Warmest March In Global Recordkeeping (wunderground.com) 368
Layzej quotes a report from Weather Underground: March 2016 was by far the planet's warmest March since record keeping began in 1880. In the NOAA database, March 2016 came in a full 1.22C (2.20F) warmer than the 20th-century average for March, as well as 0.32C (0.58F) above the previous record for March, set in 2010. This is a huge margin for breaking a monthly global temperature record, as they are typically broken by just a few hundredths of a degree. Global satellite-measured temperatures also found this March to be the warmest -- the sixth consecutive monthly record in the UAH satellite data set. Gavin Schmidt, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has estimated that 2016 already has over a 99% chance of being the hottest year on record, based on the first three months alone.
Satellite data in 1880? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe those 1880 satellites weren't calibrated as good as they are now?
I hear it's a little cool in the midwest this April.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? you cant? Glad to see you are an expert and the guys at NASA and the NOAA are just a bunch of morons.
Go ahead and show me a surface temperature record made from a satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Land surface temperature is a measurement of how hot the land is to the touch. It differs from air temperature (the temperature given in weather reports) because land heats and cools more quickly than air.
Jesus, the explanation as to why that isn't a suitable example is right on the actual page.
some questions (Score:2)
why is the temperature record significant?
are the specific causes known and how exactly?
if the causes are known was the temperature with accuracy predicted by models when those causes were included? why not?
Re:some questions (Score:4, Informative)
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change" so pointing out that it's getting warmer and warmer is a way of getting across the view that things are getting worse and that the rate of change is accellerating.
Known, not really. Lots of theories, many with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but nothing that can be pointed at and said "this is the way this is" with a degree of certainly like you can apply to a proven physical law. Welcome to much of science; that's just the way it is - a series of ever more accurate models that hopefully get close enough to the reality to be "good enough" for what you need to do, but quite often never actually getting there in a manner similar to Xeno's Paradox [wikipedia.org].
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch. See above about Xeno's Paradox.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change"
How is "global warming" less accurate? The average temperatire is warming and that causes the climate to change. It's two facets of the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's less accurate because a lot of stupid people misinterpreted it as "warmer everywhere, all the time, and an exception proofs the opposite of that rule".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, it might theoretically be possible for the average temperate to stop increasing, but we could still suffer catastrophic effects from some other aspect of climate change - e.g. the proposed effect on Europe of a massive glacial ice melt causing the warm water flow across the Atlantic to stop.
...which would in turn lead to additional warming, because the ice has melted, and decreased albedo. So no, that would lead to more warming, thanks though.
It's also only accurate on a global scale;
Yes, that's why we call it global warming. Thanks for playing, but you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
The increase in energy in the atmosphere is called "global warming", and the effects seen from it are "climate change".
Re: (Score:2)
Yet apparently still able to be understood and debunked by economists and bug-eyed sudoko puzzle composers. Funny how a game gets played both ways in order to deny reality. Either it's so simple we don't need the experts or it's too complicated for the experts but the science deniers are claiming both!
Re: (Score:2)
Specific causes are mainly a combination of anthropogenic global warming and a major El Nino adding a spike on it. There are other lesser things to factor in.
The timing and strength of El Ninos is not predictable in advance so any general climate model run would not capture that. If after the fact you force a climate model to follow the actual timing and strength of the El Nino they get pretty accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's not the warmest on record, of course they will be quiet. What's so hard to understand about this? The scientists are reporting their findings. If you choose to read too much in to it and interpret as something else, well, that's your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
aka, the "im just asking" line of attack.
Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honest question.
I ride my bike to work. My house is powered by a solar panel installation. I recycle everything I can, compost a lot of the rest, and generate very little actual garbage. I do have a car but it's rare I actually need to use it.
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming? Yell at my neighbours because their piece of shit 1970s automobile spews a cloud of toxic black crap every time they pull out of the driveway? Make funny faces at the moron down the street who insists on driving a hummer every time he passes my house? Stand on the side of the road with a sign over my shoulders that says "REPENT, THE END IS NEIGH"?
I'm just one person. Most of my close friends and family are mindful about their impact on the planet just as much as I am. I don't know what we're supposed to do beyond that, though. When I hear shit about the crap places like India and China are pumping into the air, I wonder why the hell I'm bothering in the first place. I suppose 'cause it's the right thing to do, but I don't know how much of a difference a dozen of people could possibly make.
Re:Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming?
Birth control.
When you cut through all the environmentalism BS, you see that the real underlying problem is obviously overpopulation.
Re:Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:5, Funny)
Birth control.
When you cut through all the environmentalism BS, you see that the real underlying problem is obviously overpopulation.
Thankfully for most Slashdotters, involuntary abstinence is a very good form of birth control.
Re:Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest you download and watch Idiocracy: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Birth control by smart intelligent people who care about the planet is just a way of handing it over to stupid uneducated people who don't use birth control and don't care about the planet.
If you wouldn't vote for people like that in an election, why on earth would you hand the future of the planet over to them and their descendants?
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at carbon footprints you'll see they vary wildly and the main factor is wealth. The west has a huge carbon footprint. Africans have a small carbon footprint. China has a modest but increasing carbon footprint. Hard to refuse China for trying to reach our standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's a more practical solution than emissions control?
Phase out the coal & oil, transition to carbon-neutral energy, and now we can support high populations, economic growth, and lavish lifestyles with no fear of climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
If we carry on as we are, we are looking at population levelling off at around 11-12 billion by 2100. Most the growth will be in Africa. As we have seen in places like Bangladesh, education really works to bring down the fertility rate (around 9 in the 1960s to around 2.4 today).
12 billion is sustainable if we make sure those people have access to a high standard of living powered by renewable energy and fed through sustainable farming. We are going to have to bite the bullet and start giving away tech like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
12 billion is sustainable if we make sure those people have access to a high standard of living powered by renewable energy and fed through sustainable farming
If you can have 12 billion survive at a high standard of living, that means you haven't reached the maximum population size yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point, we won't reach the stage where quality of living has to decline if we manage it properly. The birth rate will level off due to education and the availability of contraception, as it has done in other developing nations.
Human population isn't some uncontrollable thing that just increases until all resources are consumed like bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not population shortage EU is worried about but cheap labour. We have a shortage of slaves to do menial jobs like garbage hauling, sewer/waste management, serving tables, office drones and such.
Re:Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:4, Funny)
Or are you saying that the liberals just say whatever they want as long as it moves their agenda forward?
Yes, that's what liberals do. They sit at large conference tables, discussing how to destroy western culture, commit white genocide, and turn the world into a vegan-only communist dictatorship. When someone comes up with a particularly brilliant idea, such as designating Whole Foods the People's Grocery Store, they all rap their knuckles and shout "BWAHAHA!!!" in unison. The FEMA camps are only the beginning. Expect the massive die-offs to begin soon!
Seriously, though, have you considered asking your psychiatrist for new meds? The ones you are on are obviously not working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming?
It sounds like you are doing what you can about it already without going too radical like changing your profession to become a politician to directly affect policies. A crucial thing to do is ensure you never vote for anyone who is a denier and who wants to gut the scientific institutions so that they stop saying things that don't match their feelings on this matter.
Being confrontational to your neighbors is certainly not going to win any converts. And don't worry about what anybody else is doing. In fact,
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is "Vote in elected representatives who will enact a global carbon tax".
That's the "solution" that's waiting in the wings.
It's uncertain if that solution will address this problem but it's what some people want to impose upon us.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Every place of country that's enacted has had two things happen: The economy stalls, and people end up out of work. That leads to massive discontent, and in turn leads to a voter backlash.
You want to make a real difference? Vote in elected representatives that push for nuclear power. Drive down the cost of energy as a whole, and you'll get everything you want in your carbon tax without the crushing problems of collapsing an economy where companies simply pack up and leave. If you however believe that g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just one person.
So am I, and most of my friends and all of Denmark and the rest of Europe....
See where I am going?
Re:Okay... so what am I supposed to do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yell at my neighbours because their piece of shit 1970s automobile spews a cloud of toxic black crap every time they pull out of the driveway?
Maybe. In the Europe even old cars have to meet emissions standards, even old ones. [www.gov.uk] So we don't really have a problem with people running broken cars belching out smog, because they are required not to.
Why should you accept someone polluting the shared air that you both have to breathe?
I don't know what we're supposed to do beyond that, though.
You already did a lot, and you should be commended for that. Beyond that the best thing now is probably to keep pressure on politicians to address the issue. The US has a huge problem with denialists in government. Get them to follow the lead of those countries that are making a big effort to address the issue, like Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
Vote for governments that will stop your neighbours running those cars and pressure India and China to close their coal plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Support government action. Much as people in America like to pretend the government is only a source of pure evil, reality is that great progress has been made through government action. Today the environment is cleaner than before the EPA was passed and several species have made it back from the brink of extinction. There are many other successes, such as the highway network, public health campaigns and public education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypotheticals (Score:3, Insightful)
1. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was anthropogenic in origin.
2. March was the highest average on record by 2F, 1F of which was anthropogenic, and 1F was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
3. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
What modifications of human industrial/consumption/energy behavior would you recommend for each of these cases, given that which is actually the case is not determinable? Implicit in this is the question of what the "right temperature" would be.
Re:Hypotheticals (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if number 3 is true, it's probably time to consider killing yourself.
That scenario suggests firstly that some undetectable phenomena is driving climate change, and also that some undetectable phenomena is preventing the warming that should have occurred from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, there is a century long conspiracy plot, possibly the moon landings were faked to keep this plot secret, and presumably the entire scientific community is in on it. The level of power and authority and basic competence need to sustain such a secret over such a length of time is indicative that the power structures we thought governed the world are not actually effective, we live in a state of absolute servitude and what we think is real is probably not real. It's hard to believe that humans could achieve such a thing, implying an outside influence - supernatural, or possibly alien in nature.
Given that you are powerless, and have no ability to change that situation, I suggest in this circumstance that your best course is to top yourself, and let the blissful kiss of death ease you.
Alternatively, you could consider asking yourself "What framework or philosophy might guide our collective actions in this circumstance, and what methods can we use to help us understand the situation better?" Let me suggest that rather than making shit up as a method or listening to mouth breathing liars as a strategy to understand the situation better, that we could employ science. And lo and behold! Science has already told us what has caused the problem and given us at least a rough outline of how to make things better.
Maybe you don't need to kill yourself after all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hypotheticals (Score:4, Informative)
There has been no pause. It only looks like "a pause" if you cherry pick an outlier warm year and ignore the trend.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What makes me cry a little is that you probably honestly believe that and you have a lot of company.
Re: (Score:3)
They're called smart people, who know how to read a graph.
http://www.motherjones.com/fil... [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because existing models don't even attempt to predict short-term cycles like ENSO. These are considered "noise" that has no effect on the underlying trend, despite temporarily slowing or boosting it. That's what they're "missing", and this is not news.
Use the models for predicting long-term trends, not what the temperature will be like next year, and they work as designed.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no pause, the amount of energy was correctly predicted within a reasonable margin of error, it's just that it didn't all go where most models predicted it would. That energy warmed the oceans instead of the atmosphere, but it's still there and there was no actual pause in the warming of the Earth as a whole.
In the absolute best case this buys us a little more time. It doesn't invalidate the widely accepted models in any way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
If you prefer, same temperature, 2F change, but it -would have been- 3F mitigated by a -1F attributable to non-anthropogenic variation.
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
And yes, this [wikipedia.org] was very much a "conspiracy" in the political sense, a
Re: (Score:2)
Your hyperbolic defensiveness was very amusing. Thanks.
Defensiveness? Wow did you get that wrong!
Is there a 150 year long conspiracy to fake climate science? What is the purpose of this conspiracy?
Again, what is the "right number" as a target, given that I presume you aren't arguing for purely arbitrary objectives for the purpose of literally-unquestionable political "give us unlimited budgets and power for the purpose of achieving... something".
What are you even talking about? Right number of what?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your "counterpoint" of repeated suggestions that I kill myself was simply childish rhetoric appropriate to someone with no logical reasoning capabilities at all.
So, again, is clear there is "Climate Change". That is a simple tautology. Apparently you're hoping that I'm arguing against that so that your stock responses can be shoehorned into the question.
I'm not in any way suggesting the climate doesn't change. That, in itself, is uselessly self-evident. The serious discussion starts at the point of
Re: (Score:2)
why must there be a perfect ideal number?
sometimes in science you can trends or effects that are obviously harmful if allowed to continue without knowing what the ideal would be.
besides, the ideal "baseline" here is so obvious I can assume you are brain damaged not come up with it yourself (and your conspiracy belief only furthers that assumption): a climate that changes according to its natural patterns, whatever they may be, without human input. the ideal is such that the effect of humanity is neutral. no
Re: (Score:2)
Again, what is the "right number" as a target
Here are the costs associated with climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio... [www.ipcc.ch] . The ideal goal would be to advance a transition to the new energy economy at a rate where the costs of doing so are commensurate with the costs of delaying.
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal goal would be to advance a transition to the new energy economy at a rate where the costs of doing so are commensurate with the costs of delaying.
You mean we should have started 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So you call any political philosophy that you disagree with a "conspiracy"?
The simple fact is that no-one has managed to come up with a credible model that includes non-anthropogenic variation on anything like the scale required to match the observed effects. What you really need to demonstrate is that there is an alternative explanation, published as a paper and rejected by some conspiracy rather than on the grounds that it failed a fair scientific peer review.
Re: (Score:2)
son you are absolutely nutters.
this is why "im just asking" trolls deserve no real response.
they use suggestive or leading questions (informal manipulative fallacies) to open, and then reply with their garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote a post on the same hypothetical scenario a few days ago, with a non-suicide option for this admittedly frightening scenario:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Any record is going to be a result of the combination of some cyclical effects, some random noise, and the secular steadily rising trend from human activity. You can use deviation from the trend to determine how much of that is human activity and how much is cyclical:http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970
You can look here for economic consequences of climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio... [www.ipcc.ch]
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the mark
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the market decide the solution. A revenue neutral carbon tax would reduce income and sales tax (we ought to be encouraging income and spending so this is good) and it would send a price signal to move us from carbon into the new energy economy.
I like the way you think. The market is a powerful tool if it's properly set up, but can't come up with solutions on its own in many issues.
Actually it doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say that it is all natural --- now what? We still don't want all the ice to melt.
Let's say it is "all human". Now what? The governments don't actually do anything.
Why not do something concrete like ban all non-emergency air travel? NO NOES THE INCONVENIENCE!!! Why not ban all government use of jets? Why not ban the use of corporate cars that aren't electric? Why not ban air conditioning?
It isn't really about whether or not something is happening but rather governments never follow through, making the alarmism itself rather pointless.
No one is willing to live up any luxuries, especially the big shots jetting around to these conferences.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning air travel will do nothing. Air travel only contributes about 2% of the CO2 output.
Re:Actually it doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stop pitching it as giving up luxuries, because that isn't what's needed. We need to pitch it as making your life better.
A better insulated home saves you money on HVAC and maintains a more pleasant environment (no more air-con chills or huddling around the radiators). An electric car is smooth and quiet and powerful and charging at home is much more convenient than regular trips to fill up on petrol, so the sooner the prices come down and we can all have one the better. Plus any reduction in the pollution entering your lungs improves your health and reduces healthcare costs (how much do you spend on allergy meds and inhalers?), and reduces the time and money you spend cleaning your home.
Don't say it's not possible. People in Europe and Japan have similar or better standards of living than people in the US do, and use a fraction of the energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TV weather guy 101 (Score:2)
I suggest broadening your horizons instead of reguritating over-simplified lies to children.
His error bar bit is about accusing scientists of doing less than high school level science just because they have not included the noise along with data. Of course it's going to cause some angry shouts.
It's like accusing a fully dressed high school student of forgetting to put on their underwear like a toddler just because you can't see it from the outside.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
all the author of that article did is prove that he is actually fairly ignorant of both actual uncertainty considerations, and the actual accuracy of the instruments being used.
It seems... (Score:2)
Leave us alone (Score:4, Insightful)
I heat my house with natural gas and power it from whatever power is on the grid because it's my only option as well. I live in a townhouse and don't think I'd have much success convincing everybody to upgrade their furnace and install solar panels above their unit. I'd love to live in my own detached house with infinite money to customise it for the planet, I simply can't afford to do so.
I recycle as much as I can, even though there's evidence that for many products it costs more energy to recycle than make new, such as with plastic.
This movement wonders why nobody seems to care? We've been berated and guilted with this shit for decades. We are all concerned, but most us are running the hamster wheel, working the wage slave gig, hoping like hell to be able to send our kids to college and scrap together enough money we'll be able to relax a little before we die. So I'm not really surprised when people get a little tired of hearing this shit and make up excuses why not to believe it. You're preaching to the wrong people. Take it to congress, to industry, and to other world leaders... leave us alone.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a car, because I have to drive to work. It's expensive to own a car and I'd rather not, but it's much more expensive to live in the downtown core where my office is, and to have my wife stay home with the kids. Therefore we both work, we live in the burbs, and we drive to work and daycare... like everyone else. Not because we want to, but because we have to.
You belong to the top 10% of the world, and you're acting like you have some God given right to be in that position. Pretty funny if it wasn't so sad.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what I don't understand is why the electorate DOESN'T hold government and industry more to account.
I sympathise with your position. You made some choices based on what was pitched to you as the ideal way to progress through life. You have a house and cars, a partner and children. Those are all sensible decisions to make. I don't think anyone should blame you for making them.
So given that the problem is being kicked down the road to be a burden on your children, why DON'T more people take it seriou
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:5, Funny)
Now that we know who you are, can I ask you a question about emacs and vi?
Re: (Score:2)
People are either not powerful enough or too old to care.
A - We'll do something about this when, and only when, the end will be close enough to hurt those old enough to be powerful enough.
B - The only way to fail is not to have powerful enough terraformation tools by the time that moment comes.
Therefore, the two possible solutions are:
1 - Extend life expectancy so that we (humans) react with a larger margin.
2 - Elaborate more powerful climate change tools to be able to solve the problem even with a short ma
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If nobody gives a shit, then why do stories on climate change generate so many comments? And why did you bother coming here to post about it if you don't care? I suggest that you do actually care.
I'm sure that you cared when you undoubtedly said that global warming was a myth because it was getting cooler since 1998. You probably also cared when you claimed that it was a myth because of the hiatus once it became obvious that the cooling was just the result of 1998 being an outlier year. And I'm sure that you care now when the records are being consistently broken, but this time all you can do is try to distract us from the facts by claiming that nobody actually gives a shit now.
Sorry, we do give a shit, even if you like to pretend that we don't.
China and India are waking up and pitching in. (Score:2)
China has committed to reaching to peak CO2 emissions in 2030 ( http://climateactiontracker.or... [climateactiontracker.org] ) and may have already achieved this a few years back ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] )
India has set the following targets: http://climateactiontracker.or... [climateactiontracker.org]
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
Maybe you could explain why the charts are mostly blue in 1921 and mostly red in 2013? Furthemore, despite the fact that the difference in the first chart should be only two Fahrenheits, I think I do see the 2013 being slightly higher on average. If by "basically identical", you mean that it's two Fahrenheits out of a fifty Fahrenheit annual amplitude, then yes, it's "basically identical". But most people wouldn't call, say, a seasonal ten Kelvin difference in outside temperature during their year as "basically identical" even though 290K and 300K is "basically identical" from a certain point of view.
Data [Re:Nobody Gives A Shit] (Score:3)
Here's the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record for Los Angeles: berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W [lbl.gov]
This is slightly more informative view than just comparing two random years, 1921 and 2013. As you can see, a lot of noise in the data (when you average the entire globe, the noise tends to average out. A single location, though, has a lot of variation.) But the trend is up. Looking at the red (ten year average) curve, about 1 degree C of warming from 1921 to 2013.
Nevertheless, do keep th
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not cherry picking these
Yes you are. You are trying to disprove that global warming - and that the average of all the temperature stations are wrong - because one single station doesn't show the same increase as the entire globe.
And surely you should not be looking at the first graph. It only shows the minimum and maximum temperatures and not how long it spends are the top end of the range throughout the day compared to the minimum. If in 1921 it peaked at the maximum only briefly compared to later years (when it might spend many hours more at the peak) then the average temperature for the day would be lower.
The better graphs to look at are the ones below the min/max temps graph on the links that you provided. Compare the temperature departures from those two links and you see a lot more red (above the 0) on the more recent year. That shows the real temperature difference; that the average temperature over the year has indeed risen since 1921.
How embarrassing it must be for you to have thought that you were smarter than all the climate scientists in the world who do actually know how to read the data. And how arrogant are you to to claim that to disagree with you means that they are all shills. The only one here spewing misinformation is you. I suggest that it is far more likely that it is you who are the shill.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I know, right? Three years without an ice cap, not a single Seychelles island left, constant category seven hurricanes. The AGW have been making nothing but accurate predictions for decades.
Nobody has made any of those predictions as things that would happen by 2016.
Yes somebody did make some of those claims,
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. So far you've just cherry-picked some data after saying you're not cherry-picking, made some wild claims without supporting evidence, and then told everyone to stop discussing minima and maxima because you've had enough of it.
It seems your grasp of the topic is somewhat tenuous and flavoured more by anger than intellectual curiosity.
Re:Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
No, it is noticeable as a person. Not only can you feel just one degree centigrade difference without any trouble, but the number of places not experiencing a notable change are outnumbered by the number of places which are. The average person can notice a change, if they do not have their head jammed straight up their arsehole.
But the man on the street walking about... the point of the graph I showed was to make it clear that it is so subtle that you don't see it for feel with your own eyes and skin.
Right, and you're wrong.
So explaining why people might not care is really pretty self evident.
Yes. They think it can't happen to them, and they don't care about anyone else. Quite self-evident.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers
Well no f'ing s*** Sherlock. .
AgainMay I again point your attention to the word global
Global warming.
Global Average Temperatures.
the idea its not visible when you look at only one station is meaningless.
but some things people do notice: shorter, milder winters; the warm season beginning earlier; summer lasting longer; hurricane season beginning earlier, lake effect snow storms being larger (warmer air holds more water, increasing snow dump).
btw, yes, some of the station records are exactly that: someon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
That is simply not true. If by cherry picking a single graph you were trying to say that it wasn't noticeable as a person and that is why people don't care about this, how does that lead to you saying that "lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate"? Just because it might be too large a phenomenon to notice personally, doesn't mean that climate change is wrong as you have suggested.
how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist
No, I'm not asking for that. You are the one who brought up the ludicrous requirement of a reading every 5 mi
The sun is measured. (Score:5, Insightful)
The flux from the sun is continuously measured by satellites.
One thing that we know quite well is that changes in solar output is not the cause of present-day warming.
It could be a factor in past climate variations-- we can't measure solar output very well millions of years ago, or even for that matter hundreds of years ago. But it is measured now, and it's not the cause of warming.
Re: Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
All that is nice but still doesn't explain WHY FUCKING SATELLITE TEMPS ARE NOT USED???
Even if they were used they wouldn't help your argument. The UAH lower troposphere has been setting monthly records for the past 6 months. Here's the graph. [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You can't possibly be that stupid. Did you even look at those graphs? Read the little numbers and letters running underneath and up the side?
I guess you are that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
-not identical...unless you're willfully blind (the true answer I suspect)
-there are tens (hundreds) of thousands of stations. you aren't going to "audit" them all yourself...but you also don't have to, the work has already been done and been collected into these handy dandy data sets, so the one or two you look at both prove nothing and are a waste of your time
-no one wants dictatorial control over everything
-no, its not 2 trillion a year
-yes, you are missing something: facts and logic
-China and India -are
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly... and here is why: http://www.climatestations.com... [climatestations.com]
https://www.climatestations.co... [climatestations.com]
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
Jesus Christ. "That station"? The one and only Downtown LA station that quite obviously moved from "WBO" to USC Campus? With all your acute recognitional skills that tell you the climate was "the same", yet you didn't see that? [facepalm]
Ohh, and is there a special reason why you used 2013 data when 2015 is available?
Last but not least, look at the second graph on each page.
The second chart down shows the day-to-day mean temperature anomalies (daily mean temperature less the corresponding long-term climatological mean). Vertical lines extending upward from the zero line indicate above average means for the day (colored red), those extending downward indicate below average daily means (colored blue). In general, the most extreme departures for Downtown Los Angeles are positive, reflecting to a large extent the occurrence of warming offshore flow episodes.
They sure noticed something. You didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, the article says that the March temperature is 2 degrees (F) higher than the 20th century average for March. You posted some graphs in which the smallest division is 5 degrees F. You couldn't even see a 2 degree change on those graphs.
That's not data-- that's noise.
Re: Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watts?
The citation I don't think had anything to do with anyone by that name. I believe the graph is raw in fact. What are you talking about?
Please show me where this Watts person is cited in my source and then tell me why that is relevant.
Temperate consideration of metric (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Fahrenheit is For People. And cats.
Celsius 0:Cold 25:Warm 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Fahrenheit 0:Really Cold 25:Cold 50:Meh 75:Warm 100:Really Hot
Kelvin 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Rankine 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Réaumur 0:Cold 25:Hot 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Also, look. At -40C, it's actually -40F. Isn't that cute? Celsius trying to be reasonable
Re: Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:2)
Re: Nobody Gives A Shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think gun control is all about?
Getting the votes of those who thing gun control is a good idea.
Just as gun liberalization is about getting the votes of those who think that's a good idea.
Decades have passed since any political stance was about anything else than staying in power.
Re: (Score:3)
The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.
For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. h [berkeleyearth.org]