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.

(Hide the Decline)   So it was the HOTTEST YEAR EVAR in 2012? Yeah, about that. Don't forget to carry the one this time   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, State of the Climate, National Climatic Data Center, CONUS Tavg, 48 contiguous states, data sets, temperatures, Global Tavg, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

5474 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 10:49:59 AM
Another one of these?
 
2013-01-09 11:27:49 AM
The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:13 PM
I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-01-09 12:49:26 PM

James!: Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.


Don't mind if I do!
 
2013-01-09 12:51:15 PM

HMS_Blinkin: James!: Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Don't mind if I do!


Eeeewwwwww.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:22 PM
Anyone else think of this immediately after reading the name of the blog:

www.usmagazine.com
 
2013-01-09 12:53:42 PM
We got a regular Sherlock Holmes here. Great work detective, you have proven that Global Warming is a conspiracy.
 
2013-01-09 12:56:19 PM
I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.
 
2013-01-09 12:58:39 PM

wxboy: Another one of these?

 
2013-01-09 12:59:07 PM
Self righteousness >>>> math
 
2013-01-09 01:01:52 PM

James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.


Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:04 PM
i blame the Liberals. Their candidate has been in office for years, and the global warming situation is getting worse.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:06 PM
Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?
 
2013-01-09 01:11:05 PM
I'd stick it in their CONUS.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:52 PM
It's too cold outside anyway, bring on global warming.
 
2013-01-09 01:15:41 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?


No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind
 
2013-01-09 01:19:41 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


can't we record temp from space by now?
 
2013-01-09 01:24:12 PM
OOOOOohhhhhh EEEEEEEEEEEE......

Seriously, tho. Nice blog, bro!
 
2013-01-09 01:24:30 PM

SuperT: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

can't we record temp from space by now?


Sure. But then it is hard to segment off the 2% of the globe that is the continental USA, and then misuse that data for alarmist media headlines.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:57 PM
Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.
 
2013-01-09 01:27:22 PM
so.. all the cutbacks and such we are implementing are working faster then expected?

good
 
2013-01-09 01:27:54 PM

IlGreven: Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.


Or Anthony Watts, either way.
 
2013-01-09 01:28:09 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?


i.imgur.com

See what happens when you convert to the metric system?
 
2013-01-09 01:29:04 PM
So I guess Australia is just adding new colors to their weather maps for shiats and giggles?

http://m.gizmodo.com/5974463/australia-is-so-hot-they-had-to-add-new- c olors-to-their-weather-maps
 
2013-01-09 01:29:38 PM
This means that Global Warmening is a lie and everybody in Seattle has to trade in their Priuses for Hummers.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:48 PM
FTFA: Highlighted in yellow is the CONUS average temperature, which is the data I was after.

Well, that's great, Sherlock. You've proven that CONUS Warming is a myth. GLOBAL warming, on the other hand....
 
2013-01-09 01:36:14 PM

whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind


Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-09 01:36:23 PM
Is this like Republican Math?
 
2013-01-09 01:38:40 PM

Teufelaffe: Is this like Republican Math?


Watts Up With That is basically UnskewedClimate.com. It makes the Daily Fail look like Al Gore.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:44 PM

SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?


Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:17 PM
Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

s8.postimage.org

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards. 

So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:34 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2
 
2013-01-09 01:40:13 PM
Who cares, all that means is I have a longer growing season and wear a bigger hat.
 
2013-01-09 01:40:45 PM
In other news, some people suck Koch for a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
 
2013-01-09 01:43:07 PM

Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.


At least as a TA in grad school you have the slim chance of having a girl offer sex for a good grade.
 
2013-01-09 01:46:19 PM

YoungLochinvar: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2


And, like I said, he cites old Lord Bugeye, who is a known climate science liar.
 
2013-01-09 01:53:16 PM

IlGreven: YoungLochinvar: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2

And, like I said, he cites old Lord Bugeye, who is a known climate science liar.


Heh, well, if you're a denier, it's really hard to cite anyone that isn't also a fellow denier... sanctity of the echo chamber and all...
 
2013-01-09 01:55:35 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


It's not the media. The government agency is the one which is rushing reports out the door before they have data. You missed the later post, which ends by pointing out that the latest report has admitted that:

"PLEASE NOTE: All of the temperature and precipitation ranks and values are based on preliminary data. The ranks will change when the final data are processed, but will not be replaced on these pages. ..."
Link
 
2013-01-09 01:57:08 PM

whistleridge: Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

[s8.postimage.org image 382x347]

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards.
So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.


_______________________________________________________________

Throwing a blue line on a chart? I can do that too!

i50.tinypic.com

Here we can see that the temperatures have fluctuated, but have not really changed that much since 1900.
*
*
*

i50.tinypic.com

Here we can see a pattern in rise and drops in the temperatures over the past 100 years, Based on these blue lines; we're due for a decline in temperatures.

/Of course these changes in the chart I made are complete bullshiat, but I wanted to use my blue line png.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:20 PM

Theaetetus: And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


Nothing sells papers like bad news.

Of course it also gives the zealots on both sides something to fight over; it has rather become a religion now. Sit back, watch this thread and see the "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:54 PM

whistleridge: Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

s8.postimage.org

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards.
So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.


Congratulations, you found a graph which shows that the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age.

The "data indicating that regression is slowing or going down" is the same data which you refer to in the previous sentence. If the last number in the range does go down, then your regression is going down. Your image doesn't show that. All you need is two linear regressions, and the comparison of whether the two increased or decreased. You showed one line, not two.

/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age
 
2013-01-09 02:00:56 PM

WelldeadLink: It's not the media. The government agency is the one which is rushing reports out the door before they have data. You missed the later post, which ends by pointing out that the latest report has admitted that:


NASA/NOAA and the MetOffice are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot at this point.
Great headlines, a little warming, not so much catastrophe in their CAGW.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:35 PM

Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.


You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?
 
2013-01-09 02:05:48 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: /Of course these changes in the chart I made are complete bullshiat, but I wanted to use my blue line png.


I have a mauve line which cannot be used here because it will damage too many brains.
 
2013-01-09 02:10:26 PM

ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?


Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?
 
2013-01-09 02:20:28 PM

WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age


Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.
 
2013-01-09 02:22:17 PM

hawcian: ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?

Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?


He got his GED, picked up a sweet adult bookstore janitor job, and wanted to lord that over him. Y'know, stick it to one of them college boys.
 
2013-01-09 02:31:17 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age

Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.


Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?
 
2013-01-09 02:37:39 PM

Mad_Radhu: Anyone else think of this immediately after reading the name of the blog:


That was EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw that.

/Hey hey hey hey heeeeeeeey!
 
2013-01-09 02:38:45 PM

Malcolm_Sex: "GOM only green energy by 2014"!


When have you ever seen this proposed by non-whack jobs? Most everyone that has even a basic understanding of the underlying science has been proposing investing in alternative energy sources that are not fossil-fuel derived, but not expecting it immediately.

One that I know has been posted here multiple times is Princeton's Stabilization Wedges.


Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report