Slashdot Mirror
Warmest March In Global Recordkeeping (wunderground.com)
Layzej quotes a report from Weather Underground: March 2016 was by far the planet's warmest March since record keeping began in 1880. In the NOAA database, March 2016 came in a full 1.22C (2.20F) warmer than the 20th-century average for March, as well as 0.32C (0.58F) above the previous record for March, set in 2010. This is a huge margin for breaking a monthly global temperature record, as they are typically broken by just a few hundredths of a degree. Global satellite-measured temperatures also found this March to be the warmest -- the sixth consecutive monthly record in the UAH satellite data set. Gavin Schmidt, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has estimated that 2016 already has over a 99% chance of being the hottest year on record, based on the first three months alone.
Maybe those 1880 satellites weren't calibrated as good as they are now?
I hear it's a little cool in the midwest this April.
why is the temperature record significant?
are the specific causes known and how exactly?
if the causes are known was the temperature with accuracy predicted by models when those causes were included? why not?
Honest question.
I ride my bike to work. My house is powered by a solar panel installation. I recycle everything I can, compost a lot of the rest, and generate very little actual garbage. I do have a car but it's rare I actually need to use it.
What exactly am I supposed to do about global warming? Yell at my neighbours because their piece of shit 1970s automobile spews a cloud of toxic black crap every time they pull out of the driveway? Make funny faces at the moron down the street who insists on driving a hummer every time he passes my house? Stand on the side of the road with a sign over my shoulders that says "REPENT, THE END IS NEIGH"?
I'm just one person. Most of my close friends and family are mindful about their impact on the planet just as much as I am. I don't know what we're supposed to do beyond that, though. When I hear shit about the crap places like India and China are pumping into the air, I wonder why the hell I'm bothering in the first place. I suppose 'cause it's the right thing to do, but I don't know how much of a difference a dozen of people could possibly make.
1. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was anthropogenic in origin.
2. March was the highest average on record by 2F, 1F of which was anthropogenic, and 1F was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
3. March was the highest average on record by 2F, all of which was caused by long-standing historical temperature cycles.
What modifications of human industrial/consumption/energy behavior would you recommend for each of these cases, given that which is actually the case is not determinable? Implicit in this is the question of what the "right temperature" would be.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Now that we know who you are, can I ask you a question about emacs and vi?
The thing I love about that post is that you can be on either side of the AGW issue and it still makes sense and fits any point of view. There's no right or wrong way to interpret it. Bravo, sir.
People are either not powerful enough or too old to care.
A - We'll do something about this when, and only when, the end will be close enough to hurt those old enough to be powerful enough.
B - The only way to fail is not to have powerful enough terraformation tools by the time that moment comes.
Therefore, the two possible solutions are:
1 - Extend life expectancy so that we (humans) react with a larger margin.
2 - Elaborate more powerful climate change tools to be able to solve the problem even with a short margin.
Let's say that it is all natural --- now what? We still don't want all the ice to melt.
Let's say it is "all human". Now what? The governments don't actually do anything.
Why not do something concrete like ban all non-emergency air travel? NO NOES THE INCONVENIENCE!!! Why not ban all government use of jets? Why not ban the use of corporate cars that aren't electric? Why not ban air conditioning?
It isn't really about whether or not something is happening but rather governments never follow through, making the alarmism itself rather pointless.
No one is willing to live up any luxuries, especially the big shots jetting around to these conferences.
Those the left accuse of climato-sceptism are generally the same who are for strong gun ownership, so I really don't know what your point is about...
What do you think gun control is all about?
Getting the votes of those who thing gun control is a good idea.
Just as gun liberalization is about getting the votes of those who think that's a good idea.
Decades have passed since any political stance was about anything else than staying in power.
That article is TV weather guy 101 and not "Science 101".
I suggest broadening your horizons instead of reguritating over-simplified lies to children.
His error bar bit is about accusing scientists of doing less than high school level science just because they have not included the noise along with data. Of course it's going to cause some angry shouts.
It's like accusing a fully dressed high school student of forgetting to put on their underwear like a toddler just because you can't see it from the outside.
China has committed to reaching to peak CO2 emissions in 2030 ( http://climateactiontracker.or... ) and may have already achieved this a few years back ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... )
India has set the following targets: http://climateactiontracker.or...
When I was little we find a man... like a butcher. The old ones in the village cross themselves and whisper crazy things. 'Demonio, cazador de trofoes...Only the hottest times of the hottest years...' Crazy things...This year is grows hot.
....that many commenters do not have a sound grasp of statistics. nah fuck it .....I cant be bothered telling you about 30 year averages, mathematical modelling, errors etc
Go and sit in your basement and cook/freeze whatever and ignore basic high school physics.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
Maybe you could explain why the charts are mostly blue in 1921 and mostly red in 2013? Furthemore, despite the fact that the difference in the first chart should be only two Fahrenheits, I think I do see the 2013 being slightly higher on average. If by "basically identical", you mean that it's two Fahrenheits out of a fifty Fahrenheit annual amplitude, then yes, it's "basically identical". But most people wouldn't call, say, a seasonal ten Kelvin difference in outside temperature during their year as "basically identical" even though 290K and 300K is "basically identical" from a certain point of view.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm not cherry picking these
Yes you are. You are trying to disprove that global warming - and that the average of all the temperature stations are wrong - because one single station doesn't show the same increase as the entire globe.
And surely you should not be looking at the first graph. It only shows the minimum and maximum temperatures and not how long it spends are the top end of the range throughout the day compared to the minimum. If in 1921 it peaked at the maximum only briefly compared to later years (when it might spend many hours more at the peak) then the average temperature for the day would be lower.
The better graphs to look at are the ones below the min/max temps graph on the links that you provided. Compare the temperature departures from those two links and you see a lot more red (above the 0) on the more recent year. That shows the real temperature difference; that the average temperature over the year has indeed risen since 1921.
How embarrassing it must be for you to have thought that you were smarter than all the climate scientists in the world who do actually know how to read the data. And how arrogant are you to to claim that to disagree with you means that they are all shills. The only one here spewing misinformation is you. I suggest that it is far more likely that it is you who are the shill.
Actually, those graph show significant warming to me. There more red than blue in the recent graphs.
Unfortunately, those graphs show only weather, what you want it the average temperature across the whole year (and preferably the three years before and after), and that's not in those graphs.
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If nobody gives a shit, then why do stories on climate change generate so many comments? And why did you bother coming here to post about it if you don't care? I suggest that you do actually care.
I'm sure that you cared when you undoubtedly said that global warming was a myth because it was getting cooler since 1998. You probably also cared when you claimed that it was a myth because of the hiatus once it became obvious that the cooling was just the result of 1998 being an outlier year. And I'm sure that you care now when the records are being consistently broken, but this time all you can do is try to distract us from the facts by claiming that nobody actually gives a shit now.
Sorry, we do give a shit, even if you like to pretend that we don't.
Watts?
The citation I don't think had anything to do with anyone by that name. I believe the graph is raw in fact. What are you talking about?
Please show me where this Watts person is cited in my source and then tell me why that is relevant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
With one breath you say you believe global warming. With another wou wish people professing it to murder suicide each other. Your goals are obvious shill. GW with or without the A is noticible by a person. I am 40 and have seen it in my lifetime. If you do not care about the future, or think we are powerless to stop it fine. Say so. But don't be a lying dbag.
Silence is a state of mime.
I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. So far you've just cherry-picked some data after saying you're not cherry-picking, made some wild claims without supporting evidence, and then told everyone to stop discussing minima and maxima because you've had enough of it.
It seems your grasp of the topic is somewhat tenuous and flavoured more by anger than intellectual curiosity.
I dunno, but March was hella cold and rainy in the area around New York City. The rest of the world doesn't matter. :-p
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
No, it is noticeable as a person. Not only can you feel just one degree centigrade difference without any trouble, but the number of places not experiencing a notable change are outnumbered by the number of places which are. The average person can notice a change, if they do not have their head jammed straight up their arsehole.
But the man on the street walking about... the point of the graph I showed was to make it clear that it is so subtle that you don't see it for feel with your own eyes and skin.
Right, and you're wrong.
So explaining why people might not care is really pretty self evident.
Yes. They think it can't happen to them, and they don't care about anyone else. Quite self-evident.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
[citation needed]
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Records is relative, we've been measuring since what, 1880? The earth is how old? 5 billion years give or take. Doh.
nothing to see here - move along
You can't possibly be that stupid. Did you even look at those graphs? Read the little numbers and letters running underneath and up the side?
I guess you are that stupid.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So why did you comment? You wasted a thought of brilliant departs on expounding " I'm better". Aren't you one of the same? That...
-not identical...unless you're willfully blind (the true answer I suspect)
-there are tens (hundreds) of thousands of stations. you aren't going to "audit" them all yourself...but you also don't have to, the work has already been done and been collected into these handy dandy data sets, so the one or two you look at both prove nothing and are a waste of your time
-no one wants dictatorial control over everything
-no, its not 2 trillion a year
-yes, you are missing something: facts and logic
-China and India -are- on board and making changes
-if every summer is warmer than the last....doesn't that suggest a trend to you?
-what we've had enough of is your constant stream of BS
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers
Well no f'ing s*** Sherlock.
AgainMay I again point your attention to the word global .
Global warming.
Global Average Temperatures.
the idea its not visible when you look at only one station is meaningless.
but some things people do notice: shorter, milder winters; the warm season beginning earlier; summer lasting longer; hurricane season beginning earlier, lake effect snow storms being larger (warmer air holds more water, increasing snow dump).
btw, yes, some of the station records are exactly that: someone recording a temperature every hour of every day.
you have no true interest in discussing anything, civilly or otherwise.
your purpose here is to spread misinformation and doubt.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Exactly... and here is why: http://www.climatestations.com...
https://www.climatestations.co...
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
Jesus Christ. "That station"? The one and only Downtown LA station that quite obviously moved from "WBO" to USC Campus? With all your acute recognitional skills that tell you the climate was "the same", yet you didn't see that? [facepalm]
Ohh, and is there a special reason why you used 2013 data when 2015 is available?
Last but not least, look at the second graph on each page.
The second chart down shows the day-to-day mean temperature anomalies (daily mean temperature less the corresponding long-term climatological mean). Vertical lines extending upward from the zero line indicate above average means for the day (colored red), those extending downward indicate below average daily means (colored blue). In general, the most extreme departures for Downtown Los Angeles are positive, reflecting to a large extent the occurrence of warming offshore flow episodes.
They sure noticed something. You didn't.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
In any case, the article says that the March temperature is 2 degrees (F) higher than the 20th century average for March. You posted some graphs in which the smallest division is 5 degrees F. You couldn't even see a 2 degree change on those graphs.
That's not data-- that's noise.
The flux from the sun is continuously measured by satellites.
One thing that we know quite well is that changes in solar output is not the cause of present-day warming.
It could be a factor in past climate variations-- we can't measure solar output very well millions of years ago, or even for that matter hundreds of years ago. But it is measured now, and it's not the cause of warming.
That would likely be hard liquor and not beer.
Sorry, the word "not" should've been italicized, not "beer."
One word: meltwater.
It all depends on which scientist you listen to. If you accept only one theory, bad man, you have forgotten all the other influences that are mightier then man. Such as, eliminated sun from the equation.
Did that.
That big yellow thing in your sky, and, having read theories on controlling the input from the sun, such as parasols,
Parasols?
What do fancy umbrellas have to do with it?
or the one of directing energy to receivers on earth for electricity
that's still science fiction.
those don't exist yet
disregarding the atmospheric warming locally,
urban heat island effect?
yeah they already accounted for that too.
the same with the formulations of climate science, they call our star making "x" amount of energy, daily. But it is a variable star, gone quiet, what is the effect of going quiet, why?
if the sun went quiet, we'd all freeze to death veryquickly.
luckily its still shining
Plus our attempting to change the magnetic field of earth.
wtf are you smoking?
Is that safe? Where is the fallback if they are wrong? Some cave in the mountains?
no, really, wtf are you smoking?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I know, right? Three years without an ice cap, not a single Seychelles island left, constant category seven hurricanes. The AGW have been making nothing but accurate predictions for decades.
Nobody has made any of those predictions as things that would happen by 2016.
If you want to see what was actually predicted, it's not hard-- the IPCC reports are all available on the web. Here's the 1990 predictions-- twenty six years ago-- for example: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
We must start listening to their calls for global economic destruction!
It would be useful if the people who are saying that addressing the problem would result in "global economic destruction" would, rather than attacking the science, instead propose approaches to the question "what are the range of possible options available to us that would not result in global economic destruction?"
I have a car, because I have to drive to work. It's expensive to own a car and I'd rather not, but it's much more expensive to live in the downtown core where my office is, and to have my wife stay home with the kids. Therefore we both work, we live in the burbs, and we drive to work and daycare... like everyone else. Not because we want to, but because we have to.
I heat my house with natural gas and power it from whatever power is on the grid because it's my only option as well. I live in a townhouse and don't think I'd have much success convincing everybody to upgrade their furnace and install solar panels above their unit. I'd love to live in my own detached house with infinite money to customise it for the planet, I simply can't afford to do so.
I recycle as much as I can, even though there's evidence that for many products it costs more energy to recycle than make new, such as with plastic.
This movement wonders why nobody seems to care? We've been berated and guilted with this shit for decades. We are all concerned, but most us are running the hamster wheel, working the wage slave gig, hoping like hell to be able to send our kids to college and scrap together enough money we'll be able to relax a little before we die. So I'm not really surprised when people get a little tired of hearing this shit and make up excuses why not to believe it. You're preaching to the wrong people. Take it to congress, to industry, and to other world leaders... leave us alone.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The difficulty is that the deniers call all the data "manipulated to further a political point." If you routinely discard all the data except data that supports your pre-determined conclusions, this is not science, but an ideology with no possible way for it to be challenged.
For example, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was founded specifically to do an independent analysis of the temperature record, to address the purported flaws in the data analysis by all the previous scientific groups. http://berkeleyearth.org/
This is the analysis of which Anthony Watts said (before any results were released): "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
OK. They are also concluding that 2015 is the hottest year on record.
Here's the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record for Los Angeles: berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/34.56N-118.70W
This is slightly more informative view than just comparing two random years, 1921 and 2013. As you can see, a lot of noise in the data (when you average the entire globe, the noise tends to average out. A single location, though, has a lot of variation.) But the trend is up. Looking at the red (ten year average) curve, about 1 degree C of warming from 1921 to 2013.
Nevertheless, do keep this in mind: Los Angeles is not the world.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person.
That is simply not true. If by cherry picking a single graph you were trying to say that it wasn't noticeable as a person and that is why people don't care about this, how does that lead to you saying that "lets not pretend this isn't a shill post for the AGW debate"? Just because it might be too large a phenomenon to notice personally, doesn't mean that climate change is wrong as you have suggested.
how would you have an average temperature during the day from 1921? would a man sit there and write down the temperature into a ledger every 5 minutes or every hour? You're asking for something that doesn't exist
No, I'm not asking for that. You are the one who brought up the ludicrous requirement of a reading every 5 minutes. In fact, all I have done is look at the graphs that you presented to us. If the maximums and minimums don't show a great variability between the years while the average temperature anomaly has changed considerably, then they can't have just taken a single measurement of the max and min values. They must have taken more readings. If you don't trust the other graphs on that page then why would you trust the first one?
If you look at old temperature records they tend to show the temperature at a given time every day or a maximum and minimum temperature reached during that day.
Forgive me for not taking your word on this, but a citation is required for this claim.
Anyway... if you want to discuss this civilly you'll find me a genial fellow. If you instead want to trade barbs you'll find I know how to draw blood as well as any.
This is coming from the civil person who said "show me the papers I need to sign to make the people that keep harping on about this stuff murder suicide each other" and then say that the whole post this started this was actually shill post by apparently corrupt individuals who "want total dictatorial control over the economy". Yep, calls for murder-suicide and accusations of corruption are the height of civility.
And why looking at individual data points can mislead you.
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/...
Clinton is a square shooter.
It is well known that the cause of that was Peyronie's Syndrome.
Face palm.
Being hotter than the AVERAGE does NOT make it the hottest on record. It makes it above the average which means.........absolutely nothing. Now if all the days for the next say 2 years are above the average then that might begin to be interesting, but still might not mean anything statistically.
There needs to be an IQ and educational requirement to be a journalist. (Higher than the very minimal one required now.)
I can picture the climate scientist somewhere in the world reading this and exclaiming, "Anonymous Coward has saved us all! We forgot to consider the sun!"
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, if number 3 is true, it's probably time to consider killing yourself.
That scenario suggests firstly that some undetectable phenomena is driving climate change, and also that some undetectable phenomena is preventing the warming that should have occurred from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, there is a century long conspiracy plot...
Let's stop there and be a little more honest. The GP was more honestly asking what are the unknowns. How much of current warming do we attribute to human activity and how much to natural fluctuations. Are best metric for that are the models, and here's the state of the art from the IPCC's fifth assessment. From Box 9.1:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
When using the models to hindcast past temperatures, unknowns like clouds drive the energy imbalance into "an unrealistic state". The energy imbalance is the driver of climate change and the models still have to make hand tuned corrections to keep hindcasts realistic.
There's not some undetectable or magical force acting to confound all our current understanding of CO2 impact on recent warming. There IS however a lot we still don't understand properly, enough that the impact of those unknowns drive the models HARDER than the CO2 we've been dumping. Now in all likelyhood the unknowns aren't pushing temperature one way or another, but that's an assumption at this stage(and a reasonable one). However, when tryign to map out the next 100 years and our impact on it, we might want to hold a large caveat on the possibility that the unknowns we are working at are a major factor and most certainly impact our confidence in any projections.
Translation: I have the mind of pathetic child. Don't make me cry! WAHHHHHHH!!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why Fahrenheit is For People. And cats.
Celsius 0:Cold 25:Warm 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Fahrenheit 0:Really Cold 25:Cold 50:Meh 75:Warm 100:Really Hot
Kelvin 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Rankine 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Réaumur 0:Cold 25:Hot 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Also, look. At -40C, it's actually -40F. Isn't that cute? Celsius trying to be reasonable, and all. Sorry, Celsius. Too low, too late. Back across the pond with you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The AC you're replying to is not me.
It is not one in the same.
Every Climate post "discussion" is filled with epic asshattery. Legions of people calling each other names and insisting that only THEY have the answer, when in reality all they do is cut and paste talking points from the respective sites supporting their narrative. It's like sixth graders standing around arguing about whose Dad is smarter.
I comment because there are much better stories found in the "Firehose" that are past over in favor of these huge, self aggrandizing wankfests.
I'm not questioning that there is warming.
Yes, you are, you denialist troll. Downmods for you!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
100C: Water boils (at sea level mean pressure)
0C: Water freezes.
Nice if you're doing thermodynamics, and 0C is nice if you're worried about that bridge freezing up as you're driving (but 32F isn't THAT hard to remeber).
100F: Internal body temperature of wakeful adult
0F: Melting point of salted ice.
As ambient temperatures go from somewhat below 100F to 100F exertion in the open rapidly becomes dangerous. As it approaches and crosses it, the body becomes dependent on evaporation for cooling and staying hydrated becomes life-critical.
As ambient temperatures drop below zero degrees, salt stops melting ice on highways. Driving becomes extremely trecherous as falling snow is pressure-melted into patches of glossy ice that can't be removed effectively.
Both are occasional, but life-threatening, events. It's nice that the F scale has round numbers to make them easy to remember and likely to be noticed when they occur.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
All that is nice but still doesn't explain WHY FUCKING SATELLITE TEMPS ARE NOT USED??? Somehow we are supposed to believe that old sensors just need to be "read" right and the previous manipulation of temps that was proven to have occurred in the past isn't happening now? I have a feeling that you didn't RTFA all the way through. It blames severe weather on climate change and it blames no weather (drought) on climate change. I thought the mantra was "weather is not the climate" when we had record colds in most areas of the globe the 2 prior years? But yes, tell us how questioning the glaring holes in the reports are us not "reading" the data right or that rationale thinking is no match for a climate scientists opinion.
Bigger question is with all the money that has been poured in to combating climate change and we still get the running reports and claims of "warmest year ever" which has been ramped up to monthly proclamations now? If the amount that we have spent and cut back on pollution has done nothing to quell it, I think there needs to be rethinking on the amount being given.
How prey tell do you propose we measure the temperature of an entire planet with a majority of thermometers, the liquid in glass type, sparely and unevenly located and only recording the minimal and maximal temperatures; thermometers that are graduated to the degree and rounded off to the half degree? If we used those very expensive satellites, it would show there has been no warming for the last 18 years, which is very hard to explain.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
London is a pretty big town, lots of UHI coming from there I bet. Most of the Arctic region temps were made by US government contractor radar-jockies on the DEW line, who were more worried about getting eaten by a Polar Bear than they were about whether it was -31 or -29C.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If you're young enough you're going to start giving a shit whether you want to or not.
Exactly... and here is why:
http://www.climatestations.com...
https://www.climatestations.co...
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
This is my city. This is where I live.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
I'm not questioning that there is warming. I'm just not seeing it whenever I look at individual stations that I'm aware of. You tell me "well this station in Siberia has really changed"... I don't know anything about that station. All I can audit is what I am aware of in my area. And every time I've checked any of them the return is always a fat load of nothing.
To make the kind of analysis you're trying to do it's not enough to just eyeball some graphs. You have to go download the actual numbers, correct any biases introduced by things such as station moves, instrument changes, changes in time of observation and the build up of the urban area. Then you can make a useful comparison of of the data for climate purposes.
How prey tell do you propose we measure the temperature of an entire planet with a majority of thermometers, the liquid in glass type, sparely and unevenly located and only recording the minimal and maximal temperatures; thermometers that are graduated to the degree and rounded off to the half degree?
It's called sampling and it's been shown to work quite well in other situations.
If we used those very expensive satellites, it would show there has been no warming for the last 18 years, which is very hard to explain.
Of course you've ignored the fact that the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperatures have been setting new records for the past 6 months.
The complexity of deriving temperatures from satellite measurement of microwave emissions of O2 is orders of magnitude greater than measuring at the surface with thermometers.
I'm sure you can document that claim /s
All that is nice but still doesn't explain WHY FUCKING SATELLITE TEMPS ARE NOT USED???
Even if they were used they wouldn't help your argument. The UAH lower troposphere has been setting monthly records for the past 6 months. Here's the graph.
We really haven't spent that much yet. The real question is how much it costs to do something vs. how much it costs to not do something. From what I've seen it's likely to cost a lot more to not take action against anthropogenic global warming.
You have replied me when I have pointed out that a single location is not sufficient to prove the global warming is wrong. So why did you think that a single country was going to be enough?
There is a reason that they say that records began around 1880. It is because the scientists consider that the number of reading points and the conditions in which they were used is good enough to make statistically accurate measurements. Just because they have improved the quality and number of reading stations doesn't mean that the early measurements were inaccurate.
At the very least, you would need to prove that the readings made in Canada would have differed with the additions of the extra stations. If it made no significant difference then you have worried about nothing.
Why would we need to do this? The first example (chosen by the OP) showed measurable warming, and we know that when averaged out most places would show this because that is why the scientists have proclaimed so many of the recent years were the hottest on record. Do you think that they were just guessing?
If you had actually checked the records of 10 cities and found evidence of little to no warning then you would have included that in your post. Since you couldn't demonstrate your assertion to be true then it is obvious that you have just assumed it only and just hoped that nobody would bother to check it for themselves. You guessed.
You have tried to convince us that every bit of evidence that has been shown here is wrong and that all the scientists are wrong, but everything you said is based on guesswork. Don't waste our time.
If not, why even bother drawing conclusions? How about you show us the real temperature records instead of the ones that were proved to be manipulated to further a political point?
Do you expect those "real" temperature records to be perfect? Do they account for biases like instrument changes, time of observation changes, station moves and the growth of urban heat islands around them? Until climatology became a thing they wouldn't have thought twice about making those changes. Would you ignore all of that even though they can produce step changes in the record? There is no such purity in the older temperature records that would justify using them unadjusted. It's only recently that climatology has been taken into account in the design of weather stations.
You didn't bother to wait for an answer to your query before declaring it bogus. You also don't say how many locations you need to make a statistically accurate measurement of global temperatures. Why would a couple of hundred not be enough? If all of the readings showed the same warming trend, how likely is it that the areas not covered would have been simultaneously cooling enough to offset the warming locations?
If you genuinely believe the number of locations are inadequate (and you are not just spewing denier FUD), it should be easy enough for you prove it. Simply look at the newer stations and compare their warming trends with the other, older ones. If there is no real difference then you're claims of the data being wrong will be proven false.
How far are you from the weather station they get the official figure from? How much above or below in elevation are you compared to it? The only way you could evaluate how your readings compare to the official thermometer would be to take them down to the official station and compare them directly with the official instrument (but they're probably not going to let you do that). A better way to compare them would be to keep long term records and see if the temperatures vary similarly to each other.
That is not how averages work.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Bigger question is with all the money that has been poured in to combating climate change and we still get the running reports and claims of "warmest year ever" which has been ramped up to monthly proclamations now? If the amount that we have spent and cut back on pollution has done nothing to quell it, I think there needs to be rethinking on the amount being given.
You haven't cut back CO2 emissions by one iota, and neither has anybody else, so why are you surprised that the climate is doing what it's doing? And even if we cut back on emissions right now, the CO2 level in the atmosphere isn't going to just magically drop overnight, so why would you expect to have seen any change by now, even if we had cut back?
CO2 isn't "pollution" in the general sense. It's a very specific pollutant. That you've spent money and cut back on other pollutants that you have seen great benefits from (less smog, rivers not catching fire much lately, ozone layer recovering) etc. doesn't have much of anything to do with climate change.
Stefan Axelsson
"Global Warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Democrats" - My Stepdad.
Fighting climate will need to become a religion, not mushy Christianity but ISIS style Islam. Those guys give a shit. True believers must be willing to die or kill to convert everyone to a tenth century lifestyle. Only 100% compliance will save the planet. Expect the same kind of resistance to that as radical Muslims get.
Don't worry, the record will be broken again in a year or two.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It doesn't matter. And even your sophistry is failing. You're losing the political war. And all this sputtering out of people like you is doing... is making it increasingly clear to more people every day that their trust was misplaced.
There's no upside here, chump. The real trend you zealots should be focusing on is the rising numbers of skeptics. You're losing.
Now if you want to talk science or facts. We can do that. But if all you want to do is play politics... well, I'm happy to win at that as well.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually the GW stuff is largely a joke in the farming community. Farmers gave birth to the first climate models. They were created FOR farmers. And to this day, the most accurate weather predictions are for farmers.
Notice how much of the chicken little crap is driven by farmers? None.
You're clueless.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Were there any truth to what you're saying the entire planet would be infertile because the climate has changed a great deal more than that over the ages everywhere.
As to the little farms being hurt by this... hard to find evidence of that actually. So much of this is conflated with anything else that might cause a farm to go out of business. Farm gets squeezed out of business by a big farm... result? Ask the chicken littles and they'd say everything is GW.
Real farmers deal with bigger shifts all the time. It goes with the trade. You either can handle that or you're an amateur.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So when you say something is going to be infertile... that basically boils down to nothing. Okay. Thanks.
As to small farms being in the third world... Bingo. So not an issue with small or large farms but rather the squeezing out of pre-industrial agriculture by more competitive agriculture. Nothing to do with climate change at all. Merely mechanized farming rendering pre-industrial farming obsolete. Its a good thing.
As to land not supporting crops... and why is that happening in your pre-industrial farms and not in the industrialized ones? Kind of a coincidence, no?
As to real farmers, real farmers remain competitive. You've effectively confirmed all my assumption about your dumb argument. That you don't realize that merely renders your position somewhat sad.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So first comment contained an insult but no rebuttal. My point is sustained.
Your second comment contradicted my point but did not actually rebut my point. Contradiction is not an argument.
Third comment contained a contradiction but no rebuttal... again, contradiction is not an argument.
Fourth... contradiction no argument.
Fifth, an ad hominem... no argument.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And the point is that a guy walking down the street wouldn't notice.
Which was my point.
A point that people like you didn't get.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Maximums and minimums are more empirical. The temps collected during the day that neither the max nor the minimum are variable based on the time of day they're taken. And that is not always consistent.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.