Slashdot Mirror
The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record
New submitter NatasRevol (731260) writes The last three months were collectively the warmest ever experienced since record-keeping began in the late 1800s. From the article: "Taken as a whole, the just-finished three-month period was about 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average. That may not sound like much, but the added warmth has been enough to provide a nudge to a litany of weather and climate events worldwide. Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East." Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing.
bizwriter also wrote in with some climate related news: A new report from libertarian think tank Heartland Institute claims that new government data debunks the concept of global climate change. However, an examination of the full data and some critical consideration shows that the organization, whether unintentionally or deliberately, has inaccurately characterized and misrepresented the information and what it shows.
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
sudo apt-get install popcorn
...surely the recent "Polar Vortex" and cooler temps I am experiencing means that Global Warming is a hoax!!! Rush Limbaugh told me so.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Those aren't year over year increases, they are deltas from the 1951-1980 mean - and they have indeed been flat for a while.
C'mon, I believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat - but let's not make stuff up.
#DeleteChrome
Heartland Institute deliberately misrepresenting something to influence public policy? Surely you jest!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
It wasn't just Japan. According to the article, the Japan Meteorological Society did do a study that focused on Japan, but NASA ran a similar study using different methods that got virtually the same results in a completely different part of the world.
lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?
Certainly a link to ice measures from various places on Earth and a discussion of how various models have held up to measurement over the past decade, regarding their predictive value.
Oh, nevermind - shut up and pay your carbon tax.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Dear reality-based people,
You're talking to fantasy-based idiots who don't care about reality, they just want an excuse to keep treating Earth as an infinite resource and bottomless dump. They'll find an excuse to ignore this just like they find one to ignore all the rest. I'm sorry but the only thing that will make them shut up is when the changes punch the whole world in the teeth... Perhaps when I'm an old man and I tell stories about how California's central valley used to be one of the world's breadbaskets, and how the world's cities used to have beaches instead of shorewalls, and how the ocean used to teem with life before acidification killed most of the diatoms.
But at any rate, the idiots have "won" in that it's almost certainly too late to prevent some degree of disaster. All we can do now is treat the symptoms, and do our best to avoid any of the really bad ideas for treating them.
When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'
Miami is fucked. NYC, unless they build some wall, is fucked. So where are the debates on how to build the containment walls? Or the storm-proofed shelters? Or the projected increase in FEMA budget?
Or, you know, we could spin our wheels yet again bleeting on and on if humans caused this pickle or not. It doth not matter.
I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion
The problem is that Libertarians are against government regulation, but are theoretically for being forced to pay for fucking shit up. In practice, a lot of Libertarians fall into two camps: "I want to toke up whenever I want" and "I want to dump whatever I want on everyone else". That practice leads to things like this, where they are desperate to prove the shit coming out of their smokestacks and effluent drains smells like a rose, because then they can continue to claim that they fully support being held responsible for fucking shit up, good thing they aren't doing any damage to anyone else.
Yes, it certainly appears to be the famously-adjusted GISS data set, not "raw" data at all. I don't know for sure, but we haven't seen any evidence otherwise.
And if you notice, Bill, the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
Ah yes, all those super-rich climatologists picking on poor impoverished Big Oil.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Not really, as that statement is not a comparison of two single points. It's guaranteeing that all points on record are lower than the latest one.
CO2 does NOT absorb sunlight in significant quantities. It's lowest wavelength absorption band is in the short-wave IR where the solar incidence is already very weak.
What CO2 does that makes it a greenhouse gas is that it prevents long-wave IR emission from the Earth into space, therefore helping to keep some of the energy that reaches the Earth from leaving.
Please get your "facts" straight.
1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
The problem is that your "solutions" are wrong. CC is not a problem today, and will not be a problem tomorrow. But it will be a problem 30-100 years from now. In the long term the best way to reduce CC is population control ... and the best way to do that is third world education and poverty elimination ... and the best way to do that is to maximize economic growth ... and burning less hydrocarbons is NOT going to do that. A coal fired plant in Africa may emit more CO2 today, but it will improve people's lives, make them prosperous enough to educate their children, and lead to a lower population 50 years from now, this reducing CO2 emissions in the long run.
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
Actually the summary is fairly untainted by facts. For instance:
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?
Except...
1) Arctic sea ice is actually currently above last year's level, which was already a rebound of over 25 million square km more than the previous year at the minimum extents.
2) The ocean waters in the North Atlantic hurricane region are right around average for this time of year, by no means "abnormally warm".
3) "Rashes of heat waves plague" various places every summer, and always have. NOAA recently reinstated 1934 as the hottest year in the US on record.
The article attacking the Heartland data does have a minor point, but it is absolutely true that temperatures have been essentially flat for around 17 years, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers trying to explain this pause, so it's clearly a real phenomena. We'll see if it continues, the El Nino this year is now expected to be a fairly minor event.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I see that the GISS temperature series is quoted to maintain the "hottest quarter" narrative.
See for example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
Much of the data has been created by infilling gaps, homogenization, and other adjustments. They cool the past, add adjustments to the present, and drop stations out of the network creating a warming signal.
It is no coincidence that the cleanest most reliable temperature measurement system for the USA the CRN (climate reference network run by NOAA) shows NO warming over the last decade, confirming that there has been no warming as seen in other temperature records for 13-17 years. (The 17 year is a satellite record also without adjustments by the global warming partisans).
The CRN has triple redundant air aspirated sensors in pristine observation sites spread uniformly through out the USA, so no adjustments are needed. Despite CO2 rising. The computer models are broken. See...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
The claim that the latest X period is the warmest is like a 30 year old man claiming that the last 5 years of his life have been the tallest in his entire record. Yet hes is not growing anymore !
This looks like a temperature map of the WHOLE EARTH to me, found on the source site after about 10 seconds of terribly difficult clicking on a couple of buttons.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
It's a counter to the continuing lye that the temperature hasn't been increasing in the last decade.
There is no debate. It's happening, it's real, it's due to the excess CO2 human have been throwing into the air.
The debate we should be having is the best way to move forward with clean energy, and looking at any engineering ways we could reduce CO2 back to about 300ppm
Be we aren't having those becasue people keep lying and denying scientific facts.
There is a reason denier don't actually talk about the scientific facts, but instead lye and cherry pick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is the last sentence of the first article good enough for you?
In April, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a monthly average of 400 parts per million for the first time in at least 800,000 years.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I thought the MWP was a full three degrees warmer then the 1990's. Which were warmer then now.
What you think, is, of course, your own problem (although the "a full three degrees warmer" must come from some very creative interpretation of the record). But how do you get the ideas that the 1990's were warmer than it is now? The 1990s were about 0.2 degree C colder than 2013, and this year will most likely be warmer still. There was one exceptional year (1998) that was marginally warmer than 2013. Of course, these short-term trends are heavily influenced by noise, so the significance of these results is low. But that's no reason to make wrong claims.
Stephan
When the word "globally" is used in context with a subject that directly affects the globe, it's not a metaphor for (local) completeness, it means "everywhere on the globe." This is basic English.
It's been a consistently cool and wet spring and summer in the northern plains of the USA. This data is relative to the region of the northern plains, and is comprehensive within that region, but not globally. This data cannot, by itself, be interpreted as a global indicator, regardless of if it agrees or disagrees with the global data. One would not say "It has been globally cool and wet" based upon data for the northern plains.
Global climate data (you know, for the globe) will include data from all regions of the globe in order to determine a global average weather datum of any kind -- temperature, rainfall, etc. Anything less is regional. "It has been regionally cool and wet in the US northern plains this spring and summer."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Err, the first chart you've linked to shows the sea ice curve being shifted progressively lower on the chart with each passing year.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I love going out with my climate scientist friends! We hit the town at about 9:00, pop open the Dom Perignon and hit the clubs. We usually roll up in a stretch Hummer while they scream out the window "We're climatoligists, bitches!" At the strip club they'll usually make it precipitate with hundred dollar bills, much to the enjoyment of the strippers. After a few well-meaning puns (let me show you my hockey stick graph), we'll head back to the champagne room for cocaine and asthma inhalers. These scientists are rolling in so much money, fame, and 'tang that it's not surprising that 97% of them are so out of it that they reach a consensus on climate change.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from temperatures being fairly steady (e.g. a fairly small positive growth rate) over the past decade-ish. The preceding hundred years have been a very steady upward trend, and if that was some sort of fluke wouldn't the temperature have started regressing to the mean by now? It seems more likely to me that whatever long-scale effects are causing the upward trend have been attenuated by some short-term system.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If I raised your core body temperature by 2C indefinitely you would eventually keel over and die. Don't underestimate small changes when they act globally.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You have two religious factions bickering. No amount of evidence for either Global Warming or the opposite will ever convince anyone. So here's my suggestion:
If you think Global Warming is real, move inland and arm yourself to shoot those that try to follow once the waters rise.
If you think Global Warming is a myth, move to the shores and enjoy the surprisingly cheap real estate.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your second chart shows a positive temperature anomaly over most of the area covered.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"And every time we have an unusual hurricane, the people who were saying 'weather is not climate' point at the hurricane and say 'see, proof positive of global warming!'
No, actually we don't. The most anyone credible will say is that a warmer climate might mean more intense and more frequent storms.
What gets me about cherry picking is that it's so common among the deniers that(from what I've seen and tried to understand of their behavior) they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
I'm not sure how a level that's still lower than almost all of the years that preceded it is "a significant rebound". If I was getting shorter by a foot a decade and one year I found I grew by an inch, I'd not take much solace in the fact.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The raw data shows the same warming trend. And the adjustments are there for a good reason - otherwise the deniers would be complaining even more about the heat island effect and siting / instrumentation problems than they even are today (oh, and to head people off, the warming trend gets even stronger when you outright remove the "bad", "artificially hot" meteorological stations the deniers complain about). And all of the adjustments are cross-checked by a variety of peer-reviewed verification methods. For example, the heat island effect on stations is (among other methods) cross-checked by comparing windy days with still days, as wind greatly reduces the heat island effect.
In short, to anyone who thinks they've got some killer reason why the adjustments are wrong, simply write a paper, go through peer-review like everyone else has to do, and viola, you're part of the actual scientific debate and I'll take you seriously. Until then...
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.
This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
Need Mercedes parts ?
I'm repeating a few things others have said in reply to your post but adding on here to help fill up your /. side bar...
1) Like the first guy said, your chart shows sea ice area is clearly near the bottom. The summary says "trending near", not absolute lows. So you proved that point for them.
2)Your temperature graph shows quite a bit of white but on the whole, there is a lot more red tint than blue, especially considering the scale is over +/- 10C. Ask any 5 year old what the main color is for the ocean and they'll say red. Its obviously abnormally warm.
Every now and then I go down your "informed skeptic" rabbit holes to make sure I didn't miss anything in my personal conclusion that AGW is real and a problem, but every time the data YOU present always ends up refuting your point. Whats your game in all this?
I am eventually going to keel over and die anyways.
everything you said has been debunked by actual facts.
No, it is NOT true that temperatures have been essentially flat.
The sea ice is only a "rebound" because its being compared to the previous year which was THE LOWEST SEA ICE EVER RECORDED.
Thank you for the public service of displaying your ignorance, now go away.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014
Why not? What prevents them from requesting data from other national science bodies? Is there some sort of science embargo on Japan that I don't know about?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yet if you take the raw data it doesn't show any significant difference from the adjusted data, certainly not enough to say they contradict each other.
As far as polar ice being measured from 1979, that's when the satellites went up that allowed us to monitor it continuously. Older records of ice are more fragmented (but still useful).
What happened to Arctic sea ice in 2013 is known as regression to the mean. If that trend continues over the next 10 years or so then you might have something, otherwise you're just getting excited over a blip on the long term trend.
I think you should be taken seriously for the same reasons Jenny McCarthy should - the utter garbage you spew on a regular basis could lead innocent people with pitiful levels of scientific literacy to make harmful choices.
I take you seriously.
BTW everything roughly matches up with GISS. Everything. There's nothing wrong with adjustments as Rei helpfully explained below.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well, if you keep electing people aged 50+, don't expect them to consider anything 20+ years in the future important.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.