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.

Comments

Michigan.....

[beheaderaswp]

Here in Michigan- it's been a fine spring so far!

Re:Michigan.....

[Molt]

To be fair Flint used to have people, but then they drank the water.

Re:Michigan.....

[vel-ex-tech]

Well, it was a nice spring, but it seems to have given summer and fall a miss and gone straight on to winter again!

Re:Michigan.....

[dunkelfalke]

Here in the western part of Germany we had no winter for at least three consecutive years. We had just a late autumn going over to a very early spring. In fact, we had such a warm december (up to +15C) that blackbirds started to breed and the offspring was quickly killed by the lack of suitable food in january.

I have several pairs of cross country skis in the cellar that haven't seen snow for years even though I live in the mountains. I didn't even have to change my bicycle tyres to studded tyres this winter and last two winters I had to change tyres only for two days or so.

YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[chrism238]

How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[beheaderaswp]

For rational people? Or the other kind?

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Dutch Gun]

It will take future analysis and records. If the trends continue, it's not an anomaly. If the temperature trends drop, then we know it was a temporary blip in the record. Only time will really tell.

Geologically speaking, we've only been recording temperatures for an infinitesimally small amount of time. Moreover, there's obviously no experimental control possible - i.e., we can't tell what the temperature would be without humans with any certainty - it's all theoretical models that are describing the trends we're seeing.

I'm not saying the models are necessarily incorrect. I'm just pointing out that they are, in fact, only predictions and models. The only way to judge their validity is to measure their ability to predict trends over time.

Re: YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Fwipp]

Global temperature isn't weather. Regional temperature is.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Geoffrey.landis]

Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'.
However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?

No.

One exceptionally warm month, or even one warm winter, is not climate. (Nor one exceptionally cold one). Climate is long term,.

What is noteworthy is how frequently records are being set. If the temperatures were random, and not rising, you would expect records to be set only on rare occasions.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Nethemas the Great]

I don't believe it really has to do with climate scientists. Their descriptions consistently speak of increasing extremes, and a shifting of climates to from one location to another. I think the focus on heat is more of a media issue. The media for presumably historical reasons is stuck on the "global warming" notion and has a bias towards reporting stories about heat extremes, not cold extremes, not wet extremes, though sometimes dry extremes.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Opportunist]

Neither do I. I just want to have the right to shoot you when you try to escape the rising water levels by climbing up onto my hill.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[tentenone]

I for one don't think we should attempt to control nature.

What about air conditioning and heating, or purifying water?

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[mbkennel]

| The only way to judge their validity is to measure their ability to predict trends over time.

And many other behaviors, and judge the validity by examining the quality of the physics implemented in them.

There are effects which are directly a result of the underlying proposed mechanism (increased greenhouse gases), such as polar regions warming more than equatorial regions, night warming more than day, stratospheric cooling and distinguish from many other possible mechanisms.

These signatures have been observed and are consistent with mainstream scientific climatological understanding.

It's not just a matter of some particular models predicting one time series or not; it's about validating physics.

And understanding physics is the historically most successful way to predict hypothesized results of physical systems.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Layzej]

Part of the bias towards reporting heat records vs cold records is due to the fact that we haven't had any record cold months in over a century. The last time we had a record for the coldest month in recorded history was 1893 The last time we had a "warmest month in recorded history" was December. The prior record was October.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Sique]

We are controlling Nature. All the time. That's the whole point of being a planning, rationale being. We control the amount of rain water that hits our skin by staying indoors, or carrying an umbrella. We control the temperature of our environment by heating and air conditioning. We control the surface properties of the ground by laying tarmac along our often traveled paths. We control the species of plants growing around us by sowing, planting and weeding. We control the animals living near us by breeding them. As apes coming from a steppe landscape with sparse trees, we convert about any landscape we don't need for buildings, structures and food into a steppe landscape with sparse trees, and we call them parks, gardens and golf courses. We even control the functioning of our bodies by regular exercise and medicine.

What the whole discussion of anthropogenic climate change is about is thinking about the less immediate effects of our ways to control Nature. How we control Nature does not average out in the end, on the whole our changes shift Nature into a less diverse, hotter and less stable state.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Namarrgon]

And everyone warmist knew that the so-called "pause" was due to a series of mild La Niñas following the extra-strong El Niño in 1998, but that didn't stop the denialists crowing over it.

Every record-breaking hottest year/month/whatever will be during a strong El Niño; that's obvious, as that's the hottest point in the ENSO cycle. What's important is that this El Niño-boosted January was hotter than every other El Niño-boosted January we've ever seen. Again.

We've had so many hottest-ever records recently that people are apparently getting blasé about them. Reminder: in the absence of a rising trend, record-breaking temperatures become steadily less common - each new record would require an ever-more unlikely confluence of factors to boost temperatures still higher than the last record.

A constant stream of highest-yet record temperatures is more than just weather; it's a rising trend.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Layzej]

I for one don't think we should attempt to control nature.

What about air conditioning and heating, or purifying water?

Or for that matter, burning fossil fuels...

Re: YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Bartles]

Yeah, 18 years is too short. But the 29 years used as the baseline is plenty long enough. It's funny. Climatologists claim to have an excellent record stretching thousands of year. Why are we using 29 years as a baseline?

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Ol Olsoc]

How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?

Because we live in a country where people get their weather education from politicians and a Groundhog in Punxatawny PA, and not from scientists.

Even when it' is found out that a leading oil company kew and lied about AGW decades ago - they still cling to their denialism.. So it ain't gonna happen.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Geoffrey.landis]

If the only two choices are "Absolutely right" or "completely wrong," this might make sense. The people who said "the earth is not flat, it's a sphere!" were, in fact, wrong. But, they were not as wrong as people who said that the Earth is flat.

Science actually works by making progressively better models.

The global warming models have error bars. Right now, the error bars are large-- plus or minus about 50%. But, the main feature-- the fact that increasing carbon dioxide does increase warming-- is pretty well established.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[ScentCone]

Who said he was going to shoot you with a gun? There are lots of other options. Crossbows come to mind.

And no, there's nothing wrong defending yourself against trespassers when you've taken the time and invested the resources to prepare for life threatening circumstances. When other people feel entitled to the work you put in to be prepared for something, the word you're looking for is not "refugees," it's "looters."

Re: YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Geoffrey.landis]

So what is 18 years of global temperature? I've been told its also weather since 18 years is far too short of a time to count for climate. But now 1 month counts as climate?

lols

Now, that's very peculiar. Why did you pick eighteen exactly, no more and no less? Why not, say, twenty? Why eighteen?

We should always be suspicious when some very unusual number like that gets thrown up as baseline to compare against. Some blog somewhere told you to say eighteen years. Why?

Here's the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

OK, now we can see. Yes, eighteen years ago-- 1998-- was indeed a high point-- more than one standard deviation above the trend line. (Note that anthropogenic warming isn't instead of random variation-- it is in addition to random variation.) But, if you pick 1998 exactly as the starting point-- no more, no less-- up until 2013 you could kind of squint, and say "look, no warming since 1998". Pick the year before 1998 to start the graph, and the warming trend is clear. Pick the year after 1998 to start the graph, and the warming trend is clear. But if you picked 1998 exactly, no more, no less, up until 2013 you could draw the graph and make it almost look flat.

Except, that was then. As of now, even with the high point at 1998... the overall warming trend is very obviously clear.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Anonymous Coward]

First: It is highly unlikely that you lived 120 miles from the nearest observation point. 1978 was a while ago, but unless you were in far southwestern Texas, they probably still had wayyyy better coverage than that in your area.

Second: They don't just "substitute records from places over 120 miles away". Nobody does that. For places where weather stations are further apart, they use a method called bias-corrected statistical downscaling, based on a model of how temperature and precipitation correspond to topography. These models are calibrated based on k-fold validation, so we know they're actually very good at interpolating patterns. There is some error associated with it, but it is quite small. I would bet you money that they know exactly how hot that Christmas was, to within a tolerance of a degree or two.

Third: Let's say your little town in the middle of BFE had some sort of crazy localized temperature anomaly that couldn't be picked up even by sophisticated methods. So what? That means almost exactly nothing when talking about global average temperatures. It's one grid cell out of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.

If you want a decent look at how these things are actually calculated (and what the observation station layout looks like), here's a good paper:

http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/documents/Daly2008_PhysiographicMapping_IntJnlClim.pdf

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Yaztromo]

Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'. However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?

Since when has it been extra cold on a global scale? When has it snowed within your lifetime all around the globe simultaneously?

The "extra hot" we're discussing was measured on a global scale. Not local. The average temperature of the entire globe was a new record.

This is the problem with armchair climate deniers. They see a big storm (or cold winter, or whatever) in their country, and presume that it's some sort of argument against global warming. Well guess what -- the globe is significantly bigger than your corner of it. The entirety of the United States could be in a deep freeze, but as the total area of the US is still less than 2% of the entire worlds surface, the wouldn't discount the average global temperature being higher than ever before.

You're conflating local phenomena with a global phenomena. Weather is still not climate.

Yaz

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[phantomfive]

The global warming models have error bars

The error bars weren't wide enough.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Dutch Gun]

Why are people assuming I'm some "denialist"? I've already been modded down a couple of times as "overrated", which is shorthand for "I disagree with you and wish to silence you". It's hilarious... the slightest hint of wishing to validate claims with actual evidence and the pitchforks come out. And really... you must have a rather low opinion of my faculties if you seriously felt the need to point out that burning fossil fuels create the excess CO2, not the humans themselves. Sheesh.

I sincerely try to look at the science objectively, and right now, the evidence looks pretty good that we're in a warming trend, and a lot of of scientists seem to think human activity has something to do with it. I have no qualms with that. But again, we're really not going to know if their predictive models are accurate or not until we match their predictions up with future data. That's all I'm saying.

I have no problem with taking reasonable action to curb pollutants and emissions. I think that's a worthwhile goal in itself, regardless of what's happening with the climate. Moreover, it's common sense that we also need to start moving away from oil-based energy since there's a finite supply available to us - and that means investments in renewable energy sources. But let's not destroy or unnecessarily destabilize our economy in the process - that will simply derail efforts. No one gives a shit about the environment when they're about to get kicked out of their home since they can't get a job. Yes, I know... how dare I be pragmatic about human nature, right?

It's important to get accurate models because a more accurate model will tell us how much time we have to implement necessary change. People who want us to go to take immediate extreme corrective measures are, in my opinion, doing more harm than good by generating massive political opposition needlessly. Early wolf-crying predictions were utterly disproved a few decades later. Thanks to that, many people don't believe the current round of worrisome predictions, even if this round turns out to be correct.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[AlterEager]

The last time I checked we could be certain that most of the models were incorrect, because they differed significantly in their predictions.

When did you check? Because that's not true.

Individual model runs can produce different short term (< 30 year) outcomes, but the ensemble means match each other pretty well.

(Individual model runs have to be different -- they include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions and el-Ninos).

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[angel'o'sphere]

Even the fact that 2015 was a global record setter - that doesn't prove that the world is getting warmer. That's just one year. That's weather.
No it is not weather. Weather phenomena don't cover the whole globe or big parts of it.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[freedom_surfer]

We should totally error on the side of fuck the children.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[AlterEager]

You cite a paper that says "This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability." but dismiss multiple papers that showed that there is little or no difference when internal climate variability was compensated for.

I know what I don't find convincing and that's the single paper effect.

Re: YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[Beerdood]

Personally, I like to call that time frame selection "Sportscaster statistics". If you're ever watching or listening to highlights or pre-game hype, you'll always hear the most convenient data sampling selection to fit the narrative of a winning or losing streak. "They've won 3 of their last 4!" means they won 3 of the last 5. "Dropped 7 of the last 9" almost certainly indicates they lost 7 of the last 10 games, or maybe 7 out of 11. For some reason, a team never seems to be just average, they're always on a hot or cold streak.

If that number isn't rounded to 5 or 10, or a multiple of 10 (for a fairly low sampling size greater than 10 but less than 100), you should be skeptical of the data and immediately assume the number was picked to fit a narrative.

Re:YAA (Yet Another Anomaly)

[angel'o'sphere]

Rescuing one from certain death is not "charity".
Sorry, you are a moron.

Well then

[93 Escort Wagon]

I eagerly await the forthcoming rational, thoughtful, and respectful discourse from both sides!

... Where's the popcorn?

Re:Well then

[Alwin Henseler]

... Where's the popcorn?

Spread all over the land... Climate is changing so fast, the corn popped before they could harvest.

What the Anomaly is

[Geoffrey.landis]

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...

Re:So?

[Daetrin]

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?

Re:So?

[Yoda222]

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.

Used to be a lot warmer.

[viking80]

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.

Re:Used to be a lot warmer.

[jouassou]

I hear this argument a lot. You're right that there's nothing wrong with having a warmer climate, and as you say, it's a lot less destructive than another ice age. The problem occurs when the climate changes are too rapid. In this case, wild species don't have enough time to either migrate to suitable areas or adapt through evolution, possibly resulting in mass extinction and ecological disaster. For us humans, coastal cities would be affected by rising sealevels; climate changes would shuffle around which regions are suitable for farming and not; other food sources like fishing might be affected in unpredictable ways. So you're right that the Earth has been a lot warmer before, but that doesn't solve the short-term problems caused by rapid climate change.

Re:Higher than Average...

[Anonymous Coward]

See for yourself: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

January 2016 was not only 0.3C hotter than the previous record-holder (2015, unsurprisingly), but 0.8C hotter than any single January in the 1951-1980 baseline. It's also 0.6C hotter than any single month in that range. It's a lot, given that the global mean is so consistently stable.

Re:So?

[DogDude]

Short sighted and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

"Recorded History" is 136 years

[Anonymous Coward]

136 years is a few milliseconds on climatic and geologic time scales.

Re:So?

[Geoffrey.landis]

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:

..continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem.... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

citation: http://grist.org/news/more-nuk...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes....

Or, check out this one:
http://www.takepart.com/articl...

Re:...as Slashdot continues to spiral down the dra

[grcumb]

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.

Re:So?

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

And yet

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:And yet

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wow, what a cheap shot! Way to make it America's fault...again. I've got some bad news for you, and it comes from one of your own high priests. Close your eyes...this is going to hurt.

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse emissions, guess what â" that still wouldnâ(TM)t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions...it wouldnâ(TM)t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the worldâ(TM)s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.
-- John Kerry, at the Paris summit, 2015

It's the trend.

[Layzej]

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.

Re:So?

[Zontar The Mindless]

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?)

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:So?

[rtb61]

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.

icehouse earth

[emil]

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/...

Re:icehouse earth

[Geoffrey.landis]

Wow, a long comment that's mostly correct, but seems to mostly be irrelevant.

The main point-- that the Earth right now is in the middle of an ice age is indeed accurate. Earth is much cooler than it is on the average-- in fact, most of the time, Earth doesn't have frozen water at the polar caps!

And the climate was indeed much warmer (along with much higher levels of CO_2) during much of the Cretaceous. Rising CO_2 is NOT going to destroy the world-- the world has functioned just fine with higher temperatures and higher CO_2. It will adapt

The tricky part is-- we've sort of built our civilization around the climate we currently have. Flooding the seacoast, turning farmland into desert (and tundra into farmland) all these would disrupt our civilization abruptly.

Re:icehouse earth

[Namarrgon]

While true, what you say is not particularly relevant to us today. We've been in the current phase for tens of millions of years, and are unlikely to exit this anytime soon - unless perhaps by our own doing.

The planetary biosphere may well eventually flourish, in a much warmer climate. But in the short term (hundreds of years, rather than millions), sudden and drastic changes to temperature such as those we are going through now do not give the biosphere sufficient time to adapt, and mass extinctions are likely to result. Further, we humans must also adapt, which will incur significant costs as we migrate our populations & cities, infrastructure and farmlands, to more favourable locations - and likewise, these costs rise fast if we're forced to adapt quickly. Many economic studies have been done on the financial consequences of climate mitigation vs adaption, and most find mitigation to be considerably cheaper.

If we wanted to encourage a warmer planet, this is far from the optimal way to go about it.

Re:icehouse earth

[janimal]

The tricky part is-- we've sort of built our civilization around the climate we currently have. Flooding the seacoast, turning farmland into desert (and tundra into farmland) all these would disrupt our civilization abruptly.

Thinking that this is any different than in prehistoric times is naive. As it turns out, much of Middle East's cities were erected around waterways that no longer exist. They didn't disappear because of man-made climate change. This is not a new problem, only this time around we can influence the rate of change to a small degree. What is debatable is whether the degree of control that we do have is enough to matter, and even if it is, is it good value for money and good use of our limited science/engineering resources relative to bigger problems, like pollution and garbage.

Re:icehouse earth

[AlterEager]

Correct... the fallacy that our climate is static is the number 1 reason I dont believe much of this debate

1. There is no "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.

Re:icehouse earth

[AlterEager]

Well, you are of course totally wrong. We not only can change the climate, we have.

Have we now??? Well, feel free to believe that, I will continue to KNOW that whatever small effect we have on this chunk of rock and water, there will be counter effects built in the natural feed back loop.

How do you "know" this? My belief is based on science. Yours, not so much.

When in doubt...follow the money on global warming scaremongering... who exactly IS profiting.

Who is profiting from the denial of science? I'd guess it's the people who are funding it, you know, fossil fuel extraction companies.

Re:icehouse earth

[rally2xs]

"And, in order to survive the adjustment we will have to make is to stop emitting fossil CO2."

Want to see you achieve this. We absolutely have to drive cars to get to and from work, recreation, etc. If we don't go to these things, those that are providing the work and the recreation will go out of business, and be on welfare with everyone else. We absolutely have to have fossil fueled transportation bring us goods and services, we just don't know how to do it any other way. We have a population that is artifically high, and depends on fossil fuels to exist. If we don't burn fossil fuels, probably 90% of our population dies, and the only survivors are the cannibals.

So, if you really want to attack this, get your PHD in materials science and electrochemistry and get your butt into a lab and invent for us the magic battery to enable electric cars, trucks, locomotives, airplanes, and ships. The magic battery has to be cheap and small and cheap and high capacity and cheap and quick charging and cheap and power dense and cheap. We don't have anything like that, and until we get it, we're not going to be able to run everything off the grid that hopefully will be more easily powered with non-CO2 sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, etc. That can eventually work, but only if someone invents the magic battery.

Re:icehouse earth

[riverat1]

Reasons that are not entirely understood, pointing to a an increase in CO2 that seems to correspond to a rise in temps is a nice reasoned assumption, ...

And there is a nice causal link in CO2's absorption spectrum in the infrared. That is not an assumption.

Re:icehouse earth

[AlterEager]

Of course you didn't read any of the material that shows that the postulations that the climate models that are driving the climate change hysteria are built upon are wrong,

Citation? To peer reviewed science, not some "auditor" or blog?

You also are not aware that the IPCC reports consistently say that we just don't know and that it's all speculation,

You want to brush up on your reading skills, what the IPCC actually says is:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Flint before the Crash

[billstewart]

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.

Re: Raw data? Methods?

[bloodstar]

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.

Re: So?

[ljw1004]

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.

Re:So?

[fuzzyf]

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.

Here is raw data you all ignore...

[PortHaven]

http://www.surfacestations.org...

Re:So?

[Areyoukiddingme]

+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?