The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 23    Average: 2.5/5]
59 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8833
Rating: 2.5
Category: Science
Date: 11/26/12 11:19 AM

59 Responses to Just How Warm Has It Been This Year? [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:17 am
    Link: Just How Warm Has It Been This Year? - 2012 is by far the hottest year on record for the U.S.
  2. Profile photo of defendors87
    defendors87 Male 18-29
    570 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:30 am
    ouch! right in the polar bears!!
  3. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
    FoolsPrussia are you crazy? Now you will wake up the army of the people that don`t belive in global warming.
  4. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:39 am
    @piper: I like pointing out how wrong they are.
  5. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:48 am
    Is Global warming happening? Yes.
    Is mankind doomed? No.
    Are markets adapting? Yes actually.
  6. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:52 am
    Piperfawn, stop.

    It`s a good thing we`re all killing Nuclear power and research and development. And you wonder why EU emissions are growing. Talk about pro-science.

    Wind is not practically viable for a modern world. Solar won`t technologically mature for quite some time. That`s it.
  7. Profile photo of Listypoos
    Listypoos Male 40-49
    3069 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    It`s drating freezing here right now....show me this in the summer and then I`ll be bothered.
  8. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    Wow look at that neat-o cycle that we are in the middle of.
  9. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    First off, that chart is not global temperature.
    Secondly, 3/10ths of one degree is nothing to be alarmed about.

    Global temperature hasn`t warmed over the last 16 years.

  10. Profile photo of CoyoteKing
    CoyoteKing Male 18-29
    2988 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    Getting warmer? Good, I hate the cold.
  11. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    @CrakrJak: That`s why the title doesn`t say global temperature.
  12. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    I think he is saying localized temperature doesn`t matter Prussia.
  13. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    And here`s why Crakrjak`s graph is bullpoo:


  14. Profile photo of plimpslap
    plimpslap Male 18-29
    94 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    because -5 and -15 really feels different in the winter. cold is cold
  15. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    I like your graph Prussia. It confirms that we are experiencing a warming trend.

    It must have been coooooooold when the Dinosaurs were around.
  16. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    This is all based on lies. The NOAA has several times adjusted the old temperature data. In every case it has been to reduce almost all of the temperatures amended. In no case have they ever published any justification for these adjustments.

    The result is, of course, to make modern temperatures look higher than they are by comparison. It is utterly dishonest.

    FoolsPrussia

    You do know that is based on a lot of lies, don`t you?

  17. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    @richanddead: Solar activity has actually been decreasing since the 1980s.

    LINK
  18. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 1:40 pm
    I believe that Earth is warming right now, yet I think it has a lot more to do with the sun. The 10 outlier years listed also correlate to solar minimums and maximums. As does the rise in temperatures over the last 400 year. Here is a link


  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    Solar activity has actually been decreasing since the 1980s.

    You`re moving the goalposts, if data derived in the long term is better than short-term then richanddead`s graph does show there is a strong link between solar activity and global temperatures. It`s NOT the only influence but it`s not irrelevant.
  20. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    @Cajun: How am I moving the goalposts here? Of course the sun plays a role in Earth`s temperature. My link just busts the idea that it is playing a significant role in the current warming trend, as you can see from this graph:


  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    USA`s temperature may be up, but GLOBAL temps are even or down.

    AGW proponent s ALWAYS claim "local variations" are unimportant, unless it helps their meme... funny that...

    AGW on Tree Ring Data:
    Supports AGW: Tree ring data is PROOF!
    Does Not Support: Local variations! Hide the decline! It`s not proof of anything!

    That`s what "hide the decline" is ALL ABOUT! Modern tree ring data shows NO warming trend, so AGW simple CUT IT OUT after a certain date... since it made their numbers "normal"... can`t have that! The numbers MUST fit the theory!

    Global Warming Conference Held in Qatar: World Capital of Greenhouse Emissions! lolz!
  22. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    There have been greater ouliers that have lasted much longer. But for 500 million year there has been a correlation, with outliers included.




  23. Profile photo of skullgrin
    skullgrin Male 18-29
    937 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    people still actually think humans are to blame for the warming trend?
  24. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    Oh and also, now there`s more ice at South Pole than ever before. But remember every year the poles regularly lose half their ice in their respective summer time. That`s the reason for "Rhode island size" chunks coming off every year and that piece of "proof" of global warming.


    Also here is a video and
    link.
  25. Profile photo of Shelworth
    Shelworth Male 50-59
    389 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    Good thing they had all those calibrated digital thermometers in the exact same spots since the 1800s or this would be hard to believe.
  26. Profile photo of InTheNameOf
    InTheNameOf Male 30-39
    335 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    ....because in the vast scale of geologic time the last 100 years is significant, right?

  27. Profile photo of daverazor
    daverazor Male 50-59
    198 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm
    I may just form an opinion of my own and google up some evidence to support my belief. Then act smart on IAB.
  28. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    "....because in the vast scale of geologic time the last 100 years is significant, right? "

    The rate is very significant yes. No known natural causes can account for the rate of warming we are seeing. It has huge implications because it very well could trigger mass extinctions. I recently read an article in Science about lizard populations being unable to adapt to the rate of warming. They estimated 40% of all lizard species would be extinct by 2080 - conservatively.
  29. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    "I believe that Earth is warming right now, yet I think it has a lot more to do with the sun. The 10 outlier years listed also correlate to solar minimums and maximums. As does the rise in temperatures over the last 400 year."

    If you extend the data well past that mark, they no longer correlate.
  30. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm
    @mesovortex: if you extend the data well past that mark, they no longer correlate.

    Really then you didn`t see my earlier post showing the correlation going back 500 million years.
  31. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    "Really then you didn`t see my earlier post showing the correlation going back 500 million years."

    Your data stops well before the year 2000. You`ll see if you extend the data beyond that point into today they no longer correlate.

    The sun is not causing the current warming we`re seeing.
  32. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:17 pm
    richanddead:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-ac... rel="nofollow" style="font-weight: bold; color: " target="_blank" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm">It`s not the sun
  33. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm
    CrakrJak:
    5cats:

    The earth is not `cooling` right now either:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
  34. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    "You`re moving the goalposts, if data derived in the long term is better than short-term then richanddead`s graph does show there is a strong link between solar activity and global temperatures. It`s NOT the only influence but it`s not irrelevant."

    Of course it can. No climate scientist ignores the role of the sun. However, the sun is not causing the current warming we`re seeing. FoolsPrussia`s graph proves this.
  35. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    As far the Antarctic gaining ice...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
  36. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    "It must have been coooooooold when the Dinosaurs were around."

    I don`t understand this line of thinking. Sure things happen naturally but that doesn`t mean they can`t be done by man either. Earth moves rock by wind and water. Man moves it by machinery. Earth erodes and cuts rock by wind and water. Man can do it with dynamite.

    This argument is terrible, but I hear it all the time.

    Change the content of the atmosphere, and you change the climate. It`s that simple.

    Would anyone argue that changing the content of the atmosphere DOESN`T change climate? I doubt it. The content is changing thanks to man, so man IS changing the climate. Period. The question is not how, but how much.
  37. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    @mesovortex:

    I`ve read this explanation before. It is a belief that global warming is causing more precipitation and influencing the salinity of the ocean. Yet ice has a natural cooling effect as well by reflecting sunlight, and cooling ocean and air temperature, this can lead to a snowball effect. Also, I think if the warm water was being pushed to the bottom, with no sunlight, it would cool down, correct? From my perspective, it sounds like the earth is still in balance but the researcher had a hypothesis and avoided any evidence to the contrary. Not to mention this is circular reasoning, global warming caused a change in salinity, that created more ice, therefore ice is evidence of global warming. The premise is the conclusion. It is Tautology.

    And if you saw my previous link it lists and adds the data past the year 1980, and arrives at the the same conclusion. Plus skepticalscience.com isn`t what i would call unbiased. Here is that link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    link
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm
    richanddead:
    Look at FoolsPrussia`s graph:
    http://bp0.blogger.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/RiDlXSON82I/AAAAAAAAADA/16Y4TPB_LSY/s400/sunspot-cycle-length-temp.jpg

    You`re dead wrong.

    Skeptical Science uses actual science to back it up. You cannot say it`s biased if it comes up to a conclusion you don`t like. The conclusions are based in hard evidence.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    @daverazor: "Act smart on IAB..."
    TOO LATE BRO!
    You`re already a smart-arse! AND you never did answer my question over there... (go look for it, lazy-buttz!)

    @mesovortex: O`really dude?
    @rickanddead puts up data going back 500 MILLION years... and you B1TCH that it`s only "up to the year 2000..."
    Srsly? What`s 12 years out of 500 MILLION? In percentages?

    100 years is a TRIVIAL TWINKLING and lo and behold it`s NOT "constantly getting warmer" as the CO2 constantly goes up!
    AGW said it would!
    Deniers said: no it won`t!

    So who is correct?

    @mesovortex: Why don`t you link "Cracked" or "The Onion"? Both have FAR MORE scientific accuracy than your conspiracy site... honestly, not joking at all...
  • Profile photo of MountainBord
    MountainBord Female 18-29
    1894 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm
    brah, get ur sunscreen out.
  • Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 10:18 pm
    George Carlin: Man`s effect on the Earth.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm
    @5cats: It comes out to 0.000000024%

    @mesovortex:

    A. You cited my graph not FoolsPrussia.

    B. Skepticalscience.com admits it is biased claiming in it`s own words it`s mission is to "get skeptical about global warming skepticism" and omitting to publish any data that may say otherwise, such as supportive astronomical data, earth history data, or the tree ring data earlier discussed.

    C. I didn`t call it biased because I disagree with it. I disagree with it, as I said, because other more definitive data goes against it, and your argument was circular reasoning. "global warming melted ice, causing a change in salinity, that created more ice, therefore ice is evidence of global warming."

    D. Your appealing to Skepticalscience.com as an authority on the subject. It isn`t, and just because you read it on there doesn`t mean it`s true. It is known as a "fallacy of logic" to "appeal to authority."
  • Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    Contiguous US != world. Europe was cold this year.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    E. I`ve stated facts and evidence for everything I`ve said, and done so in a polite manner, unlike you. So don`t go projecting on to me, point out where and how I`m wrong in my conclusions, don`t just whine about them. I`m up for a discussion of scientific data, not a piss-ant child`s argument.

    You were the one who said they didn`t correlate after 400 years in the past. So I showed 500 million years of data. All you said was "You`re dead wrong."

    Remember mesovortex: "You cannot say it`s biased if it comes up to a conclusion you don`t like. The conclusions are based in hard evidence."

    F. 12 years of data is widely considered to few to make a conclusion because it is too open to a fluctuation of variables or outliers. Anomalies such volcanoes, like the one in Iceland, can create outliers in data that surpass 12 years. That is why earth temperature is usually graphed in 20-100 year periods in the least!
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm
    Also there Antarctic has more ice but so does the Arctic.



  • Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7619 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 12:17 am
    As usual- people deny something is real for no reason other than stupidity. There is a huge amount of evidence for anthropogenic climate change- so we need to clean up our act, but what makes me so bloody insane is that it does not matter- we still need to clean up our act because it is bad housekeeping, and just plain WRONG to bugger up this planet, use all its resources and destroy habitats when there is an alternative. Irrelevant about climate change- just common sense- have you SEEN the state of the tar sands or the Niger Delta- is that RIGHT by aNY standards expect greed pure and simple???? Who the drat needs such HUGE cars and such warm houses- buy a jumper and walk FFS....
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 12:51 am
    That is 5000 cubic km more sea ice in the last 3 years and the exact same thickness as records in 1940 according to Cyrosat. And it is the quickest refreezing scientists have ever seen.

    @madduck: "Who the drat needs such HUGE cars and such warm houses"

    Farmers, plumbers, handymen, movers, anyone who lives in cold rural areas of the world.

    Damn greedy Canadian farmers always trying to do selfish things like survive winter!!!
  • Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13631 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 1:56 am
    Nay to worry only a few more days till the world ends
  • Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 5:34 am
    buy a jumper and walk FFS....

    LOL NO! we don`t all live within walking distance of our jobs you know.
  • Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 6:25 am
    @richanddead: That`s some nice cherry-picking there. Your image shows data from 2008, that`s convenient since there was a record low in 2007.


    Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of -7.1% per decade. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

    So it`s up from the drastic low of 2007, whoopie. It`s still declining by 7.1% per decade, and that`s from YOUR reference to cryosat.
  • Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Correction: That wasn`t cryosat, cryosat data said the rate of summer sea ice loss is 50% greater than expected. In 2004 there was about 13,000 cubic kilometres of sea ice in the Arctic. In 2012, there is 7,000 cubic kilometres at a rate of 900 cubic kilometres per year.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    @patchgrabber:
    I can see how you`d see that, especially with that graph from the NSIDC where they record ice thickness every October, when the ice is low just starting to build. Actually the record low was this year 2012 around Sept. 11, but the ice has increased faster than normal which is why 2012 isn`t considered the record low, as the NSIDC admits.
    The record low in 2007 and was cause by severe winds, not heat. NASA, after an investigation, concluded "unusual winds compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic...sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters"
    Canadian researchers investigating the Northwest Passage have so far found that temperatures have been a whole 3 degrees Celsius warmer in the arctic in several periods going back 9,000 years. They have radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains to prove it as well as ice cores.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm
    If you look at a graph that includes arctic sea ice Maximums and minimums the graph looks a lot less extreme.


  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Not to mention both our graphs are rather recent. If you look at 100 years of data the Arctic has only lost ice at 0.5%-0.7% per decade, with multiple fluctuations included. Which is considered normal after coming out of a little ice age only 1000 years ago.

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    climatologists reading the data have said "The composite record show large sea ice variations around a small negative trend since 1900, although the trend from a statistical point of view is not significant." -(Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt , U.S. , Colony, R., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. 2003. Long-Term Ice Variability in Arctic Marginal Seas . Journal of Climate 16, 2078-2085.)

    The solid line is smoothed data the spotted line is made of points of observation. The Y axis is ice-extent anomalies (x 1000 km2) and X is year. The blue box is when the satellite-era began.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 27, 2012 at 11:02 pm
    Lastly 1935 had the lowest recorded ice extent. 2007 was the lowest satellite-observed record.

    And as far as normal earth temperature, we are still super cold.


  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3525 posts
    November 28, 2012 at 12:59 am
    And according to the Journal of Quaternary Science earth is still following a cooling trend.


  • Leave a Reply