Because global extrapolation isn't need - it is the same. You reference an EPA study, perhaps you should also look at this one. Specifically:
1. Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14F per decade
2. Global average surface temperature has risen at an average rate of 0.15F per decade since 1901 (see Figure 2), similar to the rate of warming within the contiguous 48 states
3. Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has warmed faster than the global rate.
Meaning, on the long scale we're essentially lock-step with the rest of the world; on the short scale, we're warming FASTER. And the record shows that the warming we're getting is NOT from highs getting higher, but lows not getting so low. The average (they just add max and min and divide by two)is increasing because the limits are converging, with the lower limit rising faster than the upper limit is falling.
The US is analogous to the rest of the world long-term, and is slightly worse than the rest of the world short-term. And we're not heating, we're not cooling as much. That would be convergence of the highs and lows. Any time you have less dramatic swings, people would tend to call that a calming down, not an acceleration of extreme behavior. Add in the slowing down of cyclones and hurricanes and tornadoes and we are litereally seeing less extreme weather events - even though we can see any event better than ever (due to satellites, remote monitoring, number of people, etc). I know it's not a popular position - but the data tends to be pretty unambiguous.
In the US, more than half of all university students are female. Perhaps it's time we start reaching out to males and try to get them to attend college, get higher degrees, because they comprise 51% of the population but only 43% of all post-high-school students... Gotta keep those quotas balanced, right?
Business opportunity - pre-built home servers with remote login and storage. Buy it, get it, plug into your network at home, download a sync app your devices and you're done. Turnkey your own "AWS/cloud server" at home with the ease of setting up a SONOS speaker.
The point of the NYT article is that the data clearly says that hot weather extremes have been increasing and cold weather extremes have been decreasing.
Yes, that is what the NYT states. Unambiguously so!
That's not really debatable, it's hard numbers.
Yes, it is debatable, because the very report the NYT is using states the exact opposite! Please see the graphs on page 287 - the highs are not becomimg more frequent or extreme, but the lows are moderating. We're moving to a period of LESS extreme weather, and it is settling around an average that is higher than in the past. The system appears to be "settling down" around a quiescent point above where we thought it should be. Remember all the models say we should have more extreme weather events, yet the number of hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes are slowly dropping. Dropping high temps, rising low temps, lower number of extreme weather events - I'd say the system is calming down...
As reponded above, the EPA says otherwise, that the US and the world are within 0.1 deg F (about 0.05 deg C) per decade, from 1901 and on. So they are the same - what happens in the US pretty much happens worldwide. And I would expect that, given it dominates the temperate region of the 3rd largest continent, and sits between the two largest bodies of water on the planet.
EPA says they are about the same, 0.14 degF per decade for the US, 0.15 degF for the world. That's long-term. So I stand by my claim - the US is pretty much like the rest of the world, definitely well within the error bars... Daytime temps have been dropping, and nighttime temps have been rising faster. So the average is increasing. You do know the average is simply the min + max / 2? They don't average each hour/minute/second throughout the day...
Now think about heat retention. You build up the same amount of heat during the day, but tend to absorb more of it and release it slower throughout the evening - but you still release the same amount during the day. Like one would expect from an urban heat island...
Extremely so! If you look at that graph, you'll find that the prediction of temperature is right just 50% of the time; it's usually predicted to be hotter than it was, but sometimes it under-predicts as well. Meaning the models are - at best - a crap shoot of what will happen (they get it wrong just as much as they get it right).
What you're seeing there in the 20's/30's is the dust bowl that wreaked havoc on the central US during that time (high heat, vast drought). It is really interesting to see that. But it was a regional effect. Globally the story is different.
Really? I'd love to see that, because, just like this graph from teh American Institute of Physics pretty much all 20th century tempurature records have a big warming throughout the 203s and 30s, then switched to cooling through the 40s to mid 70s.
A related important point was well explained recently by NYT: extreme high temperature events are increasing in frequency.
That is the claim, but the report the NY Times uses states the exact opposite. Look at that "leaked" report, and check page 287. The number of extreme high temperature days has not increased; it's the average lows that have increased. That raises the average, but if anything it points to a lessening of the extremes of tempurature. Lows aren't as low, and highs are slightly less high.
Nah, it's not that bad... I have 100Mbps for $70/month, including all taxes. This is Spectrum cable, in Ventura County. My neighbors pay about $60/month for DISH with lots of TV channels as well. It's not that expensive when you consider it's a lot more than just Internet. In reality, most of the US probably doesn't need more than 8-10 Mbps, even if they demand more. It's plenty fast for their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/E-mail/Youtube/Netflix fixes.
And the empirical data stands - we have better Internet speeds than most of the rest of the world, coming in between 13th and 10th place overall (per Akamai numbers). Better than almost all of Europe, better than most of the rest of the world. Our average speeds are actually quite good, with only a few "real" countries ahead of us (places like Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark - where they tend to be super city-states in terms of size [quite tiny] and population [quite large]).
Not everyone needs or uses massive bandwidth, like lots of us/. nerds. And now with unlimited data on cell phones becoming the norm, well - some devices are probably never connecting to the home WIFI network anymore. I know I often forget to switch my WIFI back on when I get back home from a business trip, but with unlimited Verizon data, I get plenty of bandwidth on my phone that I don't even realize I'm not on WIFI. Meaning even less demand on my cable modem - it's now serving a few less devices (mine and my wife's) for its duties.
Yep! And it pretty much makes those headlines screaming about "hottest year ever!" seem rather suspicious, doesn't it? It's hotter not because the days are getting hotter, but we're not getting as cold. That's the hard, straight-ahead fact.
At the same time, that's a figure for the lower 48 states... I know Americans are full of themselves, but you understand that global warming is a planetary thing, right?
Can you point to a climate record where that of the US lower 48 doesn't match the trends of other similar sized areas? In terms of temperature, typically what happens across the US (basically all the temperate region of the North American Continent) also happens across the world...
We're getting less cold. Take a look at figure 6.3 on page 287, you'll see the max temperatures peaked in the 1920s and 1930s, and we're quite a bit lower than that now. What's changed is we're not getting as cold at night as we used to get; our low temperatures are higher - making the daily average higher. Kind of changes things, doesn't it?
I got a Netgear CM700. Available at Fry's. Just a single Ethernet output, so that runs straight to the Orbi base unit. Super easy to setup, a quick 5 minute call to Spectrum and it was running spectacularly.
Precisely. I had problems with Charter-Spectrum (merged a while ago) , for the first year. Unstable connections, speed really low, etc. I went and bought my own modem for $80 and it solved every problem. Just upgraded to the Orbi 2 hub system and I have 100+ Mbps WIFI throughout my home and backyard. Don't use the cable company's modem - buy your own, it is much more stable and faster. Their combined offerings (Ubee and Arris) are essentially junk. Never got over 50 Mbps with their modems (and that was right after a "tech" came and reset everything), usually down in the teens to low 20s. New modem - 5X the speeds...
By choice or enforced? Lots of my neighbors like Dish. They are also older (above 50) or retired, and as long as they can get Facebook, Youtube, and e-mail they are happy. A better metric would be how many people in the US cannot get anything faster than 4 Mbps, rather than how many actually choose that...
Actually the US is up to 10th place in the 2017 Q1 figures. It's unevenly distributed though, the US is 37th in >4 Mbps adoption. Even Russia got you beat in 33rd place. And I think that's reflected in a lot of the discussions here, either you got competition and it's great or you don't and it's terrible.
Or maybe a lot of people choose the lower speeds. The neighborhood where I live has ~60% of the people over the age of 50, and many are retired, and most are perfectly happy with Dish and 10 Mbps connections. They like it - it does what they need. Only a few of us have >100 Mbps connections because we want them. I think the average probably reflects most of this - it's high because of a smallish number of people who want lots of fast bandwidth, and most people are perfectly fine with 4-5 Mbps because you can chek e-mail, cruise Facebook, stream Pandora and watch Netflix without an issue.
There is Spectrum. I have it, it's about $70/month with all the taxes added in. I have my own Netgear cable modem and an Orbi system for WIFI in home. I consistently get Speedtest.net results of 12-14 ms pings, 116-120 Mbps down and 20-25 Mbps up. Not bad for the price I pay...
I dunno about that, seems we're ahead of most of the EU, and most of the rest of the world.... Sure, there are 12 others ahead of us, but that is a far cry from being "pitifully low by Western country standards".
Woo hoo! Got the names being called, and denying facts, and saying "nuh uh". You're the perfect - PERFECT - characture of an AGW cultist... Praise be to the lords Mann and Algore!
True, it could be god. It could be aliens. So I guess it should be either man-made or not. Since it's not shown to be man-made (temperature fell or was paused whilst CO2 increased), then it must be "not". So let's start talking about those theories, rather than obsessing on one that seems to not really work in that it does not fit the empirical data.
Science demands proof. The theory is that man's CO2 output causes global warming. When facts don't fit, you cannot ignore them. It is incumbent upon you to either change your theory, or figure out a mechanism that explains why observed reality does not match your model. In the scientific method, it's the person who is pushing the theory that has to provide the proof.
Ahh, so "cherry picking". What about the Medieval Warm Period? It was global, and it was warmer than today. What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940 (warming that is greater than 1980 to today)? What caused the global cooling from 1945 to 1975? Perhaps using 1980 to today is the cherry pick as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Because global extrapolation isn't need - it is the same. You reference an EPA study, perhaps you should also look at this one. Specifically:
1. Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14F per decade
2. Global average surface temperature has risen at an average rate of 0.15F per decade since 1901 (see Figure 2), similar to the rate of warming within the contiguous 48 states
3. Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has warmed faster than the global rate.
Meaning, on the long scale we're essentially lock-step with the rest of the world; on the short scale, we're warming FASTER. And the record shows that the warming we're getting is NOT from highs getting higher, but lows not getting so low. The average (they just add max and min and divide by two)is increasing because the limits are converging, with the lower limit rising faster than the upper limit is falling.
The US is analogous to the rest of the world long-term, and is slightly worse than the rest of the world short-term. And we're not heating, we're not cooling as much. That would be convergence of the highs and lows. Any time you have less dramatic swings, people would tend to call that a calming down, not an acceleration of extreme behavior. Add in the slowing down of cyclones and hurricanes and tornadoes and we are litereally seeing less extreme weather events - even though we can see any event better than ever (due to satellites, remote monitoring, number of people, etc). I know it's not a popular position - but the data tends to be pretty unambiguous.
In the US, more than half of all university students are female. Perhaps it's time we start reaching out to males and try to get them to attend college, get higher degrees, because they comprise 51% of the population but only 43% of all post-high-school students... Gotta keep those quotas balanced, right?
Business opportunity - pre-built home servers with remote login and storage. Buy it, get it, plug into your network at home, download a sync app your devices and you're done. Turnkey your own "AWS/cloud server" at home with the ease of setting up a SONOS speaker.
The point of the NYT article is that the data clearly says that hot weather extremes have been increasing and cold weather extremes have been decreasing.
Yes, that is what the NYT states. Unambiguously so!
That's not really debatable, it's hard numbers.
Yes, it is debatable, because the very report the NYT is using states the exact opposite! Please see the graphs on page 287 - the highs are not becomimg more frequent or extreme, but the lows are moderating. We're moving to a period of LESS extreme weather, and it is settling around an average that is higher than in the past. The system appears to be "settling down" around a quiescent point above where we thought it should be. Remember all the models say we should have more extreme weather events, yet the number of hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes are slowly dropping. Dropping high temps, rising low temps, lower number of extreme weather events - I'd say the system is calming down...
As reponded above, the EPA says otherwise, that the US and the world are within 0.1 deg F (about 0.05 deg C) per decade, from 1901 and on. So they are the same - what happens in the US pretty much happens worldwide. And I would expect that, given it dominates the temperate region of the 3rd largest continent, and sits between the two largest bodies of water on the planet.
EPA says they are about the same, 0.14 degF per decade for the US, 0.15 degF for the world. That's long-term. So I stand by my claim - the US is pretty much like the rest of the world, definitely well within the error bars... Daytime temps have been dropping, and nighttime temps have been rising faster. So the average is increasing. You do know the average is simply the min + max / 2? They don't average each hour/minute/second throughout the day...
Now think about heat retention. You build up the same amount of heat during the day, but tend to absorb more of it and release it slower throughout the evening - but you still release the same amount during the day. Like one would expect from an urban heat island...
Correct, and we do! The data says so. It's interesting to see people rail against the actual facts because they feel it's not quite right...
Extremely so! If you look at that graph, you'll find that the prediction of temperature is right just 50% of the time; it's usually predicted to be hotter than it was, but sometimes it under-predicts as well. Meaning the models are - at best - a crap shoot of what will happen (they get it wrong just as much as they get it right).
What you're seeing there in the 20's/30's is the dust bowl that wreaked havoc on the central US during that time (high heat, vast drought). It is really interesting to see that. But it was a regional effect. Globally the story is different.
Really? I'd love to see that, because, just like this graph from teh American Institute of Physics pretty much all 20th century tempurature records have a big warming throughout the 203s and 30s, then switched to cooling through the 40s to mid 70s.
A related important point was well explained recently by NYT: extreme high temperature events are increasing in frequency.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
That is the claim, but the report the NY Times uses states the exact opposite. Look at that "leaked" report, and check page 287. The number of extreme high temperature days has not increased; it's the average lows that have increased. That raises the average, but if anything it points to a lessening of the extremes of tempurature. Lows aren't as low, and highs are slightly less high.
Nah, it's not that bad... I have 100Mbps for $70/month, including all taxes. This is Spectrum cable, in Ventura County. My neighbors pay about $60/month for DISH with lots of TV channels as well. It's not that expensive when you consider it's a lot more than just Internet. In reality, most of the US probably doesn't need more than 8-10 Mbps, even if they demand more. It's plenty fast for their Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/E-mail/Youtube/Netflix fixes.
And the empirical data stands - we have better Internet speeds than most of the rest of the world, coming in between 13th and 10th place overall (per Akamai numbers). Better than almost all of Europe, better than most of the rest of the world. Our average speeds are actually quite good, with only a few "real" countries ahead of us (places like Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark - where they tend to be super city-states in terms of size [quite tiny] and population [quite large]).
Not everyone needs or uses massive bandwidth, like lots of us /. nerds. And now with unlimited data on cell phones becoming the norm, well - some devices are probably never connecting to the home WIFI network anymore. I know I often forget to switch my WIFI back on when I get back home from a business trip, but with unlimited Verizon data, I get plenty of bandwidth on my phone that I don't even realize I'm not on WIFI. Meaning even less demand on my cable modem - it's now serving a few less devices (mine and my wife's) for its duties.
That's an interesting point, good catch.
Yep! And it pretty much makes those headlines screaming about "hottest year ever!" seem rather suspicious, doesn't it? It's hotter not because the days are getting hotter, but we're not getting as cold. That's the hard, straight-ahead fact.
At the same time, that's a figure for the lower 48 states... I know Americans are full of themselves, but you understand that global warming is a planetary thing, right?
Can you point to a climate record where that of the US lower 48 doesn't match the trends of other similar sized areas? In terms of temperature, typically what happens across the US (basically all the temperate region of the North American Continent) also happens across the world...
We're getting less cold. Take a look at figure 6.3 on page 287, you'll see the max temperatures peaked in the 1920s and 1930s, and we're quite a bit lower than that now. What's changed is we're not getting as cold at night as we used to get; our low temperatures are higher - making the daily average higher. Kind of changes things, doesn't it?
I got a Netgear CM700. Available at Fry's. Just a single Ethernet output, so that runs straight to the Orbi base unit. Super easy to setup, a quick 5 minute call to Spectrum and it was running spectacularly.
Precisely. I had problems with Charter-Spectrum (merged a while ago) , for the first year. Unstable connections, speed really low, etc. I went and bought my own modem for $80 and it solved every problem. Just upgraded to the Orbi 2 hub system and I have 100+ Mbps WIFI throughout my home and backyard. Don't use the cable company's modem - buy your own, it is much more stable and faster. Their combined offerings (Ubee and Arris) are essentially junk. Never got over 50 Mbps with their modems (and that was right after a "tech" came and reset everything), usually down in the teens to low 20s. New modem - 5X the speeds...
By choice or enforced? Lots of my neighbors like Dish. They are also older (above 50) or retired, and as long as they can get Facebook, Youtube, and e-mail they are happy. A better metric would be how many people in the US cannot get anything faster than 4 Mbps, rather than how many actually choose that...
Actually the US is up to 10th place in the 2017 Q1 figures. It's unevenly distributed though, the US is 37th in >4 Mbps adoption. Even Russia got you beat in 33rd place. And I think that's reflected in a lot of the discussions here, either you got competition and it's great or you don't and it's terrible.
Or maybe a lot of people choose the lower speeds. The neighborhood where I live has ~60% of the people over the age of 50, and many are retired, and most are perfectly happy with Dish and 10 Mbps connections. They like it - it does what they need. Only a few of us have >100 Mbps connections because we want them. I think the average probably reflects most of this - it's high because of a smallish number of people who want lots of fast bandwidth, and most people are perfectly fine with 4-5 Mbps because you can chek e-mail, cruise Facebook, stream Pandora and watch Netflix without an issue.
There is Spectrum. I have it, it's about $70/month with all the taxes added in. I have my own Netgear cable modem and an Orbi system for WIFI in home. I consistently get Speedtest.net results of 12-14 ms pings, 116-120 Mbps down and 20-25 Mbps up. Not bad for the price I pay...
Internet access in the US is already a joke compared with most other industrialized nations, and has been for years now.
I see that claim a lot, but the data seems contrary, in that the US is ahead of most of the EU, and most of the rest of the world.
I dunno about that, seems we're ahead of most of the EU, and most of the rest of the world.... Sure, there are 12 others ahead of us, but that is a far cry from being "pitifully low by Western country standards".
There's an app for that!
Woo hoo! Got the names being called, and denying facts, and saying "nuh uh". You're the perfect - PERFECT - characture of an AGW cultist... Praise be to the lords Mann and Algore!
True, it could be god. It could be aliens. So I guess it should be either man-made or not. Since it's not shown to be man-made (temperature fell or was paused whilst CO2 increased), then it must be "not". So let's start talking about those theories, rather than obsessing on one that seems to not really work in that it does not fit the empirical data.
Science demands proof. The theory is that man's CO2 output causes global warming. When facts don't fit, you cannot ignore them. It is incumbent upon you to either change your theory, or figure out a mechanism that explains why observed reality does not match your model. In the scientific method, it's the person who is pushing the theory that has to provide the proof.
Ahh, so "cherry picking". What about the Medieval Warm Period? It was global, and it was warmer than today. What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940 (warming that is greater than 1980 to today)? What caused the global cooling from 1945 to 1975? Perhaps using 1980 to today is the cherry pick as well?