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."
It's a scam, Trump/Palin 2016!
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
This has been discussed here so often that even I have heard about it.
You have 100 100-year-old monitoring stations. You have new ones that were started more recently. To examine 100 year trends, do you
[a] ignore the more recent stations and do not correct for anything, even though this will bias your results towards more warming due to urbanization
[b] ignore the more recent stations and adjust the historical temperatures based on ???
[c] use all available data and try to correct for as many effects as you can think of
Doing anything, or not doing anything, has the potential to throw your numbers off. Unless you have some specific evidence that what has been done is not statistically rigorous do shut up. That also goes for the case where you don't have data to say one way or the other. There is not some massive conspiracy to fuck with the numbers here.
[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.
Did somebody's mommy buy them a "scientist" outfit for his birthday?
I don't respond to AC's.
I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?
When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?
I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.
Thank you.
The average global temperature hasn't risen since 2015!
I just wanted to be the first person to make that argument. When this argument becomes popular in 2025, remember you saw it here first.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites
The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for orbital decay, diurnal cycle, remove stratospheric signal, accommodate for sensor degridation, and you need to stitch data from multiple satellites. On top of that, satellites don't measure temperature, they measure radiance which needs to be reinterpreted as temperature using a model. Yes, they are very expensive, but that doesn't really mean that they are infallible or somehow a gold standard. Even Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite data set says he trusts surface temperature measurements much more than the satellite models. Watch the video in this link: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/...
[E] is not possible when the experiment is being carried out over centuries, with a civilization growing inside the test chamber.
[D] leads to biases (chiefly the urban heat island effect) which *increase* the apparent trend (see Layzej's reply). If you don't correct for them, global warming looks *worse* than it actually is.
At best it's an "unadjusted" aggregate of adjusted, manipulated, and otherwise tampered-with raw data.
Each sensor has its own different "corrections", "adjustments", reasons for exclusion, etc.
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
Open up Monthly Climatic Data of the World TAVG, for example.
Look at the characterization files and look at how many missing values there are. In many cases there are more missing values than included values, with no reason given for the missing values.
Look at all the data where they know the sensor fucking moved.
Look at how noisy the recordings are for any given sensor.
Look at the data itself, not some digested and abused shit from some group with an agenda. Go read the raw data and think, Slashdot.
Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.
Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"
So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"
So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.
Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks) and billions of weather balloon launches over the last 50 years all agree - the land based temperature network is not reporting the same information.
Anthony Watts has a new paper in peer review which explains why NASA et al always seem to record temperatures 33% hotter than any other temperature measurement network on earth.
And that is even before we start to discuss the new methodologies with how container ships measure temperature vs ARGOS measurements.
If you can follow any of that then you deserve a career in politics. Where for art thou science?
If it weren't for "global warming", we'd be in the ice age.
We're still in an ice age according to the definition that geologists use, just in an interglacial period. /pedant
Ever notice how you human-made climate change morons never have any evidence to backup what you say?
Ever notice how you just coveniently ignore any evidence presented to you about anthropogenic climate change?
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.
We have to pay attention to thousands of thermometers located world wide and keep track of how the terrain and structures have evolved over the 100 years or so that some of them have been in place. Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.
Satellites are much simpler to keep track of. Orbital decay and sensor degradation is constant and known. The satellites are also under constant control and watch of their operators. Clearly, their data is far more reliable. It also doesn't show as much warming.
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
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...
The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.
Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.
That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.
You are right that method of adjustment on satellite data is in flux. The difference in trend between each version is quite large. How do you know that the current adjustments are the right one if they are always in flux? And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
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.
[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
I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.
See the law of large numbers. It is possible to get arbitrarily good estimates by combining sufficiently many fuzzy individual measurements. This is not an invention of some communist cabal of climate scientists, but was formalised by Bernoulli and Poisson in the 18th and 19th century. And it is, of course, used in every modern tracking radar system, wether to keep moving bodies apart or to bring them together.
That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.
Thank's for your well-considered opinion. I'm sure both I and the world will give it the attention it deserves.
Stephan
What's with the quotes? If you think that AGW is preventing an "ice age" (quotes because we're already in an ice age) then you believe global warming exists.
Anyway, no. AGW may prevent us entering an "ice age" in the next few thousand years, but there is no way we'd be entering one now.
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
Well, no. UAH has gone through 6 major modifications since it started because it turned out that the factors were not well known and are not predictable, why has the satellite data started to diverge from the radiosonde data? Is it a problem with the satellites? Change in atmospheric response due to humidity changes perhaps? Who knows?
The satellites are also not "under complete control and observation of their operators". They are in decaying orbits with instruments that are known to drift over time.
Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.
IF you have three different thermometers
But the thing is we have one thermometers and two temperatures. The UAH and RSS teams are using (mostly) the same satellites and getting different readings.
The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement". UAH has gone through six major revisions, producing wildly different temperatures.
Volcanoes (http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html)
We already know that humans create, on average, orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism.
Termite mounds generating methane gas (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html)
Not even close to what we are releasing by fracking, then storing it under Los Angeles, then letting it leak out.
Penguins pooping on the Antarctica ice sheets
A rounding error.
Evil climate heaters at the Trilateral Commission
hee hee
Tarps used by the UN that absorb sunlight too well
The story doesn't actually say anything about tarps that absorb sunlight too well — and the UN tarps are highly reflective.
Meteorites and asteroids polluting the atmosphere
Rounding error
Ancient Romans
...were making a lot of concrete. We're making a lot more. Nobody claimed that AGW didn't start a long time ago. The claim is that it's increased by orders of magnitude. Straw man.
People against increased food supplies
Only total fucking idiots who don't understand plants think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to be beneficial to them. It isn't. The maximum amount of CO2 they can use is tied directly to their maximum rate of photosynthesis, which is in turn capped by the number of photons they can receive in any given period of time without being damaged by ultraviolet radiation. As atmospheric pollution actually harms the ozone layer that filters UV, what it does is reduce the amount of CO2 that plants are capable of using. When most any plant gets over about 100 degrees, it "shuts down"; its stoma close, for example, which renders it unable to respirate. You know nothing about plants.
Aliens who are causing the sun to heat up [...] (except for the aliens part)
You must be a fucking alien. Go back to the planet of the chucklefucks and let us be.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"the unadjusted record"
I'd have to see something better cited. I've seen far too many re-re-re-re-adjusted time lines (history changed multiple times) to accept at face value that this particular chart is "unadjusted".
Volcanoes, global annual total, average: ~300 million tons CO2
Humanity, global annual total, average: 40+ billion tons.
And volcanoes spew much more in the form of dust and aerosols, resulting in an overall cooling effect from eruptions, not a warming.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.
Damn those hippy Koch brothers!. Get a hair cut!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
And even if you do, you are bringing up a raft of unfounded assertions.
You are taking it on ~faith~ that the ecological systems are self correcting and very very stable against all shocks. You are taking it on ~faith~ that older temperature measurements are somehow inaccurate, and if they are inaccurate, you are going to assume they are merasuring cooler rather than hotter ( a rash assumption ).
The fossil records show that when huge events unfold, there is usually a mass dying off of old species and the introduction of new ones. So this will not be the end of life on earth, but it will likely be the end of the environment as we know it and a huge threat to the human species in general.
You have the following evidence against you :
* physical properties of gasses
* temperature measurements over time
* theoretical models are being tested that agree with available data and have harsh predictions
What you need in order to make your case :
* you have to show that old measurements are inaccurate and present a case more solid than "because they are old"
* you must develop theories to show how ecological systems reverse the effects of large changes.
* you have to explain away recent data as well, and explain away recent shifts in weather patterns.