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!
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!
Again.
For millionth 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.
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.
If you're going to link to a site, you should link to one that involves actual scientists using actual science.
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
Sorry, but no, it wasn't. NASA is notorious for re-casting it's data to support warning.
This is not a NASA report.
the point here is that they need to not normalize the data, but release the raw data and account for each location from which the data was procured. This allows unbiased, unslanted, PEER review to arrive at the same conclusion. If they would just do this instead of releasing their report with their conclusions it would shut the nay-sayers up a fuckton faster than trying to claim "consensus." Consensus has no place in science.
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.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
First link on page: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any other uninformed questions?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And what makes you think that isn't just EXACTLY what they do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
Very first result: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any uniformed suggestions?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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 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
The adjustments (cooling the past data, and warming the recent data to create or magnify a trend is well documented.
About a third of 20th century warming is from adjustments.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/29/one-way-adjustments-the-latest-alteration-to-the-u-s-climate-record/
All this flurry of new releases is a propaganda blitz to create a warming blitz prior to the bit Paris UN conference to ram something through.
And all the adjustments go to warmer, not cooler !
And they keep adjusting the old records again and again, always warmer. In most sciences, this would be called data tampering.
I guess we just won't know how warm it is now until a 7 years from now!
Sorry but the GHCN data doesn't cover a large enough time frame to make the claim that 2014 was the hottest. Of the station data between 1900 and 2014 only North America is really accounted for. To cover a larger area you have to shrink the time frame down, and if it's that 2014 is the hottest on record since 1970 I don't really care.
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.
But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground.
Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
It's the scientific method at work. If the data doesn't support the hypothesis, then it's obviously flawed data.
It's the denier method at work. If the data doesn't support the conclusion that it's ok to burn fossil fuels, then it's obviously flawed data. Throw it out and shout "it's biased!" Repeat as many times as needed Doesn't matter how many scientists, or how many different institutions in how many different countries; they're all biased.
If you're going to link to a site, you should link to one that involves actual scientists using actual science.
Nah; if we do that, they'll all just agree with each other. (Haven't you been paying attention. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
While I'm hardly a denier, I have to point out that the reverse is true as well. Anyone who tries to demonstrate that AGW isn't real is shouted down pretty fast without much of a hearing.
Honest science lets the facts speak for themselves. If we removed the hype and just looked at the facts, I think we'd see the obvious conclusion that man affects the environment. We might even answer the vital question of 'how much'.
Meanwhile, I'll be writing checks to neither Al Gore nor the Republican Party, neither of whom seem to me to be particularly adept at unbiased science.
Nope, wrong. The magic you're trying to get away with is accounting magic. We can incur the cost of carbon, and never have to pay the principle ......plus interest.
Looko, all that has to happen is the effects of carbon become so consequential that car and truck travel become tightly regulated. Long before human civilization itself becomes threatened by climate change, the government will get involved in bigger and bigger ways NO MATTER HOW UNHAPPY IT MAKES PEOPLE.
The real, least painful answer is found in the appoaches offered by Princeton University "wedges" concept and simlar incremental but substantial approaches other universities have calculated WILL work. They call for RIGHT NOW a scaling back of gas and oil and stepping up- through whatever subsidies are needed- of solar wind ocean and nuclear.
Fact is, we've been avoiding the cost of carbon and the sooner we begin to pay that cost the better off we'll be. We can pay it now in subsidies to solar and wind and increased taxes on carbon - or pay it in the future in draconic laws no one is going to like.be.
You suffer from a delusion that reality will not catch up with you that you can just keep avoiding physical reality. Well, I'm here to tell you you can't. None of us can.
What would be the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere?
The hot core would probably keep it a tad (in space terms I don't know how significant that is) warmer than the moon. But, really, without an atmosphere, who is going to ask?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you were as objective you might realize that many, and in fact most Republicans do not deny that AGW exists. Making it a political battle only forces people to defend and take sides, and basically stagnates progress. It is interesting to see that most GW threads are seized as opportunities to bash political parties or religious people. When has that approach ever yielded progress on anything? If anything, it is biasing our solutions to be those that are most politically popular, and not most effective.
... 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.
The explanation removing the global warming pause was in utter contradiction with the rational explanation given just a few years earlier. In the unweighted data-set from NOAA I can actually see the effect of a volcano going off so I'll buy that the Pause was more than likely volcano's altering the temperature. But in the statistical black magic weighted dataset those effect are magically gone. However, it still doesn't change they said they used 4 datasets and even in their appendix on 233 there isn't a link the the direct data just summary 14 different summarys of data.
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"?
The NOAA data which I believe already has the USCRN in it works just fine if you know what you're doing. A simple graph of all the stations that existed form 1900 to present shows exactly what's going on. I'd doubt any dataset that didn't show some warming since 1980 to present. Most of it is due to the Atlantic Multi-decade Oscillation cycle, but knowing exactly what the cycle is going to do next would require an accurate dataset of 600 to 1000 years which doesn't exist, and probably can't exist since one major volcano could seriously mess with it on that time scale.
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
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
Where did you find this? I can't find any evidence of this, and all the forcing calculations I've seen are based on observations, and include the atmosphere.
French - The lingua franca of Europe!
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.
What are you talking about and do you have a source for what you're talking about?
Raw data is available and has been used. For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands, bad sources, etc.
http://berkeleyearth.org/about....
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
yeah, who needs trees
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Throwing out Argo temps for ship engine intake temp
Homogenizing,
Interpolating,
etc.
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. If you want to challenge the scientific mainstream you need to use science. Anything else is inadequate.
Without a hearing? The hearing happened, and they lost big time. At this point, they are just repeating vague and badly grounded accusations.
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
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!
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,
You don't have even a glimpse of an idea what unhappy is. If they become unhappy enough they will rise up, your heroes will LOSE, and all the apologists for the apparatchik will be in real danger of getting caught in the cleansing. At that point you can either smarten up, or go down fighting. I don't much care which.
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...
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.
Not a problem. I live in the north and don't eat crops. I buy vegetables from the supermarket.
Still didn't explain how you're going to produce food, move it and other commodities, and get people down the road for billions of vehicle miles using only "clean" energy at a price that we can afford. Doesn't happen without the magic battery. No magic battery, and the gov't can get involved all it wants, and people will still starve, and become pauperized, unless using fossil fuels.
They dont like thinking. It hurts.
Repeating what they read in MSM is easier.
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.
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.
You wouldn't know what to do with the raw data if you got it. It is available to anyone who cares to seek it out but it may take some work to get it.
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.
Anyone with some statistical chops can handle the raw data. The reason you don't see raw data graphs of global temperatures from climate contrarians is because they don't help their case that much. Instead they'll cherry pick some individual records like that station in Paraguay and try to imply that shows the global records are rigged.
I know there were some cold records set east of the Rockies on North America this past winter although not all that many. That doesn't negate the fact that there were also record high temperatures west of the Rockies and when you look at it globally it was a pretty warm winter.
You mean "hockey stick graphs". There have been over a dozen studies since the original and they all show similar shapes. Here's a graph with 10 of them from 2005.
You just don't know how adjusted the satellite data is. Far more adjustment goes into satellite data than the surface temperature records.
Satellites don't measure temperature directly but rather the microwave emissions of O2 molecules. The data has to be adjusted for orbital variations, sensor degradation, the effects of clouds and water vapor, the effects of high elevations and the differences of replacement satellites that are launched every 10 years or so. Compared to that surface temperature adjustments are a piece of cake.
Anyone who tries to demonstrate that AGW isn't real is shouted down pretty fast without much of a hearing.
It would help if they presented something new that even vaguely resembled science, rather than the same old tired innuendo and baseless accusations. I'm about ready to punch the next person who smugly claims that scientists don't know that the sun exists and that it warms the earth.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
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.
For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands,
They addressed concerns about urban heat islands by examining data after it was homogenized. Think about that for a second.
The earth is warming. We don't know why. CO2 is increasing. We know CO2 increases should warm the climate. Conclusion: It must be CO2.
Problem: CO2 does not cause enough warming. Solution: Hypothesize that the climate is hyper-sensitive to small amounts of CO2 warming, and will amplify it by up to 450%. (!!)
And THAT is how you get predictions of catastrophic global warming.
Skeptical Science does publish and 'create' its own scientific research.
http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...
2014 won't keep the record for long.
They don't mean anything to me.
Some of the dumbest things said on this site get rated 5 Insightful and some of the cleverest get rated 0 Troll.
You can't take the mod points seriously when there isn't an IQ test or something before someone gets mod points.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think that means a whoosh is missing. Well, I damned well hope a whoosh is in order.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
AGW "skeptics" have had more than a fair hearing over the past few decades, statistically their minority views have been given way too much attention in the MSM for the past 20 odd years, using exactly the same tax free 'think tanks' that tobacco companies used to perpetuate the lie that smoking doesn't cause cancer within the MSM.
Their long list of unsupported claims and illogical objections have been found wanting time and again. The national academies of science (and many, many, similar institutions) have stated on several occasions that AGW is "established science" in the same way as relativity, quantum mechanics, tectonics, evolution, etc, are 'established science', to the best of my knowledge the NAS were the first major institution to make that kind of statement, they have held that view since the late 1950's when spectrometers were finally sensitive enough to detect that the CO2 and H2O IR absorption spectra were interleaved and not overlayed as previously thought.
Every scientific institution on the planet that has an opinion in the subject has stated they agree with the basic claims that the earth is warming and human emissions are responsible for most, if not all, of the observed warming. Even the American Petroleum Institute (publically) agrees with those basic claims. The pentagon regards it as the greatest medium and long term threat to global stability, and has done so for over a decade.
How much longer are you going to sit on the fence deciding whether or not it's a serious problem?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There is far too much political crap going on for me to believe it's all man's fault.
Nonesense, there's plenty of unbiased pure science out there, try the WG1 report from the IPCC, it the only report they produce where the text is not negotiable by the diplomats from the ~150 donor nations (of every political persuasion) that fund the IPCC's measly $5M/pa budget. . A huge and very tedious effort goes into creating the WG1 report, none of the scientists are paid a dime by the IPCC. The WG1 report has a remarkable reputation for accuracy and quality, it has been issued 5 times in the last 25yrs, it receives intense global scrutiny every time it's issued, yet nobody has ever found a technical error in any of the final versions, errors such as the infamous glacier glitch have been found in the reports where diplomats have the final word on contents.
If you are like me you will need to listen to some of the more communicative scientists who wrote the reports before you can even begin to understand what the WG1 report actually says in plain english.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Just as a point of note, "North of Florida" on the American continent means a whole lot more land mass than just "Florida".
No, they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included,
and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations.
And guess what? The result was the same; nearly unchanged.
In short, the idea that somehow its all due "heat islands", and that scientists are too stupid to think of this on their own, is bullshit .
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Besides being bullshit due to a misunderstand on your part, none of that changes, nor is it relative, to what I said, nor to what the GP said.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Attn mods: stating a fact is not trolling.
The data, THE RAW DATA you jerkwads are always asking for, because you dont trust scientists, because you think you can independently check them, IF TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS makes the Earth appear 20% warmer than it actually is.
It makes the state of global warming look WORSE than climatologists say it actually is.
In other words...the adjustments help you idiots who would rather say its not happening.
BTW, it also shows that the scientists dont have an agenda, and don't give a shit about any predetermined outcome, and truly do simply want to find out the factual truth of it all. Because if they truly had any sort of agenda, if it trully was solely about being an alarmist and scaring the shit out of people, why the fuck would they intentionally reduce the apparent magnitude of the warming if that was their goal?!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, its actually very right, unlike basically anything you wiull find on WUWT.
Some adjustments are upwards.
But most are downwards.
Particularly those in the arctic which are are some of the largest magnitude adjustments.
The over all effect IS to reduce the apparent warming.
That is not a debatable statement, but it is easily verifiable by looking at the data yourself.
The primary source of adjustments upwards is the United States, when we switched from taking readings in the afternoon to doing it in the morning it introduces a very large bias. And in order to correct that bias in order to achieve the same base reference point so that our data is comparable to and can be combined with the rest of the world's data, it requires adjusting upwards:
It is clear that the shift from afternoon to morning observations in the United States introduced a large cooling bias of about 0.3 C in raw U.S. temperatures. As contiguous U.S. temperatures have risen about 0.9 C over the last century, not correcting for this bias would give us a significant underestimate of actual U.S. warming. While some commenters have hyperbolically referred to temperature adjustments as “the biggest science scandal ever”, the reality is far more mundane.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Thing is....the US isn't the world. If you recall.
And the majority of the rest of the world's adjustments are downward.
And the overall effect is to, just as I said, reduce the amount of apparent warming.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If they have evidence, they won't be shouted down. That's the whole thing. One can't substitute evidence with anger or zeal - if they don't have the evidence, they get shouted down. That's how science has worked this far, and it's telling that when it happens in this field it's a problem, but when it happens in every other field it's perfectly normal, and even expected.
Al Gore is a politician. He has nothing to do with whether AGW is real or not. Mentioning him isn't going to make you look particularly rational :)
Nonsense. Your ignorance does not magically make all the evidence disappear. I'm sure you'd love that, but still...
Can you link to the actual rebuttal? To their paper which shows this peer-reviewed research to be faulty? No? Weird. I guess if all you have are some flapping heads on your side, you might want to reconsider your position.
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 ?
First off, I am not saying it's "all due to 'heat islands'".
What I am saying is what you said: "they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included, and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations."
I'm just pointing out that they made the comparison using homogenized data.