3 ms·

>.. for the continental US. Fair point. It does, however, ignore the second link which was for global averages. >In both cases, scientists said the 2012 globa

>.. for the continental US. Fair point. It does, however, ignore the second link which was for global averages. >In both cases, scientists said the 2012 global temperature records further consolidate a pattern of global warming. Each year of the 21st century has ranked among the 14 hottest since record keeping began in 1880. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/2012-10-warmest-years-on-record http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/2012-10-wa... The claim that temperatures have dropped for the past ten years seems to be patently false from the data I'm finding.

danielweber 13y ago
They haven't dropped. Global temperatures have been flat, though. You can see how the article makes a quote that doesn't disagree with that by using weird other metrics. I've seen the climate scientists' explanation for this and why it doesn't disagree with global warming and it doesn't set off my BS detectors (i.e., they seem like good explanations, but there are certainly ways they could lie to me and I couldn't detect it). Their direct statements are a much better source than the media's game of telephone with their reports.
- commandar 13y ago
  >They haven't dropped. Global temperatures have been flat, though. That still doesn't seem to hold true. This is the UN WMO's report for 2012, direct; the graphs on pages 6 and 7 are particularly relevant: http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1108_en.pdf http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1108_en.pdf >I've seen the climate scientists' explanation for this and why it doesn't disagree with global warming and it doesn't set off my BS detectors (i.e., they seem like good explanations, but there are certainly ways they could lie to me and I couldn't detect it). I'd certainly be willing to take a look if you could provide a source.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    I can see someone disagreeing, but those two graphs look pretty flat for 2000-2010. Certainly no overall "up" or "down" trend. (Or, if there's one, then it keeps on swapping turns with the other.) The explanation was having to do with local cycles, I believe. I didn't grok it well enough to understand it or else I would have presented it; it was, however, decent enough to pass my "this is BS" filter. A lot of things don't.

danielweber 13y ago

They haven't dropped. Global temperatures have been flat, though. You can see how the article makes a quote that doesn't disagree with that by using weird other metrics. I've seen the climate scientists' explanation for this and why it doesn't disagree with global warming and it doesn't set off my BS detectors (i.e., they seem like good explanations, but there are certainly ways they could lie to me and I couldn't detect it). Their direct statements are a much better source than the media's game of telephone with their reports.

commandar 13y ago
>They haven't dropped. Global temperatures have been flat, though. That still doesn't seem to hold true. This is the UN WMO's report for 2012, direct; the graphs on pages 6 and 7 are particularly relevant: http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1108_en.pdf http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1108_en.pdf >I've seen the climate scientists' explanation for this and why it doesn't disagree with global warming and it doesn't set off my BS detectors (i.e., they seem like good explanations, but there are certainly ways they could lie to me and I couldn't detect it). I'd certainly be willing to take a look if you could provide a source.
- danielweber 13y ago
  I can see someone disagreeing, but those two graphs look pretty flat for 2000-2010. Certainly no overall "up" or "down" trend. (Or, if there's one, then it keeps on swapping turns with the other.) The explanation was having to do with local cycles, I believe. I didn't grok it well enough to understand it or else I would have presented it; it was, however, decent enough to pass my "this is BS" filter. A lot of things don't.