Slashdot Mirror
NASA: July 2016 Was Earth's Warmest Month On Record (weather.com)
mdsolar quotes a report from The Weather Channel: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), operated by the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), calculated the global average July temperature was nearly one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records set in 2015 and in 2009. July was also 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010. Compared to the July average, the south-central part of the United States including Texas and into northern Mexico were the most anomalously warm for North America. Globally, portions of western Russia and the Southern Ocean were warmest compared to average. In Russia, fires and an anthrax outbreak have been blamed on warmer than average temperatures. Each of the last 12 months has been the warmest on record for their respective months. This is due to a combination of global climate variability and human activity according to C3S. July is typically the warmest month of the year globally because the Northern Hemisphere has more land masses than the Southern Hemisphere. (NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) confirms today.)
Was this before or after adjusting the data?
The procedure is outlined here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat.
It's bad news when you have to control for various factors in order to obtain an interesting result. It's also very arbitrary because the researcher can pick and choose which factors to account for and how to do so, in order to obtain the desired result.
These kinds of abuses lead to all sorts of nonsense conclusions like claiming vaccines cause autism. If the warming doesn't show up until you adjust for certain factors, you're doctoring the data.
So, I'd really like to know whether this is before or after the adjustments. The adjustments to the data create the mostly fictional warming.
I've been freezing my giblets off in this country.
You're wrong because you're constructing statement, and seem to have no interest in the science at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"lalalalalalalalala", with fingers firmly inserted into ass^H^H^Hears, from 'certain segments' of our lawmakers and population as a whole, as they try to ignore the devil's spawn called science.
And why not, it' not like we do anything against it. Of course the next year's $month will be hotter than this year's $month, how the fuck should it be colder?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In all reality, whether you agree with AGW or not, even if it is just GW, as the only sentient, tool wielding species on the planet don't you think we should fucking prepare for the worst?
Silence is a state of mime.
+1
Take note, even posts with links to actual data and figures from credible sources like NOAA will be moderated to -1 if they're skeptical of AGW. We've moved on from having debates about climate science to silencing critics or dismissing them as kooks who deny science. It creates an echo chamber where nobody dares question assumptions that may not be true, and aren't well-supported.
Moderation is a tool for silencing those critics. Not all critics have something useful to say, but some do, and deserve to be taken seriously. Here, moderation is used to silence all critics. Moderation is a form of censorship. It suppresses comments, based on the preferences of the moderators. The fact that it suppresses some comments and decreases the number of people that view them, makes it a form of censorship. Just because you can change your settings to read comments at -1 does not mean that censorship isn't occurring. Censorship can be a useful tool, such as to reduce the damage from crapflooders and flame warriors, who add nothing to the discussion. When it silenced well-written arguments that are supported by credible evidence, however, it is an abuse of censorship. Sadly, that's inevitably what happens in any discussion about AGW.
Don't need to be a climate change scientist to figure that one out. - a climate change scientist
I have no problem with the theory of Climate Change. In fact, I truly believe that Climate Change.does exist! The main issue I have is, No matter how much money is siphoned from the Western Economies (up to and including everything along with shutting down the economies) and provided to other nations, the UN or what ever scientific or world body. They will not change anything. Most of the money will go poof!! Nothing useful will ever get done. Leadership/Governments/World Bodies today are incapable of solving this or most any problem. The only hope for mankind is to get off this planet and into space.
Soon it will be news to report when a month was not the warmest on record. I hope people don't become complacent about now often these "warmest on record" reports are happening.
It's not that I don't believe it. I just don't care at this point. My country is becoming a police state with no prospects for the working class and everything is being handed over to shitbags and people who run from their home country. I'll be dead before it gets really bad. Fuck it, let it burn.
We have satellites collecting temperature readings from the whole earth. This set of temperatures should be much more accurate than the values coming from land stations, given the myriad of things that can and do affect the land stations. So why are all these reports basing their finding on land stations?
Not 5 maybe 0.5 at most.
Now 0.5 what does that mean? it is a small number.
Earth quakes the difference between 6 and 8 is only 2 so that can't be bad.
The question you should be asking is how much change and how fast?
And how will it affect a planet overpopulated with people.
Fires: I can understand their effect on thermometers as they are statistically around climate stations of populated areas. But an anthrax outbreak in Russia affecting global temperature averages... That is logic beyond my understanding. Someone care to elaborate?
There has been a long string of record monthly anomalies, but July is the warmest month globally so only it and August have much of a chance to be the hottest month.
And it will be the coldest August ever. Just a shift from Aug to Jul. Nothing to worry.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Hey dummies, nobody mentioned El Nino.
Projections for next year range from +.5 to -2.5 year on year, as La Nina kicks in.
We shall see, and it won't make any difference. The world will get hotter or colder. Politicians will tell lies and steal money.
sh sh just stare into space.
In the UK I went out in my coat twice in August, Its been one of the most miserable summers I can remember, Its been 28C twice this month, thats pathetic. I'm just not getting this global warming vibe.
If the warming continues for another few decades you could make a killing on property up there! ;-)
Please explain the following:
1.) When the weather is hotter than normal, it's evidence of Global Warming (or climate change), but...
2.) When the weather is colder than normal, the AGW apologists immediately remind us that Weather is not Climate.
If indeed the Earth is getting warmer, the press sure aren't doing the AGW advocates any favors with stories like the above.
These stories about extreme weather events only reinforce the perception that it's all a scam for political control. It's not helping.
"In Russia, fires and an anthrax outbreak have been blamed on warmer than average temperatures."
I just farted, I could have heated the atmosphere and caused this problem. It's just as scientifically valid.
The problem is ... I've heard it enough times that it must be at least 5 degrees C hotter on average per year than just a few years ago ... which seems ... catastrophic ...
Errr... If May, June, and July are all 0.5 higher than average, that doesn't mean the earth is 1.5 higher. And if 2015 is, say, 0.45 higher and 2016 is 0.55 higher than average, that doesn't mean that we're 1.0 higher than average. Statistics don't work that way.
Since you don't understand numbers and averages, the rest of your rant seems likely to be nonsensical. Which -- surprise! -- it is.
You can educate yourself on statistics, how they can be used to lie, and how to detect that deceit. Then your opinion may matter.
Or you can keep on believing that you are smarter and more informed than all of the people studying climate, and keep on posting misinformed rants. I suspect that you'll pick this last option, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong.
Dont bother men, the so called sceptics are irrational, as becomes obvious by their silly clamis of scientists being corrupt.
I never reply to them, why argue with irrelevant old blinkered right wing morons who wont accept evidence.
We had one of these idiots on TV last night debating Brian Cox, the audience ended up just laughing at him, as Brain destroyed the usual denialist bullshit.
Just a few years ago it was way warmer, and in just a few years it will be way cooler.
It's like these climate scientists don't know anything!
I stole this Sig
No Solicitors. I think it's just swell that you get to do all this climate research and all but I'm not interested in buying today. Please put me on your Do Not Call list. Tell you what, just keep whatever of my tax money you've already spent, but don't spend any more of it, OK? I am canceling my subscription.
Firstly, how do they get worldly data this accurate in the 1800s? Secondly, we are comparing different levels of accuracy throughout the timeline. I'm sure our data is more accurate each year and more covered. I can make a graph look big and rising even with a small variance on the Y axis. Come on, common sense people. Yes, we are hurting our planet, but let's compare apples to apples.
Weather is not climate. People were rejected as dumb when they said "look at how cool the weather is, global warming must be a hoax." The people saying "look at how hot the weather is, global warming must be true" should be similarly rejected as dumb here. Warm weather is not evidence of global warming.
NASA Director, "A brick of LEAD, melted on the street next to Columbia University and a stool of human shit caught FIRE! The END is NEAR. They ARE CUMING FOR US. RUN. RUN. AWAY."
And in other news the Governor of Wisconsin mobilized the Wisconsin National Air Guard to conduct indiscriminate napalm bombing of "African-American" protester neighborhoods to demonstrate the sexual vitality of the Ruling Class.
Ha ha
Apparently I live in a place that get colder with global warming. Last July was cold. This was apparently the coldest in over a hundred years. So apparently we get a raw deal here and won't see any warmer summers because off climate change. However, the winters are warmer. Basically we seam to get a new kind off weather were the temperature during summer and winter equalise... That sucks
What the actual fuck is up with the comments and moderation on this article.
I know Climate Change has it's skeptics but this is another level.
I would pay good money to have access to the IP source of the comments and moderation on this one.
Please the world! Share a little warm. Here, was so shitty cold and rainy for summer!
I'm in the US and we're still waiting for summer to arrive. It's been a dud so far this year.
It's the El Nino. Next year if I see them fudging it to "hottest month on record" I am going to be truly disturbed, because the La Nina should actually drop the average temps.
Since it has already been proven that the July 2015 'record', was not, unless degrees are added to the temps, and manipulated to meet a desired outcome (more warming) - what leads us to believe that this is not just more justification for wasteful spending on inconsequential (to the climate) efforts?
Was this before or after adjusting the data?
If you looked at the page you linked, you'd see that the heat-island effect you reference is 0.1F (0.056 C). The article says that this July was 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010, so that's ten times more than the entire heat-island correction between 1900 to 2000. And it was is one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records-- which still five times larger than the entire heat island change between 1900 and 2000.
Note that all data is always "adjusted" (in your term)-- this is how data analysis is done. It is how science is done. The question is whether the data is analyzed in a way that is transparent. The fact that you can point to the discussion of exactly how the data is analyzed is a strong point in favor of the data analysis. Here's a clue: you should be worried when the scientists don't explain how the data is analyzed.
This is, of course, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers-- if the temperature wasn't corrected for these errors, the deniers were shouting how the measured temperatures aren't reliable because they needed to be corrected for all these effects.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
> I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data.
Im a mycologist and when doing spore measurements we measure the length and width or many spores. Then average the length and average the width. Providing largest measurements, smallest measurements, and average. We don't "adjust" our actual measurements to make sure the spore size meets the expected size.
Possibly you should, since other mycologists do make corrections. Here are some corrections factors noted by Smith et al: "Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Fungal Spore Yields": http://aem.asm.org/content/54/...
see also Chapels: "Spore size revisited: Analysis of spore populations using an automated particle sizer" http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Sydo...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
First time I heard that adjusting data to fit sought for conclusions is science.
You just asserted, without evidence, that the data was adjusted "to fit sought-for conclusions."
Again, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers. If the data isn't adjusted to correct for known instrument drift, the deniers shout "the data needs to be corrected," and if it is, the deniers shout "the data was adjusted." All data is analyzed. If you don't understand that, about all I can say is that you've never done real experimental science. If you don't correct for errors, the data is wrong. The question is: was the data analysis right? not: was the data analyzed?
In fact it is only people who really 'suck at science', who would do anything of the sort. Questioning such practices is opposite of "arrogance"; It is a sign humbleness to look afresh at unvarnished evidence that universe throw at us to arrive at conclusions through scientific method.
Questioning is good. Asserting that the data was analyzed to fit a "preconceived conclusions" however, is not questioning-- you've already come to your conclusion without even looking at the data analysis. Is the data analysis wrong? You haven't shown any analysis supporting that conclusion.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There's a reason that skepticism of climate change actually rises amoung PhDs.
Except it doesn't. You have this backwards.
Fifty percent of US adults agree with the statement "climate change is mostly due to human activities," while 88% of working Ph.D. scientists agree with that statement.
From a survey by the AAAS: http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
Time will tell if the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is trustworthy or simply another governmental department publishing false and/or manipulated data such as NOAA, NASA and AMOS for furthering an economic agenda.
If they would simply come out and say it's all about bolstering the world economy...
I remember reading numerous science and mass media articles in the 1970's that the world would be glaciated by 2020. I also remember reading in the 1990's numerous science and mass media articles that the world was fast on its way to becoming warm like Venus. Yet when the Geologists look at climate data on the geologic time scale the past 15,000 years have been the calmest and most boring in terms temperature swings in earth's geologic history. That lead to the development of what we like to call civilization. Even the swings we have recently seen are tiny on the geologic scale. This makes me think that all the calamitous news about climate change, is more centered around climate scientists realizing that fear sells and brings in grant money from politicians.
I remember back in the early 90s I was having a usual argument with my dad (since passed on) about the nature and scope of the national debt. I didn't see any reasonable way to pay it back, and I used to think it was real money back then, not play money as I know it to be now.
I don't know whether my father grasped that the money was not real because of fiat currency and infinite ability of the central banks to inject sufficient additional imaginary money into the system to inflate away the debt. But what he did know is that the problem wasn't his problem to solve. He insisted that the issue would, if it ever came up, rear its head after he died. So he didn't care. I'd argue vigorously back about how it was *REALLY A PROBLEM* and he'd just laugh.
I find myself in the same position about global warming. Sure, it's real. We're in a period between ice ages, and it's going to warm before it cools. The temperature will go up probably more than 2 degrees C before it rebounds. CO2 will take a long time to sequester itself in limestone or otherwise as we ultimately switch to new forms of energy, or kill ourselves off. But it doesn't really matter. Because the changes will happen over time. If Fiji sinks under water or Manhattan has to be abandoned, it also doesn't really matter. Take a look at ancient ruins - i'm sure they cared a lot about those cities, but they were abandoned for some reason - tsunami, earthquake, raiding, climate change (! particularly in the Sahara, and not related to humans).
The reason it doesn't matter is that there's nothing to be done to stop it. You can jump up and down and try to change things, even get yourselves killed in armed insurrection to try to make the change, but nothing is going to stop human resource extraction and short term quality of life improvements short of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. If climate change makes those horsemen more likely, that's not going to change the reality.
When you stop beating your head against the wall of the impossible (and most will), you'll realize you aren't young anymore.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Oh where, oh where has my little dog gone?
Oh where, oh where can he be?
With his ears cut short and his tail cut long.
Oh where, oh where can he be?
First: No matter how clumbsy the earlier poster was, you were playing a game in your response. There are indeed many public policies tied to AGW that are having the EFFECT of "siphoning money" from the US. Every environmental regulation imposed on manufacturing in the US but not in China, has the effect of shifting more middle class manufacturing jobs to China without doing ANYTHING to reduce pollution or fight warming. There may indeed be no huge physical sihpon at work, but the economic effect is indeed true.
Second: All the proposals to tax things in the first world coutries and shift the money to third world coutries under the banner of "social justice" tied to AGW claims would be a direct financial "siphon". These proposals are not currently in place as implemented policy, but that's not for lack of trying. The AGW proponents in many NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for these policies for years and will almost certainly succeed eventually in this garbage, at which point your post becomes directly and totally false.
Third: You are ignoring the millions of people all over the planet who are being harmed and even dying prematurely for lack of cheap and plentiful energy. We kill more people every year on the planet by opposing use of fossil fuels than we save by fighting global warming. Clean affordable water requires cheap energy. Good affordable food requires cheap energy. Good affordable healthcare and housing requires cheap energy.
You can pretend to care for the wellbeing of people in your imagined future (who will have better tech to deal with whatever climate they face than we have now) and what they will think of you (not very much no matter what policies you prefer, they'll be busy living their lives) but your abstract ideas are having very real and toxic effects on real, poor, people all over the planet TODAY. Every single day there are thousands of people dying prematurely on Earth for lack of clean water, lack of air conditioning, etc.
Finally: if AGW does not pan out as you presume it does, it's entirely possible that future generations will look back on you and others like you as "flat Earthers" and be repelled by your inhuman willingness to see so many people die in service of a backward, and by-then proven false theory. Personally, I'm open minded on nearly all aspects of the climate arguments, but I think it's blind arrogance and borderline insanity for people on EITHER side of the arguments to imagine themselves to be the ones the future population will look back upon with favor.
How very "open minded" and "tolerant" of you!
Let me guess....... gas chambers disguised as showers and crematoriums for the results. Typical "early 20th century progressivism" where people who disagree or do not fit the ideals of the elites are to be eliminated.
Oh, and there are still plenty of questions about the "ozone hole". Like all the other climate issues, there are many complex arguments which your side likes to paper-over like the trade-off between the imagined effects of the thing being screamed about and the actual effects on real people of fighting the thing. There's also the questions about the scope of the problem, the risks involved, the degree to which man is at fault, the costs of mitigating versus adapting, and so on. Sadly, by acting on CFCs the way we did and when we did, rather than with more data gathered, we are still left with many questions and will never actually know many details. It may make people feel good to leap into action on such things, but it can have the effect of eliminating the ability to gain a deeper understanding of the facts before chaning things and making a more detailed study impossible. We took away a vast number of very useful items from people all over the world, and actually increased global energy consumption by moving to less-efficient solutions for certain CFC uses but none of that is accounted for in any celebration of a reduction in the ozone hole. The switch in refrigerants, for one example, made air conditioning and refrigeration less efficient and thus more expensive than it would have otherwise been, which matters little to a person in a first world country, but matters in places saddled with poverty. The elimination of Halon, for another example, took away a large number of fire suppression schemes including the systems used to fight certain types of in-flight fires on aircraft. On the other hand, there's no proof that the ozone hole was actually harming any person, there were just predictions and statistical arguments.
The real world is much more complex than what crusaders with policital agendas and slogans would have us believe.
Our world is dying before our eyes.
I've lived in Las Vegas for most of my life. I don't remember having a summer as hot as this one. If it wasn't the hottest on record I would be surprised. I can live without a week of temperatures over 115* for days in a row.
I believe this journalist got it wrong. The anthrax breakout was a result of warmer weather. Not the other way around.
With the sloppy journalism, and no doubt editing, we the people need to beware! Let's get the corporate media to invest in honest, accurate reporters and editors; and please publish real truths!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!