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.
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!
They need to go back to calling it "climate" change because facts on the ground differ. Either that or they need to account for people's contrary direct observations in some meaningful way.
Although the Chicken Little routine doesn't serve any real purpose. It's like how in our day jobs, some suit running around screaming hysterically doesn't really help things.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
What you're making ear is that you have no idea what "mean" means
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
You don't care if humanity dies? Why? So you can keep burning gasoline. It's hard sometimes with comments like these to figure out whether people like you are sociopaths or just petulant children.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
The Inner Valleys have been hotter than usual, which causes the heated air to rise, and in the process, pulling more cool Ocean air over San Francisco. As the saying goes, San Francisco Bay doesn't blow; the Valley sucks.
One other unusual thing about the Valley Weather; usually it can go to +100F during the day, and drop into the fifties at night, and relatively quickly. Classic Desert Climate. But the nights have been warmer than usual as well. Part of this may be due to the Drought; a lot of people have simply stopped watering their lawns at night, a practice adopted three decades ago during the last major Drought, or at all; Agriculture also cut way back. But probably a small part.
Last Winter was the _only_ one where we never got _any_ frost on the roof of this house, and I've been living here for five decades.
This is all anecdotal of course. Weather is not Climate; it's just a part of it. This is Climate:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201601-201607.gif
Blended Data of Land and Sea Temperatures for the first seven months of 2016. Note that the entire West Coast, and very importantly, the adjacent Pacific Ocean is recorded on the whole as "Much Warmer Than Average", and all of Alaska broke records. This is not good. If the cooling California Current collapses, which it is showing signs of doing, the West Coast will be as arid as Baja California is now, with the added bonus of the occasional Hurricane.
There's a reason the link to the actual article disappeared. TL;DR another hothead on the internet libels someone whose opinion he doesn't share.
I (an only child) have no plans to ever have children.
Good. Convince your fellow believers of that plan. It will help the planet survive.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I turn mine up to 11!
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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 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.
Doesn't follow, even if your personal knowledge is true.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Says someone who clearly knows nothing about data management.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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).
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
Did you know that diesel engines run just fine on raw veggie oil with few or no modifications? It was common practice during WWII. Totally renewable, that.
C|N>K
I guess it's just being cautious. I agree, 200 years is not enough to even form an opinion.
Of course we could be headed for another ice age and the warmer we make it now, the better.
Rudolph Diesel designed it to run on peanut oil, if I recall correctly...
The people who believe in human-influenced global warming are usually NOT the same who believe in the sky-fairies and the Great Spirit.
"To think that man could be capable of effecting change on such an enormously huge scale is the height of arrogance. Sounds like you need to lay off the weed and granola"
Man? A single man probably doesn't stand a chance but millions, hundred of millions, billions?
I'm afraid so. It takes a long time but once there's enough heat built-up and stored, the effects will persist for decades, perhaps even longer.
"a whole solar system's worth of evidence to suggest that it's a natural occurrence"
the processes are natural and the Sun is the single biggest driver - but think of Old Sol as a nuclear plant, delivering steady, predictable baseload.
Once the plant is in operation, it just keeps humming along, provided there's enough cooling but if that diminishes, it quickly spins out of control.
So the GHGs, natural and man-made, are retaining more of the solar heat and storing it in the oceans and at some point, that stored heat is going to be released and we'll have a very bad couple of decades at best.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
I haven't posted for years, but you got me out of my cave...
Don't know if you will see this, but the guy you are quoting has changed his mind:
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/throwback-thursday-global-warming-for-beginners-63e1a8175dbd
"Now that you know that global warming is real, and now that you understand why it’s really likely that it’s caused by human activity, I hope you’ll start asking what the right way is to start addressing this problem. I’d like for humans to live happily and successfully on this world for thousands of generations to come, and that starts with taking care of this world today.
This is the best information we have and the most complete picture we’ve been able to build for ourselves. Let’s listen to it, and let’s take care of our world, for our own sakes, and for the sakes of all the humans and living creatures who’ll come after us on this world."
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.
And his great great grandson played Dominic Toretto in the Fast and Furious movies.
I guess the '70 Dodge Charger doesn't fall far from the tree, but it doesn't run on peanut oil, unfortunately.
You are welcome on my lawn.
OMG that explains it. Some guys from NASA came round and put one in my oven, said I had to eat pizza at least once a day. I thought it was a bit odd but I didn't like to question them, what with them being government scientists and all. Besides, I like pizza.
"You do know that agriculture depends on fossil fuels, right? "
As do a great number of industrial processes which makes the wasteful burning of such a precious resource so fucking stupid.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The people who believe in human-influenced global warming are usually NOT the same who believe in the sky-fairies and the Great Spirit.
"To think that man could be capable of effecting change on such an enormously huge scale is the height of arrogance. Sounds like you need to lay off the weed and granola"
Man? A single man probably doesn't stand a chance but millions, hundred of millions, billions?
They need to head off to West Virginia to see the Terraforming we've done. Looks like a reshaping of the land of biblical proportions. Entire mountains now reside in what used to be valleys.
I'm afraid so. It takes a long time but once there's enough heat built-up and stored, the effects will persist for decades, perhaps even longer.
"a whole solar system's worth of evidence to suggest that it's a natural occurrence"
We have a couple different things going on. Carbon Dioxide is a fairly long term greenhouse gas. Methane is much more powerful in effect, fortunately shorter lived in action. A few "anti-greenhouse gases are also short lived, like Sulfur Dioxide, which can cool the planet for a time after large volcanic eruptions.
My biggest concern is that as methane is released as is happening now, we'll be going through a special kind of hell for a hundred years or so.
the processes are natural and the Sun is the single biggest driver - but think of Old Sol as a nuclear plant, delivering steady, predictable baseload. Once the plant is in operation, it just keeps humming along, provided there's enough cooling but if that diminishes, it quickly spins out of control.
So the GHGs, natural and man-made, are retaining more of the solar heat and storing it in the oceans and at some point, that stored heat is going to be released and we'll have a very bad couple of decades at best.
It is such an odd thing that the deniers deny the simple chemical process that without which, life as we know cwouldn't exist, or in a seeming miracle of divine intervention, somehow keep the situation exactly the same, and that the Greenhouse effect is only happening for non-human greenhouse gas injection.
800 Terawatts of radiative forcing is nothing to sneeze at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
"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...
CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at 1000 ppm
Harvard study
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.
(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"?
Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.
Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.
specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money
I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Yes, that's something you could calculate all by yourself. And now please argue that those additional 130 ppm in the atmosphere are not man-made!
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?
There is a good chance we are already behind the tipping point. Most of them were pointing to 2013-2016 as deadline and we have already missed it. It doesn't mean world will end tomorrow, but it means that regardless of what we do now, we will end up in Venusian hothouse in 100-200 years.
The adjustments for the heat island effect moves the temperature DOWN from the recorded value and it is there to calibrate the temprature readings. Without calibration, you can't trust the reading, but how do you figure the data is 'cooked' when the calibration follows standard methodology and the final calibrated result is LOWER than the un-calibrated measurement? The headline should be 'The Data is Chilled and we still have a problem'.
Isn't there a basic test you need to pass before you get mod points?
That's a great idea, but no. Any asshole with a little karma can get modpoints. You have to pass the test of public opinion to keep getting modpoints, though. And in the past, moderator opinion, too. Not sure how that's worked out since.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"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...
That has to be one of the most insightful AC comments I've read in a long time.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
Would be great if you cited the sources and showed the numbers.
Finding the sources and the numbers is so easy, that anybody could do that themselves. Consider it part of the exercise.
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.
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..
I recommend the Internal Energy Statistics of the EIA.
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?
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. The CO2 rising is because things tend to live better in warmer temperatures.
Just look at their own data that starts at 1880. You see a dip, it's actually colder prior to the 1920s. Check the CO2 record. Even a high school student, no even an elementary school student can conclude CO2 doesn't cause warming. Not hard. Look.
Need to know when people are bullshitting you. Look up scientific method. Know it. Theory, supporting data and if any data falls outside of your theory, the theory is wrong. We have plenty of data to show CO2 as the cause is wrong. Therefore, the theory must be wrong.
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.
Oh, i see. The fact that the article exposes your source as a fraud means nothing, only the popularity of rightwing spews matter
Argumentum ad populum, anyone?
My my the stupidity of the right on full display
What amazes me is the amount of people trusting government implicitly,
Those who object to trusting the government are the same ones who trust the government completely when the government certifies a contested election in Florida.
It's not about "government trust" it's about "any lie that sells my side of the argument". They trust the cops 100% when the cops shoot a Black man, and 0% when the cops shoot a white person (Randy Weaver's family, David Koresh).
Those who question everything are labeled as the "enemy" by both sides. Those who question nothing are assumed to be on "my side" by both sides.
None of the involved logic makes sense. It's all irrational cognitive dissonance to justify an opinion, not an idea reached through logical contemplation.
Learn to love Alaska
Either that or they need to account for people's contrary direct observations in some meaningful way.
What if the people don't have contrary observations, but faulty memory? They are comparing how they feel this June to how they remember feeling last June. When that doesn't match the measured temperatures, people choose their faulty memory over fact. That's why memory is unreliable.
Learn to love Alaska
You aren't accounting for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the CO2 concentration in the ocean (Henry's Law). IIRC, back of the envelope calculations shows about 40% of all CO2 output has been absorbed by the Oceans (assume an average mixing layer of 60 meters, and 70% of the surface area of the earth, also assume the atmosphere is well mixed for our estimate) you can hold ocean temperature constant to make life simpler, or you can increase the temp by a small amount to better refine the estimate. As for calculating the amount of CO2 released, we have pretty good estimates of Carbor released. Take that mass, convert to moles of CO2. Get the total mass of the atmosphere, the scale height is around 8 kilometers (if you want to determine the scale height yourself, be my guest) . Then use the average molecular mass of the atmosphere which is around 28.9 (dry atmosphere, accounting for water vapor is a hassle and for back of the envelope calculations, you can add it in if you want) the density of air is 1.3 kg/m^3) We now have the volume of the atmosphere and the densite. So we can calculate the mass of the atmosphere to compare against the mass of CO2 produced to get an estimate of the increase in CO2 for that time frame. It's not difficult to do and get a reasonable approximation. You'll find that the estimated increase in CO2 is greater than the measured increase, because of ocean absorption. And then that CO2 increase drives other reactions that end up lowering the pH of the oceans, which is overall bad for creatures that make shells. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
people who do not believe in human-influenced global warming clearly do not believe that people are able to change temperature, so they should be forbidden to use either heating ort air-conditioning as that would not work, according to them.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
We're still in an ice age, we have been for about 5 million years and after this little climate blip we will be again for probably several tens of millions of years more, until either the Patagonian Andes and West Antarctic Peninsula connect, or the Himalayas stop rising, or both, whichever comes soonest. Of course, that "we" assumes that Homo sapiens survives the experience, which is not very likely. (Few species survive for tens of millions of years.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
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.
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.
Yes, I'm kidding.
Yeah, it would've been unusually dark too, what with your head buried in the sand and all.
The fact
Opinion is still not fact especially when it's not based on fact.
Sorry, I assumed you had bothered to read the source detailing the falsehoods of Realclimatescience.
Ever considered checking in with realclimate.org, the actual climate science from climatologists?
but that might intrude on your meme.
I blame the cows
1) I had to go to the Wayback Machine in order to reconstruct the actual story. You didn't bother to research your own link.
2) Tony Heller, the author of the story that the original AC linked to is not Judith Curry, the subject of the criticism you linked to. So non sequitur right there. Even if Curry were committing fraud, that doesn't say anything about Heller who is not Curry.
3) No actual evidence of fraud was presented in your link.
4) Why did that article disappear?
Let's go over three in more detail. The author, Ethan Siegel repeated claimed Judith Curry committed "scientific fraud". The basis of his argument? That if you drop the last two months of the study which had extremely high uncertainty due to extremely few station measurements, you get a different trend, but one which incidentally still shows the effect that Curry was speaking of. If you then cherry pick a different starting year (a low instead of a high), then you get a different slope. And that's assuming Siegel did the math right.
Because of this and Curry's informal statement to the press (which she claims was taken out of context), he claims scientific fraud. That's remarkably lousy grounds for such a claim. Here's a typical blurb:
The above graph shows that the temperature, since 1970, has risen at an average rate of about 0.25Â Celsius per decade. If the temperature hasn't risen -- or hasn't risen as quickly -- over the most recent times, then perhaps this is something to legitimately look at. But if the data indicates no recent "decline" or "slowing" at all, then this is a fraudulent contention. Let's get right into it.
Note two things. By this time, he already made a calculation that showed the alleged decline - though one that starts from a particular high point in the past. And since when has scientific fraud been the only way that someone could misrepresent or misunderstand data? This is a classic false dilemma fallacy.
>You need to wrap the tinfoil tighter. Obviously something is getting through.
I have misplaced the original link but a foil cavity the size of a head resonates at a particular wavelength and when you look up that frequency on the spectrum allocation charts they are, "Reserved for Government Use." If it is not true it should be.
"But they call us names!" Science doesn't work that way.
Once again, your source is a lie, exposed as a lie, and argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts
This time we'll just let your FALSE source expose himself
Dark Money Fueling Climate Change Denial
Oddly enough, mostly the same people who wrote all those glowing pro-smoking lies
And the puppet behind your puppet theater source? the always ignorant and usually easy to debunk Steven Goddard known fraudster
And just what is the truth?
The 8 big lies of denialism exposed
Your crimes against logic are therefore "argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.
argumentum ad populum does not support your "rejection" of the facts
Words have meaning. Here, "argumentum ad populum" means the fallacy of claiming something is true because many people believe it. A genuine example of such an fallacy is argument from consensus. What I find remarkable is the complete absence of such a fallacy from my writings and yet you still push this.
"argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.
Words have meaning. "argumentum ad venicundium" is argument from authority which again, I haven't done here or elsewhere. But if we're to look for a ready example of the tactic, argument from consensus is a classic example of both fallacies you mentioned here.
As to "simple lying", you ignore here that lying is a deliberate telling of a falsehood. Since I have yet to tell a falsehood here much less a deliberate one, your accusation is completely irrelevant.
It's remarkable how completely shit your arguments have been to this point. I understand that your time is valueless to you, but my time has value to me. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't even do basic reasoning and rhetoric. At this point, it's not even educational for would-be passers-by. They can see your true colors.
And your claim was that a POPULAR BLOG SITE www.realclimatescience.com was reliable and the crushing rebuttal archived from realscience.com was not since it was closed thanks to low popularity
..."
Yet another rightwing liar caught making your arguments
I see I'm going to rub your nose in it
Part 2 of 1st false claim of climate denialists, that global warming stopped
"... In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.
Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t.
And your claim was that a POPULAR BLOG SITE www.realclimatescience.com was reliable and the crushing rebuttal archived from realscience.com was not since it was closed thanks to low popularity
Not my claim. Seriously, read the thread and see who said what.
The obvious rebuttal to such flowery language is that we have other problems than just global warming and several of those are much more severe, such as overpopulation, poverty, corruption, and habitat and arable land destruction.
Meanwhile, back in realityReality of Antarctic ice vs. Ignorance
Specifically, Steven Goddard mentions that Antarctic sea ice has increased ...speculating this is ... due to cooling around Antarctica......Goddard commits this error on several occasions. The ..Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing. ....... Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it's warming faster than the global trend.
So many rightwing lies, so many facts
Your claim.
I notice you have yet to dispute any of my claims with facts.
So many rightwing lies, so many facts
"Lie" and "fact" means things. We don't actually have evidence that Steven Goddard is lying. Remember lying is not just saying a falsehood, but saying it while believing it is a falsehood. For example, I don't believe you're lying when you repeatedly make claims of "rightwing lies" without the facts to support it (or for that matter much in the way of examples). You just are ignorantly repeating falsehoods.
Here, my take is that Goddard (or whatever his name is) genuinely believes that the temperature records are being falsified in Antarctica and that the ice buildup such as it is shows that the temperatures are actually growing colder. I don't buy that, especially since he's picking and choosing what he wants to believe. But believing such things is not sufficient to be a liar.
"But they call us names!" Science doesn't work that way.
Who said it did?
Let's look at the post I replied to again.
You call them corrupt fascists. They call you stupid frauds. Let's not pretend you're here for a serious discussion.
It's like you're not even reading this thread. Look at the above name calling rationalization. That AC just said it.
The point is when you keep treating people like crap and not talk science, some people are eventually going to just give up talking science to you.
When are you or other ACs in this thread going to start talking science? It's evidence-based not name calling-based.
And why should such complaints appear in this thread? The earlier poster that I originally replied to and the article they linked to just irrationally libeled people (and the poster didn't even have the right target libeled). This isn't science. It's noise. It's not going to convince anyone. It's not going to save the Earth.