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.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm sorry, but ad hominem arguments don't rebut the points I made. It's not my job to interpret the data and draw conclusions. I'm not a climatologist. However, I understand science and statistics well enough to spot when something isn't right with a study. When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion, and I've documented those adjustments, it makes the conclusions very suspect.
Okay I will. Arable production and water will move. Agreeably weather conditions will move. As resources dwindle in an area (water, soil conditions, flooding etc) mas migration, disease, and war will likely occur. Do you want half of Bangladesh camping on your doorstep?
Silence is a state of mime.
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going? If there's some unknown heat sink dumping the solar radiation being absorbed by CO2 back into space, what exactly is it? After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
records before this century are a joke. thermometers weren't accurate. if you actually look at them some just have am or pm recording "time", and gaps of years....they're useless. putting them into a computer and running stats on them doesn't change that.
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.
Your cherry picking an entire study based on the word "adjusted". In other words, you're partaking of the favorite aspect of pseudoscience, out of context quoting, because you either cannot understand the research, or don't want to.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ah, the five stages of climate denial. You are on number 4.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
You haven't made any points to rebut. All you've done is spout a baseless opinion that the adjustments are bad because you think they are, without ever saying how they're bad, or why they should not be made.
When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion
And where is your evidence for this claim of deliberate data fudging? Where is your evidence that NOAA's adjustments are incorrect, given that the reported land temperature rises correlate with tropospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level rise, physically-based CO2 models, and indeed independent data from the NASA and HadCRUT sets as well? Are you also going to claim a global conspiracy next?
All measurements need proper calibration. Raw sensor output is meaningless without this, particularly if the sensor's bias is expected to change over time. Your link cites peer-reviewed methodology for the adjustments described, so unless you can explain convincingly why all those scientists are flat-out (and deliberately) wrong, don't expect your nonspecific ramblings to be taken seriously by anyone who counts.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
My wife is a geophysicist, and I used to read the journals she subscribed to all through the late 80s and 90s -- well before "Global Warming" became a political issue.
It was the tail end of the shift in consensus between global cooling and global warming. By then almost everyone was convinced, but they still argued like cats and dogs over how to interpret the instrumental record. If they were convinced, why fight the data that supported what they believed to be true? Because they wanted the data to be more equivocal. The lack of ambiguity in the data struck in their craw, so they attacked it, over and over and over again. It was kind of like the way baseball purists must have felt when the dead ball era ended. Yeah, we like to see runs scored, but this is just ridiculous.
It amazes me that layman believe that scientists never thought to question how the instrumental record should be interpreted. Do you really thing all those people getting geophysics PhDs from MIT and CalTech are so much more obtuse than you are? Believe me, if you can think of a nit, it got picked. It's probably still getting picked, although the range of impact has likely been reduced to practical insignificance. That's what scientists are paid to do: argue with each other. If they have nothing significant to disagree about, then trivialities will do. I know an astronomer who claims to have seen fist fights break out over whether the moon was full or not -- although I suspect that might have been the boozing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners. That's something you made up after being overexposed to someone's fearmongering.
What we do for the next 30-40 years is going to determine the Earth's ultimate temperature for at least 10,000 years. History is closely watching what we're doing right now, and it's watching from farther in the future than you might be realizing. Long after WWII is a footnote of history like the Napoleonic or Punic Wars, the apathetic idiocy on this subject being expressed by the fools alive today- the few who saw it coming, had a chance to do something about it, and did nothing about it for bullshit reasons (like who might be "siphoning money")- will be analyzed for literally tens of thousands of years by all of those affected who will regard the few generations of people alive today as the most despicable generations in all of human existence.
I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data. There are nearly always adjustments made to account for known errors in the data. The only issue is whether the adjustments are scientifically justified or not. It takes science to determine that.
Aaah the old "massive global conspiracy involving every single accredited academic institution in the world, which also ignores the massive awards awaiting anyone who could expose it" excuse for ignoring science. You seriously don't seem to understand the amount of awards, prestige and funding awaiting anyone who can overturn these findings. Nobel prizes, you name it. That all is waiting for the first to be able to do so. No one has as it's like asking people to prove cows are jellyfish.
How do you "fix" time dependant measurements made in the past? All you can do is work with the data you have.
People like you make accusations of political bias all the time but never provide any scientific evidence for why the adjustments are wrong. Seems like a clear case of projection to me.