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
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.
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
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.
It's almost as if we're coming out of an ice age, or something.
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
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."
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.
Huh. So what you're saying is, five years ago we had a year in which some months broke all previous records for heat, and this year that's happening again, but... what, exactly? I can't tell whether you're just using this topic to vent about your coworkers, or whether you actually have an opinion on global warming (or the lack thereof), or if you're just very disappointed that we haven't had a bunch of Category 5 hurricanes. ;p
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.
"Kicked off the pause"? Seriously? What you must mean is that, if you cherry-pick the global surface temperature data to start in 1997/1998, when the oceans turned over to the atmosphere a gigantic quantity of the heat they had been storing, it almost looks like there has been some sort of "pause" in rising temperatures, since then. (As long as you also don't count the new jump in surface temperatures that have happened since the oceans again began to turn over some of the additional heat they've accumulated.)
Modern La Nina years are years times when it's almost plausible to say that there's a pause in the human-caused rise in surface temperatures. But the hypothesis that goes with that assertion is just bankrupt: "I guess all those computer models, and ocean chemistry, and satellite reflectance, etc, musta just been off or something, because, look, they predicted a steady increase." The much more plausible and well-supported hypothesis is that fluctuations in the steady rise of average global surface temperatures are due to the buffering of heat in the oceans.
"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.
A recent paper predicts global cooling starting as soon as 2040 from the rapid melting of ice sheets. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net...
Harvard study
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming.
"In fact, CityLab reports that the earth has now experienced 14 consecutive months of unprecedented hotness."
Right there in the summary.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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"?
Do we really care how the climate changed 315 million years ago? We weren't around then.
It's changing now, and that's affecting us directly. And unlike past events, we can see that this time it's us that's causing it. The planet will be fine of course, but in the mean time it will be very expensive for us to adapt - moving our cities and infrastructure away from low-lying areas, dealing with the increased droughts and storm damage. We can save literally trillions of dollars of costs in the longer term by phasing out coal & oil sooner, rather than later.
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!
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'.
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.
Neither El Nino is supposed to heat the globe nor La Nina is supposed to cool it.
Both phenomena simply change wind patterns and surface currents in the ocean, and hence lead to different didtributions of warm and cool water and hence rain patterns.
That is all.
Except for perhaps more clouds (globally?) none of them has any effect on global warming, and my bet would be that El Nino causes more clouds and hence has a cooling effect.
The idea that El Nino is heating up the earth is a /. myth and only shows that no one even cares to read the wikipedia article.
This is an El Nino ocean temperature distribution picture: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
This is an La Nina picture:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
As a laymen you can not even guess which is which.
And as final note: both phenomena are restricted to the Pacific and have e.g. no influence on the weather of Canada, most parts of the US, Europe or Africa or Asia/Russia/Siberia.
The idea that one of them has an warming effect or cooling effect on the globe is completely ridiculous, even if you know nothing about the phenomena it should be obvious to everyone.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I recommend the Internal Energy Statistics of the EIA.
when there is evidence against global warming
Well when you show us evidence against global warming maybe we can discuss it. But the only thing that has been shown is the occasional model or the occasional prediction to be wrong. The vast majority of the evidence is still strongly for it.
I.e. this year may turn out to average quite nicely with colder winters. That doesn't change the fact that It's the warmest month on record, and that last year was the warmest year on record, and that in the past 5 years 4 were the warmest years on record, and in the past 15 years 10 were the warmest on record.
Just how much do you want to average and play with the numbers to try and get the result you are after? If this year turns out to be cold, guess what, global warming remains a thing that is happening.
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 mean the punny things on subs and carriers? Sorry, that is like comparing an internal combustion engine in a car with a gas turbine.
A naval reactor sizes range between 200MWt and 600MWt making them perhaps 1/10 the size of the biggest reactors on land to about the same size as the smaller ones operating in India. Point is we can build nuclear power plants in a reasonable time if we want to. I fail to see how the size matter here, just build more of them. You know, cheaper by the dozen, right?
Cheaper than nuclear. And in a a year or two cheaper than any other big scale power production. You must be living under a rock.
You assume that wind and solar will get cheaper but nuclear power can not or will not. Who's living under a rock?
Unlikely. What exactly do you want to use to replace steel and concrete?
Not replace steel and concrete exactly, just new ways of putting them together. Mass production, which can be done with those "punny" naval sized reactors, helps here. There will need to be new materials used, such as nickel alloys, to hold up to the higher temperatures from these highly efficient reactors.
We actually don't know how to really build such a reactor and especially we do not know what material to use, as liquide flourides are rather difficult to handle.
Now I know you've been living under a rock. There are at least four companies in North America doing research on molten salt reactors and they know what materials to use. Then there are people in China, Japan, and probably elsewhere figuring this out. All that is needed is a license to build one to figure out some of the details for mass production.
And your randomly thrown in "cheap" makes nothing cheap. Nuclear power is right now the most expensive on the planet ... always was and always will be. Regardless what technology you use to produce it.
Always? I saw a video of a nuclear engineer talking about doing the assessment on the time, money, and effort required to build a modern nuclear power plant. They added it all up and found it no more expensive than a coal plant. This did not match the estimates they've seen elsewhere as their number was much much smaller than any other estimate. Then they realized where they went wrong, they did not add in the licensing costs.
Nuclear power is expensive only because the government decided it would be expensive. If they decided it was no longer going to be expensive then we'll see it cheaper than coal, that's quite certain. Whether it is cheaper than anything else is a matter of other market forces.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.