Slashdot Mirror
2016 Will Be the Hottest Year On Record, UN Says (theguardian.com)
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century. From an article on The Guardian:The scorching temperatures around the world, and the extreme weather they drive, mean the impacts of climate change on people are coming sooner and with more ferocity than expected, according to scientists. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, published on Monday at the global climate summit in Morocco, found the global temperature in 2016 is running 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. This is perilously close to to the 1.5C target included as an aim of the Paris climate agreement last December. The El Nino weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor.
As a disabled black lesbian pagan vegan, I think you're just triggered me.
You should apply to Harvard with that impressive resume. You'll go right to the front of the line.
Abandon the Paris agreement! Trump is here!
We had a moderate, pleasant summer here. Certainly no extreme heat or weather. Fall has been a little warmer than usual but all in all it's much appreciated. I personally don't really understand who gathers these numbers or why anyone would think this is some kind of extinction event like everyone keeps saying.
With Trump elected, the Paris agreement is pretty much dead. Thanks to all climate deniers who voted republican.
There's a BLIZZARD where I live so there couldn't possibly be global warming!
We're just coming out of an Ice Age, it's perfectly NATURAL and NORMAL, there's NO HUMAN-CAUSED Global Warming!
GLOBAL WARMING is just some {insert 'Liberal', or 'Jew', or 'Homosexual', or 'Vegan', or 'Communist', or 'Illuminatti', or 'New World Order', or 'Globalist', or any combination of the above} plot to {insert 'steal our jobs', 'steal our money', 'tell us how to live', or whatever far-fetched paranoid delusional plot is appropriate}
There is no Global Warming, it's all Obama's fault!
I'll tell you what the real problem is: Flint, Michigan is far from being the only place in the U.S. that has lead water pipes, and like Ancient Rome, people are becoming violently idiotic -- or maybe they were violently idiotic in the first place.
The numbers are a global average. Do you understand how averages work?
Raising taxes makes it get colder out.
It's 1, in the Trump Revolutionary Calendar. It's the 15th of Trumptember.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I think you're right, the time to start doing something about this was, ironically, about 60 or so years ago -- the same amount of time that the GOP wants to turn back the Countrys' calendar to, socio-politically speaking, but back in the 40's/50's/60's, men in white coats would come, put you in a straitjacket, and haul you off to the loony bin for even suggesting such a thing -- or you'd be declared a Communist or somesuch shit. My only solace on this subject comes from the knowledge that I won't live to see the worst of it; I'm just over 50 years old, I'll live another 20 or 30, maybe 40 if I'm (un?)lucky, and it'll be some time after that that the Earth starts going completely to shit. THe next generation or two will have to live in the Hell that the Earth will become; have fun with that, kids.
Luckily for all we Americans, President Bernie Sanders has committed to taking action on global warming, saving the coastal states from massive floods and storms, and ending the massive subsidies for inefficient fossil fuels like coal and oil, while transitioning our workforce to higher paying jobs in solar and wind installation and maintenance, jobs that are 1000 times more than any propping up of a dying fossil fuel pipeline would be.
We dodged one when that Trump guy lost. That was close.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Do you? Where was the earth actually warmer? For the average temperature to be going up, there has to be somewhere that is getting hotter.
Meanwhile tornadoes, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events are at record lows! Exactly the opposite of what Al Gore predicted!
post 2011 NASA contaminates the satellite data, the raw radiosonde data shows no increased warming since 2000. That is when the truth of 1998 being the hottest year on record was changed.
citation needed
For those that don't get the joke ... it is from here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Slashdot used to be a site once where actual nerds/geeks/science majors used to comment on science and technology news. You could learn a lot from their opinions and insights, whether they agreed with your viewpoint or not. Now every time someone posts a Global Warming related story on Slashdot, a 4 story building worth of paid-per-post anti-AGW Trolls, each likely operating 20 - 50 sock puppet accounts, seem to post crap that Global Warming "isn't happening" or "cannot caused by human activity". The mere fact that this happens on a once "free" discussion site like Slashdot leads me to believe that a) Global Warming must be getting VERY bad indeed and b) the Energy Industry is very concerned about financial liability issues arising from this. By this I mean that when AGW starts to cause early deaths, natural disasters, major economic and environmental damage, contagious disease outbreaks and similar trouble in different parts of the world, the industry wants to be able to pretend that "nobody is liable for this because AGW simply does not and cannot exist". For this you obviously need a few hundred million dollars worth of Internet Trolls who flood sites like Slashdot with "IT ISN'T US. IT ISN'T US. IT ISN'T US..." Sad. Very, very sad.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
A few years ago, about this time of year, I was told by a co-worker about how that year was forecast to be exceedingly warm. I pointed out that the year wasn't over and it is quite possible to have an unusually cold November and December to average it out. When January came around I found a news article on how the last year was merely average. When I presented this to that same hysterical co-worker merely two months later and he denied he had made any hysterical comments before.
Now we see people not even waiting until the year starts to make such predictions. Those that get all worked up over it now will be exceedingly forgetful if the predictions fail and have very very good memories if it does. Here's my tiny tiny little mention of this phenomenon. It will be interesting if someone remembers this post and revisits it a year later to see how well I did in my prediction.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There was a lot of hot air from the elections this year.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The majority of the "data" is estimated, interpolated, made up, guessed at.
How many surface stations are there? Let's say 10,000, which is waaay over estimated.
Google says there is 197 million square miles of land on the earth. That means if the stations were evenly distributed (which would really be the only way to get a good estimate) each station would represent nineteen thousand seven hundred square miles.
Only Sat can give you a reasonable "average" and guess what they say? Yup...no warming.
The record-smashing heat led to searing heatwaves across the year: a new high of 42.7C was recorded in Pretoria, South Africa in January; Mae Hong Son in Thailand saw 44.6C on 28 April; Phalodi in India reached 51.0C in May and Mitribah in Kuwait recorded 54.0C in July. Parts of Arctic Russia also saw extreme warming - 6C to 7C above average.
I've always found it fascinating that folks accuse China of generating the most greenhouse gasses and while yes by absolute number of people they probably do that's the worst interpretation of statistics ever. China has a LOT of people, if you believe in equality everyone should have the same chance at the standard of living as everyone else. The problem is that we're a very rich country, so per capita alone we generate per person more emissions than a typical Chinese citizen. We use more resources than a typical counterpart in China. (A lot of the stuff that China produces is sold to us.) and so on. It's like a billionaire asking why they can pay a tax of a 1/2 million dollars as pocket change while that would financially bankrupt the average citizen. As the leading country and the wealthiest we need to contribute a bigger share because it will technically hurt us per person less. If we don't how would we expect someone who might not be able to contribute without literally dying to give up a part of their share?
And it is a problem. Climate change is likely to hit poorer countries first, and when conditions are unsustainable, who's door do you think they'll come knocking on first? If you're the one with all the food and everyone else is starving to death, it doesn't matter if you're armed, you're in deep trouble if you don't share. And it's not like we can't share, we do actually have enough for everyone. It's just, it's hard to give up luxury.
Yes I do, but wouldn't a cooler summer and warmer winter just be nicer anyway. We can call it global equalization and it should round things off nicely with the global cooling scare of the 70s and 80s and current global warming.
Must be. I will say it's man-made, because, no man no problem. If no one is here to monitor the problem, is it called weather?
Thank you. 'Climate Studies' are the biggest embarrassment to science since alchemy.
Seriously. Did you read the article?
This article says that it's the hottest in 20 years.
Do you understand how patently *meaningless* that is?
We're in the middle of El Niño right now. Take that away and it's the hottest in 20 years. That's it. TWENTY.
Did you read the article? Apparently not:
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That would be "economics".
Wow. This is exactly why climate change is still "debated".
From the article - "The WMO’s temperature analysis combines the three main records, from the Met Office, Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and stretches back to 1880."
So, it was the hottest since 1880. This is in line with other sources that have been reporting similar things such as a continuous streak of record-breaking months for over a year now - as in they are now breaking the records set last year.
Elsewhere in the article, it did note that the el nino contributed to the early months of the year but have now dissipated and yet the heat continues.
Also, El Ninos are not a new phenomenon. They have been going on throughout the 136 years since 1880. They have always resulted in peaks, but those peaks are now always higher than before as are the troughs.
Tails...
Slashdot used to be a site once where actual nerds/geeks/science majors used to comment on science and technology news. You could learn a lot from their opinions and insights, whether they agreed with your viewpoint or not. Now every time someone posts a Global Warming related story on Slashdot, a 4 story building worth of paid-per-post pro-AGW Trolls, each likely operating 20 - 50 sock puppet accounts, seem to post crap that Global Warming "is happening" or "definitely caused by human activity". The mere fact that this happens on a once "free" discussion site like Slashdot leads me to believe that a) Global Warming must be nothing to worry about and b) the anti-Energy Industry is very concerned about their loss of power arising from this. By this I mean that when AGW doesn't cause early deaths, natural disasters, major economic and environmental damage, contagious disease outbreaks and similar trouble in different parts of the world, the fear mongers want to be able to pretend that "somebody is liable for this because AGW simply must exist". For this you obviously need a few hundred million dollars worth of Internet Trolls who flood sites like Slashdot with "IT IS US. IT IS US. IT IS US..." Sad. Very, very sad.
So this is a classic example of how deplorables work.
They think they are really smart because they cherry pick some words, apple some basic principles, and crow on and on about how everyone are crooks or stupid but them. And when they are pointed out that no, they really are the stupid ones, they get angry, feel persecuted, and cry that everything is rigged.
Well shit-for-brains, the article said 2017 would be likely hotter than any year prior to the last two decades, not hottest in two decades. They worded that because 2017 won't be hotter than 2016 or likely some other recent years, but will be hotter before twenty years ago.
Oh sorry I rigged your reading comprehension skills, and forced you to be blindly but proudly ignorant, my bad
Wait a second - what does this mean 1.2 degrees above pre-industrial levels? Why are we comparing it to so long ago? If I compare to be 10,000 years ago it will probably be even worse!
Does this mean it has decreased in last 15 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
It's cool, I think a lot of these anti-science types that have invaded slashdot will soon be under water. You need air to breathe lies so this should solve itself. Consider N. Carolina. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/north-carolina-is-still-underwater-from-hurricane-matthew.html . http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782 .
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-r...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I personally don't really understand
You could have just stopped typing there.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Oh God, just shut up about paid trolls already. No one is getting paid to post to SLASHDOT. Barely anyone reads slashdot. Certainly not people who make policy.
Just move on from Slashdot.
I gave up on fighting against the astroturfers here a few years back... wasn't worth the effort and stress anymore. I can still get good discussion about topics that matter to me at reddit -- just need to stay away from some of the subreddits there.
Every once in a while I come check on Slashdot, and remember anew why I left. The place went to shit once the sockpuppet accounts got critical mass on mod points.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
More so than gender studies, ethnic studies or feminist studies?
What if the people posting about paid trolls are actually the paid trolls?
As a disabled black lesbian pagan vegan, I think you're just triggered me.
You should apply to Harvard with that impressive resume. You'll go right to the front of the line.
She doesn't have "high cheekbones".
Nazi racial science was in the 1930s. Now that was some crazy shit.
And hell, the wide-eyed atomic populism of the 1950s.
I'll drop off comic book science as fictional, and not to be taken seriously.
It is like people have no sense of history.
... when AGW starts to cause early deaths, natural disasters, major economic and environmental damage, contagious disease outbreaks and similar trouble in different parts of the world, the industry wants to be able to pretend that "nobody is liable for this because AGW simply does not and cannot exist"...
So perhaps you are a pup, but I went to college in 1991. At that time, we didn't read Shakespeare or Hemingway or even someone politically palatable like Angelou. No we read a quaint book titled "The End of Fall". It described with many footnotes how the season Fall would no longer visit America in the 21st century. As anyone who survived through the year 2010 can attest its 20 year predictions for perpetual summer were all fantastically incorrect.
Using political hyperbole as a beckoning cry for scientific reason has been going on for my entire adult life so you will have to forgive me if I don't dump all my retirement stock to run out and purchase carbon credits.
Huh? The 16th year of this century (and millennium) is still ongoing, what are they talking about? Even it does end "the hottest", it would still be one (the last so far) out of the 16 years.
Unless you include year 2000, which was, of course, the last year of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium, not the first of 21st and 3rd respectively...
Are we supposed to take scientific advice from people, who can't count beyond ten without taking their shoes off?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected
ROFLMAO!
They "corrected" the data that didn't match their models. Because Reality is a second class data point.
Fuck you.
Climate change zealots are retards, but "warmer than any year prior to the last two decades" doesn't mean "warmer than any year in the past two decades" like you said it does.
Wow and amazing and clearly no one with money cares because nothing is being done about it.
Pretty tired of these ZOMG AMAZING global warming news bits every few months, you're targeting the wrong people for a start.
I've done what I can, moved to a location in the Pacific North West about 500ft above sea level. I used public transit to get to work the car stays at home all week, upgraded the two largest energy consuming devices in my house to heat pump based systems (water heater and house heating).
I was born and raised in the UK before moving to the US about 15 years ago.
Back then it was considered self-evident by pretty much every person in the EU that global warming was not only real, but very definitely anthropomorphic (man-made), and also inevitably going to kill us all if we didn't do something very tangible about it very quickly, which probably meant significant but necessary lifestyle compromises. Anybody that denied global warming was frankly considered a retard.
After doing significant ongoing research on the Internet I still believe that global warming is very real and anthropomorphic, and even though we don;t have absolute proof, since 99.9% of the scientific community and all indicators point that way, (and for those that don't, all have connections/funding to big oil), it just makes basic common sense to take global warming seriously and do all we can before its too late to do anything.
Fast forward to today. I now live in the US.
I'm honestly amazed by the number of Americans (including some of my best friends and apparently also including our next president) that apparently sincerely believe that global warming is not even happening and is all just made up by the scientists, or worse, just some commie plot.
With Trumps recent announcement of cutting the EPA and appointing Myron Ebell (famous climate change denier) to head the EPA transition team, I've got to ask:
Am I the fool for unduly worrying about our only means of survival, or is the majority of the rest of America the fool for being so willfully ignorant of all the scientific research and the associated danger of ultimate extinction of much if not all life on earth, for a few short-term dollars?
Putting all your attention on pollution and none on man-made climate change is like worrying about too much salt in your diet while someone is lighting your hair on fire.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And once again, for the deniers and their followers, weather != climate.,
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Care to cite that, please? In general, temperatures have been trending upward for quite some time now, so I'm suspecting you're just another moron citing some denier meme you read somewhere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The ultimate irony is that even Saudi Arabia understands that the age of fossil fuels comes to and end, and prepares accordingly But not the US extremist right wing.
If even a backwards kleptocratic monarchy, rooted in a Middle Ages value system, beats you in terms of mental flexibility, you know that you are truly fucked.
Also, let me know when next year *won't* be the hottest year on record, because that will be news. Otherwise I will just assume it's getting hotter.,
Well, not for us and the next generation, but if we started doing something serious about it now people born in 60 years time might witness improvements/cooling in global temperatures.
Like you, I've given up on government and politicians ... they pretty much just go where the money goes.
For mine the Great Hope is simply economics. Renewables and non-polluting energy sources are rapidly becoming more cost effective against their carbon based alternatives, and besides oil and gas have much more vital industrial and economic uses than burning in motor vehicles or power stations. It forms the core ingredient in plastics, fertilisers, many fabrication and IC materials, casings, long chain carbon materials and the like
Coal ... not so much - but coal fired energy seems to cost a heap (on my power bills anyway) when compared to its solar/wind/water generated counterparts - and networked power is so bloody capital and maintenance intensive (especially in an environment when 'weather events' that cut it off seem to be increasing in intensity), inefficient (about 12% efficient simply in delivering power over distance - I have no idea about generating efficiencies vis-a-vis the end user).
Nuclear? Yeah ... but the economies and huge costs of the end-of-life shutdown of any given power station tend to make it a hell of a lot less attractive, even if you ignore the risk of (admittedly rare) accidents and cost of safeguards whilst the station is in production.
For mine, the economies of scale of solar panels, batteries and the like are really starting to impact the viability of carbon, and when you factor in the increasing energy efficiency of our devices (even villains like fridges and aircon) - it will eventually become a simple economic decision at the consumer level that sees off ... or substantially reduces ... the carbon based power fuel and energy industries.
Just move on from Slashdot.
I gave up on fighting against the astroturfers here a few years back... wasn't worth the effort and stress anymore. I can still get good discussion about topics that matter to me at reddit -- just need to stay away from some of the subreddits there.
Every once in a while I come check on Slashdot, and remember anew why I left. The place went to shit once the sockpuppet accounts got critical mass on mod points.
Yeah, I'd been reading for about 12 or 14 years, and I finally gave up. I just can't handle the anti-science and libertarian bros anymore.
Thing is they aren't predicting the weather...weather is a short-term phenomena which is pretty chaotic.
They are predicting *climate*, which is a long-term phenomena that averages out over time and is fairly predictable when you account for all the variables in your model.
It's like trying to predict a single coin flip versus giving the relative odds of the flip over a million flips. Get it now?
Ohhh....Meta
Well this is an extremely garbled take on matters.
Radiosonde are balloon borne instruments. If you add up all the "raw data" you are are adding up both tropospheric and stratospheric measurements. The thing is "Global Warming" is about heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere. This means as the lower atmosphere warms, the layers above it cool. I tracked down some of the sources and they talk about averaged data to the 100mb level (about 1/10 atmosphere). That's about 16km or twice the height of Everest.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are right !
Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, all show no trend except in the warming alarmists minds.
Lives lost due to weather are down.
Story I saw a few days ago about how quickly the land temperature is dropping over last 8 months.
I guess the UN will ignore that data, or it will be labeled as "just weather"
Data for those who say that "deniers" refuse to look at the data. Clearly shows massive cooling.
Lighting your hair on fire will hurt you today. Too much salt may (16% probability) increase your blood pressure which may be the thing that helps kill you, and will certainly put more stress on your kidneys etc, which again may be the thing that kills you eventually. Pollution (of various types) damages populations NOW, whereas global warming is actually beneficial for the first couple of degrees for humanity as a whole, according to the IPCC even (AR5) . So your example was a mirror image of the actual situation.
Incidentally, the alarmists as ever seem keen to confuse weather and climate. We are in the peak of an El Nino. They are hot. next year you'll see cooler temperatures, and who knows, we might even see another pause. That would be funny. None of this has to with climate, which I agree, is getting a little hotter on a decade by decade, on average. Nonetheless the CO2 based models are still getting it hopelessly wrong.
Should we do more? that depends on which side of the political spectrum you fall onto.
No it doesn't. The global climate doesn't care what side of the aisle you're on.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Do you understand that CO2 in the atmosphere traps energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere? And why do you think plants have some infinite capacity to absorb it?
In fact the biggest overall absorber of CO2 to date is the oceans, and what that is doing is altering the oceans' pH. So not only do you have heating, you have overall changes in ocean chemistry.
But I get it, you're just a mindless meme machine. You know nothing, and don't want to, so you just repeat memes you've read.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Slashdot used to be a site that didn't discuss global warming every day, or any of the other political bullshit that is used to justify the seeping United Nations encroachment on national sovereignty occurring worldwide.
The reality is simple. No one believes the leftist diatribes any longer. We've been hearing for decades how global warming will kill us all, but no one notices any temperature changes really. We also know that pollution is way down (if you are old enough, you will remember when smog was a real, visible problem). Few believe in the fantasy that racists, and sexists, and homophobes are secret wreckers undermining society. Certainly, decades of claiming every Republican president is the next Hitler has turned out rather absurdly.
In fact, Slashdot of today, versus Slashdot of 2000-2004 is actually a fascinating analysis of just how far the left has declined. There was real substance in those days. Principled resistance to the Iraq war and responses to 9/11. Real resistance to globalism.
Now, it's just "wahh! bad racist! bad sexist! bad homophobe! bad climate change denier! once we are rid of you, utopia!"
He will shut up for once, and America's largest source of hot air will be eliminated.
Try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has+the+number+of+hurricanes+been+increasing%3F
The first result is https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ , which is up to date.
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Stop strawmanning. No one is claiming "we were just lucky". The data is just so sparse that we can't really say for sure either way.
Physical models say that we should expect more severe storms, but fewer of them.
Don't forget the Russians, who have a vested interest in fossil fuel consumption and use paid trolls in psy-ops campaigns.
I've had interactions here with people who are very likely Russian trolls: very pro-Putin, even pro-Yankuyovych, the disgraced and deposed Ukranian president who embezzled 70 billion dollars from the treasury and built this at a cost of a hundred million dollars of laundered money.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree completely, it's sad to see that the puppets are either swamping the moderator controls or worse still, actually influencing real moderators and commentators to the point that anti-AGW appears to be the more popular stance even on slashdot.
Also, I don't believe industry is going to be able to deny AGW forever. I'd bet that industry heads are doing everything they can to kick the can down the road so that by the time the evidence is truly overwhelming they (as individuals) have collected their bonuses and are out of the picture in terms of personal prosecution so that it is their future replacements who are left standing when the music stops.
Looking at the temperatures (data, linking page), the annual average global temperature (as defined and measured by NASA) is indeed going up (I plotted the values from 2000 through 2015, and got a slope of around 0.015 C/year for a linear least-squares fit).
Regarding hurricanes, etc., I think -- and I could be wrong, I'm no climatologist -- the relevant thing is the higher moments (e.g., variance), not the mean. That is to say, given that we have such a poor understanding of climate, a prediction such as, "there will absolutely be more hurricanes going forward" is a tricky statement, but something like, "there will be a greater variance in XYZ" is (perhaps...) a safer statement. Whether (weather?) or not this is the case, I'm not sure...
Douche, WTF is up with you making hyperlinks of a URL?
Or:
The professional anti-AGW trolls have campaigned successfully and there are otherwise intelligent people here who honestly believe the BS they have been fed elsewhere.
We saw the same thing here recently when /. was flooded with SJW posts that pushed every tiny LGBTQRSC issue as if it were a matter of fundamental human rights.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Keep telling yourself that as you sit alone in your basement forever.
I know more than most about most things. I'm a really smart guy.
Why do I think plants can 'absorb' CO2? They've done it before and so long as conditions are right, plants will reproduce on their own.
Your understanding that plants 'absorb' CO2 is wrong. They break down the CO2 molecule in to free O2 and various carbon based molecules with which they add to their mass (grow).
There are far more potent heat trapping molecules then CO2, including H2O. Do you really think going from 0.025% to 0.040% atmospheric CO2 is what's driving all temperature change? My bet is it's close to negligible.
Your intelligence is a hoax.
I'll tell you what I do understand - I don't trust the UN or the politicians involved one damned bit. When this is being run by an organization so political it refuses to authorize journalists who don't subscribe to their group think, and the ultimate goal is to figure out how deep they can reach into your wallet, people ARE IN THE RIGHT to be skeptical of this. When you call people stupid and stand on your high horse, they end up voting for Trump because personally, Trump seems a far better choice than standing with these self-righteous douchebags.
The reporting organization linked above is definitely a "right wing" publication that has been critical of climate change based tax regimes. I don't agree with most of what they say, but when people won't stand up or protect their right to say it, those people have lost their principles anyway, so best case is they're not the ones to listen to in solving this problem.
It's already too late. Nobody is really making any serious efforts to address what is a very real problem and we're all going to cop it in the neck as a result. Greed and stupidity will have killed us off better than an asteroid.
At least we have another possible solution to Fermi's paradox - "where are they?" They were clever enough to get themselves into some serious trouble but not clever enough to get themselves out again.
Hillary and Bernie aren't hard denialists like Trump, but they are deniers nevertheless. They think AGW is really happening and must be stopped. But they think a nudge here and there is enough to avert any discomfort. Plans calling for reducing CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 and the like is really really too little too late.
Well, they do say that Mother Nature has a Liberal bias.
This is the kind of false syllogism that results in man being defined as a bird without feathers.
Say what you will about Putin, at least he admits that Climate Change is real. He's not doing anything about it, but he knows it's real.
The hurricane machine is remarkably sensitive to many different factors. Because of this, it's a lousy predictor for global warming. Although long-term statistical effects in terms of location and intensity may eventually correlate.
On the other hand, thermometers all over the globe have been crawling up at a virtually linear pace for all those years you mentioned. I "enjoyed" some of it myself this year, in January, where I came within an inch of switching on the air conditioning when it should have been closer to freezing and in June, when triple-digit temperatures persisted day after day in a region where breaking 100 is something that used to happen one day in every 5 years or so,
Even a lot of record-breaking cold was traceable to overheating of frigid resources that would have usually been locked in for the winter somewhere further north. Kind of like how you get "snowfall" when it starts melting from the roof.
Maybe some day you and reality may actually meet.
As opposed to the made-up reality that you lap up from your masters.
Though I don't think you'll like the real reality very much.
When the historic records are tampered with everything is possible.
My car has a thermometer. It's about two degree off.
Hacker News is decent as far as civil intelligent discourse goes, albeit not much "regular news" to be found there, and the comment layout is such that it makes following a discussion thread more difficult than it need be.
Soylent News is barely even worth your time. The same clique posting and being upvoted, with more than a few of said clique posting the most bogus crap - that gets upvoted... that you can't vote down (unless you're in the regular clique) - even though everyone has 5 mod points/day.
Back before Slashdot was sold the first time, it always seemed (to me) that Slashdot almost always had the right mix of Odd News|Tech News|World News
Today - Slashdot is far too focused on Global Warming and the minutiae of American Politics.
Do you really think going from 0.025% to 0.040% atmospheric CO2 is what's driving all temperature change?
A change from 0.025 to 0.04 would cause a direct impact of 2.5 Wm^-2 based on radiative transfer codes. Over the surface of the Earth that is equivalent to 1,600,000 Hiroshima bombs per day. Yes, this is certainly what is causing most (possibly more than all) of the warming over the last 60 years.
When you consider that warmer air holds more H2O (a far more potent heat trapping molecule) then you begin to see that the overall impact is even larger than the direct effect.
Record high temperature for recent years, but CO2 is flat for last three years. How to reconcile?
Did you forget that plants also die, break down, and release virtually all their CO2 right back into the atmosphere again? Their net effect is almost zero, unlike the ocean.
My bet is it's close to negligible.
I'll take that bet. Unlike you, I've actually seen the data.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Oh, yes, very definitely a record-breaking temperature drop, the like of which has never been seen before!
> The coldest year on record was also evidence of 'climate change'
What, 1910?
Buuuut, seriously folks...Yes. It is part of the evidence. The other part is the 106 years that followed 1910.
Well, you changed my mind. Thanks for letting me know that the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC these past 25 years or so is to drain people of money. I thought it had something to do with the climate, but I appreciate your informed analysis.
When you call people stupid
In all fairness he did wonder aloud who collects temperature data. There's literally an entire profession for that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You think the UN controls every major scientific organisation on the planet (all of which endorse the findings of AGW)? You think they also control every climate research organisation around the globe too? Is the UN paying for NASA's research? Do they have authority over NOAA or CRU or CSIRO, or the peer review structure of the many climate research journals as well?
What leads you to believe any political organisation has such an astonishingly far-reaching influence over the entire global science community?
Come to that, what the heck is a "climate change based tax regime"? The science has shown we're changing our climate, and that remains independently true regardless of any proposed political solutions. If you don't like a given tax regime, vote for a different solution - but don't confuse the solutions with the problem, because no amount of political criticism will make that go away.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Just look at these quotes from the article:
> "The El Niño weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor."
(Oh of course)
> "“As the El Niño wanes, we don’t anticipate that 2017 will be another record-breaking year,” said Dr Peter Stott at the UK’s Met Office. “But 2017 is likely to be warmer than any year prior to the last two decades"
Got that? Take away El Niño and we're the hottest in... omg .... 20 years.
On a geologic scale of millions, we're now down to forming conclusions based on a data set of ... 20.
Please send these children back to their safe spaces where they can play with Play Doh and coloring books...
You parsed that wrong. The quote was
They aren't saying "we're the hottest in... omg .... 20 years.", they are saying "we (will be) hotter (in 2017) than any year (in our records) prior to 1997".
Enigma
Yes, just yes. ðYZ
This. THIS ZOMG!!eleven.
The denialists just keep on coming. And they show up everywhere, not just on this site.
Science, humanity's noblest attempt to understand this universe that is our home, is under an attack by business and political interests who wish to bring us back to a time of ignorance.
The plan of denialists is simple: DISCREDIT SCIENCE AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. Accuracy, reality, and logic are irrelevant.
Don't. Let. Them. Win.
I like how in mid November they "predict" what the weather will be like for the last 8 months.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/12/climate-models-for-lawyers/#more-22472
Climate models infer that all of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to humans. However, there have been large magnitude variations in global/hemispheric climate on timescales of 30 years, which are the same duration as the late 20th century warming. The IPCC does not have convincing explanations for previous 30 year periods in the 20th century, notably the warming 1910-1945 and the grand hiatus 1945-1975. Further, there is a secular warming trend at least since 1800 (and possibly as long as 400 years) that cannot be explained by CO2, and is only partly explained by volcanic eruptions.
Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming.
As for predicting the future, Curry said the models are "warming too much":
The IPCC’s projections of 21st century climate change explicitly assume that CO2 is the control knob on global climate. Climate model projections of the 21st century climate are not convincing because of:
Failure to predict the warming slowdown in the early 21st century
Inability to simulate the patterns and timing of multidecadal ocean oscillations
Lack of account for future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate
Neglect of the possibility of volcanic eruptions that are more active than the relatively quiet 20th century
Apparent oversensitivity to increases in greenhouse gases
There is growing evidence that climate models are warming too much and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC...
The 21st century climate model projections do not include:
a range of scenarios for volcanic eruptions (the models assume that the volcanic activity will be comparable to the 20th century, which had much lower volcanic activity than the 19th century ... Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate.
a possible scenario of solar cooling, analogous to the solar minimum being predicted by Russian scientists
the possibility that climate sensitivity is a factor of two lower than that simulated by most climate models
realistic simulations of the phasing and amplitude of decadal to century scale natural internal variability.
Year of lies and propaganda by the GOP and the denialist finally hit the mark : people really DO think AGW is an hoax. Repeat a lie often enough and some people will start believe it. After all there is quite an incredible number of holocaist denialist, moon landing denialist and 9/11 "truther". It should not surprise you that there is now a lot of people which believe AGW is an hoax.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>paid-per-post pro-AGW Trolls
paid by whom ?
half the people on slashdot told me warming has paused for over a decade now.
Could they have been lying ? Never...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Makes sense, since reality has a well-known liberal bias and nature is actually a real thing...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Weather over the long term IS CLIMATE.
No, it most definitely is NOT. Climate is the AVERAGE of weather, not just the long-term of it. There's a huge difference. Mostly - it's infinitely easier to predict. Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Averages are far simpler than the things they are averages off.
Let's demonstrate the point with my favorite example.
This is Pete. Pete is a highschool senior. Please predict his final grades.
Whatever you're about to say - your odds of actually getting them right are about a billion to one.
Now what if I give you his transcripts, with all his past test results and academic performance notes and such. If you try predict it now your odds go up quite a bit. You may still get some wrong, and people do sometimes see big shifts before finals as kids get scared into working harder etc. but you got reasonable odds of getting them right. That's weather prediction - trying to predict something fairly chaotic based on past results.
Now what if I say to you: this is Pete's senior class. Please predict their grade distribution.
You can say with absolute certainty that it will be a normal-distribution. 25% will fail, 50% will be in the average zone and 25% will excell. You can say this because we are SO certain that ALL highschool classes ALWAYS have a normal distribution that any deviation from the normal distribution is admissible in a court of law as proof of cheating ! It's a mathematically all but guaranteed thing.
Yet it's made up of all those individual grades you couldn't predict ? How can the class grade distribution be perfectly predictable when individual grades are virtually unpredictable ?
Because averages are easier to predict than the data-points they are derived from. So much easier.
And THAT is climate science -it's predicting the average and outliers don't shift it much, and individual data-points don't affect it much -the average stays the average. To shift the average you need a consistent effect across ALL the data-points... you know like sigifnicantly increasing the volume of greenhouse gasses which makes all days (even the cold ones) warmer than they otherwise would have been.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
lol Yeah. Slashdot should do a poll on AGW. I'd guess about 75-80% of the readership here are "skeptical" of climate change, in much the same way that Kent Hovind is skeptical of evolution. Power of motivated reasoning.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yet to change this factor for prevention of Global Warming. What other factors you suggest must be taken care for Green house Effect ??
Wow - 16 of 17 of the 'hottest years on record' have been this CENTURY! And when did records begin? Not very long before this century... so more alarmism from the great global warming swindlers.
Don't believe me, research it all for yourself.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Since Trump already is installing a climate change denier as head of the EPA and wants more smoke stack pollution to be legal we can all assume that pollution and global warming will become amplified rather than resisted. A nation that elects such trash deserves what is going to happen to it.
One can hope... Sitting in the basement of one's mother...
The UN is all about destroying economies so everyone, except them of course, live in squalor. Plain and simple - they cook numbers so if the data says that it was "Normalized" or anything but raw data - it's BS... Plain and simple...
I make energy policy and have read slashdot for 18 years.
its been 90F in NOVEMEBER when it's usually in the 50s.
A 40F difference from normal.
that's not just a "little" warmer.
that's a metric f-ton of energy warmer.
Yeah I know right. All those LGBTOMGWTFBBQs claiming they couldn't learn programming because programming languages are fundamentally sexist. All those GBTs claiming rampant discrimination in tech hiring despite there being no GBT CS students.
Oh wait... that was the work of straight white male cisgendered dorks hoping to get laid by accusing GBTs along with the rest of you white male cisgendered folks who just want to work with other talented people of somehow hating cisfemales because cisfemales CAN'T FUCKING PUT ANY EFFORT INTO LEARNING ANYTHING.
Strange that GBTs just don't have that problem. Only cisfemales do. Only cisfemales feel privileged enough that they should just get tech jobs without knowing a single damned thing about how anything works and being too arrogant to give a fuck. Programmer Barbie--a perfect metaphor for the privileged cisfemale who can't fucking do basic fucking algebra.
Oh God, just shut up about paid trolls already. No one is getting paid to post to SLASHDOT. Barely anyone reads slashdot. Certainly not people who make policy.
This is exactly what a paid troll would say!
Who's paying you and how much?
been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-conte...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
College grad here, CS Major. Still come to slashdot because i love the community which always has comments more informative than the article. Not paid to make this post. Haven't seen any other 'shills' for big oil on the site. That said, i am still skeptical about the dangers of global warming, and i am even MORE skeptical of the politicians who offer 'solutions' for it.
How is that an anti-science opinion? If you are indeed a skeptic, shouldn't you remain skeptical about Global Warming alarmists? ESPECIALLY when it comes from the U.N. which is an extremely biased organization with a clear incentive to alarm the world about global warming so they can gain the world government power to tax all carbon emissions.
And on what do you base your suspicion? You have a large number of experts in fields related to climate and thermodynamics who appear to disagree with you, so please provide a citation to any study that actually backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just another random guy on the Internet with an inflated ego and no real knowledge of the fields in question making grand claims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What leads you to believe any political organisation has such an astonishingly far-reaching influence over the entire global science community?
Come to that, what the heck is a "climate change based tax regime"? The science has shown we're changing our climate, and that remains independently true regardless of any proposed political solutions. If you don't like a given tax regime, vote for a different solution - but don't confuse the solutions with the problem, because no amount of political criticism will make that go away.
1) I think you are underestimating the power of groupthink.
2) you underestimate the power of government funding and grants. If you are just a scientist that whats to study butterflies and can't get any funding, but organization X will fund you 100% if you study the "effects of climate change on butterflies" what do you think you are going to do?
3) "climate change based tax regime" - the power to tax carbon emissions is the power to tax all human activity, since we all emit carbon dioxide. The U.N. has been gathering political momentum for years to turn into a 'real government' which to U.N. people. means the power to tax. If the U.N. convinces the world that the only solution to climate change is to allow the U.N. to tax all countries for carbon emission, it will become the most powerful government in the world, and will actually be a 'world government' This is something that makes libertarians (and those who read revelations) pee their pants in terror.
#3 would be a far greater threat to humanity than climate change itself. IMHO
To clarify :
Plants breathe out what we breathe in. ( Convert co2 to o2 )
- In the spring and summer.
In the Fall and Winter most plants are dormant, and convert nothing. In fact, the decay process of the leaves adds co2, to the air and the soil, and gets used again ( ideally ) in the spring and fall as fertilizer.
Want to reduce temps? Plant more trees. In addition to converting co2 to o2 they provide shade, keeping local temperatures low.
Don't believe me? Go walk in a forest.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Thanks for the links. Good to know.
Says it's a Chinese hoax. And so we must believe him, or else we risk a president who had a private email server in order to please her master Satan.
We have only measured temperature with some precision for a few hundred years so this isn't saying much.
I am just stunned that techies, who should hyave the capability of logical reasoning, really get nothing of the whoole climate change thing. /. readers that never finished it,. apparently.
So here's the grade school version, for the majority of
The WEATHER is what makews some winters really hot, and others record cold. The weather can change , but it is the severity of the weather that *Climate* change affec ts.
The CLIMATE is tha major average over 10 to 100 year timesppans. It's perfectly normal to have a deadly heat spell in the weather for months or even a few years , even if the *climate* is cooling down. And the reverse, it's evtirely possible to have record setting colds winters while the climate shows increases in global temperatures.
The statistics show, without any possibility of error, that the average temperature of ALL the planets in our solar system are increasing. The tempperature on earth is increasing faster, is all. There;s no question that all that pollution from factories, and methane from pig farms and billions of litres of cow flatulence, is making it worse. And no question that the oceans are warming, causing the methane in the sea floor to be released. So all that fresh water entering the ocean from higher global temps will stop the gulf stream, causing Europe and eastern US to go into a deep freeze, and then the albedo effect will make the rest of the planet go into a deep freeze. And THIS is data that has already been known since the late 60s!
And next, the "pole shift" idiocy. Yes, the "poles" are moving at a faster rate than ever seen before. But it's NOT going to make england suddenly nice and tropical, nor will it "flood the coasts with mile high tidal waves" , something I read over and over. The pole that's moving is the MAGNETIC pole. And it isn't moving ANYTHING except compasses and GPS settings and airline markings.
When the PHYSICAL poles do shift, you won''t be seeing a video about it by Begley . You'll probably be under a mile of water. And actually, the rapid crustal displacement theory doesn't suggest the poles themselves move, rather that the plates slide over the magma by almost 15.
Mmm.. Magma!
And yet there are still a ton of posts in this thread stating that because the temperature was higher in their home town this year, they have proof of global warming.