Slashdot Mirror
2017 Among Warmest Years On Record (npr.org)
2017 was among the warmest years on record, according to new data released by NASA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. From a report: The planet's global surface temperature last year was second warmest since 1880, NASA says. NOAA calls it the third warmest year on record, due to slight variation in the ways that they analyze temperatures. Both put 2017 behind 2016's record temperatures. And "both analyses show that the five warmest years on record have all taken place since 2010," NASA said in a press release. The trend is seen most dramatically in the Arctic, NASA says, as sea ice continues to melt.
This is #fakenews. Everybody is saying that my first year as president is the warmest on record, and next year will be even warmer! The failing NASA and NOAA are way down in the ratings!
You are welcome on my lawn.
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
...belief is opinion without evidence.
Huh? I believe all kinds of stuff, almost exclusively based on evidence. Maybe you're thinking of faith?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Climate change is real and nuclear power is the only option we have to mitigate it. There is no viable path forward that does not include the expansion of new nuclear reactors. So stop opposing the development of 4th generation reactors you fossil fuel lackeys.
Also, it's dark where I am. Therefore, it's dark everywhere.
Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
Spoken to an Australian recently? I think they'd argue about 2018 being one of the coldest on record. I assume you meant to include "so far" and "here".
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/...
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Do you LIVE in the South? If so, you should know that the summer is easily capable of making up for a few cold days here and there.
Global warming results in a higher AVERAGE temperature over the entire planet. It also adds energy to our weather systems that sometimes results in extremes of weather including cold snaps.
Uh, did you miss the story on Slashdot a week or two ago where some shitlord (in TFA) literally declared that "scientists" are now allowed to blame individual incidencts such as a hurricane, a hot day, etc. on climate change?
Global warming nutjobs like yourself constantly commit the flagrant foul of declaring any and all data points in your favor.
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
No major hurricanes since Katrina? Weather is not climate!!`1!
Finally, a hurricane? OMG! This hurricane hit New York City, our sacred fucking cow!! But it wasn't a hurricane when it did, so let's have the media trump it up as SUPERSTORM SANDY!!
Finally, a normal hurricane season? OMG! GLOBAL WARMING IS MAKING MORE HURRICANES AND MAKING THEM MORE EXTREME! SEE?!?! This weather IS climate!!!
Data doesn't match the narrative? Adjust it! Correct it! Assault anyone who questions our methods or exposes our bullshit! THEY'RE ALL RACIST SEXIST REDNECKS!
Fuck off.
the planet isn't in trouble from us, we don't have that kind of power.
You mean like how we couldn't possibly destroy the ozone layer, or couldn't possibly deplete the oceans' fish populations by 50% since the 1970's? Or couldn't possibly drive countless species of animals extinct, or couldn't possibly pollute watersheds to the point where nothing can live in them? The list goes on and on.
Wake up.
You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.
Based on whose definition? Yours?
belief
NOUN
1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2 A religious conviction.
2 Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
If I drop my pen, I know it's going to fall. I believe in gravity. The pen falling is evidence of gravity. Knowing something and believing something aren't at all exclusive. You believe everything you know.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather.
If the trend is one of increasing sliding average, then yes, this is exactly what you'd expect to observe: even cold weather in a warming climate is still lower than long-term average because the change is gradual.
Ezekiel 23:20
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
The metrics of record cold days vs. record hot days is rather convincing at this point in time and pointing towards an increasing average. The very existence of very cold days is not sufficient to make up for their decreasing frequency.
Ezekiel 23:20
Oh, yay! Another CC story, which means we're all treated to the Dunning-Kruger Effect all-stars on this site with their blistering hot takes on why there's so much doubt about the fundamental points of CC (it's real, it's caused by humans, it's here now, and it's a hell of a big problem).
Dear morons: Get a clue, and understand the following points:
1. Our understanding of the basic mechanism of CC, the greenhouse effect, goes back well over a century, e.g. Google Svante Arrhenius and see his work from the 1890s.
2. Climate scientists are not in this for the money or the journal publications or tenure or whatever. They don't want this to be true. They have families just like the rest of us, and almost every one of them is freaking out. They would be deliriously happy for someone to actually prove that CC is not a threat or could be cheaply and easily fixed.
3. Because of how much CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere and the oceans, how long it stays there, and how much we're still pumping out, there is no reasonable expectation at all that we'll escape horrific, off-the-charts expensive impacts from sea level rise. It is literally too late to save many large coastal cities around the world, barring some miraculous technology that allows us to suck many billions of tons of CO2 out of the biosphere and permanently sequester it. And that sea level rise will create many millions of refugees and untold international conflicts. One example: Bangladesh has about half the population of the US in an area the size of Iowa, most of it being very low-lying coastal area. If you think South Asia is "interesting" now, wait until 10 or 20 or 50 million people are displaced from that country with nowhere to go.
I apologize for the nasty tone of this post. I've been fighting this battle for nearly 15 years, and I've long ago run out of patience with the armchair experts who think they know more than nearly 100% of the world's experts in a highly technical field.
It's been a gradual thing, over time conservatives have lost their focus on moral values, and have shifted to winning at any cost. Of course, if all you care about is winning at any cost, then you will forgive lies as long as you think they're helping your side to win.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Sahara has significant diurnal and annual temperature variations. If humid air gets over it under some extreme conditions (which most likely involve elevated temperatures at its oceanic point of origin), why couldn't it snow?
Ezekiel 23:20
Hmm. According to this article in the Guardian, it's 100% over the period of 1951 to 2010. Why 100%? Because over that period non-anthropogenic climate factors had a net cooling effect, reducing the impact of anthropogenic warming factors. So the net effect of anthropogenic climate factors was larger than the observed warming trend.
Their source for those figures was the IPCC AR5 report.
So, at least some of the time scientists are willing to give a specific answer to the question of "How much of the warming is caused by AGW?"
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Spoken to an Australian recently? I think they'd argue about 2018 being one of the coldest on record. I assume you meant to include "so far" and "here".
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/...
Spoken to an Australian recently... because they'd tell you about the number of cities in the country with water restrictions from ongoing droughts that are nearing a decade long in some parts as well as consecutive record high summers. In fact they'd be sweltering in one right now.
How do I know... because you're speaking to an Australian right now.
You're not only speaking to an Australian, but one who understands the climate of Australia. Right now we're getting a La Nina event, which is a sub surface cooling in the Pacific (the reversal of an El Nino event) which is part of the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO. This is a welcome change as Australia has been hotter and drier because of several record El Nino events in recent years.
Next time you want to say something completely stupid about Australia... go to Australia first.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The largest factor in our solar system is almost never considered in their models -- the sun -- and therefore they are utterly pointless.
Nope, the sun is included in every single climate model. They wouldn't work without it. It's just that observations of the sun which have been quite good for over a century and continuous from satellites since 1979 don't show enough variation to account for the warming. In fact the sun's emissions have been on the low end of it's variation range since the middle 2000s yet there has been no cooling because of it.