Slashdot Mirror
2014 Was Earth's Warmest Year On Record
An anonymous reader writes: A lengthy report compiled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration using work from hundreds of scientists across 58 countries has found that 2014 was the hottest year on record. "The warmth was widespread across land areas. Europe experienced its warmest year on record, with more than 20 countries exceeding their previous records. Africa had above-average temperatures across most of the continent throughout 2014, Australia saw its third warmest year on record, Mexico had its warmest year on record, and Argentina and Uruguay each had their second warmest year on record. Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures." They've also published a page showing highlights of the major findings. Greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the global sea level reached a record high, and average sea surface temperatures reached a record high.
Cue rabid mud-slinging between fossil-fuel addicted Morlocks and nuclear-power fearing Eloi.
I weep for the future.
How could our Gods allow such a thing? This doesn't mesh with my personal worldview, and therefore did not happen!
Throwing out Argo temps for ship engine intake temp
Homogenizing,
Interpolating,
etc.
I am very interested in how this will be explained (full analysis not published yet):
Equator Average Temperature (K) : ~206K (390K at noon; ~95 K at midnight)
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
If I recollect right, the figure that 2014 was the warmest year in record appeared in /. already. An if I recollect one more thing right, the winter in the East Coast of US was deemed exceptionally chilling. I think it's hard to convince human-related climate change sceptics within this situation.
I have noticed that here in São Paulo the best time to talk about greenhouse effect is during the hottest days of the Summer, even though the rise in temperature downtown has more to do with deforestation and concrete than with greenhouse effect.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
News at 11.
I guess the reason why this is newsworthy is because of how un-newsworthy it SHOULD be but still isn't. When you distrust a branch of scientist as a general rule, anything is possible I suppose.
>> Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures.
Yeah, world take THAT. We're number f***ing one! USA! USA! USA!
Then why was there so much snow last winter then! Checkmate atheists!
Sorry, but no, it wasn't. NASA is notorious for re-casting it's data to support warning. please see http://wattsupwiththat.com for the debunking of the NASA report, as well as general actual climate science, with accurate data, and reproducible results.
B.S. I have pictures / artists' impressions of the Earth in a molten state - definitely way hotter than 2014!
But seriously, we only have a couple hundred years of data, how could a blanket statement be made like that!
Also, I did not RTFA.
Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed.
Peer review is at the core of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Peer review is required for validation of the conclusions.
Again.
For million and oneth time.
The adjustments LOWER the amount of apparent warming.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Personally, I'm disappointed in the weather. I like the heat, and I don't like cold and snow. But I live in New England. I've been hoping since I can't relocate my family to warmer climate, that the warm climate would come to me. But it's certainly taking its sweet time getting hot around here! The rest of the globe is getting warm while I'm still freezing in New England. I'm disappointed.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
AFAIC, even a trace of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is too much. Until we all get together and vow to do what he have to do to get rid of it completely, the world will suffer. It's going to take a lot of cooperation, and a lot of deniers getting over themselves. But if we could eliminate all CO2 in the air, there is still time to reverse this mess and make the world a much better place.
Ya know....throwing fuel on the fire!
My counterargument takes the form of the obligatory relevant comic strip: https://xkcd.com/1379/
Sometimes the emperor has no clothes because he's at a nude beach.
when you're downmod comes it will be the lack of merit your post possesses.
Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed.
Your wish is granted. The article discussed is a 267 page report with pages of data and extensive references explaining where the numbers come from.
Which, of course, you haven't read and have no intention of reading. It's just easy to say "show me the data" when you actually don't have the slightest interest in it.
Again. For million and oneth time. The adjustments LOWER the amount of apparent warming.
Does that mean the numbers need MORE adjustment then to get the desired answer? (what the desired answer is, is up to the reader)
I assume that one of the 4 datasets they used was NOAA's but does anyone happen to know were the other 3 are? It probably has to do with how they weighted it, but NOAAs shows that 2012 was the hottest for north america with about 1.5 of C above normal, followed by the 30's.
Both groups of ppl deserve to be blamed for this nightmare.
If the west , esp America's far left, REALLY wanted to solve this, they could within 10 years:
BTW, that is why I oppose the idea of putting taxes on JUST OUR CO2. America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
1) we need ACCURATE numbers of what CO2 is going into and coming from what areas. The only way to do that, is from orbit with OCO2 and shortly, with OCO3. Already, China has been shown to emit a great deal more than is widely accepted.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...
2) we need a SANE normalization. Skip this garbage of per capita. Ppl do NOT create the bulk of the CO2. BUSINESSES do. In particular, utilities, iron works, even commercial vehicles, etc are the major polluters.
So, instead, do emissions / $ GDP (REAL). THis has to be real GDP, and not PPP GDP. The later is a calculated value that allows them to basically cheat on their exports. By using REAL GDP, it means that if a nation drops their monetary value, then they also need to drop their emissions, or suffer higher taxes.
3) now create a tax that starts at 5% of the product and increases by 10% a year.
If you have a product in which all sub-parts are from a clean area, then you simply register it, and list the parts and country/state of origin. Then a % of the above tax is applied.
So, assume that some is 100% from Sweden. It is one of the cleanest nations in the world. As such, it would likely get 0% of the tax. Even when the tax hits 100% of the product value, it would still get nothing.
Assume that one of the parts comes from China, which is by far the WORST nation. As such, it would get 100% of the taxation, so, it would get 5% the first year, 15% the next, 25% the next and so on.
However, assume that a good comes from a relatively clean place such as say Colorado (which is in the middle of states). We might get around 33% of the tax, but lets assume 50% of the tax. That means that the good would be taxed at 2.5% and then 7.5%, and 12.5%, and so.
This approach will make each state responsible for cleaning up their own emissions. They might choose to go after cars, or they might choose to go after coal plants, etc.
Point is, that this tax takes the feds out of the equation and allows LOCAL govs, along with other nation's gov to make choices to clean up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
" the effect of increased temperature will depend on the crop's optimal temperature for growth and reproduction. [1] In some areas, warming may benefit the types of crops that are typically planted there. However, if warming exceeds a crop's optimum temperature, yields can decline"
Not to mention that the available land mass for agriculture (due to rising oceans and increasing desertification) will be much less.
Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas! It's already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm going to kick your ass!
hard to do when you have less snow and rain.
Look at Mexico and the middle east to get an idea of what 30-50 N and S will look like.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I mean we've got what, satellite measurements for like 45 years and reasonably accurate and precise ground station measurements from a fraction of a percent of the surface dating back around 90 years. If this is the warmest year on record, obviously there's a major shift afoot in the climate of this 4,500,000,000 year old planet because we've been watching sort of closely for all 0.000001% of that time.
Break out the R.E.M. kids, because it's the end of the world as we know it!
Yeah, that is what I call the far right and far left.
Sadly, Morlocks and Eloi might be better descriptions of them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Peer review is at the core of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Peer review is required for validation of the conclusions.
Your wish is granted. From the first link in the article:
The State of the Climate in 2014 is the 25th edition in a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The journal makes the full report openly available online.
I did not read any further than "ppl". You are a damning indictment of whatever education system failed you.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
enjoy your hockey stick graph
Much like eliminating Freon allowed the south pole ozone hole to recover back to a smaller size, we really should stop spewing greenhouse gases into the air, just in case our actions are causing climate change. Or, we could just sit back, not change a thing, and enjoy the rest of our lives. Mankind and planet Earth will survive in either case.
And Exxon has been knowingly lying about same since 1981, up to and including the present day when it lies about giving money to deniers who, he... he.. have suddenly stopped denying global warming is HAPPENING to denying CARBON is the cause.
What Exxon Mobile executive THINK is they're going to get away with it because, you know, politics and money and personal connections and what kind of precedent and message would civilization be sending if all the past and present executives of BP, Chevron, Conoco, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, Phillips, and Shell all ended their lives hung like Nazis by the very US government they used to control?
What's REALLY going to happen is the systems of the eearth are going to start to collapse and their rage will be unstoppable, implacable and total, sweeping aside every bit of "deniability" bullshit they now hide behind.
They'll be hunted down by the governments they used to control and pay the worst price for their crimes the human mind can conceive of. That will happen merely to placate and attempt to keep some semblance of order amongst the enraged and bloodthirsty billions .
Read history. Read what the Celts degenerated into as first Ceaser then Suetonius rolled through Brittania wiping them out completly. Read what they did in a desperate attempt to preserve their civilization and placate, in their case, the gods.
It isn't pretty.
Because that's what happens when civilizations collapse. Those in power desperately seek, through all means, even those previously unthinkable, including human sacrifice of the high born, to change the desperate directions of things.
And that's just what happens when you unleash upon populations the necessity to fight for mere survival and continued existence .. niceties like the Enlightenment Ideals are tossed aside and the much, much more basic impulses of humankind roar forth out of the forgotten darkness.
There are no concepts or words for the type of criminal Exxon Mobile executives are. Sub-human animals predators sociopaths Nazis mass murderers genocidal psychotics all these descriptions only flirt around the edges of what they are. They are the most depraved set of human beings ever to walk the earth without exception and the system that created them and permitted them to flourish is going down as hard as they are.
The crimes they committed beggar belief in their evilness scope and consequence. All of human society- from religious "freedoms" to "free market" enterprise to "privacy rights" to "individual culpability" and basic tenets of jurisprudence like "presumption of innocence" are going to be radically re-conceived, recast and reformed.
Because, motherfuckers, rest assured that the LAW GOES WHERE CRIMINALS LEAD. What this band of criminals and their "think tank" buddies and "news media" advocates THINK is they have found a safe refuge within the law- a legal escape hatch in plausible deniability. I really believed what I was saying was true!
See how far that gets you with near future juries.
What REALLY happens is the law reforms itself to accommodate the machinations of criminals. The law, in a word, adapts.
And the law can be very flexible indeed. Ask the Nazis who did nothing but what their country and laws demanded of them but who nonetheless were hung like so much fucking meat. Ask them about how "fair" the post-hoc "crimes against humanity" they were charged with are.
Not too fair I'd say. Crimes Against Humanity were just an academic idea floating around here and there in academic circles until it was grasped and used to put nooses around their necks.
Rest assured, 100% without a doubt that IS your future too and there is no escaping it now. No apology, no lawyering, no flight or connections to powerful people or hiding or anything else will stop the US Government's hangman's noose from being fitted around your fat pig necks as the whole word watches and cheers the sight.
The law goes where criminals force it to go. Tha
But then explain exactly what you think you're going to do about it. You can build all the wind machines and solar farms you like, and even 100 more big nukes, and you know what? It won't power your cars and trucks down the road.
But it has to power your cars and trucks down the road, because without them, commerce, and most significantly food production and delivery stops. We have one viable way to get everyone where they need to go and that is the individual automobile and truck. And that absolutely, positively requires oil until someone invents the magic battery to make electric cars and trucks happen. But the magic battery most be cheap and small and cheap and lightweight and cheap and high capacity and cheap and rugged enough for automotive use and cheap. If it ain't cheap, then Joe Lunchbucket as well as Farmer Brown can't afford it and all the aforementioned bad stuff happens. But we do not have the magic battery, and we may never get the magic battery. Someone has to invent it, and it is not known to be even possible until someone actually does it.
No magic battery ever? Then we have to figure out a way to use grid electricity to power all our vehicles everywhere. That probably can't be done either, and if so, we probably all die when "cheap enough" oil energy no longer exists. So, the best thing all the leftist enviro-whiners can do is to quit whining, get their PHD's in electrochemistry, and get their butts into a lab somewhere and invent for us the magic battery. Otherwise, we're pretty much screwed at some point.
How about the bees dying off? There was a recent study that showed that while the climate amenable to bees is moving north, the bees aren't. So the bees in southern regions are dying off (too hot) and the entire population of bees is suffering. If the bees die off, many plants (including crops) will suffer.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And the spreading of false "global warming" propaganda by left wing activists continues... blindly parroted by the useful idiot disciples of millionaire Al Gore.
It was definitely hot but I prefer the un-adjusted global satellite data. Un-adjusted data is a great thing, so is adjusted data if/when they also provide a complete record of all adjustments and original data as well as the rational for the adjustments.
If you dig oil and shit out of the ground and burn it, where do think it's going to go? Into space? We're slow cooking our own planet to death.
... that it is the warmest since 1850 or so. They don't actually know... these are estimates with a big margins of error. Global records of temperature going back that far are not that accurate.
Keep in mind the whole thing is very political with one side hammering the other about the "pause" and the other side either trying to prove the pause doesn't exist, doesn't matter, or stopped pausing.
Both sides have politicians, business interests, lobbying groups, and scientists. Yes... BOTH sides have scientists on them. Equal numbers? That's a political argument. Science isn't a democracy.
What is known is that 2014 WAS a warm year. No question about it. Warmest? Maybe
Not yes. Not no.
Maybe.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
LOL no they do not.
They raised the amount by .07 Celsius.
Tied for warmest year in the past 200 years... Remind me, how old is the planet? How long has man been on the planet?
We barely have temperature readings from the time of the U.S. revolution... Statistically speaking, that's a very, very small sample size compared to man's time on earth.
Ken
inside my Hummer with the windows rolled up and the AC on max. And if I can't hear you, there's can't be a problem.
Hey, why does the dash say "engine overheating"?
Maybe not as much as it is now but I remember in 1970s there was discussion about greenhouse gases i.e. CO2 and Venus as an example. It was also when NASA flew Pioneer Venus (I was thinking we have been ignoring that planet). Of course there was no internet in form we know now where anyone can post whatever. Though we have datasets by NASA, NOAA, EPA (though most don't have the training to interpret these sets) we also have all kinds of sites that offer proof that climate change is/isn't (take your pick depending on what political party you are member of).
There was a program about 2000s, a clip of Al Gore talking about global warming. One of the commentators said he was the best spokesman for this phenomena, and also the worst. I think that was the tipping point as Gore is a lightning rod of criticism from the far right. I wonder it might have been better if he kept his mouth shut. There has been noticeable changes in the environment, long droughts in places that need water, and floods in places with too much water, rising sea levels (really, there are many places with large construction projects to alleviate flooding).
mfwright@batnet.com
I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.
It's not "eliminating pesky data": when you compare the old and new data reconstruction--which they show on their link --the difference is almost trivial:
1998 indeed was the warmest year on record... and kept that record until 2005. But that didn't change with the new data analysis-- the same years hold the same records.
The data analysis methods are discussed in detail here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4
group think at it's finest. global satellite data refutes the warmest month evah meme. the fact that i disagree makes me a troll. so it's OK ... go ahead and slime me now. :-)
That study was specifically about bumblebees - not bees in general. And it's exactly one study; so, while it's interesting, it's not wise to put too much weight on its conclusions.
Also, most crops are not pollinated by bumblebees. The big pollinators here in North America are non-native European honey bees - and they are generally trucked from place to place by companies that specialize in providing pollination services.
#DeleteChrome
The poster is too ignorant to understand the data anyway.
I see the same ignorant nonsense every time there's a climate story, and they'er always told where to get the data. And yet they denier-bots keep posting the same, redundant nonsense.
.004C per year is .040C per Decade and .4C per Century, which is not scary. And, that's a comparison to not last year, but either 4 or 9 years ago. So, the rate of warming is probably even lower. If it could be said that it is warming at all. Clearly it must have been colder in the intervening years (otherwise they would be hotter).
Somehow this is all bad news.
What would be the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere?
Actually, the moon is pretty black (Bond albedo about 11%), so it should be a bit hotter than the Earth (Bond albedo about 31%).
With no atmosphere, though, the unilluminated side cools off much more rapidly, so the night side is fiercely cold.
No, adjustments always are made to increase warming.
See the blink chart at the end of this :
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
A trend is manufactured by adjustments.
Cooling the past and warming the recent data.
And they keep adjusting and adjusting and adjusting...until they get the message they want.
people love to make the discussion about some finer detail so they can distract themselves and each other from the bigger, harder, and more important questions. when self-centered people hear things about the environment or personal responsibility from people who tend to care about stuff like that, they get upset and indignant and want to attack both the message and the messenger. how dare you suggest everything isnt fine, much less that i should do anything about it?
so then you get all of these people trying to make the discussion about whether or not the temperature is warmer or colder or whether or not or to what degree human activities might have influenced it. just for the sake of conversation, lets just say that everything is just exactly as it always was, nothing is different, and human activities are to blame for nothing. what then is the actual argument here? that we should continue turning our planet into a toxic landfill with reckless abandon? is that really the world you want to live in? is that really the world you want your children and their children and their children to live in? why? what kind of argument is that?
This is such nonsense, their records are less than 150 years old which is but the blink of an eye. But they claim that it is the warmest year on which is not a lie, but it implies something completely different.
In 1976 I sat on the couch and listened to my little brother ( college dropout ) and my Dad ( associates degree ) argue about nuclear power - fission...
I had a BS in Physics, and had every nuclear power, nuclear physics, and nuclear reactor course the university offerred. ( PhD now...)
Watching this set of discussions is just as entertaining. And just as knowlegeable.
And just as full of pompous asses as congress.
Most of you need to go back to sudoku or something....
But it raises the historical value - thus the difference is less - thus they LOWER the amount of apparent warming.
Let me preface this by stating that I do believe in AGW, thus not a denier. HOWEVER, in my part of the world, southwestern BC, it was a warmer and drier winter than normal, therefore less natural gas used to heat my home. Even though it is hot now, and my A/C is on, electricity here is hydro-electric, so it's quite green.
Also, there was an article in the local paper talking about the warming, and what it means. It stated that we can now have a longer growing season, and can grow food not normally grown here (there is someone growing rice around here). Also, the article stated that this part of the world is one of the few places in the world that would see a net benefit from the warmer temps.
Having said that, why on earth should I work against myself, or care about the other side of the planet. I know it sounds selfish, and I do actually make every effort not to be wasteful, and to recycle where ever possible.
The bottom line is, I like what is happening where I live, and short of another country invading us, I don't see this as a bad thing.
Warmer winters = less fossil fuels used for heating
Longer summers = better and more diverse growing season.
It's all good, and the selfish part of me simply doesn't care about the rest of the planet. Yes it's a fluke, and I'm lucky to be here... but it is what it is.
Let the flames begin.
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
More of you are not complaining about how hot THIS YEAR is.
It's much hotter than what is being 'officially' reported! (Acurite weather station calibrated/ spot on)
like Clockwork, every day is triple digits, 100F at night, ground temperatures 140F-190F
Home air conditioning systems are struggling, Car air conditioning system are failing (over-pressure shutdown), everything man-made is failing, baking, and micro-evaporating.
Barely survivable until the power goes out or ..the reservoirs dry up? Bottled water s regularly sold out or costs more than a gallon of gasoline.
rgbatduke July 13, 2015 at 5:24 am
There is a fundamental problem with the analysis, especially extended back to 1850. Specifically, the error estimatet for the present is around 0.1, but around is not the same as exact. Furthermore, the basis for the error estimate itself is an estimated basis — it has a number of assumptions built into it and it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the standard deviation of a set of independent and identically distributed samples drawn from a stationary distribution. It does not have an axiomatic basis — the error estimate itself has biases in it that cannot be independently estimated because they are based on assumptions that cannot be independently tested.
To make this clear, let’s consider HadCRUT4, as it is a dataset I have on hand — including its error estimates. Here is the line for 1850:
1850 -0.376 -0.427 -0.338 -0.507 -0.246 -0.542 -0.211 -0.518 -0.239 -0.595 -0.162
The first number is the “anomaly”. I don’t want to discuss the difficulties of using an anomaly instead of an absolute estimate of global average temperature but IMO they are profound. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that this is what we are doing in the discussion above, Bob, because the uncertainty in the actual global average temperature is “around” 1 C, not 0.1 C. So when the article asserts “warmest year” what it really means is “highest anomaly” computed “independently” of the actual global average temperature which is paradoxically much less precisely known.
The last two numbers are the supposed lower and upper bounds on the temperature estimate. One has to assume that these bounds are some sort of “95% confidence” interval, but of course they are not, not really, because the error estimate is not based on iid samples and hence there is no particularly good reason to think that the central estimate is normally distributed relative to the true temperature, oops, I mean “anomaly”. It is also the case that the other entries are supposedly error estimates as well that are somehow combined into the last two numbers, and hence the uncertainty in the uncertainties is likely compounded. Nevertheless, we see that the anomaly in 1850 could have been as low as -0.595 and has high as -0.162. A bit of subtraction and we see that HadCRUT4 estimates the anomaly in 1850 to be -0.376 \pm 0.216 with approximately symmetric error estimates. 0.216 is not particularly close to 0.1 — in fact it is over twice as large.
Let’s consider the line for 2014:
2014 0.555 0.519 0.591 0.532 0.578 0.456 0.654 0.508 0.603 0.445 0.666
This line may not be current — they keep tweaking the numbers as the next global meeting to address global warming draws near — but it is what I downloaded at my last opportunity. Note that the anomaly is pretty close to 0.555 \pm 0.110. Each year comes with its very own error, and the errors vary from 0.08-ish to 0.12-ish in the 2000s and not quite twice that in the 1800s.
This is a serious problem. Error estimates for 1850 of only 0.2 C compared to contemporary error estimates of 0.1 C are simply not credible. They are in-credible. One, the other, or both are absurd. To put it bluntly, there is no way in hell that we know the global average temperature, or the global average temperature “anomaly” — almost as precisely in 1850 as we do today (where within a factor of 2 in the error estimate is absolutely “almost as precisely”. For one simple thing, a rather enormous fraction of the Earth’s surface was still terra incognita in 1850. Phenomena such as El Nino and the Pacific Hot Spot that dominate the temperature estimates for 2014 would have passed unmeasured in 1850 — El Nino itself had not yet been observed or named. Antarctica was basically totally unexplored. The North Pole — far more accessible than the South — was not reached until the 20th century,
Tell me: Are the ancient climate data sets true, or are they false? The global warming folks have been having both ways for too long.
[A] Supposedly the ancient climate data showing both very cold glacial periods and very hot inter-glacial periods are accurate "records" of climate and anybody who disagrees with them is some sort of "anti-science" religious nutjob. That climate data says the Earth used to be very much hotter than today with far higher CO2 concentrations (and big scary monsters stomping about eating each other etc - cue Jurrasic Part theme...)
[B] We've only been measuring climate on most of the Earth with poor instruments and poor record keeping for about 200 years, but with accurate satellite data for most of the planet for only the past 50 years.
SO: Are all the ancient records not "records" at all (in which case all the global warming scares based on them are bogus), or are all these continual hyperventilated press releases of "Warmest year on record! (let us tax and regulate you to save the planet)" announcements bogus? After-all, if the old records stand, then there will not be any "warmest year on record" until we get to a global jungle/desert state with no ice caps or glaciers and no winter snow...
Incidentally, I am not questioning the ancient data on dinos and the climate of their era, but rather the conflicting propaganda being shovelled fast-and-furious to justify every manner of national and/or international socialism...
if you don't "adjust" the data, you cannot satisfy your paymasters in the White House who demand a justification for bigger government.
Every global warming researcher in the US is funded directly or indirectly by big government or by wealthy left-wing funders, who want more government power to regulate and more excuses to demand that power. There simply ARE no unbiased climate researchers.
Funny how if it is unusually cold, the response is: Nothing to see! It's just weather!.
But if it unusually hot the response is: See? It's caused by global warming!
As we all know, you can win any argument with a teabagger by using a single word: 'scientists.' 'Scientists say it’s happening. Scientists say you’re wrong. Why are you denying science, science-denier?' BOOM. ... Scientists are saying this. Scientists! Are you a scientist? If not, you need to shut up.*
*If you are a scientist and you disagree, you also need to shut up. That’s how it works. Some science is more equal than other science.
"peer reviewed" is meaningless in the climate field. We learned from the "climate gate" (gads I detest that "gate" stuff, but that's the name that stuck) e-mails dump that the global warming advocates have completely manipulated the peer review process in the field. They agreed to ban all reviewers who were not onboard with their warming alarmism, agreed to not review or negatively review any contrary papers, and agreed to destroy any paper publisher who did not go along with these rules... They destroyed the credibility of their entire field. No intelligent person will believe ANYTHING they say (even if they announce the sky is blue) without independent verification until they flush the people who did this - but rather than cleaning-house of the corrupters of the scientific process, they embraced them (further proving everybody in the field is likely corrupt and dishonest)
Besides, did you actually READ the source code that leaked as part of that dump???? The comments alone, which highlight some of the tweaks and fudges to data as the climate is modeled are enough to convince me never to trust those people with ANY numeric data!
Not a problem. I live in the north and don't eat crops. I buy vegetables from the supermarket.
1. Nearly everybody involved in that publication is funded by a government (even the Russian petrol related person is tied to government funds) so we're not talking about an unbiased team (you guys always denounce anybody funded by "Big Oil" as "tainted by money" - Pot, meet Kettle)
2. Raw data? Yeah they have nice graphics probably derived from data and they link to some partial data sets, but the supporters always like to claim they have provided complete raw data while actually providing partial data, or manipulated data or pointers to other people's data (which allows them to claim no accountability for partial or manipulated, or restricted-access data...
Remember: the claim is "Warmest year on record!", so the only way to back that up is with ALL the records (for all time). For it to be "warmest on record", it must be able to be compared to ALL the data "on record", not just to years since 1880 (for spotty records of mercury thermometers read by candle light on sailing ships at sea) or just since the 1950s or 60s for Satellite data.
The Earth is BILLIONS of years old and we have mercury thermometer data for about two centuries (a statistically insignificant portion of the Earth's history). In any real field of science or engineering other than "climate science", this is such a small sample, far smaller than 200 hundred billionths, that it would be considered a joke.
This is not the warmest year on record. It's the warmest year (in some areas) on the instrument-based temperature record, a record only going back a laughably short 130 years. Ice core data from Greenland, to pick a single example from many sources showing similar results, shows most of the past 10,000 years was far warmer than today (I'd eyeball it at around no more than 10% of the past 10,000 years were cooler than today). Going back further reveals even more chaotic temperature swings. Get back to us in a few thousand years when you can predict the weather accurately a month in advance, or your instrument-based measurements start to come close to being statistically significant in relation to the long term temperature deltas of a planet.
is that if you tax my gas which I have to buy to work, then I have to eat less or less healthy food, can't afford to pay my bills or have to ask for a wage hike triggering inflation and negating your tax. If you instead create things that replace gas or oil on a cost basis people will use them because they are cheaper. Any tax or method of trying to clean up what is a perceived problem by a few ends up costing more than the net damage the original problem would have caused. C02 is no more a pollutant than N or O2 or H20. The problem is we have designed our world to be static and nature changes. We need to learn to adapt to a changing environment because at some point C02 may go down because some one is going to figure out that with cheap solar power and a bit of time you can pull the C02 out of the air and use it to make synthetic fuel or synthetic products. I can just see it. Countries going back to coal gas and oil as c02 levels drop below 150ppm making crops hard to grow and causing ice to push into cities all over the world.
What we all need to realize is that climate will change and we need to adapt to it gradually over time. We need to decry the fear mongering unless it is actually warranted (CFC's and the Ozone hole ) and make sure we have tackled all the low hanging fruit before we throw the T around (Tax for anyone not paying attention) like it is a panacea for solving all the worlds problems. All taxes do is take away funds from people who need it and give it to big government who doesn't need, thus creating an inefficient bureaucracy that exorcises an inordinate and highly oppressive amount of control on our lives (which is indeed the whole point of climate change and global warming alarm-ism).
As a climatologist I know one thing, and that is climate is a mean for a period of a 100 years or more with peaks and valleys in temperature, cloud cover, rain, humidity, solar radiance dust pollen and anything else that can have an effect on weather. Having a hot summer or a cold one does not necessarily a climate make.
As a bold faced liar I am not a climatologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so suck it up I am right.
Seriously though I think everyone needs to take a step back and look at where we are headed and what we can do without violating peoples basic rights, destroying the quality of life we scratch out and improving our situation without taxes, big government and arrogance.
I think based on what I've read here that people who read and comment on slashdot are smarter than the average bear and could in fact help change the world and make it better without unintended consequences and financial ruin.
This is definitely old news and the answer already known. The "adjusted" data shows it to be the hottest year on record but the original data does not.
If you actually looked at the site, which apparently you didn't, you'd see that both the original and the reanalyzed data show 2015 to be the hottest year on record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
As does, for that matter, the data from the Japanese Meteorogical Agency.
And the adjustments are not arbitrary-- they are quite well documented: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
I see a lot of hand waving about the temperature adjustments but I seldom see any serious scientifically rigorous challenge that addresses the reasons and methods that scientists give for making the adjustments.
Yep!
But doing science isn't free.
You're not going to get funding for that study from a government agency, or from a family trust managed by "progressive" administrators (regardless of the political position of the rich dead guy who established it).
If you take funding from, say, an oil company, or from a family trust started by a conservative that is somehow still managed by conservatives, any results not agreeing with the Global Heat Death scenario will be flamed as comparable to tobacco company sponsored lung cancer research - and can go whistle for a journal to publish them. (Isn't it amazing how research that DOES agree doesn't seem to have these problems, no matter how much the data has been "adjusted"?)
Other funding sources have similar issues.
So do you have any suggestions on where researchers can get funding for that study (and for all their future work in the field after it's done, if it doesn't agree with the dominant paradigm?)
Perhaps you have a few million to spare?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It was damned cold and damned snowy pretty much everywhere north of Florida six months ago. We didn't have "Polar Vortexes" in the news when I was a kid. I've not seen that many blizzards in one season in my whole life, and I'm getting to be a pretty old man.
Climate change? You bet.
Warmer?
Psh. What continent are you living on?
People can BS themselves all they like, spout their dogma, blame everything they can within their scope of too-limited knowledge. Me? I just bought skis and proper clothing in preparation for next winter because the reality on the ground was buried under 8 feet of white stuff 20 weeks ago and there's no reason to think it isn't going to be the same way in another 20 weeks.
How many people die each year because of trees? They fall out of trees, trees fall on them. It's terrible really and we'd all be better off without them.
Plus, have you ever seen a documentary on the rain forest? It's full of poisonous insects and toxic plants and cannibals. ... APK's goat
Yeah, we had a crappy winter on the West Coast too. But it was the opposite of what happened on the East Coast. Very warm and very little snow in the mountains where we depend on it for late summer stream flows.
I live on the same continent you do and I've lived here since the 1950's. It's easily the warmest year I can remember and the weather statistics support that assertion.
Unless you're taking a global view of the situation you're missing to much to have an informed opinion.
There were dairy farms and wheat cultivation in Greenland for 400 years. between CE 850 and CE 1250.
What continent am I on? Europe. All of Europe had a record warm winter. As a point of interest, Europe's bigger than Florida, so we more than cancel each other out. Anecdotes aplenty.
I'm 36 years old. I remember we used to get snow here in Holland, so we could sled. Barely happens these days. The last time we had an Elfstedentocht (Eleven Cities Tour, an ice skating marathon) was 1997, and before that 1986. The other years, we didn't have enough frost.
It's entirely possible global climate change means Florida's going to be colder. I hope you enjoy skiing, at least until your state floods.
2014 won't keep the record for long.
Seering facts in a sea of speculation and prognostication.
Yet, not a single mod point added.
Frankly, with all the manipulation of data to make actual events fit the projection, I SIMPLY CALL BULLSH*T!
There has never been climate stasis on the planet.
We may be approaching a solar minimum that makes the Maunder Minimum look hyper-active.
It has been much warmer than it is now, and it has been much colder than it is now and life somehow seemed to survive and thrive.
Go peddle your fantasy elsewhere.
People worry about the government spying on them but seem to have no concern about granting the government the power to decide when and how much they exhale! Only morons buy into this drivel. Wake up and realize the ruling elites are out to reduce us all to serfdom any way they can.
Only by cooling the past can NOAA claim that it is the warmest in the last 150 years. Their "new and disproved" adjustments have not gotten a warm reception from climate scientists like Dr Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/
"My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."
Now we do have 2 satellite systems measuring global temperature with better coverage than the NOAA's method and they are run by 2 scientists with opposing views on CO2's role in climate. I love it when that happens because it keeps them honest and the thumb off the scale. You might ask how 2 scientists looking at 2 data sets that pretty much show the same thing can come to totally different conclusions? It makes for interesting reading to read their 2 blogs. Dr Mears runs the RSS and Dr Spencer runs the UAH. Both data sets show 18+ years with no warming. Both also show the temperature increase of the el-Nino's better than the NOAA data set.
The only way they get that result is by dubious adjustments and using data that is clearly contaminated and adjusting it the wrong way.
http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all
The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the engine itself, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
- Yes you read that correctly. They took engine intake (contaminated data) and used it to adjust the ARGO bouy (clean data) upwards. THEY ARE USING BAD DATA TO CORRECT GOOD DATA UPWARDS.
Anyone who buys that as proper and scientific process obviously has no clue and those that did it obviously have an agenda that doesn't involve accuracy.
The preterists are dogmatic that this stuff having occurred in the first century, but I think that's mostly wishful thinking. Things happening now are pretty interesting for the other doctrines.
Revelations 16:8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
It's easy not too see unpleasant things when you're covering your eyes.
Just as a point of note, "North of Florida" on the American continent means a whole lot more land mass than just "Florida".
Huh. Poe was right.
And all the evidence points to you being wrong. What happens in your part of the world does not imply what's happening in the rest of the world. This is basic stuff.
Have you learned the difference between land ice and sea ice yet? I love how you laugh out loud at others, yet make amateur mistakes again and again and again.
You are showing your ignorance once more. The soil in Canada and Siberia are terrible for farming, and so moving agriculture there will do fuck all. Plus the increase in CO2 means the crop yields will drop, meaning more farming has to take place in order to support the required number of people. Not to mention the complete lack of infrastructure, and that you're calling for farming to be moved across country lines, which never ends well (see: all of history).
You appear to have a spotty surface understanding of this problem, yet get confused about anything else. You really should fix your education, as it's embarrassing.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Do you ever grow tired of being wrong ?
Gee dave you only stalked me on 3 comments today
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You're also slow in your responses trying to hide your stupidity or just worried I might start reporting you to the site ?