Slashdot Mirror
This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured (scienceblogs.com)
GregLaden writes: Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record-breaking months. Now, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA have identified October as an extraordinary month. October 2016 is significantly warmer than any other in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880.
Nice to know that next year will be even warmer.. I've been enjoying the warm October we've had here in 2015..
Just to add - a simple typo like that is enough to give my conspiracy liking friends a hard on until next October.
"Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. "
There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago. In addition, the "estimate" of sea surface temperatures are done by models. And models have been proven to be complete utter bunk. How would they possibly have "estimated" what sea surface temperatures were from the 1880s? Therefore the conclusions reached are complete nonsense.
Although I 100% agree with AGW, the science is suspect.
Not the point.
Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:
UAH RSS
The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.
It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
W\hen failure is not an option, its perfectly logical to release the information beforehand.
Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault. Denier doesn't get it, news at 11:05.
True science needs deniers:
That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. - - Jacob Bronowski
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along! Our views on global climate change are based on we *think* is right, based on the facts that we have today. In another 100 years, things might look very differently. Hey, using blood-sucking leeches to treat sick folks seemed like a good idea a while back! The gag is, blood-sucking leeches are back in fashion in modern medicine: it turns out that they are very useful in restoring blood flow to skin transplants.
Even Einstein himself, probably one of the most gifted minds that ever walked on this planet, had problems with that newfangled Quantum Theory:
Einstein: "God does not play dice!"
Niels Bohr: "Stop telling God what to do!"
Erwin Schrödinger: "So, is like, my cat dead or alive . . . ?"
Einstein: "If I had my way, all those cats would be dead! They pee on my furniture, and shit in my shoes!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
So, Im in Texas and it was the coolest, wettest summer I've ever experienced!
But our experiences are nanoseconds in the geological sense.
And just to forestall anyone replying to you with "lots of snow means no global warming": Warmer air means it can hold more moisture. This leads to more precipitation. Also, warmer weather means less lakes freeze over which means more lake effect snow. So a warming climate CAN lead to more snow despite the claims of certain politicians who claim that seeing snow outside proves global warming wrong.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Try going outside. You appear to be in a condo in Vancouver. You may be on heroin.
It's been so cold in Canada in the last three years we've broken dozens if not hundreds of cold record temperature records:
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
We've not broken one for warm/hot, just record cold.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
"Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot."
The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years."
Frost in late may/early June? Welcome to Canada, eh?
http://www.quintenews.com/2015...
Niagra falls has frozen about 7 times in 200 years. Last year and the year before were two of those times.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Plus, you know, the Arctic sea ice has grown so much - because it's unseasonabley cold and hs been for a decade according to the NOAA - that we have to redraw the maps becvause of eht INCREASE IN ARCTIC SEA ICE. There's more of it now than when "global warming" started.
I'd have to say, as a Canadian living in Canada you don't see a lot of global warming here. More like the next ice age.
One scientist who predicted this in 2008 had his work vetted by CERN and NASA and botttom line: 27 more years of this cold then it'll warm again.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
Look at the number of temperature records set for cold and hot worldwide. I believe that explains why they're so desperate to prove a hot climate record. It's because they keep trying to prove one, keep being corrected when it's pointed out it's not really a record in a field of so many cold weather records.
Can't say there's any sign of warming in Canada. The current Indian Summer, a first in a decade is not a sign the planet is warming, Sparky.
Need Mercedes parts ?
True science needs deniers:
No, True science needs challengers.
You can deny the Gravitational Theory all you want, but if I drop an anvil on your head, you're still dead.
On the other hand, if someone challenges that gravity must inevitably operate in such and such a way and that leads to development of anti-grav technology, that's True science.
The "Science" of Physics was "settled" back in the time of Issac Newton. Oops, then came Einstein along!
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.
And this is the hallmark of the true science denier: he wants to use the fact that science is allways in motion to promote the notion that nothing is ever certain. I can assure you that whatever new theories there will be found concerning the laws of physics they will have to comply with all known observations and therefore will have to be in compliance with newton's laws for normal day to day objects.
Einsteins theories have not supplanted Newton's theory gave an extension for elementary particles. BTW talking about Bohr and the theory of quantum mechanics: there is no sane way to apply these to macroscopic objects. For that you NEED newton's laws. So in that sense they are more complementary.
But... it is an outlier. What is your point?
If after this el nino, the avg. temperature curve is flat from about 1997 to present, with 3 el ninos in the mix and 2 large ones at that, it most certainly is an important observation.
The el nino is one thing, unfortunately for those cheering at "the warmest october evah", the la nina might just wipe the smirks of their faces... we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, the alarmists will be smiling and happy that nature is finally cooperating with their models for a brief period.
Make your own prediction, let's see what happens. Put your money where your mouth is.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.). Most proponents today sound less like reasonable people and more and more like shrill cultists holding up placards proclaiming the end is nigh.
It also disturbs me that AGW proponents have not only created an echo-chamber for themselves within the university system, but have also carefully tailored what appears to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's very difficult to conceive of any data that could contradict it. And when data DOES come along that seemingly does contradict it--rather than reconsidering the hypothesis itself, proponents merely "adjust" the data until it nicely fits the hypothesis again.
Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot. This very report cites October as the hottest October on record as evidence of global warming. Will it therefore be evidence AGAINST global warming if this December is the coldest December on record? Or will the same people who cited this report as AGW evidence suddenly dismiss that as "just a minor weather pattern, not related to climate."? Or maybe the data would somehow be cleverly be "adjusted" until December turns into the hottest on record instead (you see, that initial data didn't take into account a huge adjustment for ocean currents being very strong in the Indian Ocean this year, therefore we have to adjust it up several degrees to compensate).
I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
What's in it for you, specifically? I can see why corporations would fight accepting human created climate change tooth and nail considering that emission control is coming up right behind such an admission. What do you have to gain or lose from siding with whatever side you're not on that you go into full blown shitstorm mode whenever the topic comes up?
And this is by far not the only topic that gets people worked up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have no problems so you have to create some to get worked up about, so you feel like you still exist?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Anybody else curious that they reference October 2016 in the article, not 2015? I'm not sure that I can trust this information, maybe it needs another correction. :-)
You can't answer THAT, scientists.
64 temperature records smashed in B.C.
Weather experts are now predicting June will be Vancouver's hottest on record
Vancouver Sun June 30, 2015
Fuck you.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.
We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last 100+ years very very well starting from first principles (not statistic curve-fitting as some would want you to believe)
We have direct temperature series going back much further than 134 years, only they're local, not global, still, they show that the current circumstances are pretty much unprecedented as far back as we can measure.
It's not because we don't know everything that we know nothing...
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).
IOW you were fine with it until somebody noticed that there could be real life consequences. Then you locked up, because that's something only religions talk about, but not real science - that lives in a world of spherical cows in a vacuum on a frictionless surface.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Meanwhile, individual weather patterns continue to be dismissed as "just weather" when they are mild or abnormally cold, but sung from the rooftops as evidence of AGW when they are usually chaotic or hot.
I agree with you to some extent that an individual data point shouldn't be trumpeted as being evidence of anything for a long-term trend. But I would note that this is NOT what TFS says. It says (1) October is the hottest October in the past 135 years (that's based on 135 data points, not one), and (2) there have been many such record-breaking months recently.
That's not an individual data point. That's a bunch of data seen in a 135-year context. You can argue that 135 years is still a short time window for climate, but still, it's more than a random single data point.
This very report cites October as the hottest October on record as evidence of global warming. Will it therefore be evidence AGAINST global warming if this December is the coldest December on record? Or will the same people who cited this report as AGW evidence suddenly dismiss that as "just a minor weather pattern, not related to climate."?
If December is the coldest December on record globally, it would certainly be MAJOR news. Those who dismiss accounts as "weather" usually are talking about... well, the WEATHER.
For example, there were all sorts of headlines this year in February in the U.S., with claims about it being one of the coldest or even THE coldest on record, particularly on the east coast of the U.S. That's true.
But, if you look at global average temperatures in February 2015, I believe it was near the HOTTEST on record. Someone will certainly come out to correct me, but I'm reasonably sure it's been about 30 years since we've had a month where GLOBAL temperature even below average, let alone setting a record for "coldest." So if something like you say happens, it will be VERY unusual indeed.
The globe is a complex system. If you introduce more energy into the system, it will do all sorts of things. Some areas will get hotter. Others will get colder. Some will get wetter. Some will get dryer.
What you can't do is look at some random anecdotal weather pattern -- even if extends for a month or more across one side of a continent -- and claim that we should take that as evidence that GLOBAL temperatures aren't going up.
Seriously. There IS a difference between "weather" and global average temperature. One hot month in October is NOT news. Saying it is the hottest month on record in a series of years that have "hottest months on record" does seem to point to a broader trend. If you can't tell the difference between that and the fact that you had a lot of snow last winter, I don't know what to say.
It's called "an overwhelming body of evidence, which some people ignore on ideological grounds".
It's not an echo chamber, it's science. If someone can demonstrate AGW is not happening, they will find fame and fortune in these exact same institutions. They will be lauded and given wealth and opportunity beyond measure.
All your examples are just ignorance of what the scientists are actually talking about and what they're doing. Blaming them for that is, well, ridiculous. Judging from what you've written you have a lot of knowledge of this subject missing, so no wonder you get so confused. It would look like a scam to me, too, if I knew as little as you do on the subject. I don't mean to sound rude, but there is simply no other way to put it.
The fact you will ignore scientific discoveries because they sound weird to you and confuse the evening news with scientific journals speaks more of your grasp of science than any science in particular.
And yes, people who actively deny scientific findings (using a medium born from the same method) will usually garner criticism, and rightly so. The irony is palpable.
...is Slashdot going to post this crap once a month proclaiming that interpolated, estimated, revised, and combined data sets show each moth is the Hottest Eeeevurr!!
Lets get real here people, they've polluted the data so badly they can't even provide the original, unedited data. NOAA essentially threw out high quality, well calibrated data collected from purpose built devices by combining it with low quality, uncontrolled data from ships. Image if some drug company took data derived from blood samples measuring a drug level and decided they needed to "adjust" it with samples taken from urine.
Agenda driven Science is what it is.
Its really easy to falsify. Put some co2 in a jar. Put some ordinary air in another jar. Leave both in the sun for an hour. Measure their temperature.
If the co2 jar is not hotter than the air jar as predicted then you falsified the theory. Good luck with that.
Everything else is basic thermodynamics.. if the rate at which energy leaves the system is reduced it heats up. No matter how big or complex the system. Of course you could try to disprove thermodynamics instead...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer. The Warmists are grasping at straws because even the El Nino hasn't broken the pause, there still hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the RSS satellite data for 223 months.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Therefore, end capitalism!
I know this will get me modded down on /. But that is why I've come to seriously doubt the idea of anthropocentric global warming over the last several years, and why I have come to believe that the issue is more about religious zealotry and social agendas than actual science.
The key is to recognize what is supported by evidence, and what is still hypothesis.
Strongly supported: adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally cause warming.
Hypothesis: adding CO2 will cause so much warming that there will be a disaster.
Hypothesis: our computer models can accurately predict the climate of the future.
A lot of people have trouble with the idea that parts of AGW theory can be well established, but other parts are highly conjectural. It's ok to accept some parts while doubting other parts.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"It's not an echo chamber, it's science. If someone can demonstrate AGW is not happening, they will find fame and fortune in these exact same institutions. They will be lauded and given wealth and opportunity beyond measure."
Pull the other one.
North America has often been getting our (Europe) dose of winter the last couple of years. Last couple of years temperatures where I live never got below the freezing point. Now its mid November and we have been getting almost 20 degrees C (68F) on some days. In central Europe winters have been noticeably warmer and we barely get any snow anymore.
Seriously, anyone doubting climate change and global warming, simply educate yourself and read the Wikipedia articles on it. They are scientific, to the point and unbiased.
Unless you are one of those people who think that reality and science has a liberal bias... then there is no helping you.
The problem that I have with anthropogenic global warming is that it started out sounded like a science-based issue, but it has since moved into the realm that's more reminiscent of a religion (complete with established dogma, punishment of heretics, an apocalyptic theology, etc.).
So what? The science is still there no matter how much perceived crap is on top of it! The greenhouse effect still traps radiated heat from sources such as incident light (see: your car with the windows up in the sun). CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in atmosphere (see: Venus). The carbon cycle has recorded itself in all sorts of ways so we have a general picture of whats "normal" (see: tree rings, ice cores, fossil record). Humans are currently contributing carbon to the atmosphere that is NOT part of the usual cycle (see: oil rigs digging 5 miles into the earth) but was sequestered a long time ago when conditions were drastically different.
If you stop worrying about how some guy says some data point may be off by 0.3% and look at what we know about the physical world we occupy it should be obvious that we should be spending time and money on reducing our carbon footprint.
That's because, according to AGW zealots, EVERYTHING is evidence of AGW. And AGW has exactly ZERO contraindications.
Sorry?
Wikipedia?
Unbiased?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
When somebody like you calls the adjusted, normalized field data average monthly temperature data, my head just wants to explode. Even the Climatologists call it "Data product".
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Not the point. Point: it's never changed this fast, and it's our fault.
Actually, your point is half false, and half irrelevant.
Greenland ice core records show that the planet has, in relatively recent history (geologically), seen much faster temperature changes. Up to a 7C rise in 40 years, IIRC, and without any obvious cause. That's the false part.
The irrelevant part is whether or not it's our fault. Suppose we had exactly the same temperature rise, with potentially exactly the same impacts on human life, but that it happened due to some sequence of events that we did not cause. Would that mean that we should sit back and do nothing about it?
Of course not. If your house is burning down, it doesn't matter whether you started it or not, you put out the damned fire.
In this case, we need to understand that the planet's climate is not and has never been stable. We have compelling evidence that it not only has been dramatically hotter and colder, but also that human-affecting changes can happen on human time scales. This means that we must either learn to stabilize the climate, or accept that we're going to have to live with whatever chance brings us, or some combination of the two.
Now is a really good time to start learning to actively manage the climate. We've proven that we can affect it, the next step is to work on affecting it in ways that benefit us, rather than harm us.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A recent Rasmussen poll states:
Seriously? 32% of Americans are not opposed to imprisoning scientists having theories that differ from the political establishment?!
Ridiculous you say? It's already happening with a number of climate scientists calling on Obama to bring racketeering charges on skeptics:
Have we really not progressed from the inquisition of Galileo? Time to wake up, America!
So basically whatever happens (more snow, less snow, more ice, less ice, etc.) the cause can be attributed to global warming. Got it.
True science doesn't use the term "Deniers" to describe those that question methods used and not used to come to their conclusion. Religion uses terms like that.
First of all, probably unlike you, I actually have a degree in physics, with minors in math and chemistry. The math associated with thermodynamics is among the most complex that mankind attempts. The real world is almost never linear and straightforward. The "basic greenhouse effect" is laughably simplified compared to what actually happens in the atmosphere. If your assertion were true, the fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years would show CO2 and temperatures in lockstep. It does not. Not even close. What you are saying is that there exists a massive non-linear partial differential equation that determines how hot it will be tomorrow, and the only driving factor we need concern ourselves with is the concentration of a trace gas that responds to the same wavelengths of radiation as water vapor. Only you can't show me the equation and want me to take your assertion on faith. This does not even pass the laugh test.
Don't worry. 2015 is going to blow last years record out of the water and if the strong El Nino years of 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 are any indication 2016 will be even warmer. In 2020 the climate science denier's meme will probably be "no warming since 2016".
Antarctic ice core records confirm the Greenland results. Yeah, just two points, but points rather far apart, so it at least not a localized phenomenon.
I'd love to see your sources for simultaneous temperature changes by 7 degree C in 40 years in both Greenland and the Antarctic. I'm not aware of these, but I certainly may have missed them.
Anyway, what is it that you're trying to argue? That rapid climate change cannot possibly happen without human intervention? Please see my second point, about why anthropogenesis or the lack thereof is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that our best evidence is that the current episode of climate change is likely unprecedented, and that it is largely anthropogenic. I'm sure that the Chicxulub impactor also had a massive (if different) influence on climate, but I'd like to get through this warming episode without the predominant life form taking a major hit.
Climate change is occurring. We don't want it do. We must do something about it. The cause of the change really doesn't matter, except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution... but it's obvious that merely reducing carbon output is *not* going to be enough, so the solution to which it points us is insufficient. We must do more.
I'd certainly rather stop messing with a critical system that we only partially understand than to try to actively mess with it. Biosphere 2 should tell us that it is not easy to actively control an ecosystem. Especially if we don't seem to agree on the cause of the change in the first place - your "except insofar as it might point us towards a potential solution" is not a trivial aside.
Stephan