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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.