Slashdot Mirror
Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History
merbs writes: NASA has released its global temperature data for January 2016, and, once again, the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered. At a time when these kinds of records are broken with some regularity, it takes a particularly scorching month to raise eyebrows in the climate science community. It has to be the hottest hottest month by a pretty hot margin. Sure enough, last January did the trick: It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980 (the benchmark NASA uses to measure warming trends)—in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
Here in Michigan- it's been a fine spring so far!
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?
I eagerly await the forthcoming rational, thoughtful, and respectful discourse from both sides!
... Where's the popcorn?
#DeleteChrome
Yeh, just remember Valantines day in the US was -14C: the Hottest Febuary 14th 2016 ever!!
No it isn't, yes it is, etc., etc., etc.
Have you read my blog lately?
How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?
The "anomaly" is defined as the difference in temperature from the reference baseline. Even if that difference were zero, it would still be called the temperature anomaly-- it would be an anomaly of zero.
FAQ: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Just out of curiosity, where precisely do you believe it say recorded history began in 1951?
In particular, the charts and graphs linked in the article shows January temperatures going back to 1880. (And yes, this January was warmer than all of them.) I think you may be conflating different statements into a single assumption?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The summary does not says that recorded history began in 1951. It says that 1951-1980 average serves as baseline for the temperature anomaly "0" level.
Since an average is just that, an average, how did January 2016 compare to the highest January in those 30 years?
Used to be a lot warmer many times in history. Around year 1000, and for many generations, norsemen grew grains in Greenland. Antartica and Svalbard had tropical climate millions of years ago. It appears the earth was overall a lot wetter when is was warmer, which makes sense. Probably also a lot more violent weather.
Maybe a new ice age would be more devastating than a wet heatwave.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Three idiotic statements in a two-line post. Well done!
First, it's not weather. The global mean temperature is remarkably resistant to seasonality and weather (by virtue of being, you know, GLOBAL). If it's winter in the northern hemisphere, it's summer in the southern. If there is a major high pressure system in one part of the world, it's usually offset by low pressure elsewhere in location and in time (unless you think of 30-day weather systems as being the norm). The global temperature hovers about 15 degrees, year-round, every year, apart from its slow upward creep.
Second, El Niño isn't a global phenomenon (and even if it were, it's not so extreme an event that it could shift the global mean temperature to that magnitude). It is not responsible for the worldwide mean increasing. In fact, the severity of the system is a symptom of increasing amounts of thermal energy being stored by the planet.
Third, it does not say the recorded history of earth began in 1951. At the most generous to your indignation, it implies that global mean temperature data has only been collected reliably since 1951 (and by satellite since 1978). However, pre-1951 data was collected and is presented back to 1880 with the caveat that it's imperfect.
The real question is why we have to put up with such bullshit commentary by irate posters like yourself.
Short sighted and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
I don't respond to AC's.
136 years is a few milliseconds on climatic and geologic time scales.
Many of the environmentalists worried about the climate do, in fact, advocate nuclear power.
James Hansen, for example, is probably the most well known person warning about climate change. He is strongly in favor of nuclear power. He stated:
citation: http://grist.org/news/more-nuk...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....
Or, check out this one:
http://www.takepart.com/articl...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Slashdot is wondering what happened to their old tech/geek audience, while allowing the radical liberal activists and brainwashed "global warming" propagandists to take over the site - the same way Digg was destroyed.
If the new owners want to see a future for slashdot, the first thing to do is kick out these idiot Global Warming activists.
You know what? I'm a radicalised global warming (no scare quotes) activist. You know why? Because I live in a perfect island paradise in the South Pacific.
Only these days, it ain't so perfect. First, we got hit with the most powerful cyclone in the history of this region. Then we got 8 months of extreme drought thanks to the most powerful El Niño event in recorded history.
Neither cyclones nor the ENSO cycle are abnormal here. We are situated just south enough of the equator that we get an average of about 1.5 cyclones in our territorial waters every year. And ENSO has pretty much defined our climatic cycles since before humans ever inhabited here.
But the severity of these events, and the abnormality of weather events in recent years, is indisputably increasing. This year alone, we've seen record high regional temperatures, cyclones crossing the equator—an hitherto unknown event—and just this week, we saw a weak hurricane reverse its path, redouble its strength to Category 3/4, and now we're waiting for it to make landfall in a country that is about 1000 miles from where the storm's typical path would be. We've also seen cyclonic storms forming outside of the tropical belt, and... well, the list goes on.
Have I been brainwashed? Yes. Brainwashed by the evidence. You can cite all the skepticist bullshit you like, because I'm watching my climate change right in front of my eyes. And yes, I know the difference between weather and climate. I also know that virtually all of the climate prediction models call for increasingly wide fluctuations in weather behaviour, and that fits pretty much perfectly with the evidence in front of me.
So respectfully: If I and my ilk have ruined Slashdot for you, then good. Feel free to fuck off out of here and leave the conversation to rational adults.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Yes, it is weather. Unprecedented weather, never recorded before since the start of the systematic observations. Yes, it's due to El Nino which is also the strongest one recorded so far.
But sure, we're heading into an Ice Age. Just wait two or three years. And meanwhile feel free to burn as much gasoline as you can - it'll help to prevent Ice Age!
There are irate posters on both sides. Scientists, those that continue to review the evidence and not assume they are correct when an association has not satisfied all criteria for proof of causation, would note that California had 200 year long droughts when Heidelberg first started as a university, long before the industrial revolution or little ice age. Then the weather/climate would rapidly shift.
Climate science is far from settled. Most of the peer-reviewed papers are cautious in their conclusions. Most of the journalists that misreport and misunderstand the conclusions in the abstracts resort to calling people religious terms like 'deniers.'
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
We can choose living it up in a nuclear powered world, or suffer. If you think we have any other choice I say... bite me.
I agree with you. The biggest problem with nuclear power is that we aren't building new plants fast enough. The vast majority of nuclear power plants are old, really old, and past their original lifetimes.
The one technology that I think can compete with nuclear going forward is tidal energy.
It's just weather.
I say that with a maximum of snark, but it truly is just weather. El Niño weather, to be precise. And the inflammatory headline is the usual nonsense, contradicted by its own summary. It says recorded history began in 1951. My parents might have something to say about that.
Why do we have to put up with such bullshit reporting? Does Slashdot really make that much money off of the page views driven by irate commenters?
It's a big outlier, but that outlier is at least partly driven by a change in the mean and variance.
As for the broader point it's not so much that the warm January is evidence itself of global warming but the warm January gives people something tangible to associate with global warming.
It doesn't matter how good the science is, people don't even plan for their retirement, do you think they're going to care about the predicted climate 50 years from now? They need to see climate change doing something today.
You need to give them something current and tangible if they're going to accept it, true the warm January is only caused by climate change the same way a heads is caused by an unfair coin, but you sometimes need to be fine with people coming to the right answer through the wrong route.
I stole this Sig
Just out of curiosity, where precisely do you believe it say recorded history began in 1951?
The summary does not says that recorded history began in 1951. It says that 1951-1980 average serves as baseline for the temperature anomaly "0" level.
I'll respond to you and the sibling post simultaneously.
The headline says "Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History". The summary says "It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980". Taken together, that says that recorded history began in 1951. I mentioned both the words "headline" and "summary" in my original post. You were expected to put them together yourself.
Ppl will continue to scream that America with less than 15% of total emissions, and dropping, is responsible, while china with more than 33% ( mid 40s% according to oco2 ) is OK to continue growing it. Far better to die, than to break political correctness and survive.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When we have a cold snap the global warming types say "it's just weather"
The last time we had a "coldest month in recorded history" was 1893.
so when we have a warm month here and there I believe I can rightfully say that "it's just weather".
Our global temperature is the sum of a secular warming trend and natural variability. Any new "hottest month" record is going to be the result of both together. Remove the secular warming trend and we would not have had a record. Remove natural variability and every month would be a record.
And yeah, nukes sound great. Let's get building.
I'll respond to you and the sibling post simultaneously.
The headline says "Last January Was the Hottest Global Temperature Anomaly In Recorded History". The summary says "It was 1.13 C warmer than the global average of 1951-1980". Taken together, that says that recorded history began in 1951.
+1, Funny.
(You were attempting to be funny, yes?)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Seems pointless to expect anything else from someone who puts his circular logic on display in his sig for all to admire.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
If 1951 - 1980 are the baseline with zero anomaly level ... why are there so many wild swings in that range? Just a 2-year span has nearly half a degree of fluctuation from one August to the next. Almost every month had at least a quarter-degree swing from one year to the next. That's not the stability upon which you should build your baseline.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1963 -03 +18 -15 -05 -10 +02 +09 +23 +19 +14 +15 -01
1964 -06 -11 -24 -31 -26 -09 -07 -23 -28 -30 -21 -30
(plus signs and leading zeros added by me to try any maintain formatted columns)
Just remember, when your multimillion dollar beach front apartment's ground floor is underwater and no one can drive there any more, remember it's just water, so big deal, you drink it by the glass full every day, get used to it. No difference to when the worlds ports become unusable and new ones need to be built. There are also a whole bunch of low lying coastal airports that need to be rebuilt. Roads and rail lines also and no one can really tell how destructive that period of a massive surge of suspended sediments in coastal waters will be. So coastal refugees counting in the billions, apparently also not a problem, shit we struggle with a million, what will be the impact of a billion, on countries suffering losses in the trillions. They will be out for blood and the descendants rolling around in wealth generated by the insanities of their parents, yeah, they will pay a very bitter price. No one ever controls a violent out of control mob, the bullets fly and people die and those who once thought they were all powerful, find themselves dangling at the end of a rope. Not a course any sane person set's on purpose.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Well El Nino is actually a change in the Walker circulation brought on by a relaxation (or in extreme cases a reversal) of the trade winds over the equatorial Pacific region. This let's the water that had been piling up in the west pacific begin shifting back to the east. Which shifts the convection from the heated water to the east as well. You also have the upwelling along the west coast of south America also slow or cease. From there the changes in SSTs and convection will shift the various weather patterns. It's something of a cascading effect, which shows up most in the winter time air for the US. El Nino (and LA Nina) are more than weather, at least in a classic sense that it takes a lot of work to take out the shorter term variabilities to reveal the long term pattern. And when you do, you're left with a 6 to 9 month El Nino phase and 2 to 6 for the neutral and LA Nina phase. Now one of the next questions trying to be ironed out, what effect will the change in climate have on the walker circulation and the ENSO system.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
This raises the question of climate change. It should be conveyed and understood that we are in a phase of âoeicehouse earthâ that is abnormally cool for the planet. While this phase has lasted the entirety of human civilization and would have drastic consequences for many species should it end, it must be understood that temperatures and CO2 levels have normally been far higher. âoeWe find that CO2 emissions [during the Cretaceous] resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.â http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/... âoeWe are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.â http://www.ucl.ac.uk/.../sloan... âoeThe earth is currently in an icehouse stage, as ice sheets are present on both poles and glacial periods have occurred at regular intervals over the past million years... Earth is more commonly placed in a greenhouse state throughout the epochs, and the Earth has been in this state for approximately 80% of the past 500 million years... Permanent ice is actually a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth, occurring only during the 20% of the time that the planet is under an icehouse effect.â https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
> One thing I see missing from all of these Global Warming articles is any semblance of actual science.
It took me two clicks to reach this, for your study, brainiac.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Flint used to be an ok working-class factory town before they closed the factories, though it's been rapidly downhill since, and of course before the criminally incompetent water administrators poisoned everybody who was left while drinking bottled water at the office.
I've only been there once, back in the 80s, staying overnight because my connecting flight to Exciting Dayton Ohio got cancelled because of fog. If you needed to find a motel near the airport, fast food that was still open, and coffee in the morning, it was as good as anywhere else.
The parts of Detroit and Windsor Ontario I was in around 2007 were ok also - we were bidding on upgrading data center equipment for GMAC (oops, the financial crash trashed that project), and we had some generic office space in some suburb near them. I did drive through the business parts of downtown (which were ok) and went to Windsor for dinner - there's good Middle Eastern food there, and I'd never driving south into Canada before.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Here, let me get you started... A nice climate archive to start https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-... If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data: http://mesowest.utah.edu/ Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
To those that think we should change out our light bulbs for LEDs, take the bus or bike to work, use low flow toilets, turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater, drive electric cars, eat locally grown foods, and so on... I say I'd rather have the global warming.
To those that say that I'll say they are misguided if they believe tiny individual acts will amount to anything, although for sure get rid of the damn car. Without cars we could be living like king on $1K per month (plus free heatthcare). Hell, we shit on a personal sit-down toilet so we're living like kings already, but we don't know it yet.
So, you can't buy a 100 watt bulb, but you can buy a 150 000 watt car? What the hell. As if 15 kilowatt would not be enough to move asses around. Technology like steam and electric give high torque at low power and speed limits could be dropped to somehing like 40 mph.
I'm in favor of nuclear power, but to also take the bus or bike to work, turn down heat and put a sweater on. And use incandescent halogen, because I prefer a few lights with continuous spectrum to many with spiky spectrum.
Or are you saying history just stopped being recorded in 1980, and we're living in the post-historic era?
Why can we buy a 150,000 watt car?
Because most people prefer lame weak little engines. I'd set the minimum at 300,000 watts.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's all available. You have to click on the link in the article... See the other posts in this thread with more links to raw data, etc.
You really should read up on the methodologies. It's not like these are unknown issues. And, no, airport sited stations are not the only data sources.
Where do you get 1978 from? You clearly have never read any of the literature. Go enlighten yourself. An IPCC report or the NOAA sites are good starting points.
in other words, a full 2F warmer than pre-1980 levels.
Simply devalue the degree Fahrenheit. Most of the world uses Celsius, so few people will be affected by it. And at a stroke you've managed what governments all over the world do when faced with an annoying problem: redefined it out of existence. The final step would be to rename Climate Change to something else, reset all the counters so that all old measurements cannot be converted. Then just carry on as if nothing had happened.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
.... although for sure get rid of the damn car. Without cars we could be living like king on $1K per month (plus free heatthcare). Hell, we shit on a personal sit-down toilet so we're living like kings already, but we don't know it yet.
So, you can't buy a 100 watt bulb, but you can buy a 150 000 watt car? What the hell. As if 15 kilowatt would not be enough to move asses around. Technology like steam and electric give high torque at low power and speed limits could be dropped to somehing like 40 mph...
I am not sure how you think I would be living like a king walking or biking everywhere. It would take days just to get to the doctor to get my free health care. There are no buses here and I doubt there will ever be any. I would go broke taking a taxi everywhere on $1K a month. And no I am not going to move, I live very close to my job.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
We're interesting in seeing relative changes. The actual baseline doesn't matter for that, but something close to zero works best. That's why we pick a recent baseline, big enough to average out most weather effects.
You've made a logical flaw. I don't know how to explain it because, well, your combining of the two sentences is wrong on a logical basis and also wrong on an "intuitively that's what it obviously means" basis and I don't know how or why you tried to combine them.
The average 1951-1980 just provides a baseline for comparison. Maybe 1635 was 2 degrees warmer than that baseline. Maybe 1856 was 2.5 degrees colder than that baseline. Maybe 2015 was 1.15 degrees warmer.
The baseline is just the "tare" or "zero calibration". It doesn't imply which years are compared to it.
Dear new Slashdot owners,
(and I don't mean this as a red-rag for the ASCII-only crowd, please consider before downmodding)
It's a pet peeve of mine when foreign letters are mangled on here; it detracts from the discussion.
El Ninyo being an illustrative example of why entry of foreign characters contained within common Latin-variant alphabets should be supported.
One poster above has successfully entered the right html escape code but it's an input-dev pain in the rear, especially if you have an enye character on your Spanish keyboard!
Please consider...
So, that's the (adjusted, and increasingly, ***estimated***) surface data subject to the Urban Heat Island effect and a bunch of other things.
Now, AGW theory states that the lower tropical troposphere will have a temperature rise before the surface does. Could you please tell us all what the UAH and RSS satellites are showing?
Furthermore, this year is an El Nino year. It is fully expected that the global temperature will increase a a result of NATURAL effects. And the last century and a half has been a temperature rise after the end of the Little Ice Age, but we're still colder today than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
Here is some data that might help you put the NATURAL temperature variability into perspective
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Given that the IPCC's computed (as in guessed) ECS and TCS and too high by a factor of 4 compared to the observed value (because they guessed at the effect of water vapor and got the sign and magnitude wrong) then anyone who believes human-emitted CO2 is the dominant driver of Climate Change should be given a 'Flat Earth' award for their refusal to follow the Scientific Method and look at the observations which falsify the AGW hypothesis at this time.
They could have taken the years at the beginning of the recorded temperature (as the comment at the origin of this trend assumed), but the quality and uncertainty is bigger there. If they had done that, the current anomaly would bigger, but that does not really matter. The trend of the anomaly (= the trend of the average temperature) is the important part. And the fact that the anomaly has got several new high.
When we have a cold snap the global warming types say "it's just weather" and so when we have a warm month here and there I believe I can rightfully say that "it's just weather".
When was the last time that the monthly (or yearly) global anomaly broke a low record? Was that at this point that you heard people say "it's just weather"?
In those sorts of discussion everyone brings his bias and rationalizes his way of living as the true way or the reasonable way, and that includes myself obviously (in the car-less, bike-ful angle)
As Michael Chrichton pointed out once, it's odd that Nasa changed the 1880 temperature chart after publishing it.
I couldn't find a good link, but this blog covers it pretty good:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
I'm not saying that global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it doesn't happen. I'm just a bit sceptical about the "Either you are with us or you are against us"-mentality of it all.
Let's do what we can to compesate and at the same time be open to information for all sides.
One thing I see missing from all of these Global Warming articles is any semblance of actual science.
Then you aren't even trying to look. Yet here it is, handed to you on a virtual silver platter: Bloodstar has posted lots of links for you, and I'll contribute one about the models scientists use:
Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
So, that's the (adjusted, and increasingly, ***estimated***)
All mesurements of everything are estimated, without exception.
surface data subject to the Urban Heat Island effect and a bunch of other things.
So we should pretent that urban heat islands don't exist?
Furthermore, this year is an El Nino year. It is fully expected that the global temperature will increase a a result of NATURAL effects.
Yes? And?
but we're still colder today than the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
So what? That doesn't mean warming isn't happening.
anyone who believes human-emitted CO2 is the dominant driver of Climate Change
Nice strawman. Clearly the Sun is the dominant factor. As the sun warms, sometime in the next 4 billion years, the surface of the earth will become so hot it'll be molten. Then, if we escape being consumed, and the sun turns into a white dwarf, the earth will end up and a cold, bare, desolate planet.
That doesn't mean however, that CO2 isn't having a measurable effect right now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
A month or even a year is too short to use as a period in talk about climate. I know that the public relates well to that talk but it's not appropriate.
Northern Hemisphere Summer is warmer than Winter globally basically because there is more land surface area north of the equator. (Oceans moderate seasonal temperature changes.) August 2014 might be the hottest Month but as Gavin Schmidt points out the whole method is based on anomalies so getting to the hot month might not be possible. https://twitter.com/ClimateOfG...
And burr.....it brought back the winter...
Shh....don't exclaim the emperor's new clothes are invisible...
Kinda a circular argument, isn't it?
You have no buses because everyone is driving cars ... and you think you still have no buses if you stop driving cars?
Strange that even third world countries have usually a working bus network ... only your country can't do that.
It would take days just to get to the doctor to get my free health care. that is also o very strange, unless you live in an really isolated part of the world, there should be a doctor in biking range, even if it is unconvenient to use the bike with a heavy cold.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually, those of us have read a lot. And one of the things we are aware of is that they are using various temperature record sets. Be it modern satellites or glacial cores. First, in all measurements of the past, assumptions are made. Second, in trying to overlay historical data, modern data, and pre-historic data, there is a general lack of compatible metrics. To stay with the recent English vs Metric. We're trying to match an English bolt with a Metric nut.
How they decided to match up the modern, historical, and ancient data sets was based on human opinons. Thus rather flawed. There is actual proof of these flaws, in the fact that a) their models have always failed to predict and b) we have human anthropological historical records that show them to be incorrect. (This is why they later recanted on the medieval warm period.)
Also, all of it is moot, if we do not address the scope of what warm weather entails. Firstly, colder climates result in the following. Reduction in the number of flora and fauna species, the formation of deserts (because Earth's moisture is trapped in the poles). Hotter climates, result in an increase of diversity of flora and fauna, increase in global vegetation and a reduction in long ranging deserts.
These are all fact that are seldom discussed in this debate. Nor is the fact that during the cretaceous period the temperature was 20 degrees hotter than today. Life still thrived.
The truth is, humans may have to adapt and face consequences of a warming climate. But Earth and life will adapt as it always has. Humans are more disturbed by a change in status quo. But global warming is far more tolerable and of less consequence than a global cooling, glacier age. Which would result in starvation of millions.
And most of the research resulted in the understanding that data collection is extremely inaccurate. That many of those former remote temperature measurement sites are now next to urban structures.
That the overlaying of modern, historical, and prehistoric temperature data relied upon the opinions of scientists, thus subject to bias.
And that all the models to date have proven woefully poor and inadequate at their predictions. Showing that their understanding is far from complete.
NONE OF THIS MEANS WE SHOULDN'T STOP POLLUTING THE AIR AND OCEANS
http://www.surfacestations.org...
Stop pumping out billions of gallons of water from prehistoric aquifers to irrigate our crops. Where do folks think that water goes? In the oceans...
I will counter your regional weather anecdote with my own.
It hit 60F multiple times in January where I live. This weekend, we're expecting to see temperatures in the 50s. So far this winter, we have not had more than 1 inch of snow on the ground. We have only had 1 week of sub-freezing temperatures. I haven't bothered to get my winter coat out, still wearing my light North Face jacket.
It's sad, my son is now old enough that he wants to go outside and play in the snow.. the only problem is there hasn't been anything worthwhile to play in.
On the bright side, our heating cost is only about 60% of what it normally is during winter.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
... the fallacy that our climate is static is the number 1 reason I dont believe much of this debate
...2. No scientist has ever claimed the climate is static.
the tempa go up, the temps go down, constituent ingredients that make up our atmosphere change,
No. The temperatures change for reasons. The constituent gases of the atmosphere change for reasons.
yet Earth keeps on ticking, there is NOTHING we can do for this,
Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.
we ride on the Earth, hang on tight and make whatever adjustments you need to to survive.
And, in order to survive the adjustment we will have to make is to stop emitting fossil CO2.
This post is pretty much accurate: no, climate scientists don't claim that the climate is static. What they claim is that the natural sources of variation have been measured, and do not explain the rapid (on a geologic scale) temperature rises we currently see.
The anthropogenic warming is not instead of natural variations. It is in addition to natural variations. But we are now very very accurately measuring the climate forcing factors. They're just not large enough to cause the current warming trend.
The only part I have to take exception to is the final line: "in order to survive the adjustment we will have to make is to stop emitting fossil CO2."
No; global warming may be disruptive, but that's going a bit too far. It's not going go cause extinction.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Define abruptly....
OK, fair point. "Abruptly" here means "on a time scale of decades to centuries."
This is rapid on a scale of climate, and even on a scale of human civilization, but slow on a scale of human lifetime.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Averages and percentages are statistics for the small-minded.
>No; global warming may be disruptive, but that's going a bit too far. It's not going go cause extinction.
You are probably partly right - but only probably and definitely only partly.
Partly because we aren't the only species around and it will cause lots of others to go extinct, much smaller climate shifts than this have caused mass extinctions before - and those happened SLOWLY.
Probably because you may be overestimating our ability, and speed, of adaptation. 97% of all species that ever existed are extinct (at least), we have no idea what our breaking point may be. We are far more dependent on other species than we realize and any of THEIR extinctions could prove to be the end of us, there are other impacts which could prove to be more than we can deal with. We have no real defense against virusses right now and one major aspect of climate change is to seriously shift the distribution of insects - which means spreading diseases to new areas. A disease that only existed in a sparsely populated place where the rare cases that got it always died but weren't very many... could be the plague that takes us out if climate change moves it to a highly populous area.
There were dozens of homo species on this planet not so long ago (we're still discovering new ones). Only two of those survived the last major climate change. Just two - and the other survivor was confined to a tiny tropical island and probably never experienced it. They were around until 18-thousands years ago at least, that's the age of the most recent fossils we have - but most dead bodies don't fossilize, it's entirely possible they were actually around until as recently as 10 or even 5 thousand years ago, hell it could be 1000 years ago or less. The may have survived right until *we* arrived on their island !
Either way - the fact is, while we as a species probably would not go extinct - it is a possibility. It's a very remote and absolute worst-case-scenario possibility, but it's not non-existent (and frankly the risk of an asteroid taking us out is quite a lot bigger). But billions of dead bodies, maybe half of us gone, maybe 3 quarters ... that's the MODERATE risk. That's the hedging your bets on the MIDDLE of the picture outcome.
That's hardly a shocking outcome, killing 25% of the world's population is so easy we've done that TO EACH OTHER... TWICE in a single century ! And make no mistake, in a bad climate scenario, whatever number of people are killed by crop failures and diseases and floods and storms... we would kill 10 times as many ourselves.
Every crop failure won't just cause a famine, everyone of them will also cause a war as hungry people fight their neighbours for food.
That's what the "nah, we'll just adapt like we've always done" crowd never mentions... our history is full of evidence of just HOW humans adapt to calamities - we do it by killing each other in droves.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What it says is "the record for the hottest month in recorded history has been shattered" and then later "warmer than the global average of 1951-1980." And if you check the linked charts as mentioned before (this one being the most data intensive) you can see that the data goes back to 1880.
Reading comprehension is good. So is logic. If you apply both you can see that if the reference period of 1951-1980 is (on average) warmer than the years before 1951 (which is the case, -0.001 avg vs -0.235 avg) and 2016 is warmer than the reference period of 1951-1980 (+1.13 vs -0.001 avg,) then by the simple application of the transitive property you can determine that 2016 is warmer than the years before 1951.
This post really ought to be marked as redundant since i'm just details of the facts that i already pointed out in the first post, but unfortunately you still appear not to get it. Which means either you're a troll or... well, i don't want to get this marked as flamebait instead.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
And even if there is "global warming", the planet thrives with warmer temperatures and more CO2 - so why listen to the Chicken Littles?
It's not the planet that's in danger. The planet will be perfectly fine after we are gone.
nice argument, but it then puts the 29/30 year baseline into the same category!!.
So, use the whole data set. Temperature is rising, and the rise is higher than the error bars.
Data is here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
As usual, the libertarian Climate Denialists are out in force.
Do the Koch bothers pay in shares for this stuff?
Not really any different from any other record: records are always to within the accuracy of the measurement.
When you look at, say, the world's record for the 100 meter dash, when Nesta Carter broke Maurice Greene's record with a time of 9.79 seconds, compared to Greene's 9.80 seconds, do you really think that the margin of error is less than 10 milliseconds? But it's the best measurement we have
People are interested by records. Measurements have errors.
In any case, if 2014 turned out not to be the record high, then 2010 had the record-- either way, the record is within the last few years. And 2015 beat them both-- it was high enough above 2014 (and 2010), that it was outside the measurement error as a record-breaking year-- it is the undisputed world record.
All of the candidates for warmest year ever recorded are in the last few years (before 2010, the record had been 1998)-- that is hard to explain as measurement error.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Doing some basic research by going to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, their report says overall Australia was only 0.21 degrees above the base line...that's a pretty significant difference!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
I'd love to know how GISS comes up with these over-inflated figures?
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
Nope. Europe is in good shape. America would be in the middle to upper 1/3, while china and any nation that manipulates their money is in horrible shape. This is wiki with 2006 data (10 years ago). If you look at it today, china would remain at the bottom even with the false numbers from CDIAC . And things are MUCH MUCH worse by using empirical data from OCO2, as opposed to false data from the various govs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Are you saying that, if I get rid of my car, there will automatically be good public transportation to where I want to go? Or that, if we put a lot of work into it, we could make cars a lot less necessary over a large part of the country? There are already cities that are plenty livable without a car, but currently without one I'd have to quit my job, switch my health care, and figure out how to get to my court date on time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, a record-breaking warm January is evidence of global warming. It isn't conclusive evidence. The string of "warmest ever" periods is strong evidence of global warming.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The 1951-1980 baseline is just the average temperature of those 30 years (the classical climate period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization). It includes all of those "wild swings" that you mention. It doesn't matter what you use as a baseline. The anomalies are just the temperature minus the baseline so the relative differences between temperatures is preserved. If you wanted to use the actual temperatures rather than anomalies you could show a graph that went from 55F to 61F (or 13C to 16C) but the curve of the graph wouldn't change.
The "stability" of the baseline period doesn't matter. Even during the baseline period when you plot the actual temperatures of individual years they are above or below the baseline unless they just happen by coincidence hit the baseline.
Nuclear power's biggest problem is that it's too expensive to compete financially with most other forms of power production. The only way to significantly ramp up the rate of building nuclear power plants is with massive government subsidies.
True there is a basic doctor in biking distance but the specialists are in the cities. I am not blessed with simple illnesses. I have no idea why there are no buses, there are lots of people who can't drive and they are forced to waste their money on taxis.
I am not sure why people think owning cars is so expensive. I buy them for 4 to 6 thousand and drive them for 10 to 15 years, by that time I have saved enough for the next one. Insurance is the biggest cost if you hyper-mile. I can do all my own repairs, I am not sure if a lot of people can do that.
As for my country, yes it is the U.S.A. Every year services and opportunities disappear. Someday the rural areas will be 3rd world like and only some cities will resemble a modern society.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
I'd really like to see you justify that statement with some serious cites of scientific papers.
(But didn't we go over this a couple of threads back and you kept throwing things at me that weren't global in scope? So nevermind.)
And the effects of anthropogenic global warming, possible collapse of our global civilization, major shifts in agricultural regions may result in the starvation of billions.
Oh FFS! Two clicks (the link in the story then the link to the first hyperlink on that page) take you to this page that is the source data you were too damn lazy to seek out. It would take more work and probably reading several scientific papers to understand the methodology used to produce it but it's out there if you're not too lazy to look it up on your own. You can't get everything delivered to you on a silver platter (unless you're wealthy enough to pay someone to do it for you). Sometimes you have to work for it.
Cute little bit of mathturbation there. Yes, carbon dioxide is only 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere but the rise in CO2 levels from about 280 ppm (where it was for the past ~8.000 years) to 400 ppm (where it is now) is entirely man-made. 3% isn't a lot but when you get an additional 3% every year it starts to add up.
1951-1980 is just the period that NASA uses for their baseline. The reason it it 30 years long is that is the classical climatological period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. It is not cherry picking. You could use any 30 year period for your baseline and it would be just as meaningful. All a different baseline would do is shift the graph up or down without changing the shape of the curve at all.
The data used for this particular story is here.
+1, Funny.
(You were attempting to be funny, yes?)
I was attempting +1 That's a Really Stupid Headline. Which it was. "In recorded history" means something, and it does not mean what the article submitter thinks it means. It's outrageously alarmist and therefore harmful.
And I see the mods are schizophrenic today. The original post is at score 0, while the restatement of the same thing is at +4. Do you people read?
But they didn't choose 1980-2010.
There is a reason. It isn't certain the reason is to use a random period.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think they use 1951-1980 for consistency. That's the base period they used when they started producing anomaly tables back in the 1980s. By continuing to use the same period for baseline it's easier to compare all of their work. If they switched to a 1981-2010 baseline they'd update all of their old anomaly tables to the new baseline. It wouldn't make any difference to the relative differences between two temperatures or the shape of the curve, just where the zero anomaly line gets drawn in the graph.
If it's anecdotes you want, then I'll rebut yours.
I live at 54 degrees north (further north than the entire continental US, about as north as Anchorage, Alaska). However, despite this, our climate is reasonably mild, but winters still get cold. Thirty years ago you could count on scraping the ice of your car windscreen probably on at least 30 winter mornings.
However, this winter I've still not had to scrape ice off the windscreen. I think I had to scrape the ice off maybe once or twice last year.
I have a young washingtonia robusta in front of my house. At 54 degrees north. If you're not familiar with the plant, it's a Mexican fan palm. It has been so mild that this January it actually pushed out a new frond, despite being 25 degrees further north than its natural habitat and January days being much shorter and darker than in its natural range.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Where is your data? of, and if you want citations I suggest you learn to read. It is right in front of your face - but apparently this is too hard for you. Let's see if you can work it out, because the fact you can't shows how hilarious your ignorant posture is.
so your expert is the writer of Jurassic Park?
Hate to point it out to ya...but he's not a climate scientist.
and Goddard is also a crank.
don't get me wrong, State of Fear was an entertaining story.
but its just that: a story.
the actual science and reality is far divorced from his book.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
this post needs modded up
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
-the effect of el nino on the GLOBAL AVERAGE is tiny. even with el nino it still would have been the hottest year.
http://www.slate.com/content/d...
-the urban heat island effect isn't a factor. IE, remove all urban stations from the data and the trend still remains the same.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
-your continual pointing to the RSS satellites show only that you are ignorant of what that data is and what it is capable of showing, let alone its relation to the overall picture from all the data.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
-the corrections actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data, by ~20%.
-there are no observations which "falsify AGW all the time". there are only cranks like yourself who misinterpret the data (deliberately) in order to spread misinformation.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The unedited data before the past is tweaked cooler and the present hotter.
not what happens.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
-the effect of el nino on the GLOBAL AVERAGE is tiny. even with el nino it still would have been the hottest year. http://www.slate.com/content/d... [slate.com]
Why don't you add the missing bit? "Hottest year since modern surface records began in the 19th Century". Which is completely expected given the recovery since the Little Ice Age. Not the hottest year within the last 500 years, nor 1000, nor 2000. Look again at the REALITY that warmunists must deny:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Please tell us wall why the Vikings used to farm in Greenland, but are now buried under permafrost? could it be that today is COLDER than it used to be, and we are only getting back to relatively normal temperatures - and all of this is ****NATURAL****.
ROFL you think "SkepticalScience" is anything except blinkered rants from eco-loons who deliberately ignore data (that is, REALITY) they don't like. They don't have neutral peer-review of their drivel.
-your continual pointing to the RSS satellites show only that you are ignorant of what that data is and what it is capable of showing, let alone its relation to the overall picture from all the data. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
BOOM! here you show you know NOTHING about the CAGW/AGW Hypothesis that predicts that the lower tropic troposphere will show warming before anything else, including the sea and surface. The predictions of this hypothesis are NOT observed (and the UAH and RSS satellites agree with each other, and the tens of thousands of weather balloons, and the well-sited surface stations, etc). The Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of AGW based on the OBSERVATIONS (that is, reality) because the specific prediction of AGW is not observed (in fact, the counter is observed). Did you not know this?
-the urban heat island effect isn't a factor. IE, remove all urban stations from the data and the trend still remains the same. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
COMPLETELY FALSE. The apparent surface warming decreases significantly when UHI affected stations and the increasing proportion of ESTIMATED data is taken away. Here's a discussion of the developing story, that has been improved by wamists critiquing it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
-the corrections actually reduce the amount of warming shown in the data, by ~20%.
Here you show a complete inability to reason statistically. Who cares if the absolute level is reduced? the 'corrections' introduce a systematic effect that cools the past and warms the present - artificially introducing a trend in the first time derivative. But you are not smart enough to see this and instead trot out a deception you were unable to see through.
-there are no observations which "falsify AGW all the time". there are only cranks like yourself who misinterpret the data (deliberately) in order to spread misinformation.
It is you spreading disinformation. It is you who merely parrots talking points because you don't understand the specific predictions of AGW and how the observational data have falsified this hypothesis. You refuse to follow the Scientific Method when it conflicts with your cultural Marxist "Progressive" Narrative. Even your byline "America, shining city on a hill, was built upon progressive ideals. Conservatism has only ever diminished its luster." shows how colossally ignorant you are of economics and American history. But hey, you are prepared to deny th
*sighs*
Actually, global warming is far less alarming than global cooling. But most of the extreme weather events that are pointed to for global warming are in fact dwarfed by recorded activities. California had greater droughts, and also a super flood in the 1800s.
But these historical bits are ignored.
Global cooling is nothing anyone has to worry about for thousands of years.