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!

The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the not-imagining-things dept.

Earth 552

New submitter NatasRevol (731260) writes The last three months were collectively the warmest ever experienced since record-keeping began in the late 1800s. From the article: "Taken as a whole, the just-finished three-month period was about 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average. That may not sound like much, but the added warmth has been enough to provide a nudge to a litany of weather and climate events worldwide. Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East." Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing. bizwriter also wrote in with some climate related news: A new report from libertarian think tank Heartland Institute claims that new government data debunks the concept of global climate change. However, an examination of the full data and some critical consideration shows that the organization, whether unintentionally or deliberately, has inaccurately characterized and misrepresented the information and what it shows. The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.

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

Well here we go again. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457061)

sudo apt-get install popcorn

Re:Well here we go again. (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 months ago | (#47457113)

Don't know about you, but on MY systems, you don't need elevated privileges to get popcorn.

Comes with that rack of Pentium IVs in the closet.

Re:Well here we go again. (3, Funny)

coinreturn (617535) | about 3 months ago | (#47457293)

Comes with that rack of Pentium IVs in the closet.

You mainline Pentiums?

Its even worse than we thought (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457063)

I mean, its a whole 2 degrees warmer here today than it was yesterday!!!!!!

Re:Its even worse than we thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457245)

It's even worse here.... Since 3am we've gone up 10 degrees! By evening, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

Re:Its even worse than we thought (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 3 months ago | (#47457571)

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

Well, yes, yes we are. (filter error: 'Don't use so many caps' I'm QUOTING the OP you moronic filter bastard!)

The Heartland Institute (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457065)

lolololololololol, were you expecting anything else?

The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (1, Troll)

fche (36607) | about 3 months ago | (#47457093)

lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?

Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47457149)

lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?

Certainly a link [boston.com] to ice measures from various places on Earth and a discussion of how various models have held up to measurement over the past decade, regarding their predictive value.

Oh, nevermind - shut up and pay your carbon tax.

Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47457345)

Yes, it certainly appears to be the famously-adjusted GISS data set, not "raw" data at all. I don't know for sure, but we haven't seen any evidence otherwise.

And if you notice, Bill, the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.

Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457429)

No one takes you seriously when we're talking about climate change. You might want to ask yourself why.

Re:The Carbon Tax (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457425)

I remember my father talking with their friends. They would complain about high taxes and say about the politicians, "They'd tax the air we breathe if they could." They would all shake their heads. (c. 1960's)

Now these politicians have found the way to tax the air we breathe00it's called the Carbon Tax.

Re:The Carbon Tax (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about 3 months ago | (#47457507)

You should avoid to breathe carbon *oxyde.

Re:The Carbon Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457585)

"/earth is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can."
-- Unix fortune file

Re:The Carbon Tax (1)

HappyHead (11389) | about 3 months ago | (#47457601)

Actually, they're taxing the air we can't breathe.

Re: The Heartland Institute (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457099)

I don't see what's so funny, they're one of the few groups untainted by the widespread liberal pro-warming bias the climatologists lean on to fill their coffers.

Re: The Heartland Institute (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457143)

So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.

Re: The Heartland Institute (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 3 months ago | (#47457161)

That's why I follow the Pope on Twitter.

Re: The Heartland Institute (5, Informative)

Glock27 (446276) | about 3 months ago | (#47457625)

So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.

Actually the summary is fairly untainted by facts. For instance:

Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East.

Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?

Except...

1) Arctic sea ice [uiuc.edu] is actually currently above last year's level, which was already a rebound of over 25 million square km more than the previous year at the minimum extents.

2) The ocean waters in the North Atlantic hurricane region are right around average [wxug.com] for this time of year, by no means "abnormally warm".

3) "Rashes of heat waves plague" various places every summer, and always have. NOAA recently reinstated 1934 as the hottest year in the US on record.

The article attacking the Heartland data does have a minor point, but it is absolutely true that temperatures have been essentially flat for around 17 years, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers trying to explain this pause, so it's clearly a real phenomena. We'll see if it continues, the El Nino this year is now expected to be a fairly minor event [noaa.gov] .

At this time, the forecasters anticipate El Niño will peak at weak-to-moderate strength during the late fall and early winter (3-month values of the Niño-3.4 index between 0.5oC and 1.4oC).

Re: The Heartland Institute (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 months ago | (#47457349)

Ah yes, all those super-rich climatologists picking on poor impoverished Big Oil.

Re: The Heartland Institute (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457483)

No, asshat, it's not the scientists themselves but the large organizations that pay them. If they don't unequivocally keep proving something that supposedly has already been proven, they don't keep their jobs. You'll find most climate research is done by large organizations who benefit financially from it (including universities).

Re: The Heartland Institute (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 3 months ago | (#47457467)

I don't see what's so funny, they're one of the few groups untainted by the widespread liberal pro-warming bias the climatologists lean on to fill their coffers.

In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.

Re:The Heartland Institute (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 months ago | (#47457337)

No kidding. "Heartland Institute cherry picks data... news at 11"

1800s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457083)

Data that goes ALL THE WAY BACK to the 1800s?
#fail

Re:1800s (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47457237)

Data that goes ALL THE WAY BACK to the 1800s?

Yes, the set that shows global warming starting to significantly ramp up in the 1830's - current models not yet successfully covering that period.

Re:1800s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457283)

While it is possible to glean average and relative temperature changes by examining the archeological record, written records necessary to make specific statements about, say, quarter-year periods, are not available prior to the 1800s. This is clearly explained pretty much everywhere that specific figures are cited, including the article in question.
#nou

Re: 1800s (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 3 months ago | (#47457431)

Sorry you think so, I thought the data for major population centers, where the churches, and the arts were taught, went back to the 1600's. Some earlier even. But then if you are going off datasets, I thought the MWP was a full three degrees warmer then the 1990's. Which were warmer then now. And there were warmer periods prior to that. So, I'll go back to the SciFi channel and watch sharknado 2 and scream over the destruction of the world.

Re: 1800s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457519)

Think what you like, but it's widely-known that specific, scientific climate data only goes back a couple hundred years. Sure, the churches kept less-specific information, right next to their records for miracles and exorcisms, but you generally don't want to rely on that sort of information when you're building computer models.

Also, I wasn't drawing any conclusion; I was simply addressing the knee-jerk response over a presumed arbitrary period of time. Feel free to return to your "Jump to Conclusions" mat, though... I'm sure it goes well with the mindset of people who actually enjoy the intellectual drivel that SyFy is showing these days.

Re:1800s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457547)

then where the fuck did michael mann get his funky hockystick

But its cooler here... (4, Funny)

jzarling (600712) | about 3 months ago | (#47457101)

...surely the recent "Polar Vortex" and cooler temps I am experiencing means that Global Warming is a hoax!!! Rush Limbaugh told me so.

Re:But its cooler here... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#47457215)

Actually, Rush Limbaugh claims there is no empiracle evidence for hlobal warming. I don't see why he would claim a need for weather to support that.

Re:But its cooler here... (3, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#47457281)

As I understand Rush... He is actually claiming that "there is no empirical evidence of MAN MADE global warming."

Re:But its cooler here... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457359)

Actually Rush has his head up his butt and can only see the inside of his intestines.

Re:But its cooler here... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457367)

He changes his story about as often as he changes his dealer, so there's no telling what his current line (heh) is.

Re:But its cooler here... (1)

jzarling (600712) | about 3 months ago | (#47457365)

I will listen to him today to get refine my snark for accuracy.

Check those numbers, submitter (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 months ago | (#47457111)

Those aren't year over year increases, they are deltas from the 1951-1980 mean - and they have indeed been flat for a while.

C'mon, I believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat - but let's not make stuff up.

Re:Check those numbers, submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457271)

Shhh..... don't point out the poster doesn't have a clue and posted a straight line while calling it exponential. Anyone with a brain can see it, but its fun to see the " DI TOLD YOU SO!!!" so smugly dripping from the post, while they then disprove themselves

Re:Check those numbers, submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457541)

f(x) = exp(0*x) is both a straight line and exponential.

Re:Check those numbers, submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457455)

The Earth is a living system from the organisms that balance out CO2 and pollutants to the geothermal activity. The recent warrm months have actually melted roads in Yellowstone as the heat under the crust dissipates less quickly through the surface - the overall effect being to soften the crust over a supervolcano. If it keeps up I'd bet on freezing to death from a volcanic winter well before I'd bet on the oceans boiling off or heatwaves claiming lives in greater numbers. If life won't balance it the geothermal activity in the Earth will. The fact is there are so many dynamic system on and in the Earth that it doesn't seem shocking at all that global temperatures haven't changed as ANY of the models said they would (exponentially increasing temperture deltas year-over-year) because there are so many systems acting to balance eachother out the weatherman can't even get a weekly forcast right 50% of the time, let alone decades or hundreds of years down the road.

The study focuses soley on Japan (0)

Michael Simpson (2902481) | about 3 months ago | (#47457115)

The submitter is a bit disingenuous to post a story about Japan's climate and then extrapolate it to the world and then uses another suspect study as an illustration of skewed science. You can't have it both ways. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Maybe Japan has an increased temperature due to the radioactivity due to Fukishima and the simultaneous release of a new Godzilla movie.

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (4, Informative)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 3 months ago | (#47457145)

It wasn't just Japan. According to the article, the Japan Meteorological Society did do a study that focused on Japan, but NASA ran a similar study using different methods that got virtually the same results in a completely different part of the world.

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (1, Flamebait)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#47457159)

Well it wasn't my part of the world. Hey, how about this: if we're doing a global study, let's study the whole fucking planet, eh?

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457451)

Well it wasn't my part of the world. Hey, how about this: if we're doing a global study, let's study the whole fucking planet, eh?

The study by Japanese scientists was a *global* temperature study, your part of the world is not on the earth?

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457529)

You clearly don't understand how science works. Let me explain it to you, so even you Republicans can understand:

3 months of warmer than normal temperatures in an area = climate
3 months of cooler than normal temperatures in an area = weather

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457201)

Here's a direct quote from TFA (emphasis mine):

The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins.

Tip: When you find yourself misreading articles outright, in a way that just happens to support your opinion, it's time to sit down and have a good hard think about whether your picture of reality is accurate.

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (-1, Troll)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 3 months ago | (#47457465)

You know that the word "globally" can mean something other than "over the entire globe", right?

From dictionary.com: "global: adjective ... 2. comprehensive"

So all the Japanese Meteorological Agency said is that June 2014 was the warmest June in the comprehensive data sets that it has kept since 1891 for Japan. Perhaps you should consider that you might have a BIAS of your OWN before you start spouting forth quotations, Coward.

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457233)

You are right. Only Japan.
Local thing, best look for local explainations.

Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457475)

You are right. Only Japan. Local thing, best look for local explainations.

Unless the linked article is misrepresenting the actual study, it was a *global* temperature study done by Japanese scientists. So it is a local thing for earthlings, and the local explanations we are looking for are local to earth.

Libertarian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457117)

I'm no fan of the Paulists, but when did Heartland start being anything other than a GOP rag, arguments about the similarity of those ideologies aside?

Re:Libertarian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457315)

When MSNBC was considered a news source...

say it isn't so! (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 3 months ago | (#47457127)

Heartland Institute deliberately misrepresenting something to influence public policy? Surely you jest!

Re:say it isn't so! (-1, Troll)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 3 months ago | (#47457371)

Hockey sticks? If the Heartland Institute is biased at least taxpayers don't have to subsidize their hypothetical lies. What's worse? A private entity lying to you or a government entity you pay for and are supposed to be able to trust lying to you?

Re:say it isn't so! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457561)

Heartland Institute is only subsidize by tax avoiders ?

Re:say it isn't so! (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 3 months ago | (#47457553)

What's surprising is that the financial industry really stand to gain BIG from the carbon "tax" and so you would expect the Heartland Institute to be promoting their best interest.

The scam works about like this. Anyone wanting to generate CO2 would have to buy carbon credits, imaginary items which are sold and speculated on by big finance. As CO2 limits decrease price increases = big profit.

It's like a tax, except the revenues go directly to the banks, bypassing the government entirely.

Cherry Picking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457131)

By typical cherry picking of data ranges that the AGW denialists use to "prove" that AGW is a hoax, I guess this means we are doomed by the end of the year?

Libertarian opinion on science... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457157)

...there shouldn't be one. As a Libertarian myself, I realize that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Thus if there is any science to politics (Can't say I think it's a good categorization of it) the only science Libertarian think tanks should be dealing with is political science.

Seriously, it's as related to Libertarianism as it is to the Catholic Church (actually, if anything, it'd be more related to the Catholic Church, being as their bible claims a man upstairs built the environment, after all).

It sucks to see an opinion posted from such an institute at all. The only appropriate posting would be one demonstrating how Libertarianism would interact with this science.

As for if *I* "believe" or not, I am much more set on global climate change than global warming. It's the only science I've actually seen be correct every time, and it explains the differences in the environment in the area I live, which would be one of the areas dragging down the average. However, I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion, because that would make no more sense than trying to find the socialist opinion on if the colour blue is nice.

Re:Libertarian opinion on science... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457263)

I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion

The problem is that Libertarians are against government regulation, but are theoretically for being forced to pay for fucking shit up. In practice, a lot of Libertarians fall into two camps: "I want to toke up whenever I want" and "I want to dump whatever I want on everyone else". That practice leads to things like this, where they are desperate to prove the shit coming out of their smokestacks and effluent drains smells like a rose, because then they can continue to claim that they fully support being held responsible for fucking shit up, good thing they aren't doing any damage to anyone else.

Global Cooling in 21st century (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457171)

In the 1970's "Intellectuals" betted on the wrong energy source in the markets that would stop Global Warming.

ugh (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47457173)

Climatologists need to stop with this nonsense. I believe in Climate change, but at the same time, I can completely understand the confusion on the part of the general public. Climate change has no direct evidence and there never will be. What we do have is an accumulation of statistics that make it virtually impossible for there to be any doubt that the climate is changing due to our activity.

Stop presenting easily refuted direct evidence. How long will it be before they have to make some minor adjustment to these numbers and that will be all over the news?

Produce the statistics as a whole, explain them and let the opponents try to fight THAT.

Re:ugh (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 3 months ago | (#47457255)

I believe in Climate change, but at the same time, I can completely understand the confusion on the part of the general public. Climate change has no direct evidence and there never will be.

Produce the statistics as a whole, explain them and let the opponents try to fight THAT.

This article isn't about a single observable proof of climate change so I don't get what relevance your rant has. In fact, given that the story is allegedly about climate change deniers mis-using data that shows climate change as 'evidence' there isn't climate change it's pretty fucking obvious that they are able to fight data based arguments.

Re:ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457383)

No... delete the statistics, and say the bearded man in the sky told you so. Then they'll believe you!

Proooooooof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457179)

Deniers, all! Just like those racist Democratic Party Californian teachers who taught kids that the Jewish holocaust was faked. Just like.

Big fat LIE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457187)

This has been the coolest summer I have seen in years. I haven't even turned on my air conditioner this year.

The real problem is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457197)

Its not the absolute amount of increase in the average temperature - its the *rate* at which the temperature is changing. The amount of increase that we've seen over the last 100 years or so has typically taken about 5,000 years in the past (according to geologic indications). This is the fact that the anti-climate-change people try so hard to ignore.

We we do in 100 years what typically takes 5,000, it doesn't take much in the way of math skills to realize that we are on a bad path.

Re:The real problem is... (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 3 months ago | (#47457505)

What "geologic indications" are these, exactly? The last time I checked, the global warming proponents were just checking ice cores for CO2 content in the atmosphere. The melting point of most rocks is well above the hottest temperatures encountered in the atmosphere...

Re: The real problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457623)

But who is to say that is not normal? THAT is the fallacy that all this is based on. When you were growing up, did you grow at exactly the same rate your entire childhood? Like so many inches per year? No you had growth spurts. Some years you grew more than others. There is this base assumption that climate is some constant thing like a ticking clock that is supposed to move at exactly the same rate forever. What makes us think something as complex as the entire ecosystem and climate of a planet is so fucking regulated like its a machine on a timer?

Hottest? (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 3 months ago | (#47457217)

the hell you say...

I have bad news for you (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457229)

Dear reality-based people,

You're talking to fantasy-based idiots who don't care about reality, they just want an excuse to keep treating Earth as an infinite resource and bottomless dump. They'll find an excuse to ignore this just like they find one to ignore all the rest. I'm sorry but the only thing that will make them shut up is when the changes punch the whole world in the teeth... Perhaps when I'm an old man and I tell stories about how California's central valley used to be one of the world's breadbaskets, and how the world's cities used to have beaches instead of shorewalls, and how the ocean used to teem with life before acidification killed most of the diatoms.

But at any rate, the idiots have "won" in that it's almost certainly too late to prevent some degree of disaster. All we can do now is treat the symptoms, and do our best to avoid any of the really bad ideas for treating them.

I have bad news for you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457463)

You leftist misanthropes are at the end of your con and you know it. The Central Valley used to be a breadbasket until the leftists started diverting vital irrigation water from farmers in favor of a minnow.

let me solve this right now (1, Insightful)

kencurry (471519) | about 3 months ago | (#47457241)

Facts:
1.Burning hydrocarbons: CnH2n+2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O +nCO2
2. CO2(atm) absorbs sunlight, increases vibrational energy, energy is released as atmospheric heat, warms up earth (just a little tiny bit, fine)
3. Even tho earth has it's own heat cycles, best not mess with it too much

Thus:
1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
3. Captains of Industry win on both sides: need hydrocarbons today & then drive new markets in energy efficiency. conservatives win on making money, Liberals win on job creation and paying for Obamacare

Therenow, everyone can go about their summer carefree.

Re:let me solve this right now (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457473)

CO2 does NOT absorb sunlight in significant quantities. It's lowest wavelength absorption band is in the short-wave IR where the solar incidence is already very weak.

What CO2 does that makes it a greenhouse gas is that it prevents long-wave IR emission from the Earth into space, therefore helping to keep some of the energy that reaches the Earth from leaving.

Please get your "facts" straight.

Re:let me solve this right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457551)

What CO2 does that makes it a greenhouse gas is that it prevents long-wave IR emission from the Earth into space, therefore helping to keep some of the energy that reaches the Earth from leaving.

There's yet to be proof that it prevents more energy from leaving than it prevents from coming in.

Re:let me solve this right now (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47457557)

1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient

The problem is that your "solutions" are wrong. CC is not a problem today, and will not be a problem tomorrow. But it will be a problem 30-100 years from now. In the long term the best way to reduce CC is population control ... and the best way to do that is third world education and poverty elimination ... and the best way to do that is to maximize economic growth ... and burning less hydrocarbons is NOT going to do that. A coal fired plant in Africa may emit more CO2 today, but it will improve people's lives, make them prosperous enough to educate their children, and lead to a lower population 50 years from now, this reducing CO2 emissions in the long run.

For The Love of Glob! (4, Insightful)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 3 months ago | (#47457253)

When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'

Miami is fucked. NYC, unless they build some wall, is fucked. So where are the debates on how to build the containment walls? Or the storm-proofed shelters? Or the projected increase in FEMA budget?

Or, you know, we could spin our wheels yet again bleeting on and on if humans caused this pickle or not. It doth not matter.

Re:For The Love of Glob! (1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#47457527)

You mean because global warming is real, we have no choice but to give far-left radicals everything they've been asking for for the past century? Wow, that's convenient. And it's mandatory, you say, or the earth dies? Ouchie!

Re:For The Love of Glob! (5, Interesting)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 3 months ago | (#47457599)

Way to prove my point!

I don't give a shit about C02 emissions. It's stupid to assume that the world would give a shit, even if some other countries managed to. Honestly, I'm more pissed off about the other effects of burning coal (have you checked your mercury levels lately?) and fracking.

I'm also not suggesting the earth dies. I'm suggesting we/our economy/culture very may well. The earth doesn't give a shit, it's seen plenty hotter and plenty colder. It's humans that are fucked, well, keeping our pop above 7 billion anyway.

In terms of being a 'far-left' radical...I've hung out with that crowd. They are just as dumb and backwards as the far-right (surprise!). Now, my political philosophies can certainly be considered radical, but I bet not in the way you think. In brief: Computational Socialism (gasp!! The S word!) made viable through modular GW-scale lead-cooled fast reactors.

If your philosophy doesn't involve trying to raise the whole world (countries/borders are inhumane and out of date) out of poverty with the end goal of a stabilized world population...well then...fuck you.

Re:For The Love of Glob! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457537)

Because a sea wall or a FEMA policy effects a targeted few people.

If you institute a carbon trade system, you get to dictate an awful lot of everybody's life.

If you were a power hungry psychopath, which would you grab for?

Re:For The Love of Glob! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457545)

When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'

Interesting thing is that the debate has very much shifted this way in many countries, that there is controversy around this is to a large degree a US led debate. (same for evolution, vaccines etc.).

Re:For The Love of Glob! (1, Insightful)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 3 months ago | (#47457577)

When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'

Answer: when the global warming proponents actually prove (1) its existence and (2) some meaningful effect in the lifetime of someone alive.

We, in the U.S., used to be under threat of nuclear attack by ICBMs. How many built bomb shelters? How many moved away from cities? That ought to give you a pretty good reference for the term "meaningful" as used above (as in its pretty damned high to reach.)

Re:For The Love of Glob! (0)

satuon (1822492) | about 3 months ago | (#47457593)

When there are actual consequences. When there are a few draughts, a few failed crops, several hurricanes in a single year, AND NOT BEFORE. That's the truth. Actions will be taken after Global Warming starts delivering on its threats.

Keep it honest (2)

warm_warmer (3029441) | about 3 months ago | (#47457279)

The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.

Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.

Single data points cannot be used to make an argument - on either side - even if you're actually right. Intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the debate has made global warming/climate change a toxic topic.

Re:Keep it honest (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#47457403)

Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.

Not really, as that statement is not a comparison of two single points. It's guaranteeing that all points on record are lower than the latest one.

Weather is not climate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457303)

Weather is not climate...unless it fits our narrative.

what do you call a hooker during a heartland (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457309)

convention? Broke! Seriously, a bunch of old white men, climate change denial obviously doesn't have a bright political future ahead of it. Quite worrying and let them dare to eat a peach.

Selective data (1, Insightful)

Tolvor (579446) | about 3 months ago | (#47457329)

Studies have been done on this before where the data was "managed". Certain readings that would show no temperature increase were not included citing "old equipment" or claimed that data was not relevant to their sample set. Certain instruments that would not support a desired result would have the equipment moved from the sheltered spot it was in to a much hotter area, for example over asphalt. Environmentalist have also been caught in changing the temperature reading on certain devices to be more favorable, which they called "statistical normalization" and "variance correction". Somehow this doesn't happen to equipment that supports their conclusions. Environmentalists can have the data show anything that they want.

Re:Selective data (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47457385)

[Citation needed]

Re:Selective data (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#47457419)

Pure conspiracy theory nonsense.

Re:Selective data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457471)

Yeah, those damn Environmentalists! Only those who deny the growing evidence of global warming are telling the complete truth.

Those Environmental idiots point to things like Miami's flooding or increases in global temperature as proof, when really they are just incidental and should not even be considered in a scientific study. After all, it's cold in the Arctic, and in my freezer, so there cannot be global warming!

Heartland Institute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457331)

"The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function."

You're joking right?? The Heartland Institute's NIPCC reports use the same research papers cited by the IPCC and shows how the IPCC conveniently skews data and ignores all the data in between.

Wanna buy a bridge? (1)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 3 months ago | (#47457377)

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Hardly used, great condition.

First, clean up the data and explain the continual adjustments. You know, those adjustments that keep making the past look colder, and the present look warmer - despite effects like UHI. Make the raw data available, along with the methodology used in the processing.

Then, and only then, should anyone believe pronouncements about "warmest months ever".

Re:Wanna buy a bridge? (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#47457441)

You wouldn't believe it was warming if you were the proverbial frog in a pan.

Re:Wanna buy a bridge? (2)

itzly (3699663) | about 3 months ago | (#47457445)

The raw data has been available for a while. Where's your analysis ?

any skinned body yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457395)

I say it's done on purpose by the predators!

Wrong focus. (2)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 months ago | (#47457401)

I really wish the pro-AGW side wouldn't focus on these events so much. It's pretty much irrelevant whether a month or quarter were "the warmest on record" and only leads to deniers pointing out all the "coldest on record" events as they happen.

AGW is about long-term trends. Focus on that.

Re:Wrong focus. (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 3 months ago | (#47457539)

There aren't that many "coldest on record" events happening. Besides, deniers are going to deny.

Lie by omissions (1)

mi (197448) | about 3 months ago | (#47457457)

Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year

Conveniently omitted from the report is a mention of Antarctic ice — which continues to set a record after a record [wattsupwiththat.com] .

Climate change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457485)

The climate has been changing on this planet for ~4.5 billion years, Get over it.

Error (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 3 months ago | (#47457603)

What is the margin of error?

When Scientists Become Preachers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47457605)

It will be a while before the digging into the data can begin and folks can confirm the results but based on previous efforts, my guess is that the "record" will be seriously skewed. It used to be that in the world of climate getting accurate measurements and letting the data speak for itself was derigeur. More and more (especially in climatology) the process seeems to be to massage the data to ensure that it conforms to a preconcieved theory. That's confirmation bias, not science. For some history of this sort of manipulation with examples.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/ [wordpress.com]

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/nasa-rewrites-the-past.html [bishop-hill.net]

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/ [climateaudit.org]

For the itellectually uncurious, the links will be ignored, and what's presented there shrugged off as akin to Holocaust denial. And in this way Science becomes a religious crusade instead of a methodology used to understand the natural world. Eisenhower's warnings are still spot on ~50 years later.

Coldest first half in the US since 1993 (1, Informative)

gmfeier (1474997) | about 3 months ago | (#47457637)

Latest from the NOAA site: The contiguous U.S. average temperature for the first half of 2014 was 47.6F, 0.1F above the 20th century average. This ranked near the middle value in the 120-year period of record, and marked the coldest first half of any year since 1993. Just sayin'. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ [noaa.gov]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?