Beta
×

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!

2011 Was the 9th Hottest Year On Record

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the maybe-we're-just-really-competitive dept.

Earth 877

The Bad Astronomer writes "Last year was the 9th hottest year out of the past 130, according to NASA and the NOAA. That's no coincidence: nine out of the ten hottest years on record have been since the year 2000. It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy."

cancel ×

877 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768972)

But who the fuck cares?

Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (1)

jbp1 (1179795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769022)

thank you

Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769120)

But who the fuck cares?

I'm an agricultural commodities trader, you insentitive clod!

Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (1)

vencs (1937504) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769272)

As of now that's enough to be eventually pressurized to make you feel guilty and suck some dollars in the process. Thank you!

al gore? (0, Redundant)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769378)

I think he does

Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769386)

Indeed.

Re:There is no denying the Earth is getting hotter (4, Insightful)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769446)

Farmers, maybe? Their profession is only...you know...the foundation of modern civilization and intimately tied to climate conditions.

The open question... (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38768980)

Is it a bad thing? Or did we just dodge an ice age [bbc.co.uk] ?

Re:The open question... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768998)

Shh. If you don't toe the party line, and act as though this is a coming apocalypse which shall doom us all, you'll get labelled a 'denier'!

Re:The open question... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769178)

You said it wouldn't get warmer. It did. Quit whining about being labeled a denier.

Re:The open question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769344)

Did you read the story? A half a fucking degree Celcius! That could be aggregate measurement error for all we know.!

Re:The open question... (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769388)

Half a degree Celsius is quite bigger than margin of error. It is about 1 degree F, which is well within the ability to be detected by dollar store thermometers. Stop grabbing at straws: it is happening and you were wrong, now it's too late to fix it.

Re:The open question... (2, Funny)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769488)

Ohs Nos! Those poor kids in Canada are going to go without 20 feet in snow! They viking will re-invade greenland and start a grape growing empire! Dogs and cats sweating together! OMG OMG OMG!

APOCALYPTIC VOLCANOES OF HOT GRITS!

Re:The open question... (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769352)

Now they just claim it isn't caused by humans. Global warming deniers are the new creationists - moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong because they can't stand what science is telling them. They have zero credibility.

Re:The open question... (2)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769148)

I like in Canada, and I drive a convertible. Global warming... Bring it on!!!

Re:The open question... (2)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769216)

Live, not like... Stupid rented fingers.

Re:The open question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769252)

Blame it on the a-a-a-alchohol, DrumkenBum.

Re:The open question... (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769154)

We didn't "just dodge" an event over a millennium in the future. Wrecking our arable land over the next century by turning up the heat will kill actual people. Let the people of 3000 AD worry about an imminent ice age, if humanity manages to live that long.

Funny that that's the one climatology study you trust...

Re:The open question... (5, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769196)

Why are you under the impression that global warming won't increase the amount of arable land?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html [nationalgeographic.com]

Re:The open question... (1, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769254)

Because farms can't be built in a day. If the world's arable land shifts to new locations, the global supply chain will face an upheaval the likes of which have never been seen in human history. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, will starve.

Re:The open question... (4, Insightful)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769286)

You do know it doesn't take humans a century to build a farm, right? It's also a very parallelizable activity. There's simply no basis in facts for your statement, which makes me wonder what your intention with posting it would be.

Re:The open question... (4, Informative)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769462)

It takes a long while to turn sand into soil.

Re:The open question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769304)

There are tractor manufacturers that would disagree with you.

Re:The open question... (4, Insightful)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769310)

Why are you under the impression that global warming won't increase the amount of arable land?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html [nationalgeographic.com]

Bingo. One of the things that has always bothered me about the global the warming/climate change thesis that its advocates predict nothing but negative consequences. That's extremely improbable. Even if we grant that these theories are correct, it's clear that their proponents stress the negative impact because they need to induce fear to motivate funding and to justify the additional bureaucratic power that they crave.

Re:The open question... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769496)

will kill actual people.

You say that as if it was a bad thing. There is no shortage of people, anywhere. The more people there are, the better it is that people die. Of course not for the ones doing the dying - but for the survivors it means less competition for limited resources. Hard fact, and politically incorrect, but a fact nonetheless.

Re:The open question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769236)

But you know what hysteresis and positive feedback is, right?

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768986)

It's getting hotter! Oh No! What ever will we do??!!!

Re:Uh oh (3, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769100)

If you're Canadian or Ukranian, buy agricultural stocks. Your growing season is about to get a lot longer (enabling multiple harvests per year which used to be limited to lower latitudes), several of your competitors in agricultural products are going to be less productive, and your agricultural lands a LOT more productive.

For every loser, there is a winner.

Re:Uh oh (1)

theshibboleth (968645) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769232)

Except that most models show that the temperature lags behind carbon emissions, and carbon emissions are rising anyway, so even if there were a decrease in the rate of increase of carbon emissions, chances are that Ukraine may have its decade in the sun but after that point each and every agricultural zone of the world will have less output, leading to a global famine, nevermind that most of Florida will be under water.

Re:Uh oh (3, Interesting)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769300)

If only the deaths due to famine could be limited to those who are most responsible for causing the problem - but it will be limited to the poor people mostly in the third world.

Meanwhile we have all the climate change deniers to help prop up the corporations and countries who are causing the problem and ensure that it gets worse faster.

Denial (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769000)

to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

Sure but in my experience exercising in fantasy beats exercising in reality every time.

I thought temperatures haven't risen since 2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769002)

Isn't this already debunked? Apparently temperatures haven't risen for 8 years?

Re:I thought temperatures haven't risen since 2003 (0)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769096)

Isn't this already debunked? Apparently temperatures haven't risen for 8 years?

Citation needed.

mediocrity (1, Informative)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769010)

mediocrity is what you get for electing a mediocre president. elect ron paul, see all the environmental regulations instantly repealed, and see records break.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769358)

Commenter is on topic and factually correct. Just because the commenter is in open disagreement with slashdot paullowers doesn't mean his comments don't deserve to be read.

Re:mediocrity (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769374)

Are you really a counter-agent, trying to make those who oppose Ron Paul look like idiots?

"On record" (4, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769014)

... for very short values of record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]

Re:"On record" (1)

RzTen1 (1323533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769142)

... for very short values of record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]

Although, looking at that chart it would appear that the mean has never moved much beyond 0.5 over baseline. It would appear that the latest graph shows 0.6 over baseline and is continuing to trend upwards.

Re:"On record" (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769228)

You cannot simply average different proxies to get a representative mean since they might be out of sync and thus cancel each other out. You'd lose all the peaks and troughs, even though they are perfectly valid values.

Re:"On record" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769370)

That image caption is wrong. The hockeystick-shaped black line called "recent proxies" is not from proxies but from direct temperature readings. According to the IPCC scientists you should never ever graft direct measurements onto proxy values.

The image should be changed, it's currently deceptive.

Re:"On record" (1)

RzTen1 (1323533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769450)

I think that only the thin black line at the end of the larger black line is recent proxies. It looks like the large black line was the mean. There's a good chance I'm wrong here though. :)

Have you also solved the "dark matter" problem? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769218)

I love it when amateurs try to second-guess experts.

"Mr. Einstein, are you sure it's not just an issue of measurement?"

"Billions of people in the world? You expect me to believe that? Have you actually met them all? I thought not!"

97% of scientists who are experts in this field are sufficiently convinced. They may end up being wrong, but they are in the best possible position to assess the evidence. You are not. Even if you *are* a climate scientist, you don't get to overrule the rest of your peers just because you think you're smarter than they are.

If you're not a climate scientist, please SFTFU with your denial. If you are a climate scientist, then do good research and talk to your peers.

Re:Have you also solved the "dark matter" problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769318)

I love it when amateurs cite experts when they don't understand what the experts are doing.
If you're not a climate scientist, please STFU with your alarmism.
If you are a climate scientist, please publish your data and your methods. Thank you.

Re:Have you also solved the "dark matter" problem? (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769418)

Denial? Are you claiming there are climate scientists who disagree with the image I linked to Holocene temperature variations? If so, please support that claim.

Sensationalism (1, Insightful)

UberJugend (2519392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769018)

Ice ages, hot periods, floods, land scape changes, saltier oceans. The climate and Earth is always changing. Always has been and always will be. With or without us.

Re:Sensationalism (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769106)

Ice ages, hot periods, floods, land scape changes, saltier oceans. The climate and Earth is always changing. Always has been and always will be. With or without us.

And this is the real crux of the issue. The only way we're going to be able to support 9+ billion people on this planet is if we keep things running pretty much the way it is now. Even then, the odds aren't in favor of human beings maintaining Business As Usual given the typical political, economic and social miseries that we tend to inflict upon ourselves and each other.

Now, add some major shifts in food production, water availability and the ability of the coastal areas to support large populations then you make it even less likely that we'll see unicorns and ponies in our future.

Of course, the rest of the planet might consider this a major plus. Your kids, not so much.

Re:Sensationalism (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769342)

And this is the real crux of the issue. The only way we're going to be able to support 9+ billion people on this planet is if we keep things running pretty much the way it is now.

I think the point being made is that if it happened without us being here at all, there must be causes that we have no control over. If there are causes that we cannot control, it would be folly to waste the time and money trying to control what we cannot.

Xerxes ordered his slaves to whip the waves to keep the waves from coming in. He was trying to control something he couldn't in a way that wasted time and energy and probably lives. People who ignored the fact that the sand spit they were building million dollar houses on wasn't there 100 years ago are demanding that something "be done" to keep the spit from eroding today.

As a society, humans are very good at seeing "how things are today" and leaping to "this is how they should always be", even if that means "doing something that doesn't change what's happening".

Re:Sensationalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769124)

Why make it worse?

Re:Sensationalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769220)

Why make it worse?

BECAUSE MONEY

It is getting hotter (1, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769034)

But is a 130 year history enough to forecast the doom of the planet on, or is this like predicting all life will end because it is hotter at noon that it was at 11:00am on an average summer day?

Re:It is getting hotter (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769156)

No, a 130 year history is not enough, but it is also not the only evidence of a problem.

Re:It is getting hotter (1)

Lewis Daggart (539805) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769328)

Just because you disagree with the parent, doesn't make his post any way off topic.

Re:It is getting hotter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769424)

Just because you disagree with the parent, doesn't make his post any way off topic.

Yup. It was clearly flamebait, but right on topic. However, I don't see what's insightful (the current rating) about misrepresenting an opponent's argument.

Denial. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769046)

Not everyone denies that the earth is getting hotter (facts), but some related claims like that it's getting hotter because of human activity, greenhouse gases, etc.

That it's getting hotter is science: you can't disagree with measurement.

The rest is a mixture of pseudo-science and politics.

Fact is that nobody knows why the Earth is getting hotter.

Re:Denial. (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769330)

Funny, because a lot of real scientists disagree with you. We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really. You get into politics when you start claiming "nobody knows" when, in fact, we have a damn good idea. Are you a creationist?

Re:Denial. (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769420)

We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really.

If you think the global weather system is "pretty simple", you need to get out more. The fact is that correlation isn't proof of causation, and most scientists would never accept such "proof" in their own fields, but are expected to accept it from climate scientists.

Until you show that a system that differs only in the amount of CO2 released by humans but is otherwise identical does NOT show the temperature increases, you've tied your wagon to the correlation proof. Otherwise, any of the other differences between the two systems could be the cause or a mitigating factor.

Re:Denial. (0)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769478)

I'm not really qualified to be talking about it, but the explanations given by those who are sound reasonable to me. The question then is, why do you think you know better?

Pseudo-science is morons on the internet spouting off about how much they know that real scientists do not.

Re:Denial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769356)

This coming from a guy on a computing website.

Computer models accurately postdict and have predicted climate warming based on estimable parameters. You can then remove anthropogenic CO2 equivalents from models that have been demonstrated to be accurate. Without anthropogenic CO2 equivalents, global warming is not nearly as severe as it is with anthropogenic CO2 equivalents.

But sure. Some random dude on Slashdot knows better than the global scientific consensus. Piss off with you.

Re:Denial. (2)

joggle (594025) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769400)

The rest is a mixture of pseudo-science and politics.

Fact is that nobody knows why the Earth is getting hotter.

No, the study of the Earth's climate is hardly a pseudo-science. It is a hard science based on observation, computational models, making hypothesis and testing them. There have been satellites collecting observations for decades, surface measurements for over a hundred years, and ice core samples going back thousands of years. We can directly observe the output of the sun on the surface as well as in space, the concentration of various gasses in the atmosphere, etc.

How in the world is that a pseudo-science?

There's politics involved because it would be expensive to try to take corrective action. The change would need to be done on a massive scale, which is going to necessarily require the involvement of governments. The ozone hole would have never been closed if not for the governments of the world agreeing to stop producing CFCs.

What amazes me is that people think we can't affect the climate when we just recently formed large holes in the ozone later, passed policies to stop it, and those policies worked and mitigated the ozone hole at the poles. Clearly, the actions of humans can have global impacts.

The next argument is that the climate is always changing. While that's true on a geologic timescale, it isn't for a human timescale. We have never seen such a sharp increase in the concentration of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, even going as far back as ice core samples allow. What non-human reason could possibly be behind such a sharp increase that has never before occurred? In addition, we have good estimates of how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere every year and this amount is sufficient to account for the increased levels of CO2.

Re:Denial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769416)

All that I would agree with.

However.

If the reasonable suspicion of the majority of those qualified to judge such things is that we are contributing, then why not play it a bit safe.

It's a bit of a pascal's wager type of a thing I'll agree, but at least you'll see the return in this life, not the next.

Re:Denial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769444)

That it's getting hotter is science

It's getting hotter because of science? Quick, stop all science!

Minnesota (-1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769076)

I live in Minnesota. We're presently at -12C with a forecast low of -21C tonight. If this is what you call a warmer Earth you could have fooled me. However, I for one would very much welcome a warmer Minnesota--during the winter at any rate.

Re:Minnesota (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769194)

I love it when ignorant people like this imply that their local conditions are representative of not only the entire year but also the entire planet. The simple fact is this: you don't have all the information. You are not recording the temperature at many places around the world and therefore are not sufficiently informed to make the argument that the Earth is not on average warming up. See that word back there? "Average"? Please examine the definition of that word and how it might apply to your single anecdote. Then perhaps you can examine the 130 year temperature record for various points around the world and apply the appropriate functions to determine what the temperature of the entire Earth is doing over this time period.

Re:Minnesota (0)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769470)

Always eager to fight. Always quick to rush to the wrong conclusion. I was rather enjoying the 5 to 10C we had a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately we're back to business as usual and that pleasant weather is a faded memory. Oh, before I forget... *woosh*

Re:Minnesota (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769262)

Yeah and it was like, what, +5 there a couple days ago. Did it ever get to +5 in January in Minnesota 20 years ago? It sure as hell didn't in northern ontario.

Re:Minnesota (3, Interesting)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769284)

I live in Minnesota. We're presently at -12C with a forecast low of -21C tonight. If this is what you call a warmer Earth you could have fooled me. However, I for one would very much welcome a warmer Minnesota--during the winter at any rate.

Global *averages* are rising. And by the models I've heard it means that winters don't necessarily get warmer (yet), but they get shorter. I live in Ontario, and I can remember having snowball fights before Hallowe'en when I was young. This year, we didn't start getting lasting snow until mid-December, and we have had winters in the past few years where we didn't get lasting snow until mid-January. It still gets down to low temperatures (it was -35 here this morning, with the wind chill factor... -21 without), but it does it less often, and it doesn't stay cold for as many months. It's "good" for northern latitudes (for varying definitions of "good"... the reduction in permafrost is wreaking havoc on the transportation network in northern Canada, as we discover that some of the landing strips on fly-in communities are in swamps), but it's really bad for those in equatorial latitudes.

Global warming (1)

gbear711 (1321149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769104)

Life thrives in a warm climate, bring it on.

Too bad the goverment wont let us evolve anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769108)

Water World style,, all evolved people are considered out casts and hunted down.
          IRL X-Files anyone

Facts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769132)

It's long past time to face facts: the Earth experiences weather, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

Even through the smoke you can see something (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769136)

Lots of smoke blown by nay-sayers and conflicting claims on why, but it is becoming quite apparent something is happening and ... it's happening at an accelerating rate. Hard for be to believe we are not influencing this trend. All that carbon was up here once before and it was so warm and cozy you could grow ___ing great lizards. And lizards aren't known for their arctic preferences of climate.

I blame Buster Poindexter!

Re:Even through the smoke you can see something (3, Informative)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769364)

There were also giant forests and jungles and ocean ecosystems supported by that carbon. That meant a lot of it was in the midst of the metabolisms of plants and algae and stuff, not floating free in the atmosphere. It was a generally thicker atmosphere, making more OXYGEN available, that let the world grow ____ing great lizards (also, they weren't lizards).

We, on the other hand, have increasingly small jungles and forests, and increasingly puny ocean ecosystems, which means that carbon doesn't spend much time trapped in living things. It stays in the atmosphere, which leads to something beyond "warm and cozy."

Fantasy exercise (1)

Arthur Dent '99 (226844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769138)

It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

I much prefer fantasy exercise over actual exercise!

Sampling Size Change (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769182)

Or it's an illusion caused by the power law after the sample size of weather stations was reduced by 1/5th during the late 80s and early 90s.

Re:Sampling Size Change (1)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769412)

Do you have any facts to back that theory up? Maybe some statistics on how the remaining samples were placed less usefully or in generally warmer areas? Maybe some explanation for the fact that the trend line curves nicely, rather than sharply spiking up, as a sudden change in the quality of data would cause?

Well unbiased reporting is the real fantassy (0)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769184)

"It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy."

Seriously not much ideological bias. I can't imagine a more anti science, more anti reason way to try and beat down people you disagree with than the above. The fact that it has managed to gain a foothold in political circles and the wider world is a great indictment of democracy, and the best argument imaginable for not giving government more power to try and solve our problems.

Re:Well unbiased reporting is the real fantassy (1)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769276)

I can't imagine a more anti science, more anti reason way to try and beat down people you disagree with than the above.

Why is that? I've seen some reasonably convincing evidence that the average temperatures are getting warmer in the past 100+ years.

The real problem is that no one has been able to explain WHY without pseudo-science, emotional ploys, and politics which makes swallowing "humans are runing the world!" difficult for those of us who like facts.

Re:Well unbiased reporting is the real fantassy (1, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769380)

Its a pure appeal to emotionalism and its playing with the data the way a magician plays with expectations. Whats worse when you think about it 98 was the hottest year on record, and we have had 13 years of ever increasing levels of CO2 production you would think 2011 should be hotter ?

Wow a data point which is at best not impressive has been transformed into a brickbat. God forbid you question the common sense of trying fuel our automobiles with corn, the power grid with wind because that brickbat and whole bunch of equally specious will be thrown at you.

climate change is not real (1, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769190)

evolution is not real

the world is flat

i don't want to think

i have certain beliefs and i do not want them challenged

and i believe in a mythical past that never existed where everything was perfect and all progress has ruined the myth

and i will spend all of my breath standing against simple human thought, logic, reason, and progress

because i am inert and my mind is closed

and you should be the same way too

and i will raise my many many children to think this way too

baaaahhh baaaaahhh

rise of the human herbivores

I think we can safely disregard this story (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769192)

I mean, compare Kim Kardashian to Farrah Fawcett? Then there's Debra Harry, Michelle Yeoh, heck even Dolly Parton. There's just no way it's even the 9th hottest.

Making leaps (2, Interesting)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769240)

It's long past time to face facts: the Earth is getting hotter, and to deny it is an exercise in fantasy.

Nobody is denying that it got like 0.2 degrees hotter [drroyspencer.com] in the past 10 years, it's the fact that some people seem to be making the leap between it getting hotter and humans not trading enough carbon credits, now that is an exercise in fantasy.

9th hottest in ten years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769246)

to me the facts say that the earth is actually cooling if the majority of the past decade has been warmer.

Climate change is real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769264)

The question is not if the climate is changing. The question is whether CO2 controls the climate in any meaningful way.

Methane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769278)

Yet no AWG proponent can tell me why they are regulating CO2 instead of Methane, which they tell me is 15x the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Thats right, you can't tax everyone on Methane, but you can on CO2. Global warming isn't about saving the environment, its about justifying more taxes.

Re:Methane (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769492)

Hello, while we are at it lets get rid of all the water on the earth.

It is killing US!!!

I am sure Al Gore and his Carbon Credit buy/sell market scammers can set up the same thing for water and methane.

Down with Water and Methane!!!

If you elect me for president, I will eliminate methane and water and SAVE THE EARTH.

-Hack

Perhaps it's for the best... (1)

twotacocombo (1529393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769280)

I just love how humans go about their lives thinking that we're the only thing holding this planet together, and that if we go extinct, time itself will go all taco-shaped and the universe will cease to exist. If we were truly a species worth saving, we'd be fixing this problem*, instead of bickering about whether or not it even exists, and who's to blame, and who's paying for it, and at what interest rate, and.... *assuming the rising temperatures are not natural, or a statistical blip.

And some of us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769288)

...couldn't care less. Warmer? Colder? It's all good.

Only El Nina saved us from broiling even more (3, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769332)

That and some volcanoes.

Without those, we're talking an ice free passage in the Arctic from Greenland to Alaska, the melting of enough of Antarctica to raise sea level 4-5 meters (that's 20 feet GW deniers), and hurricanes with enough energy input to make Florida look like a 24/7 disaster zone.

That said, I will bet Mittens' $10,000 that GW deniers will try to mod this entire topic down, using some of the $50,000 I have invested in energy stocks to pay for the posters.

No Warming Between 1998 and 2008 (0)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769334)

How can the 10 hottest years on record have possibly been since 2000 when there was no warming between 1998 and 2008? Global Warming experts say this 10 year period is too brief to prove anything, they recommend a minimum of 17 years to show a distinct trend. I smell a troll.

Global warming shills (0)

ssyladin (458003) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769346)

I think the global warming shills have quit denying the obvious (that "the Earth is getting hotter"), and have moved on to point #2: that the cause is man-made. The point #3 is "the human race can do something about it". As I understand it, it's this #3, which would (in their minds) invariable mean taxes, or an upset to the business/government status quo, that they largely want to avoid.

Another biased summary and article... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769348)

If one did some research one would see that earth has been warmer many times over the holocene period without any spikes in co2.
There is absolutely no proof that the current warming period is caused by greenhouse gases instead of natural climate cycles/variations.

But like usual the AGW proponents only care about the last decades even though climate cycles seems to work in much longer cycles.

4th coldest year? (5, Interesting)

Confusedent (1913038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769350)

If this is the 9th hottest year, and 8 of the past 12 have been hotter, then wouldn't that technically also make 2011 one of the four coldest years out of the past 12? Doesn't change the fact that the past decade has been hotter than the others, but the phrasing is considerably more alarmist than "2011 4th coldest year out of past 12!!"

Guess what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769362)

Climate is always dynamic on life bearing planets. Ergo if it wasn't getting warmer it would be getting colder and then you'd be griping about that.

The cause is irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769428)

And quite beside the point. Who the hell cares if we're causing it or not; we should be concerned only with keeping it habitable for our future needs. Finding the root cause could help with finding a solution, but to do nothing is oblivion.

130 years on record out of 4.5 billion? (0)

SonofSmog (1961084) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769432)

Yawn.

really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769442)

Wow! citing 9 years out of millions as proof of global warming. Can you really say this is a trend? If you stop at any upward or downward series of points on the chart and extrapolate from there you can make the data say whatever you want.

Idiot Astronomer (-1, Redundant)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769468)

This guy is using only 10 years of a planet that is aged in the billions of years and he calls it a undeniable trend?

He must have spent way too many years writing BLOG's and not enough time doing his Mathematics homework.

10 years is not a trend. It isn't even a moment in geologic time.

Its a pico moment. ;-)

I call B.S.

-Hack

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?