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."
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
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
Ted Cruise will "fix" this quickly...
There are obviously hiding something!
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
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.
We are talking averages here not specific points of temperature. If you had to pay an average of 1.4 more cents for every dollar or euro for purchase you made, you'd be pissed.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, the warming after the last ice again stopped a few thousand years ago. The current (much faster) warming is a very recent event.
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.
Yup, that's due to arctic warming, causing a pressure slump that now pushes more moist air into that region during the summer months. Interestingly, it has also resulted in dryer weather on the west coast of North America, and colder weather down the east coast.
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.
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet, probably with the exception of local conditions associated with asteroid or large meteor impacts. The last major spike in global temperatures occurred in during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that occurred about 55 million years ago. In a very brief period of time, geologically speaking, the Earth warmed about 5.6 C in a period as short as 10,000 years. During this brief period over half of the species of North American mammals went extinct and places like Wyoming, not exactly known for hot weather, went from having redwood forests to having palm forests. Today with far more discontinuous habitats extinction rates of plants and animals will be very much higher.
Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there. However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon. Considering that humans obtain about 50% of its protein from seafood, in all likelihood, humans face the prospect of loosing half their protein supply in as little as 300 years based on present trends as many areas in the world oceans are already reaching pH levels that are killing off pteropods, one of the primary links in marine food chains.
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.
"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.
You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that can cause extinction events (and may currently be doing so). It can also cause issues for humans in the form of shifting weather patterns, shifting water availability, changed coastlines (water rises, but so do landmasses that used to be covered in ice), changed food supplies (the fisheries we currently depend on my vanish, the aquifers that feed grain supplies may dry up), and other more subtle shifts.
The other point is that you need be no more alarmed just before you hit the ground than you were after you fell out of an airplane -- the situation isn't likely to change for you from 3,000 feet to 1 foot. But when you make contact, the result is the same. So better to raise the alarm at 3,000 feet when there's still time to have someone intervene or deploy a parachute.
*Farenheit, in pure fresh water at standard pressure. The actual temperature melting the world's ice reserves is different but immaterial to this line of reasoning.
Source?
Sorry about the mess.
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.
Actually, I'd call that a nicely slowed down rate of inflation...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You can download the code they use for the calculations. Feel free to analyze it, and write a paper about any flaws you find. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
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.
We are talking averages here not specific points of temperature. If you had to pay an average of 1.4 more cents for every dollar or euro for purchase you made, you'd be pissed.
Inflation of only 1.4%? Economic utopia!
Local beef prices were on the order of $4 a pound a year ago for the cuts I usually buy. Today they're $6.50. Wired was 68 cents a can, now it's over a dollar. Pistachios were $15 for three pounds, same bag today is almost $20.
I yearn for the days of 1.4%.
"These warmings may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet — was 9F-14F (5-8C). The upper limits of projected warming over the 21st century would therefore herald a literal remaking of the Earth’s environment and our place within it." - Andrew E. Dessler
There's no way your anecdote is accurate. Last summer was the hottest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping. Pipes were leaking boiling water everywhere and the roads got all soft and mushy. I'm not sure who's benefiting from this global warming opposition shit that you're trying to spread, but nobody who actually experienced last summer believes it for a second.
The current trend is statistically significant over decades.
"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 fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
It started 3 years, 1 month, 4 days, 1 hour, 5 minutes, 9 seconds after the Roswell incident. Unfortunately they had no atomic clocks then, or we knew more precisely how less a coincident that is!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
what if its all a lie, and we make the world a better place for nothing?
The answer is simple: there was no large scale measures before 1880
Any global temperature before that date would not come from real measures but from a reconstruction using indirect data.
There are plenty of scientific papers listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
BAH! you're both full of it. Last year was the most average I've ever seen. Not too hot, not too cold. The roads were not too hard, or too soft. And the pipes only bulged a little. It was just right.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
You're confusing local weather with global climate. They are not the same thing. Just because you had a cold winter where you are does not mean that everyone, everywhere else, had a cold winter.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Last winter was the coldest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping... Pipes were freezing everywhere
Well, which was it... "around here", or "everywhere"? You do know there is a difference, right?
There are also cool spots on Russia, and China who are also fairly good at denying climate change.
Unfortunately I think this fact makes it much harder to push for climate bills, because it is difficult to explain Global Climate change, when you particular group isn't being affected in that way.
It is like trying to get the US to fight against famine in Africa. We know about it, however because it isn't a common experience we do not feel motivated to do anything about it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Actually, these days 1.4% is probably higher than current inflation.
And it's too low given the differential risks to 4% inflation vs 0% or 0.5% deflation.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I can't tell if you're joking, or if you're as crazy as Bryan Fischer and other wingnut warming deniers.
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!
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet
Probably not (temperature reconstructions are problematic, which is why I say 'probably'). If you look at temperature reconstructions for the last 1,500 years, they vary but you can see there are clearly measured periods of time with a rapid rise in temperature, before the industrial age. Look at the time period at the year 750, for example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
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
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Here's the Berkeley Earth graphic, with temperatures going back to 1870:
static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf
(also comparing models to measured data)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Do you apply your nihilistic philosophy to all branches of science?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted") and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
"His name was James Damore."
(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."
Why not measure all the way back to the Medieval Warming period?
The reason they don't take it that far back is that then they'd have to use data from the Little Ice Age, and explain why that happened. This way, they can ignore those inconvenient truths.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
...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...
Ah hah! Denying climate change causes local climate to cool! So if we all wish real hard, and the problem will go away. It's the Tinkerbell Protocol!
your snarky little post is irrelevant and in no way addresses the issue I raise
Current inflation rates are around 1.6%. And that's with the steep decline in the price of oil. Of course food is really up quite a bit...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Probably not (temperature reconstructions are problematic, which is why I say 'probably'). If you look at temperature reconstructions for the last 1,500 years, they vary but you can see there are clearly measured periods of time with a rapid rise in temperature, before the industrial age. Look at the time period at the year 750, for example.
These reconstructions are just that. They simply cannot be meaningfully compared with instrument readings. Short term changes (especially if they are cyclic) may be obvious on the latter, but completly missed by the former.
Last winter was the coldest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping... Pipes were freezing everywhere
Well, which was it... "around here", or "everywhere"? You do know there is a difference, right?
You must speak a rather restrictive dialect of English. In my native dialect (US West Coast), the phrase "everywhere around here" is quite normal, and you can figure out its meaning by inserting "that's" in the right place. The first quote above used the two halves of the phrase in a common way, and speakers of such dialects will automatically carry the "around here" over to the second sentence.
So what dialect do you speak, for which this isn't true. Online linguists studying English dialects are curious ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. People are afraid to address climate change because they are afraid of the impact on our society. We can't ignore that fear.
I do have a question for you, though - how do you know that "Dealing with climate change is going to itself be a huge economic disaster, and people will suffer because of it."
Most of the plans I've seen would be so gradual that I don't even see economic slowdowns, much less huge economic disasters.
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!
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.
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!
Krakatoa explosion caused a mild global winter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted")
Unless you know exactly how it has been altered such data is useless for showing anything at all. A basic case of GIGO.
and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
Thus the only useful thing you can do is analyse how said data is being changed. Especially given that there is no good reason to be altering supposedly archived data.
Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there.
What's actually happened here is that there is a difference of 0.1pH between some proxy reconstructions related to 150 years ago and some actual measurements taken recently. Since modern pH meters, from different suppliers, can differ by up to 0.3 the difference is meaningless. Do climate scientists understand that pH is a log scale, thus ONE unit would equate to a 1000% change.
However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon.
The figure for vulcanism is very difficult to verify. Since most of the Earth's surface, including some highly vocanically active areas, is covered with water. The likes of geothermal vents are likely to be difficult to spot under the ocean. These will be putting strong acids. Yet the oceans manage to buffer an unknown quantity of these. Carbon dioxide in water forms a weak acid. Even with all of the possible carbon dioxide on Earth in them the oceans would still be alkaline.
I would be leery about listening to Judith Curry. She is often wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere.
Just because that is the phase change point that does not mean that all, even most ice, on the planet is anywhere near that temperature. In the summer Antartica might manage -4 Farenheit.
Sea ice melting or freezing makes no difference to sea level at all, BTW.
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
But you are using weather (local temps) to claim climate change. How about telling us exactly how the average temp is calculated? Average temp in a single US state is a pretty iffy value so how does expanding to a larger area make it a more concrete number?
What is your native dialect, that you have such a hard time recognizing sarcasm or irony? Obviously, the distinction was being drawn to the fact that just because it was cold in the AC's backyard (around here) doesn't mean it wasn't warmer globally (everywhere).
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
True, but some ice is right at the tipping point. And some trees only bear fruit at some particular tipping point. As the average temperature moves up, more and more species and systems find themselves outside of their personal equilibrium point. So you'll see a chunk of ice melt somewhere. And some trees die off somewhere. And some fish fail to spawn somewhere. And we are talking about a GLOBAL effect, which means a few of those events happen everywhere. At some rate of failure, the system heals itself. At a higher level, we have mass extinctions and it takes thousands of years for species to come back together. We appear to be pushing fast [geologically] toward that higher level. Look at the problems already being created in California and Texas by the ongoing drought. In March, Texas is expected to break the 1950s record of the "drought of record." We are losing whole towns. If this is a consequence of climate change and not just weather cycles, we have a real long term systemic problem. And the science is suggesting that it is climate and not weather that is causing the droughts.
That's the thing - the news came out that it was real then it came to the attention of people that assumed that dealing with climate change was going to itself be a huge economic disaster - so in the short term it was far more convenient for them to pretend it was not real and do nothing. It's about not living up to the responsibility that society expects from people that it puts in charge. It's about being lazy seat warmers. It's about being leeches instead of true leaders. Vote for whatever party you wish, but listen to see if they want to do something about problems or just sit still and let the cash flow into their pockets.
Bring it here. It's 37C inside my fucking house. It's a wonder my computer is running.
"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.
"Denialism" on the right is a political response to the left's politicization of the climate issue. When you use those Maoist tactics to force people to believe in your particular stance on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which before that existed as a point of peaceful scientific debate for 150 years, you're going to get pushback.
We need to let science resolve this issue using the proven methodology of science, not politics. This is not another tax bill or campus speech code.
Done about three decades ago, then politics noticed later, and some in politics are declaring now that political will trumps reality.
Canute had a message about that a very long time back.
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.
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.
3,1,4,5 and 9 all have occult meanings!!
Number 3 represents the planet Mars and War, number 1 represents The Unity, for the Illuminati this is the Number of the Great Leader, the number 4 represents the 4 elements, the number 5 represents the Council of Five, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, better known among the Illuminati as the 5 Magnificent and the number 9 is the number of Beelzebub, the Demon of Climate and Hoaxes.
It is crystal clear. The IPCC, the Illuminati Pokemon Collectors Club, is planning to wage war on earth from their secret bases on Mars. The Great Leader will use HAARP to disrupt the atmosphere and create earthquakes and using chemtrails to convert everybody to Gaydom. Beelzebub will then raise and desecrate all the holy places. And all this will be done so that the dreaded Climate Scientists can make a living and to take away our guns and force us to believe in Evolution!!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
"‘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
Well, winters and summers tend to be global, at least semi-global. ;)
Or maybe this is a hoax of the Climate Scientists too and it's winter in the USA and spring here in Holland
-- 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
For changes to be useful, they must be averaged so that the signal is not masked by large seasonal and daily fluctuations. The critical item is the relative consequence of the change in global averages, not the absolute values of the changes themselves since biodiversity is not uniformly distributed nor does it respond uniformly to each absolute degree of temperature difference. Likewise, the specific temperature in any particular year is not particularly relevant since there is wide variability between years as well as seasons. However, we do know one thing:
If one does compare the average rate of change during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum with the AVERAGE rate that can be computed OVER THE PAST 150 years, we observe that the current rate is about 36 times faster. This implies that we shouldn't expect faunal changes in more recent future times to be less than what has historically occurred in the past, since there is no evidence whatsoever that somehow magically evolution that altered the mammal fauna then is acting differently now than it did 55 million years ago. Indeed, we might instead expect that extinction rates will likely be higher, particularly since there are many human induced land use changes that affect species diversity IN ADDITION TO those induced (explained by) solely climate change. Likewise, observations concerning the rate at which tropical species are now invading temperate environments are likewise consistent with those predicted based on the relative difference in average rate of warming, as well as those observed by looking at faunal changes in the past. The consequences are significant because of the disruption of ecosystems associated with such invasions, particularly when such invasions involve disease. For example, ten years ago cases of West Nile Virus in the US, were extremely rare, now they are becoming increasingly common.
If we look at previous geological periods that have exhibited temperature changes of similar magnitude associated with very rapid warming, ALL show tremendous extinction rates. Consequently, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the current rate of warming will induce similar rates of extinction.
Instead of terrestrial biodiversity, one could look at sea level rise and glacial and ice shield melting as another area of active interest since the consequences are particularly important. In both cases the averages of temperature change now being experienced unequivocally demonstrate that as the glaciers retreat, and they are retreating at record rates, and as ice sheets melt (both Greenland and the Antarctic are loosing ice volume), sea levels will rise faster than at any time in recent geological history. Although the averages are based on only about 150 years of accumulated data for temperature records using thermometers of various kinds, there is simply no reason to believe that sea levels won't rise rapidly or that the consequence of this rise will be anything less than extraordinarily expensive to humans. Within 200 years, it is likely that every port in the world will have to be rebuilt and unless checked, humanity had better get used to the idea of rebuilding all its ports every couple of hundred years. If one, computes this cost alone, it becomes clear that getting off fossil fuels will be incredibly more economical than continuing to burn them.
You ask about the temperatures since 1975 and those before 1945. One can presently only say that whatever has been occurring in the last 20 years or so is significantly different from what has gone on before because it is virtually certain that the last 20 years has been significantly hotter than the previous several hundred thousand. However, it also should be emphasized that this observation is completely consistent with an exponential nature of the curve and probably the next 20 years will likely better define what we can expect in subsequent decades. If you want to argue that things will be different than what the long term averages suggest, however shake they m
Depends on how you look at it; it means regional habitat change, as all regions are going to have to adapt to weather not acting the way it traditionally has. So you can get a sudden surge in pine beetles in areas where they historically haven't been much of an issue, and drained aquifers where there has traditionally been a lot of water available.
So not necessarily a good or a bad thing; just different, and either something that the environment will adapt to, or it won't. We don't really know enough to say which will happen.
Hence my footnote stating that the argument I assumed the GP was going to make to my statement is immaterial to my line of reasoning :)
You might just want to talk to oyster farmers in the Pacific Northwest.
The USGS has estimated total world carbon dioxide production by volcanoes and undersea vents. Its estimated to be about 250,000,000 metric tons per year. This pales in comparison with the 33,000,000,000 metric tons generated by the burning of fossil fuels, which by the way explain why the isotopic signature of the carbon in the atmosphere is not that of contemporary plants but of fossilized plant material. Your comments about vents only indicate that we may be at even greater risk than we had previously imagined.
It doesn't matter if the oceans become only slightly alkiline. What matters for humans is whether or not species like pteropods can produce there shells and go about serving a food for the rest of the food chain. What recent evidence suggests, at least in the Pacific NW is that pteropod tests are showing increasing signs that they are unable to form undisturbed tests. The danger here isn't that the ocean itself can't undergo even more extreme chemical changes, it is that we are clearly reaching the physiological tolerances of a very critical element of the marine food web. Once they are gone, no technical fix is going to bring them back.
Yes, I couldn't agree more and some in the fisheries community are now suggesting that overfishing could well cause many, if not nearly all, current fisheries to become "functionally extinct" within as little as 25 years if present fishing pressures continue.
However, this is an issue quite separate from those associated with ocean acidification, which adds a very heavy energy cost to organisms that must produce a calcium carbonate skeleton. The issue is made more severe because in most cases it is the larvae that are at greatest risk because they only have a very narrow time window to either accomplish this to settle if they are like many invertebrates going to advance to the next life stage, or like vertebrates who must generate the vertebral structure in order to become motile and move to preferred habitats critical for growth. When organisms don't meet the required threshold they die. It doesn't matter if some other organism might under some circumstances would have been able to do it, it just means the population and potentially nearly all populations won't be around in the next season to reproduce.
Sure they can. Just because they are reconstructions one can not conclude that these proxies aren't roughly accurate, unless one has specific evidence that the system is behaving differently in the past than it is now. Chemical and physical processes that occurred in the past should not be assumed to behave differently than they do now unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.
If this milestone in the measuring of planetary temperatures tells us anything, it is that it is long past time for those who want to be skeptical to offer some actual evidence that their skepticism is at all relevant. Shutting one's eyes to inconvenient truths, doesn't make them go away. However, it does make us all far more vulnerable while they are closed.
Quite true, but the probability that your remarks are at all relevant is becoming increasingly small as more and more temperature measurements are taken.
At some point, skeptics are going to have to actually produce some evidence that would suggest than humanity needs to any longer take them seriously, when the odds that they are right and its either "not getting warmer" or "its getting colder" are smaller all the time.
Congratulations on having more than 4 brain cells. It would behoove you to use them.
Scientists use proxy measures all the time. Tree rings and the rings in mollusk tests are very good examples. Likewise so are growth trajectories of various plankton. There is no reason to assume that simply because humans weren't around to read a thermometer, that the world at a particular moment and place in time was not within some degree of tolerance close to a particular temperature. Sure at any point in a scientific argument one could add "and here a miracle occurs". However, science is about dismissing such speculation in the absence of evidence.
By the way, the "wide error bars" on any one particular point in time might cast doubt as to the accuracy of a particular measured time period, but that wouldn't affect the least squares estimate of the trend, except to increase the variance and increase the confidence interval of the regression. If they were all very large and not different on average from each other, you would have a point, but that is clearly not the case for the data set under discussion here (historical temperature records).
and I call bullshit on remarks that provide no evidence to the contrary. If you want to play scientist, then you need to have some evidence to make your case. As is typical of the skeptic and denier community, there is much rhetoric and sophism, some rather silly, but none able to withstand the scrutiny of close examination.
Great sophism and rhetoric, but where is the evidence of this vast conspiracy of scientists to always add 1.2 C ever time they read a thermometer?
I always like to ask the skeptics and deniers a question they can never answer and invariably refuse to try.
If its not getting hotter, why are virtually all the world's glacier and ice sheets melting?
Go ahead, use those "senior" statistical skills you allude to. I dare you.
Your attempt to address the "cost of addressing global warming" is bogus without also calculating the cost of not addressing global warming. Clearly, there is very little evidence that there are more costs to not burning fossil fuels than there is to burning it. We can ramp up solar and wind energy and in some cases nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels. What will be lost? Jobs in the fossil fuels industry, perhaps a million. Jobs in the oil service industries, add a few more million. These could easily be offset by increased retraining and increased jobs in the alternative energy industries and to boost there is a very positive trade off of not having billion dollar oils spills to clean up, billion dollars of contaminants to remove from our air, water and food, billions of dollars of health care costs by removing highly carcinogenic substances from our food and immediate environment, far more fish, far less acid rain, and billions less in litigation costs.
Admittedly, there would be big monetary losses for those so entrenched in fossil fuels that they fail to give them up. However, one must ask why should others be forced to pay for this burden by shoving these costs onto the taxpayer? Yes, I agree that dealing with climate change will be an economic disaster to those who refuse to wean themselves from fossil fuel based economics. However, markets are already beginning to speak and future investors are taking note. Fortunes in the future will not be based on oil because its just not a good deal for most people on the planet.
Arizona may have beaches, but sadly it will also have soil temperatures that will make it extremely difficult to grow crops, unless you raise cactus for tequila.
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.
Quite true, but the probability that your remarks are at all relevant is becoming increasingly small as more and more temperature measurements are taken.
Yes. I look forward to the day we won't have to worry about temperature reconstructions at all. Unfortunately, it's not likely to be in my lifetime.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Carbon dioxide is a symptom historically, not the cause and they know it. That's why the UN has said that the temperature isn't going up and they don't know why. Somehow, they are even more sure of themselves even though their models are clearly wrong. Even to middle school students. This is all natural, and they know that too. Go back to the 13th century and you'll find Venetians trying to keep the Adriatic sea out of their town. No MM Co2 back then. Breaks their whole model of course.
Just some very wealthy people trying to bullshit all of us into paying them boat loads of money for something that is happening naturally, and we can't stop.
Okay, technically we have an "interglacial" period, if you want to get pedantic.
When the "ice age" really ends - We have a problem.
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
"...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."
From your link, ~1.6% is the average for the year. Dec 2014 was: 0.76% hence my "these days"
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Busted
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Wooosh
I never said that inflation was 1.4%. I said if you had to suddenly pay 1.4% more for every purchase you'd not be happy. That includes taxes, fees, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.