SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.
“The five warmest years have, in fact, been the last five years,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future. It’s here. It’s now.”
Over all, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/06/climate/fourth-hottest-year.html
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 76 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
QOTD:
"It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at
them myself, but I'm told they can be very effective."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:54PM (53 children)
If the New York Times says the world is heating up, I'll begin preparing for an Ice Age.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:57PM (49 children)
Why? Is that what Fox News told you to think?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:59PM (43 children)
No, the models are saying that climate change will cause colder temperatures now:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=29887&page=1&cid=795114#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/01/27/2227254 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:08PM (42 children)
Middle school math is far too advanced for climate change deniers.
Let's say it together... AVERAGE global temperature is rising.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:11PM (15 children)
You should probably have a look at historical trend lines and pay special attention to what they did leading up to ice ages. It's relevant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:13PM (3 children)
For example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/1280px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png [wikimedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:24PM (2 children)
Those spikes are highly correlated with mass extinction events. [scientificamerican.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:35PM
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=29484&page=1&cid=783403#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:11AM
No they are not.
Read the fucking time scale.
Idiots correcting idiots and both arguing how experts are right or wrong. You people can't even read a fucking graph! (on the both sides, on the both sides!)
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:17PM (9 children)
You should probably have a look at historical trend lines and pay special attention to what they did leading up to ice ages. It's relevant.
Why yes, in an unchecked warming scenario the increase in cloud albedo could end up triggering an ice age.
Thanks for reminding us what a serious threat global warming presents!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:28PM (7 children)
The biggest problem is no one wants to take the real threat of climate change (obviously many very bad climatic shifts have occurred in the past) seriously now since it has been mixed up with this CO2 nuttiness. They don't want to be associated with people like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:05AM (4 children)
CO2 nuttiness? Hi nutter!
CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect along with increasing the acidity of the oceans, both very bad things right now.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:55AM (3 children)
If climate change had been framed as a "man vs nature" thing rather than "humans bad, the solution is raising taxes", you would get a lot more people concerned about it.
Just sayin...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:43AM (2 children)
well that is how it started, but nah, it doesn't matter how it is framed because the susceptible would fall prey to the oil companies' propaganda either way
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:58AM (1 child)
Your post reminds me of:
increase women in the workforce ->
increase immigrants in the workforce ->
increase outsourcing ->
increase illegal immigrants in the workforce
It is interesting that these wage suppression policies have all been adopted to increase "social/moral progress". Meanwhile almost no politician even mentions the federal reserve (who besides Donald Trump and Ron Paul?), and the policy to "target" a magic number of 2% inflation every year while massaging the stats to ensure wages and pensions will always lag behind prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @06:45PM
Parent comment is not wrong, it's just that parent has not yet discovered Marx and Trotsky.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:53AM (1 child)
Meh. There's no way the humans can do anything about it until they decide they're tired of living under dictatorship of the oligarchy. I look down on the pale blue dot, and I wonder why the humans are satisfied with a system that steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:17AM
They can't imagine better. And when some can, others will call them communists.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:32PM
Dude, don't be a dumbass. Ice ages happen on Earth, there's fuck all you can do to avoid them on any significant time scale, and we're already overdue for another. The climate change you lot keep bitching about is why we're not already in one according to the very same scientists you're pointing to for climate change data.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:54AM
You mean like this historical trend line?
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:20PM (23 children)
TFA shows it is dropping since 2016. Possibly due to Trump's tariffs and pro-coal policies. Actually I just looked at it from the perspective of "Who is US president?" and see that it rises far more than chance could explain during democratic vs republican administrations.
But seriously. I am glad to hear the official position is still "total average temperature will continue to trend up on decade scales" then. I got concerned they were going to muddy the waters which should become very clear in a few years.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:11AM (22 children)
Stupid Flamebait comment gets modded Flamebait.
At least you're honest enough to reveal the extent of your stupid, unthinking partisanship.
The problem is that "your team" is wrong about climate change, and are being manipulated by people who directly gain from fossil fuels, but at least your team get to win right?
Stupid way to run a country if you ask me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)
I've never voted for a democrat or republican that I can remember.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:57AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia [wikipedia.org] ????
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:10AM (9 children)
Yep, if we needed to decide who is best for people concerned about global warming you can see it is clearly the republicans.
The temperature has dropped (very slightly ~ 0.003 C/yr) on average during Republican presidencies, but has risen ~0.021 C/yr during Democrat administrations.
There were actually 68 years of Democratic presidencies in this dataset and 73 of republicans. That works out to a total of ~ 1.4 C warming during democrats and 0.21 C cooling during republicans.
https://i.ibb.co/VvmbbLk/temp-By-Pres.png [i.ibb.co]
That's the facts. I'm surprised no one has noticed this before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:12AM
Data sources:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ [nasa.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Final dataset:
https://pastebin.com/UXWDmjLR [pastebin.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:34AM (2 children)
Also, here is how it broke down by president:
You can see the republican data is skewed upwards by including the last two years of Hayes way back in 1880-1881. That was just the start point of the temperature data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM (1 child)
*snort* lol! I can't even. Didn't we already have this debate about the effect the letter behind the name of the uniparty's puppet in the Oval Office has on the economy, which also seems to be a chaotic system that does not react immediately to its inputs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:07AM
I don't proffer any explanation for this phenomenon, but there does seem to be something to it. I'd love to see someone take this further, not sure it is worth it to me.
So, you think there is a lag then plot the data with the lag. I shared all that is needed in the comments here, but if you need anything else (eg the entire code to make the charts, etc) I will gladly share.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:54AM (4 children)
Confusing weather and climate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:01AM (3 children)
How about this (the same data as above sorted by trend)? The TOP 8 most cooling presidencies on record are all Republican:
The TFA story is about the 4th warmest year on record. These presidencies each consist of at least 2 years, so each datapoint is at least double the timeframe the TFA is concerned about.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @05:40AM (2 children)
Sort by total warming for each administration and just wow:
Please someone explain this to me?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 07 2019, @08:53PM
Please someone explain this to me?
Easy, it's a spurious correlation. [twentytwowords.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:52PM
Oooh...oooh...now sort by the number of times the average American took it up the ass!
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:24AM (9 children)
So which team is fossil fuels on again? Coal is definitely on the burn baby burn theme, but Big Oil is suspiciously absent per your narrative.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:52AM (8 children)
What do the Koch brothers deal in?
Who funds the anti-climate change nonsense?
Come on now.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:34AM (6 children)
A lot more than just oil. The oil industry is massive yet we don't see the alleged "anti-climate change nonsense" even from the token Emmanuel Goldsteins of the oil industry.
The pro-climate change nonsense. Seriously, there's almost no anti-climate change nonsense out there, whether from the Koch brothers or anyone else. But there's plenty of own goal defeats from the pro-climate change side, such as saying different things in private than in public, massive use of logic and rhetorical fallacies, research on demand, and shoehorning as much as possible into the climate change narrative. I think a lot of people are pretty resistant to that sort of transparent propaganda these days.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:41PM (5 children)
Good Lord.
There are none so blind as those who will not see I suppose.
At least your team gets to win.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @12:41AM (4 children)
Again, where's the alleged oil business propaganda?
I hope so. The Chicken Littles don't deserve to win this one.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @01:02AM (3 children)
Maybe your Search engine of choice is broken. Whatever.
This link is a start. [desmogblog.com]It took one search to find that.
This one's an opinion piece, [nbr.co.nz] from that pillar of the International Communist Movement, the National Business Review. It does however point out:
Here's a link to the case. [nypost.com]
You could have found any of those yourself, but of course evidence means nothing to you does it? As long as "liberals" feel bad you're happy.
The thing with you climate change deniers is that you're wrong. Just like the tobacco industry spent millions claiming that smoking is harmless, the polluters are churning out propaganda, and you're lapping it up.
Here's another view of the wealthy industrialists who are making you sound stupid. [climateinvestigations.org]
Now you can tell me all about how Greenpeace has more money than the Oil, gas and coal industries combined.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @01:57AM (2 children)
Note that no such "systematic climate change denial" was ever found. It's profoundly wrong to claim that someone is "denying" just because they did their own climate change research and well, didn't find anything of near future concern.
Evidence means ability to distinguish between hypotheses. You haven't presented any facts that would show a Big Oil propaganda effort proportional to the money that they can throw at such things or that they are funding some sort of "denier" movement.
I'm not denying climate change (particularly, the actual form of climate change discussed here, anthropogenic global warming). You just are constructing straw men. Once again, we have this tiresome, fact-free accusation that climate change mitigation is being halted via imaginary, magical fossil fuel propaganda.
We could just not be stupid here instead. Greenpeace greatly outspends the Heartland Institute, the only supposed climate denier organization you bothered to mention, considering either the US or the international organizations. Yet their propaganda is remarkably ineffective. What's missing from your analysis is the dishonesty and ineffectiveness of green propaganda. People can be lied to or livelihoods be attacked only so much before they get wise to the tactics of organizations like Greenpeace.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @02:46AM (1 child)
Oh gods, this again.
Nobody has ever argued that, not even close.
The argument is that the Oil industry funds climate change denialists and they do, and my links prove exactly that, and you know it.
So you were arguing there were none, now there's only one, because I won't provide you with more links. At least try to argue in good faith.
I'd go through the rest of your post point by point, but it's actually a sunny Friday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to a cold beer.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:33AM
At the funding levels you describe, it's silly to care. Nor do you show what you think you show. You merely show that some climate skepticism is funded by members of the oil industry at a low level.
Nonsense. I don't consider it an example. I wasn't making a universal claim. I was pointing out the obvious. The oil industry collects trillions in revenue. Where's the propaganda effort proportional to the stakes allegedly at play? Meanwhile we can point to decades of huge propaganda efforts by the pro-mitigation side.
As to your groundless assertion about "good faith", back at you on that. I agree that it would be pointless to provide me with more worthless links that add nothing to the discussion, but that's not a problem of lack of good faith on my part.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:09AM
Are you actually suggesting that the Koch Bros are funding the khallow? That khallow is taking Cock as his payment for being a shill for Kock? I, for one, did not see this coming. I assumed that khallow was one of us, a free-range libertarian, not beholden to any large petro-chemical corporations at all. But now it seems that he is joined at the dick, sucking the Kock as well as any Republican does. So sad, too bad. We expected more of you, khallow, as a Soylentil. Now nothing remains but Russians.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:59AM
"Middle school math is far too advanced for climate change deniers."
Counterexample: Look up Ivar Giaever. (I disagree with him, but I think he can handle algebra just fine.)
On the other hand, he shares his Nobel with Brian Josephson who later turned to researching Yogic flying with the Maharishi.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday February 07 2019, @03:37AM
Given what they do to the data, I'm sure that as the CO2 levels rise, if the future doesn't get warmer, then the past will get colder.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:47AM (4 children)
I don't know what Fox News says, because I don't watch them. Just because one set of lying liars are known to be lying liars, doesn't mean another opposing set of lying liars aren't also lying liars.
One of the best things that could happen to the world is for New York City to be nuked. Yeah, I'd feel bad for the children trapped there, but apparently we can call it a very late term abortion and it's all good.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:12AM
Not everyone gets Fox News -- or has time to watch it -- I watch very little TV (working hard & too many Documents). But if you have time, here's the Links of the Story. And the Video! foxnews.com/science/2018-was-the-fourth-hottest-year-on-record-nasa-says [foxnews.com] video.foxnews.com/v/5999316942001 [foxnews.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:25AM (2 children)
Yeah, and there goes a big chunk of the economy and tax base. We'd be much better off if most of the American Southeast were "nuked."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:23AM (1 child)
instead, or as well?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:43AM
Instead, emphatically. And I say this as someone who did *not* come from the good parts of NYC.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:04PM (2 children)
Well, good thing it's NASA telling you it, then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:08AM
NASA hasn't been trustworthy since the Moon "landings"! /s
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:43AM
Only if you trust the Times to accurately quote NASA. I do not trust the Times to that extent, or to any extent.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:54PM (2 children)
So where is the kaboom? There ought to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:07AM (1 child)
There was, and still is, a kaboom. And its name is Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @03:42AM
No, the kabooms have a purple arse. You're thinking of the orangabang.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Entropy on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:57PM (15 children)
We're all dead. Right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:01PM (2 children)
Interesting that 11 years is one solar cycle, and we are just now about to begin cycle 25. Further, cycle 25 has been predicted for a number of reasons to be the start of a ~50 year grand solar minimum. Past GSMs have corresponded with extreme geo-climatic events. Coincidence?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:09PM (1 child)
Interesting that 11 years is one solar cycle
Sure... and it's also interesting that the planet is warmer than 11 years ago, 22 years ago, 33 years ago, etc...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:23PM
Are you saying 11 years was just a random number? I thought it was based on climate models: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/ [usatoday.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:04PM (8 children)
Translation: If it doesn't affect me in my lifetime, I don't give a fuck. Also, fuck the children. Fuck the granchildren.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:11PM (3 children)
Are those new categories on pornhub?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:27PM
They are not new.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:43PM (1 child)
I think all that mom-son dad-daughter, etc stuff is just on there to try to get people to sign up so they can filter it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @02:03AM
Wait, pornhub has an interpretation of The Aristocrats? Huh. Didn't know they catered to such refined tastes.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:48PM (3 children)
Um, aristarchus here. It has affected me, and is likely to continue to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @01:09AM (2 children)
Good. Our work here is done.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday February 07 2019, @06:26AM (1 child)
Well, no. I lived through countless solar maxima, and even the larger cycles, like the little ice age starting about 1300, right after the Black Death, which I fortunately avoided. But this is different. Take it from an astrophysicist that is 2300+ years old: This is the first time in the history of the planet that humans are responsible for the change in climate. Yes, algal blooms and other thing may have happened in the past, but they did not know what they were doing, being algae and whatnot. Now, we have sentient beings (excludingRunaway, of course) that are responsible, by their deliberate actions of burning fossil fuels, that are causing climate change, which means, of course and "duh", they could have not, or having realized they did, undertake countermeasures to mitigate the least desirable consequences?
One of the desireable consequence that I see, coming out of the whole thing, is 1. More Barley in Canada, and 2. The death of the Republican party. They will follow the Whigs, for much the same reasons. Reality has a well known liberal bias.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @09:23AM
Even runaway got sentience. I suspect he borrowed it from brown algae stuck on his forehead while he served in the Navy. Sometime, he'll need to give it back, though.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:06PM (2 children)
Yes, according to all the scientists that live only in your head, global warming will kill all humans.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 06 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
Fuck em. I never liked them much anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by krishnoid on Thursday February 07 2019, @12:03AM
I bet this one statement explains a lot about global warming denialists.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @04:48AM (2 children)
The main part of the USA still mostly can't grow tropical fruit, and Alaska barely grows anything at all in the far north. Warming is good. Bring it on.
Any land lost to rising sea levels will be more than compensated by Alaska becoming livable.
(Score: 1) by Goghit on Thursday February 07 2019, @05:10AM (1 child)
Not a chance - it will still be full of Alaskans.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:00AM