Slashdot Mirror
It's So Cold Outside That Sharks Are Actually Freezing to Death (vice.com)
An anonymous reader writes: As climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperatures -- a phenomenon President Trump seems a little confused about -- cities up and down the East Coast are facing record-breaking snowfall and subzero temperatures. But while city dwellers might be able to hide indoors and crank up the heat, some animals aren't so lucky. According to the Cape Cod-based Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, it's gotten so cold that sharks in the area have been washing up on the shore and essentially freezing to death. This week, the organization responded to three thresher sharks that likely suffered "cold shock" in the surrounding waters. Organisms suffer cold shock when they're exposed to extreme dips in temperature and can sometimes experience muscle spasms or cardiac arrest. Scientists believe the sharks swimming off the coast of Cape Cod -- where temperatures have dropped to 6 degrees -- suffered cold shock in the water, and then wound up getting stranded on the shore, where they likely suffocated. "If you've got cold air, that'll freeze their gills up very quickly," Greg Skomal, a marine scientist, told the New York Times. "Those gill filaments are very sensitive and it wouldn't take long for the shark to die."
Want some friggin global warming
what's happening is similar to hypothermia?
"As climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperatures"
If you disagree with the assertion that it won't snow anymore because of GLOBAL WARMING you are anti-science.
If you disagree with the assertion that it will be cold because of GLOBLAL WAR-- I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE you are anti-science.
Basically: Literally any observed phenomenon means OMG GLOBAL WAR-- I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE is real and you are anti-science for even pretending that facts can contradict this religious -- I mean "scientific" -- dogma.
You would think there would be a mention of lasers somewhere in the post. It is Slashdot after all. Sharks, ice, and ... Come ON, it writes itself... how we have fallen.
https://youtu.be/TQlHaGhYoF0
A main plot point of Jaws was how unlikely it was for a great white to be attacking people in Amity.
It's unseasonably warm summers that have driven them that far north.
I mean
blarg a bloo drumpfy and his 2 scoops!!!!
So sharks freezing to death is blamed on the pseudo science of global warming?
To me, the real confusion is when we get alarmist stories about global warming when summer gets hot, and that is OK - but if someone does the same thing the other way in a cold winter, that is not OK.
Can we all at least agree that weather is to climate? It sure seems like Climate Alarmists like to ignore that when convenient... and a new trend during the winter is that Climate Alarmists claim some local weather event of extreme cold is because of greenhouse gases, ignoring the role of the jet stream which has been doing it's thing since forever... Come on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I thought the missing heat (that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia) was accumulating in the ocean...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's all the environmentalists fault. If they had simply stuck with global warming, we wouldn't be having this problem. But nooooo, they had to change it to "Climate Change", which opened us up to wild swings in temperature in both directions.
I considered overly hot summers to be an acceptable tradeoff for having mild or almost non-existent winters. But now we have to deal with stupidly hot summers AND stupidly cold winters.
Go back to global warming!
I read the first paragraph of the article - right up to where it berated our President and then I stopped. If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts. We have plenty of time to do politics here or at the bar or wherever. Also, are these temperatures really record breaking or is that just more hype?
Enough said. Living in New England this is really nothing new. Granted its a few weeks earlier than usual. I just feel bad for the ski areas that can't catch a break going from too warm last year to too cold this year.
Saltwater freezes at 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit. How did these sharks get so cold if they were underwater?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Well, there goes my million dollar movie idea: Shark Blizzard.
....gotten
you here the dueling banjos from here.
Cold is Weather, Hot is Climate.
Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.
Temperature trends that last for a week are weather.
...oops, I meant Climate Change.
of course it was
As the arctic is impacted, the currents shift, and the temperature differential from the 80 percent of the world that is much hotter and the colder relative temperatures north cause stronger cold air currents to flow across open bodies of water, increasing snow fall. The melting glacial output from Greenland is also affecting the water temperature at different gradients, making the colder currents.
That's still weather. Weather is driven by current impacts. Climate change is like your car engine, running faster and stronger because you keep pushing the pedal more and more. Even if you stop putting CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere, the mean lifetime of these emissions is anywhere from 20 to 200 years, so it's like the foot on the pedal is weighted down by all the coffee you've been drinking and you need to: a. stop drinking coffee that makes you want to push down; and b. go to the bathroom and relieve your bladder, so your leg is less heavy. OK, that last one is a bad analogy, but I'm trying to tell you to: a. stop drinking coffee (emissions) and b. go to the bathroom (remove existing emissions, most of which are from 1933 to 1999).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No... WARMING is climate, as in "on average". It accounts for extremes, where we get both the coldest and the hottest weather on record.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
sharknado 6 ice age sharks!
Gobal warming is freezing cold. Rain is dry. Snow is hot.
What does Slashdot get out of promoting this "global warming" con? You know it's a fraud, we know it's a fraud, so who are you trying to kid?
Fact: We are headed into a Maunder Minimum Ice Age.
The world is rapidly cooling down due to our sun going quiescent and not producing sunspots. Ironically the best hope for our future is to burn more fossil fuel. In fact, burning anything helps restore the carbon ballance.
If you live in an area that permits it, make sure you go into your backyard and burn any scrap material available: tree branches, newspapers, lumber, cardboard boxes, food wrappers and containers. Anything that burns should be cast on your backyard trash pile and ignited regularly tn order to restore the carbon balance.
-- a phenomenon President Trump seems a little confused about --
FFS, I'm no Trump defender, but tossing in random, snarky asides in the summary immediately lowers the quality of the discussion.
âoeAs climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperaturesâoe
Washing up on the Atlantic Coast: Fresh frozen at the moment of death, delivered directly to your table!
I smell an opportunity!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If we are getting both the coldest and hottest weather on record, wouldn't the AVERAGE be NORMAL?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I really mean it. They have great roast beef sandwiches.
He said I'd get tired of all this winning.
Nope. Still not tired.
Otherwise people might start forming their own opinions
What's wrong with you? Don't try to inject some sort of logical reasoning into this discussion. Also I believe that the median is what you're actually going for; having a few extreme data points wouldn't push the average around much if there are hundreds of other data points otherwise.
Is math hard?
Here's four sets of 9 values.
Each subsequent one has a higher average, and also lower low and higher high.
5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 : low=5; high=7; avg=6
4 6 8 6 6 7 5 6 7 : low=4; high=8; avg=6.1
3 6 9 6 6 8 6 6 7 : low=3; high=9; avg=6.3
2 6 10 6 6 8 6 7 8 : low=2; high=10; avg=6.5
No, not if the warmer bits are getting warmer more than the colder bits are getting colder.
Ask your year 8 math teacher if you need any further information.
I think the problem is, most "climate change denial" is politically based.
True, but equally true of 99% of the climate change alarmism. Lots of cooking of data and presentation of misleading graphs to make something seem much scarier than it is in reality.
Obviously the climate is changing, and will always continue to do so, including some massive swings. The real issue is, why ware we worried about warming? Never has warming been overly harmful to the the Earth as a whole, and generally supports more varied and diverse life in warmer times.
Yet we are being told to worry about this, mostly for political ends so vast sums of money can be diverted into the right pockets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So when we have a Heat Wave and everyone is trying to tie it to Global Warming, you'll stand up and correct them, eh?
Maybe you have something to say about all the attempts to tie CA's drought to Global Warming. Having grown up there 50 years ago, I can tell you, it's doesn't really rain much.
How about all the attempts to tie the fires to Global Warming? Having grown up there 50 years ago, I can tell you CA has three seasons: Drought, Fire, Flood/Mudslides.
You people get all "scientific" when it's cold but when it's hot, all your reasoning goes out the window.
As for "trends", most of the temperature data you are relying on for a trend has been "adjusted" several times over, almost always to the warmer side later in the record and colder side earlier in the record.
Not if the heat records are broken in greater amounts or more frequently.
Also, I wonder how the southern hemisphere is doing right now.
Well, there goes my million dollar movie idea: Shark Blizzard.
Maybe so, but that gives ME a million dollar movie idea: Shark Wizard!
Imagine a Spongebob and Harry Potter mashup! Magical!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If it's cold - blame man made climate change
If it's hot - blame man made climate change
If there are fires - blame man made climate change
If there are no major hurricanes for 12 years - blame man made climate change
If there are several major hurricanes in one year - blame man made climate change
It's a one-size fits all theory!
First, I don't see how this is so much of a record. I remember waiting for the school bus in high school in 10 degreeF temps. It didn't happen often, but there were a few mornings. I've been tracking the temperatures here in NC very closely. I'm trying to paint my airplane outside, and I need for it to warm up to finish. We haven't gotten down to 10 yet.
Second, a few days of cold air causes sharks to freeze to death? Why wouldn't it swim a little deeper. A few days of negative temps is not going to cause a significant change in deep water temperatures. Surface temps down to a few feet maybe, but not down at 20/30 ft. Did they just swim to the top, scream "Aaaargh!!" when they hit the cold water at the surface and then roll belly up? I would think there would be more of a gradient where the shark would think, "Damn, it's cold up there. I'm going to go back down this way." Kinda like how we do when we walk outside for our paper in the morning.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
TIL that all your buddy not climate science *scientists*, engineers, and medical professionals opinions carried more weight than peer reviewed studies.
Who's clinging to religious dogma again?
My buddy scientists, engineers, and medical professionals who I can assure are much smarter than yours think climate change deniers are idiotic so nyaaah!
Holy shit... this is not massaging, this is literally what's being talked about. Focusing on only the lows and acting like they contradict the averages or highs is massaging
They need Freakin' lasers!
The downstairs heater has been on non-stop for the last 12 hrs. Upstairs is cycling as expected and quite toasty. Not looking forward to the nat-gas bill next month.
Attach frickin' laser beams to their heads
Even the Median isn't going to move much if the temperature both goes up 20 degrees and down 20 degrees.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Don't be concerned for the health of the planet when it comes to Global Warming.
I'm not, planet is fine.
The concerns about Global Warming are about how it affects humans and where they have chosen to live.
Seems like currently that is WAY more a political than a climate issue, as millions are today displaced by war.
Otherwise, humans as a species always benefit from a warmer climate because of the wider range of agriculture possible.
WHEN he climate reverts back to an Ice Age, then it's time to horde the few agriculturally viable areas and prepare for billions to die. That's probably the event that will trigger the next large scale nuclear conflict. Global warming is literally saving us all from war.
Many of the largest cities in the world exist on the coastline and it would probably be a bad thing if they ended up under water.
Good thing then they have a hundred years to prepare for a rise of a few feet at worst. At least that is if you are actually paying attention to what actual science says about the matter. and not spreading fear and lies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Global warning is responsible for heat waves. Here in Seattle we had three days in a row that set record highs. That is global warming, and it is destroying our lives. Records lows in the northeast the past few days have nothing to do with global warming, so colder temperatures have nothing to do with global warming. thinking people know that hot temps prove global warming, but lower than average temperatures don't disprove it.
No, because global warming is settled science so any evidence otherwise must be wrong.
I will assume you are not pulling a poe, and are asking an honest question.
Look it is cold in winter, and from a year to the next there are variations. The missing heat is accumulating in ocean. That does not stop winter being cold. look at this serie :
* 10 then -8
* 11 then -8
* 8 then -5
* 12 then -8
* 9 then -5
* 12 then -7
The "high" have not much of a trend, the last high is nearly as big as the first. Neither do the "low" show much, there is evevn a "low" dip at the end. Yet the average increase in the whole serie nearly linearly of 0.5 per points pair. Same with ocean temperature and warmth. It varies being slightly higher in summer (north hemisphere) and slightly lower in winter with year to year variation , but the trend is that the total warmth trapped in the whole ocean get higher with years on. That still does not stop winter being cold.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This is why scientists have started calling it Climate Change—because while temperatures overall have been rising, temperature extremes are also predicted by the models. Plus, people who suffer from black and white thinking can't comprehend that more than. one thing can happen at once, so if scientists talk about Global Warming and these people see snow, they aren't able to understand what's going on. It's a confusing world for them, and we try to accommodate, but some concepts are complicated and hard to explain. That's what scientists are for.
I'm sorry, what? Three sharks wash up on the beach and die and it's suddenly an article on climate change and Trump hating? Really grasping for newsworthy stuff?
Surprisingly, those who say they believe in Evolution are scared, upset and distraught when an occurrence easily associated with Evolution happens. Creationists, on the other hand, let the weather/climate do what it will without much of a hubbub. (Just my humble observation.) So Evolutionists, belly up to the bar and have a full-sized drink of what you believe. It tastes good! (And quit whinning!)
Its amazing that certain Americans are so full of hate they can't see or focus on anything else.
Average temperatures for the globe are going up. That does not mean everywhere has their average temperature rising at the same rate. But the data clearly shows temps are higher on average. Thus, global warming. But today people tend to say "climate change" instead otherwise ignorant people will look at record snowfalls and such as "proof" that scientists are crazy.
It had been uncertain whether the extremes in recent years (hurricanes, etc) are due to human caused climate change or were within normal variants. However there was a recent study three specific events to human causes climate change.
I was going to come up with some sort of witty rejoinder, but it's easier to just call you a doofus. Doofus.
The funny thing about fascism, is they brag about being anti-elitism, but they secretly crave recognition by educated people. Case in point, inventing "so many talented and experienced scientists, or people whose craft depends very heavily on science" sympathetic to their anti-elitism positions.
No, you can't look at just cold temperatures in New England and use that to balance out what happens in the rest of the world. The average temperatures across the entire planet for each year have been going up. New England is not the entire planet. Even if the average temperature for the year in New England does not go up, that is still a very tiny portion of the planet.
Also keep in mind the ocean surface varies more than ocean depth which stays relatively unchanged during the year. AFAIR everything below Bathic depth is at 2-4ÂC roughly.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Thanks for giving such a clear example of how climatologists can massage data to help push the agendas of their political masters. Your comment is very informative!
The problem is people. A lot of the electorate is not too bright and easily misled, particularly when they want to be. The anti intellectualism in this country is rampant and it is rampant in part because of laziness, and in part because certain people benefit from it.
Still, you can basically sum it up with charts like this. link
Humans need a pretty narrow band to live comfortably, so yah, it matters. The extra energy in the environment is bound to have repercussions, with more frequent and more intense hurricanes being one of the more straightforward likely occurrences.
Just in case anyone believes that Trump believes any of the shit he is shoveling, well you have things like link Basically his resort is getting walls to protect it from the effects of climate change. When his money is on the line he believes in it. When his cult following is on the line, he does not. Which should you believe?
Finally, Detroit can live up to it's potential to save the world!
Wow. What a science-y retort!
How is this matching the science of global warming?
It is colder than shit outside right now.
Without layers and layers and fossil fuel heating, most people would be dead of exposure.
We can't tolerate the cold the same way we can tolerate the heat.
As far as "Walls" to protect from he "effects of climate change" the sea has been eroding the seashore since the beginning of time and will continue to do so.
You stupid fucks have taken normal events and blown them up to be catastrophes
What 'evidence otherwise' do you have?
If we have weather at a frequency well outside the normal 2 standard deviations. Then that is most likely due to Climate Change.
Climate is a complex system, however we grew up to expect a range of patterns in different areas. If these patterns seem to be outside the normal for an extended period of time, then there is a climate change.
Temperature affects pressure, and due-point. So while a few degree world temperature change would not normally feel any different, it does push systems thousands of miles out of place.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Meanwhile in Europe we have been having much too warm temperatures for this time of year. Last week it was 15C (59 F) in central Europe where I live, which is practically spring temperature today it was 8C (46F) when it should be around the freezing point.
It's not the first time that Northern America receives all the dose of winter cold from from Europe. A couple of years ago we had the same situation - record lows in the US, much too high temperatures across Europe and Eurasia.
Nevertheless, global warming is a scientifically proven fact regardless what happens in Northern America, which is only a relatively small area of our globe. The oceans which cover two-thirds of our planet are warming, this is fact. The polar ice caps are melting, also fact. The glaciers are retreating, another fact.
Please just check this website of one very credible, US agency for the details if you still feel like denying it because Trump says so:
https://climate.nasa.gov/
5 6 7 5 6 7 5 6 7 : low=5; high=7; avg=6; std dev=0.866; 95% conf=[5.434, 6.566]
4 6 8 6 6 7 5 6 7 : low=4; high=8; avg=6.1; std dev=1.167; 95% conf=[5.349, 6.873]
3 6 9 6 6 8 6 6 7 : low=3; high=9; avg=6.3; std dev=1.658; 95% conf=[5.250, 7.417]
2 6 10 6 6 8 6 7 8 : low=2; high=10; avg=6.5; std dev=2.186; 95% conf=[5.127, 7.984]
[5.434, 6.566] is a subset of [5.349, 6.873] is a subset of [5.250, 7.417] is a subset of [5.127, 7.984]
We cannot say with reasonable certainty that the final set is greater. Yes, math can be hard and statistics are math.
So when we have a Heat Wave and everyone is trying to tie it to Global Warming, you'll stand up and correct them, eh?
Sadly, yes they do. Even if it's a "Heat Wave" [sic] that is more extreme than could have been reasonably expected without "Global Warming" [sic]. In that case they could easily justify calling it out for what it is - an effect of global warming because without extra energy in the system it would be almost impossible to reach those super high new highs. Unfortunately scientists are so afraid of the oil companies and government who control their funding that most are not willing to just out and state how bad the recent climate change has really become.
First of all, it is dew point, not 'due point'. Second, climate is weather trends over decades. One weather event that is outside of the norm, regardless of how many standard deviations, is not climate. It might become a data point that in time can point to a change in overall climate, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
What does Slashdot get out of promoting this "global warming" con? You know it's a fraud, we know it's a fraud, so who are you trying to kid?
Who is perpetrating this fraud? Who benefits? On the other hand, who benefits from the denial of climate change?
Not necessarily.
If you go from (-10, 20, 20, 20, 35) to (-12, 25, 25, 25, 40), your highest and average values have both gone up---and your lowest has gone down. There are, in fact, infinitely many datasets where this can occur.
Do you have any further oversimplifications?
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Someone has never taken a basic stats course. Or took it and failed horribly.
See my previous reply to you for a counterexample.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
You know if the freakin shards would have had their freakin lazers they would have used them to stay warm.
Your logical fallacy is: tu quoque .
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
An easy way to spot this fallacy is when someone says
You people
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Trump doesn't seem to have anything to do with the news reported so why was he mentioned...?
Also remember that an average global temperature rise of 1 degrees for several years is highly worrisome, and 2 degrees would be major. Those seem like such small numbers because the short term averages vary so much in comparison. The oceans are like big buffers of energy, or capacitors, they totally dwarf the affect of a short term weather event on the north east US coast and balance out the averages over time. If those ocean temperatures go up even slightly it can mean serious effects everywhere.
Someday, you too will be a grownup (a real boy!) and will understand that there are cycles to life, and that they repeat. Getting you to stop posting every fleeting thought that flies through your head, however, methinks it's too late. Thankfully, because your generation are indeed the biggest narcissists the world has ever seen and won't accept conventional wisdom, you will all likely also die much, much younger than previous generations (even though it could have easily been avoided if you would just shut up and listen once in awhile. PS - no, you did not 'invent' or 'discover' anything and you are not the first person to witness much of what you see or encounter). Yay!
6ÂF = -14.444ÂC
(For the majority of the world that doesn't understand Fossil units)
So this is because each 'trend has been "adjusted"', you say?
Well, I suggest that if you dig back to the early days of climatology, you'll find that in fact a report issued 50 years ago regarding global climate has proven to be spot-on. And this is the original report, not an "adjusted" report. You can dig up a 50-year-old issue of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and check the (printed on paper, no White-Out applied) original.
https://sputniknews.com/society/201711131059037711-climate-change-report-exactly-right/
Ahh, the I don't agree with you, so you must be a fascist argument.
Exactly.
What is wrong with these people? Have IQs dropped sharply, or something?
So my takeaway is that global warming causes it to get cold out and kill sharks. I like the beach so less sharks seems like a good idea, so I am now pro global warming.
Someone has never taken a basic stats course. Or took it and failed horribly.
See my previous reply to you for a counterexample.
Exactly. The mean, median, mode and maximum can all increase, even if the minimum is decreasing.
Really basic stuff. Used to be in about year 10 (fifth form) when I was growing up, decades ago. Do they not teach this stuff anymore?
Strawman. Scientists and engineers constantly correct for values as history and technology marches on. Science is self-correcting, unlike most other human endeavours. Too many people misunderstand science to support their own agendas.
This has totally never happened before....
NASA is a government agency that says what its told. The employees on the other hand do science and have their own opinions.
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
Source: work at NASA
What? Why would the series of numbers have anything to do with a Gaussian distribution?
Plus nothing that you said actually contradicted the GP.
Yes, yes, climate does not equal weather, blah blah.
Still, "climate change" was originally popularly sold as "you are all going to fry like eggs if you don't join our political positions!" and you know it was.
To still be smug when we are scratching our heads and pointing at the frozen sharks is just a bit too much.
Just admit that at the very least, you did a terrible job of explaining what the problem is, and how it will manifest itself, and how soon. Our questions/observations (made through our chattering teeth) are therefore very understandable. You're sorry. You'd like a fresh chance to explain.
Worth a try?
I don't know about the east coast, but it's been nice and balmy here on the west coast. I spent the day at the beach yesterday and the temperatures are typical for SoCal. I have no idea what this "climate change" bullshit is about.
You just made his point.
Too many people misapply Science to support their own agendas.
Compare the Radical Left Environmental agenda with the Climate Change agenda. See anything you recognize?
Here, I'll help.
1. Artificial restrictions/shortages.
2. High Taxes.
3. Prohibitions.
4. Societal shaming.
5. Exceptions for political leaders and the rich.
6. Control, control, control.
I've never seen a good reason why flooding the immoral coastal cities is highly worrisome. Seems like a net gain to humanity for me.
Same with a net gain of one degree in ocean temperature.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And you cant look at warming temps if it isnt measured against a baseline to establish what would occur in the absense of AGW. If AGW is correct, it should be one of very many scaler multipliers but its not because climate science is as soft as philosophy and you have a bunch of "scientists" whos math education ended at Algebra.
Why should the earth have only one climate?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
What about then the data set is (-40, -12, 0, 0, 12, 40) which is what the differential set the OP implied would be?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Trends that continue for years still have fluctuations in them.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
If you don't know history, then STFU. History proves that science is cabalistic and prone to bias. That's why science is hard and also why eminent scientists like Freeman Dyson are not part of your stupidly concocted 97%.
/me pats boy on the head.
there there Jimmy-bob, have a cookie, mommy will kiss your boo-boo better.
fucking dipshit
That's great news. I remember when the life span of CO2 being bandied about was 1000 years. Nice to see that we are finally getting answers to some of these really difficult questions. Now if we can just nail down the heat trapping effects of CO2, we'll know if there is anything to get excited about.
I would call it an accurate observation myself. And science depends on accurate observations.
Think about what we used to use to measure the temperature just 100 years ago.
Google this:
Which part of the meniscus should the volume be measured from
Now where does that .8 degrees fall on the meniscus?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Strawman.
Nope.
Scientists and engineers constantly correct for values as history and technology marches on.
No they don't. And when they do on occasion, there's a detailed explanation of why and the original data isn't hidden or destroyed.
Science is self-correcting
No it isn't. It takes constant hard work to undo the bullshit, propaganda, and state-sponsored conspiracies.
Too many people misunderstand science to support their own agendas.
No, too many misunderstand it yet think they're educated and understand it. These are called "useful idiots" or "liberals".
The problem is this topic is so politicized - as is evidenced even in the commentary here - that any data comes with baggage. The earth is in a constant state of climate change based on any number of issues. We humans, burning fossil fuels might have some impact, but the earth flies around the sun in an elliptical orbit at 1,100 mph, wobbling all along the way. Our solar system speeds around the Milky Way at nearly 515,000 mph, and the Milky Way moves at an astounding (and approximate) 1.3 million mph through the universe. The sun we travel around expands about an inch per year, and by most measurements has been warming; still to date we can't explain all our global warming based on the warming of the sun. Our blue marble "currently" decides to flip its polarity every 200,000 to 300,000 years. How many times it has happened in its 4.5 billion life we can't be sure, but it has been plenty. So too have been the earthquakes, eruptions and other geologic events that impact land and air. Modeling climate change is a massive undertaking.I mean if we can't even measure the distance of a marathon correctly (Milwaukee), should we so readily and vehemently go at each other's throats based on models of an infinitely more complex problem? Listen, the problem isn't that we need to save the earth. It will be fine up until the sun swallows it whole. The problem is saving the humans. In that regard it doesn't matter if we are getting hotter, colder, more extreme, etc. What matters is weather kills. We need to build better and smarter. You know what else kills? Fossil fuels. They don't get a long with our biology. Here's another thing that kills: poverty. So the trick is affordable, clean energy and development. It's not that hard to do. Crap, we built the Hoover Dam, didn't we? And that was 80 years ago. In this day and age it should be a cake walk. But Nooooo. Thanks to our major political parties who would readily fight over length of a yard stick, we're missing the train out of Ignoreland.
https://slashdot.org/story/18/...
All this blathering, and none of it about the poor, POOR, sharks!
Think of the sharks!
It's been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Shark
It should have won at least one Oscar. Maybe two
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Nothing disproves it. Because it is not falsifiable.
And therefor not science — Trump is a heretic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The science is settled.
It says they beached themselves and then "essentially" "froze to death" when they were out of the water. In fact the article is clear that the sharks didn't literally freeze in the water; they are believed to have beached themselves after suffering cold shock in 6F water.
In any case "freeze to death" is an idiom. When someone "freezes to death" they don't have their tissues freeze, then die. It's the other way around.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I can make 6 different predictions about a dice falling. One of them will always be "spot on".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
To be clear, the GP wasn't talking about one event that is multiple standard deviations outside of norms, they were talking about the frequency of many events happening outside of norms. That's very different, and is what many climate scientists are paying attention to, rather than the extremity of one event.
First of all, it is dew point, not 'due point'.
No, I think he meant "due-point". As in, "the temperatures we are due as humans, because that's the temperatures we've grown up with. Any change is outside our 'due-point'."
This is the same thinking that tries to keep beach changes from taking place. For example, when rich people build houses on a sand spit that developed at the mouth of a river and then the river decided to meander back to the course it had fifty years ago -- right through the houses.
New England is not the entire planet.
I strongly disagree with your assertion. I've lived in New England for nearly 40 years, so I should know.
If the hots and colds were equaling each other out, then yes, the average would be constant. But that's not what's happening. There are more extreme hot days than extreme cold days. There's a great set of visuals made by James Hansen and NY Times on this:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
The mean temperature is rising, but the distribution of temperatures is also widening, meaning more extreme weather, with heat being more common than cold.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Whereas people who don't understand economics but think they do are called "conservatives".
Sorry, but that's the shittiest logical fallacy of all time. When the best you can do is "you answered criticism with criticism which is a logical fallacy", yeah, you've got no fucking leg to stand on. If one criticism is a fallacy, then doesn't that make the original one a fallacy as well?
And yet you provide no citations.
Why is that?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So what, one out of the 100,000 made just so happened to be right? Yeah, you throw enough darts, one of them will eventually be correct. Would you like me to start pulling up all the ones that were wrong? The first question that'll have to be answered is, does slashdot have a maximum post length.
Current thinking:
Your "spot-on" report predicted TWICE as much warming as current science predicts.
Source: work at NASA
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @03:02PM
During "work" hours at NASA.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So there is uncertainty still but your report is pretty accurate with current thinking. My bad.
... some informative and some trolls and then I looked at TODAY'S data and I'll be goddamed if the sharks aren't still frozen to death.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Most of the west coast of the US is experiencing similar conditions as Europe. I've lived in Utah my entire life and I'm in my 40's, I cannot remember a halloween that was 70F like it was this year, we've maintained temperatures around 50F for most of winter when it should be around 30F.
This is the exact type of erratic weather than climate models predict when the system is out of balance because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather than normal temperatures some areas are super hot and some are super cold as the energy in the system tries to find equilibrium.
When scientists suggest every possible outcome means "global warming" you should know something is wrong. When they fudge their own data because the global temperature trend is downward, you should know something is wrong.
The problem with climate change is it isn't falsifiable. While the deniers are asinine, the zealots are obnoxious.
If the weather gets warmer, it's global warming.
If the weather gets colder, it's climate change.
If the weather gets more extreme, it's climate change.
If the weather stays exactly the same, the data isn't proof against global warming, it's irrelevant
The way the zealots have argued, with continual escalation of the changed climate change will bring, with skewing data to support their theories and changing models after the fact, many reasonable and intelligent people will reject the prophecies of the zealots. The problem isn't with changing models. It's doing it (sometimes in secret) and then definitively using that model to predict a future outcome.
Much in the same way that Y2K ended up being a big nothing, I expect the alarmist cries of the extreme global warming zealots will also prove to be wrong. Our weather will undoubemtedly change and we will have played some part in that. But the doom and gloom prophecies will ultimately prove to be false prophecies.
Fuck you
What are you talking about?
How are any of these in the advantage of anyone?
1. Artificial restrictions/shortages.
In who's financial interest is that? Generally its the people who have the supply. But I suppose alternative energy supplies may gain from this.
2. High Taxes.
Who have you spoken to that wants higher taxes and to waste that tax money on a made up problem, Yes some people want higher taxes to solve problems that they think are real, but who in there right mind would want higher taxes just to throw that money away.
3. Prohibitions.
Why would you want to ban something that has no actual negative impact.
4. Societal shaming.
Apart from getting joy from other peoples misery what benefit is there?
5. Exceptions for political leaders and the rich.
Who is saying this, what exceptions should political leaders get? Leaders and the rich get exceptions already, they make the laws no they do not need climate change as an excuse
6. Control, control, control
control of what? so people are less wasteful,
You seem to think people who research climate change have nothing better to do than make other peoples lives miserable.
As with anything there will be winners and losers from any change but by far the people with money now are the ones that stand to loose the most, so if the research is going to be biased in one direction based on money it will be against global warming.
Your source:
Current thinking:
Your "spot-on" report predicted TWICE as much warming as current science predicts.
You are assuming the model he mentioned did not include any feedbacks. I only read the first few pages of the actual paper, but it does appear that the way the model is designed would include some (not all, by any means) feedbacks in the system.
7. Professing concern for climate as the world's most urgent problem, yet automatically coming out against any industrial-scale solution to your industrial-scale problem. When the pinwheels and mirrors you fiddle with are shown to be inadequate as a replacement for the fossil fuel we consume, advocate ditching heavy and large cities and returning to an Amish existence.
Even a moderate change in climate will result in about 50% of the worlds population being relocated due to our settling in low lands near water sources.
Sorry, but that is completely wrong. Global *warming* means more moisture overall, because of water evaporating from the ocean in larger quantities. It means more areas in the northern climes are habitable - remember that Antartica used to hold a lot of life (sadly we are not getting that level of warming). It means people able to stay where they are or maybe live in places they could not before because they were too harsh. It means deserts and arid regions greening as greater amounts of water arrives.
The scenario you describe is what happens in an *ice age*. Moisture stops flowing, plat life withers, people head to low areas to stay warm. Again, I refer you to Antartica, one of the driest climates on earth...
Embracing warming is embracing energy, and the life it sustains.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Name me a climate model that accounts for the 800,000 year-long record of cyclic periods of warming and cooling that we can see and measure with instruments from ice core samples. We are currently in the FIFTH such cycle.
If you are going to tell me that an 800,000 year-long record is being broken, by crickey you'd better have some fabulously overwhelming extraordinary EVIDENCE of such a fantastic claim.
Instead, we have what-if projections.
Thank you, but I'll trust my own eyes and physical evidence before I trust your what-if guesses.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Like I'd believe the New York Times on this subject. What are you going to quote next, the Weekly World News?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You don't 'adjust' faulty measurements. You discard them completely. That's the scientifically responsible thing to do.
Actually, no. The cold weather in mid latitudes is expected to happen during global warming. What happens is the jet stream slows, often stalling, because the poles are warmer so the temperature difference between the equator and the pole is less so there is less energy to drive the winds. This means that both cold snaps and hot spells are likely to stop and linger in one place instead of just moving on through, and THAT means that the cold at the ground can get more intense when it's cold, and the hot spells can get more intense when it's hot.
It's all part of the same engine. It wasn't *just* drama that made Al Gore's film feature a cold spell caused by the slowing of ocean circulation back before anyone had changed the term "global warming" to "climate change". It's what you expect to happen in the mid latitudes. (Of course, you also get more intense hot spells in summer, but those probably weren't deemed as photogenic.)
OTOH, please note that so far the ocean currents haven't slowed, just the jet stream. But the ocean currents *have* showed signs of weakening. Possibly because Greenland is dumping loads of fresh water on top of the heavier salt water. This will *probably* have more effect on Europe than on the US, though.
That said, I am not a climatologist. And I don't run climate models. These are opinions I've picked up by reading popular science magazines like Scientific American...but they are my extrapolations from many of those articles.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's a one-size fits all theory!
it's a non falsifiable theory - not science by definition.
Alcohlics Anonymous highlights this. They have to hit rock bottom and want to change. Anything done until then is percieved as intrusive meddling and controlling, not visionary leadership for a better and brighter future. Until the Earth is beyond recovery, it cannot be assumed to anything we should put forth effort to fix.
Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.
Try thousands of years, at a minimum.
The obvious solution: fire all the /. editors.
The problem is this topic is so politicized - as is evidenced even in the commentary here - that any data comes with baggage.
It is politicized, but so what?
The solution to politicized scientific issues is to look at the consensus of the experts, plus any dissenting experts. In this case, pretty much every expert says one thing, and the dissenters are not climate experts. Seems mighty clear and apolitical to me.
Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?
It's amazing to me how many people are so willfully uninformed about this subject yet so strongly opinionated.
The data is from James Hansen, a respected climate scientist, not the New York Times. If you're not going to listen to experts in the field, then where are you getting your information? Feel free to recompile that dataset - it takes a lot of work. Unless you're willing to do that, then your opinion on its validity doesn't carry much water.
Is this a better source?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Thanks for the link, but the site is a huge "appeal to authority".
If the research done by the site publishers is so "good" then it would be more widely cited by the literature.
Personally, I think their modelling is too simplistic and fails to take a lot of the positive feedback into account that the Earth's natural systems are rife with.
Here's the discussion.
When you have people in power who think a tax (specifically the carbon tax), of all things, is going to somehow save the world, and they pitch that hard on every continent, they don't just destroy their own credibility by showing how daft they are. They wipe out the credibility of entire scientific communities. Seriously, not reducing hydrocarbon consumption or developing new energy technology, we're going to tax people and that'll do the trick. That's a fact, no matter what agency you pick, government or private, to dick-wave around with and beat people over the head, there's a fundamental distrust of the science and what's said because of that one move.
All you need to do is pop open google earth and take a peek about the world and see just how much land is being used for agriculture and industry to know we need to make some course corrections. What course corrections are needed are, to me, pretty trivial. Mandatory recycling programs, product repair-ability laws, getting rid of disposable plastic bags, make major investments in thorium salt nuclear and cold fusion power until the nuts are cracked. Those are the things we need to do.
What other evidence you deniers want?
I think the write is a bit confused with that climate change is. Hard to take anything in the article as anything but propaganda after injecting climate change into it. Climate change is a political talking point to take money from us to make themselves rich.
Janitors don't count bud.
that for many years the AGW fanatics were worshiping at the altar of Dr Hansen at NASA Goddard - who had a PHYSICS degree.
But then when Freeman Dyson (a very famous scientist with a PHYSICS degree) disagreed with many things pushed by the AGW crowd (including suggesting that they peel themselves away from the computer screens and very flawed computer models and put on some boots and go outside to do some REAL science) suddenly that very same qualification (a doctorate in physics) was no longer valid (for Dyson, anyway... aparently it's still fine for Hanson who proved his science cred by chaining himself to a fence at a protest).
AGW is a religion. Science degrees have nothing to do with it given that the true credential is obviously that you must agree with the prietshood on the interpretation of the sacred scrolls of warming. If you disagree with the interpretation or if you disagree of the means to salvation, or if you advocate for the masses being able to read the scrolls for themselves then you must be branded a heretic.
That does not mean everywhere has their average temperature rising at the same rate. But the data clearly shows temps are higher on average. Thus, global warming.
It had been uncertain whether the extremes in recent years (hurricanes, etc) are due to human-caused climate change or were within normal variants. However, there was a recent study three specific events to human causes climate change. We can connect you to work at your comfort, work from home at this temperature you hate going to the office and get paid sign up for free membership on www.workfar.com
Those of us who keep getting called "deniers" are the only ones who truly believe in climate change; WE are the ones saying the climate has always changed and always will change. It's tha AGW folks who think the planet should be in some form of climatic stasis at some pre-determined ideal climate state that has never been previously observed, and is not documented on any terrestrial design document or specification.
Those of us who oppose the hyper-political attempt to use climate as an excuse for increased global governance, increased Marxism, reduced human freedom, etc are NOT the ones who made the climate political. If any other aspect of the Earth is twisted into an excuse to reduce human liberty and increase governmental evil then that too will rapidly become hyper-political. The AGW guys have used "climate change" and "global warming" to justify every wet dream of the Democrat party from changes in minimum wage to abortion, global taxation, high speed trains, new funding streams for the UN, transgernderism and support for Palestinian terror groups. That's simply NOT science; it's all parisan political policy preferences.
It's the job of science to discover how and why things work. It's the job of politicians and the public to decide what to do with that information. When the scientists get attached to the government funding nipple and start producing the results the government wants in order to justify more power and more control, and this becomes a self-selecting feedback loop of scientists dependent on the government funding providing results to politicians who want and only fund researchers and results which justify bigger more-powerful government, we have crossed a line the late President Eisenhower warned us about.
If you want the politics out and want to just "deal with the facts" then the first step must be to restore the basic principles of science. There can be no faith in the reliability of climate science as long as the people caught manipulating the paper publishin and peer review processes are still employed in the field. There can be no faith in climate science as long as the people who hid data, manipulated data, and published only massaged data while deleting the original measurements, etc are still employed in the field. There can be no faith in climate science while the people who converted it into a quasi-religious quasi-political movement and who made it a core element of Democrat party electoral politics are still employed in the field.
If geologists or chemists did this garbage, those two fields would also now be political and not trusted by half the population too.
If it's science, DO THE SCIENCE and leave the politics and public policy pronunciations to others. Do NOT follow the footsteps of Dr Hansen who climbed into bed with Al Gore and theatrically switched off the air conditioning at a senate hearing to make senators sweat in the heat of the late summer DC swamp, held over a hundred press conferences claiming the Bush Administration was preventing him from talking, etc.
we can't classify nature to politics, let's pray and do what's right as people. We should think deep than this. Nevertheless, global warming is a scientifically proven fact regardless what happens in Northern America, which is only a relatively small area of our globe. The oceans which cover two-thirds of our planet are warming, this is fact. The polar ice caps are melting, also fact. The glaciers are retreating, another fact.
Only the evil of Donald Trump and his racist white southern minions could cause such a drastic climatic change that Sharks, those ancient predator of renown are actually freezing to death.
The only hope for mother earth is for intelligent liberals to believe and acceot the power of science. Science CAN reverse this climate change, if enough people accept the infallibility and omicient power of Science we will be saved from the evils of climate change and Donald Trump.
And now the 'catastrophic man-made global waming' scammers are openly stating that we are heading for a 'mini ice age' (which I posted about here many times in the past) which will mitigate some of the 'disastrous' effect of 'climate change'. The whole thing is a pathetic fraud, even a five year old could see through this.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
I know I'll catch flack from most for my forthcoming opinion.....
but I put sharks in the same category that I put spiders and snakes: The only good one is a DEAD ONE!!!! Let them all die in a fire!!!!
Loss of the apex predators, Great White Sharks, is the problem, not your brand of religion.
How do we fix the problem? How many Great White Sharks have died due to cold? Our sample is way too small, must we SWAG a number of sharks lost?
How many lawyers are equivalent to a 16' Great White?
Say we assume 4 medium size lawyers in sea to replace 1 average size GWS and 983 dead GWS, can we catch & swim 3932 lawyers?
Would 983 politicians be a better choice?
How is this modded off topic? The article references Trump's twitter post and this is a response to the obvious (and blatantly ignorant) bashing of it using a double standard. The comment above is talking about that. (Disclaimer: I did not write the above comment)
Well if by trends your talking about the changes on average global temperature it's exactly the same as it has been for the past 17 years. So again what global warming?
Not really. And "respected climate scientist" is something like an oxymoron to me, I have zero respect for climate science thanks to all the outlandish claims made that never came true.
Datasets can be faked.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Record breaking snowfall and cold, really? I think if they were to dig further back they'd find snowfalls and temperatures far worse than what they're claiming are 'record breaking'. They might very well be...records for a short time ago.
you people are always saying that...
whoooooooosh!
Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?
whoooooooosh!
Translation: You don't know.
How do you go 100 years in the past to verify a meniscus was read correctly?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Could we knit coats for them like we do for baby elephants in Myanmar?
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asean/1385458/orphaned-myanmar-elephants-blanketed-against-cold
So to be clear, you will not believe any climate data?
Please do tell, with citations, what outlandish predictions were made that climate scientists got wrong. I would show you some links of the major predictions that climate science got right, but what's the point?
The indoctrination camps that people call universities nowadays are far less credible than experienced NASA scientists that have created that site to have a channel outside of the echo chamber so a real discussion about observations can occur instead of the horrors we called science during the Obama administration (gotta keep that grant money flowing). Personally, I'm not a climate change denier but I hate the current group think approach to how it is being analyzed.
You forgot to mention that they will drop "statistical anomalies" to further massage the data to meet the whims of the administration in power. I imagine successful grant recipients are currently massaging it on the other end to meet this admin's needs to keep that grant money flowing.
To be clear- I'll believe climate DATA, not interpretations from some self-styled expert doomsayer who has cherry picked the data to support his conclusion of the day.
Come back and talk to me when the immoral cities of Washington DC, New York, and Los Angeles are available for maritime salvage.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Meanwhile in Europe we have been having much too warm temperatures for this time of year. Last week it was 15C (59 F) in central Europe where I live, which is practically spring temperature today it was 8C (46F) when it should be around the freezing point. It's not the first time that Northern America receives all the dose of winter cold from from Europe. A couple of years ago we had the same situation - record lows in the US, much too high temperatures across Europe and Eurasia.
Nevertheless, global warming is a scientifically proven fact regardless what happens in Northern America, which is only a relatively small area of our globe. The oceans which cover two-thirds of our planet are warming, this is fact. The polar ice caps are melting, also fact. The glaciers are retreating, another fact.
Please just check this website of one very credible, US agency for the details if you still feel like denying it because Trump says so: https://climate.nasa.gov/
That Earth is warming up is a provable fact. That this is due to anything humans have done is not.
Yes, the group think is terrible. Even the Arctic ice is in on it.
The earth was cooking for 8000 years roughly prior to 1800, and the point in the orbital cycle indicates it should still be. The energy to account for the temperature rise since 1800 is staggering. CO2 is known to trap energy within the earth system, and it is known, via radiocarbon dating, that significant proportion of the CO2 is from fossil sources. For the temperature rise not to be due to human activity, you either need to show a reduction in the effectiveness of the carbon sink to account for the build up of CO2 from 1800, or show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and find some other, previously undiscovered mechanism to account for the temperature rise. If there is another mechanism, that might be more worrying, as we may not no how to, or be able to do anything about it, leaving only mitigation of the effects, whereas with athropogenic CO2, there is at least a theoretical option for reduction, even if that is not itself without negative consequences.
Humanity, in the last 200 years, has addressed a number of challenges, such as infectious disease, much of the endemic starvation and poverty (not yet complete), defeated several unpalatable regimes, addressed the ozone hole, and gone into space, so I hope climate change can be successfully dealt with in some way without any other reversals.
Climate data is probably some of the most available data there is, apart from perhaps astronomical, and the raw and derived data is available, so I'm baffled if you think it is hidden. There are some open source models too, e.g. CESM, and also weather modelling, e.g. WRF.
IANACS
No, it's not twice. Note the phrase "without feedbacks". There are feedbacks, though, positive and negative, from increased outgassing in the tundra, changes in albedo, changes in plant cover, and many others. The exact strength of the feedbacks is actively researched, hence the overall estimate climate sensitivity, with feedbacks, is understood to be in the range 1.5C to 3C, most likely 2C.
The Milankovitch cycles are modelled. In fact the ice cores were the confirmation of the model.
I know people who work in the area. You are very, very wrong.
The solution to politicized scientific issues is to look at the consensus of the experts, plus any dissenting experts. In this case, pretty much every expert says one thing, and the dissenters are not climate experts. Seems mighty clear and apolitical to me.
Gaileo and Copernicus might have something to say about expert consensus. The seminal study that has led to the claim of a "97 percent consensus" on human-caused climate change was by Skeptical Science and John Cook (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html). Sounds impressive, but read their own methodology. They basically Googled for "climate change" and "global warming." Cook's team then looked at the abstracts, and if they concluded the paper expressed an opinion, one way or the other, the placed them in the respective category. Well, it is not that 11,640 of those abstracts agreed it was climate change. No, first off they found about only 4,000 expressed an opinion. Of those, yes, 97 percent said there was climate change and it was man-made. However, they ignored the silent majority that did not weigh in on the matter.