Slashdot Mirror
NASA Says 2010 Tied For Warmest Year On Record
An anonymous reader writes "It may not seem like it, but 2010 has tied 2005 as the warmest year since people have been keeping records, according to data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. That difference is so small that it puts them in a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880." Adds jamie: "This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average — 0.62 +/- 0.07 C above, to be precise. It was the wettest year on record too, according to the Global Historical Climatology Network."
Let the flamewar begin!
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
So that's the most recent 1.3% of the time that's passed since the end of the last ice age.
NASA also put out a piece comparing different findings by different organizations, explaining the differences and why they aren't a big deal. The articles also states that year-to-year measures aren't particularly useful - not only are 2010 and 2005 very close, but the next six are also very similar to each other - but looking at it decade by decade (i.e. a larger sample size) gives far more meaning:
On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. "It is the underlying trend that is important."
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
So, anyone got any leads on where all this heat is going? If the global average atmospheric temperature is the highest on record, surely that energy must be showing up somewhere? Or is this just showing the pointlessness of this particular measure of climate?
I mean, it'd be pretty silly if we had 100 years straight of 1 deg C temperature gains with no detectable change in weather or climate. That would tell us we're not measuring something relevant.
Couldn't have anything to do with the urbanization that occurred between 1880 and 2011 could it?
Notable lack of numbers on any specific years. Probably because they've written a trend line for where the temperature should be to make the claim that every decade has been warmer-- when we know that this is a lie, and temperatures have not risen since 1998. Either that, or they were mistaken two years ago when they said that other factors like reduced solar activity were counteracting the expected warming.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Warmest on record where they keep the thermometers over blacktop as well. LOL Where is global warming when we need it. Snow in every state except Florida.
Luckily few people without some kind of vested interest in this believes a word of this any more.
Frankly you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to after so many years and no evidence whatsoever.
I fully expect to be sitting here in my house in the year 2030 shivering in the snow being told that it's the 50th consecutive hottest year on record
(And that's why we have to pay more tax again....)
Sorry but no... Just no
It gets hot, steamy, wet and wild!!!
Doesn't seem like that, here in Norway, with our 8 degrees celcius below average in December! How about sending a little of that warmth up north?
You think man can destroy the earth? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the complex creatures in the sea, on the land.
...
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.
A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
--Michael Crichton, Prologue to Jurassic Park, 1990
It was the wettest year on record. There you have it folks, Global Warming is an answer to our Fresh Water needs.
Here's the temperature plotted over the last 32 years http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate not as dramatic as you might think.
Mods, before you mod me down simply because you don't like what I have to say, consider this: I have a friend with, among other things, a Masters in Statistical Inference. I ran this idea past him, recently, and he agreed. I'm not just throwing mud, or trying to confuse the issue, I'm pointing out a legitimate flaw in their methodology.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The skeptic blogs continuously catch NASA revising older temperatures down. 1998 has been the hottest year on record... Now 2005/2010 is? This article from a skeptic blog concedes that 2010 was hot, but the included graph shows 2005 no where hear 1998/2010. What is the point of mislabeling 2005? Does a 5 year gap lend more credence to AGW than a 12 year gap?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
without some idea of the error in the measurments, hard to tell what a change of x deg F means
Summary is wrong: the difference was actually 0.018 degrees Rankine, not Fahrenheit.
Sheesh, don't these article-summary writers know anything about Science...?
Do these people have any idea how old the Earth actually is?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.
The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain.
Oh, wait.....
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Depending which cycle you believe, 2010 was also predicted (I dont' think official numbers are out yet) to be a peak year in solar activity for not only this decade, but for the last 80 years. No matter which model you believe, the sun runs on an 11 year cycle, and we are at the peak of the current cycle right now. As I recall, that was a motivating factor for getting some of the more recent satellites up into orbit that have been monitoring the sun's activity the last few years.
Pretty cool insight into Solar Variation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
NOAA said "tied". Japan said "second highest". UAH says "tied" with 1998.
That's not what the media wants. When you need a really good headline you go to Hanson. He never hesitates to hand-wave statistical error and say "hottest" on cue.
I dare say we didn't have a proper summer... and may indeed be having a proper winter.
It's is now "global climate change". That way it doesn't matter if the planet is getting warmer or colder. As long as it is changing the "global climate change" proponents will be correct. Sort of like betting on both black and red on the roulette table. You only lose if 0 (or 00) comes up.
Thank you for your attention. You may now return to the "yes it is/no it isn't/its fucking cold out/weather is not climate you moron" flame war.
Antarctic ice is high, over the 30 year average. Up north, the trend is down, but the total is about constant for over 30 years.
The sea level has been rising for hundreds of years, and the rate is NOT accelerating.
The hottest year game is of little use, the hottest year (until Hansen starting adjusting the old data down) was in the 1930s.
I can supply urls for all this, or you can dig a bit, there is no catastrophic climate change, just mother nature doing what she has been doing for millions of years.
Yeah and when life was the most abundant on earth, it was between 4-7C warmer and the CO2 was in the 20 times as much as today.
Agreed, life will adapt. Even we can probably adjust to hotter climates in a few hundred thousand years if the cull rate is high enough (but of course not too high.) Of course, there's a limit to how hot mammals can tolerate and still produce viable sperm but evolution has done wonders in the past.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Well that does it. Please government, double my taxes! Send the extra to the scientific elites. They know what's best for me.
(Frankly, I don't give a piss about the climate as long as I have gas for my Chevy Tahoe!)
an ill wind that blows no good
NASA, GISS and James Hansen have been busted before (by amateurs) for being wrong several times :
Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data
NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.
GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.
Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.
An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data..
Steve McIntyre informed GISS (run by Hansen) of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13410&red=y#366381
NOAA has been singled out for calling 2010 the warmest year using faulty data
NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/noaas-jan-jun-2010-warmest-ever-missing-data-false-impressions/
Global Cooling!!!
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
is the dollar per degree of temperature effectiveness given the state of green tech? Really, how many trillions do we have to spend to affect each .1 degree K?
Shouldn't be too hard to calculate, given that this is science we are talking about, right?
damaged by dogma
I heard that CO2 level have been dropping for a very, very long time and look to continue to decline as carbon is sequestered at the bottom of the ocean. I ask because this is not my area of expertise, and I was hoping that someone who is more of an authority might be able to comment. The researcher whose perspective I am parroting here used Hawaii as an example, pointing out how the massive rainfall and runoff causes carbon to be washed deep into the ocean. It was enough to cause one to wonder about the future of plants! LOL! This might all be more junk science, but I thought that it was ironic. Ah well, let's have some pie.
The Polar Ice packs are breaking apart and that formerly collected and frozen moisture bound in Salt and more is being recycled into the Atmosphere and Global Heat Redistribution is running amuck in it's extremes [beyond acceptable tolerance ranges of historic data] and thus one day you have floods and massive snow storms followed by massive drought in areas that normally have none of these behaviors.
about how you can accept Jesus into your life. oops, wrong thread. I'd like to talk to you about the (reality|deceptiveness) of climate change. Funny how both raise the hackles the same way. Why is that?
I keep seeing people saying that temperatures have not risen since 1998, but nobody ever cites any real data to back up that assertion. Care to step up?
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/global-temperature-trend-upate
Both sides of this debate _outside_ of the scientific community are disturbingly simplistic. On the one hand we've got the chicken littles who blame _every_ major weather event on global warming. The flooding here in Australia is point-in-case - we are in the grip of a very strong La Nina event, climatologists might argue that it is particularly strong because of an underlying warming trend but the floods themselves are due solely to La Nina. On the other hand we have the "temperatures haven't risen since 1998 crowd", well the graph provided here shows a clear upward _trend_ in temperatures since 2000 and when you take into account the local minima and maxima (Mt. Pinatubo and El Nino) there is an obvious upwards trend over the whole graph. Come on people, this is basic high school math.
News for nerds... I don't think so.
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
Regardless, don't live at or especially below, sea level and it won't be a problem.
And Global Warming means less people will freeze and there will be more places that plants can grow.
More plants=more veggies=more food=less starvation (assuming that dictators feed their subjects...but I digress)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Page 244
(warning: the pdf is 24 MB, so it takes a significant amount of time to download)
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
:(){
Year-to-year?
http://www.surfacestations.org/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
or are they still taking reading off of stations that are too close to AC vents, blacktop parking lots or similar things that would alter the temperature readings?
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/weather_stations/
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The Earth, dear old Terra, is around 4 billion years old. That is about 114,000 times older than modern humans. If one were to scale that time to an average human lifetime, modern humans have been around for the last 5 days of the Terra's life.
People looking at the last 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 years of climate aren't looking at a statistically significant sample of data. When one gets a statistically significant amount of data, one sees that we are living in a remarkably stable period and for most Terra's history, there have been massive climate changes.
What people are really saying is that they want things to continue on in a way favorable for themselves. The simple fact is that while climate change might kill off a lot of species including humans, but it won't end all life, let alone destroy the Earth.
There will life here again. It just won't be you and that pisses you off. This entire thing is about the over-sized collective ego of the human race.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. We have only been keeping track for 100 years of that, or 0.00000002% of the time! Warmest year on record, please....... who cares, just live and wonder why. damn....
I don't think we can get rid of all the idiots in our governments in time to save ourselves.
And I used to NOT be a doomsayer, I was sure we'd get through this.
But we are watching a (an almost beautifully classic) chaotic system do what chaotic systems - those with strange attractors - do.
Temperature rise, acidic oceans, warm oceans powering giant storms, upset ocean currents causing droughts here and floods/freezes there, melting sea ice introducing more liquid water into the system, melting land ice slowly raising ocean levels - these are all parameters. In a chaotic system, one never knows when the right (wrong) parameter will be pushed just that bit too far and the system will jump to a new stable attractor. One we probably won't like.
I like warm weather. I like water. Sounds like a win-win situation.
No doubt its been getting warmer for the past 200 years. But, as an engineer, I question our ability to measure average global surface temperature to +/- 0.07 C. Such a measurement system would be an amazing engineering accomplishment. I don't question that the temperature anomaly for 2010 was 0.62, what I question is the asserted measurement error of +/- 0.07. I would accept a number of something like 0.62 +/- 0.50 with only a bit of skepticism. At +/- 0.25 my BS detector goes off. At +/-0.07 my rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-that-people-could-be-so-gullible reaction takes over.
I only live 80 years, so I don't really care about 400, 11,000, or 400,000. It's getting warmer. It's affecting things. This is bad.
You're saying that it will eventually swing back to cold... in a few hundred to thousand years. Well, I guess I'll just wait it out then....
Look, everyone... We all have "that friend who says X". Ya know what? People form their opinions first, then find data to support it. Meanwhile, it's getting warmer. This is rather undeniable.
Oh wait. I guess we said it ended sooner.. Well, at least we can celebrate for our ancestors that had to suffered through the coldest years, not recorded with a thermometer. At least we will have more drinking water, thank you evaporation.
Seriously, aren't we overdue for an Ice Age? Maybe we've indirectly saved ourselves from thousands of years of frozen tundra!
This is one scenario. Here's another.
1. pine beetles (highly specialized insects that prey on one species of tree) attack pine trees (to be more accurate, they attack the species of conifer that they specialize in).
2. Many pine trees die
3. Another species of tree moves in to take their place. The ecosystem adjusts.
- aj
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/antony-watts-and-surface-stations-wait.html
Fandroids hate facts.
The sun did not dramatically decrease the amount of heat it sends toward the earth. The sun's heat output is remarkably constant. What has been happening is a lack of sunspots. Because that corresponds with a change in the sun's magnetic field, the amount of gamma rays reaching the earth has changed. That, in turn, changes the clouds which influences the earth's temperature. It is complicated but Piers Corbyn has pointed out that the conditions now wrt to the sun's activity and the phase of the moon are the same as they were 132 years ago and the weather is remarkably similar.
Something has been happening with the sun and it might (or might not) be influencing the earth's climate, but the sun isn't significantly cooler.
WE'RE GONNA ALL DIE!!!!111 WAH!
Vote Democrat to stop global warming...
"Please, Mister Obama, give us back our budget."
Strange how all those temperature records, despite very slight variations, are all in agreement.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
Almost as if there was only 1 version of reality. (Or some worldwide CONSPIRACY!!!1)
http://greyfalcon.net/ideology.png
But when people start migrating to new places to avoid the rising waters, or to find new farm land because their old farm land is now a desert, what do you think the people already living there are going to do?
There will be wars and genocide that make WW1 and WW2 look tame.
That's an extremely dishonest way to describe it. You make it sound like they threw out the less reliable data set and kept the good one, wow! what a great idea huh?!?!
In fact they used that tree ring data without caveat for most of the chart, then silently omitted it near the end of the sequence, substituting data from the other set only for those years where the data from the first set didnt fit their hypothesis. Then they labeled the chart so it looked like a single, reliable data set produced the whole sequence, and presented it to the world as such.
I find this line deliciously ironic. Perhaps you are not acquainted with the phenomenon of psychological projection?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
the same "climatologists" predicted that snow will become extremely rare and children would need to be taught about it so that they understand its cultural importance, all those old pictures of people skiing, skating, etc.:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
"Climate scientists" and journalists who listen to them must be "stupid people".
And I clearly remember when it was called "Global Warming", not "Global Climate Change", thank you very much :)
I just don't care what year is the warmest, coldest, wettest or driest. I'm tired of hearing about what the problem is and am now craving for people to talk about what we are going to do about it. Most of the time the "solutions" involve taxing me more so that the government can give that money to someone else. How about some real solutions.
First, the climate will change. The sea levels will rise and fall, ice will freeze and thaw. We need to develop the means to deal with that. It might be as simple as NOT doing something. Just don't rebuild in the part of the city that keeps getting flooded. Turn it into a park, a swamp, a cranberry bog, whatever. Just don't be stupid in city planning.
Next we need to come up with real solutions for not burning so much foreign oil. I personally think all this global warming rhetoric is a steaming pile of bullshit. What I can agree on is the need to become energy independent out of a need to grow our economy and avoid getting entangled in foreign matters that should not involve us.
If we are going to stop pumping so much CO2 into the air then we need to focus on the energy sources that are low in CO2. The energy sources in order of least CO2 output to highest are:
- Hydro-electric
- Nuclear
- Geothermal
- Wind
- Natural gas
- Solar (PV or thermal)
- Other fossil fuels
We've already dammed all the rivers worth a dam. Geothermal is very sensitive to location and cannot be useful everywhere. Iceland is full of good spots, the American Midwest is not so much. Nuclear reactors can be built just about anywhere and are safe, powerful, and reliable. New designs produce next to nothing for waste and can run off cheap thorium.
Wind and solar are not reliable, are expensive, and not really all that low on the CO2 output compared to other sources. They are also very sensitive to location. There is a lot of wind in the American Midwest and a lot of sun in the American Southwest, which is good for Chicago and Dallas but not so much for New York or Miami. With such long power lines there would be much lost in just the transmission lines. The materials for efficient wind and solar power requires highly refined materials such as silicon and aluminum which means a lot of energy in the front end to gain it back later. That means plenty of CO2 expelled to produce these energy sources. The CO2 output for the energy produced might be improved in time but RIGHT NOW nuclear power really outshines them all.
Some sources claim that even natural gas beat out solar power for CO2/energy ratio. Some claim it is a parity. Solar might beat out natural gas in CO2 produced but the cost of solar power is somewhere around double that of natural gas. Another great thing about natural gas is that we, in the USA, have plenty of it. We don't need anyone's permission to get it, we just need to go get it.
All the problems here are political. The government needs to do their damned job at let Americans produce power here so we aren't shipping our jobs and dollars to countries that don't like us so much. I don't give a fuck about global warming. I'm tired of hearing about global warming. We need people to shut up about global warming and start working on solutions.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
This tied as the warmest since records have been kept. 130 years worth of records, and the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, which is about NOTHING compared to the age of the earth. Couple that with stories of retreating ice melts revealing abandoned settlements which means it was WARMER then, than now. This man made global warming is nothing but a bunch of hogwash.
The fact that we have kept records since 1880 might seem like a long time to us but to the earth 130 years is like maybe 1 second to us.
The problem is that we have about as much chance at getting developing countries to reduce GHG emissions as we do of making them "democracies" - or stopping them from producing illegal drugs.
What do you suggest, then? We manage with "average incomes increase" and "average health" too. So why is it OK when sampling a large number (but still a small subset) of humans but not when doing so for temperatures?
Funny how the 2 warmest years followed by the next 5 warmest years are all within the last 10 years or so....global warming DOES EXIST, and whether because of all the methane from cows, or the cars people drive, or the hairspray...or even natural occurrence in the earth's climate system, it is here, and we now have to start realizing we need to figure out how to deal or live with it..
I'm going to try to inject as little politics into this as I can.
If there are 80,000,000 single family homes in the US, wouldn't it have been a far better use of that non-sense stimulus money (if it was to be spent at all) to buy a net metered solar system for all those homes? The US spent 1.2 T dollars on nothing. If you re-routed existing solar related federal funds to this program as well the feasibility gets even better. This would have created 'green' 'high tech' jobs while which makes everyone happy. This would have cut our 400,000,000,000 dollar oil trade deficit over time since energy demands would decline and domestic sources would make up more of a percentage of what we use. This would also please the global warming crowd by reducing C02 over time. Conservative minded people would not like the money being spent at all, but if it were to be spent this would be the most palatable (you could also tie in some opening of oil fields in currently locked out places to sweeten the deal). If people are still uncertain about the math, we spent 5.xx T in the past 2 years total so it's not like there isn't a piggy bank, but I think the stimulus and related funds would be enough.
Any thoughts?
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
The fact is, that everybody is looking to America to change our behaviours and supposedly, lead the way for others esp. China. There is zero chance of that happening. The reason is that Cap/Trade will not work here and will be economic suicide. Worse, it would actually INCREASE CO2, not lower it. The reason is that other 3rd world nations will try to grab business by developing like CHina does. That will lead to increased emissions, not lower.
In addition, the goal of dropping emissions PER CAPITA has to be one of the worst measures possible. That approach actually encourages more ppl per nation, not less. Instead, we need to limit the emissions on a per sq km basis. The amount of land is fixed in size, so, that takes into account environment, ppl, economy, etc. Basically, it allows a gov. to handle things directly.
With that in mind, there is a minimal number of solutions. Probably the best is for nations to tax goods based on where they come from and the emissions from those locations. And it has to include both local and imported goods. If America starts doing that, it will force ALL nations to seriously look at controlling their emissions. The reason is that America is the largest buyer of goods.
Few other solutions have the possibility of getting all nations on-board, helping 3rd world nations (nearly all have the lowest emissions on a per sq km basis), and keeping it low regardless of their economy.
windbourne
Citation needed because Otzi was not at home when he froze and the settlements in the north settle down in the tundra when it melts, to be frozen underneath the permafrost when it forms.
Neither case show human habitation was overtaken by glaciers which are now melting.
And, in other news, there's snow on the ground in 49 of 50 states. Florida being the exception
And yet, human CO2 contribution accounts for about 1% of global CO2 content.
You're telling me that humans are responsible for raising the CO2 levels to the highest level in 800,000 years?
Why don't we tackle real pollution that poisons everything from fish in the water to birds in the air, and let's start addressing the destruction of the environment, before we start addressing CO2...
I deny your "fact" on the basis that average temperature only makes sense for systems in thermal equilibrium. It may have meaning for systems not in thermal equilibrium, but it cannot be measured, no matter how advanced the technology used to attempt it.
The earth, does it really need to be said, is not in thermal equilibrium. It only has an average temperature in theory, but not in practice.
(the problem with non-equilibrium measurements is that they're always skipping parts of the system measured. Take the example of "how long is Britain's coastline". You might think this has a simple answer. But measure with a 1m ruler, and you get less than a tenth of the value when measured with a 0.5m stick. Measure before the tides comes in and Britain is almost 5% larger, ... With more accureate measurement, the athmosphere's measured "average" temperature may grow, or shrink, and dramatically so)
Global warming is a best-guess based on a LOT of assumptions, several of which are known to be wrong, like for example the basic statement that global (or local) temperatures can be reasoned about using statistics, even when it is known, since the 1950's that they don't obey the law of large numbers (if you measure the temperature +- 1 degree, then +- 0.5, then 0.25 and so on you do NOT get a converging series. Highly counterintuitive ... but known for a long while. Whoops ... so please any time you use any form of summarization, know that you are wrong. Global warming is a concept that cannot, not even in theory, be measured. Average temperature - likewise).
The only thing that is statistically somewhat approaching reasonable is the claim that, historically CO2 and Temperature increases are very likely linked. It is not reasonable, given the available theories, to assume either that this is still the case today, or that this trend will continue into the future.
Science does not have the answer to the question "how will chaotic system *x* behave ?", because that's impossible. We do not know this now, and we have proof that we will *never* know it. In 3500 A.D. they will STILL not be able to predict the climate, nor in 35000 A.D. We do NOT know what will happen to the climate, we only know what has happened historically, and we know that there can be no theory allows you to extrapolate the history of any chaotic system into the future.
But don't let the fact that you're wrongly interpreting basic mathematics, making claims *much* grander than what can possibly be considered reasonable, ignoring a LOT of problems, stand in the way of calling others dumb, okay ?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
pretty scary.
Is anyone monitoring the global barometric pressure? Everyone who goes to college, including Democrats, typically learns that pressure and temperature are effectively the same thing. Anyone have the stats? preferably overlaid on temperature statistics? --edfardos
I believe that Hansen's is the ONLY one of the 3 or 4 tracking studies that shows this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Thanks for proving me right. When I saw the header, I bet my coworker a cup of coffee that someone in 10 posts or less would try to use this data to attack 'deniers'.
You DO understand that the debate really centers on ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, right?
And GW != AGW, not by a long shot.
By the way, could you please point to a period in time when the climate DIDN'T change? Because I can point to several where it was significantly warmer than it is now...in fact, the vast majority of Earth's history. We're kind of in a cool-weather slump, so I challenge your implied assertion that this is abnormal for anything but modern man's conception of what the climate "should be".
-Styopa