(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months

18 Nov 2012 04:13 AM   |   4361 clicks   |   Slate
Showing 1-50 of 420 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
GAT_00     
The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

17 Nov 2012 11:59 PM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


LIBERAL LIES! MOAR OIL!

18 Nov 2012 12:13 AM
GAT_00     
I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

18 Nov 2012 12:38 AM
vossiewulf    [TotalFark]  
I'm sorry, but the graph I have right here from the FundedByExxon Institute that I got from Michelle Malkin's site show that it was chilly in my neighborhood yesterday, therefore all the fat cat climate scientists have to give up their Bentleys and Lambos and parade in front of the Fox News headquarters wearing polar bear outfits and carrying signs admitting it was all a big moneymaking super scam.

18 Nov 2012 12:45 AM
Mike_LowELL    [TotalFark]  
Yes, global warming is real, but when I open my window, it's cold outside.

How about you stop using facts and science to justify things and just use some common sense?

18 Nov 2012 12:47 AM
Asa Phelps    [TotalFark]  
It's clear that what we need right now is more piracy.

18 Nov 2012 01:02 AM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.


I'm not a Global warming denier, but I can tell you what they'll focus on, which you accurately included in your post:

unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."

At some point, I'm sure, someone will bring up that the world was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs were around.

18 Nov 2012 01:34 AM
Asa Phelps    [TotalFark]  

Lsherm:

We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
...


Well, polar ice has been keeping records for a lot longer.

Global temperatures fluctuate. Anthropomorphic influence on the greenhouse effect? You betcha, but not as bad as volcanic influence in the past.

Are we gonna see a future where the temperatures are higher? Yup.

Is there anything we can do about it? Depends what your metrics for "do" and "about it" are.

Are we gonna need a farkload more seawalls in 100 years? Indubitably.

But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.

18 Nov 2012 02:19 AM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  

Asa Phelps: But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.


Girl Scout Mech builders!

18 Nov 2012 02:55 AM
phrawgh     
The future is uncertain and the end is always near.

18 Nov 2012 04:18 AM
smadge1     
Could be worse, we could be going into an ice age.

18 Nov 2012 04:21 AM
Solid Muldoon     
Science is a liberal conspiracy.

18 Nov 2012 04:25 AM
ijit     
Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!

18 Nov 2012 04:25 AM
F22raptom     
How much global warming does it take to screw in a incandescent light bulb?

none because they were both made up things XDD

18 Nov 2012 04:26 AM
othmar     
pay raise... can't get one ..

18 Nov 2012 04:27 AM
rwfan     

Lsherm: We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
...

Have you ever seen Jesus wearing a warm coat while riding a dinosaur? Case closed. amirite?

18 Nov 2012 04:28 AM
Solid Muldoon     

ijit: Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!


We need somebody who can stand up to the experts!

18 Nov 2012 04:28 AM
Coelacanth     
It should be freezing here in Nevada. It's not.

18 Nov 2012 04:30 AM
MrEricSir     

GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.

18 Nov 2012 04:31 AM
david_gaithersburg     
A new tax can fix this!

18 Nov 2012 04:31 AM
UndeadPoetsSociety     

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


No, you moron, the skeptical position is the one that accepts the damn evidence. The position you are describing is a subset of Deniers.

18 Nov 2012 04:32 AM
Solid Muldoon     

MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


It doesn't matter. Either way, changing our behavior will make it better.

If man-made global warming is a hoax, we clean up the planet.

If man-made global warming is real, we clean up the planet.

We win either way.

Unless you are a friend of Dick Cheney. Then your net worth might drop from 900 million to 887 million. And that would be bad.

18 Nov 2012 04:41 AM
viscountalpha     
Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...

18 Nov 2012 04:46 AM
Joce678     

MrEricSir: Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


a) The only thing that significantly affects temperature is the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in particular.

b) Greenhouse gases have been going steadily up since the industrial revolution

18 Nov 2012 04:46 AM
david_gaithersburg     
blogs.mbs.eduView Full Size

18 Nov 2012 04:49 AM
log_jammin     

MrEricSir: The skeptical question


there is no "skeptical question". the skeptic comes to a conclusion based on the evidence. and there is no evidence that concludes GW is strictly an act of nature.

18 Nov 2012 04:51 AM
T-Servo    [TotalFark]  
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Study it out, folks, just study it out.

18 Nov 2012 04:52 AM
log_jammin     

david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]


Link

my guess is you won't watch the whole thing. and if you do watch it all, you'll just dismiss it.

18 Nov 2012 04:53 AM
ArtosRC     
November in Colorado should be balls cold.

Sixties and seventies.

18 Nov 2012 04:54 AM
Kriggerel     
What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.

18 Nov 2012 04:55 AM
Jesda     
Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.

18 Nov 2012 04:55 AM
david_gaithersburg     

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: [blogs.mbs.edu image 648x346]

Link

my guess is you won't watch the whole thing. and if you do watch it all, you'll just dismiss it.


Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

18 Nov 2012 04:59 AM
Metalithic     
It is scientifically verifiable that climate change is actually occurring, and that our actions as a species are influencing it. This article from Science magazine explains it: http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/ge o622/paper_globalwarming_Karl200 4.pdf . The only questions are the exact mechanisms and the extent of the impact.

18 Nov 2012 04:59 AM
JohnnyC     

viscountalpha: Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

/i can't wait until this world burns...


You can't do anything without having an effect on your environment... period. I don't care if you're even camping with the utmost care in the world, you'll still impact the environment in some way. Don't be one of those idiots that tries to say that we have no impact on our atmosphere despite there being 7 billion + of us on the planet, each having some impact on our environment (including our atmosphere). We are not the solitary cause, we are contributing to the process in a way that is increasing our global temperature.

And actually, you can wait. Because that isn't likely to happen for a very long time. You won't live long enough to see "the world burn". Your life must be pretty damn miserable if that's how you really feel. I hope it gets better for you. I'm a pretty happy person for the most part, so I tend to want to be a good steward for this planet. I'm not seeing an option for a new home if we fark this one up too bad.

18 Nov 2012 05:00 AM
NobleHam     

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.


You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

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. For another, the failure to account or in some cases to overcompensate for the unequal distribution of temperature measurement devices around the tropics and equator (due to the substandard living conditions in those areas) before the last 30 years. If you look at climate change on a map over the last 30 years, you will see that most of the rise has been due to the expansion of monitoring worldwide. The averages locally have risen much slower than averages "globally" because the "globe" is expanding.

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.

18 Nov 2012 05:02 AM
log_jammin     

david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.


your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

18 Nov 2012 05:02 AM
MurphyMurphy     
We're already past the point of no return.

All that's left to do now is to sit back and enjoy the only true and lasting legacies the human race will ever provide this planet:

Earth's next great climate shift
Earth's 6th extinction level event.

USA!USA!
err, um... well I suppose we can be more inclusive
... EARTH! EARTH! EARTH! EARTH!

18 Nov 2012 05:03 AM
david_gaithersburg     
Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

18 Nov 2012 05:04 AM
Aye Carumba     
331 months, panic!

18 Nov 2012 05:07 AM
JohnnyC     

Kriggerel: I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".


Ummm... No. That isn't accurate. Neither is the rest of your attempt at deflection.

The term denier is used because there is ample evidence and when they look at it, they claim it is wrong... not because they have contrary evidence, but because they don't like what the evidence says. A skeptic is someone who has looked at evidence and has valid reasons why they feel the evidence is invalid. Do you have a valid reason to say the evidence that shows that we do have an effect on our atmosphere is wrong?

I doubt you do... if you did, you probably would have mentioned that rather than trying to deflect from the topic.

18 Nov 2012 05:07 AM
Bontesla    [TotalFark]  

GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.


Null hypothesis? You're awesome. Do you know how rarely I hear that when reading statistical analysis? !

18 Nov 2012 05:12 AM
JohnnyC     

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.


Compared to a land surface subject to the same heating, an ocean surface should

A. have a larger seasonal temperature range
B. have a higher summer temperature
C. have a lower winter temperature
D. have a seasonal temperature cycle lagging behind the land's seasonal temperature cycle

Try your luck :)

18 Nov 2012 05:12 AM
brukmann     

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.


Actually, it's not doctored by a blogger, it's the work of a thoroughly discredited aggregation done by someone without much statistical experience.

"Loehle is an ecologist who used just 18 proxy datasets in his reconstruction. The statistical analysis in the study was grossly flawed, the paper was panned, and it failed to pass the peer-review process (ultimately it was published in the social science journal Energy&Environment, where all flawed "skeptical" papers end up)." -some guy

But all hope for understanding is not lost! Good science exists! Here are a bunch of peer-reviewed studies:

Link

18 Nov 2012 05:13 AM
Cyclometh     

NobleHam: GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ...


Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!

18 Nov 2012 05:14 AM
NobleHam     

log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.


Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

18 Nov 2012 05:15 AM
smadge1     

david_gaithersburg: A new tax can fix this!


Hotter it gets, higher your tax, win-win!

18 Nov 2012 05:16 AM
david_gaithersburg     
Citations, citations, and then more citations. Link For the reality deniers.

18 Nov 2012 05:17 AM
tinfoil-hat maggie    [TotalFark]  

MurphyMurphy: We're already past the point of no return.

All that's left to do now is to sit back and enjoy the only true and lasting legacies the human race will ever provide this planet:

Earth's next great climate shift
Earth's 6th extinction level event.

USA!USA!
err, um... well I suppose we can be more inclusive
... EARTH! EARTH! EARTH! EARTH!


Yea, pretty much. But hey don't worry be happy and get to high ground?

18 Nov 2012 05:18 AM
sendtodave     

Jesda: Liberals have a hard-on for "climate change" because it gives them an excuse to control the means of production.


And libertarian-bent conservatives still don't understand how to deal with externalities.

Hint: It rhymes with "beg two Haitians."

18 Nov 2012 05:19 AM
Bontesla    [TotalFark]  

david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!


Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

18 Nov 2012 05:19 AM
Showing 1-50 of 420 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined