for a month would decrease / stay the same / increase? (laughing to myself because risk managers at major insurance companies already play this game)
Nice and Sunny here by the Beach
Google tells me that the highest recorded temperature on Earth is 58C, recorded in the Libyan desert in 1922, but that was later disqualified, leaving the record at 56.7 (134F) in Death Vally in 1913.
The problem is climate change. Both extreme cold and extreme heat are consistent with this change.
OB xkcd.
I guess I'm a Climate Change "Denier". But what I'm denying is that taxes and more government is going to solve anything. Which is ultimately what any "solution" is all about.
If you don't believe that taxes and government intervention are going to solve climate problems, that's not "denier." You are a denier if you believe that taxes and government intervention are bad, and therefore you attack the climate science (not the politics, the science) because it's a soft target.
The science is correct, or incorrect, regardless of your views on the desirability of particular solutions.
What I have seen, however, is that people who advocate a libertarian philosophy tend to attack the science because if the science actually were correct, they don't have any solutions to offer. Since they don't have any solutions, they deny the problem.
the trend is sure to continue because we're coming out of an ice age.
Nope. The ice age ended ten thousand years ago, and the hottest years of the post-ice-age holocene was eight thousand years ago. So, no, we're not warming due to coming out a glaciation, because that warming already finished eight thousand years ago.
the stability of the global climate in the last 200 years or so is an exception, not the rule.
Nope. The current warming is exceptional: warmer than it's been over the last 2000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What's more important, though, is that the cause is well understood. We know why the climate is warming, because we have very good measurements of other possible causes, such as solar variation, and they aren't large enough to create the temperatures we see. So, the worry isn't about the small amount of warming we've already seen-- the worry is that we are still emitting carbon dioxide, and the physics of carbon dioxide hasn't changed.
I find it hard for you to imagine anything when that temperature (in Celsius) would be much higher than your IQ.
Actually the Syria situation was initiated by an unprecedented multi-year drought. This depopulated hundreds of rural villages, which destabilized the regime. The Assads have been ruthlessly crushing Islamist uprisings for generations, but this time the cities were flooded with hungry, angry, unemployed young men. The spark for ISIS was always there, but climate refugees gave it the fuel it needed to become unquenchable.
No.
The protests in Syria, the rebellion, the rise of ISIS and everything else facing the Syrian people had NOTHING to do with 'climate'.
Let's start off with the reason for people to be angry and desperate, and that is squarely the brutal repression of the Assad family dictatorship.
Next up, what went wrong with the standard operating procedure of the Assad family of simply killing everyone involved with and related to the protests? For starters, Assad initially met the peaceful protesters with half-measures and merely used snipers to kill off some of the protesters. It would seem he estimated that would drive them off and be the end of it. He miscalculated.
Now, normally that was a mistake he could've corrected by coming in late and still killing all the protesters and their friends and relatives. The trouble for him was that Saddam no longer ruled Iraq and the Iraq/Syria border was now freely navigable instead of a quick trip from one concentration camp to another. Additionally, let's not forget the enormous wealth of resources Saudi Arabia was spending on beefing up the insurgency in Syria because they don't much like Iran's allies. With Saudi funded insurgents pouring in from the Iraq border Assad missed his window to just kill everyone and lost control of things.
Granted, the weather was a bit dry too. I think it is on the side of malicious though to twist every tragedy to boost your own personal agenda. So if you don't mind, stop it.
Stop using thousands of dead Syrians as props to promote the climate alarmism you desire.
Stop abdicating the collective guilt of the monsters in Assad's regime and the ISIS insurgents.
Please just stop.
If it's colder than usual, it's "weather". If it's warmer than usual, it's "climate change" an we MUST DO SOMETHING!!!
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
I call upon the Pakistanis with wonderful sense of patriotism to rise to the occasion and beat the record set by India. I am sure Pakistan will post 52 degree record soon.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm not sure you really looked into Islamic history. It's rife with War and slavery, and not just the Crusades.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You would expect that most records would be broken in the early years of registration. You have less historic data to compare to, so it's more likely that a freak heatwave or something breaks a record. But as time goes on, you gather more and more data, from a longer period of time, so the record-breaking tends to taper off gradually.
Over the last 20-25 years, we've seen a disproportionate amounts of records being broken, which is very unusual. We're seeing the records for highest average temperature being broken again and again, and while you may think a 1 degree celcius increase is not a lot, an increase in average temperature of 1 or 2 degrees is massive on a global scale.
Eat the rich.
And, maybe, they were — but no one would profit from emphasizing the fact, so we do not know about it.
We have also seen a large number of people profiting from the idea of AGW during the same period.
We don't even know, if that's true — for example, satellite observations disagree (until "adjusted") on this with ground-based thermometers. And no wonder:
The AGW-proponents acknowledge the problems, but claim, they are properly addressed by "adjustments":
Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...
And the raw — unadjusted — data sometimes go to sleep with Hillary Clinton's emails... But not to worry, the "scientists" tell us — it was processed correctly, trust us... So much for reproducibility being a requirement for scientific method — these guys are frauds, not "scientists"...
But even if it really is true, that temperatures rose 1 degree since 1850 — so what? 10 thousands years ago Tasmania was attached to mainland Australia. It was also possible for bears to cross from mainland Alaska to the islands of Kodiak archipelago (either over land or ice-fields). Then something substantial enough happened to isolate these lands. Whatever it was, it was not the humans discovering fire, was it?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It appears that it has been quite warm in India, at least since 1897 (when Mark Twain published "Following the Equator"):
"In India, "cold weather" is merely a conventional phrase and has come into use through the necessity of having some way to distinguish between weather which will melt a brass door-knob and weather which will only make it mushy."
But of course, Twain was speaking of weather, not climate.
that you're a shill and shut up, i thought that was obvious from the comic? maybe try reading it again, don't post again... we'll just assume you will post a stupid remark.
Despite the obvious evidence that this record high is due to man made global warming, the deniers will be out in force. It's a shame that there are so many people here who reject science.
One individual record is not evidence of much but simply just another piece of data in a record that is collecting thousands of pieces of data every day. The temperature record is made statistically more likely by anthropogenic global warming but can't be attributed directly to it. However most of SE Asia has been suffering heatwaves since April and it may be possible with analysis to attribute some of it to AGW in a few years.
It is a shame that so many people let their ideology get in the way of understanding science.
Unfortunately the record is invalid because at teh time everyone there was pretending to be from Birmingham.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No idea where you get that nonsense from.
The word 'margin of error' should probably be removed from the dictionariees that idiots like you stop using it.
The last centuries water froze and boiled at the exact same temperatures that it does right now.
Crafting a termomether is close to trivial. Calibrating it: is trivial.
The gab for your eye to measure between to marks of one degree difference away is about half an inch!!!
So 0.4C on a typical thermometer is something like a quarter of an inch, and you must be blind not to be able too read that with your eyes.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In general I wouldn't bet on such a short period as a month. But I'd happily bet a substantial amount ($10,000) that the next 10 years will be on average warmer than the last 10 years.
FYI. It's been calculated that at our current rate of growth, the oceans will all evaporate in less than 500 years. Obviously something has to give eventually.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Please don't hate, asshole.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And yet according to NIST the accepted margin of error for LiG thermometers is +-0.5 degrees F when recorded perfectly. Which means that the difference is in fact within the margin of error. Not to mention the calibration procedures are not TRIVIAL. Relatively simple, yes, but they still take a significant chunk of time. As well human error is a very common thing, and temperature recording stations are regularly misplaced.
Who is doing the weighting (adjusting) and how? What #define-s do they use in their code? Would they not stop "adjusting" before the results show the trend, which they sincerely believe must be there? See, what is "sold" to the public as objective recordings of scientific instruments are, in fact, results of "adjustments" by unknown programs using unspecified parameters...
How would you know? I'll bet you've never even tried looking for those "unknown programs" and "unspecified parameters".
You can start looking here. There are lots of links to NOAA's methods and reasons for adjusting temperatures and even a couple of graphs that compare adjusted to raw temperatures.
Or you can check out the BEST temperature record which is not funded by the government. This page describes how they process the data set and this page contains links to the code they use to process the data.
No one has destroyed any of the raw data. Some have deleted their copies of the data when they no longer need it.
But I seriously doubt you'll take the time to look into it for yourself and you will continue to gullibily believe the people who tell you those things. Unfortunately for you the real world will continue to respond to anthropogenic influences and if you live long enough you will find many of the things scientists are predicting will come to pass.
I'm not sure you really looked into Christian history. It's rife with war and slavery, and not just the crusades.
Substitute "Christian" for "viking", "Roman", "Greek", "American" etc. etc.
Eat the rich.
And, maybe, they were — but no one would profit from emphasizing the fact, so we do not know about it.
We can say with quite high certainty that they were, because right at the beginning you hit a new record every time you see a temperature increase, but as the observation period becomes longer, the amount of record-breaking temperatures lessen, because they have more previous records to be compared against.
But the last 20-25 years, there has been a enormous increase in temperature records being broken, completely disproportionate to how the distribution has been before. And you're saying all of this has been faked, for profits? Whose profits? Certainly not the hugely influential fossil fuel industries with their enormous lobbying power, who are fighting every single day to quash the publication of climate change studies, because it cuts into their profits.
But even if it really is true, that temperatures rose 1 degree since 1850 — so what? 10 thousands years ago Tasmania was attached to mainland Australia. It was also possible for bears to cross from mainland Alaska to the islands of Kodiak archipelago (either over land or ice-fields). Then something substantial enough happened to isolate these lands. Whatever it was, it was not the humans discovering fire, was it?
That is an average temperature rise, the fluctuations in temperature are much greater. That's why we're getting 50+ degrees celsius in the shade in India, while the winters in the northern countries are getting colder and harsher. We're seeing many more cyclones and extreme storms, the weather is getting more extreme. It's not just global warming, it's climate change. Putting all of that carbon back into the atmosphere in a single instant (in geological terms) is our fault.
Eat the rich.
Exactly, this is the first step to group consensus. You can have your opinion and go for the long shot, but the odds aren't in your favor. Most people will gravitate towards the favorite (and safest bet).
There could be several "races" that can be wagered upon, maybe a 10 year wager would have to be staged as a parlay. A series of bets that roll the winnings from each bet into the next wager for the following year. (It's hard to hold a bet for 10 years, but I guess it's possible to record the liability and carry the funds year over year) The problem you would encounter is your odds are subject to change until post time and the wagering pool may not be that large, which would influence your return on that wager.
Betting on a month, a year or even 2 or 3 years is betting on the weather, not the climate. Even 10 years is kind of short for betting on the climate but it's a bet I would have won every decade since the 1970s and there are plenty of scientific reasons to think that trend will continue. The only think likely to stop it is a really huge volcanic eruption.
So it might be inaccurate. What's wrong with the theory, though? Remember, if you can't identify what part of the theory is wrong, then you're spending an awful lot of time arguing against something you agree with.
Does CO2 not absorb IR? Does it not accumulate in the atmosphere? Have you discovered another way for the planet to lose heat? How about massive undetected orbital changes?
AGW is a scientific theory because we haven't been able to falsify it yet. We need only a single contradictory fact. We've been studying the issue intently for the last half century, and the central idea is more than a century old. There were a couple times when it was thought to be conclusively disproven, actually, but the competing theories were contradicted by other evidence. There are a number of possible facts which would disprove AGW. I'm not even going to ask you to substantiate your alternate theory, just suggest what else you think is going on. Why isn't Earth warming?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Gee, yeah. "A recent study by NOAA found no evidence of mistakes by NOAA". Right. The NSA would totally exonerate themselves too, as would Enron.
Sorry, hon, if 89% of your data-collection stations aren't positioned right, your results are junk no matter, how you "adjust" them. Turning a turd into chicken salad has a better chance of succeeding.
Sure, there are. And they may even be perfectly reasonable. The point was, they are themselves subject to reason — not as objective, straightforward, and indisputable as writing down values from thermometer would've been.
Funny, that's not, what the NY Times article says... It acknowledges the destruction (emphasis mine):
Funny, they could not spare one more tape for the originals and chose to use the space for the "value-added" data instead — even though reproducing the "value addition" would've been easy with a straightforward algorithm and the raw data, whereas going back to the originals is now impossible.
What "the people" told me — that 89% of weather stations were incorrectly positioned — is undeniably true. Police presenting evidence collected this sloppily would have their case thrown out from court, and rightly so. Yet, you wish me to believe you, that some algorithms can correct the sloppiness? Just how gullible do you think I am?
That said, my post you replied to was modded down one notch at about the same time your reply appeared — the pattern I've been noticing before... You would not have a collaborator here, would you? Someone helping you "fight denialists" to "save the planet"?
Anyway, still waiting for a list of successful climate predictions from you... You know the format...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm sure, there was a shaman in Tasmania 10 thousand years ago, who blamed the sins of his fellow tribesmen for the rising seas cutting them off the mainland.
Your proclamations today are about as credible as his were then.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, but when is the accumulated weather data applied to the new normal and the climate models updated?
Most people miss the point that there are changes other than the global mean temperature that are being observed for change. (here's a couple off the top of my head)
1. The north pole has moved because the weight of ice accumulated at the poles has changed. The pole has always been mobile, but the wobble has become more pronounced (just ask a figure skater what happens to their spin when they move their arms to different positions) A solid on a fixed surface has a different effect than a fluid that can shift with rotation.
2. The dissolved O2 and CO2 levels are changing in the oceans, along with the increase in ocean temperatures.
3. The amount (square miles) of thickness (getting thinner) of floating sea ice is decreasing. Watch the race between countries to claim the navigable sea lanes that are emerging.
4. Glaciers are disappearing (see point 1) not only are some land masses rising as the weight is lifted, but that water has gone somewhere (see point 5)
5. Ocean levels have risen. We live on a planet that is covered nearly 75% by water. To increase the MSL isn't just a drop in the bucket, that requires a huge amount of liquid (even factoring in the expansion occurring because the water is warmer)
I agree that a natural disaster on the order of magnitude associated with a historic Volcanic eruption can change global weather patterns, but If I remember correctly the planet bounced back to normals within 20 years the last time that happened. Unfortunately we would be burning anything that is combustable to stay warm and clearing significant vegetation to grow food, which will make matters worse... Stupid Humans
Rainy and Thunderstorms by the Beach (about 15" above sea level)
It's not my proclamations, it's the scientific consensus.
If you think the consensus is wrong for some reason, you're very welcome to disprove it. I'm rooting for you, because if you actually manage to do so, science as a whole will have moved forward. I'm not getting my hopes up, though.
Eat the rich.
Sorry, hon, if 89% of your data-collection stations aren't positioned right, your results are junk no matter, how you "adjust" them.
Well dearie, I await your scientifically based paper that says that 89% of data collection stations aren't positioned right.
"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Funny, they could not spare one more tape for the originals and chose to use the space for the "value-added" data instead — even though reproducing the "value addition" would've been easy with a straightforward algorithm and the raw data, whereas going back to the originals is now impossible.
Since the original raw data came from sources other than the ones you're complaining about the original raw data is still available to this day from the original sources. There was no need for them to hold that data.
I've been in computers and data storage since the 1980s. It was very expensive back then. The relatively small company I work for spent on the order of $200,000 a year on data storage back then. The amount of data a tape could hold back then was a lot less than now. IIRC our tapes from the late 1980s could hold 50-75 MB of data and cost around $75-$125 apiece. Based on the amount of data that was deleted you're probably talking about 10-20 tapes to store the data and then there's the issue of space to store them along with all the other important stuff they were keeping.
The point is that the original data from the original sources was not destroyed and is still available. All that was not kept was the CRU's copies of that data.
Just how gullible do you think I am?
To me it seems you are so scientifically illiterate that you couldn't tell the difference between a good scientific study and a bad scientific study.
Anyway, still waiting for a list of successful climate predictions from you... You know the format...
I've already given you a couple of examples several time. Someone with a scientific mindset would investigate those to see if my claims are accurate. Someone with a lawyer's mindset like you insists the forms be followed.
Ok, I've done some of your work for you. Here is the page on "11.5 Future Sea Level Changes 11.5.1 Global Average Sea Level Change 1990 to 2100" from the IPCC Third Archive Report from 2001. If you click on the graph on that page you get an enlarged versionhere. If you take a straight edge to the graph you can estimate that the projected sea level rise from 1990 to 2016 was around 0.05-0.06 meters or 50-60 mm. Here is a page that shows the methods they used for projections.
Here is a page from NOAA that shows sea level rise as measured by tide gauges from 1880 to the start of 2016. You can hover your mouse over the graph to get the exact numbers for a point in time. You can also use your mouse to squish the graph to zero in on the 1990 - 2016 part for better resolution. By my calculations the sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 is around 80 mm, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.
But you'll probably reject the data from NOAA so here is another graph that shows sea level rise as measured by satellite altimeters from 1993 (when the first one went up) to mid 2015. It clearly also shows around 80 mm of sea level rise since 1993, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.
So there is your prediction from 2001 of sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 and two observational datasets that show the IPCC predictions were on the low side.
Are you happy now?
Right, so if raw data is used, it cannot be used to measure temperature because the data is contaminated by nearby heat-sinks. And when the data is adjusted to remove that effect, it cannot be used because the people doing the adjustments have some kind of agenda. All of them.
So in short, your position is that there is no way to asses the earth average temperature, and we should just follow our gut.
Too late for this tactics. Your fellow alarmists have already accepted the figure — and tried to defend their colleague's incompetence with the "weighting" and "adjusting".
I hate to ask this cliche question, but "Are you stupid or a liar?" CRU have already admitted losing the data — irretrievably.
This may not prove that they are cooks, but your continuing attempts to deny it certainly makes you look incomplete...
Gee, you keep calling me "a lawyer" instead of simply posting in the — perfectly reasonable — format I requested.
Besides, are lawyers really bad? I don't see you objecting, when they are used to prosecute "denialiasts" — First Amendment be damned...
Seriously? Do you even realize, what you posted? The "prediction" you cited is waay off — according to you! 80 mm instead of the predicted 50-60... What a way to prove validity of a scientific theory!
And it exposes a thing about you and yours — you seek not truth, but a confirmation for your pre-conceived notions. That is why you made this very blunder.
For you a good scientific study is one, that confirms global warming — preferably anthropogenic. It is your primary (if not the sole) criteria. You are no scientist today — even if you ever were...
And then I can not help but notice, that you chose to ignore my question about whether or not you have (less articulate?) collaborators here, who leave the arguing to you while modding me down and you — up. Such question-dodging confirms my suspicions — I'm dealing with a cabal. Whether you are tightly organized or loosely collaborating, I find myself bare-knuckled in a gunfight...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"But the last 20-25 years, there has been a enormous increase in temperature records being broken, completely disproportionate to how the distribution has been before. "
And one wonders how many of the recording stations are in any of the ever-expanding urban heat islands, which in my direct experience can affect climate miles away. Most especially by disrupting afternoon winds, which in turn prevents local cooling.
I've also experienced a heat-and-dust island caused by a solar energy facility (this was about 5 miles directly upwind).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Too late for this tactics. Your fellow alarmists have already accepted the figure [skepticalscience.com] — and tried to defend their colleague's incompetence with the "weighting" and "adjusting".
I read through all three versions of that article and no where did I find them agreeing with your 89% figure. They said "Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be." Scientists understand this and take steps to adjust for it.
I hate to ask this cliche question, but "Are you stupid or a liar?" CRU have already admitted losing the data [uea.ac.uk] — irretrievably.
I read that article too and no where does it say that primary raw temperature data has been lost, just that the CRU does not have it any more. It's still available from the original sources.
Gee, you keep calling me "a lawyer" instead of simply posting in the — perfectly reasonable — format I requested.
Besides, are lawyers really bad? I don't see you objecting, when they are used to prosecute "denialiasts" [dailykos.com] — First Amendment be damned.
I'm not saying all lawyers are bad, they just have different priorities than scientists. As far as prosecuting deniers they are going after organized denial. Exxon's own in house scientists told them back in the late 1970s that anthropogenic global warming was real. The fact that they did not disclose that in their annual reports to shareholders as a possible material effect on their business may be a violation of SEC rules.
Seriously? Do you even realize, what you posted? The "prediction" you cited is waay off — according to you! 80 mm instead of the predicted 50-60... What a way to prove validity of a scientific theory!
80 mm is right at the top of the uncertainty range in the graph I provided so I don't consider it "waay off". Don't you consider it significant that real world observations have been greater than predictions? To me that indicates that scientists have been underestimating the effects.
And then I can not help but notice, that you chose to ignore my question about whether or not you have (less articulate?) collaborators here, who leave the arguing to you while modding me down and you — up. Such question-dodging confirms my suspicions — I'm dealing with a cabal. Whether you are tightly organized or loosely collaborating, I find myself bare-knuckled in a gunfight..
I am collaborating with no one. I'll admit to having down modded you occasionally but I have also up modded you once or twice in discussions not related to anthropogenic global warming.
The article cites the figure and then proceeds to explain, why it is acceptable — without disputing the number. In other words, they accept it. The article (known as Watts 2009) is thus entered into evidence.
Had a copy still existed somewhere, they would've procured one to avoid the embarrassment. And it was a major scandal — two months later NY Times ran a "rebuttal" (the dishonest newspaper's first mention of the problem, apparently), which still would not say, other copies exist. You are grasping at straws — and drowning anyway.
You wrote yourself, that the prediction was 50-60 mm, while the actual values — according to, once again, you — was 80mm. That's a fail... You may recall, that one of the rules I put down was that the cited predictions, if quantifiable, be correct within 20% of the predicted figure(s).
It may be significant, but it is unclear, of what. That the seas are rising may be observable and measurable (preferably without "weighting" and "adjusting" the observed figures, of course). That they are rising because SUVs — that is not clear at all.
10 thousand years ago Tasmania — already home to some humans — was cut off of mainland Australia by rising seas. A few thousand years earlier ancestors of Kodiak bears became separated from mainland grizzlies — by rising seas (or, maybe, the melting ice — another phenomenon blamed on humans today). Kodiaks are now a distinct subspecies... Humans crossed into Americas over what is now a straights, but was a land bridge until seas rose .
Were all those calamities due to the crime of Prometheus, perhaps?
Climate scientists today blame humanity with the intensity of ancient shamans. But, to establish their scientific bona-fides to people actually familiar with scientific process, they need to make scientific predictions — verifiable, falsifiable, as well as verified and not falsified. And that's where my challenge and your (so far — failing) attempts to answer it come in...
I'll take your word for it. Most comforting, thanks.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The difference is not in the margin of error as the temperature we talk about is measured in CELSIUS.
Not Fahrenheit.
0.5 degrees Fahrenheit is is something like 1/6th degrees celsius.
Also a thermometer goes constantly of in one direction only. If your thermometer is wrong to the plus side, it always will be wrong in that direction, and that is easy to be corrected. There is no 'margin'. The only 'error margin' for a thermometer is your ability to read it correctly.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Idiots are idiots because they once decided to no longer learn.
Assholes are assholes because they want to be assholes.
Pick what you think you are.
I'm by definition not an asshole, but thanks for your try :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
positioned "wrong" as simple as "it recieves full direct sun in the morning, but is shaded all afternoon".
now normally the hottest part of hte day is in the afternoon, from ~2-6pm.
but even your feeble mind should be able to grasp how such a site would give warming morning temps and cooler evening temps.
or: it used to be in sun 5 years ago, but now its in shade.
either because a tree grew, or the station was moved.
or any of a dozen other situations.
that doesnt make the data useless or wrong, especially if you know how to adjust for the changes so that each data point is appropriately comparable with the rest. (and if you actually worked with data regularly as you have claimed before, you'd know that)
and thats what the entire process is about. as i said, you claim to know data? then you surely are aware of data calibration procedures, or "adjustments" meant to achieve the same baseline so that comparisons between data are actually valid. yet here you constantly act mystified as to the why and how of it, and dismiss it as a conspiracy meant to cover something up.
which leaves you to blatantly ignore that the effect of those adjustments is largely to REDUCE the amount of warming shown in the data.
(this the part where you link to Watts or someone saying they increased the warming, where i will then rebut that stupid myth by pointing out it they are only talking about the north american (mostly US) data which was increased, but is more than offset by the rest of the data from the rest of hte world, that was by and large calibrated downward, giving an overall effect of reducing warming)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
i believe he's both.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
ok so the claim that you know anything at all about data science is complete bullshit then.
because the accuracy of a single thermometer has fuck-all to do with the margin of error of a dataset comprising a global average.
and no, the accuracy of a 19th century thermometer was not +/- 1C.
they may not have achieved the +/-0.002C that some of the ones on my bench right now can achieve, but nor were they that bad.
After being properly calibrated, which largely consists of marking hte scale along the bulb properly, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings. an as long as the bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed, their temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree.
damn.
looks like you didnt know what you're talking about again.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
as someone who does it regularly:
yes it is trivial.
no it does not take a significant chunk of time.
not for +/-0.5F.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That reminds me to a story, true story of an acquaintance of mine.
He is about 50 now, like me, doing Kung Fu, "Hun Ga" (the styl Jacky Chan is doing mostly).
He is rather small, like 155cm and very broad and has quite a belly, but well: legs etc. are pure muscles.
He could be a perfect Dwarf in a JRRT movie.
Anyway, the story goes like this:
He was in a queue at the cashpoint in a super market. Behind him a father and his 'little' kid. The kid wanted some sweeties as those were placed close to the check out point.
After screaming and arguing the father said: "No, you don't get any sweeties! Or do you want to end out like that fat guy in front of us?"
So my friend turned around and said: "You know what the difference is between you and me?" .... ....
"I'm fat."
"You are an asshole."
"I can change."
"You likely won't."
Unfortunately, or fortunately, the brawl we would expect did not happen. Probably the little child got a far deeper lesson than his father.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The article cites the figure and then proceeds to explain, why it is acceptable — without disputing the number. In other words, they accept it. The article (known as Watts 2009 [wordpress.com]) is thus entered into evidence.
The Skeptical Science article said "some". I wouldn't equate that with 89%. Nevertheless the poorly sited stations compare well with the well sited stations after adjustments. In fact the well sited stations show a slightly greater warming trend than the poorly sited stations when they are compared.
Had a copy still existed somewhere, they would've procured one to avoid the embarrassment [blogspot.com]. And it was a major scandal — two months later NY Times ran a "rebuttal" [nytimes.com] (the dishonest newspaper's first mention of the problem, apparently), which still would not say, other copies exist. You are grasping at straws — and drowning anyway.
So this controversy arises 20 years after the actual data deletion. I see no reason for embarrassment. Why should they go to all the work to reacquire the data just to satisfy someone like you? The fact is that other major temperature records such as NASA/GISS and BEST are not missing any data that they deem necessary. Even if you completely throw out everything the CRU has ever done it doesn't change the conclusions of climate scientists one bit.
You wrote yourself, that the prediction was 50-60 mm, while the actual values — according to, once again, you — was 80mm. That's a fail... You may recall, that one of the rules I put down was that the cited predictions, if quantifiable, be correct within 20% of the predicted figure(s).
Well maybe I should have said the prediction was a range from 30 to 70 mm. Then it would have fit into your 20% range.
It may be significant, but it is unclear, of what. That the seas are rising may be observable and measurable (preferably without "weighting" and "adjusting" the observed figures, of course). That they are rising because SUVs — that is not clear at all.
There are always weightings and adjustments to be made in any scientific measurement. Period.
I'm perfectly aware that sea levels rose some 120 meters at the end of the last glaciation. It was caused primarily by changing Milankovitch Cycles along with some feedbacks such as increasing CO2 and dropping albedo. All natural. But Milankovitch Cycles don't change much on century scales. The shortest one (and one of the weaker ones) has a 26,000 year cycle which means 13,000 years from low to high.
As far as the role of humans in the warming it's easy to show that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and that increasing concentrations will absorb even more. It's easy to show that humans are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Each year less than half of what humans emit stays in the atmosphere. It's impossible to not come to the conclusion that the primary cause of the warming we've seen is anthropogenic. Even such noted climate skeptics as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agree that increasing CO2 by itself would cause warming. They just think there are negative feedbacks that counter the CO2.
Climate scientists today blame humanity with the intensity of ancient shamans. But, to establish their scientific bona-fides to people actually familiar with scientific process, they need to make scientific predictions — verifiable, falsifiable, as well as verified and not falsified. And that's where my challenge and your (so far — failing) attempts to answer it come in...
Anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable, just not on a time scale satisfactory to you. If the warming doesn't continue, the ice quits melting, the sea levels stop rising despite continued human emissions of CO2 that would falsify it. If you could come up with something that explains all those better than the current theory that wo
Non-sequitur. Logical Fallacy. Who said anything about Christianity? Nobody was comparing them. This is a moron's argument. "..but Christianity!"
Fine, if you want to compare, use a relevant time frame at least. Christianity has it's share of shit but hasn't done anything on the scale of ISIS, Al Nusra, Boko Haram, Al Qeada, Al Shabaab, and the Taliban in hundreds of years.
I stated a fact. You can start educating yourself by reading about the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluks, and the Moors. Learn about their expansion and conquests over the middle east and beyond, into Persia and India, as well as into Africa and up the Iberian Peninsula. Sticking your head in the sand about it, or citing another group, does nothing, changes nothing.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
And you could start by looking into ALL of human history.
We are in a uniquely peaceful period in time, all things considered.
Eat the rich.
This is true, there have always been wars. My intent was not to say, "ermagerd, muslims! Tehy're all evil!" but simply to mitigate the fallacy that Islam is really peaceful, and that muslims have been nothing but benevolent throughout their history, except when attacked by crusaders. They're no more a religion of peace than christianity or judaism are. In general, Monotheistic religions aren't peaceful, because they're always worshiping the "one true god" and all other religions are thus the enemy.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.