Earth Just Experienced Its Hottest-Ever October (cbsnews.com) 275
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Last month was the hottest ever October on record globally, according to data released Friday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization that tracks global temperatures. The month, which was reportedly 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average October from 1981-2010, narrowly beat October 2015 for the top spot. According to Copernicus, most of Europe, large parts of the Arctic and the eastern U.S. and Canada were most affected. The Middle East, much of Africa, southern Brazil, Australia, eastern Antarctica and Russia also experienced above-average temperatures. Parts of tropical Africa and Antarctica and the western U.S. and Canada felt much colder than usual, however. While all major oceans experienced unusually low temperatures, air temperatures over the sea were still much higher than average.
October is following a 2019 trend. The hottest-ever September follows a record-setting summer, which included the hottest-ever June and July and the second-hottest August. Overall, 2019 will make history as one of the top five warmest years on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Temperatures from November 2018 to October 2019 were above average for "virtually all of Europe," and most other areas of land and ocean, Copernicus said.
October is following a 2019 trend. The hottest-ever September follows a record-setting summer, which included the hottest-ever June and July and the second-hottest August. Overall, 2019 will make history as one of the top five warmest years on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Temperatures from November 2018 to October 2019 were above average for "virtually all of Europe," and most other areas of land and ocean, Copernicus said.
Climate crisis... aaaaarrggg! (Score:3)
Damn you Greta... look what you've done now!
Re:Climate crisis... aaaaarrggg! (Score:5, Interesting)
Global climate change is not a crisis for me yet. I'm unsure whether it ever will be or not. I don't think worrying too much about it is a healthy stance though. There will be problems https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com] , but there also may possibly be some upside https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]. Fortunes will shift with the weather somewhat and life will ...uh... find a way. As always. Definitely not something I want to spend additional taxes on.
It's interesting that the article brings up data from 1980 to 2010....the amount and quality of global weather data from the early 80's was probably crap, not necessarily wrong mind you but there wasn't as much high quality data. Now I feel like we're spending metric tons of cash on getting high quality data, but not everywhere yet.
This is an interesting stance considering that:
Scientist identified the cause of acid rain, then proposed a solution. that solution was implemented and acid rain has all but disappeared.
Scientist identified a hole forming in the ozone layer, proposed a solution, now the ozone layer is nearly completely repaired.
Neither of these problems were remotely cheap fixes , they were really expensive.
Now scientist have identified global warming, proposed a fix and people seem to have completely lost their fucking minds. Why did people decide that facts and science were a bad thing?
Re:Climate crisis... aaaaarrggg! (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry citations :
Acid rain solved : https://www.edf.org/approach/m... [edf.org]
Ozone layer solved : https://grist.org/article/the-... [grist.org]
800,000 years of atmospheric ice core data :https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html /puts fingers in ear /say lalalalalalala
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone layer solved
Did China stop blowing foam with CFCs?
Re:Climate crisis... aaaaarrggg! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now scientist have identified global warming, proposed a fix and people seem to have completely lost their fucking minds. Why did people decide that facts and science were a bad thing?
When it impacted their livelihoods, possibly their quality of live or the business model of corporations that are very good at propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
This time it is not scientists proposing fixes, it's power greedy idiots ignoring some huge white elephants, some real solutions and proposing self hating things that will do nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Now scientist have identified global warming, proposed a fix and people seem to have completely lost their fucking minds. Why did people decide that facts and science were a bad thing?
I agree that this is a solved problem. We know how to fix the problem of global warming caused by human activity. The reason so many are losing their minds on this is because they are not liking the solutions that science found. They have a vision of a world powered by wind, rain, and sun. That's not how we have solve the problem. They are not liking science because it brought them scary nuclear fission power. That's how we solved the problem. Once these people realize this, or "age out" (as Bill Nye
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason you still feel safe is that you are not living in Bangladesh which stands to lose half of its country. The monsoons in India only need to shift a bit before they have serious problems. And the Himalayan glaciers provide much of India's rivers, the glaciers are shrinking.
The fishermen on the U.S. East Coast are now complaining they have to travel too far north to catch the fish. It turns out the fish get a vote on warming ocean waters and have decided that they'd like cooler water up north. P
What about 2017? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop polluting this forum with your noise.
Perhaps you want to read the captions of the graphs you linked.
Or I have to call you what you are: and idiot and a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't pull random temperatures. The data I linked states that the current October was +0.46 deg C, and that 2017 was +0.63 deg C. Meaning, at least for the satellite record,
...For one of the groups analyzing the record of one of the satellites (there are more than one, you know)...
it was not the warmest October ever.
...at an altitude of 20,000 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
You are indeed a stupid idiot: your link is lower troposphere temperature, not ground temperature. Can't be so hard to grasp unless you have server mental problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just pull random temperature figures from different places and compare them. There are so many variables, I don't know where to start.
You don't know where to start because you have no data to stand on. How about starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is not a valid source of scientific data any more than Facebook is.
YouTube and Facebook are only the messengers, not the source. Saying Youtube and Facebook are not valid sources is like saying the telephone or the radio are not valid sources, with no regard of who is speaking at the time. What is a valid source? A book? If I find trustworthy data published in a book does that become any more or less valid when that same data is put into a YouTube video?
You stated that we can't pull temperature data from two different sources and compare them. Why not? If I wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
Both are valid sources if the publisher is a valid research site.
What is that, are we surrounded by idiots in our time? If the DMI publishes a video on YT, it has the same credibility like its reports published or used for the IPCC.
Important is: who made the research - and to what standards - and not where it is published. I'm actually not aware of a video publishing site dedicated to scientific reports.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many variables, I don't know where to start.
You'd better start figuring it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about 2017? (Score:4, Interesting)
and more recently, this one: https://www.carbonbrief.org/ma... [carbonbrief.org]
In any case, though, the UAH satellite temperature reconstructions don't show surface temperature-- they show temperature up to about where jets cruise. Different thing.
Re:What about 2017? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't heat rise? Wouldn't there be a correlation between the two temperatures?
Yes, there's a very strong correlation overall, but there are also some big difference. For instance, El-Nino/La-Nina swings are much more pronounced at tropospheric level than at surface.
Also, satellites don't measure temperature. They measure infrared radiation by looking down. The problem is that all the radiation from entire column of atmosphere is blended together, and it requires a lot of modelling to pull that apart in separate layers.
Many people naively think that satellite measurements are more accurate, but the reverse is true. It is much easier to get accurate results with thermometers on the ground.
November is looking pretty special in California (Score:2)
It's dry AF here right now. Well, not HERE here, I'm in Albion and it got super foggy today so the redwoods are getting plenty of water. But the bay area is between 0 and 1% of the usual rainfall for this part of the month so far... and yes, hot, too. Temps are in the high seventies and low eighties.
Re: (Score:3)
It has always been "dry AF" in southern half of California.
What does that have to do with the places I mentioned, all of which are in the northern half of California?
Do they not have Google on your planet?
What are the error bars on this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm interested in the degree of confidence of the claim. "Hottest" by how many degrees? Confidence in the measurement has +/- how many degrees?
If it's hottest by 2 degrees and the error bars are +/- 0.01 degree then I'm very worried. If it's hottest by 0.01 degree and the error bars are +/- 2 degrees, I'm much less worried.
The second link [copernicus.eu] gave me the first number I wanted: the difference between the hottest October recorded and the second-hottest October was 0.02 degrees Celsius. But I wasn't able to find any error bars.
The error bars seem like a pretty important number that needs to be mentioned. I'm not a scientist but I thought scientific studies always share their estimated error bars on their data, so I'm sure the numbers must be available. Can anyone find them and share them here, please?
Re: (Score:2)
The error range is +- 2 degrees C for the last 10 years. +- 5 degrees C for the two decades before that. +- 8 degrees C for the half-century before that, +- 10 degrees for the half-century before that, and +- 20 degrees C before that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested in the degree of confidence of the claim. "Hottest" by how many degrees? Confidence in the measurement has +/- how many degrees?
If it's hottest by 2 degrees and the error bars are +/- 0.01 degree then I'm very worried. If it's hottest by 0.01 degree and the error bars are +/- 2 degrees, I'm much less worried.
The second link [copernicus.eu] gave me the first number I wanted: the difference between the hottest October recorded and the second-hottest October was 0.02 degrees Celsius. But I wasn't able to find any error bars.
The error bars seem like a pretty important number that needs to be mentioned. I'm not a scientist but I thought scientific studies always share their estimated error bars on their data, so I'm sure the numbers must be available. Can anyone find them and share them here, please?
What are the error bars on current atmospheric co2 lvls being more than double any peak in the last 800,000 years?
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov... [lbl.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.co2.earth/images/f... [www.co2.earth]
Re: (Score:3)
From 2010 (Score:2, Interesting)
*In fact, this is an expropriation of the countries with the natural resources. This leads to a very different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.*
First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. *One has to free
That's good new! (Score:3)
Global warming is awesome! I'm excited at the prospect of no more glaciers and no more permafrost.
With more records to be broken. (Score:2)
No, it didn't. (Score:3)
Bullshit (Score:3)
The Earth used to be much warmer. Title is bullshit.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gravity can be observed and measured. The Earth's climate is a massive system with trillions of trillions of moving parts
And that is measured directly. With terabytes of data per year.
Just because the idiot deniers want to throw out all of data because they want to pretend that climate isn't a science... that doesn't mean that the Earth (and the sun) is not well measured.
Re: (Score:3)
The Earth's climate is a massive system with trillions of trillions of moving parts that changes over the span of thousands of years. Kinda' hard to measure directly.
It's hard, but we keep getting better at it, and yet the results continue to indicate warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To wit: they cannot honestly call it the hottest October, because they say it was hottest by
an insignificant 0.01ÂC warmer than October 2015, the second warmest October
.
Here's the problem: the raw temperature measurements, before any calculations and adjustments are even made on them, have uncertainties of about +- 1ÂC to begin with.
And the adjustments and calculations they do add uncertainty; they are not capable of reducing it. (It is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:4, Insightful)
The measurements taken 100 years ago are not as accurate as they are today, but they are not wrong. They have a larger margin of error, but that does not mean that they should be thrown out the window, only that this larger margin of error has to be taken into account.
Just because back then the variance has been +/- 0.1 degrees instead of 0.01 doesn't mean that the 30 degrees measured then could have been 40 as well.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just standard climate-change denying bullshit.
I am a bit surprised you didn't fit the standard "climate-change priests" trope in there somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
See where you're going wrong?
No... That's literally how and why models are made.
The Earth as a system is far too complex to simulate perfectly. We can only improve our constrained models of it until they're "good enough".
The underlying science- thermodynamics and radiative flux have been confirmed far past the point of question.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Informative)
See where you're going wrong?
No, but I can see where you're going wrong:
If model does not correlate with hypothesis, reject hypothesis, come up with new hypothesis - repeat
Except that's often not how science works. Often we can just modify the hypothesis to fit new data that causes the hypothesis to fail. You frequently don't have to throw out the entire hypothesis, if a modification to the hypothesis is sufficient. We modify whole theories like this all the time outside of climate science -- physics and biology do it on a rather regular basis as new information comes to light that doesn't fit the existing models.
Models that predict the future are important, but notoriously difficult to get perfect, and often need to be adjusted as new data becomes available. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are physical laws that allow us to predict the location of various orbiting bodies, but we still use radio telescopes to see track of the exact positions of many nearby bodies because external factors can affect their precise precisions that Kepler's equations can't account for. We don't turn around and throw out Kepler's equations and try to come up with a completely new hypothesis because some orbiting body turns out to be not exactly where the equations predicted they would be.
Climate models are based on measurements and projections. They're still trying to divine the future, and they have the added complexity that they can't account for all of the unknown variables involved (will humans emit more or less CO2 into the atmosphere in a given year? What contributions will Earth's volcanoes make?). As more data becomes available, the models get refined and improved in an iterative manner -- just as happens in all the other sciences.
Yaz
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently. the models in 1990 were extremely good, and what we experience now was predicted 30 years ago.
In the 2000s, there was much political pressure to tone down the dire warnings from the first IPCC reports, and thus models were introduced that predicted a lower curve for the increasing temperatures. But already then, the real measurements were always at the upper limit of the models, with 1998 being an exceptionally hot year. When the following years didn't surpass 1998, there was much debate about how global warming apparently has stopped, the models were off etc.pp., when in reality. the temperatures were right in the range of the 1990 IPCC predictions. Since the 2010s, temperatures were again raising, with a strong El Nino in 2016/2017 causing all previous highs to be shattered. The El Nino has ebbed, thus the low ocean temperatures, and still, 2019 is on track to be the second warmest year ever since the first continious reports (which started in the 1760ies, and since the 1880ies, are globally recorded).
No, the models are fine. Measurements fit their predictions. Their interpretation by non-scientists, the ways they are mis-understood, ignored, mis-represented or otherwise wrongly reported, are changing.
Re: (Score:3)
Then show me the bit where the IPCC were even involved in the wholly manufactured controversy that was Climategate.
They weren't, it was the University of East Anglia.
Fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody seriously claimed the world was going to end because of pollution, but they certainly claimed that if we didn't do anything about pollution, our lives would be worse.
Pollution and climate change are not necessarily the same thing, although one can cause the other, in the right quantities.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember in the 70's people making hysterical claims about the world ending due to pollution (now: climate change) within a decade or two.
Maybe... maaaaaybe we are actually in a better state now because we actually did something about the pollution problem? I remember the 1970s as well. Saying that everyone was worried about the world "ending" because of pollution is exaggeration. We did know that things would be really shitty for our quality of life if we did nothing about pollution. Since those worries came to the forefront, Nixon introduced the EPA, we started getting serious about pollution cleanups and emissions. Forests dying off due to acid rain is more of a rarity. The ozone layer hole has shrunk to its smallest size since it was discovered. The Cuyahoga River, the one famous for catching on fire in the 1960s, is now the poster child for the Clean Water Act. Schools in the LA Basin don't have smog days anymore where they send kids home because the outside air is hazardous to breathe.
Sometimes there are wolves threatening the village. Just because there happens to be a Chicken Little who exaggerates claims doesn't mean the actual village safety researchers are wrong. Just that Chicken Little gets more attention.
Unfortunately, fixing a problem before it blows up doesn't get rewarded. Instead, you get snark from the know-nothings who smirk about how "Hey, remember how problem X was a big thing? I guess those guys were full of crap, weren't they?" The only guarantee is being able to say "I told you so" if you were ignored, it doesn't get fixed, and it blows up.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a re-occuring theme. Scientists are not predicting the end of the world in 7 years, only denialist are making the claim that scientists are saying it, to mock them. Same as your claim in the 80's no scientists were claiming an ice-age, only denialist claims were bringing up a paper withdrawn in 74 (in the early 70's their were a very few scientists with concerns about the level of soot and carbon pollution, but thankfully action has largely revesed that scenario.)
No one who honestly observes how well the scientific process works, like that is what brought us Nuclear, computers, satellites, GPS... Then thinks they can spend 5 minute dragging up one or two observations and dismiss the consensus of now thousands of man years of scientific study, is just not being genuine.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Informative)
How far off the IPCC models are we (depends on which model)
I'm glad you asked that question. Here is a video comparing the 12 heavy hitting models [youtube.com] whose names you see pop up from time to time. These aren't all the models ever created but if you read a paper, chances are really good you'll see one of these model's names come up.
So either the models are wrong or the temperatures are wrong
Now if you've watched that video you'll note that the IPCC models are really underselling the predictions, they are considered "conservative" models as they should be because, well, politics. And you might say, politics shouldn't figure into science and gee golly gosh, I would really love to live in that world. So if the IPCC models are wrong, which they aren't as they fall within the margin of error, but if they were wrong, they would be wrong in the wrong way as the temperature is getting hotter faster than the models predict. We'd all feel a lot better if say IPCC '01 was correct.
Also the divergence keeps increasing so perhaps we need some adjustment to the model
You're right, we need models that predict a much faster warming than we originally expected. Exxon '82 seems to have found the right balance there.
As stated above Warmest ever? how long back do their temperature records go, about 1 dot in the line of history.
Well temperature records extend back to the middle 1800 and past that, fossil records, core samples, and all that other stuff people like to argue about extend it further (or not if you don't believe in that stuff). However, they are correct this is the warmest October this Earth has had in the recorded temperature record, that data set that goes back to middle 1800s.
In closing, people tend to criticize the IPCC models as being wrong all the time and the thing is that, they're flawed, but not wrong. But what a lot of people who want to deny climate change fail to realize that the IPCC models predict a much slower warming but the reality is that the warming is happening much faster than the models predict. So you can say they are wrong, again they aren't, but you can say that. However, their "wrongness" doesn't mean that the world is getting cooler, in fact it is the opposite. The world is heating up faster than the models predict. But so few people ever actually look at the models to know just exactly what it is they are spewing. I hope that video helps you out in understanding what these models and what the observation actually show.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep moving those goal posts. Surely your strong disbelief in global warming will protect you from the consequences.
Nobody promised you anything in grade school. The whole "global cooling" thing in the 70s was really just science reporters popularizing a fringe theory. Look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nowadays, only disingenuous climate trolls even mention it. It's pretty much a sure fire tell that someone is being deliberately dishonest about their personal understanding of climate change.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole "global cooling" thing in the 70s was really just science reporters popularizing a fringe theory. Look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]
Read your own link. Scientists were talking about global cooling, too (which you will see if you read your link).
The entire reason you added the qualifier "in the 70s" is because that is when climatology was transitioning to warming focus.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, the global cooling in the '70s was like the "Scientists say bees can't fly" thing.
Only a single person ever said "bees can't fly" and the press ran with it, painting the whole of science as being confused over bees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of scientists were talking about global cooling, not 97% of climate scientists.
You just compared two sets that are not equivalent. Right after talking about false equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really that stupid?
Climate science was not predicting an ice age when you were in grade school - there was a small fraction of climate science papers saying that the earth was on a cooling trend (you know how we have natural cycles). The media picked up on this and reported it sensationally.
Climate science almost unanimously reports global warming now. Human activity has overwhelmed the natural cycles in the climate.
At no point did climate scientists deny there were papers predicting cooling.
Stop
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance of the underlying details of that are why it has become a baton used by deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
The cooling trend wasn't a natural cycle. It was man-caused, and man-fixed.
If we cause global cooling before then we can do it again.
I'm quite certain we know how to stop global warming, but I'm also quite certain it doesn't involve whatever you are thinking about from the 1980s or whatever.
The solution to global warming will involve nuclear fission, onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, synthetic fuels, new fertilizers, and a strong and sustainable lumber industry.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Interesting)
If we cause global cooling before then we can do it again.
Of course we can. We could precipitate an ice age if we wanted to. It's well within our power. There's some critical level of albedo where if the planet crosses, it will trigger a runaway effect for a long period of time.
Of course, we also have the power to undo that. Particulates that block sunlight cool the planet, CO2 warms it.
The critical difference between those 2 factors, is that aerosols tend to wash out of the air in short order- so you must maintain the supply of them in the atmosphere. CO2 takes quite a while to be removed from the cycle.
I'm quite certain we know how to stop global warming, but I'm also quite certain it doesn't involve whatever you are thinking about from the 1980s or whatever.
Let's hope not. That scale of geoengineering sounds pretty fucking dangerous. Though more dangerous than the geoengineering we're doing right now with the disruption of the extant carbon cycle? I'm not qualified to opine.
The solution to global warming will involve nuclear fission, onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, synthetic fuels, new fertilizers, and a strong and sustainable lumber industry.
We agree.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:4, Informative)
The paper was never shown to be wrong, and the cooling trend subsided along with the regulation of aerosol emissions, which were increasing nearly exponentially at the time.
Aerosols wash out of the atmosphere very quickly (rain), so the cooling we were creating was quickly reversed as emissions dropped.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK boomer.
/ Actually there was a time when it was so hot the oceans boiled:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hilarious thing about using that statement is that it identifies the person using it as so naive that they think it offends the older and wiser people. Newsflash ... you are still our children. We still don't really give any weight to your childish tantrums.
Re:SuperKendall and PenAndPaper... (Score:5, Informative)
Warmest ever... in the last 40 years... Give me a real time range to work with that reflects climate not weather, then maybe this would mean something. I still am waiting for the ice-age I was told would be here when I was in grade school.
Global warming prevented that ice-age.
Here are facts describing atmospheric co2 lvls over the last 800,000 years.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov... [lbl.gov]
You can see the "ice ages" when the co2 lvls fell.
Note that after the industrial revolution the lvls more than doubled any peak lvl in over 800,000 years.
Is that what you were looking for?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry here is a better link that provides more obvious graphics based on ice core samples :
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-... [www.co2.earth]
Re: (Score:2)
Most people know this as the fight against acid rain, because that was the major headlining symptom.
Sounds like a proof of concept. (Score:2)
Actually the cessation of exponential increase in aerosol emissions prevented that ice-age.
If that worked, and if global warming really does need fixing, perhaps increasing aerosol emissions again might be in order, eh? Sounds like a proof-of-concept to me. ;-)
Most people know this as the fight against acid rain, because that was the major headlining symptom.
Doesn't have to be biased toward pH lowering compounds, or include irritants or carcinogens, or even be released in the lower atmosphere.
I don't like
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I think it will be a necessity for us within the next century.
Atmospheric aerosols that aren't as harmful when they wash out in the rain are definitely a reasonable way to curb the inward flux of shortwave radiation.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as bringing cosmological physics into play... I'm not entirely sure that's relevant as an example of our shortcoming of knowledge. The questions about universe expansion, why the fuck spiral galaxies stick together (almost all galaxies spin faster than we think they should- our leading theory is dark matter) just aren't relevant at plane
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DENIER!!!! You denied. Look everyone a denier! (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah yeah, thats written by Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Prior to deciding they are now experts on climate science here to tell us that physics lies, they specialized in being experts on tobacco to tell us medical science lies and in fact tobacco is good for you.
Hey, if you want to believe that sort of crankery, well its up to you, but I'll pass. Koch Brothers funded anti science groups havent exactly got a good reputation for the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
" With 2019 as #4" should be " With 2019 as #5"
Re:Temp is decreasing according to NOAA!!! (Score:4, Informative)
4 years is not a trend. You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why does a story about 2019 being one of the top 5 warmest on record even matter? Temp has been decreasing the past 4 years.
Re:Temp is decreasing according to NOAA!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Both the article and Slashdot story are intentionally misleading as I pointed out. That's the real trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wouldn't have thought that was possible, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Holy shit you're so fucking retarded.
"4 years is not a trend."
"4 of the hottest years in the past 5 is indicative of a trend."
Go eat your own shit.
Re:Temp is decreasing according to NOAA!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gotta love the geniuses who can spot a trend in four years but cannot spot a trend in 40 years.
Re: (Score:3)
You are just like James Inhofe and his snowball: [paraphrasing] "Climate change does not exist because here is a snowball"
Re: (Score:2)
You are just like James Inhofe and his snowball: [paraphrasing] "Climate change does not exist because here is a snowball"
We may as well say that there is no global warming if there is no real solutions being discussed.
Here's what I'm seeing from the Democrats on global warming, a socialist manifesto with a few mentions of windmills and solar panels thrown in. The Green New Deal wasn't any kind of plan to stop global warming. It wasn't even a bill that put into effect any actual policy. But they certainly made a lot of noise about how this do nothing bill needed votes.
What I'm seeing from the Republicans is policies that br
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, Utah had its coldest period in October since records started being kept in the late 1800s. The last two weeks of October saw the temperature in Salt Lake City dip down to 14 F, which beat the old record by a couple of degrees.
Eastern and Western Canada were cold as well, so I'm not really sure where this bullshit is coming from. Average wise in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes the temps were 0.5C below daily averages for most of October. So sayeth Environment Canada. Hell even Western Canada was cold over the last month, just having finished driving through and back over the last 3 weeks the last week was around -4 to -10C below norm and averages. Hell it's been so cold not to mention the extended rain, that people are stil
Re:Hottest October? Not in Utah... (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly what % of the world do you think Utah is? (or Utah + whatever you're from if not there).
Re: (Score:2)
(urgh meant to say "wherever you're from" not "whatever you're from", sorry didn't mean for it to come off as needlessly insulting)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in northern Utah, so felt the cold first hand.
I'm not trying to imply that Utah is somehow significant enough to throw water on the whole climate change thing. I was just pointing out that while it may have been the hottest October on average globally, there were places where it was record breaking cold.
On the flip side I had a co-worker who took a vacation in France at the end of June of this year, and he said it was unusually hot there for that time of year.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh your comment was fine, it was paper_sextoy that implied the article was BS based on his/her cool October.
Re: (Score:2)
Different story in PA. We're close to needing AC for nearly half the year now. It gets uncomfortable in the middle of May and runs through the end of September. The first few days in October were in the mid 80s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's been warming since the mid 1800s, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
And, I've never said "the end is nigh". The only people saying that are denialists. Scientists are unequivocally saying that life is going to continue to grow increasingly unpleasant for an increasing number of humans as time proceeds.
more perspective (Score:2)
Based on this rate in 100 years time we will have warmed a further 0.25 C, tell me why I should be concerned by this news....
Especially given the estimates that, in about 400 years, we are likely to have used up essentially all of the actual (not "proved", which is far smaller) practically recoverable fossil carbon reserves.
After that, as the plants and oceans sequester the atmospheric carbon back into, first the biome, then minerals, the problem may become avoiding a crash back onto the orbital mechanics d
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My mess? I didn't create this mess, but I did just give a plan to fix it. A plan I quoted below in case you missed it before. I know it's a long post, that's because it's a complex problem that can't be solved in a single paragraph.
This isn't my plan, it's a plan I saw given to me by some very smart people that spent a lot of time looking at the problem. All I tried to do is put these ideas together as not everyone looked at every aspect of the problem. The ideas on how to reduce CO2 from electricity p
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon taxes. Unless this money taken in by the taxes is going to efforts that are shown to work all this does is make energy more expensive.
Making CO2 intensive energy more expensive is the point.
It encourages investment in better technologies with lower CO2 requirements.
It encourages use of less polluting energy and discourages higher polluting energy sources.
Encourages people to just use less energy. Buy more efficient cars/appliances/insulation etc.
Ideally that money could be given to poor people to offset their share of the burden. Or invested in CO2 mitigation methods. But even if it's not and you g
Re: (Score:2)
Another example of torturing the data long enough (in this case, 7 whole days)
Seven days where? What are you talking about here?