Jump to content

NOAA says 2014 was warmest year worldwide on record


AUDub

Recommended Posts

I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"?

Sorry I missed this.

This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see.

No problem.

Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story.

FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom.

What "hysteria"? I get my information on AGW from scientifically respected sources. I haven't seen any hysteria from them.

I wasn't necessarily calling out anyone here as I typed that. My mind was more on society as a whole where you have sides that try to shout down the the opposition, or shame the opposition and no real reasonable debate takes place. The sides look more to score points than actually discuss anything rationally. And, I fully admit that I have attempted to score points on here before. Right, wrong, or indifferently...

My problem was the implied proposition that the scientific community - which after all, is the source of our information - was being hysterical by simply reporting it or in making projections of what the implications are.

"Hysterical" is a loaded word and should be always be supported by example. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That's fair. They definitely should have mentioned the probabilities in the headline. Maybe "NOAA says there were good odds that 2014 was the warmest year on record."

​a 38% probability is not good odds. That is less than a coin flip.

NCDC says 48%. I'm wondering where The Daily Mail got that number.

Wow, so we know as accurately as a coin flip whether or not we actually have a warming cycle?

So, we either do or we dont?

Well that really cleared things right up... :drippingsarcasm7pa:

No, the subject is whether or not 2014 is the warmest year recorded.

It must be terrible - or maybe reassuring - to always be confused.

Okay, my bad on the semantics.

Let me try again:

Wow, so we know as accurately as a coin flip whether or not we actually had the hottest year on record?

So, we either did or we didnt?

Well that really cleared things right up... :drippingsarcasm7pa:

Are all the stats recorded in the AGW Debate this squishy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"?

Sorry I missed this.

This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see.

No problem.

Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story.

FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom.

What "hysteria"? I get my information on AGW from scientifically respected sources. I haven't seen any hysteria from them.

I wasn't necessarily calling out anyone here as I typed that. My mind was more on society as a whole where you have sides that try to shout down the the opposition, or shame the opposition and no real reasonable debate takes place. The sides look more to score points than actually discuss anything rationally. And, I fully admit that I have attempted to score points on here before. Right, wrong, or indifferently...

My problem was the implied proposition that the scientific community - which after all, is the source of our information - was being hysterical by simply reporting it or in making projections of what the implications are.

"Hysterical" is a loaded word and should be always be supported by example. IMO.

Your interpretation of what I implied is wrong, sir. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"?

Sorry I missed this.

This is silly tabloid click bait. They're acting like they got the NOAA to admit to some scandal and revealing information that was intentionally kept hidden, when in fact it is right there on the NCDC's website for the world to see.

No problem.

Yeah, I get that but none of the media outlets I read or heard mentioned the details. They just seemed to run with the headline. I think that's the point for a lot of people. While some may run with "TDM got them to admit..." some also want to point out that "warmest year ever" isn't the whole story.

FTR, I think we need to take care of our planet I just don't buy into the hysteria that some want to push. I wish there would be a REAL public discussion without all the hyperbole and fandom.

What "hysteria"? I get my information on AGW from scientifically respected sources. I haven't seen any hysteria from them.

I wasn't necessarily calling out anyone here as I typed that. My mind was more on society as a whole where you have sides that try to shout down the the opposition, or shame the opposition and no real reasonable debate takes place. The sides look more to score points than actually discuss anything rationally. And, I fully admit that I have attempted to score points on here before. Right, wrong, or indifferently...

My problem was the implied proposition that the scientific community - which after all, is the source of our information - was being hysterical by simply reporting it or in making projections of what the implications are.

"Hysterical" is a loaded word and should be always be supported by example. IMO.

Your interpretation of what I implied is wrong, sir. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth warms, the earth cools, some years are warmer than others, some are cooler. Sometimes we have more hurricanes than normal, sometimes we have none. Such is nature. It's cyclical. The earth will regulate itself, it always does, and it always will. It has proven this through many, many millennia. Relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth warms, the earth cools, some years are warmer than others, some are cooler. Sometimes we have more hurricanes than normal, sometimes we have none. Such is nature. It's cyclical. The earth will regulate itself, it always does, and it always will. It has proven this through many, many millennia. Relax.

You've had this explained to you many times before, Weegs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth warms, the earth cools, some years are warmer than others, some are cooler. Sometimes we have more hurricanes than normal, sometimes we have none. Such is nature. It's cyclical. The earth will regulate itself, it always does, and it always will. It has proven this through many, many millennia. Relax.

You've had this explained to you many times before, Weegs.

And yet the earth is still here, regulating herself as she always has. She has proven me to be correct. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the earth is still here, regulating herself as she always has. She has proven me to be correct. :)

Of the 4.6 billion years the earth has existed, we have been around for about 1,000,000. Earth will likely still be around long after we're gone.

Do you know what happens when the climate changes too rapidly for life to adapt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the earth is still here, regulating herself as she always has. She has proven me to be correct. :)/>

Of the 4.6 billion years the earth has existed, we have been around for about 1,000,000. Earth will likely still be around long after we're gone.

Do you know what happens when the climate changes too rapidly for life to adapt?

For humans, animals, plantlife...which?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the earth is still here, regulating herself as she always has. She has proven me to be correct. :)/>

Of the 4.6 billion years the earth has existed, we have been around for about 1,000,000. Earth will likely still be around long after we're gone.

Do you know what happens when the climate changes too rapidly for life to adapt?

For humans, animals, plantlife...which?

All of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, if that were to ever happen. What's your point?

Species are already dying out left and right. Google "Holocene Extinction Event."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, if that were to ever happen. What's your point?

Species are already dying out left and right. Google "Holocene Extinction Event."

Amazingly, as these "mass" extinctions occur, over 1000 "new" species have been found in New Guinea. And that is just in a ten year span.As I said, the earth is quite a tough and salty old girl.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks/new-species-discovered-in-new-guinea-110627.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, if that were to ever happen. What's your point?

Species are already dying out left and right. Google "Holocene Extinction Event."

Amazingly, as these "mass" extinctions occur, over 1000 "new" species have been found in New Guinea. And that is just in a ten year span.As I said, the earth is quite a tough and salty old girl.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks/new-species-discovered-in-new-guinea-110627.htm

And yet, by some estimates, up to 140,000 species per year are eradicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report's author, Arizona State entomologist Quentin Wheeler, there could be another 10 million species still completely unknown to science that still await discovery, but even that figure may be hopelessly low. Recent discoveries suggest far more genetic diversity, and thus more species diversity, than previously imagined, and Wheeler says this could mean another 20 million species await discovery - and that's justthe marine microbes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point, Weegs, is that, as fast as we are discovering these new species, it is very likely they are dying out much faster than we are uncovering them. Maybe millions of uniques creatures in a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the report's author, Arizona State entomologist Quentin Wheeler, there could be another 10 million species still completely unknown to science that still await discovery, but even that figure may be hopelessly low. Recent discoveries suggest far more genetic diversity, and thus more species diversity, than previously imagined, and Wheeler says this could mean another 20 million species await discovery - and that's justthe marine microbes.

And we could very likely be running right through them faster than we are discovering them. That, to me, is a disturbing thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said before, it will take something much, much, much more powerful than mere humans to destroy a space body that has endured constant thrashing for millions of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet science says that there could be over 20 million new species yet to be discovered. She just keeps re-generating herself.

These species are not just popping up overnight. You don't end up with millions of new species spontaneously evolving over the course of a few decades, Weegs. If we eradicate 1.4 million in a decade, 1.4 million do not evolve to fill that niche on any measurable timeframe. They're simply gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet science says that there could be over 20 million new species yet to be discovered. She just keeps re-generating herself.

You don't have to destroy a planet to ravage its ecosystem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. You should know that. This planet has proven over millions of years, (if you are inclined to believe that the earth is that old), that she cannot and will not be destroyed by man or natural disaster. Only God Himself can do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't. We aren't as powerful as we like to think we are. You should know that.

Wrong wrong wrong. We are very capable of bringing about great change to our planet. We've wiped out entire species. Carved mountains to their cores in search of resources. Done many great and terrible things. We are very, very capable of wiping out the majority of our own race with the weapons we have in our arsenal right now.

This planet has proven over millions of years, (if you are inclined to believe that the earth is that old), that she cannot and will not be destroyed by man or natural disaster. Only God Himself can do that.

Again, you do not have to destroy the planet to make our lives very difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going on the evidence, solid evidence. And that is the fact that the earth is still here, thriving, bursting with new species every year, and outliving the all-powerful mighty human being. What more evidence do you need? A Princeton study on hypotheticals isn't needed for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...