2017 Among Warmest Years On Record (npr.org) 187
2017 was among the warmest years on record, according to new data released by NASA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. From a report: The planet's global surface temperature last year was second warmest since 1880, NASA says. NOAA calls it the third warmest year on record, due to slight variation in the ways that they analyze temperatures. Both put 2017 behind 2016's record temperatures. And "both analyses show that the five warmest years on record have all taken place since 2010," NASA said in a press release. The trend is seen most dramatically in the Arctic, NASA says, as sea ice continues to melt.
We try harder (Score:3, Funny)
This is #fakenews. Everybody is saying that my first year as president is the warmest on record, and next year will be even warmer! The failing NASA and NOAA are way down in the ratings!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or you're a complete comedic genius
Hard to say which
And 2018 has been the coldest one on record (Score:1)
Re: And 2018 has been the coldest one on record (Score:2)
It's all lies
and besides it's not our fault,
and besides it's worth it,
and besides it's not that bad,
and besides I hate you guys so I must be right even when I make no sense.
So there, that'll teach ya lefties.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. There is no "historical norm".
And people have being dying from natural causes since the beginning of the human race. Hence there is neither murder nor war. Open the prisons.
Re: (Score:1)
So what you are saying is that you would prefer another ice age to a few C of warming. Maybe you should stop and think about the consequences of that REALLY HARD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
there are hundreds of thousands of years of data
Nope. There's a few decades of very rough guesses for temperatures that far back. We have at best about a century of actual data with even weak assurances of precision or accuracy. Accurate, rigorous data collection only goes back a few decades, and the nutjobs running the scam love "adjusting" that data and tossing out the original data.
If you can't show your data was accurate or reliable, you can't use it. You don't get to adjust it to what you think it should have been because you later noticed an is
Re: (Score:1)
And that data changes, to become colder in the past, every year that it is released to show that the warming trend is more significant.
When the "scientists" stop lying about the stats that they are using, then there might actually be something to be concerned about. Instead, the only thing that we should be concerned about is the idiocy that represents those funding these unethical and unskilled people. The largest factor in our solar system is almost never considered in their models -- the sun -- and there
Re: (Score:3)
The largest factor in our solar system is almost never considered in their models -- the sun -- and therefore they are utterly pointless.
Nope, the sun is included in every single climate model. They wouldn't work without it. It's just that observations of the sun which have been quite good for over a century and continuous from satellites since 1979 don't show enough variation to account for the warming. In fact the sun's emissions have been on the low end of it's variation range since the middle 2000s yet there has been no cooling because of it.
Re:And 2018 has been the coldest one on record (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/... [cnn.com]
Australian here. (Score:3)
Spoken to an Australian recently? I think they'd argue about 2018 being one of the coldest on record. I assume you meant to include "so far" and "here".
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/10/... [cnn.com]
Spoken to an Australian recently... because they'd tell you about the number of cities in the country with water restrictions from ongoing droughts that are nearing a decade long in some parts as well as consecutive record high summers. In fact they'd be sweltering in one right now.
How do I know... because you're speaking to an Australian right now.
You're not only speaking to an Australian, but one who understands the climate of Australia. Right now we're getting a La Nina event, which is a sub surfac
Re: (Score:2)
Not even in the vicinity of close.
Re: (Score:2)
It most definitely has not been the coldest on record. I've had about 2 days this year when I can wear a hoodie without sweating.
That's the only thing that matters, right? The temperature where I am. It doesn't matter what's going on in the rest of the world. It's about 70F here, which means it's 70F everywhere, right? I'm pretty sure that's how these things work.
Re: (Score:1)
Reality is that thing that still exists regardless of what you think of it. If reality includes global warming due to human activity and humans refuse to do anything about it... the globe shall warm faster than it would have otherwise.
When there have been some major local climate shifts resulting in altering which areas humans consider habitable, along with the ensuing predictable migrations, conflicts, and shortages one would expect... amateur historians will look back and consider us all crazy for ignori
Re: (Score:3)
artic sea ice has been growing not shrinking (Score:1)
I see some contradiction in this article.
Re: (Score:1)
i don't think you heard me I said its growing not shrinking. Wtf do you mean a net loss? As compared to what?
Re: artic sea ice has been growing not shrinking (Score:1)
Arctic sea ice is shrinking. Antarctic sea ice is growing, for reasons that are not yet understood, but not growing as fast as arctic sea ice is shrinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Antarctic sea ice is growing, probably because of increased ice melt from the land ice. That makes the ocean near the continent less saline, and so it freezes easier.
The Hottest 4 Years In Recorded History! (Score:2)
Here's how the Washington Post is reporting this: The planet just had its hottest 4 years in recorded history. Trump is dismantling efforts to fight climate change. [washingtonpost.com]
And new Nature study (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting [theguardian.com] a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're good with it all if it warms 3.5 degrees?
If someone told you to jump and pointed out that you wouldn't likely die and your hospital stay wouldn't be more than 6 months, would you figure that's OK then?
Re:And new Nature study (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting [theguardian.com] a Nature study that states that the most dire predictions of global warming are unlikely.
Being, the prediction that the Earth will warm 4-5 degrees C by 2100 is not credible.
You forgot the other part of the story, which is that predictions that the earth is going to warm by less than 2 degrees C are also "not credible", according to this particular study. This study indicates the most likely climate sensitivity value is approximately 2.8 C which is slightly lower that the AR4 most likely estimate of 3.0 C. This is a bit of good news - bad news, because it rules out some the worst and some of the best case scenarios. Overall, it's slightly positive because a slightly lower sensitivity value means we have slightly more flexibility to deal with global warming.
In case anyone is wondering what climate sensitivity is, it's how much warming results from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sensationalist was the point.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
It's not science. At all. Not even close.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea if it's true or false. All I know is that claiming something is the EXTREME in HISTORY without mentioning the fact that the time scale of that history only covers 158 of the past 4.5 billion years is pure click-bait sensationalism.
It's not science. At all. Not even close.
We also don't have measurements of gravity or the position of the moon from 1 billion years ago. Does that mean orbital mechanics isn't science?
Re: (Score:1)
You are kidding, right?? This was a tweet from a reporter on his personal account, and he deleted after 20 minutes and apologized for it.
Never was a published WaPo story. The Post did _not_ report the rally was empty. But don't let facts get in the way here....
Climate change is real (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars convincing people to be afraid of nuclear power. It has been a very successful multi decade effort. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth were founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry. Groups such as the Sierra Club (which was initially in favor of nuclear) have taken money from the fossil fuel industry to protest nuclear.
The US has had 4th generation reactors since the 1980's (See Experimental Breeder Reactor II). Unfor
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot of FUD and some older reactors. The older, less safe reactors running beyond their design lifetime get shut down and FUD keeps the new much safer reactors from being built.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Plague works too you know.
Just a PR release (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
To learn how raw data is collected and processed into a global surface temperature, go to http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org].
WARNING: Understanding will require work on your part.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Another thing to note: scientists won't tell you what percentage of the warming is caused from AGW, and what percentage is from natural cycles (and if they do, it'll be a vague unsupported number, like "most:" again, presented without error bars).
Doing statistics without error bars is a sign of poorly done statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
That page is great, but there are no error bars on that page, either.
Another thing to note: scientists won't tell you what percentage of the warming is caused from AGW, and what percentage is from natural cycles (and if they do, it'll be a vague unsupported number, like "most:" again, presented without error bars).
Doing statistics without error bars is a sign of poorly done statistics.
No error bars (I would check the original papers) but here is the IPCC 2007 breakdown [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. According to this article [theguardian.com] in the Guardian, it's 100% over the period of 1951 to 2010. Why 100%? Because over that period non-anthropogenic climate factors had a net cooling effect, reducing the impact of anthropogenic warming factors. So the net effect of anthropogenic climate factors was larger than the observed warming trend.
Their source for those figures was the IPCC AR5 report [climatechange2013.org].
So, at least some of the time scientists are willing to give a specific answer to the question of "How much of the warm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the peer-reviewed literature on climate science, then you'll realize that climate scientists care greatly about uncertainty.
If you disagree, then please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed scientific literature indicating otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've done that environmental science work then you should be skilled enough to dig into the literature and discover the answers to your questions. Are you just too lazy to do that? I would suggest you take a look at the GISTEMP [nasa.gov]. It includes links to papers that talk about the error, spatial coverage, etc.
As far as being accurate to 0.005 degrees F it's not necessary for the individual measurements to be that precise. When you combine a lot of measurements into and average it's reasonable to express
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait... (Score:2, Funny)
President Trump will make sure that we have the hottest years on record during his presidency. ("We'll have the hottest weather; the best weather.") Imagine, every US citizen will be able to enjoy Mar-a-Lago-like weather. Let's democratize Floridian sunshine for all!
All the skeptics show up first on such topics (Score:1)
Over time I know moderation will kick in to adjust such posts (which typically are a minority) vs logically reasoned and interesting content that will eventually surface. But I think it is interesting to reflect on the psychological basis for the need to respond immediately by someone holding a specific viewpoint vs rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
>Over time I know moderation will kick in to adjust such posts
So far, you have not 'called' this one and we're what, about 4 hours in? Obviously, science and evidence must be censored if they contradict what we want to be true!
Honestly, this happens with both the far left and the far right, but it ALSO happens to be the case that it's the far right that's taken up the position of willful ignorance on this one.
Am I on Mother Jones website? (Score:1, Insightful)
Keep crap articles like this off this site. Go moderate Mother Jones.
Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, yay! Another CC story, which means we're all treated to the Dunning-Kruger Effect all-stars on this site with their blistering hot takes on why there's so much doubt about the fundamental points of CC (it's real, it's caused by humans, it's here now, and it's a hell of a big problem).
Dear morons: Get a clue, and understand the following points:
1. Our understanding of the basic mechanism of CC, the greenhouse effect, goes back well over a century, e.g. Google Svante Arrhenius and see his work from the 18
Re: (Score:2)
Nice of you to demonstrate the effect to us.
How about mentioning the temperature? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If it keeps this up, it will take a lot of hot weather to make up for this...geez its cold in the south!!!!
You're forgetting the fundamental definition in the AGC community -- if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather. And NOAA will ensure, through it's ongoing and declared practice of "adjusting" improperly-recorded historical temperature data [forbes.com], that the temperature record shows an ongoing rise in temperature 'proving' AGC.
Re: (Score:3)
if the temperatures in an area are warmer than average, it's climate change. If the temperatures in an area are lower than average, it's just weather.
If the trend is one of increasing sliding average, then yes, this is exactly what you'd expect to observe: even cold weather in a warming climate is still lower than long-term average because the change is gradual.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, did you miss the story on Slashdot a week or two ago where some shitlord (in TFA) literally declared that "scientists" are now allowed to blame individual incidencts such as a hurricane, a hot day, etc. on climate change?
Global warming nutjobs like yourself constantly commit the flagrant foul of declaring any and all data points in your favor.
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
No major hurricanes since Katri
Re: (Score:1)
You can say whatever you want to try to deny global climate warming exists, but you're using less supportable tactics than the person you're crying about right now. FYI, climate change is established science now.
You can't stop that just by wishing it isn't so.
Re: 2018 making up for it (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Hot day? GLOBAL WARMING!
Normal day? Weather is not climate!! GET EDUCATED!!!
Cold day? SEE! Global warming makes things more extreme!
The metrics of record cold days vs. record hot days is rather convincing at this point in time and pointing towards an increasing average. The very existence of very cold days is not sufficient to make up for their decreasing frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
What seems to be happening where I am is no record hot days but lots of record runs of above normal temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it's dark where I am. Therefore, it's dark everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you LIVE in the South? If so, you should know that the summer is easily capable of making up for a few cold days here and there.
Global warming results in a higher AVERAGE temperature over the entire planet. It also adds energy to our weather systems that sometimes results in extremes of weather including cold snaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I do...in New Orleans.
Trust me, I know heat....but we're getting cold we never get, and it is lasting long too.
Hell, I-10 from Lafayette through Slidell has been shut down for nearly 2x days.
We're not designed for such prolonged cold weather, so yes, it is VERY noticeable here past few years with longer, colder winter times.
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine how much polar ice had to melt/not form in order to put the South in a deep freeze.
Re: (Score:2)
What appears to be happening is the extreme warming in the Arctic is reducing the temperature difference with the more temperate latitudes which results in a weaker jet stream that becomes wavier rather than being a tight circle around the high Arctic. So the jet stream is looping up the Pacific off the west coast then turning back south over Alaska and shooting down the east side of the Rockies. That draws Arctic air down into the deep south accounting for the cold temperatures there. That is becoming m
Re: (Score:2)
Been quite warm, again, here in the north. It's nice not getting much snow anymore but it does cause water issues in the summer.
Re: (Score:3)
...belief is opinion without evidence.
Huh? I believe all kinds of stuff, almost exclusively based on evidence. Maybe you're thinking of faith?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but how can you believe something that you have evidence for? When you have evidence for something, you know. You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.
Based on whose definition [oxforddictionaries.com]? Yours?
belief
NOUN
1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2 A religious conviction.
2 Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
If I drop my pen, I know it's going to fall. I believe in gravity. The pen falling is evidence of gravity. Knowing something and believing something aren't at all exclusive. You believe everything you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the pen drops to the ground is independent of your belief. You know from experience that things drop to the ground when you release them, you predict that the pen will drop if you release it and you can observe that the pen drops when you release it.
Believing does not enter that equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that you don't believe in gravity? To "believe" is to "accept as true". When I drop my pen, I accept as true that it will fall to the floor. I know it'll fall. Why does the word "believe" distress you so much?
Re: (Score:2)
Because words are often twisted around to fit a rhetoric that was not intended.
"Believing" very often means "accepting as true without evidence". Or even against all evidence of the contrary. That last part, the evidence, is very important when it comes to "accepting as true", at least for me. Some kind of proof that what is claimed is actually rooted in reality rather than some fantasy.
Accepting as true without verification is exactly what makes fake news and their spread possible.
Re: (Score:2)
"Believing" very often means "accepting as true without evidence". Or even against all evidence of the contrary.
It can be used that way. Maybe that’s the way you use it. I don’t know if I’d say it’s used that way “very often”. Do you believe DJT? Depends on evidence from other sources, past experience, and bias. Do you believe CNN? Same answer. Do you believe your own eyes? Probably; that’s up to you. Do you believe in gravity? I do. Do you believe me? I’ve never been wrong. Nearly all of my beliefs are substantiated by evidence; I don’t understand why that’
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a language thing. Then again, "believing" is just as ambiguous in my native language.
As is faith.
I try to avoid ambiguous language as good as I can. Doesn't work as often as I'd want to, but I try. Human communication is already flawed enough as it is, we needn't make it any less clear.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of "believe" doesn't bother me. It works fine as-is. To "believe" is to "accept as true." What we need is a proper replacement for "y'all" and gender-neutral alternatives for "he/she" and "him/her". "They" and "them" are poor alternatives for "he/she" and "him/her" and, even though you can imply a plural "you", "y'all" is clearer but sloppy.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it isn't gravity. It's intelligent falling, maintained by His Noodly Appendages.
Re: 2018 making up for it (Score:1)
not as much as i hope yours is tongue it cheek. given the âoesolutionâ to global warming is a ficken ice age... you know, like the one that killed off most of life on this planet 20,000 years ago or so, and we are hopefully still coming out of. but sadly i suspect most global warming activists really do just want to see the end of life on earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Cold weather in Texas proves global warming false.
Unusually cold weather and winter storms in Texas probably should convince us that something is up.
I'm a bit worried that we might have icy winters and hot dry summers. But even if that happens we'll have deniers running around telling us "I told you so" about one thing or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting them all die cuts down on the population problem, and thus the energy and pollution problems.
You are a fine example for a human being. Right up there with Pol Pot and Adolf Eichmann.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, people who think overpopulation is a self-correcting problem are just like people who actively carried out genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, who are the first to die? People in costal regions and in extreme hot weather locations.
The Middle East, Africa, India and Pakistan, China, etc. South America and Central America.
You know, SHITHOLES.
You left the US off your list, I'm sure that was just an oversight. Where is the majority of our population? Yeah, the coasts. How many climate zones are there in the US? 26, including "extreme hot weather locations" like Nevada, California, Arizona, etc. The record high temps in the US for each month between and including May and September are between 124 and 134F.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The planet's global surface temperature last year was second warmest since 1880, NASA says. NOAA calls it the third warmest year on record, due to slight variation in the ways that they analyze temperatures.
They don't say that 1880 was one of the warmest years. It just since 1880.
Re: (Score:3)
the planet isn't in trouble from us, we don't have that kind of power.
You mean like how we couldn't possibly destroy the ozone layer, or couldn't possibly deplete the oceans' fish populations by 50% since the 1970's? Or couldn't possibly drive countless species of animals extinct, or couldn't possibly pollute watersheds to the point where nothing can live in them? The list goes on and on.
Wake up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know climate is not weather.
Then why do you think your current experience with weather is relevant to the climate debate?