This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured (scienceblogs.com) 369
GregLaden writes: Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record-breaking months. Now, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA have identified October as an extraordinary month. October 2016 is significantly warmer than any other in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880.
Back to the future.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
October 2016 is so hot that the heat has flowed back through time to make the scientists start sweating it today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Back to the future.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those filthy rich scientists, awash in money. Yes, they're the problem. Greedy goddamn climate scientists and their grubby-handed grad student research assistants. Living like kings while the honest energy industry has to scratch out a subsistence with nothing but hard work and grit.
I'll tell you, this world is upside-down.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He lives in a mansion and flies around in his own personal jet, so it must have been pretty lucrative. When climate scientists have their conferences over videophones, maybe we can take them seriously.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Gore went from a net worth of $1.7 million to $200 million in a matter of 13 years...I wish my net worth grew like that.
Re:Back to the future.. (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to be in the "I don't understand it, but from my limited personal experience and assumption of knowledge I'm pretty sure it'll be fine" camp.
Anything that helps reduce your heating bills is fine with you? So you'd be fine with someone murdering you then, as that will lower your bills to 0 indefinitely - clearly there are limits to what you'd accept to lower your bills. Hyperbole aside, the warming you are experiencing comes with a price, and that price is a lot more than your heating bills. No-one is denying the climate hasn't changed in the past, only that when it has changed this quickly we weren't around to experience it, and that a climate change will mess up humanity's requirements from the land - such as farming where we have the suitable land, infrastructure, and skills to make use of it. Our crops are also suited to our current climate - more CO2 and heat will cause lower staple crop yields, and make pests more dangerous to the crops.
But I guess you can ignore all the science, focus on your temporary heating bill dip, and be happy. That's easier and doesn't require all this horrible thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
The Earth has feedback mechanisms to keep things cozy.
Yeah but these feedback mechanisms have serious consequences as well.
The oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic because they are absorbing some of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification [wikipedia.org]
The warmer oceans are causing some species to die off http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/unusual-warming-kills-gulf-of-maine-cod-151029.htm [discovery.com]
And we don't know what all of these feedback mechanisms are going to be and what their consequences are going to be either. But if we
Early release? (Score:2)
How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?
More importantly, should they really be releasing the results so long before the rest of us get some sweet October next year action? Its totally ruined the surprise.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to add - a simple typo like that is enough to give my conspiracy liking friends a hard on until next October.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it a good review? Should I pre-order or wait to get it on sale?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, back about 20 years ago, the Chinese released audio of a successful rocket launch a few minutes before the rocket actually launched. Big chuckle in the West. Reminded us all of Soviet fakery.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
W\hen failure is not an option, its perfectly logical to release the information beforehand.
Re: (Score:2)
How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?
No, no, it's the third release candidate, so it's feature complete. There were a couple of issues in the tracker that we had to work out, but it's on the whole pretty much identical to the final beta relase in 2012.
If you're still on that, there's no hurry to upgrade, since there were no CVEs between now and then. If however you're having a problem with excessive numbers of flying insects still being presen
Why this is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
"Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. "
There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago. In addition, the "estimate" of sea surface temperatures are done by models. And models have been proven to be complete utter bunk. How would they possibly have "estimated" what sea surface temperatures were
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there would be measurements of sea surface temperatures over many decades. This is done for good reason.
Even before meteorology was a science, people had a good reason to want to know sea surface temperatures. They affect fishing, which is a source of money and food. In shipping routes, it would affect when they might see ice on the waters, which is a hazard. Sea surface temperatures were measured then. I'm aware of data sets [noaa.gov] going back to the 17th century. You can easily get this data online for [noaa.gov]
NASA ignoring satellite measurements... (Score:5, Informative)
That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:
UAH [drroyspencer.com] RSS [remss.com]
The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.
It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:
UAH [drroyspencer.com]
RSS [remss.com]
The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.
It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.
And the first satelite was launched when?
Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.
Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:
UAH [drroyspencer.com] RSS [remss.com]
The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.
It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.
And the first satelite was launched when?
Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.
Certainly. However, since the last adjustments, the surface datasets of record have been diverging from the satellite measurements:
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records [euanmearns.com]
The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again [euanmearns.com]
Interesting that this is taking place going into another big climate conference complete with demands for "climate justice", and also while we're on the eve of a solar Grand Minimum [nationmultimedia.com]...
A quote from that last linked article:
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?
Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which part of the statement "This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured" is the uah data supposed to completely "lack of correlation" with? When I look at the global temperature in the uah data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt , Globe column) and take only October (month=10), I see that October 2015 is indeed the warmer, with a delta of 0.57 degC with 1981-2010, where the previous warmest were 2012 and 2014 with 0.37 each.
It's relatively difficult to see that in your plot, as you give a plot with all temperatures, including October and the other 11 months of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important thing influencing policy in these datasets are the trends. Both major satellite datasets show much less of a warming trend from the mid-90's until now than the recently "adjusted" surface datasets. No doubt this is a strong El Niño, we'll see if it can beat the massive average temperature spike in 1998. It's not close so far.
It'll be interesting to see how things play out over the coming decades...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements... (Score:4, Informative)
1) Satellites don't measure the same thing as ground thermometers (satellites measure the lower troposphere in its entirety, surface thermometers measure the surface temp) so it's not entirely unsurprising they don't give identical numbers to within an error margin.
2) Satellites don't measure polar temperatures very well, and polar amplification makes the temps at particularly the north pole go up faster than average - so a lower total response from the satellite data is expected.
3) People are freaking out over minor adjustments to the surface record which are well-supported by evidence (for example corrections made for a change in the time-of-day of the measurements at some stations at some point, or stations moving from city-centers to airports outside the city center) but the whole satellite record itself is full of far bigger corrections, the raw data of the satellites isn't a directly measured temperature but a remote sensor reading, which is influenced by a whole bunch of internal (sensor drift) and external (observation angle, satellite orbital height, weather conditions) factors. It's almost a miracle that they manage to get a useful data-series out of these satellite sensors.
Honestly, the only reason deniers try to argue that the satellite record is "more accurate" is because it shows a higher peak in 1998 and less total warming, allowing them to fiddle with the results to make it appear there's no warming at all - except that nowadays even the satellite record no longer supports that conclusion.
Re:NASA ignoring satellite measurements... (Score:5, Funny)
Lottery Commission: "Congratulations! You just won our largest ever estimated jackpot! $539M is greater than the next biggest jackpot by 0.08% +/- $2k! We'll know for sure in 2 weeks."
You: "Yawn. I only deal in absolutes and percentages greater than (some moving target)% and spend all my time pointing out anything less than perfect information delivered by time travelers from the future. As you can imagine the internet keeps me too busy to deal with that worthless jackpot."
Re: (Score:2)
Great news for sceptics (Score:2)
This is a great news for "climate skeptics". They will be able to use the 2015 (or maybe 2016, if next year still benefits from el nino) for the next five years in the following sentence: "2015 was an outlier", and if the next el nino is not as strong as the current one, they will be able to use 2015 in their favorite argument in the 10 years after that: "the warming stop in 2015. There is a flat line if you use 2015 as reference".
2015 is the new 1998
.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But... it is an outlier. What is your point?
If after this el nino, the avg. temperature curve is flat from about 1997 to present, with 3 el ninos in the mix and 2 large ones at that, it most certainly is an important observation.
The el nino is one thing, unfortunately for those cheering at "the warmest october evah", the la nina might just wipe the smirks of their faces... we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, the alarmists will be smiling and happy that nature is finally cooperating with their mode
Re: (Score:2)
But... it is an outlier. What is your point?
OK let say 2015 is an outlier. Then the hottest year ever recorded is 2014. And if 2014 is also an outlier, then 2010 and 2005 are both tied as the hottest years. Then 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009 and finally 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why are all the hottest years in the 2000s (save 1998, which is close enough)? Why are all the coldest years before 1920? Sounds like a trend.
Re: (Score:2)
But... it is an outlier. What is your point?
The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).
Re: (Score:2)
There is a third type, too: People who are so convinced of their brilliance, but who are woefully ignorant of the science at hand. That mixture of arrogance and ignorance can cause people to deny something very obvious and spout all kinds of nonsensical ramblings in their own defence. There are plenty in this very discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
This is unfortunate but you are probably right.
Hopefully, I may live long enough to assist to a clathrate gun event that would put an end to that nonsense.
Tiny sample size, evolving measurement methodology (Score:2, Troll)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the measurements are accurate, and that our data from 1880 is as accurate as today's data - it isn't, but let's just say that.
We have data that goes back about 135 years - how long has man been on the planet? The most 'conservative' estimates I've heard, which are resoundingly mocked by many here is around 10,000 years, which would put our sample size at about 1.35%. If man has been rolling around the planet longer than that (and we know he has), the sample size
Re: (Score:3)
We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.
We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last
Re: (Score:2)
Cui bono? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
What's in it for you, specifically? I can see why corporations would fight accepting human created climate change tooth and nail considering that emission control is coming up right behind such an admission. What do you have to gain or lose from siding with whatever side you're not on that you go into full blown shitstorm mode whenever the topic comes up?
And this is by far not the only topic that gets people worked up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have no problems so you have to create some to get worked up about, so you feel like you still exist?
Re: (Score:2)
I think mental illness plays a large part.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even think that would be it. It seems more that people feel compelled to take sides in debates, no matter what. Whether you're for or against something is secondary as long as you can get worked up over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
If you really want to know, you should probably read [merchantsofdoubt.org] or watch [imdb.com] Merchants of Doubt [wikipedia.org] (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.
What's in it for you, specifically?
Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.
Re: Cui bono? (Score:2)
Miniscule ? According to the american geohysical union the total co2 from volcanoes is 0.25% of what human fossil fuels contribute.
If that is "miniscule" what the fuck would you define as large ? Everybody choking to death on smoke ?
Where does the sun go at night? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been an interesting November as well (Score:2)
Part 1 - Here in the northeast, the leaves are finally off the trees. I've been exercising my motorcycle with 100 mile rides every few days, took a big ride yesterday. Mid 60's temps. Almost too warm for my leathers. We haven't had a real frost yet, just a couple nights when the more vertical surfaces would get a kiss. Hot peppers in the garden still producing. Insects and butterflies still doing their thing. Hunters in T-shirts when once they would hope
The thought police are coming...if we let them! (Score:3, Interesting)
A recent Rasmussen poll [rasmussenreports.com] states:
Seriously? 32% of Americans are not opposed to imprisoning scientists having theories that differ from the political establishment?!
Ridiculous you say? It's already happening with a number of climate scientists calling on Obama to bring racketeering charges on skeptics [dailycaller.com]:
Have we really not progressed from the inquisition of Galileo [wikipedia.org]? Time to wake up, America!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not the point.
Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault. Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.
True science needs deniers:
That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. - - Jacob Bronowski
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along! Our views on global climate change are based on we *think* is right, based on the facts that we have today. In another 100 years, things might look very differently. Hey, using blood-sucking leeches to treat sick folks seemed like a good idea a while back! The gag is, blood-sucking leeches are back in fashion in modern medicine: it turns out that they are very useful in restoring blood flow to skin transplants.
Even Einstein himself, probably one of the most gifted minds that ever walked on this planet, had problems with that newfangled Quantum Theory:
Einstein: "God does not play dice!"
Niels Bohr: "Stop telling God what to do!"
Erwin Schrödinger: "So, is like, my cat dead or alive . . . ?"
Einstein: "If I had my way, all those cats would be dead! They pee on my furniture, and shit in my shoes!"
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:5, Insightful)
True science needs deniers:
No, True science needs challengers.
You can deny the Gravitational Theory all you want, but if I drop an anvil on your head, you're still dead.
On the other hand, if someone challenges that gravity must inevitably operate in such and such a way and that leads to development of anti-grav technology, that's True science.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.). Most proponents today sound less like reasonable people and more and more like shrill cultists holding up placards proclaiming the end is nigh.
It also disturbs me that AGW proponents have not only created an echo-chamber for themselves within the university system, but have also carefully tailored what appears to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's very difficult to conceive of any data that could contradict it. And when data DOES come along that seemingly does contradict it--rather than reconsidering the hypothesis itself, proponents merely "adjust" the data until it nicely fits the hypothesis again.
Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot. This very report cites October as the hottest October on record as evidence of global warming. Will it therefore be evidence AGAINST global warming if this December is the coldest December on record? Or will the same people who cited this report as AGW evidence suddenly dismiss that as "just a minor weather pattern, not related to climate."? Or maybe the data would somehow be cleverly be "adjusted" until December turns into the hottest on record instead (you see, that initial data didn't take into account a huge adjustment for ocean currents being very strong in the Indian Ocean this year, therefore we have to adjust it up several degrees to compensate).
I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).
IOW you were fine with it until somebody noticed that there could be real life consequences. Then you locked up, because that's something only religions talk about, but not real science - that lives in a world of spherical cows in a vacuum on a frictionless surface.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot.
I agree with you to some extent that an individual data point shouldn't be trumpeted as being evidence of anything for a long-term trend. But I would note that this is NOT what TFS says. It says (1) October is the hottest October in the past 135 years (that's based on 135 data points, not one), and (2) there have been many such record-breaking months recently.
That's not an individual data point. That's a bunch of data seen in a 135-year context. You can argue that 135 years is still a short time windo
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, as a further set of datapoints, I'd have a look at this NOAA report [noaa.gov] with a list of months with greatest deviations from the previous global average.
You'll note that 8 of the top 10 of them occurred in the past 5 years. And this report is from September, so once October is included, it will likely be 9/10 of the most significant upward deviations occurred in the past few years.
One October data point is not the news. The issue is that data point taken in context of the larger and well-establ
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
When somebody like you calls the adjusted, normalized field data average monthly temperature data, my head just wants to explode. Even the Climatologists call it "Data product".
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called "an overwhelming body of evidence, which some people ignore on ideological grounds".
It's not an echo chamber, it's science. If someone can demonstrate AGW is not happening, they will find fame and fortune in these exact same institutions. They will be lauded and given wealth and opportunity beyond measure.
All your examples are just ignorance of what the scientists are actually talking about and what they're doing. Blaming them for that is, well, ridiculous. Judging from what you've written you have a lot of knowledge of this subject missing, so no wonder you get so confused. It would look like a scam to me, too, if I knew as little as you do on the subject. I don't mean to sound rude, but there is simply no other way to put it.
The fact you will ignore scientific discoveries because they sound weird to you and confuse the evening news with scientific journals speaks more of your grasp of science than any science in particular.
And yes, people who actively deny scientific findings (using a medium born from the same method) will usually garner criticism, and rightly so. The irony is palpable.
Re: (Score:2)
The deniers will only ever be happy if we build a second earth, reset it to 1800 and re-run the last couple of hundred years with the industrial revolution as a baseline for comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pull the other one.
Re: Climate has never not been changing. (Score:3)
Its really easy to falsify. Put some co2 in a jar. Put some ordinary air in another jar. Leave both in the sun for an hour. Measure their temperature.
If the co2 jar is not hotter than the air jar as predicted then you falsified the theory. Good luck with that.
Everything else is basic thermodynamics.. if the rate at which energy leaves the system is reduced it heats up. No matter how big or complex the system. Of course you could try to disprove thermodynamics instead...
Re: (Score:3)
I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.
The key is to recognize what is supported by evidence, and what is still hypothesis.
Strongly supported: adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally cause warming.
Hypothesis: adding CO2 will cause so much warming that there will be a disaster.
Hypothesis: our computer models can accurately predict the climate of the future.
A lot of people have trouble with the idea that parts of AGW theory can be well established, but other parts are highly conjectural. It's ok to accept some parts while doubting other
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).
So what? The science is still there no matter how much perceived crap is on top of it! The greenhouse effect still traps radiated heat from sources such as incident light (see: your car with the windows up in the sun). CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in atmosphere (see: Venus). The carbon cycle has recorded itself in all sorts of ways so we have a general picture of whats "normal" (see: tree rings, ice cores, fossil record). Humans are currently contributing carbon to the atmosphere that is NOT part of the usual cycle (see: oil rigs digging 5 miles into the earth) but was sequestered a long time ago when conditions were drastically different.
If you stop worrying about how some guy says some data point may be off by 0.3% and look at what we know about the physical world we occupy it should be obvious that we should be spending time and money on reducing our carbon footprint.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.
And this is the hallmark of the true science denier: he wants to use the fact that science is allways in motion to promote the notion that nothing is ever certain. I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.
Einsteins theories have not supplanted Newton's theory gave an extension for elementary particles. BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you are unaware that you have to take Relativity into account when determining satellite orbits?
Re: (Score:2)
A science denier is the US is religious and feel God is saying otherwise and think scientists have an ideological agenda because they don't deny evolution.
This started due to Reagan courting them in 1980 and creating the religious right. When oil interests lobby it is merged with religious theology as it came mingled together.
This is dangerous as their eternal security is at stake for thinking differently from the church which is one with this. So expect strong opposition and shows how screwed up the right
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. 2015 is going to blow last years record out of the water and if the strong El Nino years of 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. In 2020 the climate science denier's meme will probably be "no warming since 2016".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True science needs deniers:
That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. - - Jacob Bronowski
Your quotation is not the attitude of a "denier" -- it is the attitude of a curious mind who is not a "believer" and is willing to ask questions. Yes, this is a generalization, but most "deniers" of climate change aren't necessarily well-versed in the details of climatology, but are nevertheless convinced that they have found the "truth" which apparently has escaped the notice of most experts in the field. And, more importantly, they will seek out any random data points -- no matter how irrelevant -- to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton.
It still is! Newton's laws work just fine for explaining pretty much anything a human can put their hands on. Einstein took it a step further to explain what humans can put their advanced instruments on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Actually, your point is half false, and half irrelevant.
Greenland ice core records show that the planet has, in relatively recent history (geologically), seen much faster temperature changes. Up to a 7C rise in 40 years, IIRC, and without any obvious cause. That's the false part.
The irrelevant part is whether or not it's our fault. Suppose we had exactly the same temperature rise, with potentially exactly the same impacts on human life, but that it happened due to some sequence of events that we did not
Re: (Score:3)
Antarctic ice core records confirm the Greenland results. Yeah, just two points, but points rather far apart, so it at least not a localized phenomenon.
I'd love to see your sources for simultaneous temperature changes by 7 degree C in 40 years in both Greenland and the Antarctic. I'm not aware of these, but I certainly may have missed them.
Anyway, what is it that you're trying to argue? That rapid climate change cannot possibly happen without human intervention? Please see my second point, about why anthropogenesis or the lack thereof is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that our best evidence is that the current episode of climate change is likely unprecedented, and that it is largely anthropogenic. I'm sure that the Chicxulub impactor [wikipedia.org] also had a massive (if different) influence on climate, but I'd like to get through this warming episode without the predominant life form ta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, Im in Texas and it was the coolest, wettest summer I've ever experienced!
But our experiences are nanoseconds in the geological sense.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Informative)
And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. Also, warmer weather means less lakes freeze over which means more lake effect snow. So a warming climate CAN lead to more snow despite the claims of certain politicians who claim that seeing snow outside proves global warming wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How come you can make-um snowballs in summertime?"
"Well, you see Hiawatha, it's too cold to make 'em in the winte'."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically whatever happens (more snow, less snow, more ice, less ice, etc.) the cause can be attributed to global warming. Got it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try going outside. You appear to be in a condo in Vancouver. You may be on heroin.
It's been so cold in Canada in the last three years we've broken dozens if not hundreds of cold record temperature records:
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru... [ctvnews.ca]
We've not broken one for warm/hot, just record cold.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
"Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot."
The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:5, Informative)
64 temperature records smashed in B.C.
Weather experts are now predicting June will be Vancouver's hottest on record
Vancouver Sun June 30, 2015
Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you.
How eloquently you have rebutted the GP's argument. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Regardless, weather isn't climate, so fuck both of you.
Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer. The Warmists are grasping at straws because even the El Nino hasn't broken the pause, there still hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the RSS satellite data for 223 months.
Re: (Score:3)
North America has often been getting our (Europe) dose of winter the last couple of years. Last couple of years temperatures where I live never got below the freezing point. Now its mid November and we have been getting almost 20 degrees C (68F) on some days. In central Europe winters have been noticeably warmer and we barely get any snow anymore.
Seriously, anyone doubting climate change [wikipedia.org] and global warming [wikipedia.org], simply educate yourself and read the Wikipedia articles on it. They are scientific, to the point and
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry?
Wikipedia?
Unbiased?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because, according to AGW zealots, EVERYTHING is evidence of AGW. And AGW has exactly ZERO contraindications.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and allow me to debunk it: They want to continue living on this planet.
I know, I know, it's so obvious once someone says it...
Re: Climate has never not been changing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody else curious that they reference October 2016 in the article, not 2015? I'm not sure that I can trust this information, maybe it needs another correction. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
SO... (Score:2, Insightful)
...is Slashdot going to post this crap once a month proclaiming that interpolated, estimated, revised, and combined data sets show each moth is the Hottest Eeeevurr!!
Lets get real here people, they've polluted the data so badly they can't even provide the original, unedited data. NOAA essentially threw out high quality, well calibrated data collected from purpose built devices by combining it with low quality, uncontrolled data from ships. Image if some drug company took data derived from blood samples meas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now here is man that actualy could do with a few weeks inside a tinfoil hat...
Re: (Score:2)
Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!
Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that hold true if you think they're morons [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!
Odds are that if you think you are surrounded by idiots and assholes, you are the asshole.
In this case, I suspect the only people surrounding him are those nice young men in the clean white coats.....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like winter either, but running the A/C all through September was just plain insane!
Especially since I don't turn it on until temperatures top 85 degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like winter, so this is excellent news!!
Just to fuck with the climate idiots I like to take a cigarette lighter to the local weather station. Look we had a record temperature of 500F we're all going to die like Al Gore said!!
I had no idea that Bill O'Reilly posted on Slashdot. You can't explain that!
So exactly how does your attempted arson disprove AGW?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good to know (Score:2, Troll)
Guys in fishing boats dropped thermometers to a random depth under the water surface and recorded their temperatures as accurately as they cared to (maybe to the closest half a degree?) whenever they chose to.
What you have a problem accepting conclusions based on an ever-changing measurement methodology/technology?
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of harsh employers, but having you put on chains is kind of excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.
We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, the warmest month in 124 years - that's like saying last Thursday was the warmest day in the last 4 months - so what?
You should move to Canada where at least until recently, they would have made that secret knowledge, and it wouldn't have pissed you off.
Now that being said - you are right. October's weather was just that - weather. Not in any way indicative of anything but temperature readings.
Now if we shift to what would be indicative of climate, we need to look at trends. And once we get enough record or nearly record months of data, then years of data, we can make an intelligent assessment of what is going on.
An
Re: (Score:2)
Ho my god! You are right.
Modern phones can give you the local temperature but I am pretty sure that phones could not do that in 1876.