Earth on Pace For Fourth-Warmest Year on Record, NOAA and NASA Say (weather.com)

The first nine months of 2018 was the fourth-warmest such period on Earth since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA and NASA said in their analyses this week. From a report: 2016 had the warmest January-September period, according to NOAA, followed by 2017, then 2015. NASA's analysis agreed the Earth was on pace for its fourth-warmest year. NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt said in a tweet that 2018 was "almost guaranteed" to be the fourth-warmest year in its period of record. Record or near-record warmth in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America helped propel the January-September 2018 period to the fourth-warmest on record, NOAA said.

With temperatures 3.35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.86 degrees Celsius) above average, Europe had its record-warmest first nine months of the year, exceeding the previous record set in 2014 by more than 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius). Records in the continent date to 1910. Breaking it down a bit further, Africa had its fifth-warmest year-to-date temperature on record, Asia its sixth-warmest and South America its eighth-warmest, according to NOAA. North America experienced its lowest January-September temperature departure from average since 2013. The only notable pocket of cooler-than-average temperatures in 2018's first nine months was over the far North Atlantic Ocean just south of Greenland.

Comments

Threshold

[duke_cheetah2003]

We've already crossed several thresholds on the climate, the damage we've done will take hundreds of years to undo, if it's undoable at all.

Humanity just better get used to a hotter world, cuz that ship sailed a long time ago. We're fucked.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for that ray of sunshine, bub.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

But... but... but...

There are $ 107 Trillion of proven petroleum reserves that are waiting to provide profit to shareholders...

Are they supposed to just walk away from that asset just because it will alter the Earth to the point that it probably will not support our population?

Think about the shareholders

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, fellow human intellectual. I am literally shaking with rage. How many things will we let Russia hack? First our elections, now the environment! We must resist with a blue wave!

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I just used my last mod point to validate you and bring you out of 'Troll' status. You're welcome.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously not an NPC. Just like me. And you are so brave!

Re:Threshold

[110010001000]

Baloney. People will just buy $60,000 Teslas and a personal Powerwall and the problems will be solved. There is no problem that can't be fixed.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting used to is not that hard. On average, all you have to do to maintain the same temperature is to move towards the nearest pole at the rate of 5km / year. If everyone (workers, farmers, animals) does that, then we're all fine. Since you're moving, choose a new place that is also safe from sea rise, obviously.

Re:Threshold

[Psyborgue]

The problem with that line of thinking, while true, is it's fatalistic. If we accept we're already fucked there is no reason to try to avert disaster.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

So. . . .
2016 was the hottest year
2017 was the third hottest year
2018 was the fourth hottest year

Shouldn't the headline be "Earth is cooling!"?

Re:Threshold

[Misagon]

Yes, we are heading for certain disaster but the more carbon we continue to emit the worse it is going to be.

Everything counts. Let's not give up.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, fellow human intellectual. I am literally shaking with rage. How many things will we let Russia hack? First our elections, now the environment! We must resist with a blue wave!

Yup, because the climate was perfect until 2 years ago!

Re:Threshold

[hawguy]

We've already crossed several thresholds on the climate, the damage we've done will take hundreds of years to undo, if it's undoable at all.

Humanity just better get used to a hotter world, cuz that ship sailed a long time ago. We're fucked.

I just hope that the poorer coastal countries that suffer the most damage are able to seek reparations from the wealthy countries (well, country) that knew they were contributing to climate change, but not only chose to ignore it, but flaunted it by emphasizing more carbon heavy fuels.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats got suckered. They think the fight is about whether the science is true. The real fight is about the economics of the current solution space. To Republicans the science has to be false because there is no way they will come out of the solution without being much worse off than the Democrats. Kill Republican majority jobs. Kill Republican majority transportation likely tanking large swaths of Republican majority economies. By the time the rank and file Democrats get caught up to the real fight, it will definitely be too late.

Re:Threshold

[110010001000]

Which country is that? There are a lot of countries in the EU and their emissions have been going up: https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Are you suggesting they sue the EU?

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Suckered... into working to prevent human existence from becoming a squalid hell?

yeah, those wacky Dems trying to kill an industry instead of killing tens or hundreds of millions of people

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already becoming a squalid hell because of rampant, unmitigated, 3rd world invasion on the border of every western nation.

Re:Threshold

[HornWumpus]

The actual distance (global average) is 145 km towards the pole or 150m altitude per degree C.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

More than likely suffocated and made to look like a suicide

Just ask Anthony Bourdain what happens when you ridicule the autocrat on television

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

how do I know any of you are not NPCs?

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? The steepest slope on this graph is about 0.48 degrees C per degree latitude. Using 111km / degree latitude, this gives a minimum of 230 km towards the pole per degree C. Global average will be higher than the minimum. Your figure isn't.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem is thinking that the planet is permanent. It's not and neither are humans. Nothing in the universe is permanent, things change and things cease to be. That is just how it is.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

That is called an "Appeal to Ignorance", because every Western nation NEEDS additional low-wage population to help support their elderly. It is NOT an invasion, it is an invitation due to the size and age of the post ww2 babies

Re:Threshold

[hey!]

It's clearly irreversible by now, but that doesn't mean all is lost. We still have an opportunity to affect the magnitude and rate of change, not only in the more optimistic models, but in the middle-of-the-road models as well.

A difference between +2C and +1.5C is the difference between coral reefs going extinct, and losing 70% of them. It's the difference between losing 8% of wild plant species and losing 16%. It's the difference between 9% reduction in wheat yield and a 16% reduction. It's the difference between experiencing destructive flooding every other year or every ten years.

The rate of change makes a difference too. Changes that are catastrophic when experienced over a lifetime are historical curiosities when they occur across generations. "This used to be a farming community" is a very different statement depending on whether "used to" means twenty years ago, or a hundred.

We're stuck paying the piper now, but the amount we pay him is still up for grabs, and with the time value of money the NPV of that sum could be vastly less or vastly more.

Re:Threshold

[sjames]

Only if you flunked statistics.

Re:Threshold

[mnemotronic]

thanks for that ray of sunshine, bub.

I'll come back and mod this up when I get some points.

Re:Threshold

[HornWumpus]

Looked, can't find my source, which had weird mixed units 145 km and 500 ft per degree C (my recollection).

Looked it up less than a month ago?

Gotta say that graph is very suspicious. Is the average temp at the poles -1 degree C? Also source: 'own work'?

This: https://www.physics.byu.edu/fa... puts the 90 degree range at 35+ degrees vs your sources 30.

Either way, looks like I was wrong.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't live in the US. Why would care about your republican vs democrat bull crap?

Re:Threshold

[mnemotronic]

It's already becoming a squalid hell because of rampant, unmitigated, 3rd world invasion on the border of every western nation.

I hear Canada is ready to build a wall of empty Molson's bottles along the border to keep out the Americans who want to escape the devastation and now qualify as third-worlders.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Canada is ready to build a wall of empty Molson's bottles along the border to keep out the Americans who want to escape the devastation and now qualify as third-worlders.

A border wall between Canada and USA built entirely out of Molson's bottles? So, what, 4-5 days of Canadian consumption?

Re:Threshold

[gweihir]

Indeed. And with the current messing around, denying and not doing anything, we probably will see enough warming that species survival becomes doubtful. As a group, extinction is probably what the human race deserves for extreme stupidity and shortsightedness.

Re:Threshold

[CaptainDork]

This.

While humans don't want to live in a fucking goddam fossil-fuel cesspool and should work to clean their house, the turning point is 40 years behind us.

The answer is to simply fucking MOVE but guess what?

The sweet spots are occupied already and we're not talking occupied by stone-age technology like First Peoples vs Europe.

It's gonna be a hell of a fight.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a vivid and rather vulgar imagination. What is making you so angry?

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct that the carbon footprint of converting all public restrooms to be gender neutral had a minimal carbon footprint. However, in striving to be inclusive you have wandered off to issues most people don't really care about.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you taken a course called "Statistics"? Because that would place you in quite a small minority.

Re:Threshold

[CaptainDork]

And the people already living where you're heading ...?

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

...but not if you passed pre-calculus. 2015 was cooler than 2016. 2016 could be the top of an arc, and we're on the back side 2 years running.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Better we all die than one more towelhead or spic make it to our shores.

Re:Threshold

[dryeo]

Are you a troll or stupid. You sound like the 500lb guy bragging because he lost 10lbs while the 140lb guy now weighs 145lbs. And the worst part is that you can't stop bragging about your 10lb lose while still a 490lber.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin and Trump hacked into my brain with $100k of Facebook ads causing me to ignore the billions of dollars the two campaigns spent and do Putins nefarious bidding!!!

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Lmao! Always sooooo funny when an anonymous person using a fake name such as Tesin tries to de-legitimize other anonymous people... FOR ALSO BEING ANONYMOUS!!

You we-hate-AC types are so stupid you are impervious to your own hypocrisy.

Re:Threshold

[rtb61]

Climate change might cause some problems but it's the weather extreme's that'll kill you. More energy in the system, more weather extremes, can't run from them much. So yeah, you can move 3m above current sea levels but the category 6 hurricane will still totally fuck you up.

Just to make stuff even more fun, moving masses around the planet, taking ice from one place and depositing another as water, well that alters plate tectonics, so a relative stable system gets a little more unstable, so the big ones, well toss a coin, the odds of when will change, maybe latter, maybe sooner, but interesting things of one variant of another will occur.

Then you have the fun of weather not climate but extreme weather, up north releasing a shit bucket ton of methane setting of a spiral of rapid warming and melting, 100 years predicated by climate change occurring in 1 year, caused by weather.

Climate is the overall average change over time and has very little to do with weather extremes, tricky stuff that but more energy in the system, the greater the extremes will be, you can run but you can not hide, ain't no place safe from this idiocy.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

More than likely suffocated and made to look like a suicide

Just ask Anthony Bourdain what happens when you ridicule the autocrat on television

Ask Jamal Khashoggi

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought Trump would bring us to #1.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

A change in the environment usually affects the evolutionary path of life in that environment. Evolution due to climate change is already happening. Many many people have been killed by extreme weather events. Others move to areas that are safe and thrive passing on their genes. As long as climate change is slow, the species will adapt. it's unfortunate we've damaged the planet but that's the Darwinian result. As long as we can adapt there is no crisis from a species level point of view, but that being said there is a point of no return. We are not fucked yet but the end for many of us may be coming quickly. We need to protect the environment.

Re:Threshold

[Plus1Entropy]

Your timeline is too small. 2016-2018 is still higher than everything before it, thus the trend is still upwards.

Re:Threshold

[Hognoxious]

Manifest domain. Or eminent destiny. Something like that.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

News for nerds, talkin bout dicks

Re: Threshold

[MachineShedFred]

Because this is a global problem that Republicans are effectively blocking solutions to, in one of the few nations with the resources and capabilities to make the difference between total global catastrophe and narrowly averting it?

Don't be smug, in this case it also makes you look stupid.

Re: Threshold

[jd]

Plenty of things are permanent. Energy and information cannot be created or destroyed, and that's essentially everything.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Information can indeed be created, it just increases entropy elsewhere. And it can decay. And then there is E=mc**2.

Re:Threshold

[Sique]

So it is as it ever was, because there never was a time in known history when no migration happened.

The U.S. is the prime example for a nation made up of people who themselves or their ancestors have flown from religiously intolerant, civil war ridden, feudal countries, seeking to escape enslavement and hunger crisis.

But suddenly, they deny the same priviledges they enjoyed to other people. I'm for the deportation of all U.S. immigrants and their locally born offspring back to the cesshole countries they and their ancestors came from.

Re:Threshold

[Khashishi]

Unless there's some crazy positive feedback dynamics going on, moderately hotter temperature isn't gonna destroy civilization. Some coastal cities will have to be abandoned, and some farm schedules will have to be reworked. Bangladesh will go the way of Atlantis, but humanity will survive.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you got any statistical test to prove that? The variation seems quite in the range of thing due to yearly weather variation. The test may even conclude that the emission are going down but the confounding factor (weather fluctuation) is hiding this fact.

Re:Threshold

[mapkinase]

I'd say more than that. The real fight is about sanity. Are we going to be driven to the future by the mood of the crowd and people who catch positive feedback loops from it (politicians)?

Or are we going to be driven by scientists? Gutenberg revolution (that started Eternal September) never ended.

The result is more and more abilities for charlatans to manipulate people our of their minds.

Re: Threshold

[Tesen]

Lmao! Always sooooo funny when an anonymous person using a fake name such as Tesin tries to de-legitimize other anonymous people... FOR ALSO BEING ANONYMOUS!!

You we-hate-AC types are so stupid you are impervious to your own hypocrisy.

Ah yes, my pseudonym is at least tied to an enduring account - whereas you post from as an AC, complaining about my apparent "hypocrisy". Also it is Tesen, not Tesin.

Re: Threshold

[Tesen]

News for nerds, talkin bout dicks

And apparently shooting people in the head... but hey, let's ignore that part eh?

Re: Threshold

[Tesen]

You have a vivid and rather vulgar imagination. What is making you so angry?

Angry? Not at all, mocking basement dwellers like you I find entertaining. Now go dribble in to a sock.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Still colder than the middle ages... Back then the climate change was due to donkey farts.

Re:Threshold

[AmiMoJo]

Graph of EU emissions since 1990: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/...

As you can see the recent small increase is a correction from the large drop due to the financial crisis. You have used the classic climate change skeptic technique of cherry picking years to make your point.

Of course we need to keep pushing hard, but don't use this as an excuse for not acting or a target for your what-about-ism, and don't pretend great efforts are not being made.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

We're fucked.

No we're not, humans exist in areas today that are hotter than the average temperatures and we'll be just fine tomorrow.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

How did all you 4chan retards learn to even use a keyboard.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

"seeking to escape enslavement", mmmmmmm.

Re:Threshold

[Rolgar]

You'd think they'd love to have all of the American liberals that are threatening to flee, so shore up their liberal majority.

Re:Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Total hyperbole.

coral reefs going extinct, and losing 70% of them

It has already been shown they won't go extinct, they've just gone deeper where the water is cooler. It is called adaptation and already shown to be happening.

I'd like to see citations for the rest of your numbers considering the fact that the Earth was previously much hotter than even this modest increase and plant and animal life thrived. Ok, maybe a few plant species may die out, something else will take their place. That has been happening on this planet since the very first plant shoot appeared in the mud and the pattern will continue long after humans are gone.

Re: Threshold

[MachineShedFred]

Violence is a great response to conflicting ideas. Plus, being a tough guy on the Internet definitely helps your argument, and won't get you mocked at all.

Never post here again.

Re:Threshold

[CaptainDork]

Definition: Manifest domain: War.

Definition: Eminent destiny: War.

CaptainDork's 17th Corollary: For every motherfucker out there moving to a land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny, there's already a motherfucker on that land claiming manifest domain and eminent destiny.

Re: Threshold

[Tesen]

Violence is a great response to conflicting ideas. Plus, being a tough guy on the Internet definitely helps your argument, and won't get you mocked at all.

Never post here again.

At least there is one person here that gets it ;)

Re:Threshold

[q_e_t]

The Medieval Warm Period was warm relative to the periods adjacent to it, but was very slightly cooler than the 1950-80 average.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect people displaced by automation will fill the gap.

Re: Threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just in the USA. In the UK there's a significant cross over between Brexiteers and climate science denialists.

It will change back

[PopeRatzo]

Don't laugh. It could happen, according to our big, wet, President. We just have to wait it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

And we know for sure that he knows what he's talking about, because he says he has a "natural instinct for science".

https://www.politico.com/story...

"You have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump," the president said. "And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

I don't know about the rest of you, but that's good enough for me.

Re: It will change back

[Anonymous Coward]

He's never talked to em, but his genes are the same. So our president must be a scientist right?

Re:It will change back

[Anonymous Coward]

He's smart enough to cheat the IRS out of due taxes, smart enough to cheat his contractors out of their wages, and smart enough to cheat Republicans out of having any integrity or respectability en masse.

Manipulating scientific consensus among his backwards adherents is probably equally a cakewalk for a dishonest cunt master of ceremonies like Trump. "Atoms? Why don't we just call them funballs? Yeah? It's settled then, funballs."

Re:It will change back

[olsmeister]

Cheating and being smart are not necessarily related attributes.

Re:It will change back

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't laugh. It could happen, according to our big, wet, President. We just have to wait it out.

Damn skippy, bro! It's so obvious, even the Chinese admit that he has a very, very large, a-brain!

Re:It will change back

[Misagon]

Yes, wait it out for 50 thousand years until the next ice age starts to happen.

If humanity still exists by then.

Re:It will change back

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent said "...smart enough...".

Re:It will change back

[hey!]

When you cheat taxes you rely on the finance guy you hire to do the smart stuff. Or in the case of Donald Trump, you rely on the guy Fred Trump hired.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?

Re:Wait...

[AlwinBarni]

So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?

No, it doesn't. From the article: January-September period for years 2015,2016,2017 and 2018 are four the warmest since data started to be recorded (1880).
2018 was not the warmest of the four, to better understand it draw a sinusoidal line at lets say 45 degree angle, you will see the difference between long term trend and short term fluctuations.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU Nerd.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU!

Get a gold star.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was inevitable given our current exodus from an Ice Age and in addition, the "scientists" modifying older records to make them cooler and artificially showing a greater increase.

Re:Wait...

[Dragonslicer]

So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?

If by "now" you mean the period of time between last year and this year, sure.

But climate is naturally noisy. Even without any climate change, average temperature isn't the same from year to year; in roughly half of all years, the average temperature will be lower than the year before, and in the other half it will be higher than the year before. If climate change adds a small increase to every year, then you end up with, for example, 75% of all years with an increase and 25% with a decrease. In such a scenario, the overall trend is increasing, even if there's a decrease pretty often.

Here are some numbers to illustrate. This is a list of all integers between -10 and 10 (generated by using random.shuffle in Python):

-10, 5, 7, -2, 4, 8, 10, 3, -1, -4, 2, -6, -7, -3, -8, 9, 0, 6, -9, 1, -5

The sum of these integers is 0, i.e. no total change over time. Now add 2 to each of those numbers:

-8, 7, 9, 0, 6, 10, 12, 5, 1, -2, 4, -4, -5, -1, -6, 11, 2, 8, -7, 3, -3

There are still 8 negative numbers out of 21 numbers total, but the net change is +42, more than 4 times the largest single increase.

Re: Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

The earth was gradually cooling over a period of 8000 years up until about 1850. We are not just emerging from an ice age.

Re:Wait...

[AlwinBarni]

It was inevitable given our current exodus from an Ice Age and in addition ...

Quite the opposite, we're suppose to go into a mini ice-age right now, and the average temperature trend instead of going down is going up.

... the "scientists" modifying older records ...

Measuring temperature is one of the simplest measurement there is, you can do it by yourself if you really wanted to know.

"Average" global temperature means taking measurements (temperature) across the globe at various points several times per day and then calculating the average.

These measurement have been done by countless number of people in many (sometimes not very friendly) countries, later exchanged between the scientific organizations (yes, scientists mostly exchange data - even when they governments do not like each other much), so there are multiple copies of the measurements across decades stored in many countries across the globe.

Additionally scientist in many countries (unlike in the US) are payed fix salaries based on teaching students, having guaranteed time for research, they criticize each other a lot - as this peer criticism is the very foundation of the scientific methodology. I am yet to hear about a scientist supporting some faked data from a competitive laboratory not to mention country. Your suggestion is preposterous and I hope you will realize it and revise your sources.

Contrary to common believes, Earth climate is a complicated system, and despite that everybody can see the sky and feel the wind, not everybody is a specialist in forecasting the weather - it requires data and computational power, not to mention knowledge. My question, if some friendly radio host started to advise you in your very specialty based on some brief readings online - what would you think about it?

Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

If the world was truly in some kind of runaway global warming dealie, this would be the WARMEST year on record.

The fact that it's the 4th warmest means we are making progress and the problem is not intensifying - nay, it is healing. Plus, keep in mind that records don't go back that long, at least not in the geological or climatological grand scheme of things. Certainly there have been many times in the past where it has been much, much warmer than at present.

Also, keep in mind that we are currently in an interglacial and it is basically inevitable that the climate will become much, much cooler in the future regardless of what we do or do not do.

So, basically, sit back, relax, and don't worry your head off about things that really don't matter or can't be avoided. Life is too short for that.

Re:Progress

[AlwinBarni]

If the world was truly in some kind of runaway global warming dealie, this would be the WARMEST year on record. ...

No, it doesn't. As the answer to another "AC", to understand difference between long term and short term changes draw a sinusoidal curve at e.g. 45 degrees angle. Then look at the global average temperatures plot available online, compare it with CO2 levels.

As a bonus you can learn something about how the data are acquired, and how scientists forecast weather in short term and long term, also other things. Take yourself out of your comfort place and when questioning - first question yourself.

Re:Progress

[alvinrod]

The fact that it's the 4th warmest means we are making progress and the problem is not intensifying - nay, it is healing.

That's a little shortsighted. It's a bit like saying that because an alcoholic hasn't had a drink in the last week that they're well on their way to being cured.

Re:Progress

[hey!]

That's one spectacularly weak straw man. I wonder if you can really understand that little about statistics or even basic weather.

It's like claiming that in order for a team to improve its record, it has to win every single game. It's normal even for winning teams to have streaks one way or the other.

In the case of climate "streaks" are called "weather", and the 800 pound gorilla of inter-year variation is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which send the entire planet's temperature careening back and forth by 2/10 of a degree one way or the other (against the projected 2 degree/century, .02 degree background rise).

Now you can reduce the ENSO transients on the data by taking a moving average -- this in effect creates a low pass filter. Since ENSO events frequently span adjacent years, a five year moving average does the trick. If you do that, since 1980 the moving average has increased 26/37 times, something that has about a 1% of happening the underlying trend was just flipping a coin.

Re:Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you can reduce the ENSO transients on the data by taking a moving average -- this in effect creates a low pass filter. Since ENSO events frequently span adjacent years, a five year moving average does the trick. If you do that, since 1980 the moving average has increased 26/37 times, something that has about a 1% of happening the underlying trend was just flipping a coin.

I have to admit I didn't believe your maths so I wrote some code to check and it turns out closer to 0.015%.

Re:Progress

[angel'o'sphere]

and the 800 pound gorilla of inter-year variation is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which send the entire planet's temperature careening back and forth by 2/10 of a degree one way or the other (against the projected 2 degree/century, .02 degree background rise).
No, it does not.
El Niño and La Nina only shuffle the warm and cold patches on the planet around. The average temperature is just the same.

Re: Progress

[jd]

No. Just... no.

For further explanation of why, I suggest reading Gleik's Chaos and looking up papers by Edward Lorenz. Even looking up

Climate isn't a one-dimensional function, it is a series of trillions of non-linear feedback loops with non-linear changes to components.

That is why increase is turbulent, not smooth.

Re:Progress

[religionofpeas]

ENSO moves heat between atmosphere and ocean, so it influences average temperature of the surface air which is what we usually talk about when discussing temperature.

Re:Progress

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes it does.
But both phenonema have the exact same effect: only at different places on the earth. While El Nino makes is cold her and warm there, La Nina just reverses that.
So: the average temperature as far as the two ENSO extremes are concerned: are the same.

E.g. look at the maps here: https://www.climate.gov/enso
The BoM used to have good maps, but they reworked the website so I don't find them right now, but here is a start: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...

I blame plastic straws

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of them and the ocean temperatures will drop causing the planetary temps to drop.

The Chinese...

[Anonymous Coward]

must be ramping up their hoax bigtime!

USA CO2 declining

[Anonymous Coward]

India and China -building thousands of coal plants and CO2 emissions increasing.

The USA, CO2 emissions declining again in the latest numbers from the EPA.

        U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.7 percent from 2016 levels, according to the EPA.
        Emissions on a per-capita basis hit a 67-year low last year, federal data shows, and supporters are touting EPA’s data as proof Trump’s agenda is working.
        EPA’s new data comes on news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/17/us-co2-emissions-fall-under-trump-while-the-world-increases-maga/#comment-2495877

Re:USA CO2 declining

[110010001000]

Too bad the EU emissions are going up: https://www.reuters.com/articl...

Re:USA CO2 declining

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar by use of selective data.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[110010001000]

Who is lying? Reuters? EU emissions went up in 2017 and will again in 2018. It is in the article.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[Anonymous Coward]

You. Are. Lying. By. Cherry. Picking. Data. Go fuck yourself, liar.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[110010001000]

I did? I didn't write the article. Wasn't me.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[angel'o'sphere]

The EU emissions aren "going up", asshole.
There was a 1.3% fluke in 2017 versus 2016 ... that is not a trend. And if you did not pay attention: the winter 2016/2017 was unusually hard. Obviously people heated more than the years before.

So if you want to make a smart argument it would be: "The EU did not reduce CO2 emissions by itself so much as people might believe, but benefitted from extremely mild winters in the previous years. The mild winters contributed quite a lot to the CO2 reduction efforts".

But that is not what you want to write, you want to be an asshole instead ... good luck with that.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[angel'o'sphere]

It is not in the article that they will again go up in 2018 ... and most likely they will drop by a record mark ... because the summer brought lots of wind and solar power and the winter will most likely be very mild.

Re:USA CO2 declining

[Anonymous Coward]

So the EU will see lower CO2 output because of global warming?

What else would bring such wind and sun in sumer and mild winters?

Wrong.

[Gravis Zero]

This can actually be undone because we have the technology. However, it requires people to actually believe it's real, care and vote for leaders who care. There are far too many people who simply don't believe/care until it personally affects them. For proof of this, you need look no further than the newspaper.

In North Carolina, hurricanes did what scientists could not: Convince Republicans that climate change is real

How we turn this around is actually charge corporations money to pollute and use that money to clean up the pollution. We can build the machines needed to remove CO2 from the air and the solar panels need to power them but they need to be paid for. Pushing this policy globally would make it easy to undo the atmospheric damage we've already done.

Re:Wrong.

[ole_timer]

I live in Alaska - this is good news!

Re:Wrong.

[duke_cheetah2003]

This can actually be undone because we have the technology.

I'm sorry, I do enjoy your optimism, but it's fantasy. We do not have the technology to remove the billions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere. We are not even slowing down on pumping ever more CO2 out. And you think we're going to be able to remove it? We can't even curtail the emissions we have now. Quite the opposite, ever since Al Gore's movie, we've done nothing. We're just making it increasingly worse. We knew about this in the late 60's early 70's. We've done nothing. What makes you so optimistic that we're suddenly going to do something? Setting aside the fact, it's waaaay too late in the game.

Green energy is fine and dandy, I'm all for it. But it's not going to do jack about the CO2 ALREADY in the atmo. Billions of tons of it. Not going to change our diesel ships and trucks. Coal is still a big deal for energy generating plants. Electric cars and such, it's a step sideways, not forward. The energy we're pumping into these electric cars is still mostly coming from dirty power generation.

Everyone is too afraid of the actual solution: Nuclear power. Fine.. be afraid, but then you have to accept the consequences of the supposedly safer coal, oil and gas plants.

Fantasy is all this is. Accept that we've triggered some unstoppable consequences and adapt. Or die.

Re:Wrong.

[Gravis Zero]

We do not have the technology to remove the billions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere.

Sure we do, it's just going to take a million of CO2 capture plants and several decades.

Quite the opposite, ever since Al Gore's movie, we've done nothing. We're just making it increasingly worse. We knew about this in the late 60's early 70's. We've done nothing. What makes you so optimistic that we're suddenly going to do something?

The noose is tightening and people are beginning to feel it.
“Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources.”

Not going to change our diesel ships and trucks. Coal is still a big deal for energy generating plants. Electric cars and such, it's a step sideways, not forward. The energy we're pumping into these electric cars is still mostly coming from dirty power generation.

Of course, there's been no incentive to even bother not polluting. When that changes, everything will change with it.

Everyone is too afraid of the actual solution: Nuclear power.

Not at all. You forget that, stars are giant nuclear reactors. U238 breeder reactors are a very expensive form of nuclear power that are a dual purpose technology. We need to invest in developing liquid fluoride thorium reactors as once developed they can be installed in nations with even the most malicious intent and not be a threat as they do not create isotopes ad infinitium.

Fantasy is all this is. Accept that we've triggered some unstoppable consequences and adapt. Or die.

Defeatism does nothing to address the issue. The only adaptation that will suffice is fixing the atmosphere.

Re:Wrong.

[sjames]

It's all fun and games till the kids get mauled by a trash bear.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We do not have the technology to remove the billions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere"

Yes we do. It's called a tree. Let's start by knocking your house down and putting a few trees there.

Re:Wrong.

[ole_timer]

or run over by a drunk or a speeder in the city where you are...you're dead either way.

Re: Wrong.

[hey!]

Here's the bad news: "global warming" doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere, all the time. It means that if you average the temperature over all the places on Earth, over the course of a year, that that number comes out very slightly higher.

In a "warmer" globe, there's a high probability you will get colder in the winter. Much, much colder. That's because the weather patterns that keep extremely cold confined to the Arctic break down. So while you're freezing your ass off in December or January, the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland will be hosting the warmer air mass that would normally be where you live.

And if you average those out, it's for practical purposes a wash. Except nobody is experiencing the "average", everyone gets extremes, but different ones.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a nerd and don't belong here. You always chime in on the most mainstream topics with your vanilla mainstream leftism. Please go away and leave us nerds alone.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Alaska - this is good news!

You never miss your permafrost till your well runs brown.

Re:Wrong.

[CaptainDork]

One can fantasize. Me?

I'm thinking of the boiled frog.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you so optimistic that we're suddenly going to do something?

I'm not the previous poster, but I'm optimistic that something can be done as well. Why you ask?

Because I (and most people I reckon) cannot function in any other way. Optimism keeps us going, makes life worth living. Being miserable just sucks. Call it willful delusion, but I'm hopeful that humans, being the adaptable sort we are, will find a way out of disaster (or at least make things manageable). We're quite good when push comes to shove, it just hasn't really reached the 'shove' part yet.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are on the wrong site. You want vox or the NYT/msnbc message boards or dailykos.

Go away.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as government-run lotteries are a tax on those who can't math, Collectivism in its many flavors is the ideology of those who never historied.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/08/un-issues-yet-another-climate-tipping-point-earth-given-only-12-more-years-to-make-unprecedented-changes-in-all-aspects-of-society/

Re:Wrong.

[CaptainDork]

I like the points you make except about liquid fluoride thorium reactors.

The technology is embryonic and a lot of work remains to work out all the real issues plus the parts that are simply hypotheses.

I'm not a Debbie Downer by nature, but I'm comfortable that, for the US, LFTR will go the way of Waxahachie.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat shit and die faggot

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live on the prairie. There are no trees here.

Re:Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

We do not have the technology to remove the billions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere.
Of course we have the technology.

Do we have the money, the time to install it on big scale? Probably not.

No idea why people mix up "technology" with "practically".

Re:Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

installed in nations with even the most malicious intent and not be a threat as they do not create isotopes ad infinitium.
Of course they do ... or do you think they magically vanish just because we use Thorium instead of Uranium?

Re: Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

In a "warmer" globe, there's a high probability you will get colder in the winter.
That is bollocks. It is actually the winters that are super warm and not the summers.
Summer temperature did not really change recent decades. The winter temperatures are up by 20C ... not 2C ... 20C, partly even more.
But as soon as the great lakes have a winter that is a bit cold, but would still be considered pretty warm, 50 years ago: people panic!! Oh! There is no warming, look how cold it is!!

Re:Wrong.

[Gravis Zero]

I never claimed it would be easy of fast to turn things around and sure, maybe LFTR will be just another unfulfilled dream but wind and solar are very real and quite extant. The current problem for them is being able to generate enough batteries to meet our needs. However, we are quickly improving our battery technology and large scale production lines are being built.

I have nothing against U238 breeder reactors per se but the fact that it's a dual use technology means they aren't a practical global solution. Nuclear waste isn't nice either but it's easy to contain in one place until we develop the tech to properly render it inert. Frankly, I think such reactors are more effort than they are worth considering we have real alternatives. On top of that, when causing pollution equals paying money, the paradigm shift will begin in the energy markets which will collapse coal energy market entirely on day one because it will have no future.

Honestly, the hardest part of solving this problem isn't technical, it's getting people to acknowledge it's a problem.

Re:Wrong.

[religionofpeas]

Sure we do, it's just going to take a million of CO2 capture plants and several decades.

Except that plants need good soil with good temperature, water and nutrients. The places on Earth that are suitable, are already full of crops.

Re:Wrong.

[Gravis Zero]

Seems like you don't know the difference between a breeder and burner reactor. Go read Wikipedia.

Re: Wrong.

[jd]

No, warmer summers and colder winters are exactly what Britain experience now.

Re: Wrong.

[jd]

If we reforested the globe to 2000BC levels, we'd improve the situation but not as fast as the fossil fuel industry is worsening it.

We'd also stir up a lot of violent conflicts, Amazonian loggers are already prone to mass murder - rob them of their jobs, homes and wealth and they're likely to cause trouble.

So, yes, there's potential remedies, but far too many violent/powerful interests in favour of no remedy to actually use them.

You have to solve people first and nobody has done that.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you will find there is a vanishingly small amount of people that think like that. But that's ok, blame "the other guys" while you take vacations in far flung places by way of jet aircraft and order shit made in China from middle-eastern oil and shipped across the globe from Amazon.com by yet more aircraft flying on fuel refined from yet more mideast oil..

Hypocrit.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Winter temperatures are not up by 20C in typical Western civilisation latitudes. Where do you come up with this rubbish? In the UK 40 years ago the average temperature over winter was pretty much 0. It isn't now 20C, as that would be summer.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn Brits can't even get their global warming right!

Re: Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

No it is not.
Brittanny has like the rest of Europe warm sommers and super warm winters.

A storm with rain != cold.

Re:Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually I do, and that has both nothing to do with the topic.

Perhaps you should (re-)start reading about the basic concepts of a fission reactor if you think the difference between a breeder and a "burner" (no one calls them that btw.) is relevant.

Re: Wrong.

[houghi]

Not sure about the UK, but colder winters are n ot so much a thing. There is sometimes a week of cold. Yet I remember longer periods of snow in Belgium. That is a long time ago.

We just had 25C in Belgium this week.

Re: Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States has more tree coverage today then it did when the pilgrims arrived because the logging industry continually plants new trees so they stay in business.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how people fail to understand how impractical solar power is?

Solar power is expensive, unreliable, takes far more material and is not all that safe compared to other options, and while the technology is relatively mature we lack the industrial capacity to deploy it quickly enough to have any significant reductions in co2 levels. That's assuming it reduces co2 all that much, which is now becoming suspect with the increasing concern on recycling costs.

No nation will reduce their co2 in the long run without nuclear power. Possible exceptions for winning the geological lottery with access to gobs of hydro power.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, look at all the butthurt losers with mod points attacking this guy for telling the truth. So sad!

Re:Wrong.

[CaptainDork]

We agree.

You hit the real mark here:

... the hardest part of solving this problem isn't technical, it's getting people to acknowledge it's a problem.

Well said.

Re: Wrong.

[hey!]

If you think winter temperatures are up by 20C, I'd like to know where you get that data from.

Anthropogenic warming is caused by solar forcing, which is weakest in whatever hemisphere is currently experiencing winter.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you pinpointed the problem, people believing it's real.
In my country, Romania, most of the people are still burning all the leafs and the twigs gathered from their backyard. And let me tell you something, I've tried to tell them several times that is not something to do for several reasons, one of them being polluting the air... They looked at me like I was a crazy person... Already all my neighbours think I'm a bit crazy, so IMO we are doomed, it's not possible to educate the people, only, as you were saying, they will wake up only when the shit will hit the fan, however, it'll be too late.

Re: Wrong.

[angel'o'sphere]

If you think winter temperatures are up by 20C, I'd like to know where you get that data from.
By living there? Hello? Actually the peak up is 50C from -30C to +23C.

Anthropogenic warming is caused by solar forcing
You seem to mix up what the terms "anthropogenic" and "solar" mean ..

which is weakest in whatever hemisphere is currently experiencing winter.
If your "solar" would be true, it would nevertheless be nonsense as it is completely unrelated to the hemisphere ... idiot.

You would think

[thegarbz]

Now that Trump is in power he can stop his own government departments spreading fake news about the global warming hoax started by Jhina

I can hear the conservatives now...

[DalM]

"See, only the forth warmest year. It hasn't warmed since 2016. This global warming nonsense is over. I'm going to go molest some brown children in cages now."

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[hey!]

Oh, we'll be hearing about the "pause since 2016", like the so-called pause after 1998. 2016 was, like 1998, a massive outlier, which means they'll be using it for their basis of comparison.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give the useful idiots at Fox News any ideas.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Take a look at the temp records and you'll see it was pretty flat from ~2001 to ~2014 as well. And if you look at the graph at the bottom of the post you'll see GISS data showing the warming from 1970 to 2000 was not unique (same thing happened ~1915 to ~1945). And that GISS' own data shows essentially no trend from ~1990 to the present. And the models show poor correlation with the early rise - and the current pause.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[Anonymous Coward]

What an odd source to cite?! It's almost as if you want deliberately to undermine your own argument.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Why, is the data presented there bad? It's straight from GISS, RSS, HadCRUT and more. I know with many people the messenger is more important than the message, but if you're open-minded enough to accept data you didn't personally capture, then why not look at the graphs? Data is data - it has no bias, unless it's "adjusted" (faked) to create a bias.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[hey!]

Your eyeball is being misled by ENSO events, which obscure the underlying trend. Yes, *what is physically happening* is actually important, not just what your eyeballs tell you. You can smooth out the weather events by taking a moving average.

Oh, and why we're at it, why leave out 1940-1970, during which the globe actually cooled on the instrumental record. Here's a hint about why you don't want to go there: what physically happened actually matters.

Re: I can hear the conservatives now...

[jd]

Except that no climate scientists has ever used faked data. Only the critics have.

Re: I can hear the conservatives now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mann's Hockey Stick graph ignoring Medieval Warm Period.

Fake Science. Case closed.

Re: I can hear the conservatives now...

[LynnwoodRooster]

In this case - the post is the same data as used by the climate scientists - and it shows the pause.

Re: I can hear the conservatives now...

[jd]

The hockey stick graph was around before Mann was born.

And, no, it doesn't ignore it.

Re:I can hear the conservatives now...

[q_e_t]

No, it's not flat 2001-2016. Even eyeballing, it's not flat. If you do regression on the period 1970-2000 and 1970-2016 the trend continues upwards, and doesn't change by very much. There are statistical techniques you can use to determine if there was an inflection point in 2001: there was not. And this is even without the corrections suggested by Cowtan and Way showing that polar warming was underestimated. Add that in and the trend doesn't change, and the rate of change barely even changes.

It's easy to make the current year ...

[Jerry]

the "hottest on record". All you have to do is edit the historical record to make it so, and that is exactly what they've been doing. They started by first throwing out the actual thermometer records and replaced them with "synthetic" records, i.e., made up out of thin air. That got them the rising part of the hockey stick. Then they began editing the historical records to flatten out the handle of the stick.

Even back in 2009 & 2011 you could read them plotting, planning and doing the cooking in the CRU emails.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how much does the oil and gas industry pay these days to worthless little shitfucks like you to spread their propaganda and lies on the internet ?

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is marked troll but I was astounded to discover the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have been "homogenizing" the historical temperature records.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an interesting read...

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and if you bother to look into it, it addresses known problems with instrument accuracy arising from, for example, isues arising from local location. On balance, the scientists perspective seems to be that greater precision is worth the price of ill-informed or wilfully ignorant comments.

Its one of the themes of the history of good science.

Mind you, there is a farce in Australian science funding. CSIRO is now a hollow shell and $450m was porkbarelled to a boutique Barrier Reef research institute. Our government has no science policy ideas.

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its one of the themes of the history of good science.

So is being ridiculed, ignored, and attacked until people realize decades or centuries later that they're right. Unfortunately, this time, we don't have decades or centuries.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[hey!]

No, this is what you've been *told* that they've done.

The ClimateGate thing was the University of East Anglesey dealing with a problematic proxy dataset. It has no effect on the global instrumental record, just on estimates of temperatures in the pre-industrial era.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[LynnwoodRooster]

A comparison of RSS 3.3 and 4.0, showing a 50% increase starting in 2000. Why the big adjustment? This isn't propaganda - this is a direct plot of the actual RSS data with two different adjustments - and the later adjustment increasing the temperature increase by 50%.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[LynnwoodRooster]

GISS data V3.3 to V4.0. A rather significant change starting in 2000, wouldn't you say? Given improvements in measurements and instruments, I'd expect the adjustments to be pre-1980, not post-2000.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[hey!]

Both versions show a robust warming effect, so even though the difference is mathematically significant, it's not practically so. Also note the high degree of correlation between versions.

The reason for the revising an aggregate data set is to correct systematic errors in aggregation, and you can read about the reasons in the scientific literature. Some of the adjustments are due to better calibration of remote sensing readings. Others are due to accounting for instrument biases -- for example one change was accounting for the fact that ships consistently give higher readings than buoys because of waste heat from the ship.

Revising an estimation based on additional information isn't some kind of dodgy practice, as long as you document why and how much. If you have a problem with the adjustments (other than the result) it's all there for you to contest.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[LynnwoodRooster]

One has us under the new-magical 1.5 deg C over the next century; the other has us well over. And which is correct?

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[hey!]

Like I said, read the paper; everything's there. Calling the conclusions "magical" isn't an argument, it's just posturing when you haven't done the work.

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[LynnwoodRooster]

No it's not there. There is no talk about tolerance bands, adjustments are not described, it's just "this is the 4th warmest". It's a leap of faith, not a scientific paper.

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[jd]

When did they edit this data, exactly?

The hokey stick graph has been around since the 60s.

Global warming has been described by science since 1890.

So when did the data get faked?

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

NOAA publishes the tolerance bands. You can go and read about it. It's not difficult. Try Gavin Schmidt's site at realclimate.com.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, no mention of 1940s how hot it was back then. Ever wonder why they start reporting at 1979? Could it be that it was warmer before 1979??? No, never, no way. The grapes of wrath cows beg to be herd!

Re: It's easy to make the current year ...

[hey!]

I am referring to the paper which explains the changes in the dataset. It's easy to find.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[q_e_t]

The reason is that polar warming and be underestimated. There is satellite data for the poles but few direct measurements. They had made an assumption about the relationship between direct and satellite measurements that was incorrect. It turned out that warming at the poles was greater than they had been indicating. This is what happens in science - errors get corrected.

Re:It's easy to make the current year ...

[q_e_t]

The 1940s were cold, relatively speaking. Data back to the 19th century is published. Anomalies have to be published relative to a baseline, and the period picked in the past was essentially the period just passed that everyone remembered so people had an instinctive reference point. However, that baseline has simply become the standard.

Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when they methodically lower past temperatures in the record.

Re:Don't Worry

[Crashmarik]

This is what happens when they methodically lower past temperatures in the record.

https://thsresearch.files.word...

It really is amazing that the older the temperature record the more likely it is to be adjusted down, to the point the authors of that paper said "The revised record is totally inconsistent with published temperature patterns"

Re:Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when they methodically lower past temperatures in the record.

https://thsresearch.files.word...

It really is amazing that the older the temperature record the more likely it is to be adjusted down, to the point the authors of that paper said "The revised record is totally inconsistent with published temperature patterns"

Richard Muller and his team at BEST did a complete reexamination of all available temperature data and proxies and while they didn't agree with some of the methods of a handful of climatologists, the overall trends and conclusions hold.
Global warming is real and humans play a significant role in the temp increase.
Even Patrick Michaels told the denier crowd at conference some years back to "get over it"

Re: Don't Worry

[jd]

It's really is amazing people believe that. No data has been adjusted. Fantasists claim that to make observations fit their theories.

Re:Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

No 95% of it's existence, the Earthn has been warmer than today.

Re:Don't Worry

[AmiMoJo]

Simple googling the title of this document leads you to multiple, convincing debunkings:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

Re: Don't Worry

[scrout]

https://bobtisdale.files.wordp... https://bobtisdale.wordpress.c... There are "adjustments" to the "data" everytime a temp measurement site is moved or replaced. The effect is to lower the past measurement date to make "things match up". Sounds like you are not really into actual research, just listening to CNN.

Re: Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

These two links do nothing to "debunk" the study's finding. All they do is spread FUD.

Re:Don't Worry

[Crashmarik]

Well one did you read the union of concerned scientists "Debunking" ? It's embarrassing that they call pointing out obvious errors in the way data were adjusted "Cherry Picking"

Anyway the research report gives you their source data, their methods and their results. If you can't debunk it yourself even with help from people on the internet, you really aren't engaging in discussion, you are engaged in tribalism

Re: Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that some of the adjustments were in the opposite direction that you contend they were done. Try reading the literature, or visiting realclimate or skepticalscience and the work of tanimino (if I've got that right).

totally meaningless statistic

[ole_timer]

the earth is 5 billion years old - we've only measured temp for the last 150 years

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

150 years are enough to see if the Earth is currently warming or not, just as 5 seconds are enough to see if you're going to crash into a wall even if you started your road trip 2h ago.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[ole_timer]

so has the earth ever been warmer than this? colder? where are we now in that spectrum? we're no where near as warm as it's been in say the last 100,000 years. "the sky is falling" - chicken little.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth has been warmer in the past, but the animals, plants, lakes, and coastlines were also different. It is the wrong question to ask because we worry about ourselves, not the Earth. Adapting to a rapid change will cost us a large fraction of our GDP, with probably no budget left to help species other than crops and livestock.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Tenebrousedge]

This is not a subject that you should feel free to spread lies about. Climate change denial is dumber and more harmful than Holocaust denial.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[ole_timer]

tell me - what was a lie in this: the earth is 5 billion years old - we've only measured temp for the last 150 years

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[LynnwoodRooster]

We had the same heating from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000. Supposedly CO2 really didn't start impacting things until post-WWII - so what drove the earlier rise? How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[ole_timer]

"...the animals, plants, lakes, and coastlines were also different..." - among other things, in other words we have no idea what the trend means...long term we've seen way warmer and way colder trends and averages...chicken little dressed up as climate scientist

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[LynnwoodRooster]

Which dataset is correct? How about in light of the fact that we had similar warming rises pre-WWII with the same slope and magnitude.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Climate change denial is dumber and more harmful than Holocaust denial."

Um, no. Just no.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Tenebrousedge]

I'm not sure what you think is important about these graphs. You seem confused.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Tenebrousedge]

Well, aside from both of those numbers being inaccurate, it's not a valid criticism of AGW, and you have no idea why, and refuse to learn. Any other questions?

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

We have an idea. It means that the coastline will change, species will die, and evolution won't have time to create new species because the current warming is so much faster than in the past.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's important because they say significantly different things about the rate of warming. Which is correct, and why do they only diverge after 2000? Was the data correct before, and then corrupted after 2000? I guess they aren't important if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[angel'o'sphere]

We did not have such warmings as you claim.
1945 and the surrounding years where extremely cold. At least in Europe ...

How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?
Pretty stupid question. Everything is man made. There is no natural effect that can increase the temperature on the planet that much over a course of 100 years.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[religionofpeas]

if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...

You have just described yourself.

Re: totally meaningless statistic

[jd]

Both.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, temp records go back 10,000 years.

Next.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[religionofpeas]

We had the same heating [wordpress.com]from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000

Looking at GISS LOTI numbers directly, I see about 0.3 degrees heating from 1915-1945, and about 0.5 degrees between 1970 and 2000, and about 0.75 degrees between 1975 and 2015.

I recommend you do the same, instead of relying on Bob Tisdale's graphs.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha. 'Holocaust' denial.

Do you mean "Questioning the things that the Jewish media tells you"? How awful! How terrible - thinking for yourself.

www.codoh.com

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

we had similar warming rises pre-WWII with the same slope and and magnitude

And for the same reasons as now - carbon dioxide. It's just that after WW2 dirtier coal got increasingly used as the better coal got used up, so other pollution overwhelmed the CO2 signal. Ironically, cleaning up coal to some extent in the 1980s to avoid acid rain unleashed global warming again.

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a religion for these virtue signalling NPCs... You can't reason with them - it's all "Look at me! I'm so concerned about the climate! I'm a good person! You're a bad person for questioning my 'climate beliefs'!"

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Re: totally meaningless statistic

[ole_timer]

temp records don't go back 10,000 years - and the article says 1880

Re:totally meaningless statistic

[Tenebrousedge]

The validity of the theory isn't really dependent on the temperature record. Particularly, the properties of carbon dioxide are not determined by the temperature record. The exact value for climate sensitivity is an interesting academic question, but the lower bound is based on some pretty hard thermodynamics. A doubling of CO2 must produce at least 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing.

Contrary to popular opinion, the truth emerges

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&t=0s&list=FLAmq2HOuG6Gg31GtAONC0EQ&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPGK6pNO0Qw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFsK_9JWbHs

Heavily "adjusted" temperature records

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the Australian BOM. (though there have been some real whoppers from them...)

The surface temp records are heavily adjusted. They warm the recent temps and cool the past records (this kind of data fudging would be called data tampering in any other "science". The whold thing is manipulated to for political purposes to create a bigger warming trend and serve the agenda.

And an Austrailian PhD student did a thesis on the global temperature records (HADCRUT I believe) and found lots of bogus data, impossible numbers, which now CRU says they will correct.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

But when ever skeptics pry open the door to look at the data, they find problems, and the scientists maintaining these records never seem to find them.

Re:Heavily "adjusted" temperature records

[HornWumpus]

They have 'doctorates' hence they are qualified to 'doctor data'.

Fake news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming is a CHINESE HOAX that the LIBERALS seized on to TAKE PERSONAL FREEDOMS AWAY FROM AMERICANS!

Re: Fake news!

[jd]

Ah, yes.

Which explains why global warming was first reported by British scientists in 1890.

Re: Fake news!

[q_e_t]

Swedish.

Re:They Say This Every Year

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will do it again next year, maybe sooner.

I'll believe this when it actually starts getting measurably hotter.
Instead, I hear the same crap year after year (this has been going on since the late 80s now) and there is still no actual noticeable temperature change.
There is a lot of bullshit though. Plenty of that.

4th Overall record! take that Strava!

[Anonymous Coward]

4th Overall record! take that Strava!

Re:They Say This Every Year

[cmdr_klarg]

And they will do it again next year, maybe sooner.

The fact that you seem unconcerned with that is very telling.

Another day

[Anonymous Coward]

Another PopeCrapso post where he whines about Trump, who lives in his head rent free.
Poor butthurt lil lib.

Re:Another day

[PopeRatzo]

Another PopeCrapso post where he whines about Trump, who lives in his head rent free.
Poor butthurt lil lib.

I'm having the time of my life. My Trump posts have revitalized Slashdot's comments section and I continue to be the most popular Slashdot commenter, and it's moral soul. If you didn't have me, you'd have to invent me.

May Trump reign another 50 years. Vivat Rex!

Re: Another day

[Anonymous Coward]

You're certainly in troll heaven. What a waste. The consolation is you really didn't have that much to waste.

And your problem

[presidenteloco]

is acting like you're just a helpless leaf tossed on the wind whichever way it blows.

You've got a brain and a pair of hands (assumption, I admit) so try to do something useful.

If we're all doomed in several billlion years, fine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it a nice place til we all turn into entropy.

Re:And your problem

[religionofpeas]

If we're all doomed in several billlion years, fine

Actually, I am doomed in a few decades at best.

Re:They Say This Every Year

[presidenteloco]

I'm pretty sure "measurably" doesn't mean what you think it means, because "measurably" 3 of the last 4 years have been the hottest ones one record, going back 150 years or so.

Look up "boiled frog syndrome".

STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Chas]

Seriously.

Number: WAH! All gonna die!

Dumber: WAH! All gonna die!

DON'T GIVE A SHIT!

Figure out an engineered solution.
Not a gamed solution.
Not a political solution.
Not a social solution.
AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION.

Until then, I don't give a shit.

I refuse to go back to digging up grubs and eating grass while shivering in a cave.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[seoras]

Under which category does a nuclear winter fall? Engineered or political?

Re: STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can totally believe that some peopleâ(TM)s lives are not worth living without modern toys, and that theyâ(TM)d rather see the world destroyed than give them up.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Figure out an engineered solution.

Nuclear power. It doesn't have to be anything fancy because nuclear power as we build it today is very low CO2, very safe, plentiful to the point of being nearly infinite, and inexpensive.

Let's make a few things clear on nuclear power being defined as "safe". Chernobyl was a first generation design, it didn't have even the most basic of safety mechanisms of a containment dome that are nearly the defining feature of second generation reactors. Fukushima was a second generation reactor, while it had a containment dome the safety of the reactor was dependent on an external source of power. Third generation has passive safety, meaning it uses the most basic of physics to render it safe. Things like gravity causes things to fall, heat causes things to expand, and bodies in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Mentioning safety failures of prior reactor designs to make decisions on future designs is like deciding to buy a 2018 model year Ford F-250 based on the performance of the 1918 Ford Model T.

We have an engineered solution for global warming. What we need are politicians with a sufficient understanding of the science to get out of the way of nuclear power to solve the problem. The only problems with nuclear power today are political. Elections are coming up, vote for politicians that take global warming seriously enough to allow nuclear power plants to be built in large numbers.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Chas]

Exactly.

But the second you bring up this particular "n-word", people start screeching and spewing bullshit left, right and center.

Too expensive! If it reduces our carbon output by all the coal, oil and natural gas in the world, WHO CARES?
They cite safety record. Again, how many people have died due to nuclear in the history of nuclear POWER? Not nuclear WEAPONS.
How many have died with coal, oil and gas?
Also, these idiots think we're going to keep building reactors with tech from the 50's.

But these half-wits can't get beyond "Nukez eekwalz BOMZ!!!!!1111111ELEVENTY!!!"

Re: STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[jd]

No problem.

Give fusion researchers the subsidy currently given to fossil fuels.

They've just cracked a major problem, but could have done so decades ago if they had the resources.

No impact for next ten years, then essentially unlimited power and superior access to resources.

That work for you? Engineering at its finest.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[thegarbz]

We have engineering solutions. Unfortunately they all either fall into cateogories that include "politically unacceptable" or "socially unacceptable".

Pretending that you can magically fix this with technology without involving politics or society is just (I refuse to be polite here) sheer stupidity.

I refuse to go back to digging up grubs and eating grass while shivering in a cave.

See: You are part of the social problem because you think the current solutions require you to do this. Stop being part of the social problem.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[houghi]

So what you are asking for is a technical solution for a social problem. Perhaps this time it'll work.

Re:STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[AmiMoJo]

We have all those things. Maybe you need to STFU and listen?

First develop even better renewable energy tech, including batteries. Figure out how to make them cheaper and more durable. There is a lot of money to be made doing that.

Also develop some new batteries that are lighter weight and higher energy density so we can have electric aircraft. Design us some even higher power chargers.

Now engineer us some CO2 capture devices that either store or convert CO2, to fit the atmosphere. Make them cheap and high capacity.

Some ultra efficient buildings would be great, no need to waste so much energy heating and cooling them.

Oh and while you are at it get fusion power working too.

Re: STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the subsidy led to the engineering issues being solved within 10 years, you'd then need to prove that they were sufficiently safe to get regulatory approval, so another 5 years, then for a particular site, another 3 years, then 5 years to build the first one, so that's 23 years, and then to build enough to have 'essentially unlimited power' we're talking at least 40 hence. It's not a quick fix.

Re: STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[jd]

We need the infrastructure to carry lots of power with minimal loss even if we use solar, so we can do that now. We know the general parameters for a fusion reactor, so we can pick sites, discuss limits a reactor must be between, and build the skeleton of the site now.

You're right, it won't be a quick fix, but that shaves 10--15 years off the timeframe. If half the trillion dollars per year went to solar, we'd have enough solar power to bridge the gap without worrying. Half a trillion buys a lot of solar.

Re: STFU and give us an engineering solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck finding businesses prepared to fund building skeleton sites for as yet developed nuclear technology. And good luck finding people to run the plants. It would need massive state intervention and spending.

Mr. Impersonator of me: Still sore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Impersonator of me: Still sore from the ASS-KICKING I gave you here https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... + https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... too?

YES, obviously - lol, your "effete revenge" was DOWNMODS I ran you DRY of as always!

After you tried VAINLY to "downmod" HIDE all of that is showing here & UNDENIABLE https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... LITERALLY (I just reposted to NULLIFY your 'wannabe weapon' NEUTRALIZING it & EXPOSING YOU LOSING to me, lol!).

APK

P.S.=> I love it - especially seeing u REDUCED to TRYING to LIE about me (or LIBEL me) as you IMPERSONATE me (proving you WISH you were me, but you're INFERIOR imitation (& just plain INFERIOR on ALL levels))... apk

c6gunner IMPERSONATING me again?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: his FAKEname on a post impersonating me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & altering /.er's words.

c6gunner tried to mock me 1st https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

So I challenge c6gunner to show he did better work than mine & he CAN'T!

YOU DEMAND PROOF of others here?

"I've yet to see you provide any evidence of that." by c6gunner on Monday March 15, 2010 @10:02PM (#31490942) ?

So now I DEMAND IT OF YOU & YOU FAIL!

c6gunner = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!

* c6gunner's LYING saying I did a MacOS X one - I haven't yet & c6gunner's LYING impersonating me saying hosts work vs. Intel CPU issues (spectre/meltdown).

APK

P.S.=> You say hosts = shit here https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?

FACTS: /.ers & security pros + RESULTS say DIFFERENT:

1st: /.ers https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments....

2nd: SECURITY PROS https://slashdot.org/comments....

3rd: REAL RESULTS w/ hosts vs. threats https://slashdot.org/comments....

EAT YOUR WORDS!

Re: c6gunner IMPERSONATING me again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, look, this retard can't make up his mind about whether to accuse c6gunner or someone else of supposedly impersonating him.

The fact is, c6gunner didn't impersonate you, but you're too stupid to understand that. I bet you think Alec Baldwin is guilty of libel and impersonation for his SNL parody of Donald Trump.

You're an idiot. Grow up.

Mother Nature Will Give Humanity the Finger

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a matter of time before Mother Nature handles this. Once humans are extinct plants and animal will flourish.

Are you BLIND, STUPID or just LYING?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: LYING again I see! Funny his "registered 'lusername'" is on a post SIGNING AS "APK" here you dumbfuck loser https://linux.slashdot.org/com... after he COPIED MY ORIGINAL POST to TWIST /.er's words of PRAISE directed MY WAY for my program -> https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

* LIES is your "JUDEN WAY" when DEFEATED Simon "WEEZILthal", lol - & you LOSE!

APK

P.S.=> Accept you will ALWAYS FAIL vs. me SIMON (You are INFERIOR to me on ALL levels) - accept it, it's REALITY & easily VERIFIABLE above, lol... apk

Re: Are you BLIND, STUPID or just LYING?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're a liar in multiple ways.

It's obvious that c6gunner's "impersonation" is actually a parody of one of your spam posts. You know it's a parody and so does everyone else. It's dishonest to misrepresent obvious parody as impersonation. Every time you claim that c6gunner impersonated you, you're lying.

You've also been quoting BronsCon in your posts once again. While BronsCon did, indeed, post the words you attribute to him, you're still being dishonest by quoting him now. A few months ago, we'll after your original quote, BronsCon told you he had changed his opinion about your software and could no longer recommend it. He specifically requested that you stop quoting him to suggest that he endorsed your software. BronsCon withdrew his endorsement and you know it. The fact that you have resumed quoting him as if he currently endorses your software is absolutely dishonest. You're knowingly and willfully misrepresenting his opinion of your software. That is lying.

That list of quotes is mostly taken out of context where you've identified one tiny snippet where someone said something positive about your software. You conveniently don't include links to the original posts. Most of those posts are either critical of your software in other respects or critical of your behavior. You are selectively omitting facts, which is tantamount to lying. Some of those users have criticized you for vastly overstating the capabilities of your software, which also constitutes lying. You've claimed that hosts does port filtering, something that is demonstrably false, yet you stand by your claim. That, too, is lying.

You've claimed that c6gunner said that hosts are shit"

Re: Are you BLIND, STUPID or just LYING?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've claimed that c6gunner said "hosts are shit", which is also a lie. He said your hosts file is shit, but he did not say that hosts files are shit. You deliberately misrepresented his words, which is yet another lie on your part.

You are a compulsive liar. Come back when you can start telling the truth.

On Record?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a pretty crappy record.
100 years out of 4 billion? Imagine it rained for 10 minutes and then you are going to predict the weather for the rest of the year from that 10 minute data.

Re: On Record?

[jd]

More like 10,000 out of 4.5 billion.

And yes, that's good enough to build models you can test.

Re: On Record?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 10.000, its only since 1880. (RTFA)

He's right, this can be undone

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1900 humans were barely able to get a machine to hop inches off the ground. By 1969 humans had walked on the moon.

Humans are _very_ good at massive engineering projects. I suspect we will be able to geo-engineer the atmosphere of the planet. In the process, we might actually establish colonies on another planet. Who knows, we might even distinguish ourselves from termites.

Oh, and, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Re: He's right, this can be undone

[jd]

That took mass cooperation and a collective desire.

Even on Slashdot, where people are better educated on the whole, you can see a great many are utterly and implacably opposed to green solutions. This isn't a function of whether they accept global warming, they don't want geoengineering or green energy on principle.

Re: He's right, this can be undone

[MachineShedFred]

In order to do that shit, there needs to be concerted effort and direction of resources to it. Our dipshit politicians can't even agree it's a problem, much less starting up a Manhattan Project or Apollo program sized effort worth of resources to do something about it.

The first step to solving something is admitting the problem exists to begin with.

Re:He's right, this can be undone

[Anonymous Coward]

Montgolfier would like a word about your first statement...

Re:He's right, this can be undone

[q_e_t]

And the Chinese a word with Monfgolfier!

Cattle Wheat and Barley

[Anonymous Coward]

grown on Greenland for 400 years, more or less. Between 850-1250. By Vikings. Vineyard in Norway and Scotland and "Vinland" Viking Nova Scotia/Newfoundland.

Warmer then than now. For 400 years it was warmer then than now.

AGW? Call me with the Dane's are raising barley and wheat on Greenland.

Re:Cattle Wheat and Barley

[Anonymous Coward]

Warmer then than now. For 400 years it was warmer then than now.

warmer there then than now. Not warmer, on average and scientifically verified everywhere.

From the link:

Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[214]

Regional weather patterns do not make global trend.

Re: Cattle Wheat and Barley

[jd]

So if an ice cube on a glacier melted, by being crushed under the weight for example, you'd conclude the whole glacier had melted?
 

Tell me, is this going to be another one of those

[Anonymous Coward]

.. conclusions driven by the made-up readings from all the areas they don't actually do measurements on, like 2016 was?

Re:They Say This Every Year

[ole_timer]

the key is 150 years out of 5 billion or so...meaningless drivel

Re:They Say This Every Year

[LynnwoodRooster]

GISS is accurate to about 0.2 deg C, meaning this claim is within a few dozen previous years, when you include the tolerance bands.

You're DELUSIONAL w/ proof... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

His c6gunner FAKENAME is on a post SIGNED OFF on as "APK" https://linux.slashdot.org/com... after he COPIED MY ORIGINAL POST to TWIST /.er's words of PRAISE directed MY WAY for my program https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

WHY?

He tried to give me shit SO I MADE A COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE to him HE RAN FROM doing that bullshit above & I did so FAIRLY, here https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

APK

P.S.=> As far as WHO I quote? IF they say good things about my work + liking & USING it? I'll quote them & BronsCon did (fact, period)

I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

so you LOSE, loser, as always vs. me & UNDENIABLE concrete VERIFIABLE fact... apk

c6gunner did say my hosts file sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please go explain to APK that his hosts files are total shit" by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Monday September 17, 2018 @02:28AM (#57326318)

FACT: In saying what he does quoted above he puts down ALL the reputable hosts files out there - mine's COMPOSED of them + my findings!

WHY'd HE DO THAT? c6guuner = FORREST CHUMP =s why:

He gave me shit SO I MADE A COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE to him HE RAN FROM https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

My hosts file is the BEST POSSIBLE ONE!

(Composed of all other reputable reliable ones & even more from security articles - my program for it's UNQUESTIONABLY the best doing more like hardcoded favs (both speed & security) + tld/gTLD validity checks - no other does & mine's ONLY 1 in GUI on the *NIX platform afaik) - & ?

APK

P.S=> TONS of /.ers, REAL RESULTS of hosts efficacy, & SECURITY PROS https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... prove it... apk

Re:c6gunner did say my hosts file sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go fist your own asshole instead of acting out your retard fantasies here. It would be a better use of your time and slashdot would be a more enjoyable place.

Re:They Say This Every Year

[religionofpeas]

So when you yell at the kids for leaving the front door open in the winter, they'll say: "it's only been cold for 10 minutes out of 5 billion years... meaningless drivel".

it is still kinda hot here in germany

[aepervius]

Temperature should be well under 18/20 C by now and be around the 14 C average dropping toward low teen.

Department of superfluous redundancy department

[knorthern knight]

WTF does the US government have *TWO* agencies giving out their own *DIFFERENT* "official global temperature anomalies"???

Re:Department of superfluous redundancy department

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to do with the 'invisible hand' of the market. As a consumer, you have a choice of wonky statistics to choose from.

Conspiracy Theory?

[jd]

A conspiracy that has lasted since 1890, one nobody has ever shown to exist in all that time. My, you're giving those scientists a lot of credit.

What were they after, back in 1890?

If they're smart enough to keep it hidden for 128 years, why can't they be smart enough to be right?

Re: Conspiracy Theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are part of the evil liberal anarcho fascist syndicalist communist cabal that will bring authoritarian control ov everything, but also the freedom to be gay, which is both too little freedom and too much all at once.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[jd]

The key is 10,000 years out of 4.5 billion.

If you're going to use numbers, use the right ones.

Re: It is still the sun

[jd]

No, it really didn't. There's no evidence Earth's temperatures are impacted beyond background noise by sunspots.

And good on the freemasons to keep this secret for 128 years, the time global warming has been studied. I'm impressed. That shows serious skill.

8%

[mapkinase]

8% of all CO2 released to the atmosphere comes from humans exhaling.

You can think about this number as banana for scale

Re: 8%

[mapkinase]

https://ourworldindata.org/co2...

According to the graph Emissions by source, we exhale today as much as we burned in 1950 by all our machinery combined.

Take your own advice FORREST... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your own advice Forrest & keep RUNNING from proof here I ask for https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

* "Forrest" CHUMP = you, lol!

APK

P.S.=> "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!"... apk

CO2 - Carbon - Energy ???

[huckamania]

What energy? Are you talking upwelling IR, or IDK, just talking out of your posterior? First it was Carbonic Acid, then CO2, then Carbon, now you're trying to convince people it is energy? It's not energy, it's the byproduct of energy.

Look kiddies, Uncle Al didn't invent the internet. He voted for funding a government program. He never said no to any government programs so taking credit for the one that worked is the way creepy Uncle Al thinks. The earth doesn't have a fever. The added warming is 5-10% of the overall greenhouse effect, and if we didn't have the other 90-95% we would all be Eskimos or living on the equator. The effects of CO2 are logarithmic and are bounded by negative feedbacks. Otherwise our rodent ancestors would never have survived past epochs when there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:CO2 - Carbon - Energy ???

[q_e_t]

Whilst ultimately the effect of CO2 is likely to be bounded by negative feedbacks, in certain regimes it is amplified by positive feedbacks, such as the changes in albedo that bring us out of ice ages, or the potential for clathrates to be released. The temperatures at which positive feedbacks are likely are still not fully understood, but loss of polar ice is understood, and is happening.

2018 was the fourth-warmest

[maxbuzz]

Because the IPCC was unable to fudge the numbers enough to make it the hottest year on record.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[ole_timer]

we haven't been recording temp for 10,000 years - only less then about 150 - I rounded up 4.5 billion years to 5.

Re:They Say This Every Year

[ole_timer]

my kids are smarter...but then that's from at home schooling

Re: I'll be just fine no matter what... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus you are an idiot.

You're a gullible fool: Wasn't me... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & it's c6gunner IMPERSONATING me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & altering /.er's words there, which I noted here in this thread's responses as to why he does https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

* LEARN TO READ!

APK

P.S.=> Of course, you're just HIM trying to "make me look bad" (impossible vs. "your kind" especially - the UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous TROLL loser) & all you do is HIDE since you look BAD & stupid... apk

Is that based on adjusted or raw data?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust adjusted data from organizations that have a political agenda.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[jd]

It's not important how long we've been directly recording them, only how long we can measure them with equal reliability.

We have an enormous amount of indirect data - snowfall rates in the Antarctic, atmosphere content in the Antarctic, limestone deposition rates (a measure of rainfall), isotope ratios (a measure of sunlight), tree ring data (which depends on atmosphere, rainfall, sunlight and temperature).

Local temperatures affect broader rainfall patterns, which affect the snow in the Antarctic.

This is, ultimately, no more indirect than the mercury in a thermometer expanding by a measured amount for each degree of temperature change. You're still inferring one thing from the behaviour of another.

If you accept mercury thermometers, you must logically accept we have temperatures going back as far as we have reliable measurements and means to verify. Currently, this stands at around 10,000 years.

Climate scientists would doubtless argue their data is good enough for 200,000 years or more. Take it up with them.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[ole_timer]

temps measured in cores have been going up and down for at least 450,000 years, maybe 1.5 million years. https://www.google.com/imgres?...

Hot air

[brunnegd]

A contributing factor is all of the hot air being expended by deniers

Re: They Say This Every Year

[jd]

Yes, and it takes tens of thousands of years to produce a global four degree shift. That's quite a difference from a single century, don't you think? It's the gradient that matters. However, even with absolute values, there are very very few species that are around today that were around 450 million years ago, simply because the climate was too different for them to survive.

We also have less global data with ice cores alone. With the points up to 10,000 years ago, we can get a detailed picture of the climate across the entire globe. We can therefore test our ability to predict based on historic data and an understanding of historic outcomes. However, we do have some data points for 1.5 million years, as you say. Glad we're in agreement that temperatures are known for more than just the past century.

Re:It is still the sun

[q_e_t]

You're talking about events 2 years ago. These scientists arent talking about the current temperature recordings

They are figures from 2018, not 2016. They are very much talking about current temperatures, up to and including last month.

Re:Fatal errors in surface temperature data

[q_e_t]

A test was done by removing the urban stations from the record. The temperature trend showed greater warming without the urban sites.

Re:Did they remove all their bad data?

[q_e_t]

Not to mention that the actual locations of the weather stations are not evenly distributed around the world. Most of them are in the US and Canada. So, you can't just take an average of all the reporting stations and expect to get a world average. It'll be heavily skewed towards North America, which completely invalidates it since the northern hemisphere has a higher variance than the southern hemisphere.

So if they use the raw data it's bad, but if they adjust the data to remove outliers and adjust for the mix of locations of measurement sites, it's bad too?

Re: They Say This Every Year

[ole_timer]

the article says since 1880 - but we've been hotter at least 4 times in the past based on core data. the gradient does not mean as much as the absolute. sun blocking particulates from the likely asteroid strike (or maybe volcanoes) on earth had a much, much bigger effect. we're nowhere near that from burning fossil fuels. all that is ignored in the article. and in most arguments.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not ignored, it's in all the models. You can go and download some of the models and try them yourself if you can afford to rent a few hundred machine instances on Amazon to do the calculations.

Re: They Say This Every Year

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn something about statistics. You can establish a trend, even with confidence bands, given a long enough trend. Also you are probably assuming that for X+-0.2 all values X-0.2 to X+0.2 are equally likely, but that's not how it's distributed, as for most fusion of statistics it is on a gaussian (Bell curve) distribution with the range quoted to 3 standard deviations, I. E. a 5% chance of it being at the extreme of the range. Unless there is a systematic error, then the figure for any given year is likely to be in the centre of the range, and over a sufficient number of figures, within each range. Thus it is valid to do a regression through those points and determine a trend, even if they are individually noisy, provided you obey the correct statistical rules. It's pretty basic statistics taught in probably 99% of physics and similar degrees.