5 ms·

The surface of the Earth was molten some 4.5 billion years ago. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago. The start of the relative record is a mere 135 year

The surface of the Earth was molten some 4.5 billion years ago. The big bang was about 14 billion years ago. The start of the relative record is a mere 135 years ago. It is absurd to conflate the two, and it's a critical foundation for the statement. By simple random odds (which given that weather stations are few and far between, simple odds of micro-climates can shift temperature slightly), even with zero influence of global warming or any other effect, it's entirely possible to break records set over such a short period. I'm far too lazy to calculate random odds right now, but setting a new high at a 17 year interval doesn't seem remarkable. It is in the context of global warming, but in isolation it really doesn't mean much. This isn't an anti AGW comment, and it's unfortunate that it's impossible to even state something so fundamental without it becoming religious, but the truth is that we've been recording our planet for a very short period of time, with growing accuracy and coverage every year.

mikeash 11y ago
Comments like these are not appreciated not because they're wrong, exactly, but because they're useless and irrelevant. Imaging we have a coin that I claim is biased. (Just pretend that front-page story about how it's impossible to bias a coin didn't happen.) I've flipped it dozens or hundreds of times and nearly every time it comes up heads. After I've done this for a while, I start saying, check this out, I'm pretty sure this coin is biased. I provide my data to support the claim. But it's an ongoing investigation, so I'm still flipping the coin, and it keeps coming up mostly heads. Every so often I publish a confirming tidbit, like, "I just flipped the coin 5 times and every time it came up heads. This is even more confirmation that it's biased." What you're doing is basically taking that statement and saying, that doesn't mean anything, a fair coin would produce 5 heads in a row 1 out of every 32 attempts. Then I do another experiment, flip the coin four times and each time it's heads. Your reply is that it's meaningless because a fair coin would reproduce this 1 out of every 16 attempts. Another experiment. Six heads. You say it's meaningless, because a fair coin would do this 1 out of 64 times. And we keep on going. With each announcement you point out, correctly, that this specific, individual result could pretty easily occur by random chance. And yet each of your responses is useless and misguided, because it ignores all the other results. Setting a new high is not remarkable. Doing it repeatedly starts to get more interesting. Doing it while average temperatures have been rising steadily for over a century is more compelling. Put all the data together and, while each little piece can be said to mean little because it could have happened by random chance, the sum total is highly compelling.
- inversionOf 11y ago
  Comments like this (and predictable moderation of my comment) are what makes this whole discussion a religion. You profoundly and completely missed the entire context of my comment in your zeal to, you think, denounce anti-warming. It is tiring, pedestrian, and ignorant.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Maybe if you explained a little more, I could actually have a shot at understanding what you think the problem is.
    - inversionOf 11y ago
      This new record high for the month beat the previous record from 17 years ago, to begin. Do you really think you want to understand? Again, the irrational histrionics of so many to this discussion (such as the conflation of billions of years with a period of time that is a tiny, tiny sliver of human history, much less periods of the Earth). It is impossible to discuss nuances without the predictable, boorish stomping of feet and announcing of positions. People must make everyone know how firmly and strongly they believe in global warming. And the funny thing is that I fully and completely believe in and understand AGW. It isn't a religion, however, and I'm not waving a flag or announcing fealty, or angrily posting over the top responses to anything that is other than full-fledged Belief. It is the most toxic, bottom-feeding discussion going.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I don't understand what the fact that the previous record was 17 years prior has to do with my response, or your response to my response. You're right, the discussion is mostly awful. Climate change has been turned into a political issue, and awful discussion is a predictable result of that. On the other hand, I don't see how your comment improves that any.
        inversionOf 11y ago
fluidcruft 11y ago
Global warming is obvious from the data. End of story. The AGW debate is about the extent to which this very real warming is caused by human activity. At best, all those effectoids you prattle off are only interesting as confounds for the models that are used to tease out causes for the warming. The overall warming itself is indisputable.
- inversionOf 11y ago
  Interesting comment having positively nothing to do with my comment. That you fail to understand that speaks volumes. Of course, you're the one who conflates 135 years with 14 billion years, so not unexpected.
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    If you observe a pattern that what you think is your point is not getting across to your readers, it could well be that your readers are dense. It could also be that what you're writing is unintelligible.
    - inversionOf 11y ago
      The pattern is that it is utterly impossible to discuss any nuance of AGW, the data, or its meaning, without zealots such as yourself acting as strongly as you can to make sure everyone knows how much of a Believer you are. AGW is reality. The disciples of AGW are profoundly intolerable, however.

mikeash 11y ago

Comments like these are not appreciated not because they're wrong, exactly, but because they're useless and irrelevant. Imaging we have a coin that I claim is biased. (Just pretend that front-page story about how it's impossible to bias a coin didn't happen.) I've flipped it dozens or hundreds of times and nearly every time it comes up heads. After I've done this for a while, I start saying, check this out, I'm pretty sure this coin is biased. I provide my data to support the claim. But it's an ongoing investigation, so I'm still flipping the coin, and it keeps coming up mostly heads. Every so often I publish a confirming tidbit, like, "I just flipped the coin 5 times and every time it came up heads. This is even more confirmation that it's biased." What you're doing is basically taking that statement and saying, that doesn't mean anything, a fair coin would produce 5 heads in a row 1 out of every 32 attempts. Then I do another experiment, flip the coin four times and each time it's heads. Your reply is that it's meaningless because a fair coin would reproduce this 1 out of every 16 attempts. Another experiment. Six heads. You say it's meaningless, because a fair coin would do this 1 out of 64 times. And we keep on going. With each announcement you point out, correctly, that this specific, individual result could pretty easily occur by random chance. And yet each of your responses is useless and misguided, because it ignores all the other results. Setting a new high is not remarkable. Doing it repeatedly starts to get more interesting. Doing it while average temperatures have been rising steadily for over a century is more compelling. Put all the data together and, while each little piece can be said to mean little because it could have happened by random chance, the sum total is highly compelling.

inversionOf 11y ago
Comments like this (and predictable moderation of my comment) are what makes this whole discussion a religion. You profoundly and completely missed the entire context of my comment in your zeal to, you think, denounce anti-warming. It is tiring, pedestrian, and ignorant.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Maybe if you explained a little more, I could actually have a shot at understanding what you think the problem is.
  - inversionOf 11y ago
    This new record high for the month beat the previous record from 17 years ago, to begin. Do you really think you want to understand? Again, the irrational histrionics of so many to this discussion (such as the conflation of billions of years with a period of time that is a tiny, tiny sliver of human history, much less periods of the Earth). It is impossible to discuss nuances without the predictable, boorish stomping of feet and announcing of positions. People must make everyone know how firmly and strongly they believe in global warming. And the funny thing is that I fully and completely believe in and understand AGW. It isn't a religion, however, and I'm not waving a flag or announcing fealty, or angrily posting over the top responses to anything that is other than full-fledged Belief. It is the most toxic, bottom-feeding discussion going.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I don't understand what the fact that the previous record was 17 years prior has to do with my response, or your response to my response. You're right, the discussion is mostly awful. Climate change has been turned into a political issue, and awful discussion is a predictable result of that. On the other hand, I don't see how your comment improves that any.
      - inversionOf 11y ago

fluidcruft 11y ago

Global warming is obvious from the data. End of story. The AGW debate is about the extent to which this very real warming is caused by human activity. At best, all those effectoids you prattle off are only interesting as confounds for the models that are used to tease out causes for the warming. The overall warming itself is indisputable.

inversionOf 11y ago
Interesting comment having positively nothing to do with my comment. That you fail to understand that speaks volumes. Of course, you're the one who conflates 135 years with 14 billion years, so not unexpected.
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  If you observe a pattern that what you think is your point is not getting across to your readers, it could well be that your readers are dense. It could also be that what you're writing is unintelligible.
  - inversionOf 11y ago
    The pattern is that it is utterly impossible to discuss any nuance of AGW, the data, or its meaning, without zealots such as yourself acting as strongly as you can to make sure everyone knows how much of a Believer you are. AGW is reality. The disciples of AGW are profoundly intolerable, however.