Temperature Trends

Global Temperature Trend Update: June 2015

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade

|

TempTrendDreamstimeMeryll
Dreamstime: Meryll

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer publish the latest global temperature trend data obtained from NOAA satellites. For the month of June 2015 they report:

Global Temperature Report: June 2015

In the tropics, 2nd warmest month since 2010

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade

June temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.36 C (about 0.65 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Tropics: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

TempJune2015
UAH

Notes on data released July 1, 2015:

With the tropical atmosphere responding to the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event during the past few months, temperatures in the tropics rose to their second warmest anomaly for any month since the El Niño of 2010, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

NEXT: Scott Shackford Analyzes San Bernardino's Fire Union Woes in the Press-Enterprise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. THE SKY IS ON FIRE! AND FALLING!

    1. We almost had that yesterday. Bunch of forest fire smoke came down to the coast and the whole city was tinted yellow, with sun just a blood red disc. It was kinda cool to see (but not smell).

  2. I just want to know how much time we have left. I have to look at my savings and figure out how much beer, cocaine, and hookers that will buy and evenly distribute it over the time left until the end.

    I also have to factor in the time it will take me to get permission from my wife for the hookers.

    Well, what is it Bailey? How long until we’re finally doomed this time?

    1. I think you are going to have to shave a bit off of your hookers-and-blow budget in order to pay your man-bear-pig tax. Sex crazed poodles have to pay their masseuses ya’ know.

      1. Fuck that shit, the world’s ending soon, I ain’t payin no damn taxes! The IRS will be under water before they get me!

    2. If you stock up on enough beer, cocaine, and hookers you can probably afford to sell them at extreme markup and make enough to get working gills a la Costner.

      1. “beer, cocaine, and hookers”

        Come the apocalypse, all better than gold.

    3. Greek hookers are going cheap these days. If you like unibrows, you’re gold.

      1. fur diapers?

    4. “How long until we’re finally doomed this time?

      It still depends on whether we embrace your wife or your hookers.

    5. I think you’ll need pretty near infinity to get permission from the wife for hookers…

  3. Celsius? Can we get this translated into American, plz.

    1. I know celsius very well now and it still sounds really stupid to me when someone says ‘It’s 35 outside, it’s so hot!’.

      1. Celsius or centigrade?

        WHY DO BOTH HAVE TO START WITH C?!

    2. Since these are temperature differences, you multiply by 9 and divide by 5 (no adding/subtracting 32). So +0.33 degrees Celsius is +0.59 degrees Fahrenheit.

      1. Or, you could just use Fahrenheit to begin with, like God intended.

        As the recent internet meme put it:

        Countries not using the metric system who have put a man on the moon: 1

        Countries using the metric system who have put a man on the moon: 0

        1. I like prefer fahrenheit to celsius for the same reason I prefer pounds to kilos, greater accuracy.

          1. meh, they are both equally accurate- one is just smaller base units.

            1. Well, that’s what I meant when I said more accurate. I could have worded that better.

              1. You could have said that a shower can be tuned to one degree Fahrenheit, but you’d need half a degree Celsius to get the same comfort level.

                1. That’s what decimals are for.

                  1. Um, pounds have decimals also, you know? You Canuckistanians, you so funny.

                    1. Yes, but pounds are senseless barbaric relics. Behold the glorious kilogram!

                      http://www.bipm.org/en/bipm/mass/prototype.html

                    2. I mock your pathetic Jacobin system. Duodecimal or GTFO.

                    3. Pfeh. Real pounds don’t have decimals, they have ounces, and fractions of ounces.

                      Sure, you can use “a tenth of a pound” rather than “one and half ounces, maybe a hair more”, but self-identifying as a self-hating metricstani is nothing to be proud of.

                    4. The 21st century shits on your relics.

              2. You meant more “precise”. /pedant

          2. I prefer Fahrenheit to Celsius because the proper measure of man is man, not water.

            0 is cold. 100 is hot. Why does the person on the street need the temperature at which water boils to be divisible by 10?

            1. Yeah, 27 is the perfect temperature, but 30 is hot. That’s fucking stupid. I will never like Celsius because of this.

              1. No, that’s just exact. Deal with it.

            2. Actually its just a bastardized version of degrees Kelvin, a real man’s temperature scale.

              1. True that.

                But Kelvin was invented after Celsius. They decided to just use the same scale and make conversion a matter of adding 273 or something.

                1. Rankine for the win.

                2. “They decided to just use the same scale and make conversion a matter of adding 273 or something.”

                  Funny how absolute zero, the freezing point of water and boiling point of water are all whole numbers…..

                  ….

                  Totally calling bullshit on this one by the way.

                  damn, turns out it is already been marked as bullshit:

                  “by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as ?273.15? on the Celsius scale (International System of Units),[1][2] which equates to ?459.67? on the Fahrenheit scale”

            3. MikeP you have just become my hero. Extremely well said, sir.

            4. “the proper measure of man is man”

              Fun fact: we have balls because sperm do better at lower then body temperature.

              I propose a new system call Man. 0 degrees Man is the temperature of your balls while 1 degrees Man is your body temp.

          3. I like prefer fahrenheit to celsius for the same reason I prefer pounds to kilos, greater accuracy.

            It’s like the perfect plebe statement.

            1. Shut the fuck up, console boy!

              1. I TOLD YOU THAT’S NOT WHO I AM ANYMORE

                Farenheit/Imperial are like the consoles of measurement scales though.

            2. Don’t worry Cyto. Iraqi children burn at the same temperature, no matter if you refer to it in Celsius or Fahrenheit.

              1. NASA once lost a Martian satellite because of the imperial system! I don’t want to lose the Iraqi children to Farenheit!

                1. That is why Luke Skywalker fought so valiantly.

                2. No, no, no. Nasa lost a space probe because the engineers couldn’t fucking do their conversions right. It’s complete irrelevant that they garbled a unit conversion from imperial to metric or just slipped a decimal. What’s relevant is that they didn’t test their shit ahead of time.

                3. ” I don’t want to lose the Iraqi children to Farenheit!”

                  It’s bloody well time they deified Farenheit , but you can still sacrifice them to Baal or Dagon.

          4. Isn’t a gram more accurate than a pound? I mean, if this is how we judge our units.

            1. Anyone who knows how many grams are in an ounce, or ounces in a pound is obviously selling drugs to support the terrorists. We’re watching you man!

              1. If you ask someone how many grams are in an ounce and they say 31.1, they’re a respectable gold investor.

                If you ask someone how many grams are in an ounce and they say 28, they spent much of their life smoking weed.

                1. I used to have a gram scale because I bought and sold silver jewelry, by the gram. Someone saw it one day and asked me ‘is that for drugs?’. I think some calorie obsessed people today use them for weighing their food. So owning one is probably more common than back then.

                  1. Well, thats just like, your opinion, man.

                2. Sudden’s not here, man!

          5. I like prefer fahrenheit to celsius for the same reason I prefer pounds to kilos, greater accuracy.

            PRECISION IS NOT ACCURACY YOU FUCKS

            1. OK I ALREADY HAD TO HEAR THIS ONCE!!!!!

              1. PRECISION IS NOT ACCURACY YOU FUCK

        2. when a bald eagle, sitting all majestic as shit, does math- do you think he uses some French system created to make things easy?

          FUCK NO! He uses the math of freedom.

          1. The real commies are the Limeytards. Although I have confessed my love for the pound, every time I see a setting for ‘stones’ on my bathroom scale or I hear one of the lime chewing dimwits talk about drinking a pint, it makes me want to smash a pint and then a fucking stone into their bloody limeytard skulls!

          2. They hate us for our fahrenheit!

            1. They should.

              1. Bah! You Canadians just cannot learn farhenheit the way we Americans can learn your shitty inferior Celsius, so umad.

                1. That just demonstrates the simplicity and elegance and therefore the superiority of Centigrade.

                  #PWND

                  1. A simple people need a simple system of measures. Like the French. Or the Canadians. Metric is to measurement what momma bird’s regurgitated food is to her young.

                    1. People who do things the hard way and then brag about with no other benefit are douches.

                    2. No, no, no. You sound weak and have set back the metric system in the U.S. yet another decade. What you should’ve done is asked me whether I do long division in Roman numerals.

                    3. Damn it. I just got pwnd.

                  2. Meh, get back to me when you start telling time in metric. If you are still using minute, hours, days, etc you’re doing it half assed.

        3. Metric is better at all things (assuming you have modern measurement equipment – avoirdupois is all based on halves, which is nice if you’re a penniless peasant), and in all the things where it’s really better, we already use it. Nobody under the age of 50 or so thinks of gravity as 32ft/s^2. For everyday measurements, though, why bother changing? It made sense to adopt metric when you lived in some European shithole and a Hannover foot was different than a Cologne foot, but for the English speaking countries that standardized hundreds of years earlier, there’s no compelling reason to change.

          1. Besides, the Imperial system has all those obscure measures. That rules.

            1. Precisely. For example, I’m 12 shaftments tall, or whatever.

              1. Mark Twain was a product of what system?

                1. Um…slavery?

                  1. Wait, is it Hitler?

                    And for the record mr. doomcock, I still work with g in ft/s. AND I AINT 50!

                    c = 186282 mi/s
                    g = 32 ft/s?
                    atm = 14.696 psi
                    640 Acres = 1 section
                    Avogadro’s # 6.022 x 10??

                    AND PLUTO IS A PLANET YOU COMMIE BASTARDS!

          2. The weed aficionado in me loves the metric, the woodworker not so much. Metric sucks ass for woodwork/carpentry; FRACTIONS FOR THE MOTHERFUCKING WIN!1!1!1

    3. Celsius & Metric = perfect systems; God-tier; MUH SCIENCE

      Farenheit & Imperial = Full Plebian; favorite system of inbred hicks; it’s 2015 ISHYGDDT

        1. Fuck your moon.

          1. that’s right, OUR moon. And don’t you forget it.

  4. Good lord, whatever

    *rolls eyes*

  5. Ron,

    How accurate are these measurements? I’m being serious here. Do the NOAA satellites often (always?, ever?) match the same measurements from other sources? What’s the acceptable variation? Are they .005 degrees off of accuracy? What’s acceptable here?

    Also, what’s the real ramification of being .33 degrees warmer than the 30 year average? What does that MEAN? Also, what about the 10 year average? or the 50 year average? Why 30?

    I know you’ve probably answered this a million times… but I’m a curious guy.

    1. I think that, as someone who believes manmade global warming is occurring, Ron Bailey wants to leave evidence in H&R that he tried to warn the commenters about it!

      1. He’s like a modern day Noah.

    2. Don’t worry, JackandAce will be along presently to cite us to death with studies s/he gave a cursory glance without really understanding what was in said studies. S/he then will preach the glories of an egalitarian, agricultural based commune…or genocide, since that’s really the only concrete solution to STOP WARMING NOW!!!

      1. You rat fucking bea taggers are killing mother Gaia!

      2. Apes don’t read climatology.

        1. Yes, they do, ProL, they just don’t understand it.

    3. Going off vague recollection here:

      They only go back 30 years because that’s as much good satellite data as we have. And the global non-satellite data is shit.

      How accurate are the satellite measurements? Well, I’m sure they used to run hot, so the older results will have to be “corrected” downward. Give ’em time: they’ve been busy altering the ground-based temperature data this way, but they’ll get around to the satellite data soon enough. We’ll get that fucking hockey stick graph if we have to fly into orbit and personally beat it out of the satellites.

    4. spencer-

      the NOAA/GISS does not use satellites.

      they use numbers they make up. they have been caught cheating by jacking up current temps and cooling the past over and over. they are simply not a credible source. (though note that they do have a “reference network” of solely well sited and unadjusted stations. it, however, shown no us worming for a decade)

      that said, ron did not use NOAA data. he used the UAH (university alabama huntsville) data. it’s about as good as a dataset gets. i prefer the RSS (also satellite) but both are good. they line up reasonably well. (maybe 0.1-0.15 variance but it tends to even out in terms of trend. comparing raw data between systems is tricky as they tend to report in variance from a base period and they use different base periods so 0.3 on one and 0.5 another might mean the same objective temperature)

      the interesting thing is that while the trend since the 70’s is up, the trend for the last 20 years is flat.

      http://www.globalwarming.org/2…..-18-years/

      ac coring to both satellite systems (which are independent) the earth has not warmed in roughly 19 years. of further interest, co2 has been soaring and is WAY above the worst case models.

      it’s correlation to temperatures for the last 19 years is non existent. (r2 = 0.0) correlation is not causality, but causality without correlation is awfully unusual.

      1. causality without correlation is awfully unusual magic.

      2. “But the pause was disproved! You just have to accept a confidence interval of 0.1 and swallow an ocean of other bullshit!”

    5. “Also, what’s the real ramification of being .33 degrees warmer than the 30 year average? What does that MEAN? Also, what about the 10 year average? or the 50 year average? Why 30?”

      Well the satellite records only go back to 1978. So, 35 years ago.

      1. Or maybe 37 years ago.

        1. 35 metric years.

          1. stop it!

  6. temperatures in the tropics rose to their second warmest anomaly for any month since the El Ni?o of 2010

    It’s always the “second warmest” something in these monthly statements. Have you noticed that?

    1. Yeah, reminds me of the terrorist “second in command” that we’re always killing.

      1. You baggers are just jealous that the best president in history got Bin Laden, and Bush couldn’t!

        1. Totally jealous, and

          YOU LEAVE CHENEY ALONE!

    2. ‘Since 2010’ is also just lame.

    3. Yeah, the “second warmest anomaly” in the last 5 years has me shaking in my boots.

  7. How do they come up with optimal temperature on the graph? Is zero representative of the mean?

  8. Meh, we’re one financial meltdown away from no one giving a shit.

    1. This. One of the many benefits of the 2009 meltdown was that it put a cap in the ascendent environmentalism of the day. Recessions focus the mind.

      1. Does anyone here have a conspiracy theory in the works regarding a subset of influential progressives intentionally sabotaging westernized economies as a way to combat our environmental impact?

        Not saying I agree with that, but it’s an interesting thought.

        1. Not a conspiracy, so much as a widely shared mental illness.

    2. No one gives a shit now except for green project cronies and Tony.

      1. And Euro-peons but they suck anyway.

  9. Oh look, another report to tell us exactly nothing. Because there’s nothing to tell.

    In much more interesting news, I was introduced to hash oil on Saturday. Oh. My. God.

    1. Nice, used to do hash under glass back in high school. Been quite a long time since I’ve smoked any. Very nice, mellow buzz.

      1. The tippy-top grade medpot these days is probably the functional equivalent of hash, anyway.

        Now, hash oil . . . don’t operate heavy machinery. And by “heavy machinery”, I mean anything larger than a toothbrush.

      2. It’s been getting popular lately (it’s often called “shatter”) and the delivery services here offer it. A friend just got some and a vaper for it and we just got high as shit on the 4th. But the high was so clean. If I had smoked that much through my water bong I’d have been catatonic.

    2. The only time I ever smoked hash was also the only time I ever smoked opium, if I remember right. I remember being super fucked up that night and it being AWESOME.

      1. Smoking hash and opium in the same evening is a feat worthy of respect. Except that it’s you. So I’m torn.

        1. What do we want?

          DABS!

          When do we want it?

          DAAAAAABS!!

          /Hempfest

          FYI, if y’all ever go, work Ecology or the kitchen. You are welcome.

        2. We used to do that in Kathmandu in the late 70’s. Smear some honey oil on a knife, heat and use some tobacco to absorb it, stuff in the bong and sprinkle a dash of smack on top. Absolute mega buzz.

      2. Have you ever done teh squat after opium? Then you’d be a REAL man.

        1. Pfffft.

          I’ve done my share and your share, and I took weight in Soph (football players, man). You know nothing, Jon Snow. Now give us a kiss.

          1. I’ve squatted after drinking and did notice a positive effect. No maxes attempted though.

            1. I imagine it would be “HAHAHA, *gigglesnort* who has my beer?”

              Booze is a positive on creative endeavors, brah. Everything else is just posh shits on the hive mind of life. Swank swish city buggers.

              1. FYI, I am utterly gigglesnort meself, and could give a rats arse about you, Jon Snow, or your goddamned maester. Fuck you and your high horses education. Wankers.

                1. who the fuck is john snow?

                  do u think I’m some pop culture diva?

  10. Huntsville, Alabama? Why would you trust numbers from a state with a confederate flag flying?

    1. That would be a classic ad hominem fallacy.

      1. And sarc

        1. That sounds suspiciously furren. You from around here?

  11. I’m 900 feet above sea level. When I can fish for grouper off my porch, that’ll be a good day.

    1. We’ve been in an ice age for like 2 million years in which there has been varying degrees of glaciation. We’re probably due another one, or else the ice age just finally comes to an end. No one can predict or control that.

      1. 18,000 years ago there was a one mile thick glacier where I’m sitting right now in Columbus. That’s where the Great Lakes came from. Blink of an eye.

        1. I think the ice went as far south as the Ohio river?

          1. It may have but I think the main area was around 2/3’s down into the state and the geography is pretty dramatic between the northern 2/3’s which is mostly flat, and the southern third where you start getting fairly hilly country. The closer to Kentucky the hillier it gets. The southern tip of Ohio around Portsmouth on the river has some pretty significant hills.

            1. So yeah, the Illinoian reached down to Cincinnati at least but that was much longer ago. The Wisconsinan is the more recent one.

              http://www.dispatch.com/conten…..ap-eps.jpg

            2. I was born in Portsmouth. Lived around Cincy for 20 years.

              1. We stayed at the State Park at Shawnee a couple years ago. Had pizza and beer at the Portsmouth Brewery. Nice weekend.

                1. Haven’t been there in 15 years. I’m sure a lot has changed.

                  1. Any changes in fifteen years is a global disaster in the making. Forward all evidence to NOAA and SPLC, good citizen.

      2. actually, we have been in an ice age for about 50 million years.

        today is in the coldest 10% of temperatures over the last 500 million years.

        this is driven my orbital cycles and tectonic shift. so long as the isthmus of panama stays closed, it ain’t warming up.

        the global temperature trend has been down for the last 7000 years. it got really cold in the 1350-1850 period (little ice age). we have recovered from that, but not all the way. it’s still colder than the medieval period and far colder then the roman.

        this interglacial is coming to an end. anything we can do to delay that would be AWESOME for humans. (but as you say, there’s not much, if anything, we can do) when ice stretches from the north pole to virginia, this is gonna be one tough world to feed 6 billion people on.

        that’s going to mean gigadeaths.

        the real long view on climate is that if we do not get off this planet in the next 1000 years or so, our civilization is over.

        1. Well, if the warmists are right, this time, then I guess we’re saved… I mean doomed… I have a confused.

        2. So when NYC was settled it wasn’t a disgusting sweaty hellhole every summer? I say bring on another little ice age.

        3. “this interglacial is coming to an end. anything we can do to delay that would be AWESOME for humans. ”

          Good news!

          There was some paper saying that pumping CO2 into the air can extended the current interglacial.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..t-ice-age/

          Coal saves us from Glaciation! Hurrah for coal!

    1. I especially love Alan Dershowitz arguing against the 20-something valley girl who thinks she knows what she’s talking about.

      1. She actually made me consider if the Muslims are wise for making their women folk not talk too much in public.

        1. Easily the best part is when she claims it was racist that when they heard there was a shooting one of the people in the Garland even said ‘is it a Muslim?’

          Yes, because thinking that maybe, just maybe, the person who just tried to shoot up a draw Mohammad event was a Muslim is clearly bigoted. What rational reason could you have to suspect that Islamic religious sympathies may have been a cause?

          1. The dude in the middle just looks so baked.

      2. The eyebrow piercing and makeup create a striking contrast with the traditional conservative Muslim garb.

        1. Also when the camera pans out I noticed that she doesn’t have her shirt buttoned above her cleavage line. I’m hardly an expert on the hadith or the strictures modest female apparel within Islamic practice, but I don’t think it’s a jump to say she’s doing it wrong.

    2. By the logic of that first guy in the video, all that libertarians have to do to win is say we’re going to put people into x device feet first if we don’t get everything we want right now, and they have to give it to us.

      What a stupid fucking poor excuse for a human.

      1. I know. And want to know what’s especially hilarious? Actually there are two things that are especially hilarious about that guy, both of which I mentioned here.

        1. Khalid Hamideh is an actual LAWYER who apparently thinks it’s ‘incitement to violence’ if you offend someone and they try to kill you. Note to self: Never hire this lawyer.

        2. Khalid Hamideh was held up as a moderate Muslim we shouldn’t criticize here – Link.

        Quick question: Why do Muslims who argue that people should not legally be allowed to criticize Islam get to call themselves moderates? Imagine if a Catholic came out and said “any mockery of Catholicism should be illegal.” He’d be pilloried as a fundamentalist nutcase, but a Muslim gives a press conference and says exactly the same thing and the media assures me he’s a moderate who you’d have to be racist to criticize.

        It’s offensive to actual secular Muslims and to heroic Muslims like Malala Yousafzai that Islamic people calling for blasphemy prohibitions get to declare themselves moderates.

        1. Maybe by Islamic standards that is moderate.

        2. Your privilege is showing, you Irish Catholic monkey.

        3. One part of the answer is that a large segment of the West (the left, progressives, some liberals, some others) who hate the traditional white Christian Western world so much that they bend over backwards to accommodate people like Khalid Hamideh.

    3. Don’t get too misty-eyed…

      http://www.thecrimson.com/arti…..ntrol-the/

      Dershowitz said that “a narrow right to own guns for self-protection” existed but that there is still room for substantial government regulations.

      Dershowitz, however, called the Second Amendement an “anachronism” because if America had the choice today it would not choose to be an “armed society.”

      “The Second Amendment has no place in modern society,” he said.

      1. “The Second Amendment has no place in modern society,” he said.

        Yes, because modern man is civilized now.

        Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha – I kill me.

      2. I can support Alan Dershowitz’ continuously awesome defenses of free speech while disagreeing with him on guns. Most people who I really like in some contexts I think are wrong in others.

        For example, I like Epi but have reason to believe it would be a bad idea to leave him alone with my mom.

        1. I’m just trying to catch you before you or anyone else here reads that, chugs a sevenfiddy of Jagermeister and then runs naked in the streets shouting “libertarian moment!”

          1. You’re a peach. Have I mentioned that lately? Coz you are.

      3. “Dershowitz, however, called the Second Amendement an “anachronism” because if America had the choice today it would not choose to be an “armed society.””

        ?????

        So all those polls saying people think being allowed to own guns is a good thing just don’t count then?

        Also:

        “Elena Kagan, an HLS professor chosen last week to be the school’s new dean, moderated the debate.”

        LOLOLOL. Yeah, this was clearly a fair and balanced debate! They had Dershowitz and a guy from the Brady Center arguing against Eugene Volokh about guns and Elena Kagan moderated. So it was 2 against 1 with a moderator who supported the people who were already the majority.

        1. I’m reminded of a comment someone made earlier today, about the awful Constitution we would get if we re-wrote it today.

          1. The 1st Amendment: “No speech shall be unjustly regulated by the government save that which impugns, criticizes, or in any sense offends the sensibilities of

            1. women;

            2. racial minorities;

            3. non-Christian religious organizations;

            4. the transgendered;

            5. the gender-questioning;

            6. anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

            1. Sorry. 3 should read “non-Christian religious organizations (except the Scientologists).”

              1. I sense microaggressions.

  12. Remote Sensing Sysytems, who had to correct Spencer before, says June was +.39. A very sharp spike.

    http://www.reportingclimatesci…..ly-up.html

    1. By the way, I know it’s fashionable to ignore surface temperatures here (they’re part of a conspiracy?) but every measure says we are heading to the hottest year ever…the first 5 months are by far the hottest on record.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-long-shot

      1. Why are you bothering to evangelize here? If you really hoped for an impact on greenhouse gases, wouldn’t you be translating your jeremiads into Chinese and posting them on the message boards of People’s Daily?

        1. Hey, HM, did you send me an invite on Steam? Someone here did and I can’t remember, but I thought it was you, I think I was a little inebriated…

            1. Ok, so my memory does still work sometimes even in a drunken haze. Good to know.

      2. But what I really want to know is what are the Bristlecone Pines saying?!

        We ignore surface temps because they are invariably adjusted hotter, homogenized to be hotter, and have poor spatial coverage. The satellite record is the gold standard (corrected for diurnal drift).

        And RSS also says that we’ve seen warming at half the rate of AR5. Funny how you never bring that up.

        Now go build a volcano out of your scat and marvel at your accomplishments or something.

        1. The satellite record is the gold standard (corrected for diurnal drift).

          How good are those corrections?

        2. Thanks for proving you think it’s a conspiracy.

          1. Weak response, Jack.

            1. It’s joe from Lowell. What do you expect?

              1. I used to feed trolls, but then again I used to do a lot of stupid things. (and I’ll readily admit that I still do more than my fair share of stupid things to this day).

              2. Here’s the thing, in China, 8-year-olds are being diagnosed with environmentally-induced lung cancer but Jackass Hole feels it necessary to come on here to harangue us.

                He’s nothing more than the environmentalist version of those Western feminists who will harp on about their daily microaggressions without even spending one breath to discuss the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and girls.*

                *That is an reenactment, of course, by real activists…and by speaking English they humanize what is happening. Really, watch it and understanding what they say, combined with the images, feel your blood boil in rage.

                1. So… if China cleans up, who’s next? Somewhere in SE Asia, I have heard. There is always going to be a country that doesn’t give a shit about the environment, barring some sci-fi discovery that changes everything.

            2. It’s the right response. It’s why I mentioned conspiracy initially They always show up.

              You don’t think noaa is attempting to fraudulently present data, do you?

              1. You keep using buzzwords you don’t understand because you have nothing else.

                1. What buzzword was that, cyto?

          2. KONSPIRACY KOCH DENIER THUGPUBLICAN

      3. 1. that’s because they stink. they have limited coverage, zero quality control, suffer from one sided urban heat island bias, and are put out by 2 organizations that have been repeately caught lying.

        hadcrut is the CRU. remember “climategate”?

        noaa/giss is just beyond belief in terms of changing past data to create trends.

        they also have a SEVERE and uncorrected bias.

        http://www.surfacestations.org/

        only about 8% of the noaa sites meet their own standards.

        the average error is well over 2 degrees C. to measure a trend less that you (one sided) error is an exercise in meaningless math.

        and how does the NOAA adjust for this? the increase the reported temps. (yes, really)

        and how do we know they are full of it and deliberately lying? we look at the NOAA reference network.

        it’s only 10 years of data, but it’s from 114 perfectly sited conus stations that require no adjustment at all. it shows the US is COOLING.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja…..g-cooling/

        so, your reference network shows cooling, but your network with no quality control that you adjust the hell out of the raw data on shows warming, and you go with the one that fits your political and budgetary agenda.

        THAT is why no one takes the widely published surface datasets seriously.

        1. Conspiracy theorist number 2. Sure didn’t take long.

          1. OH GOOD ONE MAN YOU BURNED HIM. He might have a whole range of points back up with links but you’ve clearly been watching your Bill Maher. That makes you so edukated.

            1. I assume if he had literally anything other than weak-tea ad homs he’d have brought it to bear.

              1. He has a WP article he does not understand.

          2. Pretty obvious which of the two of you has some knowledge of the subject and just might know what they are talking about, and I hate to break this to you, but it isn’t you.

        2. Are those adjustments wrong though? “Adjustment” isn’t a four-letter word it is not necessarily wrong.

          1. Spencer just massaged and adjusted his data sets. That one OK?

            1. Yes, because he explains

              1) Why he makes the changes.

              2) The changes are in accordance with his rationales

              3) He documents and publishes the changes, allowing others to critique his methodology and replicate his results.

              All stuff the NOAA fails to do. And all stuff which, if skipped, makes what one is doing “not science”.

        3. See, out where people do real science, they adjust their temperature readings to conform to the reference.

          If your adjustments take your readings even further away from the reference, yer doin’ it wrong.

      4. every measure says we are heading to the hottest year ever

        RIGHT just like 2014 was the ‘hottest on record’ which actually meant ‘was tied with three other years for the hottest in a 30-year time span’.

        1. Yep. Phrasing makes a big difference with, well, every kind of reporting. How things are presented seems to matter more than what is presented.

          1. One-time gig. Provide me with linkage, I’ll show how they are manipulating via authorial authority.

            Richman, love you, brah, but standards. Also, you’re a tool.

        2. It was in fact the hottest year on record, but good try.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..re-record/

          1. Not in the US according to the NOAA/NCDC reference sites, the best surface measurement facilities we have.

            Check the Forbes link morganovich gave you, above.

            Keep a-swinging, slugger!

            1. Do let me know RC, when “US” equals “global”. Just a tad provencial, aren’t you?

              1. So when you say “global,” you mean everywhere but the U.S.?

                1. Weak question, sdy.

          2. No it wasn’t dipshit. His own article speaks against his statement.

            2014 was the hottest year on record. Not with absolute certainty ? just with enough of it for an imperfect world. my bullshit talking points.

            You still don’t understand ‘statistics’ btw. No surprise there.

            “With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

            1. Read the article. It clearly explains the uncertainty in ANY claims made from statistics. And noaa clearly explained that from the outset. And yet, they were very sure that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

              And guess what? 2015 is shaping up to be almost certainly hotter. Keep trying.

              1. Unlike you I read the article and comprehended it. 48% is laughable. 2014 is still tied with 3 other years in the past 30 year record, end of story, and you have no idea how hot 2015 is going to be. None. Try again dipshit, or better yet don’t. God it’s amazing how much smarter almost everyone here is compared to you.

      5. (1) Its an El Nino year. They are always hotter, for reasons that have nothing to do with CAGW.

        (2) Anyone who says “this year is hot” needs to also tell me that they are not using any data that has been “adjusted” or “corrected’, because that data has been irrevocably spoiled in my book. Way too many examples of the “corrections” all being in service of producing the coveted hockey stick graph. And, yes, there is ample reason to believe that the warmista “scientists”, having seized the high ground of custody over data and control of the journals, have done exactly this.

        Keep swinging, though, slugger. You’ll hit one out of the infield one of these days.

        1. Early last year was also *in effect* an El Nino year as Judith Currie explained. It wasn’t technically an El Nino but the ENSO was similar enough that it had the same effects as a mild El Nino. NOAA is being disingenuous and pedantic by saying otherwise.

        2. Like I said above, Spencer just adjusted his data sets. And you know why? Because that is what those interested on statistics do. Hate to break it to you, it’s not a conspiracy, even when Spencer does it.

          By the way, you know that year you like to measure from, 1998? Because it used to be the hottest year? That was the year of the El Ni?o of the century. Guess what…this El Ni?o so far is not proving as strong and temps are STILL higher than 1998.

          1. By the way, you know that year you like to measure from, 1998?

            One long enough ago to give us a decent time interval. One that matters on a geologic/climactic scale. Nobody has really shown, yet, that the weather over the last 30 years isn’t just normal climactic variation, with any degree of certainty.

            1. It was an El Ni?o which you wanted to discount temps this year because of one. Climate change is measured over 100 years, because that is when man started to add CO2. Starting your measurement at 30 years is meaningless, when it comes to AGW.

              1. Unfortunately that’s when the satellite record starts, and that’s by far our most reliable data set.

          2. temps are STILL higher than 1998.

            No they’re not. Not according to the satellite record. Stop lying.

            Spencer just adjusted his data sets. And you know why? Because that is what those interested on statistics do.

            They also analyze those adjustments to make sure they make sense. These adjustments are being criticized for not making sense. Not sure if that criticism is valid or not, but yelling STATISTICS (while knowing nothing about them) doesn’t counter the criticism.

            1. All of the adjustments were explained and were valid. But thanks for owning up to you selective outrage when it comes to data adjustments. Typical.

              1. Tarran did explain them and that was fine. He also explains that the NOAA fails to do this.

            2. So cytotoxic, why do you believe that dripping ink into a swimming pool doesn’t make the water darker?

              1. Stupid analogy, stupid.This isn’t Salon around here.

                The people who are owning Jackass (unlike it) work in science and actually know how it works. It makes it easy to poke holes in Jackass and your assertions when you don’t know WTF you are talking about. So you read some bullshit by McKibben and want to save the world so now some kind of expert.

                GTFO.

                1. Follow the link on his name. That’s some Time Cube level hilariousness.

          3. This mammal is close to figuring out what the rest of you cattle can’t grasp. The science was settled many years ago… We just perform your term “terraforming”

  13. OT: A couple months ago I asked you, my fellow Reasonoids, to please donate to the children of a victim of domestic of violence. I was pleased that many did.

    I’m asking you all again to help out someone in need as a result of tragedy. Over the July 4th weekend, the son of a very good friend of my wife’s died in an accident. He was riding his bicycle with his friends when his bike apparently locked up. He got off to inspect his bike on a sharp curve in the road. A truck, which apparently didn’t see him, ran into him, causing fatal blunt-force trauma.

    The mom in question has three other sons, all of whom live with her. The mom has been working very hard to improve her financial situation, earning her LPN last May and working on earning her RN. However, we all know that funeral expenses are thousands of dollars, and I think her worrying about how to pay for burying her son should be the last thing on her mind.

    This is the gofundme page.

    1. Kicked in a few bucks. I’ve got a soft spot for rising RNs. That’s pretty much a hospital job these days, and its not easy.

      1. Thanks, RC.

        1. I just chipped in a bit, but it isn’t showing up yet on my computer.

          1. Thanks, Gojira.

    2. My mom raised 4 sons largely on her own – no-brainer. My sympathies are with your wife’s friend.

    3. CW,
      I kicked in pretty well for the last one, but then I got ‘reminders of further need’ for months afterwards until I filtered the e-dress.
      If you want to post an address where I can send a check or some bux, OK, but that was a bit obnoxious.

      1. I appreciate what you’ve done, Sevo. I want to ask, though, what was obnoxious about my post? I am genuinely asking because I want to avoid sounding obnoxious in the future.

  14. looks like the 30 year average is about .3 degrees below normal.

  15. The world has truly gone insane. I’m seeing headlines that Bill Cosby gave women drugs so they’d have sex with him. Somehow the reports neglect to mention if the women voluntarily took the drugs, knew what drugs they were taking and anticipated having sex with Bill Cosby under the influence of those drugs. Perhaps the broads were lured into complacency by the fact Cosby was a Negro comedian and not one of those horrible Negro jazz musicians, well known for their propensity to corrupt and ruin women with the aid of dangerous narcotics.

    1. Every old broad today who was hot in the 1970s knew what quaaludes were and that she was quite likely to consciously consent to have sex after taking them. That was widely considered a “positive side effect” at the time and was well known to everyone. The drug’s popularity was based on it producing a state of euphoria and a loss of inhibitions.

      1. Yeah, but that was the ’70s. In more enlightened times, we know that if a woman takes a drug with the express goal of having sex after taking it, she’s actually somehow been raped.

        Ann Althouse actually argued that drugs meant to enhance female libido were the equivalent of date rape drugs – even though women choose to take them.

        http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..right.html

        “I don’t see how women are “entitled” to a drug in the general area of Viagra as some kind of gender equity proposition. The standard for approval of all drugs should be the same ? some balance of effectiveness and unwanted effects. Why is not wanting to have sex even regarded as a dysfunction? I want to want what I don’t want. What the hell kind of problem is that? Or is it that my partner wants me to want what I don’t want and I want to satisfy him? Drugging women so we’ll be able to do what men want? How did that get turned into a women’s rights issue? I guess you could say that it’s for women to decide ? don’t take away our choice! ? whether we want to want what he wants when we don’t want it.

        This flibanserin is like those rape drugs frat boys are said to put in the unguarded drink. Oh, but if the woman chooses to take the drug? Well, isn’t that like choosing to get drunk at the party? The man isn’t supposed to exploit the opportunity of a drunken and seemingly willing sexual partner. Why is it okay to have sex with a woman who’s taken the flibanserin?”

        1. Never Forget: KM-W once reduced AA to tears by arguing the right of freedom of association.

          That, and being a smart hot redhead, is why I will always hold KM-W in the highest esteem.

      2. Hello.

        You lost me at “broad” and “everyone knows”.

        1. Look, Sweet Cheeks, you and Lady Dalrymple (and maybe Nicole, though her worstness might ruin the party) ought to get yourselves down to the speak easy right quick as me, Hemingway and the boys are dancing the Charleston and discussing the troubles the banks have been having recently.

          1. More like “floozey and flapper” but nice try. I’ve always preferred “gash” which has the advantage of being both singular and plural, like “shrimp”, but it has gone from being refreshingly both somewhat arcane and transgressive to a stake-burningly offensive term.

            Back in the late ’80s early ’90s, apologizing for saying “chick” and saying “I’m sorry I meant to say gash” twice lead to a face slapping followed by a blowjob from proto-SJW feminist hotties. We had a better class of progressive chicks back in the day.Teh wimmens are complicated.

            1. Damn, gash is a great word. Remember the time Epi used the phrase ‘slant slit’ and MNG lost his fucking mind?

              1. It was “joe” who truly lost it,but yes.

              2. Oh man, that thread is so funny:

                Link here.

                “Ah, the posters on this site are once again proving they rank right next to those on Democratic Underground as far as class is concerned.
                Now all we need is another story about a cop getting killed so that the people on here can claim he deserved it. That would vault you guys right past the people on DU who cheer Tony Snow’s cancer and into first place in the “Most Vile pieces of shit who post on a political website” category. Now that I think about it Ron Paul is in fact the perfect fit for this site. His vile bigotry goes well with some of the sentiments expressed on this site. Jolly good show.”

                “Wow. Uh, yeah, “at least as insulting,” oh, certainly. I like the way the phrase even leaves open the possibility that “welshed” could be MORE insluting than referring to Asian women as “slant slit.”

                I don’t know how people manage to be so incredibly clueless about this stuff. I once a room-mate who swore up and down that there was no racist connotation to using the phrase “nnigger-lipped” to refer to leaving saliva on the rim of a soda bottle. Honet to God, he mean it, he was genuinely shocked that anyone could be offended.

                Where do these people come from, that they are so clueless about this stuff?”

            2. Reminds me a night at our usual watering hole 30 some years ago. Drinking beer and shots.

              Very attractive young lady with very tight white slacks gets near us looking for a toddy. Very tight slacks reveal a definite camel toe.

              So my smartass buddy looks at her and says , “Miss, you better feed that thing some meat, it’s starting to eat your pants” or something close to that. We nearly fell our bar stools we were laughing so hard.

              People now days take everything way too fucking seriously. My buddy got slapped, that made it funnier and everyone got home alive.

        2. To put it in contemporary perspective: what does ritalin do? What kind of drug is it and what are the expected effects? Back in the ’70s, decade I never reached the legal voting age in, more people could tell you what a quaalude was and what the expected effects would be. They even had a Quincy episode about it. You still hear constant cultural references to the drug which has been essentially unobtainable since about 1981.

  16. Something that amuses me about the left (not that only leftists believe in global warming): they’ll get excited about THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD (sort of, by some fraction of a degree) and THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS about the temperature in 50 years, but when it comes to the national debt, pshaw! That’s merely trillions of dollars, growing all the time by hundred of billions! Why be scared of a little debt? Those entitlement programs aren’t projected to be broke for decades! And all we have to do is raise taxes!

    But a fraction of a degree warming every year: OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!

    1. And all we have to do is raise taxes!

      We have all the money we’ll ever need so long as we have paper and ink. When that’s gone we can make $Trillion coins till we run out of antimony and zinc.

    2. OK, there’s validity here, and it’s much the same that as an atheist, I’m not concerned if some troglodyte wants to keep her kid home to preach that the world began at 3 minutes after coffee break last year; it’s not fair to the kid, but then I can’t see it as worse than indoctrinating a kid with 12 years of ‘ain’t the government the most wunnerful thing in the world, and you owe it everything!’. Hey, look at the damage it’s caused Tony.
      But if you don’t address the claim, it’s easy to see how you can be accused of changing the subject, for the same reason we need to address the claims of that tired old fantasist in the funny hats: Their wrong, but ignoramuses listen to them and that affects who uses the guns for what.

      1. (con’t)
        Addressing the GW bullshitters is tough, but possible:
        1) How well do the data match the predictions?
        2) Assuming it’s warming by a curve more closely matching the data than the predictions, can you show where and how that is a net loss to humanity?
        3) If you are proposing some government blanket action, please provide a cost/benefit analysis, including the same for variations on either side.
        Admittedly, religionists like Jack (above) will not be convinced; he and others have now found their identity in such bleefs. We can ignore them and deal with a good bit of the population who by now is yawning over the next claim about how the SF Bay is gonna inundate the Berkeley City Hall and drown all the council members! (Hey, we can all dream).
        And again, youse south-landers: Hy yourselves to the La Brea tar pits and spring the $15 for the movie. There are missed chances in it (no mammoths running down Wilshire Blvd, to be ambushed by saber-toothed cats jumping out at S, Fairfax? For shame!), but it’s not bad.

    3. Just give your camel two qualudes for every degree over 50C

  17. OK, there is no Greek thread this evening, so:

    Hollande has been making typical frog noises about ‘gee, can’t we give ’em a whole lot more of your money?’, while Merkel has been playing the iron lady with a whole lot of skill.
    So the (“EMERGENCY MEETING!”: Guardian headline) dinner chat between Merkel and Hollande ends and, of course, they are both in favor of not starving the wymens, chillens and minoreties of Greece, but the devil is in the details:
    “Merkel, Hollande Say Greece Needs Proposals for Brussels Meeting on Crisis”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB…..1800098484

    Here’s how I read it:
    “OK, Tsipras, you fired that ass of a minister, but the new one don’t look a whole lot smarter. Tell you what; you show up on our doorstep tomorrow with a plan you think we might find acceptable, and we’ll look it over and we might let you in.”
    I think the Eurocrats are pissed about Tsipras ego-sop vote and are willing to extract a pound of flesh over it.

    1. “”OK, Tsipras, you fired that ass of a minister, but the new one don’t look a whole lot smarter. Tell you what; you show up on our doorstep tomorrow with a plan you think we might find acceptable, and we’ll look it over and we might let you in.””

      Wait, Varoufakis resigned? That’s fucking hilarious.

  18. Prominent Demotard on the 1st Amendment:

    -The 1st Amendment protects only individuals, not KKKorprashuns, when it comes to campaign speech.

    -The 1st Amendment protects only “institutions of faith,” not “businesses and individuals,” when it comes to religious freedom.

    Heads she wins, tails you lose.

    http://mediatrackers.org/wisco…..ndividuals

    1. Holy shit a team blue wymnz pol stupider than Nancy Pelosi. That takes some doing, next thing you know she’ll be Senate majority leader.

  19. Woman has miscarriage at over four months, blames the Catholic hospital where she went for treatment.

    Her genius ACLU lawyers sue the bishops, not the hospital. Because the real problem here is that the Catholic Church opposed the purposeful killing of human beings.

    A federal judge threw out the suit, basically saying, “if you have a problem with your medical care, the remedy is a malpractice suit against the doctor or hospital which gave you your medical care, not against prolife bishops.”

    http://www.mlive.com/news/musk…..woman.html

      1. I see you, baby, shaking that asterisk:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfCMiFJ7a8

        I will make a note of the fact that FD’a has no interest in news stories about the First Amendment.

        That’s OK, FD’a, there’s still nine amendments in the Bill of Rights left!

      2. Vonnegut reference?

  20. 22-year old who played Gaston at Disney World accidentally kills self after strapping fireworks to head:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..story.html

    Darwin Award?

    1. You might claim that to be an “accident” as opposed to, what, a “Greek Referendum”?, but, hey, tough.
      Nothing you didn’t deserve, pal. Ask your mom for sympathy.

      1. A few years ago, in a rare moment of actual comedy, John Stewart mocked Greece. He said the Greeks gave us philosophy, democracy, the scientific method, but there is one thing they could never figure out:

        math

      2. Also: alcohol & fireworks? It’s a winning combination.

    2. Dude did the same thing in Billings on the Fourth….co winners?

    3. Nobody blows their skull apart with a bomb like Gaston!

      1. Well, the movie Gaston died in act of macho bravado, so I guess it all fits.

        I never liked that movie. Why did the servants get punished with transformation? It wasn’t their fault their boss was a jerk. The fairy godmother had nothing better to do than to go around cursing people for not helping a beggar? Bitch, it’s his fucking castle. He doesn’t owe you anything. If you have such a hard-on for beggars, here’s an idea: go use your own fucking magic powers to help them. But oh no, can’t do that. Gotta fuck up the lives of a few dozen people, including at least one child. Who’s the real beast here? It’s not the prince.

  21. So, Ronald, not sure if you saw this, but Mercer Consulting, one of the preeminent business consulting firms in the world, just issued a new report called “Investing in a Time of Climate Change.” In the introduction, they say:

    “Climate change is an environmental, social and economic risk, expected to have its greatest impact in the long term. But to address it, and avoid dangerous temperature increases, change is needed NOW. Investors cannot therefore assume that economic growth will continue to be heavily reliant on an energy sector powered predominantly by fossil fuels.”

    They issue it because they KNOW businesses are going to be impacted…they predict industry will be hardest hit. That climate change is going to cost a lot of money.

    Scientists get it, businesses get it, even religions are getting it. You know who doesn’t get it? Libertarians. You’ll be the last to know. Barry Ritholtz, who owns his own wealth management firm, said this in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

    “In the real world, climate-change deniers are and will be giant money losers. Those who doubt global warming is real will soon be greeted by a brutal Darwinian result in the markets. I don’t make many forecasts, but here is one: It is only a matter of time before the deniers exist only in think tanks funded by the fossil-energy industry and oddball conspiracy groups.”

    He nailed it…he is calling out Reason and the conspiracy theorists here. But what does he know…he’s just a businessman.

      1. Who cares what an HR benefits consultant thinks about this topic? Worthless post.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.