SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Washington Post reports that the "lower 48" states of the USA are enjoying spring-like weather. It quotes a meteorologist as saying 1495 record high temperatures have been reached during the month of February (as against 10 record lows); among them:
- Magnum, Okla., hit 99 degrees [Fahrenheit, 37.2° Celsius] on Feb. 11 — tying the state record for hottest winter temperature ever recorded. Yet it occurred two weeks earlier than the record it matched from Feb. 24, 1918, set in the town of Arapaho.
- Denver hit 80 degrees [Fahrenheit, 26.7° Celsius] Feb. 10 — its warmest February temperature on record dating back to 1872.
- Norfolk hit 82 degrees [Fahrenheit, 27.8° Celsius] Feb. 12, tying its warmest February temperature on record dating back to 1874.
[Ed Note: it is actually Mangum, OK, not Magnum. The original WaPo article is incorrect.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Springtime for America in February
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 90 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @04:41PM
I read TFS, and noted that with all this global warming, the US is now as warm as it was in the 1870's. Interesting. We have records showing that the temps were this high 140 or 150 years ago, yet we're concerned about global warming.
Even more interesting are the data that they didn't take 150 years ago, yet we know for a fact that today's temps are much higher than they were then. "Oh, mid-Atlantic temperatures are so much higher, everything is dying because of it!" Higher than what, exactly? We don't know what the mid-Atlantic water temperatures were 150 years ago, because no one was measuring the temps.
Before someone goes all ape-shit-crazy on me - yeah, I do believe that climate change is for real. I've mentioned before that I learned in 1963, or thereabouts, that we were in an "interglacial period", and the earth was slowly warming up. So, I do believe in climate change. I also believe that a lot of wannabe scientists are jumping to crazy conclusions when they look at this long expected occurrence.
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Monday February 20 2017, @05:06PM
The key is in your username. I think the freakout is because the general consensus is that it appears it's happening orders of magnitude faster than ever before.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 20 2017, @05:08PM
Good lord, Runaway, you can't even cherry-pick properly.
No, it isn't. [noaa.gov]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 20 2017, @05:19PM
Can I mod someone Spam if they're flinging obvious, disproven bullshit, like you just had to call him out for? We don't have a "-1, But That's Wrong, You Fucking Lying Asshole!" mod, so...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Monday February 20 2017, @06:12PM
No. But may I interest you in one of our guilt-free ±0 Disagree mods?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @06:33PM
Too lazy to mod "touché"!
Where you find one user you almost always find the other ;)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday February 20 2017, @07:22PM
Well, maybe it would be more popular if it clearly stated "−0" ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 20 2017, @08:02PM
You may, except that when someone is wrong on this level, they are endangering others. "+/-0 - Disagree" is for things that aren't so high-stakes. I consider this repeated, unrepentant, agenda-driven denial on the same level as anti-vax and for most of the same reasons. This caliber of stupid needs a solid kick in the ass...or, since it's Runaway we're talking about here, a good belting.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 20 2017, @08:20PM
Once a comment has been moderated, you can use the -1 Overrated mod (you used to be able to mod a comment Over/underrated immediately). That mod doesn't lower the user's karma, but it is so easy to get to 50 karma that it doesn't much matter.
Just don't use the spam mod to target comments you disagree with.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 20 2017, @09:32PM
What I like about his sort of trolling is the response is always in defense of the inevitable proposal that the only solution is "workers of the world unite" and rarely "muh numbers". Because the environmental record of the Soviets was so legendarily good, because they executed anyone who complained. Which I'm sure the God Emperor will implement soon...
A nice side dish is a hefty serving of "there's nothing to do and no solution but anyone who complains about our complaining, is a big poopy face"
We seem to have a dish of the latter rather than the former.
There is a very practical non-trolly engineering type response of none of this matters which is both almost certainly true AND it winds people of the crusader persuasion up quite a bit, so I like that 3rd dish too.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:32AM
Shut the fuck up, Donnie, you're outta yer element.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @06:48PM
I'm not cherry picking. TFS says records were set, I didn't go searching for them. A record was set, on such and such a date, and that record remained unbroken until now. Meaning - temperatures were lower for a long time, and now they've gone back up to where they were on that date in history.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/5/0/tavg/1/1/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000 [noaa.gov]
I was trying to figure out where that 1895 came from - took a second to figure out that NOAA records don't go back to the 1870's, so that page can't "prove" either your point, or mine.
The page DOES point up my earlier complaint: we didn't keep the records 150 years ago, that we keep today. The data doesn't extend far enough back, to make valid comparisons.
Ahhhh - looky here - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/5/0/tavg/12/1/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1895&lastbaseyear=2000 [noaa.gov] What is that, 1936 that sticks way up above everything else? I do recall the 1930's being discussed before. 1934 - the hottest year on record in the United States.
Here's an interesting page on the wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves [wikipedia.org] I'm not following links to verify any of it, but it claims that 9,500 people died in the eastern US due to a heat wave. In 1906 the UK saw a heat wave that still hasn't been broken.
But, no matter what, if I don't get on board with this "consensus" thing, I'm just crazy, right?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 20 2017, @07:13PM
I'm not cherry picking.
So many words, and yet you fail to provide a single shred of evidence for your claim that it was hotter in the 1870's than it is now.
So yeah, cherry-picking generally means referencing a misleading, but true, fact. Your misleading statement isn't even true.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday February 20 2017, @08:38PM
He's a Trump supporter who reads and believes the National Enquirer, and also believes Trump and company's "alternate facts". There's absolutely no point in trying to have a conversation with the guy, who I suspect doesn't believe his own bullshit.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 20 2017, @11:24PM
I'm not cherry picking. TFS says records were set, I didn't go searching for them.
Records ARE cherry picking, particularly if they are for a specific city or state or country. There's a reason it was called "GLOBAL warming" not " 'Merica is gettin' a fever!" Then people started talking about "climate change" instead because too many morons were looking out their windows and saying, "Ah-yup... 'lotta' snow here right now. Global Warmin' mah' ass! Darn scientists can't even tell what's goin' on in mah' backyard!"
1934 - the hottest year on record in the United States. [...] In 1906 the UK saw a heat wave that still hasn't been broken.
Weather != climate. In fact, climate change models suggest that parts of the U.S. will actually get colder with global warming, or with more severe winters. The entire globe is a complex system, and increased warming overall just means an increase in energy which will change atmospheric dynamics. Some places may get colder or rainier or snowier or dryer... but the global average will still be going up.
But, no matter what, if I don't get on board with this "consensus" thing, I'm just crazy, right?
Well, your previous post called out people who believe in the "consensus" as "wannabe scientists". (Is that like a "so-called judge"?) Here's the thing: let's suppose you're right. Let's suppose that this is all some sort of collective hysterical delusion among "wannabe scientists." Ok. Well, then why don't all the "big pockets" of the fossil fuel companies and all the other businesses that would be negatively impacted hire their own scientists and dispute things? Everyone always talks about supposed grant money that all these global warming idiots are apparently ready to give up their integrity for -- but Big Oil and all of these other companies collectively have plenty of money to throw around and protect their business model. Lots of PhDs in other fields "sell their souls" to do research for Big Pharma or the Food industry or whatever and churn out studies supporting their favored drugs or chemicals or whatever all the time, frequently in misleading or incomplete ways.
But meanwhile, climate science for some bizarre reason has almost no one willing to "sell themselves" to actually promote the TRUTH that Big Oil, etc. would love to sell? The consensus on climate change has far more agreement among scientists that the drug/chemical/whatever studies generally have above -- and for some reason, ALL of those ~98-99% of climate scientists are deluded so much that they wouldn't take a big salary increase to leave academia or whatever to go become a researcher for Big Oil or other such companies? Why is the consensus INCREASING over time? (Up from ca. 95% in the early 1990s to over 98% now, or depending on how you measure, even over 99%.)
It makes absolutely no sense. A conspiracy requires some sort of rational motivation, or else it would completely unravel... particularly given that we have enormous market forces that would benefit greatly if they could bring this supposed "conspiracy" down.
Nah... that's all too logical... I should believe some lunatic on the internet over all these "wannabe scientists."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:07AM
The thing is, global warming IS happening. But, the driver is the interglacial. There can be no doubt that that primary driver is the same driver that brought previous ice ages and interglacials to this world.
I would be an idiot if I were to argue that fossil fuels and other chemicals couldn't have sped things up. But, on the other side, it takes an idiot to claim to know that fossil fuels and chemicals have sped things up. Again - they don't have the records, and all of their guesses remain guesses. It isn't even "settled science" whether carbon drives temperature, or temperature drives carbon.
In fact, that whole "settled science" thing is an oxymoron. There is no field of science that we understand so well that no one can raise any valid objections to the "consensus".
In no other field have I heard that word, "consensus". Physicists are constantly being surprised by one thing or another. I don't hear them saying that their consensus has been upset. That word, in and of itself, demonstrates the degree to which global warming has been politicized. Remember Al Gore's hockey stick charts? If the climate change people really know what they are talking about, Al Gore set them back a decade or more.
The alarmists need to stop talking smack, and do some real science. And, they need to stop putting their climate recording instruments under air conditioning units that blow hot air on them all day. And, stop putting incandescent light bulbs in the enclosure to keep them warm.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:14AM
a) A general upward trend which could generally indicate a late interglacial warming, not enough data to distinguish it from linear at the moment;
b) A cyclic (sinusoidal) trend with a ~65-70 year period;
c) An additional upward trend that only started in the middle of the last century, and with a similar kind of gradient to (a), not enough data to distinguish it from linear at the moment.
There's no known non-anthropogenic explanation for (c). It supports, but does not prove, a claim along the lines of "between 30% and 50% of the upward trend seen is explainable by modern industrialisation".
The people who subscribe to this middle road, the ones who aren't Chicken Lickens, and the ones who aren't flatly denying there's any human input, are sometimes called "lukewarmers", and are hated by both extremes, and given no airtime on the failstream media, as they don't have exciting-enough soundbites.
To simply say "(a) exists, therefore (c) doesn't", which seems to be what you're saying, reflects an ignorance of the real data. (And yes, those models were based on raw data, not the conveniently-fudged data which simply smooshed errors thin and over a large region so you couldn't see them rather than actually removing them.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:12AM
"(a) exists, therefore (c) doesn't"
No, that's not what I'm saying. (a) exists, and (c) probably contributes to (a), but for political and financial reasons, someone benefits from exaggerating (c).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:43AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:11PM
Because, (a) is the primary driver. I am convinced of that. (c) may make the difference between the temperature rising 11 degrees, instead of 10 degrees. That one extra degree may be a killer, if your about to succumb at 10 degrees. The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. But, I still believe that half of the doomsayers are hoping to cash in on some scam or other, like Al Gore. "Send me lots of money, and I'll mail you a carbon credit to show that you've done your part to save the world!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:29AM
Because, . . . I am convinced of that. . . . The straw that broke the camel's back, . . . But, I still believe that . . .
Found your problem, Runaway! You believe stuff, stuff that just ain't so! Lay off the Fox News, old man, it is damaging your brain!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:33AM
I believe that AC is a real person - a nice guy - that he actually possesses an IQ - I don't believe that he kicks babies and eats puppies - I believe that AC takes a bath once a month, whether he needs it or not - I believe that AC is a selfless person who helps every one he meets - I believe!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @08:52AM
Oops, Runaway did it again! Just because your problem is believing things that are not true, that does not mean that it is your believing them that makes them not true!! No wonder you cannot understand that when someone says you cannot even cherry pick, and your defense is that you are not cherry-picking, you are in fact agreeing with them. Yes, that is what they said!
(Score: 4, Informative) by pe1rxq on Monday February 20 2017, @05:12PM
Mid atlantic temperatures have been measured for atleast 300 years. There are even maps which accuratly show the gulfstream and its origins from te late 1700s.
This was usually done during ocean crossings and obviously did not have the accuracy and resolution of modern satellite data.
150 years ago was the time the more extensive and accurate surveys were already being done and those datasets are still usefull today. (Ofcourse taking differences in methods now and then into account).
Maybe there are a few more lessons from 1963 that need a bit of freshing up????
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday February 20 2017, @06:15PM
Please, go easy on Runaway! The guy never had the opportunity to get much education, and bullshit is the only real skill he has. Besides, he has the same excuse that the President has: he was given this information, by Fox News, just like the information about the Bowling Green Swedish Carnage Massacree. (That sounds like a great name for a rock band?)
Of course, if you are getting information that is actually not information, because it is not true, we cannot call it "alternative information", we instead call it "disinformation", or more simply, "lies". So this is not history repeating itself, it is only Runaway repeating himself. Again. Oh dear.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday February 20 2017, @06:44PM
Don't forget the terror incident in Sweden a couple of days ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gawdonblue on Monday February 20 2017, @09:02PM
Did you hear what happened in Sweden? It was terrible.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:15AM
I hear they called shenanigans.
Shenanigans!!!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 20 2017, @07:19PM
Mid atlantic temperatures have been measured for atleast 300 years.
Well then, clearly 350 years is required for confidence, then. And if you provide 350, then clearly only 400 will do!
Recycled god-of-the-gaps argument...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 20 2017, @10:23PM
Well then, clearly 350 years is required for confidence, then. And if you provide 350, then clearly only 400 will do!
Recycled god-of-the-gaps argument...
More of a "No true Mid-Atlantic Temperature Data" fallacy, I think.
(Score: 4, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Monday February 20 2017, @05:32PM
I scanned the source article and I saw nothing like that. There was a mention of records going back that far but they didn't say when the matching temperatures occurred.
We passed peak warm-up some 8,000 years ago. It was slowly cooling until we started overloading the atmosphere with CO2. Now it is warming much faster than it cooled, yet it still takes decades to be noticeable.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @07:09PM
Peak warmup, 8000 years ago? Slowly cooling since then? History in Europe demonstrates that the climate hasn't been steadily and slowly cooling for 8000 years. Remember that mini-ice age, that had people fearing that the earth was going to freeze over again? Are you sure you're not making stuff up now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @08:35PM
Remember that mini-ice age, that had people fearing that the earth was going to freeze over again? Are you sure you're not making stuff up now?
So this is not history repeating itself, it is only Runaway repeating himself. Again. Oh dear.
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Monday February 20 2017, @09:38PM
It's well known. There was even a comic about it: https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
I'm sure you've seen this before. Perhaps you dismissed it because it was a comic, but the science [wikipedia.org] was established long before.
Of course, we may have passed that by now. CO2 will do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:37AM
But the path being followed is actually the "optimistic scenario": https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm [skepticalscience.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:27AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:14AM
> There was a mention of records going back that far but they didn't say when the matching temperatures occurred.
In the summary I had put:
Denver hit 80 degrees [Fahrenheit, 26.7° Celsius] Feb. 10 — its warmest February temperature on record dating back to 1872.
I can see how it could be read differently, but that does seem to have been the intended meaning.
Record temperatures for Denver, for each day of February, are shown at:
http://www.weather.gov/bou/den_records_feb [weather.gov]
Temperatures of 77 Fahrenheit were reached on 1890-02-04 and 2006-02-28.
I went to
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate_nonjs.php?wfo=bou [weather.gov]
and after I selected Denver and February 10th, 2017 it told me that the previous record high temperature for that day of February was 71 Fahrenheit, set in 1951:
THE DENVER CO CLIMATE NORMALS FOR TODAY
NORMAL RECORD YEAR
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 45 71 1951
MINIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 18 -14 1933
Tthe 80-degree temperature may be seen by selecting February 11th and looking in the "YESTERDAY" section. Hence the highest temperature previously measured in February was 77 degrees Fahrenheit, in 1890 and 2006.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @06:39PM
I don't much think you're a shill, but your post is 100% what I would expect.
"Sir, public opinion is too strong, denying the warming won't work much longer!"
"Shit, OK OK think... How about we start believing in it?"
"Sir? I'm not sure I follow."
"We agree it's real but we continue to throw around false data and say this was exactly what we've always predicted!?"
"Genius Sir!! That's why you get paid the big bucks, where would we be without you?"
"Less rich, now spitshine my boots!"