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.
>> 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.
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.
Satellite data put it at least in the top 3 years. Oh, and there's no "hiatus" any more.
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.
also note that what he states is This makes 2015 the third warmest year globally (+0.27 deg C) in the satellite record (since 1979).
this is not at all contradictory or mutually exclusive. the flaws or inadequacies of the satellite data are well known, and its completely possible to be only 3rd warmest in one flawed data set, and warmest in another more complete dataset.
But congratulations on mastering how to lie with statistics 101 and moving onto 102 methods.
That's progress, albeit not the kind honest people like to see.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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 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.
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
There is no such thing. Oh, there's remote sensing, but you have to ground truth that. And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Temperature satellite records go back to the 70s. See for example. Generally I consider them to be much more reliable than terrestrial data, for a lot of reasons, but essentially they're harder to mess up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
Maybe it's because you ignore the science you are asking to speak for itself, dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a "SJW", and the only "questioning" you did is effectively saying "Nuh-uh!".