Slashdot Mirror
NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)
vikingpower writes: Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much. The British Met office also reports on the same phenomenon, even forecasting that global temperatures are very soon going to reach the one-degree-Celsius marker. According to Stephen Belcher, Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, "We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we're set to reach the 1 C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory."
Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
"and there isn't enough fossil fuel left to get us much over that."?????
Are you insane? We're quite likely to go over +2 even were we to try as hard as we can manage to avoid it. I suspect that we're already committed to +2 C just from the fossil fuels we've already burned.
And I'm not sure of your source that "IPCC says anything up to +2 is on average beneficial for mankind". I haven't encountered that anywhere I've looked. I'm not even sure it would be beneficial in areas where people would be more comfortable were it warmer, because the change in temperature also means change in precipitation patterns, meaning unexpected droughts, floods, etc. Meaning massive crop failures. Making massive starvation probable. (It was crop failures that triggered the Arab Spring, which set the ground for ISIS. Yes, there were lots of other reasons, but crop failures were the trigger.)
P.S.: The IPCC may really have said that. Their report was a document that was intentionally non-alarmist, and they threw out all the more alarming forecasts. (Well, many of them were really extreme. It's quite unlikely that West Antarctica will soon melt. But they threw them out for being politically unacceptable.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Just to pick the top story on that realclimatescience.com site: it's looking at NOAA's statement that 2015 had record *average* temperatures in the US, and is rebutting with data on the *frequency of hot days* in the US, which is an entirely different idea. Since greenhouse gases control the rate at which energy *leaves* the earth to cooling it down, you would predict it should warm the coolest days more than the warmest. Which is exactly what's happened. IPCC report finds, globally, a significant increase in night and winter temperatures, a statistically insignificant change in temperature of the hottest days.
The match between theoretical prediction, and basic physics is the best way to assess the truth. You'll notice that the denialists will try to poke holes in the standard global warming story, but very rarely will they show show that their revised data agrees with a physical theory. (In particular, if CO2 and water vapor concentrations are rising, why *doesn't* that cause global warming in their view? By everything we know about these gases, it should.)
Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.
Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.
If you compare the state of Milankovitch Cycles for the Eemian to their current state it's not surprising that the Eemian was warmer. Thing is currently Milankovitch Cycles are trending toward cooler and it was getting cooler since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago) until human emissions of CO2 started raising the level in the atmosphere.
For someone who is not an expert it is quite simple. Trust the experts. More specifically, trust the general consensus of the scientific community.
All of the figures, plots, and graphs are not enough to truly understand the problem. Data can be formatted to backup almost any claim. You have to dive deep into the topic to understand enough to come to your own conclusion. So unless you plan on getting a PhD, trust those who already have. And do not trust individuals - they can be purchased. Rely on conclusions that have been presented, discussed, and argued by the scientific community thereby resulting in the acceptance of said conclusion.
And one last point. Ignore articles posted in places such as Slashdot. Rely on articles posted in reputable scientific journals. All of the newsfeeds that repost these things filter out anything they do not want you to see. Bogus papers will be posted but the numerous rebuttals showing that the paper is bogus will not. In essence - you are lied too. So go to the original source where crap is called out for what it is.
Well, I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing this with someone who rejects radiative physics, believes that the twin towers were an inside job, and thinks that Obama faked his birth certificate, but... Here is radiosonde measurements minus the satellite data. Note the rapid divergence around 2000? Suddenly satellite data took a nose dive relative to the radiosonde measurements. What happened there? https://tamino.files.wordpress...
Your best bet is to consider all available evidence. Deniers would like to ignore the record warming that we're measuring on the surface in favour of the tropospheric temperatures obtained by the satellites... but not the UAH satellite data set because that shows rapid warming too. And not the tropospheric measurements obtained by RATPAC because they show rapid warming too. They would prefer you look only at the RSS data set. That is pure as the driven snow.
Regarding ocean warming... We've accumulated 150 zetajoules of warming in the oceans over the last 18 years. It took over 130 years prior to accumulate the same amount. The rate of increase is now the equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs per second. It's not the amount that should worry us though as much as the acceleration. - http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.
Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.
I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.
Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.
Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?
Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events
17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.
Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
28 July, 2003
Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.
Source: Independent Institute report 2003
2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.
Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...
Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.
But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Percentage of USHCN Stations to reach 35 C
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...
Average Percentage of Days over 35 C for All USHCN Stations
https://i2.wp.com/realclimates...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
The 1930s and 1940s were much hotter. This data is NOT in dispute.
This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.
Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.
But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.
And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?
So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.
No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.
But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.
I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.
About 90 years ago, around the time Miami Beach was founded.
[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.
If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.
Of course, Berkeley Earth did take all the available raw data, automatically detected discontinuities (i.e. unexplainable jumps, especially if they conflict with overlapping neighbouring records), automatically cut series there, and then automatically realigned and reassembled all the snippets, in essentially the same way we do DNA reconstructions from fragmented DNA. And their result is indistinguishable from the more conventional reconstructions. The fact that several independent groups using at least two very different mechanisms come to the same result is either evidence for the reliability of that result, or, of course, for a big global conspiracy of scientists. Of course, the Berkeley study was mostly financed by the Koch brothers...
Stephan
http://whatreallyhappened.com (it's hilarious, and fully linked)
I clicked on the first three links.
1. 404
2. Daily Mail, well known for its accurate and level headed science reporting
3. 404
At that point I gave up. What you have to remember is that shitty journalists mis-reporting climate science is not representative of the actual science. A better source would be the UN reports, that make clear statements and predictions, with stated margins of error and probabilities, and are of course fully sourced and verifiable.
While there have been revisions to the models, to say that predictions were "wrong" is inaccurate. The basic prediction, that the earth is warming due to human activity, is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted. It's about as certain as theories like general relativity and gravity.
Just because some guy points at the sky and says "look at those clouds, they don't come crashing down to earth, and what about the birds?!" doesn't mean that the theory of gravity is wrong and they would rightly be rejected by the majority of people attending a conference on gravity who came to hear some actual science.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC