October 2015 was the warmest October on record & warmest month ever recorded relative to ave. temp

[SlyPokerDog]

(CNN)Looks like Earth is already halfway to the danger zone.

Less than two weeks before a crucial global climate summit in Paris kicks off, NOAA, NASA and other global temperature monitors released data showing that the planet is halfway to two degrees of warming, the much publicized limit of "controllable" climate change.

Global data from NOAA released Thursday shows that the average temperature across the entire planet for the month of October was a record shattering 0.98 degrees Celsius (1.76 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than average for the month of October -- making it the highest average temperature reached compared to normal in Earth's historical record.

The list of superlatives for the month is staggering:

-- the warmest October ever observed (in 136 years of NOAA records),

-- the warmest month ever compared to average (out of 1,630 months),

-- the sixth consecutive month breaking a global temperature record, and

-- seven of the 10 warmest months have occurred in 2015.

The NOAA data is backed up by similar data sets maintained by NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency, which also ranked October as the hottest month on record compared to average. All of this virtually guarantees that 2015 will rank as the warmest year overall, breaking the record that was set just last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/us/october-temperatures-two-degrees/index.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Denny will post the oceans are dead and then talk about how he had to wear a sweater last week.

 

[PDXFonz]

Denny will post the oceans are dead and then talk about how he had to wear a sweater last week.

It's almost thanksgiving which means only a few more days until this baby comes off the hanger!

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alysonk...pstick-drink-local-and-fly-direct-no-problem/

 

[e_blazer]

Well, this definitely seals it. We shouldn't expend the carbon-based energy to move 10,000 people halfway around the planet and put them into an energy-gluttonous society like ours.

 

[BBert]

It's almost thanksgiving which means only a few more days until this baby comes off the hanger!

I gotta say, that sweater is legit!

 

[speeds]

(CNN)Looks like Earth is already halfway to the danger zone.

 

[barfo]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alysonk...pstick-drink-local-and-fly-direct-no-problem/

This can make a big difference considering half the paper Americans use a year is for gift wrapping (HALF!)

I find that... highly implausible.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If true and man made climate change is happening, every October from now on will be the warmest ever recorded until we all melt on Halloween 2050.

 

[BlazerWookee]

"Scientists," lol...

 

[magnifier661]

"Global Climate Change is why we have ISIS" --- Bernie Sanders

 

[Nikolokolus]

I find that... highly implausible.

barfo

That was my first reaction and then I started thinking about how much paper I actually use during the year anymore. All of my bills are delivered electronically, I rarely print anything on a computer anymore, I usually decline receipts.

About the only thing I do that uses a lot of paper these days is the ongoing construction of a massive 30 foot tall, paper maché, Paul Bunyan I'm building in my back yard ...

 

[Nikolokolus]

"Scientists," lol...

Yeah fuck science and striving to understand how the world actually works. LOL!

Can we please go back to the dumbfuckery of the middle ages?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Yeah fuck science and striving to understand how the world actually works. LOL!

Can we please go back to the dumbfuckery of the middle ages?

Fuck PHONY science put forth by agenda-driven "scientists."

 

[Nikolokolus]

Fuck PHONY science put forth by agenda-driven "scientists."

You appear to have a gross misconception of how climate science is actually conducted. Are there some shenanigans with some scientists? Possibly. But by and large people are driven to get it right.

 

[BlazerWookee]

You appear to have a gross misconception of how climate science is actually conducted. Are there some shenanigans with some scientists? Possibly. But by and large people are driven to get it right.

How many thermometers even existed 136 years ago? How accurate were they? How many people recorded the temperatures "all over the world?" Was every single one of them meticulous enough to capture exactly the right numbers in exactly the right places at exactly the right times?

If you start will limited and/or inaccurate numbers, your conclusions are necessarily flawed.

 

[Denny Crane]

I find that... highly implausible.

barfo

Use less red lipstick.

 

[Denny Crane]

You appear to have a gross misconception of how climate science is actually conducted. Are there some shenanigans with some scientists? Possibly. But by and large people are driven to get it right.

Follow the money.

 

[barfo]

Use less red lipstick.

Oh, I only use black.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Follow the money.

There's money in everything - therefore everything is corrupt?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

There's money in everything - therefore everything is corrupt?

barfo

The bigger the money, the bigger the corruption.

And there isn't money in everything.

 

[barfo]

Pretty sure the money in climate research isn't that big, on an absolute scale.

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Pretty sure the money in climate research isn't that big, on an absolute scale.



barfo

Bigger than studying shrimp on a treadmill?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/feder...uch-Shrimp-Treadmill-Study-Cost-Taxpayers.htm

And this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

An inconvenient truth: ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business

 

[MarAzul]

Denny will post the oceans are dead and then talk about how he had to wear a sweater last week.

!36 years? Geez that is less than a second in earth time. It won't even move the needle on this graph.

I could throw up the interglacial period graph, which is all in zero time of the one above, but your 136 years is all contained in zero time of that graph.

How did the population get dumbed down to the point of accepting this sort of agenda driven obfuscation from people calling themselves scientist?

 

[barfo]

Bigger than studying shrimp on a treadmill?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/feder...uch-Shrimp-Treadmill-Study-Cost-Taxpayers.htm

And this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

An inconvenient truth: ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business

That's silly. Climate scientists are not getting rich off hybrid cars. Nor do hybrid cars exist solely because of climate change.

But yes, there is more money in climate science than in shrimp treadmill science. Not that that proves your point in any way whatsoever.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's silly. Climate scientists are not getting rich off hybrid cars. Nor do hybrid cars exist solely because of climate change.

But yes, there is more money in climate science than in shrimp treadmill science. Not that that proves your point in any way whatsoever.

barfo

The guy who made up the bogus "science" about the polar bears had a $50M budget.

That's just one relatively unknown scientist (before he was busted).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...t-we-pay-for-with-disastrous-climate-science/

According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

To suggest that climate science money trickles down from government would be a gross understatement. Actually, it cascades from mountains on high, presided over by agencies and their federal and state minions we generally assume to be knowledgeable and objective. But often we might be wrong. This occurs when a particularly orthodox or partisan view becomes inculcated into government leadership and surrogate organization power structures — yes, exactly like man-made global warming, for example. Then follow the rivers, streams and creeks as those influences spread.

Agencies get funding appropriations based upon how important they are, or more accurately, how important we are persuaded to think they are. In the case of climate and environmental issues, they appear to be a lot more important when represented to address (certainly not waste) a crisis. Climate change, a topic offering an opportunity to regulate something really dangerous, like natural air, is just too wonderful to pass up.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[MarAzul]

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?


"The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."

The last 136 years is contained here, but it fails to show in the context of the cycles of the last million years.
The period when the Wooly Mammoth was the dominant species was about the same as
when Man became the dominant species, both of which are insignificant in earth geological time.

Yes we have climate change. A carbon tax will not fix it. But you will pay it in Oregon thanks to
the clowns you all voted to run your State. Geez, unbelievable!!!

 

[Nikolokolus]

How many thermometers even existed 136 years ago? How accurate were they? How many people recorded the temperatures "all over the world?" Was every single one of them meticulous enough to capture exactly the right numbers in exactly the right places at exactly the right times?

If you start will limited and/or inaccurate numbers, your conclusions are necessarily flawed.

You don't need a thermometer to get at the numbers. Plenty of stand-in data exists (ice cores, samples of flora and fauna that are known to exist in narrow climate bands, etc.) to tell you what temps looked like in pre-modern times.

I think there is a tendency in the media and the sciences to over-catastrophize the rate of change, but that doesn't change the fact that something is happening with global sea levels (local sea levels vary due to a variety of reasons: tectonic uplift/subduction, accretion/erosion rates, etc.).

Lest you think I'm some commie liberal, while I do work in an environmental consulting firm, that's just a fancy way of saying we help energy companies and developers navigate the legal requirements of doing business and avoiding potential regulatory pitfalls - my livelihood depends on businesses "doing shit." My role as a GIS analyst, photo-interpreter and geospatial modeler doesn't always deal with climate change issues, but when it does I mostly do consulting work for sea-level rise modelling. The only incentive in that capacity is to provide the most accurate models I can for my clients because these models potentially influence go/no-go decisions and can cost a company (as well as tax-payers and shareholders) significant amounts of money if they are operating on faulty assumptions.

If climate change and sea-level rise is a big fucking hoax or a conspiracy cooked up by unethical scientists greedily trying to leverage grant dollars then I'm all for exposing them and getting them the hell out of the scientific/research/consulting community.

 

[barfo]

How did the population get dumbed down to the point of accepting this sort of agenda driven obfuscation from people calling themselves scientist?

How did the population get dumbed down to the point of accepting instead agenda driven obfuscation from people who aren't scientists?

barfo