Slashdot Mirror
The Top Weather/Climate Events of 2015 (wunderground.com)
Layzej writes: With only a few stations left to report, 2015 is virtually certain to beat 2014's record as the planet's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880. The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, combined with a extra bump in temperature due to the strongest El Niño event ever recorded in the Eastern Pacific. Record warm ocean temperatures in the tropics in 2015 led to a global coral bleaching event, which is expected to cause a loss of 10 — 20% of all coral worldwide. Weather Underground recounts several other records that accompanied the heat including the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere, the ongoing agricultural fires in Indonesia — the most expensive disaster in Indonesia's history estimated at $16 billion in damages, flooding in America and India, and record central pacific hurricane activity.
In before CrashMarik, NostalgiaInfinity, mi, and the other regular player appear and begin lying.
But what about the icecaps??? They are huge
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
"The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide"
Do you like flame wars???? Because that is how you turn the comments section into a flame war.....
>> the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere...and record central pacific hurricane activity.
I believe the biggest knock on Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie was the prediction of lots of new super-hurricanes that hasn't come true, especially not in recent years. I'd be careful trying to link the two again...
Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years. Can't find it on NOAA's website. Anyone?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Not according to satellite data.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
WOW! El Nino caused Agricultural fires in Indonesia........... BAD BABY!!
Hardly a balanced scientific overview.
There's that, and then every other prediction in the movie turning out to also be a farcical lie.
Didn't the a$$ clowns just fix the 'climate problem' in Paris? I was hoping not to be brow beaten by them this year.
Why isn't Miami land going for cheap? I mean, it'll be under water in a few years.
Comrade, you should rejoice! the chocolate ration was increased from 40 grams to 20!
The average of the instrumental record ... just like last year, and the year before that. The thing that you're missing is that it's reasonable to do this to account for the fact that you've added additional stations to the dataset, which would alter the raw average.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
How about we focus on real threats like gun violence and terrorism.
So we're saying that temperature monitoring equipment was as accurate as 2015 measuring equipment is? Especially when the graph covers two whole degrees fahrenheit, or around 1C.
How about a graph which shows the accuracy of temperature monitoring equipment between 1880 and 2015 instead?
There is no doubt the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically but using data from equipment made over 135 years ago to assert a claim would normally get you laughed out of the establishment yet when the claim is scientific consensus it becomes a perfectly fine data point?
So...adding MORE data means you have to adjust the average because the additional data changes the average.
Are you from the Scientology School of Statistics?
OK...now I'm not sure if you just forgot the sarcasm tag or if you're serious.
Lets just adjust it away in the models.
Every time there's anything about climate change, there are tons and tons more AC posts than usual, and of course, a large majority of them are making fun of the idea that humankind can change our climate. I wonder if it's just a few nutters, or a team of people paid by the oil industry to do this...
I don't respond to AC's.
OK...now I'm not sure if you just forgot the sarcasm tag or if you're serious.
Poe's Law - How does it fucking work?
When the global average temperature is warmer by two hundredths of a degree, and the margin of error is a tenth of a degree, does that actually mean anything?
Stations sample at a point. Adding more stations is adding more sample points. The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample, i.e. it's representation of the entire planet is different so you have to change the weightings so you aren't giving more weight to areas that have a different station density.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Now with the Paris accord in place, and the fact that the EU has been reducing their Co2 emissions every year since we learned that Co2 emissions cause climate change, we are on the right path. What is that you say? The EU has been INCREASING their Co2 emissions every year, not reducing them??? Very strange. Why would they do that? I thought they didn't like AGW. So why are they doing the opposite?
You don't have to sell the truth, it sells itself. Conversely, if you find yourself having to sell something, it probably isn't the full truth.
Just sayin'
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample"
So you are pleading that we should still use the same instruments and measure locations than in 1880?
Weather Underground recounts several other records that accompanied the heat including the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere, the ongoing agricultural fires in Indonesia — the most expensive disaster in Indonesia's history estimated at $16 billion in damages, flooding in America and India, and record central pacific hurricane activity.
So? Those are just weather. And possibly arson. They are not indicative of climate change of any kind.
Where did you get the idea that it's the job of experts to convince anyone of anything? You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You could, but you'd get a less precise tracking of changes in recent years.
You basically have three choices here:
(1) Limit yourself to in instruments and stations in use in 1850.
(2) Add new stations and technologies but ignore their effect on the average.
(3) Add new stations and technologies then use statistical techniques to find the approximation that best fits the datapoints you have.
Simply limiting yourself to the instruments you had in place in 1850 is bound to *overestimate* the amount of warming. That's because the land-based instruments are likely to be overwhelmed by waste heat generated by urban sprawl. Instruments that were in quiet rural suburbs are now in the center of cities with hard, heat-catching surfaces like asphalt and concrete, surrounded by buildings heated with what by 1850 standards are vast amounts of energy. So even if you tried approach 1 you'd still have to adjust the figures (in this case discounting some of the spurious "warming" you're seeing) to get a reasonable estimate of change.
The instrumental "global average temperature" is an artificial construct in any case. We know there must *be* a global average temperature, but we can't measure it directly, short of measuring the temperature continuously over very point on the surface of the Earth. All we have are discrete measurements taken from a finite number of stations. You need some kind of model for how representative you think those measurements you do have are of the whole.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...Go with real time, objective, and all inclusive sat Data.
The Ground Station data is polluted beyond all help.
Here is the "adjustment" you're referring to:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-...
The recent correction is the difference between the black line and the red line. The temperature rise between 1959 and 2014 is about 0.9C. The adjustment, in the last two years, is just barely large enough to see, about 0.05C. Over the full period analyzed, the new global analysis changed the observed rate of warming from 0.065C/decade to 0.068C/decade, less than the noise.
Really, I need to point out that analyzing data sets is what science does. But, if you actually look at the data, even if you throw out the new corrections entirely, it doesn't make a difference. The corrections didn't change whether warming exists or not.
That image is from this article: http://arstechnica.com/science...
For reference, here is the paper with the adjustments explained: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
(Karl, et al., "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus," Science Vol. 348 no. 6242, 26 June 2015: pp. 1469-1472
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Virtually every glacier in the world is in full-on retreat.
Ice chunks the size of small US states have broken off of Antarctica in the last few years.
Rising surface temperatures in the subarctic are melting permafrost, permitting decay (with associated methane release) and destabilizing shallow methane calthrate deposits of unknown but possibly substantial extent.
You must have been really upset when the Laurentide Ice Sheet almost completely melted. 5 million square miles of ice up to 2 miles thick just *melted*. Damn those cavemen. Why didn't they think that their campfires 10,000 years ago would melt all that ice and ruin the whole Earth's ice-based ecosystem?
Don't you understand BASIC SCIENCE?
Extreme weather of any kind is evidence of global warming..
Weather is not climate. Repeat this over and over again: weather is not climate.
One warm winter does not mean "global warming is real." Even a record breaking warm year doesn't mean that global warming is real. Global warming is about long term global averages, not about one particular place, and not about one particular year.
A single record-breaking warm year isn't evidence of global warming... but a string of record warm years is. If it were random, it should be as likely that there are record cold years as record warm years. When you see a string of warm years... that's evidence.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
While I'm sure the climate is warming, and I'm sure that humans are exacerbating the trend, it is hard to be impressed with the alarmist rants when the models used and raw data are not made available. When even the people developing the models cannot explain what they are doing. When the data is massaged beyond recognition. Not to mention that rather than being treated as a ecological problem, AGW has morphed into a treatise on income inequality, rich nations vs poor ones, etc.
"In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971-2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971-2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001" (Journal of Climate). Read that again: "we constructed a new SST normal", that's not science, that's manipulation of data to fit the model.
Just the abstract to that particular paper reveals how fragile the models are, being based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data.
www dot ncdc dot noaa dot gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/xue-etal.pdf
"SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr."
How can a normal be updated--the data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitmacy of the alteration.
"Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854-2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870-1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed."
This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).
"Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST."
Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be able to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and "correct" it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite. And how is the bias measured? Why, against the model! Which one is right? Who's model is now more correct?
Slashdotters love data, right?
Here is the 10000 year view of the situation:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Here's the data from the Arctic:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old...
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Here is a correlation between CO2 and various surface and satellite data-sets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Unfortunately the global temperature range is of the order of 100 K from poles to equator, and the uncertainty in the measurement data is at least +/- 0.2 K, so increases of fractions of a degree are not particularly significant. Here is a paper discussing the same
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
There is Global Warming for sure. We would expect warming after the Sun increased magnetic activity after the end of the Little Ice Age. Some component of that warming is due to human-emitted CO2. Whether the dominant effect is natural or human is still being debated (particularly since CO2 effects are weak and the IPCC's models that the CO2-induced water vapor effects would increase the temperature further appear to be falsified by experiment). To de-industrialize and impose punitive 'carbon taxes' at this stage does not look like it can be supported by the data. The difference between surface and satellite observations has not yet been resolved satisfactorily (the 'science is not settled'). If you think the science is settled please refer to the data I have provided in your response (you need to explain it). Thanks.
Stations sample at a point. Adding more stations is adding more sample points. The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample,
That is not correct. Stations are grouped by grid boxes. The grid boxes are then averaged. Adding stations does not change the distribution, it just adds detail to a grid box.
Adjustments typically address known biases such as time of observation bias. These methods are published and thus far no fault has been found with them. In fact they are acknowledged as necessary.
It's better to just trust the satellite record. (Also, it's fairly annoying how infrequently the error bars are included on those temperature graphs).
There are several satellite data sets, and they have a very large number of corrections required to convert radiance to atmospheric temperature profiles. In general, they give tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
Which data set do you like?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
FYI, honest question here. Why is NOAA so insistent on only releasing data by anomaly and not by actual temperature?
Because the average temperature isn't actually interesting, and not actually terribly useful.
If you want the global average temperature, just calculate the global average temperature of the baseline year, and add the anomaly relative to that baseline year. As should be obvious, the global average temperature is just a baseline shifting the whole curve up or down, and it's simplest to just subtract it out, unless there's some reason you want that absolute number-- and I can't think of any reason you would want that average number.
Different people calculate the average in different ways. The NASA data has the global temperature average in 2013 at 14.6 degrees Celsius-- that would be a good value to use. (If 2013 isn't your baseline year, subtract the anomaly for 2013 to convert to the baseline year you do use-- it's just a baseline shift; the whole curve shifts by the same amount.)
By only looking at the difference from the baseline, you leave out all of the errors that aren't there if you only are looking at the change in temperature at each location, not the absolute temperature.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globa...
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballas...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
As experts, it's your job to convince people. You have failed. You are bad at your job. You are a failure. Why should I listen to a failure?
As a stupid person, you do not get to make laws of physic untrue just because you deny them.
The universe does not care that US Republicans have decided that stupid is the new smart, and that denial of science is job one. The greenhouse gases effect on atmospheres is a proven fact (unless gawd is just making it look that way, like when he planted fossils as a test of our faith) and your accepting that or not won't change it a bit.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
" ... The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, combined with a extra bump in temperature due to the strongest El Niño event ever recorded in the Eastern Pacific. ..."
This is, of course, the Kool-Aid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); here is another summary from the IPCC's webpage:
" ... the human influence on the climate system is clear and is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. ..."
http://www.un.org/climatechang...
This has nothing to do with whether Global Warming is real or imagined; it's about the causes of Global Warming. There is (at least) one other contributing factor, namely a historical record of patterns in Earth's climate that predicts that we should be experiencing a warming trend, regardless of human activities.
The reason is the IPCC is limited to considering the human activities affecting Global Climate and is prohibited from even considering any other cause, including the Geological record.
In other words, when you read that humans are the only cause of Global Warming, you are drinking the IPCC Kool-Aid, which is a very narrow view of the issue that specifically ignores well regarded science on the subject. Ignoring science is a poor method to investigate the causes of Climate Change.
The weather event of 2015 for me, being in the UK, was the way December was absurdly warm... breaking the record going back to 1659, in fact.
The most amazing thing was that it wasn't broken by a small amount, either; the old record was 8.1C and the new record is 9.7C. I daresay I'll never see anything like that again in my lifetime!
in the Northeast? They say all the snow meant for Alaska hit New England instead. It cost MA alone $300M.
With RSS and UAH both showing that 2015 WAS NOT the warmest year since 1979 I seriously doubt that it will be the warmest in the last 150 years either. Only the highly rigged numbers backed by very shoddy methods from NOAA show any "records". By the way 2016 will probably be warmer than 2015 because of the run out of el-nino. It has very little to do with CO2 and 95+% to do with natural factors.
Why stop at 150 years ago? We have accurate ice core and ocean floor sediment records going back 10,000 years which covers our entire inter-glacial period. Why not use them? I'll tell you why. 95% of the years in the last 10,000 have been warmer than 2015 and that ruins the story.
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps). In what way is it valid to adjust good data upwards to match bad data? IT ISN'T.
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Are you guys seriously buying this? Do you not see this has become (almost) a new religion? An attempt to replace Christianity / (pick a religion)?
The warmer the better.
Bring it on.
Because millions believe that Al Gore predicted that Florida would be flooded by 10m in 2050, but when you ask them, they don't remember where in AIT it is, but it is definitely there. When pushed for evidence other than their belief, they all point to web reports that, if you track back to the primary source, ALWAYS COMES TO THE SAME CLAIM IN THE SAME WEBSITE. Where it was just claimed it happened, but nowhere was it said where.
And, oddly, NO TRANSCRIPT of any airing of AIT shows anything like what is claimed.
But still millions believe Al Gore's AIT was wrong because florida won't flood 10m by 2050.
So when you claim "I believe the biggest knock on Gore's "Inconvenient Truth".." please check whether you are being misled in the belief.