Slashdot Mirror
Every Month This Year Has Been the Hottest In Recorded History (vice.com)
Slashdot reader iONiUM quotes an article from Vice that calls attention to the fact that
record-setting temperatures in July are just part of the story: On Wednesday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that July was the hottest month ever recorded on our planet, since modern record-keeping began in 1880. NASA has reached the same conclusion. July smashed all previous records... "We should be absolutely concerned," [NOAA climatologist] Sanchez-Lugo said. "We need to look at ways to adapt and mitigate. If we don't, temperatures will continue to increase"...
But the truth is that record-breaking temperatures, month after month, year after year, are starting to look less like an exception, more like the norm.
In fact, CityLab reports that the earth has now experienced 14 consecutive months of unprecedented hotness. Although July stands out, Vice notes that "each consecutive month in 2016 has broken its own previous record (May was the hottest May, April the hottest April, etc.)..."
But the truth is that record-breaking temperatures, month after month, year after year, are starting to look less like an exception, more like the norm.
In fact, CityLab reports that the earth has now experienced 14 consecutive months of unprecedented hotness. Although July stands out, Vice notes that "each consecutive month in 2016 has broken its own previous record (May was the hottest May, April the hottest April, etc.)..."
First they laugh at the science. Then they ignore the science. Then they actively fund bullshit artists to obfuscate the science. Then they burn.
It's so extreme its becoming funny to watch..
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/connecting-the-dots-on-extreme-climate-fraud/
It's hot in the summer. Duh. The Big Climate scientists need their grant money. Obummer uses this false flag to put us under UN NWO. Shillary wants to take our guns and our cars.
Feel free to add any memes I forgot.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
And you might as well write these articles so they can be reposted every month and every year from now until... a long time.
Because it's going to keep happening.
Should have got off our ass and done something about it 40 years ago.
Just get some ice from an asteroid and drop it in the oceans to solve the problem once and for all. Once and for all!
The claim that every month in the last 14 is the HOTTEST EVER is absurd. I know for certain that for very large portions of the Earth that hasn't been at all true. I imagine it is simply an artifact of the way they are currently averaging the temperatures. Have some of the months been hot, of course, but all of them is an absurdity used to push an agenda. It is not in any way a global phenomenon.
Even if there was a very strong global warming trend (far stronger than the expected) it still wouldn't be every month for 14 consecutive months. As an example, it claims that my area(yes I read the article) was "much warmer than average" in June, which wasn't true, it was pretty normal (in fact, there was a somewhat unseasonable stretch of coolness during some of that time). Now July, July was hot. Either their technique is useless, or it doesn't mean what they say it does. Its possible that June was still the warmest June on record, but their failure at such a basic task leads me to question that. If you can't keep straight the actual weather, why should I trust your interpretations of worldwide temperature?
Is global warming happening? Sure, but this scaremongering is absurd.
weather is the same it has always been
also, the idea of the whole planet dying is not bad at all, everthing has to die at some point, imagine all the politicians and bankers in the planet burning in a fire at the same time, it would be awesome. Having to burn yourself too is a small price to pay to see all of them burning, i say we fuck the planet until it dies
whos with me?
How do you account for the fact that there has been NO warming since 1998 blah blah scientific conspiracy blah blah blah you've been brainwashed by the government blah blah blah why did it rain outside my house today blah Big Solar blah blah blah...
I believe in Global Warming; in fact I worry about it as much as I used to worry about the Cold War. But, while the last few Summers San Francisco has been unusually hot, this Summer has been more of a 'normal' one for San Francisco, ie cold. I'm grateful for that, but well aware that I should enjoy it while I can.
(Normally I wouldn't post something like this as an AC, but somehow, I feel there's so much fear and denial around the topic, that I'm likely to get flamed by dolts, and while my flame retardant is pretty damn good, as Sylvester Stallone said in one of his early movies, who needs the exercise.)
Hotter than last year, colder than next year...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
We have been experiencing well below average temperatures. Hog wash.
That's why they call it "global" warming, instead of, say, "found a place where it isn't" warming.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Since they calibrated the Fahrenheit temperature scale downwards, of course the reasons are "higher" now. Its the same amount of heat just a higher number. Switch to Celsius and every month will be cooler.
The communist governments need to throw 20% of production into the sea to maintain the appearence of a viable economy. International trade agreements commit the parties to inflate their economies at the same rate so there is no relative inflation apparent to the consumers.
Corrupt thermometers are taking money from KKKilary KKKlinton in an effort to distract the world from the fact that she's murdered thousands of patriotic Americans in Arkansas who were going to expose the fact that she's actually in a wheelchair.
The conspiracy has now gone beyond just climate scientists. It's now built into the actual instrumentation. TRUE! The laws of physics are complicit, too. Nobody with half a brain would believe a liberal thermometer, anyway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This summer was very cold and unusually humid.
Well we can test your idea - if we get rid of all the big obese consumming merkins - then the world wont need as many cows, China wont need to pollute so much via co2 to manufacture shit to sell to them big dum merkins and we can plant trees on the farmland to soak up some co2.
You know when it is nearing the end of summer when they ramp up the "climate change" articles. I have noticed it is warmer everywhere.... expect where I live where it is cooler then normal.
Cows do - damn methane burping, farting cows and CO2 producing livestock (=compare livestock numbers with human population)
Damn straight! That's why I eat them. I'm doing my part to help reduce climate change. It's those vegetarians/vegans, the people who are eating the very things that are removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. They're the villains here!
So when I up end up with heart disease and clogged arteries and the like, remember that I did it to help future generations. No, no, there's no need to thank me...
"Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." -- Charles Dudley Warner, 1873
Or maybe they just keep altering the temperature data in order to get more money for study. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/
The adjusted data or my own lying observations ?
The satellite records shows a 22 year zero-regression shows 0 warming.
The weather balloon network, which measures the hot spot, says the hot spot is cooler than what it was in the 70's.
The land based temperature sensors are now running hot for 14 months? Time to audit them in accordance to the UN-WMO guidelines based on Leroy 2001 'Well based temperature stations" and remove the sensors that are placed poorly, and bring some sanity to this data set.
The only temperature set that does not match the others is the land temperature record. Its alarming how much stastical buggary is occuring and people are taking it as fact??
We have only been able to measure this arbitrary thing we call "global temperature" in the era of Earth monitoring satellites, the first of which was launched in the 1960s and lacked a temperature sensing instrument.
All temperature data before about 1970 is either from [a] surface weather stations (on land and in bouys at sea), which have been very randomly and sparsely distributed, [b] the logs of ships at sea which were VERY sparsely distributed, or [c] indirect things with no calibration, no precision, and no actual validation like tree rings and ice cores. Given that the weather stations were essentially mapped to the spread of modern western civilization and the ship data to shipping lanes used by modern western civilization, this means most of planet Earth has no temerature data from before about a century ago. Even most of the US has no temerature data from more than two centuries ago.
200 years of temperature data (I'm being VERY generous here) out of 6000000000 years = a sample of 0.000000033
This is statistical junk, but an election is approaching so end-of-the-world hypebole is in order.
Even if temperatures for the past 50 years had been up by 100 degrees, it would dissapear into the nois of any chart of global climate. These arguments over .1 degree changes within even 50 year timeframes are completely silly for anything other than political agitation and propaganda particularly when one considers that the geological record indicates a number of bygone eras of both much higher temperatures and glaciation (long before mankindwas here to build either cars or solar panels)
Cause does not matter. We'll feel the effects if we caused it or not. Personally, I don't want my summers to be consistently in the 90s.
I'm not saying that there aren't any examples, I just couldn't be bothered looking. But there don't have to be any, for the average global temps to be higher and no single place being higher. Its why the average is so important. Your willful ignorance of statistical concepts only shows how much you don't want to accept the facts.
I can't speak for other parts of the world but this year in Florida was one of the mildest summers I can ever remember. Right now it's 85 when it should be 105. Every day this summer has been on avg about 10+ degrees cooler than it should be where I live.
What they've begun doing is taking cherry-picked data and then "adjusting" for things like urban hot spots.
Translation: They're finding new ways to cook the data in a way that suits their narrative.
If the average is the hottest, show us all the locales where it was the hottest ever. Should be a lot of them.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
Not a single US state was lower than average. Not one. Small parts of two states are equal, and the remaining parts plus all 49 other states are above average.
Only parts of Russia and Antarctica were below average temperatures on the entire planet.
Except you already said "state" so clearly you don't live in either of those locations.
Conclusion: You're a liar and don't care about proof of anything.
Did they forget to mention this is quite a strong El Nino year? The last El Nino of similar strength was 1999, from memory, which kicked off the pause. El Nino is followed by la Nina, which cools the globe, so next year we won't have these tedious articles about short term spikes in weather masquerading as climate.
The majority of Republicans are still claiming there is no warming. NASA, NOAA, UN, climatologists, physicists, geologists,etc (i.e. anyone that's engaged in research on the matter) all part of the Socialist conspiracy. They are also hide the obvious fact that the earth is only 6000 years old and Jesus, Moses and Mohamed rode around on dinosaurs.
Here in my state, we had two weeks of record breaking temps every day, some by as much as double digits.
has been the hottest month this year.
Says someone who clearly knows nothing about data management.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yesterday morning it was 66 degrees here in Abilene, TX. This is usually the hottest month on the year here. This article is just more democratic global warming BS!
They did. They linked maps of them in the subject.
By contrast, you haven't shown even one locale (given that you haven't identified where "here" is).
The satellite records shows a 22 year zero-regression shows 0 warming.
The weather balloon network, which measures the hot spot, says the hot spot is cooler than what it was in the 70's.
The land based temperature sensors are now running hot for 14 months? Time to audit them in accordance to the UN-WMO guidelines based on Leroy 2001 'Well based temperature stations" and remove the sensors that are placed poorly, and bring some sanity to this data set.
The only temperature set that does not match the others is the land temperature record. Its alarming how much stastical buggary is occuring and people are taking it as fact??
If you are going to make outrageous contrary claims please cite your sources.
He was right about this one too (and invented the Internet).
There used to be a peak temp in 1998 then a flat plateau for 15 years. They then revised the numbers and said that from 93 to 2013 there was a small but constant increase in temperature. They said they used the same data as the previous history. How do you use the same number but get different answers 20 years later?? That is one thing the climate skeptics get mad at.
They are purposely placing sensors in places that inflate the temperatures. There is one sensor placed near an airport that occasionally received the direct jet engine blast and reports over 200 degrees Fahrenheit. This is all a ruse to pad the pockets of Democrat cronies and green energy investors.
If your local daily cycle is, say, twenty degrees Celsius and you experience a 0.2 degree Celsius anomaly, what anecdote are you going to get?
Ezekiel 23:20
What's funny about this is all the gullibles on here who are going to shout man made climate change. The truth is we've only been keeping record since the end of the 19th century. Yes ice and earth core samples can tell us something but the truth is science is really just best guess in a given situation. We've had cyclical climates since earth formed. Assuming we are the cause is so unbelievably arrogant it's baffling. Whether or not we are responsible tho, the earth will be way better off when we're gone.
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
What a load of nonsense it all is. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
No solicitors. I do not need any "climate change" pamphlets, thank you. No, you may not come in. I do not want to subscribe to your newsletter. I do not consent to the use of my tax money for your "climate change" research. To continue to accept my tax dollars despite this notice would be unethical. Please place me on your Do Not Call list.
+1 to Not subscribing to the religion of climate change.
I already have a deity of choice and it's not Al Gore's make believe science.
There will be more change in the climate from mankind pulling energy out of atmospheric convection currents via wind turbines than there has been due to all the flights and limos to climate summits combined.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stay-frosty-antarctica
matters, then you're already lost.
One of the biggest signs that you should be in doubt of something is when you are encouraged to look at something superficial like the quantity of graphs or charts. What's more important is the legends of the graphs. People are meant to be so dazzled by the number of plots that they do not read the scales and see one of the biggest frauds in the entire field:
We are all arguing about tenths or even hundredths of a degree!!! I do not care if a computed "gloabal temperature" [average of arbitrarily-selected data points] goes up or down by less than a degree; it's meaningless and more-likely an artifact of all the over-analysis being done to get BILLIONS of dollars in government money being directed worldwide by politicians and political activists.
NOBODY on Earth was measuring temperatures at those resolutions anywhere outside of a science lab before the 1970s.
Tree rings and ice cores are not accurate to 10ths or 100ths of a degree!
All this imaginary thermal data accuracy is nothing more than the decimal places produced from performing math on much coarser numeric data, and as we USED to all learn in the most-basic 1st year science and engineering courses: that sort of math does NOT add precision.
To illustrate the matter:
If you have two thermometers that each measure with 1 degree of accuracy, and one indicates 7 degrees while the other indicates 2 degrees, the average will be 4.5 degrees but that DOES NOT MEAN the actual temperature IS 4.5 degrees, nor does it mean that your two thermometers have magically gained the ability to measure tenths of a degree, nor does it mean that you can now consider that ".5" part of the "average temperature" to have any real meaning.
It was about five years ago and I read on Slashdot on how, at about this same time of year, the year had record setting high temperatures. This made for an interesting discussion at work. I had co-workers tell me that this is for certain proof of global warming. I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note. The wager was accepted.
January rolled around and I went to collect on my wager. Wouldn't you know that the co-worker that accepted the wager had no recollection of the article, the wager, or the discussion. I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening. The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.
Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I was going to pen a comprehensive and detailed rebuttal of your assertions but then I thought, what's the point? So I'll just say you're off your chump.
That post got scored "-1" even though it was just basic facts
We've already extincted most of the big animals, and thats just a few millions with sticks.
A few years ago some egyptians dug another tunnel between the red sea and the mediterrenian, messing the ecosystem and water flow pretty bad
To NOAA recorded history is 137 years of record keeping. In the terms of since earth had been habituated by mammals, 315 million years, that is an extremely short time. It does not compare with what happened hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago.
Just this week I caught a news story attributing the flooding in Louisiana to global warming.
It's nice to hear something positive about global warming finally.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"I'm a big skeptic of climate change because humans do not cause this"
If you have already settled on answer, that makes you *not* a skeptic.
Air conditioning in the home, car, and office work fine. Is this aimed at people who actually go outside?
/.? Wanna quit snorting coke off hooker tits for an hour or so and give us the image our mind's eye is trying to show?
FWIW, don't remember where I read the original article, but the idea of cows having fart bags to capture their "emissions" seems really ripe for a Gary Larson cartoon. Gary, do you read
A recent paper predicts global cooling starting as soon as 2040 from the rapid melting of ice sheets. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net...
CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
The world will end in 2002, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022, 2026, 2029 or 2046, according to a series of expert observations:
1992:
There’s still hope for saving the planet from ourselves 10 years left.
2005:
We can only have a few years left, maybe a decade, to change societal attitudes towards progress before we have “lit the fuse” for inevitable environmental catastrophe in later decades.
2006:
We may have as little as forty years left before global warming passes a tipping point.
2006:
Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”
2006:
The world only has 10 years to develop and implement new technologies to generate clean electricity before climate change reaches a point of no return.
2007:
Scientists say eight years left to avoid worst effects
2007:
The scientific consensus is that we’ve got only ten years left to address global warming.
2007:
EU, US agree 15 years left to avert climate disaster.
2008:
We have only seven years left to peak global emissions before facing escalating dangers of runaway global warming.
2008:
The Stern Report said we’ve only got eight to eighteen years left to significantly reduce global emissions or risk costly and irreversible damage to the planet.
2009:
We have, at best, 100 left before a new, far more dangerous phase of global warming begins With at best 90 months left on our clock.
2009:
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen.
2009:
Runaway climate change is almost inevitable without specific action to implement low-carbon re-industrialisation over the next five years. The point of no return is estimated to be 2014.
2009:
Tim Flannery, the well-known Australian environmentalist, was on CBC Radio the other day to issue more alarms about global warming. He was more pessimistic than ever. “It’s now or never,” he said. “We have about 20 years to address climate change or else our entire future is in jeopardy.”
2009:
Prince Charles flew to Chile yesterday with a dramatic message for world leaders on global warming: “You have just eight years to save the planet.”
2009:
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.
2011:
The Climate Commission report says the world has at best 10 years to cut carbon emissions or it will face dangerous atmospheric warming and sea level rises.
CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at 1000 ppm
Harvard study
Yawn.
So do this mean that Europeans caused the Medieval Warm Period, then later the Little Ice Age?
What about next year? Will it be as bad then too? ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT :(
After the previous temperature records were "normalized" is it any wonder that all of a sudden every month is a record? The record heat of the 1930s has been virtually wiped out by this "normalization" process. We are being scammed folks and the people doing the scamming have their sights set on your freedom and your wallet. Count on it.
Species naturally go extinct all of the time and always have. Whatever humans did had no significant impact.
o There are those who believe Global Warming is real and are worried about how we can reverse it.
o There are those who deny it is real.
o There are those who don't care, as long as the local weather is good enough where they live in their lifetime (larger group than you think!)
Innit? Or, it was when the surface temperature wasn't playing dice. See now that the surface temperature is experiencing an El Nino spike it's now THE place to look for global warming/change/thing. Some of us have memories which got back more than a few weeks.
(Haven't we been through this before?)
Not if the bias is systemic. It often is. There are lots of papers on the subject.
it's in my head
No. Believe it or not, past episodes of changing climate have had a variety of causes.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Thanks, I've been working out.
That depends, if your head hurts because you got punched in the face, does it mean that all past times your head hurt you also got punched in the face?
Isn't there a basic test you need to pass before you get mod points? I mean Slashdot has always been a place for conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers, but normally they don't get upvoted.
Last year - in particular the start of July and August - we had the highest temperatures ever recorded here.
This year has been a few degrees cooler, the thunderstorms in May and June stopped the temperatures running away.
Elsewhere? No idea.
I glanced at a forum recently which claimed to have found proof that global warming is really fiction. It was some community site in Oregon. The crazy thing was, the posters to that forum were serious.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Actually that is bad news for GW propagandists.
Because the next year and probably all that follow will be colder.
So.... "where exactly is this global warming thing now??"
This will finally make you shut your lying/naive mouths.
..... you fucking idiot...
Since the real question isn't "what caused all previous episodes of warming" but "are current human activities causing warming", I think the appropriate experiment is to punch GP in the face repeatedly, just to establish increased confidence in the degree of correlation.
"Ever recorded" does not, in any way equate to "Ever" - "Ever Recorded" should always be followed by a phrase indicating how far back those records go...
Various commenters have pointed out that they have had unremarkable, or even cool temperatures this year. The warmists reliably respond "weather isn't climate". But you know: enough individual weather data points are climate.
Before you make this comment "troll", consider just one little example:
This year, much of western continental Europe had an unusually cold Spring, from April through June. While individual cooler days are not unusual, this is the first year I have ever had to run the heating in June, because the entire month was cold. This wasn't confined to one town, or even one country - it affected most of Germany, northern France, Switzerland, Austria, etc.. The weather phenomenon was well-explained: the jet stream had an unusually strong north-to-south orientation, bringing cold polar air for most of the Spring.
Why is this important? Because - despite the obviously cold temperatures, over a large region, lasting several weeks, the global climate trends claims that we had an unusually warm Spring. Look, for example, at the GISS site, and ask it for a map for May or June 2016. Note how all of Europe is colored orange (i.e., unusually warm), for both months. This is simply a lie, and can only work because of the way historical temperatures have been artificially adjusted downwards.
Look, the earth is warming. Glaciers are retreating. The lakes and canals that our grandparents skated on? They no longer freeze over. There's no doubt of any of that. Why is it necessary to falsify data, in an attempt to make things look catastrophic? This only serves to destroy the credibility of climate science.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What, like the dinosaurs? I'd love a list of the 'big animals' we've 'already extincted'...
Antarctica has winter right now, that includes polar night ... in other words, places are dark 24h/7d ... well slowly shifting to a cycle with very long night and short periods of sunlight ofc. (after all it is end of summer, erm end of winter there).
It is astonishing (not you AC) that people believe the coldest place on the planet needs to warm up in winter equally than the warm areas. They don't grasp the fundamental differences between the Artic and Antarctic :-/
I'm still thinking people should need a license to vote, and one to run for office, would keep some dumb asses out of the race immediately
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... what an ignorant place slashdot has become. Back in the day I could read comments from people with real expertise for insights beyond what you could find in the news. Now the place is overrun by anti-science know-nothings. What happened to you, slashdot?
And the north east one was free 2014 and 2012 at least, not sure about right now.
Anyway, I guess no one of the AGW deniers grasps what it means: "the northwest passage is ice free!"
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Does not sound nearly as scary as "on record" or "ever recorded"
Sounding scary is important to people with an agenda..
Have they ever considered the Earth is warming up naturally?
They do recognise the existence of ice ages, why not the opposite?
Climate Gate Emails.
What leftist fascist echo chamber have you been hiding in for decades?
Actually if you look at the math in this paper temperature anomalies of the 20th century were not in any way unusual fom temperature anomalies in the previous 8100 centuries:
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
Think about it, pick any two points on a line and you can show a positive, negative or zero slope and "prove" anything if you pick the two points correctly. For example using the noaa data post 2K you can show warming, cooling or no change *depending on what points you pick*. (The NOAA has a graphing calculator you can play with to prove this to yourself - if you can prove your opponents point with this tool as well as yours maybe the methodology was meant for demonstration to the public and not mathematical rigor, eh?
The fact they play fast and loose with the math is not confidence inspiring. Recall the statement "each of the past 10 years has been the hottest on record" - the president has actually said this (and you'll note has never used the word "pollution") but the numbers clearly show that 1989 was the hottest year and each year from 200o to 2009 was colder than the previous one. A clear decadal cooling period but still hot years this making the statement true, despite the fact it got cooler each year not warmer as they tried to infer. That's not science, that's marketing. If you have to lie about it, it's probably not true or you wouldn't need to lie you's just explain the facts. The facts are it stopped warming and we were wrong about CO2. Overall it has a positive effect, not negative and it created by an increase in temperature not vice versa. Only 4 billion years of fossils show this, argue with CERN and NASA if you disagree.
.
http://climate-math.science/.i...
http://climate-math.science/.i...
Here's ALL the temperature data all 4.5 billion years of it, so there's zero chance of cherry picking. The other point that kills the agw argument is there's no discernable human signature of warming in the thermal record. If you think there is, please point it out - it will be recognizable as a sharper slope than has ever occurred in the thermal record before.
http://climate-math.science/.i...
Co2 stopped rising years ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
It was higher (by 40 ppm) 200 years ago:
http://climate-math.science/.i...
(See Beck 2008).
Articles keep saying "global warming" as if it were true. It's never actually been proved true, that was a hypothesis based on some incomplete models and now have 75% error between predicted and measured temperature. Even when CO2 ose temperature declined (2000-2009) for a decade, every year being colder than the previous despite CO2 rising sharply:
In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.'
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Need Mercedes parts ?
I'm still thinking people should need a license to vote, and one to run for office, would keep some dumb asses out of the race immediately
The problem is dumbasses will pass this test. Remember law is not an easy degree, and yet it's the degree most of these dumbasses in congress actually have. If you give them a hurdle they will jump it.
I don't think at all that man hasn't affected the climate in a way that tends to disturb equilibrium.
I'm not convinced, however, that a single global average temperature is a meaningful metric. Since climate is varied enough across the globe, that single metric seems to lose too much information. Far too much information averaged together.
For instance - yes the average has increased, but is that more or less important than the change in range of max to min temperatures? How does that vary with geolocation? If we know some areas are going to get better climates, why not start putting infrastructure there now to mitigate the "horrors of mass migration" in a few decades?
That's what bugs me about the "global" number - the effects are not equally distributed, so averaging everything together into that one number, while perhaps helpful in some broad sense, doesn't correlate directly enough with useful actions (especially because in general it affects probabilities or trends, not "concrete" events for enough people to understand).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
.... you were in B.C., where it snowed last week. Was supposed to snow here in parts of Montana as well but I haven't seen whether it happened. But this is probably the coldest August I've seen... lows down to 45F this past week.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"Those right wingers you apparently never listen to also like to ask about things like data analysis, data gathering and archive methodology, cost-benefit analysis and so-on."
Sure, they do make those requests. They know that all the information they pretend to want (data analysis, data gathering and archive methodology, cost-benefit analysis and so-on) is already available to them online, but they make the request because they want to have it spoon-fed to them. ... And if you should indulge their request with links and papers: The "skeptic" will invent a lame excuse to dismiss the evidence you have provided. You can be sure that they will be back the next day to make the same request over and over and over again. "Skeptics" always repeat arguments that have been thoroughly debunked.
and stock up on neck shackles and leashes for my new slave army. First stop: Wall Street.
From the records that we all have access to it's clear CO2 is a symptom and not the cause. You always see an incresae in heat before the CO2 rises.
Wow. It must be getting really hot because atmospheric CO2 levels have shot through the roof ever since the industrial revolution. I wonder why?
Even a high school student, no even an elementary school student can conclude CO2 doesn't cause warming.
Errr. Yes, but radiative physics.
By the way, If every month this year has been the hottest in recorded history then you must be starting to doubt your chances at winning our bet. Earlier this year you had said: "I figured when I pointed out that 2015 was a high water mark, you'd realize it would be very close to a fools bet to bet this year will be warmer than 2015. You either have no clue what you're doing (one might say you drank too much of the cool aid) or I have a feeling you think you know something I don't."
Well, I'm not a big fan of cool aid.
I suppose you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that a magical sky faerie put us all here. Go die in a fire, you're too stupid to live.
Only parts of Russia and Antarctica were below average temperatures on the entire planet.
Conclusion: You're a liar and don't care about proof of anything.
Not that guy, but the better conclusion would be that if both the highs and lows are growing further apart we need to balance them out. I.E. stop going with wind/tidal power which by their nature add to the energy extremes required to get through them, hindering the natural balance of hot/cold regions. You may think there aren't nearly enough wind/tidal plants in operation at the moment, but every single one of them is placed strategically to maximize energy generation for a given region - meaning they all sit at what average out to be the most extreme equilibrium-facilitating regions in the world.
The investigation into those showed nothing incorrect or dishonest happened. You might want to actually offer evidence of your position rather than blurting out something you think has something to do with it.
I live in Perth Western Australia, and I can tell you it has been the wettest, coldest winter in years. I don't remember having a winter this wet and cold since the 70s.
Of course our data must be wrong, so I'm sure some climate scientist will homogenise the data and it will magically become got here too.
It's pretty easy to say anything you like when you get to pick which weather stations you keep, which you discard, and what data you rewrite.
Just remember, all good science relies on consensus, so if the data doesn't follow the concensus, the data must be wrong. Wasn't that what Richard Feynman said? "If the theory doesn't match the data you have to throw away the data." (Or was that the other way around)
"Here's ALL the temperature data all 4.5 billion years of it"
Yeah, right.
But since most of that didn't have life, in what way is the temperature of the earth 4bn years ago relevant? Just a massive squirrel.
No cherries picked? Indeed. No context or explanation either.
Your data merely proves the effect of CO2 and therefore AGW. We have recipts for fossil fuels sold recently. Unless someone stockpiled it all, we know that the increased CO2 is our fault today.
"Co2 stopped rising years ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]"
WRONG! CO2 *EMISSIONS* stopped rising. Possibly. What that means is CO2 emissions held steady. We emitted 30-100 times as much as volcanoes do. We still increased CO2 concentrations, but for a short period recently it hasn't been a larger increase in one year than the previous.
What a fucking moron you are.
Well, not in my state it hasn't been "normal", and not in the state I vacationed in this summer either, which is relatively north for the US - Maine. It's been brutal. We've had several days that nearly hit, or did hit,100 degrees F in July. The last half decade has been like this. This is not normal, or rather, it's the new normal. When I was a little kid back in the late '60s, early '70s, we thought it was hot if it got over 80F. Then 90F was common.. As a previous skeptic, I can say it has definitely been getting hotter, at least, in the summer.
These records aren't coming from some political pundit, it's NOAA and NASA. And *even* if we dispute the degree of anthropogenic contribution, it certainly doesn't make sense to exacerbate the situation. Surely we can find a way to help things settle down, without crippling our economy, and continue to develop other methods of energy production, and work at reducing fossil fuel consumption. After all there are several reasons to do so, not just GW: 1) They're a finite source that will run out some day. That is an inescapable reality. Then what? 2) FFs often make 1st world countries more dependent on corrupt 2nd or 3rd world countries, which leads to foreign policy messes, and 3) burning oil and coal are quite dirty, and at the very least contribute to pollution, which is a huge problem in and of itself. Oil companies needn't just be "oil" companies, they should be "Energy" companies, flexible enough to produce energy with multiple means.
Really, alternative energy - solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal- could and should be for the 2000-teens and twenties what the Pentium, Windows, Solaris, and the Internet was for the 1990s, a huge tech boom that drives the economy while improving the standards of living.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Just in case you're not...
The clearing of land (slash and burn usually) to make space for cows (think McDonald's) is one of the biggest contributors to global deforestation.
The environment problem is complex...it's not JUST that we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere at alarming rates....it's that we're NOT taking the gas out of the atmosphere with enough trees. In other words, deforestation is bad because it removes the one thing that can actually remove the greenhouse gases.
So really, eating meat and especially beef and particularly burgers is one of the factors making this whole problem worse. I hope you enjoy your burger which you've rationalized with pseudoscience and fallacious logic, because actually you're making things worse by voting with your dollars for the wrong thing.
Yes, I'm kidding.
leftist fascist
Mussolini called. He wants his word back.
" I hope you enjoy your burger "
^^^^
This is why members of the Global Church of Climate Change never get invited to the good parties.
Let us try a quick calculation, rough estimate only, of the power radiated by increasing the earths temperature by 1 degree C:
sig = stephan-boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10 ( - 8) W/m^2/K^4
Area = 4 * Pi * r^2
Earth radius = 6,371 km = 6371,000 m
Earth Area = 5.11 * 10 (14) m^2
use emissivity = 0.5
use temperatures of 258 K and 259K
Power emitted = emissivity * sig * Area * T^4
258 ^ 4 = 4.431*10^9
259 ^ 4 = 4.499* 10^9
4.499-4.431 = .058*10^9
difference is:
0.5*5.67*10^(-8) * 5.11*10^14 * 0.058*10^9 = 840*10^13 Watts
or 840 * 10^10 Kilowatts......
This should dissipate heat and cool things a little.
I blame the cows