Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NOAA: Earth Smashed A Record For Heat In May 2014, Effects To Worsen

Unknown Lamer posted about a month ago | from the but-the-koch-bros-say-it's-a-lie dept.

Earth 547

Freshly Exhumed (105597) writes with news that NOAA's latest global climate analysis is showing things are getting hotter. From the article: Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts say. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 15.54 C beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880. Experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.

cancel ×

547 comments

It's about time (-1, Troll)

symbolset (646467) | about a month ago | (#47301455)

After 15 consecutive years of no statistically significant temperature increase, the warmists were starting to become concerned.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301489)

How controversial.

Re:It's about time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301545)

You're a moron.

Re:It's about time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301611)

Hey, he made some sort of font, *and* a website! He's super qualified to talk about global climate change.

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301615)

Too bad it isn't possible to mod a post "Flamebait" and "Insightful" at the same time.

Re:It's about time (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month ago | (#47301555)

You talking about Phil Jones?

How interesting, Tell me all about the science.

Re:It's about time (0, Troll)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47301703)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

OR for the article's sources you can look at.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/

Re:It's about time (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#47301849)

The Telegraph and a denier's site. Yes, so very convincing.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301945)

What sources? I see assertions and name-calling, but no actual data.

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47301963)

You know that 'scandal' was completely shot done as a media created event, right? Did you fail to notice that as soon as actual facts came out Fox et. al. stopped talking about it?

Re:It's about time (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302221)

About what I would expect to find here on /. Same people that go to AOL, YAHOO, HuffnPuff Post, PMSNBC and CNN and would rather throw the stones at Fox or Rs than offer something constructive.

Re:It's about time (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301999)

Steve Goddard = not scientist but expert on global climate change? Think I'll consult him about my bone cancer. He's just as qualified.

Re:It's about time (2, Interesting)

ArmchairGeneral (1244800) | about a month ago | (#47302043)

Absolute rubbish! This 'story' goes alllll the way back to 2007 when they realized the measurements were incorrect. Goddard is recycling old news to spread FUD. He's an idiot for not doing the proper research!

Read it here http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/... [geotimes.org]

Re:It's about time (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a month ago | (#47301563)

I wonder what's making all that ice [ossfoundation.us] melt [skepticalscience.com] then [nsidc.org] .

Re:It's about time (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47301643)

I dunno.. Do you?

http://www.techtimes.com/artic... [techtimes.com]

Re:It's about time (1)

bunratty (545641) | about a month ago | (#47301681)

I believe it to be the heat trapped by greenhouse gases released by humans burning fossil fuels. I don't think there are suddenly volcanoes popping up all over Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic.

Re:It's about time (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47301951)

I believe I will believe the science being done by scientists. Granted, they are from Texas and Texas is an oil state, but it's up for peer review in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" and I have yet to find anyone challenging it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]

But then again, I believe in sky fairies as long as we are confessing our beliefs in things.

Re:It's about time (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47302227)

The problem is you take something like the paper you cited and act as if it's the only thing causing ice melt rather than one factor among several. Also, do you have any idea how long those geothermal heat sources have been active? Unless they just became active in the last decade or two how can you say they have much to do with the current melting?

Re:It's about time (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#47301565)

How many times does this cherry picked claim have to be posted. Warming did not stop for 15 years, for chrissakes, and you're either a liar or a moron for restating it.

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47301741)

But it seems to have stopped in the USA for that time... Globally might be another story.

Has the data been modified? Some have done that in the past and seem to be doing it now in some cases. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear... [telegraph.co.uk]

Does that invalidate your view? Perhaps not, but it does add to the case that you might be wrong.

Re:It's about time (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47302015)

No, it has not been modified, you should look deeper into that story.

Look at the record since 1880 it rise, levels, rises. levels and so on.
If there wasn't man made global warming then there would be rise and a return.
Look,m the global warming science is fairly simple. Certain actor in the industry are paid to intentionally make it seem confusing.
Pay attention:
1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.

That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.

Seriously, stop being a dolt.

Re:It's about time (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47302257)

That depends on what you mean by modified. The data have been adjusted to account for a sorts of things that cause problems with the temperature record such as changes in instrument, changes in weather station location, changes in the time of day of observations, changes in the environment around the weather stations. Scientists wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't account for and make adjustments for those issues.

If you think they modified the temperature records just to produce a result they wanted then it's up to you to prove it scientifically.

Re:It's about time (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about a month ago | (#47301837)

Warming did not stop for 15 years, for chrissakes, and you're either a liar or a moron for restating it.

Not really. Notice the word "warmists" there? It's used as a tribal identifier. In other words, symbolset's post is actually a boast against a perceived other tribe - no different than "your mom's fat". The actual content of the message is not about your mother's body composition, nor Earth's climate, but rather "this is our territory!". It's only an unfortunate accident of evolution that we use the same mechanism for establishing dominance than we use for problem-solving.

It's quite fascinating how much of human communication is utterly unrelated to its nominal content. And it also explains why these discussions tend to degenerate into poo-flinging contest in short order.

Re:It's about time (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a month ago | (#47302183)

This was going to be a poo flinging festival no matter what.

Re:It's about time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301567)

No temperature increase? Only if you're ignoring ocean temperatures. Measurements have shown a lot of the temperature increase has been going into the oceans over the past decade or so:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Re:It's about time (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47301913)

Sigh..

What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?

Here is the problem with blaming the oceans. The effects we see aren't new. they were present in the past, they will be present in the future. Separating them when it is convenient is misleading and outright dishonest because you do not separate the effects at other times. It is like saying 2+2 is 4 except when you have less than 5 and some weird unknown rule kicks in and you add 1 but it is still accurate because you want it to be.

Now it is true that the oceans do absorb and release heat. It is true for measurements in 1999, 1918, 2006, 2014 and it will be true for measurements in 2025 and 3000.

What is true also is that the entire "Ocean did its thing so the lack of warming all the sudden is not real" is impossible to test because of decadal oscillations and rotational current patterns. The temp and effects of the temps in the Sargasso Sea for instance will naturally change with deviations in the North Atlantic decadal oscillations as well as the migration of the currents which pretty much guarantee changes in temps from year to year.

The importance of the linked article is for climate modeling, not debunking the lack of observed increases in warming.

Re:It's about time (2, Interesting)

thaylin (555395) | about a month ago | (#47302125)

You are way off base there. You have to separate the ocean data because its temperature changes MUCH slower then everything else, ask your neighborhood chemist about specific heat. The problem is that because of this it has a longer lasting effect then the ground or air temps, because it is going to retain that heat into the fall and winter months, keeping those temperatures higher.

Re:It's about time (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47302233)

Ok, then separate the oceans from the other readings and claims of warming. That is the point, it is either built in, meaning you walk outside and take the temp and it is accurate despite the oceans, or it is not and needs separated completely.

The problem is that the oceans also contribute to the recorded heat. Only considering them separate when it is convenient or when the temp readings are inconvenient is misleading bordering on fraud.

Re:It's about time (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47302269)

Sigh..

What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?

Sigh ...

Are you on about that again? Nothing has significantly changed in the oceans. They still do what they do. What's changed is the level of data we have about them since the Argo floats were deployed starting in 2002.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301639)

You have confused a lack of statistical significance with a lack of warming. I can't tell if that's deliberate obfuscation or you're just a moron.

Warming continues unabated. Nonsense from liars and morons can't change that.

Re:It's about time (0)

narcc (412956) | about a month ago | (#47301673)

I know I was worried. When they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" and then "Climate Disruption" I was absolutely terrified that I wouldn't get the warming I was promised.

An El Nino plus extra warming? Sign me up! I can hardly wait!

Full disclosure: I'm a rabid pro-global-warming zealot.

Re:It's about time (1)

Muros (1167213) | about a month ago | (#47302003)

Full disclosure: I'm a rabid pro-global-warming zealot.

You burn as much coal and oil as you can?

Re:It's about time (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47302051)

They never changed the name. Please stop being so freaking stupid.

Global warming = Energy captured by excess CO2
Climate change = how global warming impact the climate.
Climate disruption= Economic change do to climate change.
Te first two came int' use almost at the same time.
They are all related but different things. No one is changing anything. I understand the the media confuses the terms, and some pundits use that as some sort of ad hom attack, but you need to be better then that.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301675)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Shameless adjustments of the data set to suit the global warming models or just trying to make the observations fit the theory?

Your choice...

records go back to 1880, very funny (1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47301525)

taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous. No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a month ago | (#47301581)

It's weird how those old thermometers were always inaccurate in the negative direction.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47301667)

more like, there just weren't enough of them with recorded measurements to say anything about the globe

also they weren't located in heat islands as more than half of today's are, that's for sure

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47301737)

If only we knew which thermometers are located in the heat islands so that we could filter them out...oh, wait!

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (2)

Jahoda (2715225) | about a month ago | (#47301771)

By the 1880s, the English Empire alone was more than capable of providing a fair sampling of global temperatures.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (2, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47302185)

Nobody in their right mind is saying that it wasn't cooler 200 years ago; there are enough accounts of both the Thames and Hudson rivers routinely freezing over back then, even if you completely ignore temperature readings. However, thermometers back then were nowhere near as accurate as they are now, and the idea of using those records to get a global temperature that's accurate to .1 degree Celsius from measurements that were, at best, accurate to half a degree is just plain ludicrous.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302235)

You would expect them to read lower than they do today because of the increased amount of asphalt and development near them. For example, in my hometown other than the terminal, there were no buildings within a mile of the weather station at the airport and only five scheduled flights a day when I was born. When I went with my father to maintain the weather station, it was rare to see any planes. Also, there was only one concrete runway. Now there's an Interstate, about 4,500 houses, 35 office buildings taller than two stories, twenty-five acres of asphalt parking lots, and nearly three miles of asphalt runway all within a mile of the weather station. Also, there's nearly a hundred take-offs per day. Of course all of those things raise the temperature measurements. So of course you expect the older readings to be in the negative direction.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a month ago | (#47301603)

Well if we wanted to we could look at global temp history for a long period of time and have it be really accurate.

Of course looking at that we would find that the Earth is in a fairly moderate area between much cooler global temps and much higher global temps.

The earth has been in the not so distant past very uncomfortable for humans in both directions. The earth some day will get much more tropical again. The earth will again see Ice Ages. These are true statements. Nothing we can do in the next 50 years will give us the technological expertise needed to do much of anything about warming or cooling.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (3, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a month ago | (#47301973)

I'll take the cold any day. It's easier and usually more fun to warm up than it is to cool off.

Also, snoooowwwwwww!

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301609)

It's called statistics moron. The thermometers were surprisingly accurate, there were quite a lot of them actually, and by being smart about it, scientist can produced very good estimates of global tems back that far. Yes, the error bars are larger than recent estimates, but therer's nothing controversial or fundamentally difficult about makeing estimates back that far.
 

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47301649)

no, those spirit and mercury filled thermometers not accurate at all, even if you spent hundreds of dollars on one now it would come with "calibration sheet" graph that would tell you the amount to subtract or add for each reading. those go to tenths of a degree plus or minus.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47301773)

You know, there's this funny theorem that in the absence of systematic errors, averaging measurements from multiple instruments (each of them systematically, but randomly-per-instrument overshooting or undershooting) and measurement times (each instrument having a random error here) keeps the mean centered on its true value while decreasing the measurement error.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (3, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47302143)

Or not. Depends on the distribution of the errors. If they truly are random errors that happen to be distributed around the actual value, then yes. But this distribution of errors is not always true.

Also, remember that we are discussing discrete measurements made on unique devices with unknown accuracy/errors which are NOT duplicated, but are for unique locations which we may or may not accurately know, at varying intervals, under conditions which can have huge impact on measurements. You may be able to normalize away some of these variables in some cases, but when you do this for multiple variables, your data set does not improve in accuracy.

Say you had 50 recorded measurements for the same time and place taken by 50 devices/methods you might be able to claim better accuracy than just one, but only if you have a reasonable distribution of measured values. If say 25 of your devices just gave you random numbers (didn't measure anything) your data set will still be corrupted.

But the issue here is NOT accuracy but TRENDS. Given that we are NOT using the same devices for the last 200 years, there will be little you can do with the data in regards to trend information. Through the years we have changed how and where we measure temperatures. This means that the absolute error in each data point will remain because it's about how much things have changed. Problem is, there are things that have changed which have nothing to do with the data. Locations, equipment, and techniques have all changed over the last 200 years, many of these changes are invisible in the data, but can change the trends you see in it.

For instance, Say you measured temperature data in the middle of a grassy field for 200 years. What happens when part of the field gets paved about 70 years ago? Now add in that the area around the field starts to see a lot of buildings and about 50 years ago light aircraft traffic (piston engines). Then in the late 60's that traffic switches over to jet turbines and a lot more of the field gets paved. Now, consider how many data points this might actually be in the USA data set given that a high percentage of "observations" are made at airports these days and tell me how much affect that has on your TREND or how you think you are going to normalize that out of the data?

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47301995)

Uh why is mercury thermometers, baromiters, and sphygmomanometer's considered the gold standard then? Not only in medicine but also other areas of science.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301679)

http://www.surfacestations.org/
More than 1000 US surface stations photographed and examined. Less than 10% of them actually meet the weather station spec. Most are next to asphalt parking lots and some are near Air-conditioning exhaust vents. Alas, this data was the basis for NASA "correcting" the first satellite temperature readings when they measured global temperatures that were too cool. When big money and politics get into science, truth and objectivity, in any direction, are the first casualties.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (-1, Troll)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a month ago | (#47302145)

This. I don't understand how it is that in all these discussions, no one ever talks about the problems with the monitoring stations. Something tells me having a grill near a temperature sensor or mounting a temperature sensor above a trash burn barrel or behind a jet aircraft runway just might cause some problems.

But hey, I'm not a climate scientist with a fancy degree, so I suppose my application of fundamental common sense doesn't matter. The science is settled, right? Settled right above tasty seared meat! Anyone want an AGW filet mignon?

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47301767)

Thus the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear... [telegraph.co.uk]

But don't let the quality of the available data cloud your judgment. Just "normalize it" to suit your models, no need to justify your methods. After all, statistics are easy for the average environmentalist wacko to understand.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301833)

Can you cite any document regarding poor quality of the data they're referencing? Serious question.

I was thinking the same thing. Obviously technology has advanced remarkably, but were the temperature sensors back then significantly imprecise?

I did find this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695355
which doesn't have any cites either, but did have some interesting comments about high precision but lack of calibration standards.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47302027)

Scant coverage a century ago? Hell, it was scant coverage in the 70's. But that's supposed to be fully accurate too. Never mind that the number of remote monitoring stations has dropped through the floor. Hell my city here in Ontario doesn't even have a monitoring station anymore, everything is "estimated" from nearly 40km away in London, Ontario. At the airport, surrounded by asphalt. We had a monitoring station 15 years ago but it's gone. My sisters town in Alberta? 52km away, in the shadow of a mountain, in a gully, next to a mountain river, surrounded by trees.

Accurate!

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302061)

How do you know the accuracy of thermometers over a century old? You don't. Scientific measurement was more advanced than you might think. EX - Olaf Roemer measured the speed of light in 1676 and came up with 2.14x10e8 m/sec ........ modern measurement = 2.99792458 x 108 meters per second.

Wording... (1)

ndogg (158021) | about a month ago | (#47301543)

Records go back to 1880. Experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming.

That's not a confusing sentence at all...

No (5, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about a month ago | (#47301551)

No, no it didn't happen. La La La La La - I can't hear you

Re:No (4, Funny)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | about a month ago | (#47301867)

No, no it didn't happen. La La La La La - I can't hear you

Please consider running for office as a GOP candidate -- you've got that special je ne sai quoi.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302211)

Please climb under Obama's desk tonight.

Slashdot propaganda (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301571)

Enough with the Slashdot propaganda.

not a record (1, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47301573)

Earth provably warmer in the "recent" (less than 12,000 years) past, and moreover that higher peak held for 3,000 years from 7500 B.C.

The hysteria and FUD and the billions of dollars and euros wasted on "climate modeling" is absurd, so is basing billions of euros and dollars of cap and trade scams upon them

Re:not a record (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301691)

Yes, but the earths population wasn't as large 'way back when'.

The coastline ending up a few more miles inland didn't matter as much when there was room for the population to move back from the edge.

Now ?, well, a large proportion of the worlds most densly populated areas may well become uninhabitable, and really, no where for large numbers of people to go.

The only 'easy' fix is less people, and I imagine one way or another, that will be the outcome.

Re:not a record (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a month ago | (#47301699)

So before continuing, your position is that the earth is warming, but is unavoidable, or will cost more to correct than to let happen, correct?

Re:not a record (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about a month ago | (#47301801)

Those statements have been conceded on both sides of the issue....

Re:not a record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301769)

Yes, because reverting to the population and civilisation levels of 6500 years ago is absolutely something we want to do.

Seriously, what are you trying to argue here?

Re:not a record (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47301923)

alarmist nonsense is not to be taken seriously, nor money wasted on generating more of same

Re:not a record (2, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | about a month ago | (#47301937)

Great news if you want to live in the holocene.

Not so good of news if you think a significant environmental change in the middle of a mass extinction is a bad idea.

Re:not a record (5, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | about a month ago | (#47301939)

"The hysteria and FUD and the billions of dollars and euros wasted on "climate modeling" is absurd"

Understanding reality is not hysteria, trying to deny it is.

Doesn't matter to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301597)

I have property in both Canada and Costa Rica. Hot or cold, I don't care, as long as it kills the fucking mosquitoes.

Still cooler than the MWP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301619)

And, the coldest period in geologic time came at a time when the CO2 concentration was more than 20 times what it is today.

Re:Still cooler than the MWP (4, Informative)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a month ago | (#47301839)

Do you have a citation saying that the MWP was warmer world wide?

As for the the earth being colder during the Devonian period when CO2 was higher, the Sun was significantly dimmer back then.

It's hard to keep the stories straight these days (2, Informative)

dbraden (214956) | about a month ago | (#47301627)

And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:It's hard to keep the stories straight these da (1, Troll)

schwit1 (797399) | about a month ago | (#47301729)

Be careful. Speaking truth to power with this administration means a visit from the IRS or the climate change police.

Re:It's hard to keep the stories straight these da (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a month ago | (#47301751)

What, was that posted on FauxNews or the Sludge Report? /sarcasm

Re:It's hard to keep the stories straight these da (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47301817)

People seem to have this reality problem, when they can't figure out that drudge is an aggrigator and posts news from all spectrum's of the isle. From Alexjones to Motherjones and everything in between. I guess reality has a factual bias for you.

Re:It's hard to keep the stories straight these da (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302031)

Telegraph is a climate denier site.

Re:It's hard to keep the stories straight these da (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302251)

I don't believe climate exists either.

No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301635)

Just turn up the AC.

What planet are these people from? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301647)

There is still ice in JUNE on the great lakes. We still have mornings here on the east coast of the US in the 50s-60s and while we did have a few days in the 90s ... it has been 70s-80s the rest of the time.

There sensors need to be recalibrated because I am calling BS. The RSS data shows completely different results.

Re:What planet are these people from? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301863)

You must have stumbled onto the wrong website...

The Retards of the world need to go to special ed places like "the druge report".

This is a place for people with IQ's above 90. You seem to have an IQ below 75 so I recommend Fox News, they have boobies, and I'm not talking about the women's breasts.

Re:What planet are these people from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302045)

Oh look, another pseudo-intellectual that is deluded into believing 'xe' is smart because of what 'xyrs' liberal professors told 'xem' in college. How very 'tolerant' of you to judge someone on the merit of disagreeing with you.

According to Yale professor's Dan M. Kahan recent analysis, it is the type of person that is attracted to "the drudge report" that have better scientific literacy and comprehension then those like yourself.

What planet are these people from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301971)

Hey, it's not like there are regional variations in temperature. If it's cold where you are, it must be cold everywhere, right?

Re:What planet are these people from? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302083)

It is global warming, not the local weather in a denier's backyard.

Is it if A then B, or is it if B, then A? (1)

Hussman32 (751772) | about a month ago | (#47301685)

The question is not only if the climate is changing, but if it's directly related to CO2. Robert Essenhigh's point is quite interesting. http://bit.ly/11IsUri [bit.ly]

Re:Is it if A then B, or is it if B, then A? (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47302077)

The question is not only if the climate is changing, but if it's directly related to CO2. Robert Essenhigh's point is quite interesting. http://bit.ly/11IsUri [bit.ly]

It was quite interesting until he failed to explain how heat produces CO2, after claiming that it was easily explainable; when he claimed that a ~5% increase in CO2 release from burning fossil fuel for energy was "statistical noise" and implied that it was the extent of industrial production of CO2, he became a denialist liar. There are numerous other industrial sources of CO2; for example, the production and curing of concrete alone (not accounting for the CO2 release of burning the energy, already accounted for here) accounts for approximately 2.5% of our CO2 emissions. Iron and steel production are likewise carbon-intensive processes, even putting aside the energy consumption. He also doesn't back up his statement that only two possible causes deserve explanation, nor what the four possible causes are, etc etc. He also blames the entire thermal forcing on water vapor, but relative humidity (the only kind of humidity he mentions in the linked page) is decreasing due to rising temperatures.

tl;dr: Essenhigh is trivializing human CO2 production, which exceeds volcanism, and also failing to back up his statements.

NOAA, please shut up. (0)

sk999 (846068) | about a month ago | (#47301809)

In my area, our records predate the NOAA. We had the coldest season ever for Dec-March. We had snow in April. We had freezing precip. in May. June has been pretty nice, but we are about to head below normal once again. For anyone who has the idea that we need to cool the Earth back down, just go away.

Re:NOAA, please shut up. (1, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#47301895)

Because regional conditions represent global conditions.

Re:NOAA, please shut up. (0)

hackus (159037) | about a month ago | (#47302153)

and because global conditions do not represent regional conditions?

That is equally insane.

NOAA, please shut up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301989)

And in my area, it's been a much warmer winter and spring than usual. We had heat waves back in January when the rest of the country was in that polar vortex. Stop thinking that your area represents the entire world.

Your argument is invalid (2, Insightful)

BadPirate (1572721) | about a month ago | (#47301869)

1. Decide your position
2. When findings are presented that call into question your position, find any flaw with said findings. Preferably one that can't be verified.
3. Present flaw as proof that the findings are not only invalid, but through being invalidated prove your position

Re:Your argument is invalid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302109)

You ARE a Bad Pirate! That was one weak ass attempt at hijacking this thread.

pfft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47301901)

really dont give a shit about a 200 year old record. Get a dog, find somebody to love.

i don't care about this stuff. (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a month ago | (#47301967)

As long as all you blowhards die along with me, I will consider entropy the most effective form of government. Seriously, you guys need to die NOW. I don't wanna wait till the poles melt.

Re: i don't care about this stuff. (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a month ago | (#47302179)

ALL of the Chinese care less than I do. I don't have real evidence to back up this claim. But the cloud is making backups obsolete. Thankfully for you, I think that Slashdot rate limiter is going to kick in soon.

Who cares? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a month ago | (#47302069)

Outcomes from surveys where technology, sensor placement and encroachment of cities even if super careful have error bars on the same order of signals from multi-decade surveys... are... mostly... useless.

They always result in the same tired predictable rumblings of fools who see what they want.

All the while very important and relatively uncontested facts such as continued decrease of ocean pH and sea level rise are summarily ignored.

GLobal warming scien is simple (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47302079)

why are so many people her suckered by pundits?

Pay attention:
1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.

That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.

Some of you are very disappointing, falling into ad hom attacks and bad science. Scien that can trivally be checked out. But no, some of ypu moron keeps spouting the same crap.
AGW is a scientific fact.

Godless progressives (0, Troll)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a month ago | (#47302117)

I don't get you proglodytes. You hate people, hence your support of abortion (murder) even though there is a "scientific consensus" that life begins at conception. So the earth warms and kills off a few billion people and in 500 years the earth recovers and reverts back to the mean. What is the problem? So a few species go extinct, new species will form ala Darwinism. Get over it, global warming is natural, people came from evolution so if we caused a change, it is "natural" and the "natural" system will fix it.

You can't have it both ways - either humans are part of the system or above the system - which is it?

'Earth smashed record for heat' (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about a month ago | (#47302123)

Pssh...steroids.

Deniers can't make up their minds (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47302169)

Why is it that the global warming deniers can't decide whether warming isn't happening, it is happening but it isn't human-caused, or it is happening, it is human-caused, but it isn't economical to do anything about it? It can't be all 3, yet the deniers can't seem to get their story straight.

The truth is that it's the 3rd option. Deniers first argue that it isn't happening. When science proves them wrong, they then argue that it is happening but isn't human caused. When science proves them wrong again, they fall back to their real position that despite it existing and being human caused, it isn't worth doing anything about because that would take work and cost money. It's very dishonest.

Re:Deniers can't make up their minds (3, Funny)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a month ago | (#47302177)

Please stop confusing the issue with facts. Are you new here?

NOAA Findings (0, Troll)

hackus (159037) | about a month ago | (#47302237)

So what?

Whether you believe the alarmists like Al Gore telling every one you need to live in a card board box, for the sake of his elitist friends and pay all of your income in carbon taxes, or the outright liars who claim Humans have zero affects on climate change:

One thing is for certain, postulation about whether or not it is actually a bad thing to have the earth warmer or colder isn't something either side seems to acknowledge because obviously the earth during the last 250,000 years of human existence has been way hotter and way colder than it is now.

Further more, I am more worried about plans to INTENTIONALLY overload the biosphere with idots thinking a complex multi billion year old planetary biosphere is as simplistic as what they create in the lab and draw conclusions on.

I mean crazy bat shit conclusions like spraying the atmosphere with aerosols or sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere on purpose.

THAT is what scares me, not global warming or cooling or whatever you believe.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...