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..
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
Actually, there would be measurements of sea surface temperatures over many decades. This is done for good reason.
Even before meteorology was a science, people had a good reason to want to know sea surface temperatures. They affect fishing, which is a source of money and food. In shipping routes, it would affect when they might see ice on the waters, which is a hazard. Sea surface temperatures were measured then. I'm aware of data sets going back to the 17th century. You can easily get this data online for free.
Today, ships still do measure sea surface temperature, in addition to buoys. This data is of particular interest in tropical regions because of the importance to hurricanes. Measurements are done as water is cycled through the engine rather than lowering a bucket overboard to sample the water. For that reason, there is a positive bias to the raw observations during the past several decades. As a result, the temperature record is actually revised downward in recent decades to counteract the observation bias. Despite what some people think, adjustments to the data to remove biases work both ways. Not all are upward. Also, global sea surface temperature data generally comes from the many satellites in orbit. This data set only goes back a few decades, but it's a great data set.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.