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.
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
How do you measure 'very reliable'. The propensity to toe the line ? There is serious evidence that past and present data are being cooked to fit an agenda. Personnaly I won't trust anyone who choose to turn a blind eye to that !
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??
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.
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.
Saying "recorded history" to be 137 years is like sticking your hand out the window and saying we are in a record drought because it has not rained in the last 15 seconds. There is nothing to compare with those 137 years.
A record drought literally means it's one which is a record as in the biggest recorded. Nonetheless, comparing to 315e6 years ago is meaningless since so much was different then, for example the positions of the continents.
To use your analogy. if you flip a 120 sided coin 315,000,000 times and the last 15 comes up 120 is is not actually significant.
120^15/315e6 = 4.8911e+22
I'd say that's pretty significant.
SJW n. One who posts facts.