It's So Cold Outside That Sharks Are Actually Freezing to Death (vice.com)

I bet the friggin sharks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Want some friggin global warming

Re: I bet the friggin sharks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:34 · Score: 1

global warming doesnt exclude local freezing. capitto?
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Global Warming doesn't exclude anything.
Nice theory (wait...hypothesis since you have no confirmed experiments) you have there. ANYTHING that happens is accounted for.
OH, but then there is that pesky Falsification thing that Science demands.
Well, maybe you can write a computer simulation and just skip over that part.
Re:I bet the friggin sharks by GameboyRMH · 2018-01-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative

It could very well be the case that this IS global warming (AKA "climate change" for those who don't understand averages). A hotter climate can power more extreme weather on both ends of the temperature scale. So those sharks might appreciate *less* global warming.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I bet the friggin sharks by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2018-01-02 07:25 · Score: 1

It could very well be the case that this IS global warming (AKA "climate change" for those who don't understand averages).

Whether this is "global warming" or - more likely - just regular climate variability at work... what's silly is drawing conclusions based on a strictly local phenomenon.
I'm too lazy to dig up the map again, but - when the cold first descended on the continental US, there was a global map showing the departure from mean temperature on that day. Virtually every other location on earth was either normal or above normal... the eastern 2/3 of the US (and Canada) was the only significant area it was colder than average.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:I bet the friggin sharks by GameboyRMH · 2018-01-02 07:41 · Score: 1

The sharks would disagree. So would polar bears, Syrians, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Barbudans, Houstonians, etc etc...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by thegreatbob · 2018-01-02 08:03 · Score: 1

Something something, bistromathics.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Re:I bet the friggin sharks by GameboyRMH · 2018-01-02 08:05 · Score: 2

True. That's because before then, people were overhunting them. So we're not killing them as badly with global warming as we were with bullets. Their populations are still expected to fall to 2/3rds of today's levels by 2050 at the current rate of course. But since we've switched to murdering them with gases instead of solids, I'm sure they'll be fine!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by hey! · 2018-01-02 09:20 · Score: 4, Informative

In the 1970s, the theory successfully predicted a reversal of a three decade aerosol-driven cooling tend before it happened. That was the result of sufficient computing power becoming available to run detailed models, which successfully excluded the continuation of cooling.
It's also worth noting that by the mid 90s scientists were predicting that "global warming" would also include extreme cold weather events as well as heat waves -- thus the preference for the term "climate change".
Finally, if you actually look at global temperature anomaly map, it's quite evident that the cold snap we're in is a highly localized phenomenon. Almost the ENTIRE PLANET is ANOMALOUSLY HOT, except for parts of North America and Greenland.
It's easy to say a theory has no consistent predictions when you use a straw man.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by fatwilbur · 2018-01-02 13:03 · Score: 1

That was a very helpful website, thanks. I have seen it before but I took the time to poke through some of the data.

We've been spending hundreds of years cutting down forests (a natural heatsink), in many cases burning them, have burned a fuckton of oil in the last 60 years, and all sorts of other carbon pollution. Now you're telling me the impact is less than half a degree ON AVERAGE over a year? What disaster exactly do we have coming from all of this??

Furthermore, it shows just how intense locales can handle significant temperature swings, up to 40 degrees or more Celsius over a few short days. Name one plant or animal species given those temporary swings, that you think cannot adapt to a 0.5C change over a twenty year period.
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by hey! · 2018-01-02 13:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Now you're telling me the impact is less than half a degree ON AVERAGE over a year? What disaster exactly do we have coming from all of this??
Here's an interesting exercise I worked out last year.
Take some amount of temperature change -- say half a degree. Work out how much energy per liter that is -- there are some HVAC sites with the information you need. You'll have to make some assumptions about the humidity and air pressure, which means that your results are likely going to be off by an order of magnitude, but that's fine for our purposes.
Now here's the good bit: multiply the change in energy per liter by the number liters in the troposphere. The answer you'll get is a half a degree equals a shit-ton of energy. As in it makes humanity's entire nuclear arsenal look like a damp squib.
Here's the thing: which scale is the ideal one for thinking about this in? The one liter scale or the troposphere-wide scale? The answer is neither. It's the effect of continent-wide pressure and temperature gradients we need to be worrying about. Even a half degree's worth of thermal energy/liter can on the meso-scale alter patterns of prevailing winds and precipitation, and those are very big things indeed.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: I bet the friggin sharks by FreedomFirstThenPeac · 2018-01-03 05:36 · Score: 1

God, I love Slashdot when a user gets it right ...
(No irony between my post and my sig.)

--
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.

so by desdinova+216 · 2018-01-02 06:29 · Score: 1

what's happening is similar to hypothermia?

Re:so by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-02 06:34 · Score: 1

As long as hypothermia means "my lungs are freezing", then yes.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:so by ShanghaiBill · 2018-01-02 06:47 · Score: 1

As long as hypothermia means "my lungs are freezing", then yes.
Some sharks don't have lungs.
Re:so by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-02 06:47 · Score: 1

Cold shock is different than hypothermia. Hypothermia is when your core body temperature drops below normal. Like the opposite of a fever. Cold shock happens when you're suddenly exposed to cold water. You have a physiological reaction that involves confusion, muscle spasms and a sudden intake of breath. It's actually what usually kills people who fall into cold water without a lifejacket or PFD.
I don't think that's really what's happening here though, or maybe the marine biologists use the term differently. Sharks are also (basically) cold blooded, so hypothermia doesn't really apply. It seems likely the sharks are just getting sluggish in cold water and can't swim away from the shore. When they wash up the freeze (instead of suffocating).
Re:so by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-02 06:59 · Score: 1

I was referring to their gills freezing. What's the human equivalent, then?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:so by swb · 2018-01-02 07:19 · Score: 2

How does cold shock not kill if you are wearing a PFD or lifejacket? Either it kills you or it doesn't, the PFD isn't going to keep you dry or warm. The only thing the PFD will do is keep you from sinking under water and drowning if you lose your swimming ability.
Re:so by Daemonik · 2018-01-02 07:27 · Score: 1

The human equivalent is don't bother because this thread is full of pedants and ysomadbro? dumbasses just trying to troll everyone.
Re:so by Strider- · 2018-01-02 07:30 · Score: 2

The PFD will keep your head above water, thus preventing the muscle spasms and other lack of coordination from causing you to drown. All that still happens, you just are suddenly more buoyant, thus have a higher probability of survival.

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:so by rogoshen1 · 2018-01-02 07:52 · Score: 1

because; the cold shock causes you to gasp for air --- which if you're under water (and here's where the PFD comes in!) causes you to inhale large quantities of cold water.
Re:so by mysidia · 2018-01-02 08:12 · Score: 1

Which is probably instant death, unless you're a shark..... It is Doubtful that cold-blooded sharks experience an at-all-similar physiological response to extreme cold as a warm-blooded human, however..... for one thing: it's not possible for a shark to "gasp"
It's more likely the extreme cold simply immobilizes the cold-blooded shark, whether it was gradually introduced or suddenly introduced.
However, the shark may be at an inconvenient location when it discovers the sudden cold water, and be unable to avoid the shore as a result ----- the shark would be "safe" if it were much further from shore and/or deeper underwater.
Re:so by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-02 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative

If you fall in the water with a PFD on, you take a breath of water and are to confused to do anything productive for half a minute or so. During that time, your PFD brings you to the surface, and after that you're very unhappy, but probably alive, and quite likely near your boat.
If you don't have a PFD on, you go further underwater, take a breath of water, and are confused for half a minute or so. During that time if you manage to actually swim, it's very unlikely it's towards the surface. In the meantime, you're breathing water like a madman. Welcome to the afterlife. Cold shock doesn't kill you: it makes you unable to prevent yourself from drowning.
The Canadian and US coast guards did a bunch of experiments with volunteers (and proper medical and dive support) in moderately cold water. Even though the volunteers knew they were going to hit cold water, so a lot of the shock was reduced, the results were pretty dramatic. Since then, both coast guards have added the concept of cold shock to boating safety and certification courses in addition to hypothermia.
Re:so by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-02 09:06 · Score: 1

Yes. I suspect that the article is either using the term cold shock incorrectly, or is using a term correctly from a different context. Cold shock is due to sudden immersion in cold water. That doesn't happen to sharks. But sharks are basically cold blooded, so if they find themselves in water that's colder than they're used to, perhaps because they swam into shallow water close to shore in a cold snap, they may find themselves too cold to swim away.
Re:so by Strider- · 2018-01-02 10:00 · Score: 2

The Canadian and US coast guards did a bunch of experiments with volunteers (and proper medical and dive support) in moderately cold water. Even though the volunteers knew they were going to hit cold water, so a lot of the shock was reduced, the results were pretty dramatic. Since then, both coast guards have added the concept of cold shock to boating safety and certification courses in addition to hypothermia.
2 summers ago, I helped a friend deliver a 46 foot sailboat from Los Angeles to Seattle. As a recreational sailor from the Pacific Northwest, it shocked me how lax people were down there when it came to safety and safety equipment. We're used to being out in the foulest of weather, always being in proper PFDs and clothing, and tethering ourselves to the boat on anything other than a nice day. As we pulled into the fuel dock before heading north, it really shocked me that we were the only people in sight wearing any kind of reasonable safety equipment.

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:so by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-02 12:34 · Score: 1

Big sharks are actually warm blooded (Great white, Tiger sharks and Mongo etc.)

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:so by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-02 12:39 · Score: 1

I once watched a documentation about the education of marine fighter pilots.
One of the 'tests' was (after month of preparation) to drop them from a ship into the northern sea. In flight clothing, inflatable rescue boat (same as in the plane) floating besides them. And the instructors, with a megaphone yelling at them to crawl out of the water into the boat.
A huge percentage did not manage that, and were removed from the marine fighters education course and remained air force pilots.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:so by RockDoctor · 2018-01-05 09:13 · Score: 1

ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) : But sharks are basically cold blooded,
angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) : Big sharks are actually warm blooded (Great white, Tiger sharks and Mongo etc.)
This is why there is technical terminology, which doesn't include "cold blooded" and "warm blooded".
The terms you're looking for are "poikilotherm" and "homeotherm." Wiki gives these definitions : "A poikilotherm is an animal whose internal temperature varies considerably. It is the opposite of a homeotherm, an animal which maintains thermal homeostasis."
Some organisms achieve homeothermy (constant internal temperature) by metabolic modification - mammals and birds being the classic examples. Some achieve homeothermy by living in or on other organisms - the several trillion bacteria in your gut and the other trillion on your skin are examples. Some achieve homeothermy by being massive - their normal metabolism being sufficient that internal temperature rises to radiate the heat through a relatively limited area of skin (adult dinosaurs above about 5m length probably did this, regardless of their metabolic status, but much affected by their shape and/ or feathering). Some achieve temporary homeothermy by behaviour - the classic being a lizard basking in the sun before hunting.
You're both right, to a degree. There is little evidence of metabolic adaptations in sharks to produce heat without muscular movement. But the larger sharks can achieve functional homeothermy by dint of their size and constant motion generating sufficient heat that they have an elevated internal temperature at most times.
(Some of us grew up with the arguments over dinosaur poikilthermy or homeothermy, and the distinction was the topic of discussion over Sunday lunch. If you lived in the right sort of home.)

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:so by RockDoctor · 2018-01-05 09:30 · Score: 1

The Canadian and US coast guards did a bunch of experiments with volunteers (and proper medical and dive support) in moderately cold water.
Pretty much useless window dressing. The results were already known before the experiments were done because the experiments had already been done. In 1939 to 1940, the Third Reich were having lots of planes shot down into the cool (rarely above 10degC), and their expensive and valuable pilots were dieing after survivable parachute landings on water. So they did a considerable number of experiments on disposable, cheap people in Dachau Concentration Camp. Pretty much all our basic knowledge of the effects of hypothermia on humans stems from these experiments and the dozens or hundreds of people killed in the programme.
Most navies and/ or air forces with non-tropical operations have repeated such experiments with volunteers, who don't die because the the people at Dachau did die, and their deaths were recorded in considerable detail. Now all that is being done is design validation where you shove a thermometer up the arse of a volunteer, put them into the test suit, throw them into the water, and demonstrate that this design achieves (for an example) the Canadian-Norwegian standard of less than 2 degrees of core temperature drop in water of 2degC after 6 hours immersion. The Dachau data indicates that after more than 2degC of core temperature drop, the person is unlikely to be able to help themselves, e.g. by maintaining spray shield in position, or climbing a boarding net into a high-sided vessel.
Not a pretty piece of science, but science none the less.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:so by RockDoctor · 2018-01-05 09:38 · Score: 1

Try doing your BOSIET - Basic Offshore Survival Immersion & Emergency Training - one day (I've got to have my 7th or 8th repeat in the next couple of months). Same shit, including being thrown into a convenient cold sea for an hour before being given the liferaft. Which you have to inflate, right and enter from the water in order to move onto the more challenging bits of the programme. After that, the blackout fire room, finding and donning your respirator in the dark, smoke and flames is a relaxing after noon. Then the Helicopter Underwater Escape Test.
It's an industry standard. Fail it, lose your job. Most years, someone dies per testing centre.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:so by mcswell · 2018-01-06 16:18 · Score: 1

I saw a presentation back around 1976 by someone who had been briefed on the US and/or Canadian experiments. They were well aware that the Nazis had done the experiments you describe, but there was a big difference: the survival times (as extrapolated, obviously) were much longer for the participants in the more recent experiments. In fact they the recent participants were more or less fine (if acutely uncomfortable) for considerably longer than the Dachau people. The briefer attributed this to their state of health going in, and in particular to their nourishment.

And? by orlanz · 2018-01-02 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:And? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-02 06:36 · Score: 1

Indeed; lasers could be used to warm up the freezing sharks, or to cut them off the ground.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:And? by dlleigh · 2018-01-02 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny

The lasers have gotten too efficient. There used to be enough waste heat to keep the sharks from freezing, but not anymore.
This is another unintended consequence of the environmental movement demanding energy efficiency, but not considering everyone who would be affected by their policies.
Re:And? by JackieBrown · 2018-01-02 07:02 · Score: 2, Funny

You would think there would be a mention of lasers somewhere in the post. It is Slashdot after all.

I guess they couldn't work that in and their a dig at Trump.
Re:And? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 07:09 · Score: 1

Cut them off the ground to sell them for shark fin soup- with freakin' lasers!

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:And? by leonbev · 2018-01-02 07:41 · Score: 1

I guess that we can now wait with baited breath for SharkBlizzard, the next sequel in the Sharknado series.
Re:And? by RockDoctor · 2018-01-05 09:54 · Score: 1

The traditional revival technique for frozen animals was the application of a red hot teaspoon to the chest of the resuscitee. Some people didn't think that was nice - or didn't like the smell of burned flesh - and so turned to the microwave oven.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Great Whites aren't supposed to be in Cape Cod by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:33 · Score: 1

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!!!!

pseudo science of global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

So sharks freezing to death is blamed on the pseudo science of global warming?

Oceans getting colder? by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-02 06:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:Oceans getting colder? by King_TJ · 2018-01-02 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's what I heard too. I'd honestly like some more of a scientific explanation for the claims so off-handedly thrown out there in the topic heading here?
Picking on Trump's comment aside (and honestly, I'm pretty sure he said that in jest) .... what's the reasoning for climate change causing these low temperatures and snowfall along the East coast? Last I checked, the record low temperatures in Washington DC for NYE was set way back in 1912 or some-such. As cold as it was at the end of 2017, it wasn't record-breaking or anything.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by swillden · 2018-01-02 07:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I thought the missing heat (that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia) was accumulating in the ocean...
It is. But heat isn't uniformly distributed, either in the air or in the oceans. For exactly the same sorts of reasons that global warming can cause land climates to get colder, it can cause some ocean climates to get colder.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by jbengt · 2018-01-02 08:00 · Score: 1

. . . that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia . . .

The pause that you refer to was not a pause in global atmospheric warming, but a pause in the acceleration of the rate of change in temperatures.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 08:25 · Score: 1

You're right. I've been around long enough to watch climate scientists chasing their own tails (not that the climate may be warming some), but when you invent theories as to why the lack of evidence for the extent of warming doesn't match predictions very soon those invented theories become fact in the minds of true believers.
This lack of evidence of predicted extreme warming is a perfect example.
1) Climate models predict hyperbolic warming by now
2) Temperature measurements don't come anywhere close despite some rather inventive methods of "adjusting" them and extreme warming seems to have "paused"
3) Someone says they know why warming is paused -- it's in the oceans and it'll kill ocean life!!!
4) Unfortunately, surface measurements of ocean waters show that the oceans are not warming anywhere close to the extent needed to hide the "predicted" warming
5) Someone new says -- it's in the deep currents of the oceans where we don't measure and that's even worse!!!
6) Of course, there are no long-term historical measurements of deep ocean temperatures so this theory can't be proven or disproven.
7) Yet, within a few years it's considered "fact" that deep ocean temperatures are warming and article after article appear how this is destroying much of our eco-system and we must do something now!!!
8) Of course, the extreme predicted warming continues to be "paused", but since the true believers have faith in the "fact" that it's being stored deep in the oceans there's no reason for them to question their faith and look for other reasons why the warming is not coming anywhere close to original predictions.
9) And, in case anyone would like to be enlightened by someone with far more introspective life experience than most, the "truth" involves human psychology and very, very old human behavior. For thousands of years now leaders of sub-groups within every culture invent or adapt new "end of the world" Armageddon-type cult beliefs which I distill down simply to: "The gods are angry at some behavior, you must repent and appease the gods or buy your own salvation for your sins, oh, and btw, I'll be getting rich in the process, but ignore that." That perfectly explains the cult of global warming alarmism with Al Gore being a perfect example of a cult leader who has made tens of millions off the cult and personally would have made hundreds of millions if not billions off the cult had carbon tax credits passed in Congress (thank Republicans it didn't). Of course, carbon tax credits are an example of "buying forgiveness from the gods for continued sinning" which is as old as all human religion. Climate scientists making alarmist predictions is the same as religious cultists making prophecies and, like prophecies, they never quite come true and yet like all true believers people quickly forget as each new prophecy fails because there's always new worrying prophecies to take their place.
Seriously, global warming alarmism "equals" just the newest end-of-the-world cult that describes it perfectly. Within a few generations they'll be a new end-of-the-world cult to take its place as all predictions of impending doom fail and those new cultists will look back at how naive the global warming religious nuts were and how they totally missed the real reason the gods were angry. but thankfully they finally know exactly what to do to appease the gods.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by dmatos · 2018-01-02 09:24 · Score: 1

What's been happening recently is that changing ocean temperatures have been disrupting and weakening the jet stream. Normally, the jet stream blows west-to-east, and acts as a sort of barrier to keep arctic air up north. As it destabilizes, it flows in big lobes, allowing arctic air to push further south. Right now, there's a big lobe that covers Ontario and Northeastern USA.
nb - layman's explanation from a layman. Not a climatologist. Not a meteorologist. Not even a TV weatherman.

--

It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Re:Oceans getting colder? by hey! · 2018-01-02 09:27 · Score: 1

What missing heat? Practically the entire Northern Hemisphere has enjoyed unusually mild temperatures this week, except for North America and Greenland.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by 110010001000 · 2018-01-02 11:32 · Score: 1

Surely you mean "climate change" not "global warming". It is confusing because some things get warmer and some get colder. So if something gets warmer you can say "CLIMATE CHANGE". And if something gets colder you can say "CLIMATE CHANGE".
Re:Oceans getting colder? by sg_oneill · 2018-01-02 12:08 · Score: 1

One of the big problems in climate change communication is we probably shouldnt be using the term "heat", its too confusing to the punters (even if its at the core of the issue), rather we should be using *energy*. Climate change is causing more energy to be inputted to the climate system, and this sometimes takes the form of kinetic energy rather than heat. As heat builds up in one area of the system, the differential in heats cause convection currents to build up leading to fast winds and ocean currents and other phenomena like storms, cyclones, etc. As you could imagine in places this will actually generate *colder* local weather systems as the energy from that system rushes out into the convections.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by swillden · 2018-01-02 12:16 · Score: 1

No, I meant what I said and you understood it perfectly well.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 20:32 · Score: 1

I thought the missing heat (that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia) was accumulating in the ocean...
Since the ten hottest years recorded have been in the current millenium, it doesn't seem much as a pause. Especially as the temperature trend is still up. Hint: there hasn't been a pause.
Re:Oceans getting colder? by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 20:59 · Score: 1

1) Climate models predict hyperbolic warming by now
No, they don't.

2) Temperature measurements don't come anywhere close despite some rather inventive methods of "adjusting" them and extreme warming seems to have "paused"
Temperatures are on track from Hansen's projections in 1988, broadly along RCP 8.5 emissions. The ten hottest years recorded have been this mllenium. There has been no pause.

3) Someone says they know why warming is paused -- it's in the oceans and it'll kill ocean life!!!
There has been no pause. Not much to explain on why.

4) Unfortunately, surface measurements of ocean waters show that the oceans are not warming anywhere close to the extent needed to hide the "predicted" warming
Surface temperatures are increasing at 0.1C/decade

5) Someone new says -- it's in the deep currents of the oceans where we don't measure and that's even worse!!!
The deep ocean is measured. There's been a considerable heat build up there, in terms of MJ. See Trenbeth et al.

6) Of course, there are no long-term historical measurements of deep ocean temperatures so this theory can't be proven or disproven
There are long term measurements, just not widespread and long term.

7) Yet, within a few years it's considered "fact" that deep ocean temperatures are warming and article after article appear how this is destroying much of our eco-system and we must do something now!!!
The deep oceans have warmed. How is it not a fact? You might dispute whether there is a long term trend, but you can't dispute the fact rationally.

8) Of course, the extreme predicted warming continues to be "paused", but since the true believers have faith in the "fact" that it's being stored deep in the oceans there's no reason for them to question their faith and look for other reasons why the warming is not coming anywhere close to original predictions.
The trend was 0.16C/decade, and since 2000 has been 0.12C/decade, assuming you bifurcate the series at 2000. If you plot through the whole period, then statistical analysis shows no actual change in trend. Picking 2000 is arbitrary.

9)... the cult had carbon tax credits passed in Congress (thank Republicans it didn't).... Of course, carbon tax credits are an example of "buying forgiveness from the gods for continued sinning" which is as old as all human religion.
It's not a perfect solution, perhaps, but is designed to bring to bear the force of market innovation by sending a pricing signal more strongly than is delivered by a failure to price externalities. It's an orthodox free market pricing mechanism, given an extra signalling impetus and was designed by free market proponents in the economics community.

Climate scientists making alarmist predictions is the same as religious cultists making prophecies and, like prophecies, they never quite come true
It's not at all similar, as the projections (they are not predictions, as they depend on emissions scenarios) are based on physical science. They've also been rather accurate globally, although it has taken a while for regional projections to become possible.

global warming alarmism "equals" just the newest end-of-the-world cult that describes it perfectly
There may be some who take what scientists say, and run with it. This doesn't mean that climate scientists should be tarred with that brush. That makes as much sense as blaming violence outside a soccer match on the players on the field.

It's the environmentalists fault by ilsaloving · 2018-01-02 06:37 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

Re:It's the environmentalists fault by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-02 07:01 · Score: 2

But now we have to deal with stupidly hot summers AND stupidly cold winters.
"Continental United States: Now 50% more continental for the same price!"

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:It's the environmentalists fault by Quirkz · 2018-01-02 07:56 · Score: 1

I would like to update it to "energizing the atmosphere." That makes the eventual transition to "immanetizing the eschaton" that much easier, because of the similar rhythms and letter usage.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:It's the environmentalists fault by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-02 12:55 · Score: 1

Just throwing it out there, but it's amazing how many people refer to the continental US when they mean the contiguous US.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:It's the environmentalists fault by ilsaloving · 2018-01-03 04:24 · Score: 1

The thing is, the oil idiots weren't actually wrong. Based on existing consumption at the time, there *would* have been a problem.
But (I presume) that triggered the push to making things more energy efficient, and work towards alternate forms of energy. The result today is that we've pushed 'peak oil' back almost indefinitely.
But I agree that scientific communication is crap. It doesn't help that scientifically illiterate reporters mutilate the message even further, so that by the time the average person gets it, it can be completely different from the original information.
IMO reporters should not be allowed to report on scientific matters unless they have the necessary background to accurately convey the message. I also think that the overwhelming majority of scientific messages shouldn't be conveyed at all, because so much of it can be contrary (Classic example: Are eggs good for your not?)
Re:It's the environmentalists fault by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 21:09 · Score: 1

It's all the environmentalists fault. If they had simply stuck with global warming, we wouldn't be having this problem. !
Climate change is the original term, from the 1950s. Global warming didn't gain currency as a term until the late 1960s (the first reference I am aware of in the popular media is a BBC Reith lecture in 1968). Climate change and global warming have been common in the literature since the 1970s, with climate change still (AFAIK) being the dominant one throughout that period. There may be an issue with communication, but it doesn't lie with a change in term by climate scientists. You may possibly blame climate scientists for not being sufficiently media-savvy to get their actual message across, but science communication (overall) is something that has really only got serious funding in the last 20 years, and it's still not a lot of funding. It's an issue across many branches of science, and I sometimes cringe when I see reports which I know are likely to be distortions of the research in numerous areas. The current suggested practice is to provide journalists with copy of various lengths that is accurate, so that they can fit accurate information into newspaper and other articles that is accurate, irrespective of the column inches available, so that their summarisation doesn't unfortunately change the sense of the report. And that's no disrespect to journalists - they have particular requirements to sell newspapers, and aren't scientists, and some discoveries include subtleties that can easily be lost in a few layers of editing in the minutes before a newspaper goes to print.

Not a climate change article by unixcorn · 2018-01-02 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:Not a climate change article by Lucas123 · 2018-01-02 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

"If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts."
This is the problem. You have armchair climatologists ridiculing the president or anyone who dares to deny climate change based on regional weather patterns, while at the same time these pseudo intellectuals likely don't know the first fact about how climate change can cause more severe weather patterns. My guess is most of them couldn't begin to explain why winters can continue to be cold, and even colder than in years past, while global warming continues to increase.
But, sarcasm is the cheapest form of intellectualism. It requires no real knowledge while attempting to shame those with whom you disagree.
Stick to the facts. If you disagree with someone, make a solid argument to prove your point.
Re:Not a climate change article by Oswald+McWeany · 2018-01-02 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the problem is, most "climate change denial" is politically based. Everyone knows that climate change is real, certain people just choose to pretend it isn't real because it fits their politics to do so (and yes, some people deliberately exaggerate it greatly because it fits their politics).
It would be nice if the issue were not politicized and we just dealt with facts., but there is a lot of attack on the science from some of a certain political persuasion, that an issue that SHOULD BE non-political, has become VERY political unfortunately. You can't detangle politics from climate change now, some people are too invested in it being political.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Not a climate change article by Merk42 · 2018-01-02 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

"If this is about real science, and I don't deny climate change, keep the politics out of it and just state the facts."
This is the problem. You have armchair climatologists ridiculing the president or anyone who dares to deny climate change based on regional weather patterns.
You also have armchair climatologists ridiculing actual climatologists.

Not that either way is good, mind you.
Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem isn't "berating the president" - it's that such a stupid, irrelevant editorial gets shoehorned into a categorically unrelated topic.
Honestly, what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"? Is it Donald Trump ? Congratulations. You have an autistic fixation and your associative thinking is so broken that all thoughts invariably lead to your stupid, frustrated partisan faggot feelings.
Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 07:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I read the first paragraph of the article - right up to where it berated our President and then I stopped.
Every article about climate change is framed that way. And it's why us deplorables become climate change "deniers".
Re:Not a climate change article by JackieBrown · 2018-01-02 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

You phrased it better than I did. It was pretty awkward and shows how much free real estate he has in some people's minds.
Re:Not a climate change article by Fly+Swatter · 2018-01-02 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Historic averages for Boston. No it is not record lows, but maybe close. The only facts in this article is three sharks froze to death after beaching themselves for still as yet undetermined reasons. All the rest is speculation, they couldn't even be bothered to specify if it was 6 Fahrenheit or Celsius, or what the water temps are vs normal.
The rest reads like a social media blog, news reporting is a lost art.
Re:Not a climate change article by religionofpeas · 2018-01-02 07:52 · Score: 3, Informative

nobody denies climate change
Plenty do.
Model output and measured temperatures:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfG...
Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 07:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

- "deplorable" designed _half_ of Trump's electorate that was racist and fascist, I guess you are proud of being racist.
- so you willingly admit that you (and other "deplorables") are defending positions (that will affect our children) out of pure spite, congrats, I guess you are truly deplorable.
Re:Not a climate change article by atrex · 2018-01-02 07:55 · Score: 1

It is not always necessary to know why something is the way it is to know that it is so. It's easy to deride a climate change denier in the same way that it is easy to deride a flat-earther.

Secondly, in the case of deriding Trump by name, it's an obvious ploy by the article for clicks and attention. It also a direct link to another article on the same site covering another story they did recently about Trump and climate change. The poster of this article to /. copied the article pretty much verbatim, as opposed to summarizing it.
Re:Not a climate change article by Tulsa_Time · 2018-01-02 08:16 · Score: 2

"Everyone knows that climate change is real"
Yes.... and thank God. Otherwise North America would sill be under a mile think sheet of ice.

--
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Re:Not a climate change article by Subm · 2018-01-02 08:37 · Score: 1

> what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"?
I wonder why they don't warm themselves with their lasers.
Re:Not a climate change article by dextarz · 2018-01-02 09:07 · Score: 1

5+
Re:Not a climate change article by KeensMustard · 2018-01-02 09:07 · Score: 2

That's because so many of the solutions bandied about are stupid.
Well, firstly, if you think the solutions are stupid, then come up with a better one. Secondly, just because the problem is hard, doesn't mean there is no problem. You can't cure cancer by denying it exists.
Re:Not a climate change article by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-01-02 09:10 · Score: 1

I read the first paragraph of the article - right up to where it berated our President and then I stopped.
Every article about climate change is framed that way. And it's why us deplorables become climate change "deniers".
Someone is mean to Trump, so you're going to throw the data out the window? That's ... an interesting approach to assessing the situation.
Re:Not a climate change article by hey! · 2018-01-02 09:30 · Score: 2

Look, you don't have to be an expert to have an opinion on this. The problem is people not having their facts straight, either about what the science says, what the science said before this is happening ... they don't even seem to know what is going on right now. It's cold outside their door, therefore they seem to think the whole world is cold.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Not a climate change article by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 09:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

nobody denies climate change
Plenty do.
Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
Re:Not a climate change article by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 09:39 · Score: 1

> what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"? I wonder why they don't warm themselves with their lasers.
As a pilot, we are taught that when you run into an unexpected clouds or icing, and you have no evidence that conditions are better ahead of you, TURN AROUND.
I wondered why the sharks, when encountering cooling water, don't turn around and go back into warmer water. Before I read the summary, I also wondered how sharks were freezing when the water around them was much warmer than freezing.
Re:Not a climate change article by jbmartin6 · 2018-01-02 10:00 · Score: 1

This. My first thought was, how many sharks freeze to death every other time we have very cold weather? This isn't the first time it has ever been this cold in that area. From what the article gives, this might even be a pretty light year for shark freezings.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Re: Not a climate change article by mapkinase · 2018-01-02 10:55 · Score: 1

He tried very hard to get into every single discussion about everything. If this is not success I do not know what is.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re: Not a climate change article by mapkinase · 2018-01-02 10:59 · Score: 1

You have to be living under the rock not to have him living rent- free in your mind.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Not a climate change article by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-02 11:07 · Score: 1

The Met, UK's official weather forecasters, state the accuracy of a Stevenson screen is +/- 0.5 deg C. Now, can you explain how you can accurately measure to a higher precision than that? I know, average a lot of screens. Yet each screen is NOT measuring the same thing (they are not co-located nor is the data collected at the same time). It is not valid to add two screens - measuring different weather situations at different times - and claim the resulting accuracy is twice as good. The data still have a half a degree accuracy. Yet we're told that a hundredth of a degree here or there makes something the hottest - or coldest - on record. It's not statistically valid - because the underlying data does not have that precision.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Not a climate change article by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-02 11:10 · Score: 1

When the data is invalid, yes - it should be thrown out. What is the accuracy of those measurements? We're always shown accuracy to 0.01 deg or 0.001 deg. Yet the underlying instruments tend to be no more than 0.5 deg accurate. Yes, you can average a bunch of measurements together to get an average value. No, you CANNOT improve the precision of that instrument over what it originally said. So average a dozen measurements, you might be able to say the average is 12.322 deg C; but the tolerance is still 0.5 deg C, meaning the actual value is 11.822 deg C to 12.822 deg C. Kind of changes things when a hundredth - or thousandth - of a degree difference is claimed to make something the "hottest on record"...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Not a climate change article by hey! · 2018-01-02 11:54 · Score: 1

You know, that was my first reaction too. Then it occurred to me: climate change isn't really a scientific controversy. The controversy is political.
Who was it again who put climate change on the table for this particular localized weather event? A lot of people still listen to that man, which means any story about the North American cold Snap of 2017-2018 has to address their politically rooted misconceptions.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Not a climate change article by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-01-02 12:05 · Score: 1

If the data is invalid, that's fine - throw it out. If you just want to throw it out because it is presented in a manner that hurts your feelings, you're a triggered snowflake.
Re:Not a climate change article by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-02 12:58 · Score: 1

The models are an output of the science, not an input. Having a wrong epidemiological model does not mean that the Germ Theory of Disease is bunk. Try again.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Not a climate change article by hey! · 2018-01-02 13:01 · Score: 1

The argument runs like this: If you're an armchair climatologist you don't know anything so your views are worthless. If you are an actual climatologist you have a professional interest in promoting climate change, so your views are worthless.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Not a climate change article by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-02 13:21 · Score: 1

I have serious questions about the quality of the data. I spent 5 years designing scientific SONAR systems and running surveys. Capturing data with proper spatial resolution (including time series/syncing) as well as quality of measurements and maintaining tolerance was crucial. With less than 8% of surface stations having less than 1 deg C accuracy now, how can data precision to three significant digits be claimed? Data should be tossed, OR should only be quoted with appropriate tolerances. If your measurement gear is only good to 2 deg C, then your measurements can be stated to any precision you want - but have to be qualified with the tolerance (12.443 deg C +/- 2 deg).

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Not a climate change article by kqs · 2018-01-02 14:25 · Score: 1

Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
Depends on the time frame.
At first people denied the change entirely. Then, when we repeatedly set "hottest year in recorded history" records, they fell back to "well, okay, but humans aren't causing it. It's changing 50 times faster than ever before because..." and the words after the "because" change but are never based on peer-reviewed research. Now, since that excuse is also pretty thin, we are hearing "well, okay, but it's not a problem that it's getting hotter." I expect the next stage will be "well, okay, we are causing it and it's a huge problem but it's too late/too expensive to fix it so oh well".
It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage. How many years ago did you change from the "it's not happening" stage?
Re:Not a climate change article by kqs · 2018-01-02 14:28 · Score: 1

Someone is mean to Trump, so you're going to throw the data out the window? That's ... an interesting approach to assessing the situation.
But it explains so much about why conservatives act the way they do! When my step-son was 6 years old he did the same thing, just argued the opposite of anything I said. He grew out of it.
Re:Not a climate change article by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 15:04 · Score: 1

It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage.
No, it sounds like I'm pointing out the kind of thing you're doing here, which is ridiculing someone for something he didn't say.
I said that it is convenient for people to ignore what has been said and attack them based on what you wanted them to have said. Look at your last sentence and see if you can find me saying either of what you attribute to me. Both of your hypotheses are pretty ignorant considering you don't know me at all or what I think about the issue.
Re:Not a climate change article by KeensMustard · 2018-01-02 17:54 · Score: 1

Trump himself made the claim that this event was symptomatic of a problem with the theory of climate change (how that could possibly be true is something he failed to mention - lack of space in the tweet presumably?). He is not a king, nor a deity, so is not above correction from the likes of us. When he is wrong, the public benefit lies with saying so, regardless of political persuasion.
As for your own response, the question I have is, why did you bother to post at all? So you 'stopped reading' - so what? Since when is your reading habits a matter of interest to the rest of us?
Re:Not a climate change article by KeensMustard · 2018-01-02 20:08 · Score: 1

Humnan nature I suppose but if not anthropogenic why do we have the right to "fix" the problem?
Who said it wasn't anthropogenic?

So if we caused climate change to power our cars we need to fix it, but if nature has decided tough shit guys time for you to go, again we need to fix it? So what you are saying is everything revolves around us right?
Nature?? Well, I guess a nature goddess causing climate change because she's a bitch is as plausible as most denialist theories...

So why do we care if the hairy bare assed wilderbeast in Kenya goes extinct? Tough shit daddy needs a second TV.
Errrr cause they are one and the same? Daddy can fix climate change, save the wildebeest and buy a new tv, or not fix climate change, let the wildebeest die out, and lose his job because climate change tanked the economy and never buy a TV again.

Also, historically I don't think the funding was as good. A dude with a studio apartment, porridge and a microscope is cheap versus all the crap that goes into something major like climate
No idea what you are talking about.

Anyways my biggest criticism is the claimed level of precision. "Concensus numbers" aka we took a dozen papers of people all receiving federal funding to investigate the "global warming" problem (hmm I wonder which side you'll land on), get averaged together and somehow that becomes the Truth. Then not saying it won't suck or change ecosystems, but because the blue billled pecker wood in middle of nowhere Alberta will go extinct that automatically means death to all life. Really? Do you really think humans are so powerful that we'll somehow manage to survive just long enough to kill Everything before dying out? Again it'll suck but we'll have massive die outs/reduction in our resource use long before we get there IMO baring massive nuclear war. We use a lot of energy but we just don't need that much energy really per year to not allow population die off stabilize things. The world will be different but it has always been different.
Again, a TL;DR. I can't even tell who or what you are criticizing.
Re:Not a climate change article by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-03 01:26 · Score: 1

As an autistic faggot, I'd like to ask you not to drag us into this. Even I think "sharks are freezing ---> Donald Trump!!!!" is an absurd overreach, and I voted against the guy.
Re:Not a climate change article by argStyopa · 2018-01-03 02:48 · Score: 1

"Everyone knows that climate change is real"
Except the discussion, and the POINT isn't "climate change", is it?
Climate has, does, and will always change. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly.
It's **ANTHROPOGENIC** climate change that's at issue.
See, some might say you were just speaking sloppily (who would try to seriously back any persuasive statement with "...well EVERYONE knows..." anytime after first grade?), some others might see it as pernicious and deliberate goalpost shifting.
The first step in discussing it constructively would be to stop being so blindly dismissive of people that disagree with you.

--
-Styopa
Re:Not a climate change article by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-01-03 04:36 · Score: 1

That's all fine and dandy, but what does it have to do with the point I was responding to? Some AC literally stated that people like him have become climate change deniers explicitly because of news articles being critical of Trump. That has nothing to do with questions about the data like the one you present.
Re:Not a climate change article by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-01-03 05:39 · Score: 1

When bad data is used to support a political point - yes, it should be tossed out and ignored.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Not a climate change article by Reziac · 2018-01-03 06:03 · Score: 1

Actually yes; record and next-to-record lows all along the east coast and upper midwest:
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Not a climate change article by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 21:11 · Score: 1

98% refers to climate scientists, AFAIK.
Re:Not a climate change article by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 21:19 · Score: 1

The degree of precision claimed is often ridculous, 2.87 degrees in 20 yrs not 2.86 or 2.88. These bullshit artists take the average of a couple dozen papers guesses and claim like that is the number handed down by God.
Two points. The first is that there are statistical techniques that allow you to combine multiple estimates and have an overall one that is greater than the precision of the individual ones. This is pretty commonly in use. The second, is that part of your complaint is actually about communication of the research, not what the original papers, or the IPCC reports (which I have read a couple of - very dull) states.

Get over yourself people you aren't that good, you can't predict the weather 2 weeks.
Climate isn't weather, but composed of weather events over a long period, so not being able to predict the weather two weeks in advance (actually meterology is fairly good on this now). I can't predict if you toss a head or a tail (weather) but I can predict how many heads in a million throws (climate).

Lol, Vice by sunking2 · 2018-01-02 06:39 · Score: 2

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.

But how cold is the water? by Atmchicago · 2018-01-02 06:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:But how cold is the water? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:50 · Score: 1

They are metric, like the rest of the world...
Re:But how cold is the water? by atrex · 2018-01-02 07:18 · Score: 1

If I had to guess, ocean currents. Sharks were probably cruising in a nice warm one then slammed into a cold one (that wasn't supposed to be there) and got shocked by it. Shock made them beach themselves, at which point they froze to death.

The other possibility is that such extremely cold temperatures at the surface causes behavior in the water similar to the behavior in the arctic regions, where the surface water gets so cold so quickly that it sinks much farther than usual. This graphic shows the behavior better than I can explain it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re:But how cold is the water? by elistan · 2018-01-02 08:34 · Score: 1

Saltwater freezes at 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit [noaa.gov]. How did these sharks get so cold if they were underwater?
From what I could gather from the article, the speculation is the three sharks were swimming along in normal temperature waters (whatever normal is, the article doesn't say) then hit a spot of particularly cold water (again, the article doesn't say anything about the temperature of the water) and became disoriented or disabled, washed up on shore, died, and then froze in the sub-freezing air temps (6 F, according to the article.)

It's also possible, I suppose, that the sharks washed up on shore for reasons entirely unrelated to temperatures, where it's not surprising that they then froze in the sub-freezing air. I found some articles from earlier this year stating that there has been a shark population boom in the area.
Re:But how cold is the water? by Atmchicago · 2018-01-02 09:23 · Score: 1
You're right -- the current water temperature in Cape Cod is 5 to 6 degrees C. I was confused because the summary was poorly worded:
1. 1. The units of temperature weren't included
2. 2. The title says that it's cold "outside," which to me implied that the "6 degrees" temperature was the outside temperature
3. 3. Today's low in Brewster, MA is 7 degrees Fahrenheit, which is consistent with the "6 degrees" quoted above as referring to the outdoor temperature, in Fahrenheit.
But this wouldn't be Slashdot if it had a clear summary, would it?
--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by ShanghaiBill · 2018-01-02 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cold is Weather, Hot is Climate.

Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.

Temperature trends that last for a week are weather.

A lot of snow and current is from climate change by WillAffleckUW · 2018-01-02 06:48 · Score: 1

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! --

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Kenja · 2018-01-02 06:49 · Score: 1

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?"

Re:Must be Global Warming... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:51 · Score: 1

Everything and its opposite is caused by global warming.

This post was brought to you by global warming.

sharknado 6 ice age sharks! by Joe_Dragon · 2018-01-02 06:53 · Score: 1

sharknado 6 ice age sharks!

War is Peace by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:56 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

Flamebait Summary by nuckfuts · 2018-01-02 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

-- 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.

Re:Flamebait Summary by kobaz · 2018-01-02 08:19 · Score: 1

The article is only stating facts as we know it. And honestly/sadly/seriously Trump does not understand nor has the first clue about climate change, and that's a big reason why our country is barely doing anything about climate change at the government level.
And that is why stories like this need to be super-mainstream to highlight the fact our elected officials are fucking over the country as know we know it.

--

The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
Re:Flamebait Summary by wyHunter · 2018-01-02 09:42 · Score: 1

"At the government level" - such as what? A carbon tax? The folks in DC aren't hugely good at being careful with money - and I presume you wish to give them more?
Re:Flamebait Summary by kobaz · 2018-01-02 10:00 · Score: 1

If anything, we need to give the government less money and they need to figure out a better and more efficient way to spend it.
At the government level, it's critical we have good emissions regulations, clear air regulations, toxic substance regulations... all the protections that are current government is quickly stripping away.

--

The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
Re:Flamebait Summary by mcswell · 2018-01-06 16:23 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

LOL stopped reading after by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 06:59 · Score: 1

âoeAs climate change ushers in another year of extreme global temperaturesâoe

Free Frozen Shark Fin!!! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 07:02 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Free Frozen Shark Fin!!! by bobbied · 2018-01-02 08:33 · Score: 1

Washing up on the Atlantic Coast: Fresh frozen at the moment of death, delivered directly to your table!
I smell an opportunity!
All you need is a band saw and a total lack of ethics about food safety..... Oh, and a truck to pick up stuff with.
That smell isn't what you think...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Free Frozen Shark Fin!!! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Japanese have been eating shark fin just fine for thousands of years.
Far too often "food safety" is just "I don't remember what we did before refrigeration was invented"

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Free Frozen Shark Fin!!! by bobbied · 2018-01-02 09:52 · Score: 2

Japanese have been eating shark fin just fine for thousands of years.
Far too often "food safety" is just "I don't remember what we did before refrigeration was invented"
I remember from History class that folks died from eating bad food or illnesses which where carried in food. We've come a long way.
Refrigeration isn't all that necessary, but other means of preserving food can be inconvenient or involve large quantities of salt, sugar, or processing to keep it safe to eat.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:Usual propaganda shit by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 07:09 · Score: 1

Al Gore

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re: Usual propaganda shit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 07:09 · Score: 1

These guys seem to have said that.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/20/children-snow/

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by unrtst · 2018-01-02 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Two sides to that coin by SuperKendall · 2018-01-02 07:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

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

Re:Two sides to that coin by Strider- · 2018-01-02 07:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Lots of cooking of data

Except that recalabration of data points based on new knowledge isn't cooking data, but rather valid adjustments.
The one that many of the doubters trot out is the adjustment that was made to the global seawater temperature data sets. For decades, sea surface temperatures were measured by ships, using a temperature sensor on the seawater intake used to cool the engines. As ships crisscrossed the ocean, they would record the temperature and location as part of their normal record keeping, and these have been compiled into large data sets.
In more modern times, the sea water temperature measurement has been supplemented by data recorded by buoys, which in turn report their data automatically. The trouble is that the two data sets didn't jive. The buoy data was showing things were slightly cooler (I think on the order of 0.25 to 0.5C) than what the data from the ships showed. If you took the temperatures at face values, it would make it appear that there had been a slight global cooling of the oceans rather than an ongoing increase, the so-called "Pause."
So what happened? Well, the scientists went back and looked at how the data was collected on ships, and realized that even with properly calibrated thermometers, they would read slightly high due to factors from the ship itself as it travels through the water. The ship's hull, engine room, plumbing, etc... slightly warms the water before it hits the temperature sensor, causing them to read high.
Once these factors were calibrated out, the "pause" largely disappeared. Is this cooking the books? I don't think so, but many people claimed it was.

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:Two sides to that coin by religionofpeas · 2018-01-02 07:57 · Score: 1

For decades, sea surface temperatures were measured by ships, using a temperature sensor on the seawater intake used to cool the engines.
And older ships would use a bucket on a string to scoop up some seawater and then someone would stick a thermometer in it, and write it down.
Re:Two sides to that coin by plague911 · 2018-01-02 08:17 · Score: 2

"The real issue is, why ware we worried about warming? "
Because our whole civilization is based off of a VERY narrow band of world level weather patterns. The cost to adjust to even a moderate change is in the generations of world GDP. Chances that climate change will wipe out humanity? Low. Chances that unchecked climate change will set the quality of life back to the 1400's fairly possible.
You are ignoring this because you are apparently terrible at weighing the costs of long term major change. Don't feel bad this is a common human problem well documented by sociologists. For personal "proof", look at any major corporate change you have been part of or witnessed. I am guessing you are dealing with at least one of these incorrectly estimated costs in your day job right now
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. Just imagine the cost of needing to move the whole of cities like Miami, New Orleans, San Fransico about 3mi inland because the sea level rose a modest .5 feet. Or the cost of the agricultural band that enables the whole economy of many southern states moving about 300 miles north. Those southern states will simply have no economy in about 40 years.
Re:Two sides to that coin by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 09:31 · Score: 1

In more modern times, the sea water temperature measurement has been supplemented by data recorded by buoys,

Actually a lot of modern temperature data is from satellites. I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
Re: Two sides to that coin by mapkinase · 2018-01-02 10:58 · Score: 1

It's not cooking, that is what I want to think, but it does subtract from experimental value of the unified data collection.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Two sides to that coin by kqs · 2018-01-02 14:18 · Score: 1

I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but any scientist who "recalibrates algorithms so they look right" will be torn apart in peer review, especially in a field like climatology where people are regularly looking for reasons to discredit facts.
There have been several cases where folks have detected statistical anomalies between different sets of data, discovered a systemic error in one set plus an explanation for the error, wrote a paper describing all of this, and then defended the paper against others with competing explanations until consensus emerges. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
Re:Two sides to that coin by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 15:12 · Score: 1

Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
I'm sorry, but no. I don't know which ox of yours I've gored, but I'll correct you anyway.
When I said "a study", that meant a scientific study that included papers and publishing and the scientific process. When I said "looked right", that was a short way of saying "the result of processing the proxy measurements from the satellites matched other methods of measuring the temperature." Which is a short version of the long lecture you provided here, and if you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to write, you'd have realized that.
The point was, of course, not that data was changed, but that what we assume is correct today isn't necessarily so. Many smart people came up with the satellite proxy measurement systems and yet they were giving the wrong answers. Hmm. Sometimes that happens. Only a zealot gets bent out of shape when that kind of thing is pointed out. Hello.
Re:Two sides to that coin by kqs · 2018-01-03 05:31 · Score: 1

In that case, I apologize. A common accusation is that climate scientists "change data arbitrarily so it says whatever they want it to say". I read "didn't match what they thought it should be, recalibrated so it looked right" and thought you were repeating the common accusation. I misread.
Re: Two sides to that coin by plague911 · 2018-01-05 03:47 · Score: 1

Individual changes have no meaningful impact. The only impactful changes are on the nation state level.

When one door closes... by SuperKendall · 2018-01-02 07:30 · Score: 1

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

So much wrong... by Shotgun · 2018-01-02 07:31 · Score: 2

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

Re:So much wrong... by rogoshen1 · 2018-01-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Are you trying to work out the internal workings of the shark-mind? I mean.. they're sharks, they do what sharks do. Maybe a colder arctic current came farther south, and at the depth at which sharks do their sharkly things.
For your next mystery to solve, figure out why whales beach themselves, or mosquitoes are attracted to bug zappers. We're dying to know what you come up with! :)
Re:So much wrong... by Whorhay · 2018-01-02 08:43 · Score: 1

Water temperatures are obviously not homogeneous between layers, as you acknowledged when wondering why the sharks didn't just swim deeper. Temperatures can also vary by areas even at the same depths. For instance I would expect shallow areas like beaches with gradual slopes to be colder than water at the surface over deep water. I suppose it's possible that beaches could actually be generating colder water during this kind of weather. Since cold water is denser that warmer water it could form currents where it sinks to the bottom and flows down hill. A shark that swims near enough to shore might start to get too cold, dive to find warmer water but end up in a current of even colder water flowing away from the beach. I don't know a lot about shark biology and how rapidly they respond to changes in temperature, but we can probably agree that people should be good at this, and yet people freeze to death from hypothermia every year because they don't recognize the danger quickly enough or respond adequately.
Re:So much wrong... by avandesande · 2018-01-02 09:20 · Score: 1

I remember -30 evenings in upper New York State 25 years ago. It isn't that unusual.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:So much wrong... by kqs · 2018-01-02 14:32 · Score: 1

Occasional cold temperatures are not that unusual. Temperatures this cold for this long, covering as large an area as they are, are extremely unusual.
Re:So much wrong... by Kielistic · 2018-01-03 03:15 · Score: 1

So? "Unusual" doesn't mean global warming- it just means it's cold as hell.
Climate change denial seems to be almost entirely driven by ignorance and misunderstanding. Hard to blame them when they get the majority of their information from sources like this that are clearly just as ignorant with just as much lack of understanding.
You can't grandstand on "believe me or you're an idiot" while surrounding that statement with supremely idiotic statements. It ruins your credibility. Do you care if an idiot thinks you're dumb?

The solution is simple... by thomn8r · 2018-01-02 07:35 · Score: 1

Attach frickin' laser beams to their heads

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 07:36 · Score: 1

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.

Warming is net positive by SuperKendall · 2018-01-02 07:44 · Score: 1

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

Purposely confusing climate and weather&season by aepervius · 2018-01-02 07:50 · Score: 1

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

Huh? by Mahalalel · 2018-01-02 07:55 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Darinbob · 2018-01-02 07:58 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Darinbob · 2018-01-02 08:04 · Score: 1

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.

Surface versus depth by aepervius · 2018-01-02 08:05 · Score: 1

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

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 08:17 · Score: 1

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

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by KeensMustard · 2018-01-02 08:18 · Score: 1

What 'evidence otherwise' do you have?

Re:The real confusion by pr0fessor · 2018-01-02 08:18 · Score: 1

It's not just the hot summers it's the very mild weather in the winters that brings the overall average up.

The story is about 3 sharks and they haven't determined the cause of death yet they will know more after the autopsy. Everyone is guessing the cold but they may have got into some unreported chemical spill.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by jellomizer · 2018-01-02 08:20 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by allcoolnameswheretak · 2018-01-02 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative

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/

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 08:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by dreamchaser · 2018-01-02 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by EndlessNameless · 2018-01-02 08:32 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by EndlessNameless · 2018-01-02 08:34 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Usual propaganda shit by naubol · 2018-01-02 08:35 · Score: 2

I'm sure you're just a troll, Russian, uneducated, or all of the above and this response is a waste of time. For those modding you up, the claim is the mean temperature goes up, the standard deviation goes up, hurricane strength goes up (not so much frequency), region climates will change, and temperature volatility goes up.

If science is right, we will have dramatic shifts in temperature, we will have record cold recorded, and the average temperature will be warmer. We will also observe dramatic shifts in climate per region. We're observing all of these effects.

What makes you anti-science is not that you disagree with science, but that you don't even know what the argument is.

--
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by bondsbw · 2018-01-02 08:37 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Darinbob · 2018-01-02 08:43 · Score: 2

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.

In real units by Tomahawk · 2018-01-02 08:46 · Score: 1

6ÂF = -14.444ÂC
(For the majority of the world that doesn't understand Fossil units)

Re: In real units by Tomahawk · 2018-01-02 10:21 · Score: 2

That's an issue with Slashdot. The Â characters above are degree symbols. Slashdot doesn't encode them correctly.

Re:Same Ol' Argument...*still* proving itself true by opentunings · 2018-01-02 08:46 · Score: 1

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/

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 09:02 · Score: 1

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

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 09:08 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 09:11 · Score: 1

Why should the earth have only one climate?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 09:13 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by sheph · 2018-01-02 09:15 · Score: 1

Trends that continue for years still have fluctuations in them.

--
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.

History by huckamania · 2018-01-02 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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%.

Re:History by rahvin112 · 2018-01-02 10:48 · Score: 1

Being a scientist in one field doesn't make you an expert in another. Having an astrophysicist or mechanical engineer criticizing climate science is no better than your local plumber or electrician informing you about the dangers of jet contrails.
The height of hubris is someone far outside their area of expertise telling experts in the field how it is.
Re:History by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-02 12:57 · Score: 1

If you don't know history, then you won't know that AGW was completely discredited for the first 50 years after its invention, and took at least two further decades to gain wide acceptance.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by george14215 · 2018-01-02 09:22 · Score: 1

fucking dipshit

20 to 200 years by huckamania · 2018-01-02 09:22 · Score: 1

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.

Re:20 to 200 years by WillAffleckUW · 2018-01-02 10:07 · Score: 1

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.
It depends on which gas. Some only last a few years, some last a few decades, some last a few centuries. The most toxic have lifespans of only a few decades but cause a lot of damage (e.g. methane, aka "cow farts"), so even in small supply they measure more. A lot of the methods used to reduce acid rain also work to reduce global warming emissions; in fact, China and India switching to 1980s tech water scrubbers and other methods to reduce coal impacts can literally cut their countries emissions in half, presuming they don't grow more cows. In the US we could switch to bison for "beef" and cut emissions around 1/10th to 1/20th from the cattle industry, due to feedlots, grazing ranges, and water consumption; or we could eat beetles ground up into powder. I personally prefer bison, myself. Although a nice roasted witchety grub is yummy.
The main thing is not being confused between natural sources and human sources. Clearing forests counts as human sources, even though some of it is done after forest fires, which are natural sources. There's some variability. Of course, if we could just set off the Yellowstone Supervolcano, all this would be moot. Same goes for aiming giant asteroids at major population centers. I personally don't want those, but they would have major impacts, and cause clearing in just a few years of a lot of stuff.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Usual propaganda shit by hey! · 2018-01-02 09:23 · Score: 2

I don't think you're familiar enough with what science actually says to be anti-science.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:You *could* try a little humilty by Miles_O'Toole · 2018-01-02 09:24 · Score: 1

Clearly, I'd better keep this very, very simple.

Question 1: Why do you put ice in a drink?

Question 2: What happens to the ice?

Question 3: What happens to the drink?

Question 4: If you put your drink under a heat lamp, will the ice melt slower or faster?

No, I won't be providing anything more comprehensive. You can find that out here: https://skepticalscience.com/

And by the way, your claim that " 'climate change' was originally popularly sold as 'you are all going to fry like eggs if you don't join our political positions! "' is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by JoePete · 2018-01-02 09:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by sexconker · 2018-01-02 09:28 · Score: 1

https://slashdot.org/story/18/...

WHAT ABOUT THE SHARKS? by nnet · 2018-01-02 09:29 · Score: 1

All this blathering, and none of it about the poor, POOR, sharks!
Think of the sharks!

Re:Less Sharks = Better Beaches = Warming is Good by nnet · 2018-01-02 09:30 · Score: 1

until Crocnado hits...

You're too late... by Miles_O'Toole · 2018-01-02 09:30 · Score: 1

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 Global Warming by mi · 2018-01-02 09:35 · Score: 2

but lower than average temperatures don't disprove it.

Nothing disproves it. Because it is not falsifiable.

And therefor not science — Trump is a heretic.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Didn't say the sharks froze in the water. by hey! · 2018-01-02 09:41 · Score: 1

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.

Numerous predictions by mi · 2018-01-02 09:44 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Obfuscant · 2018-01-02 09:52 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Dragonslicer · 2018-01-02 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by JoeRobe · 2018-01-02 10:01 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by greythax · 2018-01-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Whereas people who don't understand economics but think they do are called "conservatives".

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 10:17 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by CaptainDork · 2018-01-02 10:20 · Score: 1

And yet you provide no citations.

Why is that?

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.

Re:Same Ol' Argument...*still* proving itself true by bane2571 · 2018-01-02 10:24 · Score: 1

Your source:

Doubling carbon dioxide content in the earth's atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere (assuming relative humidity is fixed) by about two degrees Celsius.

Current thinking:

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 ÂC global warming, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-rahmstorf2008-14)

Your "spot-on" report predicted TWICE as much warming as current science predicts.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by CaptainDork · 2018-01-02 10:24 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument...*still* proving itself true by bane2571 · 2018-01-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Feh, just realized I didn't read far enough, that wikipedia article quotes about 5 different possible values eventually settling on

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 ÂC to 4.5 ÂC (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 ÂC (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 ÂC (medium confidence).

So there is uncertainty still but your report is pretty accurate with current thinking. My bad.

I read all the posts ... by CaptainDork · 2018-01-02 10:30 · Score: 1

... 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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by rahvin112 · 2018-01-02 10:37 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by aussie_a · 2018-01-02 10:54 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-02 10:59 · Score: 1

Fuck you

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by ewibble · 2018-01-02 11:02 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-01-02 11:15 · Score: 1

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.

Fundamental flaw in your analysis by SuperKendall · 2018-01-02 11:21 · Score: 1

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

Re:Fundamental flaw in your analysis by plague911 · 2018-01-03 03:35 · Score: 1

While the net habitable land area may increase (I do not know for sure but it seems a reasonable theory) . The issue is the specific currently habituated lands.
It is unquestioned by reasonable minds (environmental scientists) that sea levels will be rising and thus displacing people in low laying lands. So no, people will not be able to stay where they are.
Additionally areas such a large swaths of the middle east will become unlivable because of increased temperature extremes. You may consider this a good thing for geopolitical reasons but it does not change the reality that in this region alone 10's or 100's of millions will be displaced. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/0...

Re:The real confusion by SuperKendall · 2018-01-02 11:30 · Score: 1

I agree with you about more energy causing changes in a system.

However the cod snap is not about that, it's about bog-standard shifts in the jet stream that happen all the time, pretty much every year. The amount of extra energy is minuscule compared to the titanic amount of energy in the jet stream, maybe REALLY long term we'll see it effected, but not yet - maybe to ever as the main changes to the atmosphere from warming would be greater evaporation from the ocean so more water vapor. What is happening now is normal but being highly sensationalized in some quarters.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Cyclic warming and cooling goes back 800,000 years by davide+marney · 2018-01-02 11:43 · Score: 1

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

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-02 11:51 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by HiThere · 2018-01-02 12:25 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by sittingnut · 2018-01-02 12:44 · Score: 1

It's a one-size fits all theory!

it's a non falsifiable theory - not science by definition.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Monster_user · 2018-01-02 12:52 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by segedunum · 2018-01-02 13:08 · Score: 1

Temperature trends that continue for years are climate.

Try thousands of years, at a minimum.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-02 13:55 · Score: 1

The obvious solution: fire all the /. editors.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by kqs · 2018-01-02 14:37 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by KeensMustard · 2018-01-02 14:37 · Score: 1

Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-03 08:07 · Score: 1

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? by Alamandorious · 2018-01-03 09:47 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by kaatochacha · 2018-01-03 10:16 · Score: 1

you people are always saying that...

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by kaatochacha · 2018-01-03 10:23 · Score: 1

whoooooooosh!

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by KeensMustard · 2018-01-03 11:56 · Score: 1

Did you accidentally submit before completing your post? What part of the above article constitutes 'evidence otherwise'?

whoooooooosh!

Translation: You don't know.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Hylandr · 2018-01-03 12:10 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by EmptyHead · 2018-01-03 22:45 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by EmptyHead · 2018-01-03 22:48 · Score: 1

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.

Re: Same Ol' Argument... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-01-04 06:30 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by unicornzvi · 2018-01-05 04:15 · Score: 1

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.

Re:That's funny, considering... by q_e_t · 2018-01-05 21:28 · Score: 1

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).

One doctorate in physics is not the same as another, as they are quite specialised. Hansen's doctorate is more relevant to climate science. However, just because someone is eminent in a field, doesn't mean you should take their word - the final arbiter is evidence (e.g. reduction in arctic summer sea ice), a particular case in point being Pauling. I wouldn't trust Hansen to weigh in on Dyson's area of expertise (particle physics) with any authority, though. If Dyson is right on climate change, then the behaviour of the planet's systems will prove him right in time.

Sometimes people can seemingly cross fields, but often it is a case of applying a technique in one field to data in another, so in a sense it is remaining in the same field of expertise. An example might be the use of the mathematics of local interactions from cellular automata applied to the behaviour of flocks of birds, and showing the emergent behaviour.

Re:Same Ol' Argument... by JoePete · 2018-01-10 09:43 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot Mirror

It's So Cold Outside That Sharks Are Actually Freezing to Death (vice.com)

224 of 424 comments (clear)