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.
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?
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change" so pointing out that it's getting warmer and warmer is a way of getting across the view that things are getting worse and that the rate of change is accellerating.
Known, not really. Lots of theories, many with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but nothing that can be pointed at and said "this is the way this is" with a degree of certainly like you can apply to a proven physical law. Welcome to much of science; that's just the way it is - a series of ever more accurate models that hopefully get close enough to the reality to be "good enough" for what you need to do, but quite often never actually getting there in a manner similar to Xeno's Paradox.
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch. See above about Xeno's Paradox.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change"
How is "global warming" less accurate? The average temperatire is warming and that causes the climate to change. It's two facets of the same thing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
I was thinking less accurate more in that it just focus on one aspect of a much larger and more complicated picture rather than being incorrect. For instance, it might theoretically be possible for the average temperate to stop increasing, but we could still suffer catastrophic effects from some other aspect of climate change - e.g. the proposed effect on Europe of a massive glacial ice melt causing the warm water flow across the Atlantic to stop. It's also only accurate on a global scale; some areas of the world are showing a consistent reduction in recent local temperate averages, for instance, whereas "climate change" covers all the bases much better.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
If it's not the warmest on record, of course they will be quiet. What's so hard to understand about this? The scientists are reporting their findings. If you choose to read too much in to it and interpret as something else, well, that's your problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes somebody did make some of those claims,
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.