If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months   (slate.com) divider line 420
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4361 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



420 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 10:24:24 AM

Joce678: wippit:
They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.

Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.

GIS "USA from space" if you don't believe me. Funny how you don't see a single contrail there...


So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?
 
2012-11-18 10:24:34 AM

wippit: I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic


Are those your two best examples of countries that people think have a lot of air traffic?
 
2012-11-18 10:26:57 AM

wippit:
So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?


To alter The Earth's albedo enough to change world temperature by two degrees in two days?

Yes, that's definitely my position.

Why what's yours...?
 
2012-11-18 10:30:43 AM

Joce678: Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.


This is a joke, right? I mean, this is just you pretending to be stupid as some form of entertainment or something?
 
2012-11-18 10:32:16 AM

Joce678: wippit: I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic

Are those your two best examples of countries that people think have a lot of air traffic?


Well, first, Africa is a continent, not a country. And I was actually looking for countries that don't have a lot of air traffic. Australian-registered aircraft carried 45,268,487 people between 2007-2011. Compared to the US which carried 707,426,165 people.

Source

It doesn't cover destinations either. How much of that Australian air traffic is destined for the US and couldn't go there during the three days in question?

Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.
 
2012-11-18 10:34:13 AM

Joce678: wippit:
So your position is that gases in the atmosphere have to be visible to the naked eye without photo contrast manipulation to affect weather?

To alter The Earth's albedo enough to change world temperature by two degrees in two days?

Yes, that's definitely my position.

Why what's yours...?


That the possibility exists, but further study is required.
 
2012-11-18 10:34:21 AM

JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.
 
2012-11-18 10:35:47 AM

NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.


Wait, you don't understand why ocean temperatures lag behind land temperatures? Jesus Christ dude, take a middle school science class. Look up specific heat. That's such a mind blowingly simple concept that it honestly shocks me that you don't know that.

That's a major reason, but not the only reason.
 
2012-11-18 10:38:32 AM

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985.


So? Has anyone proven that above average temperatures are bad?

What is the optimal temperature for life on this planet?

/what is a global month?
 
2012-11-18 10:38:44 AM

Shakin_Haitian: NobleHam: For one, the lagging of ocean temperatures behind land temperatures which is suggestive of measurement inaccuracies as opposed to any sort of greenhouse gas effect.

Wait, you don't understand why ocean temperatures lag behind land temperatures? Jesus Christ dude, take a middle school science class. Look up specific heat. That's such a mind blowingly simple concept that it honestly shocks me that you don't know that.


It requires a complete lack of junior-highschool-level sceince literacy and never having come in contact with a body of water. Conclusion: NobleHam comes from Kansas.
 
2012-11-18 10:39:57 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985.

So? Has anyone proven that above average temperatures are bad?


I think they're great
But then, I live in Canada.
 
2012-11-18 10:39:59 AM
Someone better get China on board. Their CO2 emissions growth is out of control. Leaving them out of Kyoto was a big mistake.
 
2012-11-18 10:40:03 AM

wippit:
Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.


Nobody's disputing the USA has more flights than anywhere else.

The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.


(...and that Australia/Africa aren't second on the list of countries with flights - what happened to Europe, Russia, Asia, etc?)
 
2012-11-18 10:41:54 AM

Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.


You're behind on your climate-Gate emails.
 
2012-11-18 10:42:33 AM

wippit:
That the possibility exists, but further study is required.


Huh?

Your "possibility" was tested experimentally in the days after 9/11 and found to be lacking. No further study needed.
 
2012-11-18 10:45:04 AM

Brubold: It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that ...


You haven't been keeping up with the climate-gate thing, have you?

There's been some follow-ups since the initial, out-of-context Fox news headlines.
 
2012-11-18 10:47:51 AM

Joce678: wippit:
Also doesn't cover air freight, but I feel safe in assuming the US dominates those numbers as well.

Nobody's disputing the USA has more flights than anywhere else.

The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.


There was a measurable effect during that time frame. Proving it was the lack of air travel is not possible because it won't/can't be duplicated. Nor can it be disproved for the same reason. I personaly don't know if it's right or wrong, I'm just reading up on the idea.


(...and that Australia/Africa aren't second on the list of countries with flights - what happened to Europe, Russia, Asia, etc?)

I pulled two names at random that I assumed were low in air travel before going to look up if there were actual statistic somewhere. And I was fixated on the Southern Hemisphere being less-travelled, so there you go.
 
2012-11-18 10:49:15 AM
I see they 'adjusted' the new data vs historical data correctly again.



/Popcorn thread?
 
2012-11-18 10:50:34 AM

GAT_00: THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.

That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.


It's not a trivial assumption. It actually makes a big difference. Your results have no bearing at all on nature because in nature the samples are correlated. Whatever the temperature anomaly this month, next month is most likely to be close to that value. Look up pink noise, random walks, chaos theory etc.
 
2012-11-18 10:51:52 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: according to the article the record warmest October was in 2003, almost a decade ago, so things are getting cooler.


I'll admit it, when I pull up to a stoplight or sign, I start screaming uncontrollably that we're about to start driving backwards as well.
 
2012-11-18 10:53:51 AM
It's still not enough. My beach house gets down to the low 70s in January. We need another 10 degrees. Burn some more gas, dang you!
 
2012-11-18 10:54:04 AM

Joce678: Brubold: It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that ...

You haven't been keeping up with the climate-gate thing, have you?

There's been some follow-ups since the initial, out-of-context Fox news headlines.


This has nothing to do with a headline from anywhere. There was an email quoted from the lead scientist there that said they had no answer for the stagnation in temperature.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
 
2012-11-18 10:54:09 AM

wippit: Joce678: The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.

There was a measurable effect during that time frame.


...mainly over US cities with a lot of air traffic.

Any suggestion that it was two degrees higher over the whole world is laughable and it's OK for you to admit that.
 
2012-11-18 10:54:38 AM
Why does everyone keep assuming those dramatic shifts in regional temperature from the lack in contrails is global temperature?
 
2012-11-18 10:57:02 AM

Joce678: wippit: Joce678: The claim is that stopping flights over the USA for a couple of days changed global temperatures by two degrees.

There was a measurable effect during that time frame.

...mainly over US cities with a lot of air traffic.

Any suggestion that it was two degrees higher over the whole world is laughable and it's OK for you to admit that.


And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-18 10:57:14 AM

Brubold: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


What does that prove, exactly...?
 
2012-11-18 11:00:11 AM

67 Beetle: Someone better get China on board. Their CO2 emissions growth is out of control. Leaving them out of Kyoto was a big mistake.


Hah! A mistake? China is the world's manufacturing substrate for the foreseeable future. It's part of a plan that is working as intended.
 
2012-11-18 11:02:48 AM

Shakin_Haitian:
And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.


I'd be a fool to say that...the days after 9/11 proved that contrails have a cooling effect.

That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.
 
2012-11-18 11:04:36 AM

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
And that still doesn't change his point, though. If you think that having contrails over the world every day reducing temperatures regionally won't reduce the global temperature, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I'd be a fool to say that...the days after 9/11 proved that contrails have a cooling effect.

That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.


Wut?
 
2012-11-18 11:04:59 AM

Coelacanth: NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.

[i249.photobucket.com image 500x267]


Yes, people who don't share your religious opinion should STFU and just pay the new taxes you demand, obey the new laws you want to create, and generally submit their freedom before you. And if they don't, then they should be hit with a spade!
 
2012-11-18 11:06:12 AM

Joce678:
That wasn't his point though: He was claiming the Earth warmed up by two degrees after 9/11, his evidence was some cherry-picked and 'shopped satellite photographs that he found on the Internet. A quick GIS for "USA from space" will show how unrepresentative they are.


Uh no. I made no claim whatsoever. I'm not a climatologist.
I said I read about the idea, and posted an article about the subject. Go yell at PBS for posting the article.
 
2012-11-18 11:06:52 AM

Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.


Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?
 
2012-11-18 11:08:02 AM

Brubold: Joce678: Brubold: It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that ...

You haven't been keeping up with the climate-gate thing, have you?

There's been some follow-ups since the initial, out-of-context Fox news headlines.

This has nothing to do with a headline from anywhere. There was an email quoted from the lead scientist there that said they had no answer for the stagnation in temperature.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

/sorry, responding via phone
 
2012-11-18 11:08:04 AM

Shakin_Haitian:
Wut?


Suggestion: Try reading more than one post at a time.

Even better: Just don't bother.
 
2012-11-18 11:08:54 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Jesda:

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.


The climate change bandwagon now controls hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
 
2012-11-18 11:09:09 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Brubold: JohnnyC: Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?


How about the fact that the amount of CO2 we produce has continued to increase while the temperature has basically remained stagnant? And before you quote the article that the OP linked, yes it's getting warmer but at a statistically insignificant rate. That's according to scientists on your side of the argument. It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that those scientists found it embarrassing that they had no answer for why it wasn't getting warmer. Since then a few more "founding fathers" of global warming science have confirmed the same thing.

To sum up -

Is it getting warmer? Yes.

Is it getting significantly warmer? No.

Are we causing it to get warmer than it would naturally? Possibly but it hasn't been proven. The numbers don't add up atm.

Should we improve our effect on the environment? Yes.

Should we improve our effect on the environment without regard to economic impact or other consequences? No.


For the record, I recycle and I walk to get to most places within a mile or two of me.

Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?


We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...
 
2012-11-18 11:10:51 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


gromit.orf5.com
 
2012-11-18 11:10:53 AM

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
Wut?

Suggestion: Try reading more than one post at a time.

Even better: Just don't bother.


Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL
 
2012-11-18 11:11:21 AM

Shakin_Haitian: Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?

We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...


And quite a bit of it is built in low-lying coastal areas.
 
2012-11-18 11:12:34 AM

tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?


The optimum for the human race at the moment is: "Sea levels below all major population centers".

(Sea levels are related to global temperature...)
 
2012-11-18 11:13:36 AM

b0rscht: HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


Hilarious.
 
2012-11-18 11:14:17 AM

Joce678: tenpoundsofcheese:
Don't forget, the question no one seems to want to ask: were we the optimal temperature and an increase is bad for life on the planet?

The optimum for the human race at the moment is: "Sea levels below all major population centers".

(Sea levels are related to global temperature...)


Also hilarious
 
2012-11-18 11:14:56 AM

Bontesla: Brubold: Joce678: Brubold: It was revealed in the climate-gate emails that ...

You haven't been keeping up with the climate-gate thing, have you?

There's been some follow-ups since the initial, out-of-context Fox news headlines.

This has nothing to do with a headline from anywhere. There was an email quoted from the lead scientist there that said they had no answer for the stagnation in temperature.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

/sorry, responding via phone


Okay, I read up on the email I quoted. I'd have to see the full context to know which way to go on it but it fits the data at the time which shows that it had stopped warming significantly at that point.

It also doesn't explain away the fact that some of the scientists that have been around since the start of this are now questioning the climate models and are saying the same thing about the lack of significant warming.
 
2012-11-18 11:15:11 AM
Excuse me, I meant to say increase rather reduce.
 
2012-11-18 11:16:18 AM
I'm now suddenly wondering if a 50 megaton nuclear explosion would affect climate, but I'm guessing nobody was measuring that when it happened.
 
2012-11-18 11:18:08 AM

Shakin_Haitian:
We've built a massive, very expensive infrastructure based on the current average temperature, and humans aren't the only life on this planet...


And now we're building a massive, very expensive renewable energy infrastructure that will serve no purpose whatsoever except to use up our money and grind down our economies so when a natural disaster does happen, we can't rebuild afterwards and just revert back to the stone age.
 
2012-11-18 11:18:10 AM

Shakin_Haitian:
Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL


Wut?

The hard facts about temperature change after 9/11 EXIST (OMG!).

Clue: It wasn't two degrees, it wasn't even close to two degrees.

That's fact, not anybody's personal opinion.
 
2012-11-18 11:20:20 AM
 
2012-11-18 11:21:24 AM

Joce678: Shakin_Haitian:
Premise: Absence of contrails reduce temperature by 2 degrees.

You: MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WHARRGRBL

Wut?

The hard facts about temperature change after 9/11 EXIST (OMG!).

Clue: It wasn't two degrees, it wasn't even close to two degrees.

That's fact, not anybody's personal opinion.


The actual reported facts are that temps dropped during the day by 2 degrees, but temps were higher by 2 degrees at night. So the actual average temp did not change. Just the extremes for that time period. (Which I've already posted once already).

Still an effect.
 
2012-11-18 11:22:17 AM
I got that backwards - hotter in day, colder at night.
 
Displayed 50 of 420 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report