×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

387 comments

Weather, not climate (4, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526268)

Just like snow on Copenhagen is weather, not climate, right?

Re:Weather, not climate (2)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526296)

no, they should move the thermometers further away from the exhausts of the air conditioning units ...

Re:Weather, not climate (3, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526480)

Air conditioning units are something you find in warm climates. Just sayin...

Off-topic:
Having grown up in Scandinavia without any air conditioners or even fans, and moving to the US as an adult, I have come to the conclusion that at least part of the reason why Americans are so loud is to be heard over the air conditioning. Many of them are so conditioned (npi) that they're unaware how loud those things are, even the "quiet" ones. When they get someplace quiet, they feel a strong urge to add sound, because it appears that low ambient decibel levels upsets them, not being used to it.

as an American... (1)

emagery (914122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526502)

I can say that, aside from the pleasure of moving air (not necessarily cool air), having a fan on my face was fairly integral to being able to sleep. I've since beat the habit, but still... not sure where it comes from as I did not grow up with air conditioning. *shrug*

Re:as an American... (1)

emagery (914122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526534)

Wait, nevermind... it just occurred to me that an addiction to fans may have been caused by the lack of air conditioning.

Re:as an American... (4, Interesting)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527534)

Oh man! Thank GOD you beat that addiction. Fan dependence and ODing is a serious problem! Just ask any South Korean!

Re:Weather, not climate (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526590)

Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning? I post like yours all the time. But nobody complains about heating. It's much more efficient to live in a warm area and have to cool the house 10 degrees than live in a cold area and warm it 60.

Re:Weather, not climate (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526778)

Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning? I post like yours all the time. But nobody complains about heating. It's much more efficient to live in a warm area and have to cool the house 10 degrees than live in a cold area and warm it 60.

Because you can get quiet heaters. There's no such thing as a silent air conditioner.

Re:Weather, not climate (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527376)

Because you can get quiet heaters. There's no such thing as a silent air conditioner.

Central air can be silent. Small forced air heaters can be noisy. Ridiculous argument is ridiculous.

Re:Weather, not climate (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527748)

Central air can be silent.

No, it can't. You have to move the air, which causes noise.

The difference between heating and cooling are many.
You can easily convert energy into heat, another form of energy. But you can't convert it into cold, which is the lack of energy. You have to generate heat to generate cold -- in fact, more heat than you generate cold, due to entropy.
Add to this that heat radiates, while cold doesn't. The best you can achieve is not reflecting heat back. So you need to distribute the cold, which takes fans and ducts, and invariably generates noise.

Unless you have a room with the ceiling consisting of peltier elements, this means moving the cold air from somewhere else to where you want it, and this generates quite a bit of noise. If you're used to 10 dB ambient sound levels when no one is talking, a "silent" central air unit of 30-35 dB sounds rather loud. I know, because I sit in an office with central air right now. Those who are conditioned to the sound won't hear it, but central air is far from silent.
People here can't hear a mosquito from across the room or their watch ticking on their arm, because it's never silent. In large parts due to air conditioning, including central air.

Re:Weather, not climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527402)

Mine's pretty quiet. The moving air makes most of the noise, the rest is buried underground and makes no more noise cooling than it does heating.

I suppose there's SOME vibration, but I can't say I pay attention to it.

Re:Weather, not climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527166)

Why doesn't is there methinks who gives?

Re:Weather, not climate (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526774)

Having grown up in Scandinavia without any air conditioners or even fans, and moving to the US as an adult

One of the statistics that I find horrifying is that nearly fifteen thousand people died in France alone during the 2003 heatwave. The death toll was attributed [usatoday.com] to the widespread lack of air conditioning in that country. A First World country wherein thousands of people die simply because it was hot outside? What's wrong with this picture?

And what is it with Europeans and turning the A/C off anyway? Both times I've visited Europe I paid extra for the privilege of having A/C in my hotel room. Both times the hotel staff let themselves into my room and turned the A/C off whenever I left the room. This annoyed the hell out of me, particularly given the fact that the A/C was woefully undersized for the square footage of my room and the only way to make it halfway decent was to leave the unit running all the time. In the United States A/C is a standard feature even in budget motels.

Re:Weather, not climate (0)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526602)

You mean like this brilliant location for a climate temperature monitor?

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=849 [surfacestations.org]

Re:Weather, not climate (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527180)

You know they account for that right? no? shut up.

You know when the 'questionable'* station were removed, the same average temperature were seen, right? no? shut up.

Fucking ignorant people like who who seem to think there ignorant opinion has the same weight as actual experts is a bane to civilization.

*only questionable to people at the top of 'stupid mountain'

Re:Weather, not climate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527326)

Holy shit you are stupid - and arrogant. First of all, they didn't even know bad data like that was in the sampling until people took it upon themselves to validate these sites. Only a TINY percentage of sites have actually been verified. So FACTUALLY SPEAKING, they have absolutely no idea what's in their data and it ABSOLUTELY HAS NOT been removed simply because they have no fucking clue what's good and what's bad. Furthermore, a lot of data they've been using has an error several multiples of the deviation they hope to detect. Which further means, even with really good statistical analysis, the error bar is LARGER than the deviation they hope to detect.

So please, stupid, arrogant people like you are annoying the fuck out of people like me, who actually know what they are talking about.

Fucking ignorant people like who who seem to think there ignorant opinion has the same weight as actual experts is a bane to civilization.

I sincerely hope you realize you are absolutely talking to yourself in a mirror. no? shut up!

Re:Weather, not climate (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527634)

Your post is annoying, rude, and abusive.

The parent's post was delightful, funny, and even a bit informative.

You may want to rethink your approach next time. Just because this is a climate discussion doesn't mean everything has to be an argument.

Re:Weather, not climate (2, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526330)

No man! You *just don't "get it"*!

You forgot the first rule of a climate crisis situation!

In a climate crisis situation, anything that appears to support your idea that you're in a climate crisis is valid data. Anything that does not is pooh-pooh'ed away! Even if it's working off the same principle!

Re:Weather, not climate (5, Funny)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526376)

It used to be that smoking was the leading single cause of statistics. But now the climate is gaining.

Re:Weather, not climate (2)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526676)

That was great....

I actually hyperventilated laughing. Kudos.

Re:Weather, not climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527108)

Seriously?

It wasn't even that great a joke. Man, take a valium.

Re:Weather, not climate (1)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526444)

I thought the first rule of a climate crisis was to not talk about the climate crisis. At least that's the impression I get.

Re:Weather, not climate (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527208)

Correct. The single data point is, essentially, weather; whoever how does it fit into the trend? how does it fit into the predicted model?

Those are the climate questions.

Oh look, it's worse the predictions and fits into the overall trend.

Re:Weather, not climate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527406)

how does it fit into the predicted model?

Reprogramming now.

ever (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526314)

I find that the definition of "ever" is lacking, how long has this been measured ?

Re:ever (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526450)

The summary says "highest-ever *recorded* temperature".

Detail records since 1950 (5, Informative)

frith01 (1118539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526458)

previous temp high was in Dec 1978, detail records have been kept since mid 1950's.

approximate annual average temperature records through ice cores date back about 800,000 years.

This is good (1, Interesting)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526320)

Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities. Maybe Al Gore Warming isn't so bad.

Re:This is good (2, Funny)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526462)

...with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the farming and cities!

Re:This is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526802)

We're whalers of the moon.
  ----

Re:This is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526678)

You're right, and it poses a huge political and environmental problem. Antarctica has natural resources and at some point they will become financially viable to tap.

Antarctica has been held in political suspended animation by the Antarctic Treaty.

Australian claims a huge portion of Antarctic; it's claim is almost indefensible. Part of Antarctic is unclaimed. Several countries not on friendly terms have overlapping claims. New Zealand's and Australia's claims have been eyed covetously by other countries.

Re:This is good (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526768)

Right, we'll just pack up all the farmers whose lands have become inarable and ship them down to Antarctica to start their lives over, while simultaneously rebuilding every supply chain in the world. That'll certainly be less of an inconvenience than replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs!

Re:This is good (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527030)

Right, we'll just pack up all the farmers whose lands have become inarable and ship them down to Antarctica to start their lives over, while simultaneously rebuilding every supply chain in the world. That'll certainly be less of an inconvenience than replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs!

Wait - is that all we have to do - replace all the incandescent bulbs with CFLs? Awesome, that's great. And here I thought we had to end suburban and rural living, stop all personal transportation other than bicycles, electric car sharing, and high speed trains, revert 80% of the land to wilderness, stop eating meat more than once a week, and implement a global carbon tax to fund 3rd world countries to implement the same policies.

I sure am glad you found a simpler solution!

Re:This is good (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527826)

While also moving 100 million people around the world inland, and all at the last minute because deniers keep blocking any effort to plan for it and make it an orderly transition.

Re:This is good (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526882)

I wonder if the newly won land on Antartica can even offset the flooded land along the coats of the earth, if the ice on Antarctica is completely molten.

Re:This is good (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527476)

I wonder if the newly won land on Antartica can even offset the flooded land along the coats of the earth, if the ice on Antarctica is completely molten.

Doubtful. Here's [wikimedia.org] a map of Antarctica with the ice removed, with the added assumption that sea level is unchanged by the removal of said ice sheets. Lakes are shown for interior areas below sea level (arguably lakes might not occupy all regions below sea-level, but might also occupy some areas which would be above sea-level).

Of course melting the Antarctic ice would add about 61m to global sea level (net, allowing for floating ice, etc.), or 68m if Greenland's ice sheets also melt. These estimates [wikipedia.org] would be modified slightly depending on assumed temperature change above freezing, oceanic mixing, and oceanic salinity change.

Re:This is good (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527096)

Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities.

Only if you bring your own dirt. Antarctica doesn't have any.

Re:This is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527262)

Recently I watched some of the episodes of BBC's Frozen Planet, narrated by Sir David Attenborough. Beautiful place. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mfl7n

With 6 months of daytime and 6 months of night time I'd struggle to be a farmer there, but I'd be happy to see some bankers try.

naysayers (0, Flamebait)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526324)

Where are those global warming naysayers now, huh?

Re:naysayers (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526370)

Where are those global warming naysayers now, huh?

Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere.

Re:naysayers (4, Interesting)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526438)

Hope they can swim :)

I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.

Re:naysayers (0)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526598)

Does it make less sense to you than, say, religion? The two things seem pretty similar to me.

Re:naysayers (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527328)

Does it make less sense to you than, say, religion? The two things seem pretty similar to me.

Maybe it's just me, but the next time I see some conspiracy theorist, denialist, or anybody else who has strong opinions on a controversial topic who makes a post along the lines of:

All followers of the church of x! Your pope (famous person who talks about x) has ordered that you pay indulgences in the form of (something related to x that costs money). And anyone who questions the ultimate truth of x is a heretic who shall be burned at the stake.

I may strangle someone. Not because I am part of the church of whatever x is, but because my tolerance for such deuchebaggery has dropped below the "gonna have to choke a bitch" mark. You haven't crossed that line yet, but you seem to have spotted it and shouted "hey, what's over there?"

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526636)

Theres always been warming and cooling. Nobody has ever denied that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. It's pretty obvious who here is having trouble wrapping their head around reality if you actually believe there are a whole bunch of people who refuse to believe that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles.

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527020)

And when we look at the geological record, you'll see that this is the coldest the planet has ever been. For most of our history, the Antarctic hasn't even had ice!

The only worrisome trend is how quickly the climate changes are happening now. [wikimedia.org] Even blaming mankind for that is crazy, seeing how it started about 1.2 million years ago.

Re:naysayers (2)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527044)

Nobody has ever denied that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.

I see you've never heard of young earth creationists.

Re:naysayers (5, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526686)

Oh, it's like this: global warming cause taxes, taxes are wrong and therefore global warming is wrong. QED.

Re:naysayers (3, Interesting)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526792)

I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible.

I find it odd that you characterize adherence to the "global warming" hypothesis as a matter of belief. I thought this was intended to be a scientific matter. If it's a matter of faith, then everybody can choose whether to believe in it or not, right? So what's your beef? Or are we having a religious war...

Re:naysayers (1)

finity (535067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527076)

Not to defend or disagree with your comment's parent, I've been thinking a bit about science belief/knowledge and relaized that there's a lot of science which I understtand logically but that I haven't witnessed firsthand. For instance, in physics labs I've proved a lot of physics to myself, and I "know" that bit of science. I've seen the curvature of earth and know that it's round. I've used an electron microscope (don't remember the type) and understand its function and now I "know" about atoms. Biology, on the other hand, is something I'm not terribly versed in. I totally believe that white and red blood cells exist, and that that's how our immune system works and how oxygen gets to our body parts, but I can't say that I "know" it to be true. I'm sure this sounds like a drunk college conversation, sorry. It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...

Re:naysayers (2, Insightful)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527124)

For the climate scientist it is a matter of science. For all others it is a matter of belief (in what the climate scientists tell you is happening). Whether or not you decide to believe the consensus of the experts (climate scientists) is up to you . . . some do, and some don't.

Re:naysayers (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526956)

There are two types of global warming deniers.

The first knows that they're wrong (or at least thinks its likely) but makes money from the status quo. They don't really believe global warming is a left-wing conspiracy, but they know they can make a fortune by spreading that lie. If you're wondering why they'd risk hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives to afford that third yacht they've always wanted, then you don't understand the immense sense of entitlement that comes with being rich in America.

The second type are the useful idiots. They've been told that liberals are the great evil in the world, out to destroy the country. That gays and Muslims and blacks and immigrants and scientists and basically everyone else hates their freedom and wants to ruin their way of life. And they've been told this loudly, several times a day, for decades. The human brain can't withstand that amount of propaganda. So now the well has been poisoned, and they distrust anyone who isn't parroting the party line. You can't reason with them, because the instant you go against what they "know", you are the enemy.

You can't help the second group, so the only hope is to bring down the first. Once the propaganda stops, the second group will wake up on their own (though the detox period would likely take years).

(There's also a third catch-all group for the libertarians, the nihilists, the "truth-is-in-the-middle"-ers, etc... who either don't care, don't want the government to do anything, or want there to be a 100% consensus. They're not really deniers though.)

Re:naysayers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527002)

It's simple- you have a group of people who say that they've done the science and have the answers. That group then says that noone should ever challenge their science or examine it (the science is settled). And that the only people who can perform the science are people who already agree with the conclusions and who are close friends to the current researchers - and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed. When the real-world data is shown to be flawed, they insist that it doesn't really matter. Most of the science is done in computer simulations, whose consistency with the real-world should never be challenged. Most importantly, all of the predictions made by the Global Warming scientists are wrong. They predicted that the past 3 years would be the worst ever for hurricanes - they turned out to be some of the most mild. The predicted temperature changes couldn't have be much worse.
Compare that with any other real branch of science and you'll see why any reasonable person would be skeptical. I read an interesting thesis challenging the basis of the theory of relativity the other day written by a layman, and the responses to it were theories on tests that could be performed that would prove or discredit the theory. Science should be challenged - always. Even wild and ridiculous theories are tested and proven or disproved. Tests MUST be reproducible and available to all. That is the very nature of "The Scientific Method".
What the global warming community does is akin to a bad religion. It has its high priests who must never be challenged. They create prophecies which turn out to be false, but then their defenders just pretend that they were true. Anyone who challenges the religion are attacked.
I don't like bullies - especially ones who dress up and play scientists.

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527022)

In all seriousness, I don't understand why I must "Believe" in global warming. Was there a leather-bound scroll I missed somewhere? If the data stands up to scientific scrutiny then it will stand on its own.
    On the other hand if you berate me because I don't "Believe" then I'm going to stop listening to you. If you berate me for not believing, and tell me that the only solution to the problem you "Believe" in is a clear scam (carbon credits?!?) pushed by an apparent con-artist (a.k.a. politician) to eliminate a chemical I breathe out every day, then you should expect a tiny amount of push-back. I'm not giving politicians the ability to control my breathing!

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527082)

I don't think you understand the folks who don't believe at all.

I don't know anyone who believes global warming or climate change is "not possible." The climate on Earth has been changing for billions of years. I don't have a hill within 100 miles from my home because a gigantic glacier froze, scraped the land flat and later melted years later. There is empirical evidence everywhere that the climate on this planet is not static.

Here is the problem. Too many uneducated people believe the climate should be static when we have absolutely no reason to believe it should be. Trillions of dollars are spent every year attempting to keep the climate static, when we aren't even sure if this is the right thing to do for the planet.

Scientists can prove climate is changing, which we've known for thousands of years anyway. Scientists can prove humans affect the climate, which is also true of every other living organism on the planet. What we can't prove is what climate change is healthy, natural, and sustainable and which change is not.

Re:naysayers (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527112)

I don't think people in the anti-warming camp are saying its not possible. What I do think they are saying is that its not really possible to say definitely that global warming is happening as pro-warming people are saying it is with certainty. There are mitigating circumstances, including figures that show there is dramatic cooling occuring in certain areas that fly in the face of the doomsayers. You can't point at the world and say "Now theres warming happening on that planet." You appear to want to force a complete upheaval of the world's economic system based on hype and heresay, and they are saying "Hang on a second, lets take a look at this." Big difference.

Re:naysayers (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527116)

I would say its more like this: there is a robber in your home, we all know there is a robber, that robber may or may not have a gun, many scientists have shown evidence that robber has a gun, some people have stated he does not have a gun. (We all know we are putting more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.) Generally we shouldn't ignore the robber and do nothing about him whether or not he has a gun, he is still robbing us of something, and if he does or does not have a gun we should still treat him as dangerous.

Re:naysayers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527292)

goto kitchen. fill glass with ice, fill rest with water. let sit, watch the water overflow Sadly I have won many of bets with people on how the water will not rise. Everyone assumes the water will rise.

Re:naysayers (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527384)

I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.

It's the same people who visit that "Creation" museum in Kentucky and believe that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans. Too bad we can't allow each of them to prove their theory by forcing them to live at the same time as their "pets" were roaming around on that sixth day. Wouldn't allow them firearms or the technology to make them (science is non-existant to them anyway). They just have to remember one universal rule...they don't have to run the fastest...just faster than the other person quoting their Bible to their "pet".

Re:naysayers (-1, Redundant)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526568)

We're saying what we've always said. The earth has always experienced climate change. For hundreds of thousands of years it's gone through periods of warming and cooling. It's just doing what it's always done. We just refuse to let a natural cycle of the planet turn us into paranoid delusionals that make it possible for people like Al Gore to become filthy rich from spreading fear.

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526616)

We're doing what we have always done: burrow our head in the sand, put our hands on our ears and sing "We can't hear you tralalala".

Translation of the parent.

Re:naysayers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527130)

It wouldn't be as much of a problem if the whole thing wasn't tied to a bunch of people using it to gain power and wealth. Most of us have always been fans of conservation. When conservation got co-opted by environmentalists and turned into a power play and a get-rich-quick scheme is when we got annoyed. When it was co-opted by government and used as an excuse to pass ridiculous laws that hurt the economy and made poor people even poorer is when we got pissed.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but until we have actual facts that can't be disputed then it's stupid to go making things worse just because something *might* be true. Nobody gets on stage and argues that 2+2=4 because we all know it's a fact. Nobody gets on stage and says "90% of all scientists believe gravity pulls things down." because it's a fact. Nobody uses the word "consensus" when talking about how to find the circumference of a circle. That's how you tell the difference between science and religion.

In science, nobody has to resort to insults like calling people "deniers" or making silly accusations to make their point. It's how we know you're full of crap. :)

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527568)

Care to explain the mechanism by which decreasing the albedo of a planet at any wavelength can result in something else than an increase in the global average temperature.

Re:naysayers (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526674)

What's hilarious is how these people shriek and cry about how the earth has always experienced climate change, pointing to the research of climatologists to prove this, but then when those same climatologists say there is evidence that this warming trend is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, suddenly they can't be trusted.

Re:naysayers (0, Redundant)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526830)

Actually, we point to the historians and geologists who taught us that things like the fact there were once zero glaciers on planet earth. But no man....hmmm...ya think.

"There is no evidence of glaciation at or near either pole; in fact, the polar regions were apparently moist and temperate, a climate suitable for reptile-like creatures."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic [wikipedia.org]

So what is the predominant theory for temperatuer for that period? Continental structure...

Hmm, just wondering, does anyone know if our continents shifts might have reached a point where it is affecting Earth's air/water currents?

Just saying...

And no, computer models developed by people trying to prove their own theory is not an adequate representation.

Re:naysayers (3, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527248)

They don't point to research of climatologists to show the earth has always experienced climate change, they point to the research of geologists. Climatologists mostly work with computer models.

Re:naysayers (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526898)

really? what you've always said? That the earth ISN"T experiencing warming? That is what the naysayer say

Re:naysayers (2)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527256)

Alright, the Earth goes through periods of climate upheaval. Fine.

Now, knowing that, why on Earth would we NOT want to minimize our own artificial contributions to the process? Wouldn't it be in our best interest to limit our hand in climate change? If global warming is a natural phenomenon, then we may be in for hundreds to thousands of years of progressive warming. In the interest of helping our species survive, wouldn't we want to manage our resources intelligently in order to better survive what you consider an inevitable natural process?

Re:naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527594)

Pay your carbon tax and move along, there is nothing here to see.

Re:naysayers (1)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527448)

But by saying the planet is doing it on its own makes us seem insignificant like ants on a giant ball!

Re:naysayers (0)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526734)

What part of "coming out of an ice age" does not include a bit of natural increase in temperature?

The aberration in temperature seems unusual, but it's nothing compared to the little ice age [wikipedia.org] that froze Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

If temperatures are naturally rising (as all data seems to indicate), then I have no doubt that we'll see articles like this multiple times a year until the warming trend ends. I just checked and the record high for my area was set in 1954 [illinois.edu]. If we have news stories every time a new record high is set for any area, then it will be quite annoying. That's probably why most voices of reason have stayed out of this discussion.

Re:naysayers (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527332)

Slashdot's previous article was titled: "Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones Today".

Ya think that shiny thing up there has anything to do with global warming?

Nearby even higher than that (5, Informative)

gedankenhoren (2001086) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526340)

see http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/blog/2011/12/29/update-on-record-high-temperatures-at-south-pole-and-aws-sites/

"Here is an update on the South Pole and nearby Nico and Henry Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) record high temperatures recorded on 25 December 2011:
-- The prior record high temperature at South Pole was recorded on 27 December 1978, not on 12 December 1978, as misquoted in some sources.
-- Preliminary assessment of  the record high at Nico AWS was -8.2C or 17.2F on 25 December 2011.  This breaks the previous known record of -13.9C or 7F recorded on 4 January 2010.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Henry AWS was -8.9C or 16F on 25 December 2011. This break the previous known record of -14.5C or 5.9F on 5 January 2010."

Because more people are there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526392)

I'm convinced that "global warming" is a perception, not a reality.

If you put a thermometer in the center of Chicago in 1880 when there were 200,000 people there and monitored it until there were 5,000,000 people, what do YOU think the changes will be?

Meanwhile, in Antarctica.......

Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526516)

This is indeed weather, it's come close to that before (in the "global cooling" period of the 1970s) Dec 27, 1978 the high was -13.6 C +7.5 F.

Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (4, Informative)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526708)

Actually in the 1970s there was not a big discussion about global cooling. It was something a couple journalists sensationally mentioned in a couple articles. Not scientists. Look it up on snopes.

Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526982)

Gee, I sure remember it talked about at lot in elementary school.

Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527202)

Gee, I sure remember it talked about at lot in elementary school.

And yet, this does not contradict the prior statements in any way.

Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527492)

You can thank Leonard Nimoy and his In Search Of show for popularizing the Coming Ice Age, during the late 70's. If people are going to use that as proof against science, they'll also have to accept Spirit Voices, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527502)

"This is indeed weather"

Good call, mr Obvious.

Of course it's weather, as it's a temperature measurement on a specific day. Did anyone claim otherwise?

But that doesn't mean it's "not climate" in the sense that climate has nothing to do with it. You might know that weather and climate are closely related.

Let's not get too hasty here (2)

Muse011 (1826134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526564)

It is the record high, but the average high in December is only -15.7F. Keep in mind that they get nearly 24 hour sunlight for all of November, December and January. Can't deny it's getting warmer, but this isn't doomsday material just yet.

Summer (4, Insightful)

unixcorn (120825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38526570)

First, it's mid summer there. Second, there is no mention of the previous record so we have nothing to compare this "record" to. I have a friend who works there every year and his comments, from camp, last month was that they were battling storms and cold and hadn't been able to get too much work done. Finally, we have only been keeping track of temperatures there since 1956 so it's hardly worth getting into a tizzy over 60 years worth of record data.

Re:Summer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527084)

Actually, it's only the first week of summer.

Re:Summer (1)

BobK65 (2541842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527408)

Did they happen to build Frosty The Snowman when first manning the station in the 1950's? If they did, I doubt he's broken a sweat in that entire time. That carrot nose might be in tough shape tho'.

Re:Summer (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38527654)

Second, there is no mention of the previous record so we have nothing to compare this "record" to.

I guess you did not notice the post made about 20 minutes ahead of yours by gedankenhoren, which compared record high temperatures at two nearby Antarctic stations with their previous record highs:

-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Nico AWS was -8.2C or 17.2F on 25 December 2011. This breaks the previous known record of -13.9C or 7F recorded on 4 January 2010.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Henry AWS was -8.9C or 16F on 25 December 2011. This break the previous known record of -14.5C or 5.9F on 5 January 2010.

So at these stations (both close to the South Pole), the new record was more than 5.5C above the previous record.

Rumor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526690)

I heard that the climate change deniers are planning on setting off a huge explosive charge from the left overs of the Iraq war under an undesclosed inactive volcano in an undesclosed third world non-white, non-Christian country to try and get some good ash in the air to cool things down, keep their argument alive, start another war, and get the Millitary Industrial pipeline flowing again across America, because it looks like their other pipeline is getting stalled.

It's only weather if it's cold, alarming if hot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38526758)

No problem, just send Al Gore there to speak and it'll get cold again.

Meanwhile, Greenland has record cold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38527606)

Greenland Closing In On All-Time Record Cold

http://www.real-science.com/greenland-closing-time-record-cold

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...