Slashdot Mirror
NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record
Titus Andronicus writes: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both announced today that 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental temperature record, surpassing the prior winners, 2010 and 2005. NASA also released a short video. They said, "Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years. However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year."
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
It may have been on average warmer, but at least in Minnesota we didn't get the massive heat wave weeks in the middle of the summer we use to get in the past.
looks fucking dangerous
The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend,
contradict the fast that we have not had any rising in the past 20 years according to these same people? They call it the "warming hiatus"
Im not saying that the world is not warming, Im not even saying that we humans dont contribute to it. But god damn do they do a crappy job of conveying the message when there are contradictions like this. I could (probably am) reading it wrong but thats my take on it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"Since 1880, EarthÃ(TM)s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit"
So we need to be alarmed because in 135 years the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees?
I am clearly missing something here.
Ted Cruise will "fix" this quickly...
...note that there's a large ball of cooler-than-average over the mid-Atlantic, riiiight on top of the largest and most influential concentration of climate change deniers...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Early last year they added another radio shack, quadrupled the number of antennas, and put in a pair of huge diesel generators.
So that data point is definitely higher than before.
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
No need; they'll just mandate a switch from Farenheit to Celcius. Instant drop in temperature!
Except they never said that, you did. The last record was in 2010.
No, the warming after the last ice again stopped a few thousand years ago. The current (much faster) warming is a very recent event.
huh?
well, since you remember, enlighten us. what is it that it's got to do with the end of the last ice age?
Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.
The post notes:
While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.
Yes, because one would never actually want to read what the experts in any field have to say, but rather go to some blog populated by people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We live in the middle of fracking land during the 'warmest year in the modern record' and my damn gas bills are still going up. I'm moving to Panama.
You have an interesting hypothesis. I look forward to your evidence supporting it. The other side has already weighed in on it, though.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
NASA recently changed the way they compute the average, it made 1998 NOT the warmest year on record. This hooplah could just be an artifact of that alternative method of calculation
Obligatory XKCD - And this one might actually educate rather than amuse!
Now look at the last 12000 years - The last ice age completely ended 9500 years ago.
Every. Single. Time.
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth. At most, bands of climate that support particular crops will move northward. We are capable of surviving just fine in a very wide range of climate. Slowly increasing warmth of a few degrees is not a serious threat in and of itself.
Sea level: The seas have been much higher, and the consequences of a sea level rise of such tiny amounts as are predicted over such a long period are going to be irrelevant in the big picture. Human society is already extremely mobile over such time periods, and we are almost trivially capable of being even more so. Such moves can potentially benefit us in the sense that we can start over, smarter, for those of our older coastal cities that are so low that a few centimeters sea rise will result in their inundation. Better public transport, better street layout, better zoning, better utility transport and balance, more parks, opportunity to be more efficient in many ways (for example, monorails instead of trains; pumped canals instead of or in addition to streets; raised domiciles that allow 100% utilization of the ground underneath for vegetation... all kinds of opportunities arise when you don't have a gnarly old city infrastructure in the way.)
Long term continuation of CO2 increase: Unlikely. We're already transitioning to solar and so forth. There's no sane reason that wouldn't continue (and we should be pushing government hard to get it done sooner rather than later -- perhaps moving the ~40 billion dollars/year utterly wasted on the drug war (that's just the US costs -- leaves out tax gains and ignores world costs and gains) to solar panel and control electronics and energy storage production might be one way to do so. There is every reason to reduce emissions, even without the potential threat of emissions-related climate change.
The issue that seems to carry the most actual weight in the immediate sense is the possibility of the chemical changes that some scientists have predicted for the oceans. If the oceans undergo major changes in chemistry, the consequences are likely to be both sudden and very serious (as in, we may be royally fucked no matter what we try to do.) All that is, is a yet stronger argument for an even faster transition to stored solar.
The sensible path is to reduce emissions ASAP and as much as possible, while transitioning to stored solar power. In the case of the USA, this also reduces our country's vulnerability to the middle east's whims, something that continuously comes back to bite us on just about every level there is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Please note that "Last Ice Age" and "Little Ice Age" are two different events.
It's warm, there's more sun, Arizona will have beaches, more CO2 and sun makes crops grow better. What's not to like. Oh, and for the warmists that don't like the above, it could also kill the majority of the offenders, fixing the problem. It's a true win-win.
The current trend is statistically significant over decades.
I though they were reducing the number of Radio Shacks?
"there are at least 4 peaks higher than last year. meaning they were hotter than this past year."
The claim is that the _year_ 2014 was the hottest. Not that the highest temperature ever observed occurred in 2014. I think you are a denier, despite your claim that youâ(TM)re only a âoeskepticâ. Deniers are the type to intentionally misunderstand simple English phrases like âoe2014 was the warmest yearâ on record. Also, the graph you are talking about shows nearly the most clear, obvious warming trend possible. The green line _screams_ warming, and the trend is _still_ obvious in the more chaotic red line. You, kind sir, do not sound like a careful and reasoned skeptic to me...
The 'last years' we had no El Nino.
We are in an La Nina event since roughly eight years. The next El Nino is supposed to pick up force this or the next year.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There's no way these numbers are accurate. Last winter was the coldest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping. Pipes were freezing everywhere and the roads got pretty much destroyed.
There's no way to tell where anonymous coward is posting from, but if "around here" means "United States east of the Rocky Mountains," then, looking at the Wired article and specifically at the 2014 map of average temperature, 2014 was indeed colder than average.
The Wired article is here: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/2...
The map is here: GISTEMP 2014 Anomaly with respect to 1951-1980
Regional is not global average. Even regional average is not global average. One region can be indeed colder than average over a year, and nevertheless the world as a whole warmer than average.
On the average.
I'm not sure who's benefitting from this global warming shit that they're trying to spread, but nobody who actually experienced last winter believes it for a second.
That's the problem: people experience their local region, but draw conclusions about the global average.
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene ( 5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Just one question for the deniers....When the mean temperature is up ten degrees globally and humanity is tanking it because of massive environmental change and crop failure, you won't be upset when we lynch you for being the liars and shills who prevented proactive fixes from being implemented, will you?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
instead of making questionable measurements of the planet, why don't you figure out how to build a decent space vehicle? Which is your raison d'etre.
One of them. NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. In the list of what NASA was established to do, the first item is:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
In related news, it's now warmer than it was during the Little Ice Age. Has NASA and NOAA stated whether it's better for us to have Little Ice Age climate?
Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.
Good call. He'll tell you what to do.
Most unbiased folks will agree that global warming is caused, atleast partially by human activity.
What I fail to understand (and please help understand out without trolling) is IF the "global warming alarmists" are wrong, the most you had to give up was driving your hummer for a more fuel effecient vehicle while living by a set of rules that might curb a few activities. Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
If the "global warming alarmists" are right, well, can you really afford to take that chance? Seeing that there is only one planet and if the ice age, and hell or whatever rains down on earth should be cause for alarm in my opinion. I don't even care to argue WHEN it will happen. Shouldn't the possibility that it will happen be enough?
One thing that is going to likely cause some real problems: I think that many large cities rely on water supplies that are refilled via melting snow packs, providing a steady and predictable clean water supply. If snow packs and glaciers are radically reduced or eliminated, the water supply becomes much more seasonal, and supplying potable water for large numbers of people becomes...problematic.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Earth's weather is almost entirely determined by Solar activity (or lack of same in the Maunder Minimum)
The link between solar activity and weather is discussed in great detail in the IPCC Working Group 1 report, with voluminous references to the literature; have you read it? You can find it here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... The analysis is chapter 2.7, Natural Forcings, section 2.7.1 "Solar Variability."
and large volcanic eruptions.
Another effect discussed in the same report: section 2.7.2 "Explosive Volcanic Activity"
The key point is that we measure the sun, and we record volcanic activity. There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
Krakatoa is the last big eruption which caused a large drop in northern hemisphere temperatures as I recall.
The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was an important event, because its effects were well measured.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up.
You are assuming we can even do anything about it!
The problem with scrambling to "take action" against climate change
is that we can never prove that we even had an effect!
The climate could correct itself (which it does) and reality deniers would
be clapping themselves on the back because they "saved the world".
And in the process, we will probably destroy our economy and society
Do you apply your nihilistic philosophy to all branches of science?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are you retarded?
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
Good point made. I'm saving this for other forums.
mfwright@batnet.com
There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
The models also fail to account for the temperature trend (where or where did the predicted heat go?)
This is why you shouldnt be in bed with the modelers. But we see that you actually are...
"His name was James Damore."
Mostly just the branches that employ groupthink as their fiercest tactic of influence. It doesn't help Chicken Little's case when he's telling everyone that they're an idiot for not believing him when he screams that the sky is falling -- just for asking if he's willing to show us the bump on his head, why won't he show us the piece of sky that caused it.
--> Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Record or near-record years are interesting, but the ranking of individual years should be treated with some caution because the uncertainties in the data are larger than the differences between the top ranked years. We can say this year will add to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last decade."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2014-global-temperature
While the planet definitely didn't cool in 2014 (which is a good thing), accelerated warming also didn't happen apparently. So in the last 130 years we have 90 years of slow warming (as it's been warming up since the last ice age), 30 years of fast warming, then 10+ years of slow warming again? Not sure the computer models are quite up to speed yet with the complexity of the climate or the appropriate forcings. And definitely sure that nothing we can do will affect CO2 output from China/India which will soon the North American output.
So.. hoping for the best about sums it up.
There is nothing wrong with that. That wouldn't account for the anomaly at all. RIGHT.
However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year.
Because every year happens in a vacuum with regards to every other year...
Departure of global temperature from average for 2014 (NOAA)
Earth's departure in temperature from the 20th century average during the period 1880 - 2014, according to NOAA.
global departure of temperature from average from 1965 - 2014 (scepticalscience.com)
Article: 2014: Hottest Year in Recorded Human History, Dr. Jeff Masters' blog entry at wunderground.com.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Mr. Jobs would like a word with you.
No, the ice age didn't end. The presence of an ice age is defined by the existence of polar ice caps year round. There are still ice caps. We're in an interglacial period within the ice age.
Not a sentence!
They need to check out the placements for all the thermometers, a lot of them are placed in places they should not be. Near parking lots, behind big buildings and such that artificially raise the temp. Considering the government is in control of them, it is in the government's interest to not move them. That is why you see all this "Highest temp!" yet have no other real evidence of raising temps.
I'm sorry, your claim is incorrect.
The IPCC AR5 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... makes it clear that if you don't cherry pick date ranges, the models are spot on.
A lot of people like to quote the following:
Let's put that in context
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.
Here is nice peer review paper with a simple model that describes the actual temperature better than the IPCC complex models at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/
The problem for the models is the CO2 keeps going up, but for 15-20 years there has been NO or no significant warming much to the embarrassment of the warmest partisans. Here have been many excuses published post facto to explain, but the models were wrong.
So why trust the politically motivated models for the future.
It's all about the wealth transfer and the power over the energy infrastructure, and hence peoples lives and economies.
The climate sensitivity has been way over estimated adn the harms of a little warming way exaggerated. Heck, CO2 helps us grow more crops, it is plant food after all, not as Obama calls it "carbon pollution"
The year was the warmest on record by 0.01 deg C. Yet the error bars are 5 times that amount for this year (and 20 times that amount just 30 years ago). Statistically - it's among the warmest dozen or so, but you can't claim beyond that because of the measurement error.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
instead of making questionable measurements of the planet, why don't you figure out how to build a decent space vehicle? Which is your raison d'etre.
One of them. NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. In the list of what NASA was established to do, the first item is: (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
Then why are they trumpeting the results of land-based measurements and ignoring the space-based measurements that measure the atmosphere, and show no warming?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
I would be leery about listening to Judith Curry. She is often wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
...that they still haven't found a way to correct the skew in their data caused by long term shutdowns of remote monitoring stations thereby letting the data skew from the heat island effect. It's almost as if they were trying to prove a foregone conclusion. Oh, well, they are still better than the UNCC, which basically made up data, got caught at it, then excused itself and kept the same people on the project because they were so trustworthy.
NO. CREDIBILITY. WHATSOEVER.
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
Observations get put into models with associated per sample uncertainty data. If data is suspect you can typically throw it out especially if you have lots and lots of data samples. You NEVER make up shit and stick it in a model, which is exactly what's going on. Made up shit is want you can do with the model after its been fit.
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not only the hottest year ever, but the hottest hottest year ever:
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
The last time CO2 levels were this high we had a massive die off. But okay, I'm sure it'll be great now that we're admitting that it's happening at all.
Ted Cruz
So the environmentalists ran the governments of Reagan, Bush, Always on Vacation Playboy Prince Bush and Thatcher?
Interesting.
Do you really believe such a thing or do you just think we are all idiots that will swallow such stupidity? Insane or an utter prick - your choice.
"They" (both NOAA and Berkley Earth independently) have done that. Berkley Earth found no significant difference when using only the best locations (but then their automated method is designed to compensate spurious jumps in temperature) (here) and NOAA found a slight low bias for badly sited stations (here). IIRC, there also is a similar NASA study coming to the same results, but I don't remember the authors or title.
Stephan
Berkeley Earth study took look at the urban heat island effect, and found while its is a real effect, it is localised and not effecting the global averages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That is exactly what you call science.
Also Slashdot matters less and less everyday. Coincidence?
Correct.
Science proving that the models do not represent a working theory.
So.. Why are policy decisions being made in reference to these models exactly?
Good luck, and think twice if you think it's not a good idea to use a condom.
Get up!
Going to get rid of your ride and take mass transit?
Going to use your electricity more efficiently eg. turn off pool pump/heater when not in use, shut off A/C/furnace when not in house, turn off lights and 'always on' appliances when not in use?
Going to start paying for repairs instead of throwing out whatever seems a bit broken?
Going to lose the dream of living in your own, lawn-ringed, home and move in to a small unit in an energy efficient, high density high-rise?
Didn't think so.
So how to stop these inane pseudo science, politically fuelled announcements?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Skepticism about climate change is useful only if one is right. If one is wrong, it is totally useless and since skepticism about carbon dioxide induced global warming is demonstrably wrong, your skepticism is totally useless and irrelevant.
Speaking of questions, I have one for those skeptics.
If its not getting hotter, why is virtually every single glacier on the planet melting?
The interesting and extraordinarily revealing thing about this question as all will be able to soon see is that
1) skeptics and deniers never have an answer to this question and avoid answering like the plague,
and
2) skeptics and deniers of carbon dioxide induced global warming are unable to provide a credible answer of any kind.
What most who seek "theoretical" reasons not to worry fail to recognize is that even if there are negative feedbacks that might mitigate the known and increasingly predominating positive feedbacks, such as release of carbon from permafrost and peat soils and increase in heating due to loss of ice cover, these don't matter a wiff if the species upon which we depend for human survival are unable to reproduce in their natural environments. Sadly, climate forcing that results from carbon dioxide accumulation is now progressing at a rate that many species are going extinct rather than flourishing in the newly emerging climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/17/on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/
Great discussion of how the NOAA biased their report by omitting key discussions.
Oh by the way there are 5 global temperature datasets and the 2 most accurate are the RSS and UAH satellite records. They come in at 6th and 3rd. Funny thing is that RSS is run by a scientist who favours the CO2 controls climate and the UAH is run by a skeptic of CO2 controlling climate.
Being a skeptic is irrelevant unless you have data to demonstrate the basis of your skepticism. While its great sophism to be skeptical about everything since it makes one APPEAR to be thinking critically. However, in the absence of evidence, it is NOT science nor part of the process of science. That skepticism might appear to be a substitute for critical thinking to those unfamiliar with how to actually do science, supposed critical thinking is irrelevant unless it is backed up by real, testable observations.
It is instructive to note that every single claim of skepticism in this entire thread is based on the appearance of critical thinking that sophism provides, all of which are entirely devoid of any actual substantive data that would contradict the now obvious fact that carbon dioxide global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels is real and getting more obvious all the time. So far, from the skeptics and the deniers all we have heard is their singular inability to distinguish between seasonal variation in temperature and climatic changes in temperature.
Skepticism without evidence is best called BS and we might as well be honest about the consequences of bearing false witness. Bearing false witness, no matter how much skepticism one couches it in, does not make false assertions true.
They are not cherry picking date ranges. You show your compete ignorance of the subject by making such statements. You start at TODAY and go back in time until the line is not flat. You get the most current data for the monthly release and go BACKWARDS in time. They are not picking 1996/1998 as the start, that is the end point.
Full explanation here if you want to educate yourself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/
Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.
It's too hard anyway to stop polluting. Plus Jesus will soon destroy the Earth or something. Let's nuke this place.
If we are wrong and we slow down CO2 production for no reason, you will be 5% less rich for no reason: you won't have the latest iPhone but the previous generation.
If you are wrong and we continue the trend, our descendents will inherit a unlivable Earth.
Even if it was a one in ten odd, you'd be crazy to risk it. Unless you don't give a fuck about future generations of course.
And all the kids grades are above average?
Pour another cup of coffee and pass the lutefisk to the next person, while I kill some mosquitos
"‘is it statistically significant?’"
Mate, the blokes at NASA send out the fucking satellites. If they are smart enough to put them out there without them crashing into your WC while you are taking a dump I would give the guys at least the benefit of doubt regarding them and the guys at NOAA knowing what they do and say. I would say that the probability of them being smarter than you Miss Indian Spice together are statistically significant.
Not to speak about the stupid question. of Ms Curry-Rice.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
NOAA and NASA use SATTELITES to get the SURFACE TEMPERATURE?
Mate, I guess you have gone already too far with your drinking games.
And... why aren't you building sattelites right now and setting up your very own global non-warming plot if yo uare so smart ?
-- 29A the number of the Beast
In which way has the theory been falsified? Has AGW failed to predict that this past year would be warmer than the others before? Quite obviously NOT.
First of all, you are just answering to a random bloke who says some random idiocy pulled out of his ass. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence of all these "discrepancies ? I see it only among you climate deniers repeated as a mantra to see if it somehow becomes reality. None of you ever checks anything, Of course not: Knowing that half of you guys including your Gurus like Jimy Inhofe or Ted Cruz are Young Earth Creationists gives already a good idea of the quality of your judgements.
And meanwhile in Greenland:
http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Where is this described mate?
You anti-climate guys are constantly repeating this stupidity filling your mouth with "models that fail" as if it were true... but can you provide any link? And please not from the Inhofe fan club and NOT related to HAARP, Big Foot or Nazis on the moon.
Just a small issue to remember: I live in a country were we used to have skating postmen. It has been 17 years since we had out last Elfstedentocht: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
But of course, the models are all failing and in fact this is not true: The Evil Climate Scientiest gather every winter here in Friesland and melt the ice in the channels with lighters.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
The kind of group think you are talking about can best be found on Fox News, where unlike the for the science community, evidence for any assertions are either not required or purely optional. However, hey, you convinced yourself your rhetoric sounds great, even if it is irrelevant.
CO2 levels have not been this high in any time period we've been able to provide an estimate for. Look at the historical CO2 levels against temperature.
Yow! That graph is pretty frightening. CO2 basically goes off the chart in the present, way above anything in the past..
That's temperature in Antarctica, though.
-- that graph only goes back half a million years. As a previous poster noted, the last time the CO2 was this high was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: carbon dioxide levels spiked, the Earth heated by about 5.6 C, and there was, indeed, a massive die-off. That was 56 million years ago.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
That's beside the point: the thing to observe is that that graph clearly indicates that climate temperature is not significantly tracking CO2 levels. While there may be some effect, it's demonstrably not what drives temperature in the graph.
We can reach this conclusion because in the graph, historically speaking, temperature and CO2 track each other very well; but when CO2 was pushed separately consequent to our emissions, temperature did not follow. A likely conclusion is that either temperature drives CO2 (the reverse of what we're generally being told), or something else -- something not on that graph -- is driving them both. But that graph definitely does not support the contention that CO2 drives temperature.
So how well can we determine what is actually going on? We're limited here because we have no prior example of this particular sequence of events, and so we're reduced to guessing about a system that has, at least so far, proven too complex to accurately predict. Predictive models fielded to date have uniformly failed to present an accurate picture of the conditions of the last 15 years or so, but we're being asked to take action based on predictions those same models make that are within the same order of magnitude. Should we really do that?
If you were risking your money at a game of chance, and someone gave you a system that was alleged to predict the coming betting events, but when used, it seriously failed to do so, would you then elect to use that same system to guide your other bets well into the future? The way I see it, it's better to make your individual bets very conservatively based on the best estimate you can make at the time of the bet based on whatever known factors you can access instead of failed predictive mechanisms. It's also not at all wise to bet everything in any case where you could lose it consequent to a single event of betting wrong.
In that light, my primary concern lies with the state of the chemistry of the oceans; and I am fairly certain that the prudent thing to do is stop adding so much CO2 (or anything else, really) to the atmosphere, no matter what the eventual effects might be predicted to be, or not be. The bottom line is I don't consider it wise to significantly alter the state of a complex system we can't control or fully understand.
The whole thing pisses me off. It's not really science as we know it; we have no experiment to run that will validate the contentions of either side; we do have lots of near-term indicators, but they aren't particularly consistent and they certainly aren't predictable. Yet from this, we are in receipt of glassy-eyed claims from people on both sides of the issue, delivered with utter conviction.
So what to do? The best metaphor for this is we have a potentially dangerous animal at our feet. Do we really want to kick it and throw sand in its face to see if it'll turn around and bite us?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Okay, technically we have an "interglacial" period, if you want to get pedantic.
When the "ice age" really ends - We have a problem.
NOAA and NASA use SATTELITES to get the SURFACE TEMPERATURE?
No, troposphere.
See Spencer RW, Christy JR. Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science 1990 for an early discourse which suggests preferring satellite measurements over ground based thermometer networks for global climate studies. The idea that a few precise instruments with truly global coverage will give the most accurate picture of global change over time. It's a no brainer really. Even if there is a discrepancy with actual temperatures, one adjustment would be necessary and relative anomaly over time would remain spot-on. A better tool.
"[Spencer] Global temperatures have generally been estimated from surface temperature records, but there has been much debate regarding, for example, whether these data provide evidence of recent greenhouse warming. The primary source of uncertainty is the relatively sparse distribution of thermometers over the surface of the earth. [...] Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satellite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979. Their use will allow relatively precise monthly determinations of the locations and magnitudes of temperature change events. The resulting data should provide a greater focus of scientific debate on why temperature anomalies occur rather than whether they occur."
Also, Tropospheric temperature trends:history of an ongoing controversy (Peter W. Thorne et. al.) 2010 which revisits the debate, gives a nice introduction to various homogeneity adjustments ('retroactive' adjustments that attempt to reconcile instrument and site to reality) applied to both satellite and ground datasets. They basically 'punt' in the end, saying in effect that global temperature measurement is a Big Tent and there's room enough for everybody, we'll all just massage it a bit here and there until it's perfect.
Why would NASA jump into that Big Tent, join with NOAA and others to incorporate surface measurements into a final product that they use to issue statements like "2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record" by an amount that is within the range of statistical error, when their own satellite data shows otherwise?
Here is where I become openly bitter and say flat out: there is a hysteria party going on and anything that doesn't fit the narrative gets tossed into the margins. Perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with accurately measuring tropo temps by high resolution satellite. If there is, it hasn't 'surfaced' yet. In fact, everyone agrees that they are in almost perfect concordance with other sources. Almost. And what form does this almost take?
The satellites say no warming over the last 18 years. I believe the satellites.
I have a more difficult time believing the aggregate result of the Big Tent, which puts a heavy weight on dozens of disparate instrument types placed in thousands of places, where is the instrument's own drift, local weather variables, with a product that is subject to a raft of adjustments, (take no prisoners: ON) presented by a group of people who seem to be (unscientifically) personally and emotionally vested in selling anthropogenic catastrophe. What is the aggregate error of the Big Tent? Enough that announcing a temperature record by 0.02C is an irresponsible and disingenuous thing to do?
THAT is why even here on Slashdot, the brief snipe dissing Judith Curry get modded +I INSIGHTFUL and my comment pointing out the existence of statistical error is awarded -1 TROLL
It's shameful. Frankly, I'm amazed that the folks here on Slas
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Bravo, Stoney McStonerstein! All of my incessant posting of a single stupid tagline has finally sunk into your head! In case you're confused as to what I am saying, and for the unknowing readers out there, let me sum up the post as I usually do:
That's just, like, your opinion, man!
Whoa there cowboy! I'm sorry but I'm of the attitude that if you want something done right, you do it yourself!
Also, something actually pertinent to the discussion at hand, your explanation of why we call it climate change is utter bullpussy. It was changed because the original term they used was simply WRONG. The scientists claimed we were combatting global warming but everyone else just made jokes about it. It's snowing here, THANKS GLOBAL WARMING OBAMA! You know how nerds get when you make fun of them, right? They simply did a goalpost shift/redefinition and picked a new word that was cryptic enough to the general public that they couldn't easily make fun of it nor understand it, so that they could just say "trust us, we know what we're talkin bout, Willis". And before your lose your Jesus, I'm a believer, son! I know that we're fucking up the environment and that temps are rising in general. But I am also a Man, and as such, I can admit when we were wrong. The original global warming hysteria was incorrect. It has since been updated, as it should have been, but that scar is cut directly across our face for the entire world to see. We won't live it down. At best, again in true nerd fashion, what will happen is that the entire time the world is failing around us, all the geeks will do is bitch about "SEE WE TOLD YA SO" and the jocks will push them into the volcano for being smartasses. At least they'll suffer less.
Aaah... sorry for your waste of time typing.
In the article that you cite as Source of Wisdom and Holy Book in your crusade against Hysteria there are two considerable statistical Blunders (with capitals):
First of all: You cannot talk about statistical significance or not in a scalar value. You could with discrete values in a distribution that may seem random and where you could analyse if a given measure (such as the median or mean ) is or not statistically significant. BUT: This does NOT apply to single data point, sorry. AND this does not apply to a scalar.
Second of all: There is no need to ame a deep analysis to see if a number is higher than other/s, and if thsi is not obvious you will have to visit a doctor (a physic s this implies lost of grey matter, mate).
So mate, again, sorry for the calories you wanted typing, but your Guru needs a recap in statistics .
Should I point out the blunder of the 95%? I don't think is necessary, right?
What your dear potential girlfriend writes is nothing but gibberish.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
> your Guru needs a recap in statistics
also NASA? "Nasa climate scientists:
We said 2014 was the warmest year on record...
but we're only 38% sure we were right"
touché i think
"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."
And since all knowledge is contingent on something better coming along, and you must always make judgements before you know anything 100%, your ravings do not constitute any form of counter for the requirements suggested by the IPCC to combat AGW and mitigate its effects on us.
It's now known that global warming is caused by the conflagration of the pants of NASA and NOAA spokesman; no one can call them scientists any longer...
Busted
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Wooosh