Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

Posted by samzenpus on from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

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."

9 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. record-shattering recording instruments by turkeydance · · Score: 0, Troll

    and record-shattering recorders.

    1. Re:record-shattering recording instruments by fche · · Score: 0, Troll

      and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments

    2. Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Troll

      I am so tired of this "but they don't measure temperature, they measure radiance" crap.

      Of course they measure radiance. But NO instrument "directly" measures temperature. All of them measure some EFFECT that is the result of temperature. Even mercury or alcohol thermometers.

      And they all use models, to varying extent. In the case of physical thermometers, that "model" is essentially built into its physical construction. In electronic thermometers, the "model" may be part of its physical construction, or based on a reference, or both. Or might be in firmware. Or it may be in software located somewhere else entirely. Even the surface temperature thermometer record has models to adjust for different factors, including changes of location.

      The point is: what you say is pretty much true as far as it goes, but those are NOT strong arguments against the satellite record. Not only are they true of pretty much every kind of instrument, including thermometers, but:

      * Radiosonde data has been shown to strongly correlate with UAH and RSS satellite data.

      * Radiosonde (thermometer) data was actually used to help calibrate the satellites.

      * Satellite instruments (MSU) also have the highest-quality internal references.

      * Satellites have by far the best coverage of any instruments we have.

      Now, I am quite sure you can find references from The Usual Suspects which disagree with some of these points, but I can dig up references too. And that would just make it pretty much a matter of he-said, she-said, and won't get us anywhere, so I won't likely bother to respond if you do. I've seen them all.

      Not many years ago (just before the AGW hysteria began, in fact), the satellites were widely hailed as "the best instruments we have". I am aware that some people (again, The Usual Suspects) disagree. But anyone who ignores the satellite record is doing something wrong.

  2. Hard to take this seriously... by mpapazog · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...on a day when there's not a blizzard happening on the US east coast. Global warming my foot!

    1. Re:Hard to take this seriously... by Nexion · · Score: 1, Troll

      Shhhhh... believe the climate conjecturist... errr scientist. I meant scientist. You have to believe with all your soul. Don't be a climate heretic. We'll stone you.

  3. Re:It's a trap by kheldan · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trump is a chump!
    Dump the Trump!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  4. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The sun is brighter right now than at anytime in the past 10,000 years. That's a fact. No wonder it's so warm. I agree the Earth is getting warmer, but it's because of the sun instead of humans.

  5. Re:Facts schmacts by Nexion · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem is that people in the field disagree, the scientific method cannot be applied when you only have one earth and the data is at best questionable. I'm of the opinion that no one actually has a firm grasp of what is happening here on earth, and liken our "scientists" to be cut from the same cloth as those who may have debated the value of leeches a hundred or so years ago.

    Even at the height of bloodletting these people look like idiots today where the only time leeches are used makes some sense. Not to let the "demons" out, but rather to remove blood from a localized area. Someday mankind will look back on us all and laugh. On every "sky is falling" loonie and every person who thought there is no impact on earth from the pollution of humanity.

    Of course there is a study that shows the hockey stick is totally true... of course. It is an agenda. People with money and an agenda are buying "scientists" on both sides, and they are paid to publish their conjecture.

    Always remember, if you aren't part of the solution there is money in prolonging the problem as a "Climate Conjecturist".

  6. What? by KenHansen · · Score: 1, Troll

    They took a 30 year span (1951-1980), averaged the temperatures around the world in those 30 years to establish a 'baseline' - well, at least they didn't pick an arbitrary 'baseline'... Then, 30 year average baseline in hand, they gather 135 years of temperature readings, ranging from 1880 to 2015 and discover - what? That global annual averages are trending up (and 'shattering' previous records!?) based on the arbitrary 'baseline', ever since Al Gore lost his run for the Presidency... Seems totally legit.