paulinstl 295 Posted July 21, 2014 WASHINGTON — The globe is on a hot streak, setting a heat record in June. That's after the world broke a record in May. However, if you're thinking that things weren't that hot here, you're right - the United States had only its 33rd hottest June. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that last month's average global temperature was 61.2 degrees, which is 1.3 degrees higher than the 20th century average. It beat 2010's old record by one-twentieth of a degree. While one-twentieth of a degree doesn't sound like much, in temperature records it's like winning a horse race by several lengths, said NOAA climate monitoring chief Derek Arndt. And that's only part of it. The world's oceans not only broke a monthly heat record at 62.7 degrees, but it was the hottest the oceans have been on record no matter what the month, Arndt said. "We are living in the steroid era of the climate system," Arndt said. Arndt said both the June and May records were driven by unusually hot oceans, especially the Pacific and Indian oceans. Heat records in June broke on every continent but Antarctica, especially in New Zealand, northern South America, Greenland, central Africa and southern Asia. The United States had only its 33rd hottest June. All 12 of the world's monthly heat records have been set after 1997, more than half in the last decade. All the global cold monthly records were set before 1917. And with a likely El Nino this year — the warming of the tropical Pacific which influences the world's weather and increases global temperatures — it is starting to look like another extra warm year, said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck. The first six months of the year are the third warmest first six months on record, coming behind 2010 and 1998, according to NOAA Global temperature records go back to 1880 and this is the 352nd hotter than average month in a row. "This is what global warming looks like," Overpeck said in an email. "Not record hot everywhere all the time, but certainly a reflection that the odds of record hot are going up everywhere around the planet." http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/world-breaks-monthly-heat-record-times-in-a-row/article_3ca07d0f-8a9b-5f72-8711-c207f3a27fff.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted July 21, 2014 Let's see: - Fudged data - It can't be hot because it is nice and cool here - Humans can't change it - Humans didn't cause it - It is the sun causing it alsotheremaybemore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted July 21, 2014 sounds like time to raise taxes and invest in some future defunct widget producer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bert 1,085 Posted July 21, 2014 Let's see: - Fudged data - It can't be hot because it is nice and cool here - Humans can't change it - Humans didn't cause it - It is the sun causing it alsotheremaybemore And a mere 40 years ago these same scientist were telling us all the pollution was causing the earth to cool and we were all going to freeeze to death. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,805 Posted July 21, 2014 sounds like time to raise taxes and invest in some future defunct widget producer... We should build widgets to fight the WMDs our enemies in Iraq are sure to launch any day now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,079 Posted July 21, 2014 I blame China Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drizzay 638 Posted July 21, 2014 This will probably start another pissing match.... But isn't the real arguement whether it is man made or just another warming cycle the earth normally goes through? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 295 Posted July 21, 2014 This will probably start another pissing match.... But isn't the real arguement whether it is man made or just another warming cycle the earth normally goes through? That's the issue, I guess. Lots of arguments whether Man has affected the climate or not to any degree that is of consequence. Some people, and some scientists even believe that the carbon emissions we have thrown into the atmosphere have had little impact on our environment or climate. Of course people that aren't slaves to a myopic political agenda see it differently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 21, 2014 And a mere 40 years ago these same scientist were telling us all the pollution was causing the earth to cool and we were all going to freeeze to death. No, they weren't, not even close. But it's nice to hear that myth brought back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kanil 519 Posted July 21, 2014 And a mere 40 years ago these same scientist were telling us all the pollution was causing the earth to cool and we were all going to freeeze to death. Shitting on science because it was wrong once is focking dumb. The cool thing about science is they're willing to admit when they're hypotheses is wrong when provided with evidence. We understand the earth and weather a lot better now than we did 40 years ago. The evidence is now pointing to global warming but a bunch of idiots out there are still denying it for some reason (because it's the party line). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kanil 519 Posted July 21, 2014 That's the issue, I guess. Lots of arguments whether Man has affected the climate or not to any degree that is of consequence. Some people, and some scientists even believe that the carbon emissions we have thrown into the atmosphere have had little impact on our environment or climate. Of course people that aren't slaves to a myopic political agenda see it differently. To be fair a good 2 or 3% of studies do show that man has hardly caused any change at all. It's probably safe to ignore the other 97% of people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,079 Posted July 21, 2014 To be fair a good 2 or 3% of studies do show that man has hardly caused any change at all. It's probably safe to ignore the other 97% of people. Link? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,079 Posted July 21, 2014 No, they weren't, not even close. But it's nice to hear that myth brought back. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bert 1,085 Posted July 21, 2014 No, they weren't, not even close. But it's nice to hear that myth brought back. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bert 1,085 Posted July 21, 2014 Shitting on science because it was wrong once is focking dumb. The cool thing about science is they're willing to admit when they're hypotheses is wrong when provided with evidence. We understand the earth and weather a lot better now than we did 40 years ago. The evidence is now pointing to global warming but a bunch of idiots out there are still denying it for some reason (because it's the party line). Global warming is occuring the thing that can not be quantified is how much of it is man made and how much is not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 21, 2014 http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus One myth that's been hibernating, but has recently resurfaced back into popular discussion, is the idea that back in the 1970s, climate scientists were united in predicting global cooling. Not only does that notion fit in with America's recent cold snap, as well as the so-called "pause" in global warming (which isn't really a pause), it also acts as a convincing rebuttal to the genuine scientific consensus on climate change. Armed with the myth of a global cooling consensus, pundits can argue that those who study the Earth's climate are little more than unscientific, money-grubbing scaremongers. "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. They thought the world was getting colder. But once the notion of global warming was raised, they immediately recognized the advantages. Global warming creates a crisis, a call to action. A crisis needs to be studied, it needs to be funded..." author Michael Crichton wrote in his controversial anti-climate change novel State of Fear. (geez, it's like you got your post straight from Crichton) "This cycle of science... if we go back to 1970, the fear then was global cooling," Lou Dobbs recently stated on Fox News. Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling. Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time. A popular choice is a 1975 Newsweek article ominously titled "The Cooling World." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." It also portended a "drastic decline for food production." The passing of time revealed both statements to be spectacularly incorrect. TIME magazine also ran a story in 1974 about another possible ice age. "Globally averaged temperatures were cooling, but this was largely due to changes in the Northern Hemisphere," writes Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center. "A closer examination of Southern Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading in the opposite direction." They have continued to do so. There was never scientific consensus that the Earth was cooling. That is a myth. That's not to say that there weren't alarmists forecasting doom. Some did; they just weren't scientists. Those people also weren't helping anything. Climate change deserves honest discourse from both sides of the political spectrum. The Left's alarmism may be as equally counterproductive as the Right's denialism. Climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. To find a solution we need to strip away biases, do away with petty point-scoring, and recognize what we agree upon: a less polluted planet benefits everyone. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JTB 52 Posted July 21, 2014 That's the issue, I guess. Lots of arguments whether Man has affected the climate or not to any degree that is of consequence. Some people, and some scientists even believe that the carbon emissions we have thrown into the atmosphere have had little impact on our environment or climate. Of course people that aren't slaves to a myopic political agenda see it differently. Your credibility is shot big guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joneo 529 Posted July 21, 2014 Let's see: - Fudged data slanted and bias. Please tell me the accurate instruments used to determine GLOBAL temperature in Africa, China, USSR 50, 100 years ago etc and where this knowledge was stored and by whom. - It can't be hot because it is nice and cool here just dumb - Humans can't change it Egocentric to think you can. China and India won't change their ways and they contribute greatly to emissions. - Humans didn't cause it some but not all emissions are human caused.. - It is the sun causing it Do you have data to support the sun doesn't? The ebb and flow of our earth, it's atmosphere and the universe can not be accurately measured to cry the sky is falling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,069 Posted July 21, 2014 Serious question: how do they measure ocean temps? There is a shitton of ocean. Do they have thermometers dispersed on the ocean floors and extrapolate? The engineer in me is wondering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 1,838 Posted July 21, 2014 Serious question: how do they measure ocean temps? There is a shitton of ocean. Do they have thermometers dispersed on the ocean floors and extrapolate? The engineer in me is wondering. http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaSurfaceTemperature Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted July 21, 2014 Are the temps warming? Looks like it. Are we affecting it? Maybe but no consensus as to how much. Without going overboard, is it a good idea to do things to make sure we don't fock the planet up more? Hell yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,297 Posted July 22, 2014 But isn't the real arguement whether it is man made or just another warming cycle the earth normally goes through? Actually, the real argument is whether or not we can scare enough people into submission to where they will blindly accept this (MMGW,) and pay new taxes to help offset it accordingly. Kinda funny how mmgw quickly turned to climate change a few years ago. I'm gonna go with normal cyclic changes, but like shonuff said, it is a good idea to do what one can to not fock our planet up any more than need be. The real question is, what are we doing to fock it up? None of you / us have any idea what earfs resiliency is as far as what we are doing right now. Err on the side of caution? Sure. Be fear mongered with junk science and proven false data to make that decision? No thanx. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted July 22, 2014 And a mere 40 years ago these same scientist were telling us all the pollution was causing the earth to cool and we were all going to freeeze to death. Those are some seriously old scientists with bad cases of old man balls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frozenbeernuts 1,652 Posted July 22, 2014 A fact that cant be argued, when the globe gets hot enough we are in deep deep shlt. Now to think there is some kind of conspiracy by scientists is just stupid. When the majority of scientists support the theory, and supporting the theory is being cautious, i dont see what the backlash is about. How many times have there been harmful practices that are supported by big business, who use their lobbyists to try to convince everyone the problem doesnt exist. Even though they are eventually proven wrong, big business doesnt give a shlt. Its like when oil companies argued lead wasnt harmful to people because removing it would costs a lot more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 1,838 Posted July 22, 2014 Actually, the real argument is whether or not we can scare enough people into submission to where they will blindly accept this (MMGW,) and pay new taxes to help offset it accordingly. Kinda funny how mmgw quickly turned to climate change a few years ago. I'm gonna go with normal cyclic changes, but like shonuff said, it is a good idea to do what one can to not fock our planet up any more than need be. The real question is, what are we doing to fock it up? None of you / us have any idea what earfs resiliency is as far as what we are doing right now. Err on the side of caution? Sure. Be fear mongered with junk science and proven false data to make that decision? No thanx. You say the cutest things sometimes. That's code for yer stoopid, in case you were wondering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,297 Posted July 22, 2014 You say the cutest things sometimes. That's code for yer stoopid, in case you were wondering. Words hurt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 1,838 Posted July 22, 2014 Words hurt You know what hurts worse? My foot in your ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 364 Posted July 22, 2014 It is condescending and dishonest to say that something is a fact and can't be argued. Especially when it comes to theories. Everything can be argued. And who the fock cares? Everybody will be wiped out by a volcano or meteor sooner rather than later anyway. So go piss off and cry into your jizz rags about how the temperature might be one degree warmer than it was in 1621, when nobody had a thermometer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 22, 2014 Mmgwers There's more proof of MMGW then there is of "Patriot Fans" pre-Brady. Actually, the real argument is whether or not we can scare enough people into submission to where they will blindly accept this (MMGW,) and pay new taxes to help offset it accordingly. Kinda funny how mmgw quickly turned to climate change a few years ago. I'm gonna go with normal cyclic changes, but like shonuff said, it is a good idea to do what one can to not fock our planet up any more than need be. The real question is, what are we doing to fock it up? None of you / us have any idea what earfs resiliency is as far as what we are doing right now. Err on the side of caution? Sure. Be fear mongered with junk science and proven false data to make that decision? No thanx. It's ironic, that you Sux, were the one to post that link a few years ago where the republican scientist combed through all the data, and lo and behold, it wasn't false at all. Seems that the one who is falling for the fear mongering is you...taxes are going to go up...it's a scheme...left wing plot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 22, 2014 You know what hurts worse? My foot in your ass. Kick him in the head then, nothing to break. ....well maybe your foot. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bert 1,085 Posted July 22, 2014 Are the temps warming? Looks like it. Are we affecting it? Maybe but no consensus as to how much. Without going overboard, is it a good idea to do things to make sure we don't fock the planet up more? Hell yes. Your last sentenance is why I wish more people would pay attention to water pollution and less to the theories about why the earth is warming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted July 22, 2014 Your last sentenance is why I wish more people would pay attention to water pollution and less to the theories about why the earth is warming. My desire for alternate energy sources is much less motivated by global warming than the fact that what we are using right now is finite. Even advances such as shale oil, fracking, deep drilling, etc, don't address the fact that we will eventually run out of fossil fuel. Of course, I believe the human race won't last to the point where the fuel runs out, but I try to be an optimist and not say "Fock it, we'll all be dead, use that sh1t up now, baby!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 22, 2014 My desire for alternate energy sources is much less motivated by global warming than the fact that what we are using right now is finite. Even advances such as shale oil, fracking, deep drilling, etc, don't address the fact that we will eventually run out of fossil fuel. Of course, I believe the human race won't last to the point where the fuel runs out, but I try to be an optimist and not say "Fock it, we'll all be dead, use that sh1t up now, baby!" Channeling your inner Palin, huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frank M 181 Posted July 22, 2014 Channeling your inner Palin, huh? I'd channel Palin in a heartbeat. Not in the way you're saying, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 364 Posted July 22, 2014 I'd channel Palin in a heartbeat. Not in the way you're saying, though. What does Sarah Palin and the Iron Man suit have in common? They've both had a Downey Jr. inside of them. POW!!! VEAL!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 3,940 Posted July 22, 2014 You know what I'm really looking forward to seeing, is in 2017 when all the mouth-breathers start and blaming Obama for not doing enough to reverse climate change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,805 Posted July 22, 2014 What does Sarah Palin and the Iron Man suit have in common? They've both had a Downey Jr. inside of them. POW!!! VEAL!!!! Morton Downy Jr banged Palin??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted July 22, 2014 You know what I'm really looking forward to seeing, is in 2017 when all the mouth-breathers start and blaming Obama for not doing enough to reverse climate change. I agree that climate change is a political issue for the mouth breathers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted July 22, 2014 Your last sentenance is why I wish more people would pay attention to water pollution and less to the theories about why the earth is warming. Well, I think that there is a lot of activity happening on both sides, but the impact of global warming is far more reaching than just water pollution. The reality is that just 3 years ago, less than 25% of infrastructure/engineering projects incorporated resiliency (addressing sea level rise and global warming). Today, that number has doubled. Sea level rise is just one of several environmental impacts that could be game changers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites