Slashdot Mirror
2016 Was Second Hottest Year For US In More Than 120 Years of Record Keeping (climatecentral.org)
Last year was the second hottest year for the United States in more than 120 years of record keeping, according to the National Climatic Data Center, marking 20 above-average years in a row. While Georgia and Alaska recorded their hottest year, every state had a temperature ranking at least in the top seven. Climate Central reports: The announcement comes a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the U.S. data, and NASA are expected to announce that 2016 set the record for the hottest year globally. Both the global record and the U.S. near-record are largely attributable to greenhouse gas-driven warming of the planet. In addition to the pervasive warmth over the last year, the U.S. also had to deal with 15 weather and climate disasters that each caused more than $1 billion in damage. Together, they totaled more than $46 billion in losses and included several disastrous rain-driven flooding events. These events, along with continued drought, lay bare the challenge for the country to learn how to cope with and prepare for a changing climate, said Deke Arndt, the climate monitoring chief of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. The temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average for 2016, displacing 2015 and ranking only behind 2012, when searing heat waves hit the middle of the country. More notable than the back-to-back second place years, Arndt said, was that 2016 was the 20th consecutive warmer-than-normal year for the U.S. and that the five hottest years for the country have all happened since 1998. Those streaks mirror global trends, with 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurring in the 21st century and no record cold year globally since 1911.
... in the ass, pussy grabber.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
the earth is over 4 billion years old and has had icecaps for 20% of the time.
What's the maths on 4 billion vs 120 years?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
It's absurd to say that ALL of the weather disasters we encountered are attributable to global warming. You could just as easily say that GW has prevented several massive weather disasters we will never know about...
Weather changes, sometimes to extremes. Over time there will be massive droughts and floods and hurricanes and all other things, just as there have been through the entire history of Earth. So stop with the nonsense of trying to tie all that to GW because it just makes you all look like a bunch of panicked idiots.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While the article mentions El Nino, it conveniently fails to take "The Blob" into consideration.
Fake News for Killary lovers.
Your back of the napkin familiarity on the subject matter in an age of scientific hyper specialization makes any opinion you have on the matter totally moot.
How on earth do you think you could possibly add any line of thinking that hasn't already been thought of, proposed, hashed over, and sorted out by the people who've been studying these lines of science for decades?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Individual measurements being inaccurate does not change the validity of the trend. Yes, better calibration helps getting more accurate results with less uncertainties, but it's highly unlikely that all calibration errors were in the same direction and skewed over time into the opposite direction.
Climate change deniers get stuck on individual errors or error margins, and believe they invalidate the entire research. They need to talk to some statisticians. The trends are still perfectly valid and beyond any reasonable doubt and even unreasonable doubt.
Climate is a long term average. 1 year has no meaning. Stupid articles such as these only open Climate Science to attacks when inevitable you end up with a colder then usual year despite the long-term average shows a clear upward trend
The temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average for 2016
So that's -16 degrees celsius! Yeah, that's a minus!! The Earth is cooling rapidly and freezing!! Global warming is a leftist commie lizard people Soros conspiracy!!1!1eleven!
I have a thermometer that cost $1.29 and I'm a betting man, so I'd go with the odds that it's simply wrong.
However, when the heating system kicks in, that bastard goes up.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Look, people didn't calibrate their thermometers all the time back then,
You really need to shut the fuck up, boy. You are not qualified to give an informed opinion,
and the best thing you can do is either go kill yourself or die trying.
We're all gonna die!!!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Temperature and pressure (and magnetic field strength and orientation) have both been accurately measured for at least 150+years (it's longer, but for purposes of your post, 150 years works). Just because they didn't have the Internet doesn't mean they were clueless savages. Heck you can also get a gauge of global temperatures using a variety of proxies, Tree rings, O16/O18 ratios, heck Dr. Kim Cobb has been doing some fascinating work using coral growth to reconstruct temperature history. All of these can be correlated together to create a pretty comprehensive Temperature history. If you still have doubts, enroll in a paleoclimatology and paleooceanography class, learn the techniques and concepts involved in temperature reconstruction. It's some really cool stuff.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
EOL
What with Meryl Streep and all at the Golden Globes. The only year that I can remember that was hotter was Madonna at the 1992 MTV Music Awards.
For those that somehow think that Mankind has nothing to do with Climate Change -- it is a documented Fact that the amount of Greenhouse Gases produced by Mankind far outweigh the Pollutants naturally produced by the Earth 2.4 MILLION pounds of Co2 are released by us every second -- that's 207.36 BILLION pounds of CO2 every day. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca... That amount DWARFS the amount of CO2 the Earth produces naturally -- in fact the Earth now produces less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcan... Additionally, An estimated 14 billion pounds of trash-most of it plastic -- is dumped in the world’s oceans every year. http://seastewards.org/project... So not only has MANKIND completely contaminated and inundated our atmosphere with Green House Gases, we have contaminated and polluted our Oceans to such an extent that it's effecting the Global Ocean Currents and killing off aquatic life Your willful ignorance and refusal to accept anything not stated by FOX News as fact changes nothing, but only assures that your children and their children will suffer and possibly die due to exposure or extreme weather related event because of your ignorance and hatred for Science Furthermore, carrying on arguing that Mankind is not the cause of the Climate Change is so completely deluded, you might as well spend your time smearing the walls of your house with your own feces while claiming ignorance of the cause of the foul odor and swarms of flies all around you -- because that's exactly how crazy you sound
Your electric car? Yeah it runs on electricity, that comes from coal. The tires come from oil. The plastics are petroleum based. And on.. And on.. And on.. There is no substitute for oil, only replacements in niche areas.
I am still waiting for the day when the "majority" cares so much about the environment that they will actually give up their oil lifestyle. If all of you climate change cry babies did that, then we'd get the reductions in green house gases you want. Stop driving to work, stop shopping at Wal Mart, stop going to the grocery store for the organically grown bananas that were shipped from South America. OIL MAKES YOUR LIFESTYLE POSSIBLE you hypocrites! If all you cry babies actually did what you say it wouldn't matter what the climate change "deniers" said or did huh? Because you all the majority, right? We'd get those reductions all on YOUR behavior alone.
Fact is you are all full of crap and won't give up your oil lifestyle so just shut up!
And what's the downside to not destroying the planet any more than we already have?
How do you reconcile between eras so far apart in both the breadth of measurements and accuracies and methodology between now and then?
By comparing datasets from multiple sources that overlap in the time domain.
I don't think it is possible to any close "degree." Look, people didn't calibrate their thermometers all the time back then, nor did they have the scientific rigor in measurement technique to make sure they had an acceptable "averaging" setup for the measurement on a specific time and circumstance each day.
First of all, people did calibrate thermometers "all the time back then." It wasn't hard. The freezing and boiling points of water at sea level are convenient standard fiduciary marks.
As for "scientifc rigor" -- what I think you really mean is the care taken in measurements. Consider for example, Tyco Brahe. He gathered enormous amounts of data that informed Kepler to create his laws of planetary motion. And he didn't have a telescope. He took extraordinary care to use his measuring instruments to the best of his ability. My point is that data that is "old" is not necessarily lacking in "rigor."
Finally, regarding data quoted to a fraction of a degree -- you need to understand that individual measurements can have a moderate errors, but their average can be highly accurate. Google on "standard error of the mean" for details.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Think how hot it might have been if global warming was real!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Riiiight. Because it's all been hashed out and no one can contribute unless they agree with the consensus that's been all worked out with no possibility of dissent.
Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. He did not say no one could contribute. He said no one without decades of hyper specialized research could possibly contribute. I only have a Masters degree, but I did choose a research track instead of a capstone project, and the most important thing I learned was how specialized someone needs to be to make meaningful contributions to scientific knowledge.
At least 99.999% of the population has no business postulating about climate science. The only reasonable opinion these people can have (myself included) is the position of the vast majority of climate science researchers. The other 0.001% of the population can continue to challenge current theories.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The earth is in a mini ice age. There's no know method of extracting temperature rates from the geologic record, which is what leads to the scary xckd graph. It is inevitable that we return to a warmer earth. It's also inevitable that people reliant on government^H^H^H^H^H corporate funding publish what their government^H^H^H^H^H^H corporate overlords expect.
Wouldn't be a regular week on Slashdot without a climate post. We get it, editors: you have an agenda. We all get it.
fuck you and your equating the autism vaccine bullshit to science. get back under your rock, and die.
A paralyzed economy, steady increase in poverty, little to no funding available for stuff like scientific research.
Those are just the first downsizes I can think of.
Here is some science for you....entropy always increases. We can't not speed towards our end, but if we are to have a prayer of getting to another planet we must consume the resources necessary to create an economy capable of supporting the kind of science that must be done to get there.
When the environment gets too bad, the economic interest in restoring it will rise and we will adapt, as we always have.
But there is no adapting to a supervolcano eruption, massive meteor strike, or sun going supernova....there is only escaping....which requires science...which requires funding...which requires an economy....which requires resource consumption.
See how it all ties together?
It would be more convincing if they had error bars on those numbers.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think you're at the "ok, global warming is real, but its not a big deal, honest" stage?? But that's at least semi-positive. You've accepted the basic warming, even if you want to downplay the short time scale its happened over by adding in ancient ice cap melts.
The earth will be fine, its not a living thing in and of itself, it's the stuff on the earth that dies e.g. Dinosaurs, Triassic extinction event, trilobites extinction and the biggest of them all, the Permian extinction (96% of life wiped out), life gets wiped out on it's surface, but the earth chugs on.
It's worth looking at the Permian extinction, the great dying where 96% of species died out. A similar style dyout would wipe humans off the planet. That was a rise of 8 degrees celcius, with 2000 parts per million CO2. We've raised the CO2 from 280ppm to 370ppm to the year 2000 and to 404ppm this year and still accelerating.
So we're looking at as much as 1000ppm by 2100, which is really past a point at which we could stop it.
Permian is believed to be a de-oxygenating event of the ocean, so all marine life died out because it couldn't breath, which in turn released decay gasses into the atmosphere and snuffed out the land animals.
That's potentially Trumps great grandchildren dead, so not really a big deal, he'll never meet them, let alone date them.
"Not the hottest we have seen in the tiny span of time we have been keeping records compared to geologic and astronomical time frames."
I know it's not as good of click bait, but honestly, this is a non story. Call me when it is 5C hotter globally and I might actually care (or I might not, honestly warmer temperatures have been historically good for life in general and humans in particular).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this?
Because the fossil fuel industry funds media campaigns to discredit sound, reliable climate science? (Please see: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or...)
Even their own climate science that they were doing in the 1970s? (Please see: https://www.scientificamerican...)
Really.
It is entirely reasonable that calibration errors tended to one direction over the other if the same methods of calibration were used.
And yet... well, take a look for yourself at the adjustments made to the temperature data. Clearly someone thinks "that all of the calibration errors were in the same direction and then skewed over time into the opposite direction".
See that "Preview" button?
If 2016 was indeed the hottest year on record, then 2017 will almost certainly be cooler, due to statistical variation.
So Trump will be able to Rightfully claim that his novel policies on climate change are working.
And the right will all praise the Donald.
Sad but true.
Yes, better calibration helps getting more accurate results with less uncertainties, but it's highly unlikely that all calibration errors were in the same direction and skewed over time into the opposite direction.
Good lord folks -- I'm tired of this discussion coming up periodically and people talking out of their asses.
Look: thermometers dating back the mid-1800s were highly precise and did not need frequent calibration. They had perfected glass tubes of mercury and could make very even marks on them by that point. A late 19th-century thermometer had precision that was easily within +/-0.1 degree. (For specialized applications and laboratory thermometers, there were plenty that were manufactured by the late 1800s to be read down to 0.01 degree.)
And a sealed glass tube doesn't need repeated calibration if it's not disturbed or damaged. The issue here is simply how good the (somewhat permanent) calibration was. By the first couple decades of the 1900s, there were standards organizations which existed that would do standardized calibrations (i.e., where you could get a standard calibrated thermometer or send one away to be checked for calibration). We have actual logbooks when many thermometers were checked for accuracy. We have actual logbooks where thermometers were replaced and the old thermometers were compared with the new ones in terms of their scales and calibration. Etc., etc.
Just because you cannot fathom that people 100 years ago could read a thermometer or manufacture an even glass tube doesn't mean they didn't. They did. We still have many of these thermometers today to prove it. A 1900-era thermometers is about as accurate as a 1900-era RULER.
In fact, in terms of precision AND accuracy, what you should be questioning instead is MODERN electronic thermometers, which DO need frequent calibration and are frequently only accurate to maybe +/- 1 degree even when calibrated properly. But they're used for convenience because they no longer need a human to go look at it and write it down. Ask any meteorologist who knows anything about temperature measurement, and he'll likely tell you that stuff they were using decades and even over a century ago (often accurate to +/-0.1 degree) is more accurate than the stuff weather records are generated with now. (And regardless, that +/-1 degree or whatever is plenty to generate an average over several years to compare temperature records.)
No -- the real issue in dealing with old records is questions of siting and distribution. Historical thermometers weren't always located in the best of places, but again, most were, and we generally have records of those that were. The biggest statistical issue is that we didn't have such even distribution for samples all over the globe, so there's some sampling bias. Again, there's a lot of work statisticians do to take this into account when looking at long-term global averages.
Anyhow, I personally have complete confidence that those statistical analyses are good and reflect the overall trend. But people who are arguing that old thermometers were bad and needed frequent calibration simply have ABSOLUTELY no clue what they're talking about.
fuck you and your equating the autism vaccine bullshit to science. get back under your rock, and die.
Looks like someone got one too many vaccines.
can you agree that there are a series of trends that point towards increased extreme meteorological events.
No, and you can't either.
"We currently do not know how tornadoes and severe thunderstorms may be changing due to changes in the climate, nor is there hope that we will be able to do so in the foreseeable future."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(By the way, I want to be clear when I mention modern weather records, I'm talking about all the "observation stations" on average -- lots of them run by random people -- many of which don't have high-precision equipment. It is of course possible to have more accurate electronic devices today, but non-professional observations stations frequently don't have devices that have the precision of thermometers commonly used 100+ years ago.)
Yep. That site is awesome. It debunks that the US wasn't hot because it was really just mild. Where "mild" means "hot for January", "hot for February", "hot for March", etc. So, sure, it's not "hot" in the "100 F every day of the year" but then that's not what "hot" means for January. And I must say, having consistently mild winters where I live is rather troubling because it's a big part of the yearly insect die off. Even a few degree shift or short cycles of below freezing temperatures has a very large impact in the next year.
PS - Even when there's years that the US reports not having higher temperatures than the trend, people like you complain because "well it should be hotter every year, right?" It's almost like you don't understand what "global" warming means or how a few degrees average temperature change could have substantial effects.
Your back of the napkin familiarity on the subject matter in an age of scientific hyper specialization makes any opinion you have on the matter totally moot.
Strange, I've read scientific papers who argued in favor of phrenology and eugenics, and the detractors using the same language against critics.
Om, nomnomnom...
I have a thermometer that cost $1.29 and I'm a betting man, so I'd go with the odds that it's simply wrong.
I've got one of those too. It was made in 1803, and I'll bet that $1.29 it's more accurate then most have been made in the last 30 years. Those olde mercury-in-glass thermometers were and are still considered the gold standard for measurements.
Om, nomnomnom...
It is entirely reasonable that calibration errors tended to one direction over the other if the same methods of calibration were used.
But that doesn't matter. What matters are the trends. If all slashdotters buy crappy thermometers from the same manufacturer and they all show 1-3 degrees less than they should, and our average is lower this year than next, we can still say with fairly high certainty that the temperature has increased.
And if we then all buy crappy thermometers from another manufacturer and they all show 1-3 degrees more than they should, and our average continues to increase, we can still say that our average has increased.
What is measured is the same thermometers against the same thermometers. If recalibrating or swapping out the equipment, measuring starts again. If a measuring station shows 15C one year, 16C the next, and then swap thermometers and show 13C that year and 14C the next, the data doesn't show that the temperature has dropped from 15C to 14C - it shows a 2 degree increase. Combined with other measurements that show a similar increase, it becomes significant and gives high certainty for a trend.
At least 99.999% of the population has no business postulating about climate science.
That includes climate science researchers.
The field is only a couple decades old. Human understanding of the massively-chaotic system that is the Earth and its' constantly-fluctuating climate is in the barest infancy. We simply have not developed sufficient understanding to make predictions reliable enough nor presented evidence strong enough to justify in the majority of people's minds massive global transfers of wealth, crippling entire economies, and lowering standards of living for hundreds of millions of people.
Appeals to authority such as your post relies upon fail the smell test with too many people. Sorry, but a small minority, no matter how highly they regard themselves, does not get to dictate to the majority no matter what they think their cause or goals are or how worthy they think they are. This is particularly true when you call anyone who disagrees or even questions your conclusions and preferred courses of action "stupid", "denier", and other insulting & dismissive pejoratives.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Dear Americans,
There are lots of other countries beyond the wall. Lots of them were even hotter than you in 2016. And lots of people in these countries died starving because they could not grow food.
http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4489494/slides/slide_52.jpg
Count of all top level comments taken from page as I loaded it.
People objecting with the first argument they could think of, regardless of validity: 10
Nuts blaming everything on The Conspiracy: 4
Global warming alarmist copypasta: 2
Worthless spam: 7
People discussing the article: 4
Global warming news sure brings out the crazies.
All of that is based on the premise that the economy will tank if do anything to address global warming. But that is the same argument that has been leveled at every attempt to fix an environmental or social problem, like banning CFCs to stop destroying the ozone layer, or stopping the dumping harmful chemicals in any old place without a care for the health effects, or improving safety in factories to prevent workers dying from the chemicals they use, or the abolition of slavery, etc.
And yet here were are after all those changes. The economy wasn't destroyed, and scientific research is still being funded. That is because the economy adapted, as it always does. In this case we might have some short-term pain with the cost of converting to cleaner energy sources and technologies, but that will get forgotten once we find that we can save money by being smart about taking the energy from the air and sunlight around us. While coal miners won't be happy about the reduction of coal use, solar panel manufacturers will delight as their industry booms. While some things might cost us more as we have to find environmentally friendly ways of manufacturing goods, the work we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have the effect of lowering levels of all pollutions. This will lead to a reduction in pollution-related diseases lowering the health care costs.
We will soon forget about what we had to do to fix climate change just as we have with all the other changes that I mentioned above. Eventually, some other problem will occur and nay-sayers will predict the ruin of the economy yet again.
even when facts clearly show the opposite
Still waiting for that to be the case.
You haven't cited any facts. So far, all you've done is deny the existing facts - hand-waving them away as "adjusted" without any evidence that this makes them less accurate, and without any challenge to the methodology. Your only justification is that the corrections are "large", and give results you don't like. In what way do these claims constitute "facts"? Sounds like textbook denial to me.
Perhaps take some time to at least learn why the corrections were needed, so your next attempt to discredit them is worth looking at.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
the weather is broken
Hillary lost, get over it. Obviously enough people hated her more than they loved the planet. But if you really want to bring out the global warming fake news, you should do it in the summer, not when so many Americans are suffering from an extreme winter storm and would welcome a little more global warming.
Hey bonefart? Ya ever consider that there will be swings in climate extremes and the winter might actually have sudden freeze events because of undulation of the jet stream? DOH Go suck on your donut Homer. Just because we are experiencing a cold winter does not mean that the average temperatures are not on the rise. How many polar bears do you personally know, well they are all moving south and breeding with the remaining grizzlies up in Canada believe it or not! The polar ice pack in the arctic and glaciation north of the 49th parallel is retreating at a rate that is accelerating. If this does not mean that the average temperature is causing problems for the environment I do not know what will convince you. You can for the first time in history book a ticket to transit the northwest passage and this is only because of global warming, I assure you that they would not dare take a cruise ship there unless the ice pack was so thin that the insurance underwriters will write them an certification of insurance. Only 20 years ago it was completely impossible to take a large ship through and Lloyd's would have never underwritten a ship to go through the passage at any time of year.
You just proved his point. You believe your opinion is as relevant as someone who has spent a greater part of his life learning about climate science.
If you truly believe what you're saying, YOU need to go through the rigors of education the researcher you're equating yourself with before you can argue against the consensus.
The "smell test" is fine for localized things that don't matter much, but the reason the science fields exist is to perform research and analysis that the average layman cannot.
You can decide to personally accept the scientific community's consensus, or not, but it's analogous to deciding that 99% of medical doctors don't know how to treat a 20 year old disease, or that 99% of architects dont know how to build skyscrapers, or that most successful businessman don't know how to run a business.
Deciding that an entire field is incorrect in spite of the aggregate expertise of the members of that field is an extraordinary claim, and you'll either need to prove a vast conspiracy or perform repeatable science to properly refute the science. You went be successful at either, but you're welcome to try. Sadly, intelligent yet arrogant folks like you can convince fools of your beliefs, and they adopt them. We are seeing a revolt against expertise, and it's frankly astounding and perplexing in the extreme.
99% consensus on phrenology eh? Tough to believe, but even so, phrenology wasn't debunked until someone debunked it. Simply stating "nuh uh" is not science, and it definitely is not a refutation worth consideration.
Unfortunately the country is filled with impressionable people who desperately want to believe their way of life never needs to change, and cling to folks like you as a lifeline instead of critically thinking about ways to improve their situation when the inevitable comes. Interestingly this applies as much to who we (society as a collective) vote for, who we (individually) decide to socialize with, and how we (as communities) determine responses to risk.
I would like to see the papers and the critics. If the critics were some internet randos who are not scientists in the field, then yes, criticism is most likely moot. If the criticism is about some specific aspect of the paper (for example, pointing out problems with statistical methods), then it can be valid so long as the critic understands the aspect he/she is criticizing. If the authors of the research are making policy suggestions, then basically everyone can be a critic (e.g. you if prove that black kids are doing wore in school than white kids, it does not mean that the *right* policy is to concentrate teaching resources on the white kids *or* to attempt to equalize education outcomes).
As for GP case, it is really silly to expect that rather well established field will be overthrown by “that particular thing looks fishy”. Is is like expecting to disprove gravity by pointing to birds.
NOT the hottest year then?
All that's great and all, but if you're correct, YOU can provide the science that bears it out. If you can create solid science that can be verified reliably, you'll win the science. All the science. So get to it. I'm the type that can easily change my beliefs on hard data, so sway me.
Saying the scientists are wrong without showing what's right is much like saying your kids are wrong without showing them what's right. It only works when you're a respected authority.
I would like to see the papers and the critics. If the critics were some internet randos who are not scientists in the field, then yes, criticism is most likely moot.
Try your local library or university. Most places haven't digitized anything before about 1940, unless they're pertinent to research in an existing field. It's too expensive, and not worth the effort unless someone is working with them in more then once-in-a-decade work. That requires you gaining physical access to either stored or vaulted information. Universities I can suggest in Canada include the University of King's College and University of Laval. Set up appointments beforehand, otherwise they'll leave you sitting at the door. You may also have to pay, like I did. Though if you want to see the media support, check the articles relating to the works of Gall(the primary person behind it), including the citation examples from around 1810-1895, along with racist literature(you might have problems getting a hold of that depending on your country), especially in colonial countries.
Om, nomnomnom...
And I mean the whole climate debate.
There's a river running through the town I live in. For centuries, the river banks have been devoid of settlements. Why? Because the river has that nasty tendency to rise past its bed every now and then. Doesn't happen often, only every, say, 30 years or so. The periods are apparently long enough, though, that people don't remember it. And hence people did build houses right inside that flooding zone. Some older people have been warning them, telling them that it's not a good idea and that they're going to regret it. They have been rebuffed, damn luddites, we have the technology to tame the river, no problem there, put it in a fast moving bed and let the flood go downstream.
Guess what: They did the same upstream.
Now, last year it was 30ish years since the last flood and now a few people have a new swimming pool in their basement. And instead of now going "Fuck, we should've known better" the same people that ridiculed those that told them that this is going to happen are now lamenting that nobody could foresee that and how they now want to get disaster aid.
And I have a hunch that exactly the same is going to happen when disaster strikes those that now ignore any warnings, build at the beach front and then suddenly stand in 20 feet of water. Then suddenly they'll lament and complain how nobody could have foreseen that and then those that told them for ages are suddenly expected to aid them.
And it will be my pleasure to just shoot to kill when they try to climb my hill to get out of the water.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you're choking on Air filled with Pollution and Water filled with Chemicals and you have to watch your Wife or Kids die from Cancer from these things; come back and tell us please how Global Warming and the Protection of our Environment is nonsense, Mr. Ignorance.
Also, calibration is pretty trivial. I mean, we have boiling water and that mixture of whatever that came out to 0F... some endothermic reaction. I suppose you may hav eto adjust for atmospheric pressure where it was calibrated, but that seems easy enough.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Record high days, wow, must be climate change no global warming. Record cold days, that just weather ignore it. Many climatologists remain unconvinced that there is global warming and point to irregularities in data collection worthy of Gilligan, like a light bulb that is always on in a box that has the sensor to record the temperature. Temperature stations in urban areas or airports where average temperatures are higher. And many many more. Even the infamous 97% figure is cooked. Many of the scientists counted object to their papers and views being classified as favoring the hypotheses of global warming, or human caused global warming. Others point to our descent into a similar Minimum as the Marauder Minimum. Some predict a mini ice age. But when the figures don't agree with the global warming hypothesis then it's is weather phenomena (wait a sec, let me adjust my model!)... it's really quite easy. Bury a series of probes in the mantle. Uniformly distributed, not favoring fault lines or avoiding them. Launch a series of satellites that cover 100% of the earth from their combined viewpoints. And cover the earth facing sun. Measure solar output, heat gain or loss on earth, and contributions from earths internal heat. Might as well map greenhouse gas patterns and ir absorption on earth and map solar patterns not just the overall. Maybe even map the magnetospheres. And measure the temperature of the surface and at layers in the atmosphere. (I'd be looking for methane-hydrates releasing methane over the continental shelves myself.) Right now, we spend millions on grants to colleges and agencies who get money if they agree with global warming, and lose grants and funding if they disagree. That makes the argument political not scientific.
Crikey, dogs and cats sleeping together! I agree with you on something!
Not sure about as long ago as 1803 1803, but certainly at some point in the 1800s they got really good at making mercury thermometers. You can get better thermometers these days---for a price---but as another poster pointed out, a 1800s thermometer was pretty much as good as an 1800s ruler, which is to say, good.
And being of less general interest, they were generally well made scientific instruments then, there doesn't appear to have been a market (or ability to make) cheap, bad ones.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The end is nigh. Better repent of my sins.
You speak like you're a metrologist. I am. Your analysis of the calibration of a mercury thermometer is correct, but your dismissal of modern measurement devices is laughable. You act like these buoys have a piece of shit Radio Shack 99c thermistor in them. They don't. You have heard of a PT100 platinum RTD haven't you? Or perhaps you're more familiar with a thermocouple. Both are used in these buoys depending on manufacturer. This is NOAA, the EPA, and even the US Military. They buy decent equipment most of the time. There's a reason the budget is so damned high. Furthermore, regarding the amplifiers that read those RTDs, they have not required calibration in 15 years. It's all digital now. You simply drop the probe into whatever medium you're using, set the "zero" and then apply the span temp and set that. It doesn't drift after that. Granted they will not last 100 years like your glass thermometers but they're good for at least 10 years, and it's likely they'd be replaced by then anyway. I've been to NIST. Even they use digital thermometers with really nicely characterized probes and they use them for everything from goofy school demonstrations to measuring absolute zero. Times have changed.
You can get platinum RTDs off Amazon for less than $10. You'll have to do better than that.
There was a statistically insignificant difference between 2016 and 1998 (0.02C). Both of these years were very strong El Nino years, fyi. In other words, after 18 years of "global warming" the El Nino years have the same temperature.
Please can we stop the tsunami of bollocks about global warming? It's fucking tiresome.
Damage to the reputation of science, meaning alarms for other important things will be ignored.
If, of course, they are wrong.
If it wasn't for our modern satellite technology,better ground and communications equipment and,many more people actually involved,we would not know this was the second warmest year. This assumes we are being told the whole truth. Will they blow the trumpets this loud when in the future we have the second coldest year ever?
Can you supply any references for the debunked consensus? When I originally looked into the matter, I found several papers confirming the consensus, but it has been a few years since I looked
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Pfwah, scientist smientists. ;)
It's all a big conspiracy, just like surgeons are all working for big pharma.
They just do it for the money. If my kid needs surgery, I'll do it myself, because I read a couple of websites on the internet that told me that doctors take money from pharmaceutical companies so I know it's all just a hoax and I'll probably cut neater and cleaner then they do, they are all a bunch of butchers.
Just get a kitchen knife and cut where it hurts. And all that bulls#!t about hygene is probably just so the disinfectant companies can peddle their product, so you shouldn't even clean it after you cut the roast with it.
Don't believe the medical hoax!
** kids, don't try this at home ;) **
Ya know, Einstein, that's what they said to... uhm... Einstein. ;-)
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Then why do they keep adjusting old values in the records?
"His name was James Damore."
Homo Erectus extinct 1 million years ago? George Michael just died last week.
Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this?
Do you ever wonder why we are skeptical of your claims? I'll demonstrate:
Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments instead of basing these claims on anything resembling the raw data.
Where is the proof of this claim?
Sure, it's necessary to perform quality control, but the adjustments go far beyond that.
Where is the proof of this claim?
In fact, if you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat.
Where is the proof of this claim? What does mostly mean? mostly doesn't sound like it has a scientific definition.
However, the adjustments to the data set look like a hockey stick.
So what? Why would we care?
When you need to adjust the data in order to get a signal, you end up making ridiculous claims like vaccines causing autism. Global warming is about as credible, except that scientists have decided it's true. To their credit, organizations like the National Climatic Data Center are transparent about their adjustments, so we can actually determine that the adjustments are the source of the warming signal.
Where is the proof of this claim?
I respect the scientists at NCDC, though I think their research is very flawed. The problem is that, when someone points out these facts, people show up and aggressively attack anyone who raises these problems.
We ask you for proof, and you treat our request like an attack. It's your job to prove your assertions
Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. He did not say no one could contribute. He said no one without decades of hyper specialized research could possibly contribute. I only have a Masters degree, but I did choose a research track instead of a capstone project, and the most important thing I learned was how specialized someone needs to be to make meaningful contributions to scientific knowledge.
At least 99.999% of the population has no business postulating about climate science. The only reasonable opinion these people can have (myself included) is the position of the vast majority of climate science researchers. The other 0.001% of the population can continue to challenge current theories.
Specialists sure have their uses, and indeed it takes significant effort to even just say current with any particular research field, but don't discount generalists so easily.
Generalists can often make connections between major research branches that specialists simply don't look for, or realise that different branches are investigating the same phenomena but are using different terminology. The most recent example of this is probably Carl Sagan.
Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the election.
Modelling is hard. Especially when you are modelling the future. Systematic bias in the form of attacks and blacklisting if you/your models disagree with the "consensus" doesn't help the matter.
Wow how much CO2 did we drop from the atmosphere from July to the end of the year?
Or was it the El nino - a solar event. So was 2010, 2005, 1998, 1934 - which was about the same as the 2015/2016 El nino season.
It was really El Nino all along. What a shame to 27 years of doom-saying predictions of when the Arctic will melt.
All this off the back of 2016 being the record setting year for greatest food production ever seen in human history :)
I think his point stands on its own, regardless of climate science knowledge. The claim is not qualified with a disclaimer about the assumptions and adjustments made to the 120 year old data, thus the outright claim that this was the 2nd hottest year should either be heavily qualified and these assumptions should be front and center or the claim should be toned down.
You are an arrogant idiot who think studying a subject somehow makes you know more than others about basic logic. We the people should not accept click bait / sensationalized climate headlines if for nothing else than to not undermine the cause. The more you try to stomp dissent and questioning the more people question what you are trying to hide.
If adjustments are not being made to the data then that is just as bad. Temperatures in the country (30 minutes outside a major city) can be more than 5 degrees cooler than in the City during the summer. If the weather station stays still but the city expands then the local temperature recorded is going to rise over the years because of urbanization, not climate. Weather station locations, ironically, are highly subject to this urbanization pattern. You climate change people always tell me this is "adjusted away" - great - tell me exactly how.
Tell me the assumptions used OR if it is NOT adjusted away, tell me how you can claim accuracy when local factors can affect a weather station that have nothing to do with the broader "climate".
If you climate science fuckers would just have one tiny iota of humility and humbleness the skeptics may start to listen. As it is, you can't even question the HEADLINE, let alone specific methods.
Also, the climate scientist group is going to be inherently biased:
1) They self selected this topic
2) Continued funding relies on finding something wrong
3) Funding is basically conditioned upon finding something wrong
4) Not finding something wrong is now the "out group" - like someone claiming the earth is not the center of the universe in past times - you will be crucified and ridiculed if you are a climate scientist and don't find something wrong
Also, calibration is pretty trivial. I mean, we have boiling water and that mixture of whatever that came out to 0F... some endothermic reaction. I suppose you may hav eto adjust for atmospheric pressure where it was calibrated, but that seems easy enough.
You rather should compensate for pressure differences because water boils at 100 C at sea level, but at 93.4 C at 2,000 metres where pressure is about 22% lower. That is quite a big difference. Thanks god the freezing point temperature does not change significantly at pressures around 101 kPa. At lest the 0 C should be about right regardless of whether they compensated for pressure differences or not.
You can cry up global warming or global cooling or climate change or whatever buzzword you want to use all you want.
The lot of you sorry sacks are going to go and pump out little stupid mewling brats anyway, even as you purportedly cry about the environment.
You're arguing over what to call the gaping maw in the Titanic's side as the band slides into the briny deep.
Good luck with that.
Dumbasses.
They also didn't experience self-heating problems that many "scientific" sensors do. Doesn't matter if you paid $500 for that "smart sensor". It might be junk. I've seen some off by 3-4 degrees over the standard operating range for measuring air temperature. The old days of alcohol thermometers was more accurate (assuming the sensors were placed and shielded properly). The other more disturbing reason that temperature is rising is due to the "corrections" applied by NASA. They wanted temperature data sets that everyone uses to correlate with CO2, so after some manipulations, now it does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
guys talking about two diff things.
and I believe he meant to say that its unlikely that the errors from measurement to measurement were non-linear.
his conclusion is right even if how he got there was worded poorly.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What can you PROVE?
I think you're full of shit. Is that proof you're both wrong and full of shit? No? Do I have to provide some proof other than my "think" on the matter?
"nor did they have the scientific rigor..."
All you're doing here is the "If they haven't corrected for changes, then it's garbage.
But when it IS corrected, youre first in line to complain that "They've fudged it to SHOW warming! Where's the RAW DATA!!?!??!".
Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments instead of basing these claims on anything resembling the raw data.
Where is the proof of this claim?
Where is your proof that his claim is wrong? Your post has just as shitty value as his post. Only a random claims of a random internet user :)
At least 99.999% of the population has no business postulating about climate science. The only reasonable opinion these people can have (myself included) is the position of the vast majority of climate science researchers. The other 0.001% of the population can continue to challenge current theories.
That's a very good argument, but why are you arguing for believing in God, when the subject is climate change?
Climate change should fall under science, where any talk about consensus and who has the highest number ("majority") of priests is only useful for discrediting a hypothesis.
The 99% claim is typically misconstrued and misused. While there exists a poll that shows that 99% of scientific respondents believe there is AGW, there is nowhere near that same consensus on the extent of the problem. There are many in that 99% who believe that AGW is not necessarily catastrophic, and there are many who agree that our models are not good enough to make accurate predictions.
I just wish those that constantly scream '99%' add that type of clarification. Otherwise, its just as mindless as denial itself.
I don't know if you realised, but you just told everyone how little you know about scientific research, at the same time as trying to use your knowledge of scientific research to make a point. It's rather entertaining for everyone else, but I imagine for you it's somewhat embarrassing. Let me help you for future times you insist on chiming in:
1) Yes, and? Oncologists research cancer, climatologists research the climate. Or should they swap every once in a while to keep you happy? Or is it this particular study? I have news for you - this study is duplicated many times the world over at the end of each year/start of the next. Of course climatologists are going to perform it.
2) Nope. Continued funding relies on society surviving. Extraordinary-payout-massive-awesomeness-funding would come from showing how climate change is not happening, as that will get you a Nobel prize, $1m, tenure wherever you want it, and funding for the rest of your days. Science LOVES upheavals, as that's where fantastic amounts of learning is found
3) Again, not at all. See 2)
4) Not even close. See 2)
The idea of science and scientists you are arguing against is indeed horrific, but as it only exists in your mind and the minds of people similarly disposed to you, you shouldn't worry about it perverting scientific research.
If you truly believe what you're saying, YOU need to go through the rigors of education the researcher you're equating yourself with before you can argue against the consensus.
The consensus is that the Earth and life itself was created by some form of intelligent being. Though there is not consensus about his name.
If people keep hearing these religious arguments from AGW proponents, we will end up with nobody taking anything climate-related seriously.
They change the baseline because time moves on and the epochal decade changes.
They also document the changes made, every one of them.
And BEST was run by someone who thought like you and wanted to do their own reconstruction from data. He found the same trend, indistinguishable from the IPCC's reconstruction.
If you don't like the result and wish to check it is valid, feel free to go and do the same work as Muller did.
" the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the U.S. data, and NASA are expected to announce that 2016 set the record for the hottest year globally. "
The globe is 100% of the planet, dumbass.
That includes climate science researchers.
You've got every right engage in policy debates (transfer of wealth, etc.) but only those with appropriate specialized knowledge (i.e., climate researchers) can meaningfully contribute to the scientific debate.
The last time they did a comparison test, it was 67% Clinton,33% Trump.
And the difference was 5% when the error of margin was 3% in the polls.
And Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the states, being 80,000 votes short.
So
1) Not 98%.
2) Only just out by 2% in the polls
3) It was practically a dead heat by state, gerrymandering made the difference.
4) Clinton was still ahead in votes
5) Wrong "consensus" entirely
Not a good track record.
Then why do they keep adjusting old values in the records?
For reasons you've demonstrated that you're not bright enough to understand. I saw some of your other posts in the thread. You're either too dim or too emotionally invested in believing lies to absorb the answers. So, I shall not waste my time.
By the way, being contrarian doesn't make you smart. It's only clever to disagree with the experts if you actually have very good reasons to and are right.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Finally, regarding data quoted to a fraction of a degree -- you need to understand that individual measurements can have a moderate errors, but their average can be highly accurate."
That only works for the measurement errors which have a random bias which averages to zero.
To get to a fraction of a degree, you have to deal with systematic errors.
Like observer is tall or short and so reads the thermometer looking down or up and and so put in a consistent bias of a few tenths.
Or a measurement location gets built up and becomes an urban heat island.
A lot of the discussion in believing temperature measurements is about how deal with these.
The favorite method seems to be comparing how multiple measurement stations/methods change over time.
If one does something strange, then an adjustment is added for it to keep all the stations moving together.
As long as the methodology and details for the measurements are published, this is probably ok for things that only affect a few measurement stations at a time.
(Not publishing is what caused Climate gate? Berkeley Earth fixed that.)
You do bring up an interesting point with the switch to electronic measurements.
This was a more sweeping change which violated the few stations at a time constraint.
The interesting question is after all this is how big are the error bars compared to the published rise?
I'm skeptical that the temperature measurement are good to 1/2 degree, but I have to admit, the rise is getting to be more than this systematic error.
Even this skeptic agrees that something is happening.
But that 99.999% of population has a right to decide whether they want to fund the fight against climate change or not.
That is absolutely true. The climate scientists aren't the ones who should be deciding whether coastal cities are worth saving, for instance. That is the responsibility of the general public. The general public certainly has the right to say they simply don't care, or aren't willing to make sacrifices for future generations. They can even let some amount of uncertainty about the negative effects of climate change enter into their risk management, such as using a predictive model where there is a 10% there are no negative effects.
But the current strategy of claiming the science isn't solid enough to be taken as "fact" by non-experts is indefensible.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Generalists can often make connections between major research branches that specialists simply don't look for, or realise that different branches are investigating the same phenomena but are using different terminology. The most recent example of this is probably Carl Sagan.
I don't really disagree with that statement, but I think I disagree with the implications you are making overall in your comment. If your example of a "generalist" is someone with a PhD in Astrophysics then I certainly agree there are those in the field of science you work better as a liaison between sciences than specializing in one area of research (I am roughly paraphrasing one of Carl Sagan's students, David Morrison, as he described Carl Sagan's role in their field).
But Carl Sagan's scientific accomplishments were mostly (I believe entirely, but I haven't done much research) in the field of planetary sciences, which was his specialization. His other accomplishments were as an educator of the public, not as a research scientist. This is certainly where a non-specialist can make a tremendous contribution to society's relationship with science, as Carl Sagan did. Carl Sagan would have been able to do great work in spreading the message of climate scientists if he were alive today, but he wouldn't be very useful in advancing that research unless he devoted more efforts into specialization in that area.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
That's a very good argument, but why are you arguing for believing in God, when the subject is climate change?
Climate change should fall under science, where any talk about consensus and who has the highest number ("majority") of priests is only useful for discrediting a hypothesis.
You are confusing the process of performing scientific research, which consensus should have little effect on, and the public's understanding of current research results. Consensus among leading scientists is vital for the public to make informed decisions, because they cannot be expected to gain enough knowledge about any individual field without possibly decades of dedicated effort.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Agreed that it's up to the person making the assertions to provide the evidence. I'm not going through the entire list, but the massaging of the data is real.
"Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments"
http://berkeleyearth.org/under...
Instruments have been upgraded from mercury thermometers to digital sensors. The "scientists" claim that this introduces a cooling bias and adjust temperature upward. The time of day in which observations are made has changed. The "scientists" claim that this change also introduces a cooling bias, so another upward revision is made.
"Urbanization" (basically heat from pavement) creates a warming bias, etc. etc.
There are also certain "quality control" adjustments.
"If you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat."
See figure #5 at the above URL
The adjustments in and of themselves are not proof of some grand conspiracy, but questioning the methodology used to massage the data is fair game for the skeptics.
hottest year on record by .000002 degrees. Nevermind the margin of error is .04
I think his point stands on its own, regardless of climate science knowledge. The claim is not qualified with a disclaimer about the assumptions and adjustments made to the 120 year old data, thus the outright claim that this was the 2nd hottest year should either be heavily qualified and these assumptions should be front and center or the claim should be toned down.
You are an arrogant idiot who think studying a subject somehow makes you know more than others about basic logic. We the people should not accept click bait / sensationalized climate headlines if for nothing else than to not undermine the cause. The more you try to stomp dissent and questioning the more people question what you are trying to hide.
If adjustments are not being made to the data then that is just as bad. Temperatures in the country (30 minutes outside a major city) can be more than 5 degrees cooler than in the City during the summer. If the weather station stays still but the city expands then the local temperature recorded is going to rise over the years because of urbanization, not climate. Weather station locations, ironically, are highly subject to this urbanization pattern. You climate change people always tell me this is "adjusted away" - great - tell me exactly how.
Tell me the assumptions used OR if it is NOT adjusted away, tell me how you can claim accuracy when local factors can affect a weather station that have nothing to do with the broader "climate".
If you climate science fuckers would just have one tiny iota of humility and humbleness the skeptics may start to listen. As it is, you can't even question the HEADLINE, let alone specific methods.
Also, the climate scientist group is going to be inherently biased:
1) They self selected this topic
2) Continued funding relies on finding something wrong
3) Funding is basically conditioned upon finding something wrong
4) Not finding something wrong is now the "out group" - like someone claiming the earth is not the center of the universe in past times - you will be crucified and ridiculed if you are a climate scientist and don't find something wrong
Here's an article describing a study that specifically checked the accuracy of adjustments made to historical data - why it was necessary, and how it compares to newer, more accurate data of the last few years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
The study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067640/full (pay wall)
And here's the NOAA paper on homogenization that explains the algorithm and the assumptions used. This is probably what you are most interested in: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf
The data you ask for is readily available. It took me 5 seconds of googling to better understand the scope of the adjustments.
He asked a straight forward question. Come on. She lost. Get over it.
I wonder how long it will take to analyze the data to find out if this is real or debunked...
And is not statistically different from MBH98. Both of those show rapid recent warming.
The only reasonable opinion these people can have (myself included) is the position of the vast majority of climate science researchers. The other 0.001% of the population can continue to challenge current theories.
The gall of those heathens, only we the anointed have the right to prophecy, only we know the secret rites, how to shake the beads and rattles! Insolent dogs, You'll anger the Gods, just tender the tithe without question. Pay no attention to the man behind the paywall, the smoke and mirrors are simply for your protection.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So libtard way of saying it was cooler this year.
Central Texas only hit triple digit Fahrenheit temperatures for like two days last summer. Usually the entirety of July likes to be in the triple digits.
The gall of those heathens, only we the anointed have the right to prophecy, only we know the secret rites, how to shake the beads and rattles! Insolent dogs, You'll anger the Gods, just tender the tithe without question. Pay no attention to the man behind the paywall, the smoke and mirrors are simply for your protection.
It shows deep ignorance to equate higher education with some religious cult. There are hundreds of climate science, earth science, etc. undergraduate and graduate programs in the US alone where you are free to educate yourself if you want to make meaningful contribution to the sciences. There is plenty of room for debate as long as you know what you are talking about first.
If you want to treat any deference to qualified professionals as equal to religious dogma, you are going to lead a very ignorant life for quite some time.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
This.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
By the way, that whole "97% consensus" thing is pure organic fertilizer. So not even your claims of consensus hold up to scrutiny.
Did you even read the articles you quoted? The WSJ article is behind a paywall, but the Politifact article rated the statement "Over 97 percent of the scientific community believe that humans are contributing to climate change." as mostly true. The only reason it wasn't entirely true is that over 97 percent of active researchers in relevant fields of the scientific community agree, not 97 percent of the entire scientific community. Considering those are the only people in the scientific community whose opinions hold much weight, its not a big mistake. There was also another researcher who disagreed with the criteria used to determine if the researcher agreed, and independently came up with a 91% consensus. That same researcher then stated "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans."
So it seems your own Googling backs up his consensus statements quite well.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Yeah, but Fahrenheit wasn't based on water at all, so I should have been more explicit that boiling water was only an alternative. Fahrenheit was based on two thermally stable processeses. I believe 0 was a mixture of ammonia and something else?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If it was the second hottest then global warming isn't happening, because if the earth is warming up, then it must be the hottest year, game over climate-tards!
COMPLETELY JOKING
...science demands not only predictions, but reproducibility, falsifiability, and controls.
So all we need is another planet on which to run the experiment!
(Or to be absolutely sure, another two or three.)
Can you supply any references for the debunked consensus? When I originally looked into the matter, I found several papers confirming the consensus, but it has been a few years since I looked
Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
a 2016 survey of american meteorological society members about climate change Initial Findings graph on page 11 shows 33% of AMS members believe the climate change is at least equally or more attributable to natural causes.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Climate Consensus Con Game
Sorry, global warmists: The ‘97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction
The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up
Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
For reasons you've demonstrated that you're not bright enough to understand.
Which you are keeping a secret?
I saw some of your other posts in the thread. You're either too dim or too emotionally invested in believing lies to absorb the answers. So, I shall not waste my time.
I've made two posts in this thread.
One of them, the one you are replying to, asking why they then it is that they are adjusting the old historical record if the thermometers were so good.
The other, containing only a link to an XKCD comic.
You are exactly the reason nobody takes climate shit seriously. You are the one so emotionally wrapped up in this stuff that you cant even keep straight who it is that posted what. Meanwhile you are accusing others of being emotionally wrapped up. PROJECT MUCH? Your faults and flaws are you own, asshole.
"His name was James Damore."
Given the veracity of the post your are replying to, in that the only things it contains is an accusation of someone of doing something they didnt do and a load of personal attacks, we can all easily conclude that this is serviscope_minor's sock puppet
Don't be such a horrible person, serviscope_minor.
I've made two posts in this thread.
Yes, and both were stupid. Now you've made three and all are stupid.
You are exactly the reason nobody takes climate shit seriously.
If by "nobody" you mean the purposly ignorant, then sure, nobody. However if you mean "people who actually stufy climate" then your marks are way off base. And if your "nobody" you mean oil companies, then you're also way off base.
Meanwhile you are accusing others of being emotionally wrapped up [...] asshole
Ah yes, "asshole". Now that sounds like the sords of a man who is not emotionally invested! There's nothing I can do to convince you: others have posted intresting and detailed posts which you ignored in order to post your silly rhetorical question. So it's clear you're not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant. I'm not here to change your mind, I'm just here to point and laugh at the silly people :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Christ, gas prices are only $1.115 compared to the Canadian average of $1.1375 or the $1.35+ that we're paying here on the west coast where we have to depend on Canadian oil refined by the Americans.
Electricity prices don't look bad either if you ignore the peak price from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM, only 8.7 cents a kW/hr during off-peak, it's 8.29 cents for the first 1350 kW/hrs here and then 12.43 cents compared to 13.5 cents mid peak there. Off course BC Hydro has gone $5 billion (soon to be $10 billion) in debt to keep our prices so low without any alternative energy sources coming on-line, most of the cost increases has been to subsidize the natural gas industry so I guess that is a good reason to have high prices.
Of course most other stuff is also cheaper in Ontario, I understand you can buy a small house for less then $2 million and the minimum wage is also higher.
At least you're not as much as cry babies as the Albertans, who almost have to pay slightly over $1.10 a litre for gas while they pass on costs to us. (too lazy to look at their electricity prices on my dial-up internet connection)
https://www.google.ca/search?q...
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.ca/search?q...
https://www.google.ca/search?s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that we don't yet know enough to start upending society and undo all the progress mankind has made the past couple hundred years. The scientific community may have consensus on AGW, or whatever they call it now, but nobody can say one way or the other what effect it will have or when. All the predictions thus far have been utterly wrong. The ice caps were supposed to have already melted and flooded coastal areas and killed millions of people and destroyed cities. The average temperature was supposed to have raised enough to make tropical areas uninhabitable. Etc.
It might be a scenario where we're damned no matter what, because by the time people realize it was serious business, it will be too late. Or maybe temperatures will rise a little bit, ice caps will melt some, the face of the earth will change a little bit, and humanity and the rest of life on the planet will adapt like it always has and life will go on.
Show me the science that shows what will indisputably happen if we continue down this course and you have something worth a damn.
It shows deep ignorance to equate higher education with some religious cult.
Really why? There is plenty of evidence to show political influence over research. Consider all those social sciences, economics, etc, that fail repeatedly to explain events in society or markets. Things might not be as bad in the physical science space but its essentially a fact that litmus tests exists. All those smelly hippies from the 60's staged their little disruption campaigns and forced curriculum to change they then got their PHDs etc and filled in the academic structure as the old guard aged out. Now outside of a few religious affiliated institutions just try getting anywhere with a conservative view point on any issue.
Its not at all clear where the corruption is or how far its tentacles spread. Much like a number of Washington institutions at this point the only answer is burn it all down and start over. You can't trust them anymore and there is no fixing it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I don't know if a roulette wheel will pay out on the next spin, but I DO know how fast I'll lose money if I continue to put my money down on black.
That's the difference between weather and climate. You don't need to predict the next 5 day's weather to know that 100 years from now we're fucked if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere... and we may be fucked even if we manage to reduce greenhouse gases dramatically in the near future.
The data HAS been verified. For instance, look at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. This was a project funded by right-wing activists who doubted the climate science. They specifically objected to use of satellite data and felt that terrestrial weather stations were not being vetted correctly. (For instance, showing pictures of temperature stations a few feet away from buildings or barbecues which they said tainted the results.) The Berkeley guys were led in part by Richard Muller, who has been a long-time skeptic. They went and got original raw data, and did a thorough job vetting each data point.
The result is that their data agrees completely with the climate change models. Muller's public summary is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
There are other contrarian opinions, but very few of them work with large data sets in any honest way. Nearly all the contrarian viewpoints can be linked to right-wing money and other professional gains that their mainstream colleagues do not enjoy.
But mostly, the arguments they make are trash - which is why they aren't published. They're dumb ideas, easily seen through. Science works by honest appraisal of ideas and data, not opinion or groupthink as you seem to believe. It's not perfect - lord knows I disagree with a lot of scientific colleagues' approaches - but by and large good science tends to win out over bad science.
You've got every right engage in policy debates (transfer of wealth, etc.) but only those with appropriate specialized knowledge (i.e., climate researchers) can meaningfully contribute to the scientific debate.
"Climate researchers" i.e. climate scientists only came into existence as a separate field of study 2-2-1/2, maybe 3 decades ago. It's the equivalent of the Wright brothers opining on the feasibility of supersonic flight in 1905. At this point humanity does not posses the scientific knowledge or capability to be able to make high-reliability predictions about planetary climate trends hundreds of years into the future.
I realize *my* limitations, I'm asking 'climate scientists' to admit *theirs*.
Because you're a bunch of deranged cultists impervious to facts, like anti-vaxxers.
Do you give kids lead painted toys and cigarettes for Christmas? Because it was scientific research that proved those things to cause medial problems. So, are you doing your part to defeat the big librul agenduh against the poor beleaguered tobacco industry? If not, why not.
congregants of the church of global warming are, like most cult members, not particularly consistent.
They tie any weather that supports their claims to "global warming"/"climate change" and then denounce as idiots any of their opponents who point to weather events contrary to their beliefs.
AGW activists have long pointed to individual weather events like hurricanes (Sandy and Katrina ring any bells? Al Gore sure used those) and local effects of weather (like the California drought) as evidence of "climate change".... but when their critics point to similarly localized weather/effects as contrary evidence they are denounced as idiots who do not understand the difference between climate and weather.
Last winter, when AGW critics pointed to cold weather events in North America, the AGW people pointed to a warmer Russian winter, asserting that one needed to consider the entire northern hemisphere. This winter, with freezing weather and snow in something like 49 states, Russia is reporting its coldest Orthodox Christmas in 125 years so that argument is not so very convenient to the cultists who go right-on hyping global warming and claims of a current, ongoing, global immolation. The rules for what constitutes the part of the planet we must pay attention to and which parts of the planet we will extrapolate data for (rather than using ACTUAL data) are extremely and conveniently elastic.
Remember: the planet is over 5 BILLION years old (I use that nice and low number to deliberately to avoid arguments over which older age to use while still making my point). We have global (but VERY spotty) weather data for about 250 years with a resolution of at best 1 degree of accuracy. We have global weather data from satellites for less than 40 years. Let's go with the best possible AGW numbers: We have coarse, uncalibrated temperature data for the planet for 250/5000000000 of the planet's existence, or 1/20000000th of Earth's History, and from that we are worrying about a possible 0.1 degree warming over the next century and are willing to take actions to mess with entire economies and the well being of millions of people living today to try to mitigate that tenth of a degree. and based on an uncalibrated and untracable one-in-twenty-million sampling with data points that only had an accuracy of a full degree in the first place.
That's what it should remind you of. Greedy land developers (and the banks giving them loans) have been driving the development of flood-prone areas, and buying off politicians so as to not get in the way with (shudder) regulation. Capitalism ensures that these kind of "mistakes" will happen, all the time, in every industry it touches.
But that's the genius of the religion, as failures are treated as successes, as the failing company will go through the capitalist natural selection process, and be replaced by the next company who may make the same sort of "mistake", but with different loans and shareholders backing it up.
bullshit! just because the government wants to lie does not make it true, funny thing happened, only 41% of the temp data came in, and the others were written in. Funny 1.5 degrees F, but if you don't put the bad data in than it is cooling. food for thought.
We have been measuring and recording temperature for more than 120 years. The poms were very good at it. Why can't we have the older data?
Well said, I don't take an accusation of ignorance as an insult, but as an invitation to educate, I am curious as to why deference to qualified professionals isn't practised by the current class of Climatologist toward those who preceded them?
Weather being an instance of Climate, and weather being unpredictable over long ranges, would by necessity place a great burden of proof on the climate models to prove they are valid. So far the models haven't prove very robust in the mid-range forecasts as the IPCC keep lowering the estimates of predicted decadal warming with each report.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments"
http://berkeleyearth.org/under... [berkeleyearth.org]
This page doesn't seem to indicate that the adjustments are large. Can you quantify "large" and "small" adjustments?
Instruments have been upgraded from mercury thermometers to digital sensors. The "scientists" claim that this introduces a cooling bias and adjust temperature upward.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
The time of day in which observations are made has changed. The "scientists" claim that this change also introduces a cooling bias, so another upward revision is made.
Is there a reason to doubt their conclusions? What is this reason? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"Urbanization" (basically heat from pavement) creates a warming bias, etc. etc.
So you are saying that urbanisation does not create heat islanding? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
There are also certain "quality control" adjustments.
And what is the net effect of these quality control adjustments? Are you saying they are not required? Why not? Explain and demonstrate with observations.
"If you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat."
See figure #5 at the above URL
Figure 5 is not a temperature record. How does it demonstrate that the temperature record is mostly flat.?
What does mostly mean?
What happened to the energy incursion predicted by Arrhenius et al? Did the energy just disappear?
From a statistical standpoint we'd probably want a good 100 parallel Earths to get a proper sample.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I'm sorry, your argument is completely invalid. Not only has there been significant historical debate over both climate change and AGW, but there are still contrarian researchers publishing in respected journals. The reason that no one takes them seriously is because the foundational science for AGW was done over 100 years ago, and we have tried and failed to rule out alternatives since then.
There are two ways to approach the question, "How do we know x?" Obviously with empirical facts it's a question of what observations were made, but you can either approach it from a perspective of, "What are the current best obvservations?", or you can take the historical approach and ask, "How did we get here?" Did you know that the theory of CO2-induced climate change was considered completely disproven up until the mid 1950s? Ice ages were accepted as having happened historically, but the default position was that the climate did not change, that while it might have warmer or cooler cycles that these would always balance out in the long run. The need to explain ice ages was the driving force for theories of climate change beginning in the late 1850s. Now, Arrhenius did correctly identify CO2 as a potential climactic influence, and his seminal 1896 paper gives a factor of sensitivity that still agrees well with the IPCC estimates.
However, Arrhenius was considered debunked, for a couple of reasons, until the mid 1950s when better analyses of the upper atmosphere were being conducted. Studies like Callendar 1949 "Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate? provided a new understanding for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and helped to dispel the idea of a static or cyclical climate. Also another key observation was that the oceans turned over much more slowly than had been suspected. These things led to calls for increased research and eventually the tide of opinion accumulated behind AGW in the space of about fifteen to twenty years. Nobody was fired or lost funding, because then the science wasn't politically useful to anyone. The only thing that universities and funding institutions care about is where the facts lead to. It's also worth noting that internal research by the oil industry in the 1970s reached similar conclusions about the validity of the AGW theory.
You are trying to make this a political subject. You do not know the science in question, you are simply saying it is wrong, and wrong because of some political reason. You need a scientific argument. Your political argument is also bankrupt, because not only do we have legitimately conducted and published contrarian research, but Dr Roy Spencer, frequent contributor to WUWT and perhaps the most notable contrarian, was lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. That's not exactly what I would call silencing dissent.
The evidence available in the 19th Century was sufficient to advance a theory of CO2-induced climate change. The evidence gathered over the intervening years has been conclusive. If you would like some exposure to what exactly has happened in climate science in the last century, you might start here, or just get on Google Scholar and start going through the publications. There's only a handful of papers published before 1950 so it's not like you have to go poring through a lot of articles. Armed with the evidence, you might then be able to suggest defects in it, and gather counterevidence. As things stand, that would basically require radically new physics, but that's science for you. You can put what buildings you like to the torch, but you can't burn down a scientific institution without doing better science.
Learn what burden of proof of means.
now THIS is, while not expressed as rationally as I might like, a really important part of the conversation..
Sure, CO2 is contributing to warming, and warming has lots of long-term, nebulously-quantifiable bad effects... but the plastic in the ocean, the smog in the air, the chemical soups running into the water tables... THAT is what environmentalists should truly be up in arms about..
But I guess directly correlatable bad things that can be linked to specific polluters doesn't need as much research, wouldn't create a global market for parasites to skim, and wouldn't get as much government funding and media attention, right?
And the absolute lack of conscience to experiment on those 100 paralel earths with different approaches - and not mind killing 99*7 Billion people in the failed experiments...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You're not wearing any clothes.
Check out Wikipedia for "Significant Figures"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
well yes, but 'contributing to' is nice and nebulous.
Of COURSE 97% of scientists believe that we're playing some part.. we're burning fossil fuels, changing the nature of the land and air and sea with our mere existence.
But there's a huge difference between "97% think mankind is playing some part" and "97% think that mankind is KILLING THE PLANET AT A RATE THAT ONLY GIGANTIC FINANCIAL REDISTRIBUTION WILL FIX"... which is what it has morphed into...
But there's a huge difference between "97% think mankind is playing some part" and "97% think that mankind is KILLING THE PLANET AT A RATE THAT ONLY GIGANTIC FINANCIAL REDISTRIBUTION WILL FIX"... which is what it has morphed into...
Actually the research did use this threshold: "man is the main reason for the Earth’s warming temperatures", so in this case the quote actually undersold the research findings. If he really did want to use the threshold of mankind playing some part, the number may actually be 100%.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
-The first link is merely a comment paper, and seems measured in it's response. The methodology critique seems nit picky.
- The second link is about the AMA, which is not made up of the same folks that would be publishing climate science research. From their website:
Our more than 13,000 members include scientists, researchers, educators, broadcast meteorologists, students, weather enthusiasts, and other professionals in the fields of weather, water, and climate.
-I don't have access to the 3rd paper at home, so can't comment.
-The springer article seems unduly narrow in their definition of consensus:
the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
It seems like the tipping point in many of these articles is whether the environment has a significant or equal impact on climate change. Even in the cooking the books article:
"Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’"
Put another way, that's 84% say that humans play at least an equal roll in climate change. I'd still call that consensus, even if it's not 97%.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Ah yes, "asshole". Now that sounds like the sords of a man who is not emotionally invested!
Emotionally invested in preventing you from lying about me while insulting me.
Clearly you cant answer the question, fuckhead. You believe what someone else told you about the science, tried to defend it, but couldnt answer a simple question about it, so went on an insult campaign... conclusion: a lying asshole,. a real fuckhead.
"His name was James Damore."
- The second link is about the AMA, which is not made up of the same folks that would be publishing climate science research. From their website:
Our more than 13,000 members include scientists, researchers, educators, broadcast meteorologists, students, weather enthusiasts, and other professionals in the fields of weather, water, and climate.
Well the problem is there really is no definition of who a Climatologist is, compared to a field like physics, it not even a science. Physicists have been around for a millennia, a degree in Climatology for a decade or two. I would say a typical AMS member is certainly more competent in climate matters than people like Cook and Lewandowski. The whole 97% thing just reeks of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Clearly you cant answer the question, fuckhead.
hee hee hee :)
Clearly you cant answer the question, fuckhead.
Course I can, I'm just not answering you because I don't believe you were ansking the question in good faith.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, you are right. The general public should have a say in that decision. People in Wyoming should have more of a say in whether the federal government does anything to protect coastal cities than the people in California...oh wait, no, they shouldn't.
The global climate models have little or nothing to do with validating or invalidating any particular element of climate science. Similarly, epidemiological models are not evidence for or against the germ theory of disease. Also, you are categorically wrong to conflate weather and climate. The inability to predict weather precisely over long timeframes has nothing to do with the 30-year-average temperature trends; Lorenz did not invalidate statistical analysis nor physics generally. Additionally, weather and water vapor are mostly confined to the troposphere, and the effect of a higher partial pressure of CO2 is actually to push the CO2-rich layer further out into space, so the situation there is much simpler. We would be able to predict warming even if we treated the lower atmosphere as a black box.
The Global Climate Models are an easy target, but this is like the drunk man looking for his keys underneath the lamppost because that is where the light is. The principles of climate change and anthropogenic global warming were laid down decades before the first computer model. Merely advancing this argument betrays a complete lack of understanding of the foundational science of climate change. Please go here and read through the history. You will probably be interested in the period 1900-1950 when CO2-induced warming was considered completely disproven. But either way, you have a spectacularly bad argument. Please continue making it if you would like to further discredit your side. I sort of get the impression that your misunderstanding of its relevance is likely to be motivated reasoning and likely incurable, so I don't expect you to be able to recognize why it's a bad argument, but as said, your ignorance is so profound that it is useful to the opposing side, so there's not really a bad outcome here.
A roulette wheel spin is unpredictable over the short term, but this doesn't stop casinos from taking a very predictable share of the bets.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"You do know that money is not really created or destroyed, right?" I don't know this. Please convince me with evidence, facts, and accurate definitions. I suspect by money you mean wealth because I can come up with examples of money being created / destroyed all the time. The US Mint's primary purpose is to create money. Every time I use a $100 bill to light my cigar I destroy money. So, assuming you mean wealth, or some other economic term, please explain and defend. On the face, your entire claim appears to be built on a false fundamental assertion.
A roulette wheel spin is unpredictable over the short term, but this doesn't stop casinos from taking a very predictable share of the bets.
Climate has numerous quasi-cyclic and interdependent forcings, for A roulette wheel to be similar,
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Whether the Earth will warm is easily proven. The energy imbalance is easy to quantify. The rate of warming is hard, especially because it depends on human interactions. Global climate models have nothing to do with the first two things. AGW was proven decades before digital computers even existed. CO2-induced warming was actually completely discredited up until the mid-1950s. Somehow opinions changed then, but they can't change now because "conspiracy!", even though Roy Spencer is the lead author on segments of the IPCC reports.
Yes, climate change is a difficult topic to study. It's taken most of the last 200 years to figure out that it does change, and that humans could change it. Apparently you've never bothered to learn anything about that, but you're not dead yet, so if you'd like to educate yourself, you can start here.