
If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month - jgv
http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/
======
forgotAgain
Too bad such an important topic is covered by such a shitty post. Obviously
the expert source referenced in the article
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/10> is referring to global average
temperature.

------
nostrademons
Average over what timescale? If you take it back 250 million years, then every
human being alive has seen _only_ colder than average months.

~~~
unabridged
Just about to post something similar. So much of the global warming rhetoric
is just FUD for people who don't understand statistics. For people claiming to
know that the increase in temperature for the last 100 years is significant,
what is the standard deviation of the change in global temperature over 100
year periods for the last 100k years?

~~~
rm999
>what is the standard deviation of the change in global temperature over 100
year periods for the last 100k years?

I see your point, but we don't have that information and probably never will.
We don't have strongly statistically significant measurements until ~1600. But
we have to operate with some uncertainty to make decisions worth trillions of
dollars.

We know the increases we've seen in the past century are of a much higher
magnitude than what we saw in the few centuries before that. We believe this
is true for at least 1000 years back (see the hockey stick curves). We know
the increases in the past 100 years are correlated with human actions,
especially greenhouse gas emissions. It is (IMO) common sense to hypothesize
this correlation is a causation; we know the causation doesn't go the other
way, and we know there are no confounding factors (i.e. the same thing that
caused the heating caused us to emit way more greenhouse gases). This is where
climate change skeptics attack, which is unfair because it is impossible to
prove a causation. If we assume the correlation is a causation, we know the
increases we have seen would not have naturally existed. And this is what
matters to many scientists.

The increases are not "significant" in the statistical sense per se, they are
significant in the possible effects on our world.

~~~
zalew
> we don't have that information and probably never will

[http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-
picture-65-million-...](http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-
picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/)

~~~
rm999
It's not useful to compare 65 million years of data + huge error bars with
1000 years + medium error bars with 100 years + tiny error bars. The
uncertainty of what was happening 50000 years ago may very well be greater
than the changes we are worrying about in the past century (I don't know this
for sure, I can't find error estimates in your link).

------
recursive
This title is nonsensical. The temperatures referred to are global averages.
Yet the only ones people can actually experience are local temperatures, which
sometimes are lower than average.

~~~
pessimizer
It's even less relevant for people who don't go outside. The only temperatures
they ever experience are set to their own personal preferences, or the
preferences of their caretakers.

~~~
jlgreco
Or the harsh whims of building maintenance. I wonder what percentage of
thermostats sold in the world are the ones in offices not wired to anything...

------
johngunderman
How is this "beyond astonishing"? 27 years is minuscule on in a geologic time
scale. Climate trends are measured in hundreds and thousands of years, if not
more.

------
schoper
And between April 1889 and October 1925, there wasn't a single warmer-than-
average month.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

An interesting anomaly is the warming between the 1860s and 1940s. Especially
given the comparatively slight amount of CO2 released in those decades
compared to our own.

Temperature norms may move across greater timescales than just 100-150 years.
Of course, if we were to explore that, the discussion goes off the rails into
talk about the "MWP," "historical reconstructions," "Mann, et al.," and other
murkily useless topics for internet bulletin boards.

------
zalew
> _above the 20th century average_

so, we're 12 years into this century, and he's comparing to a 100 years span.
27 years which means 15 years of the last century. selective number picking.
meaningless post, move on.

------
bdfh42
Unless you live in the UK or France (to my certain knowledge) and probably a
huge chunk of the world beyond that.

~~~
Avshalom
It appears to mean a global average.

~~~
bdfh42
Which underlines the lack of any meaningful truth in the key statement.

~~~
glhaynes
Why? (Unless they somehow live wholly isolated from global temperature
affecting their experience.)

~~~
jlgreco
One might question how you could "experience" a global average temperature,
unless perhaps you travel a _whole_ lot.

This is an important topic, but _"If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never
experienced a colder-than-[global]-average month"_ strikes me as a rather
silly statement.

