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This discussion has been archived.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.
There will be big changes for you but you will be happy.
(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.