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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't need to be a climate change scientist to figure that one out. - a climate change scientist
Historical records for land stations go back centuries. We haven't had publicly known monitoring stations in orbit for more than a few decades.
Actually, orbiting measurements need to allow for the air being warmer. The speed of light partially is affected in the medium of air depending on it's temperature. This also includes other "weather" impacts. So measurements from a period with colder air do not exactly match those from periods with warmer air. Since we talk about full temperature changes in F over the air, this is not very noticeable, but it is measurable.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Satellites measure temperatures in the stratosphere and troposphere, with slightly less accuracy deeper in the atmosphere, iirc. Surface stations measure surface temperatures.
The advantage of surface stations is that we have many more than we need to get statistically accurate, so it's possible and routine to check groups of stations against each other and remove anomalies. Also, the surface record is obviously much longer than the satellite one.
If you want more on ground station accuracy, check out Berkeley Earth. It's a team put together with climate skeptic scientists and others which set out in 2010 to assess the accuracy of global warming claims and the instrumental record. They found that overall the surface temperature records, even from stations rated "poor", recorded the same degree of warming as other sources. Urban heat islands had no real effects on the data because only about 1% of the sensor sites were subject to that effect. And there's more, but it's all pointing in the same direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Hope that helps you understand why surface temps are still used and useful.
French - The lingua franca of Europe!
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.
I didn't post that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So it's your view that there is no such thing as an expert, that all claims are equal, and that a person who has studied climatology their entire career has no more knowledge than a burger flipper?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Climatologists have no reason to lie at all. They will still be involved in that research whether it's global warming, global cooling, or nothing at all.
But you tell me, where does all the extra energy absorbed and re-eimitted as IR by CO2 go? If you think the climatologists are lying, does that also lead you to believe that physicists who have known CO2's properties as far as absorbing certain wavelengths of CO2 for over a century are also lying? Just how many people will you stack into your conspiracy to make the theory go away?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They're simply following the example set by private industry, particularly those on Wall Street such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Natural variation has not stopped, so this is not a "death spiral" of never-ending record months. There will be cooler months and years, and then warmer ones, because global warming has not stopped natural effects on climate. It's simply shifted the trend upwards.
French - The lingua franca of Europe!
as a Magical Perpetual Sky Refrigerator believer, i find your comments insulting. All hail Great and Glorious Kenmore!
I'll tell that to the Japanese and Chinese who were recording such data many thousands of years before you were born.
Hopefully they won't laugh.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If the warming continues for another few decades you could make a killing on property up there! ;-)
Mercury thermometers accurate to less than 0.05 C have existed since the early 1800s. But go ahead and post some more nonsense.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
"I'll get modded to oblivion but "scientists" aren't any smarter or dumber than the average person. They just managed to find a job that pays out more when the headlines aren't positive."
Hey, a Degree from Burger U, (Is that where you got yours?), isn't quite the same as a BS from Columbia and a Phd. from Berkeley. Richard Muller was a Skeptic coming from a perspective far away of yours; A Genuine Skeptic. He is also an Internationally known Physicist, very good a Data Analysis, and he felt the the Data Analysis here wasn't rigorous enough.
The Kochs, not NASA or Greenpeace, funded his studies on Climate Change, and he came back with three conclusions:
-It's real.
-It's pretty bad.
-Much of it is Anthropogenic.
That's pretty much what the Kochs needed to know, and they have adjusted their long-term planning accordingly. As has Bank Of America and the Department Of Defense, DOE, NASA, the World Bank...
"... In every industry, from burger flipping to advanced software..."
I doubt that you have _any_ credentials in the latter; I even doubt any credible capability in the former. Typical Republican these days, not only doubting that two and two can be added, but denying any possibility, against any and all evidence.
Get modded to oblivion; that is just where you belong, you Know-Nothing.
When was phrenology ever a science?
In fact, how many actual scientific theories (as defined as actually having a methodological approach, founded on a theory, built out of hypotheses and attempting to explain actual evidence) been overthrown? Newtonian mechanics never was, and is still used in the context of being a simplified set of formulas for velocities where relativistic calculations are not necessary. Non Big Bang theories of the universe were thrown out, in particular the steady state theory, but even the steady state theory left its mark on later cosmology via the Cosmological Constant. Some pre-plate tectonic theories of geology were supplanted. The ether certainly had its advocates, but didn't survive the 19th century.
Other than that, all you're really doing is trying to fling out long debunked and never really accepted nonsense like phrenology, acting as if science is somehow this vast array of utterly unreliable nonsense. In essence, you're advocating a position that there is no such thing as reliable knowledge, a sort of epistemological nihilism, and for what? So you don't have to accept that CO2 absorbs UV radiation and emits ER, some of which gets trapped in the lower atmosphere, with the corollary that the more energy you trap in the lower atmosphere, the more heat is going to end up there? And for what, so you don't have to admit that burning fossil fuels causes long term changes to climate?
Does the science so frighten you that you basically have to reject the entire notion of methodological naturalism? And if it's so unreliable, then how is it that you can even use the products of science? I mean, is there any science you would accept, or is this just a magical universe where anything that inconveniences you are challenges your ideological biases is automatically rejected because God/the Invisible Hand of the Market/whatever-you-believe could never allow such physical laws to exist?
At the end of the day, it's hard to see how you're not either fundamentally a fool, and likely a coward as well, willing to accept any story that doesn't challenge your beliefs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's simply shifted the trend upwards.
Well at least you aren't denying the steady trend of global temperatures marching higher and higher, year after year. Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
A bit like saying that a steadily sinking boat, as it bobs up and down, will be higher and lower, since natural wave variation has not stopped, it is simply shifting the trend downwards. You reach a point where the stop being complacent because you drown.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
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.
Climate isn't weather. If you don't even know that much, then how can you possibly have ability to assess the theory in question?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
For pseudoscientific advocates all that counts is a response is made. The response doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to make sense. But what is necessary is that some sort of criticism, no matter how moronic, false or absurd, exists, so that all the other advocates of pseudoscience can declare "You see, someone made a response, so your theory is wrong!!!!"
Answers In Genesis has done this for years in attacking biology. Some of the objections, like the bizarre moon dust claims, are so incredibly idiotic that it's hard to imagine anyone taking them seriously, and one suspects that the formulators of such claims don't take them seriously. But gullible people who want to hear how their ideology or religion is totally true will lap it up, because it gives them a quick retort. In reality such claims are made to make the advocate of pseudoscience feel better, because I suspect most of them, deep down, know what they believe and what they're saying is utter nonsense.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Christ almighty Slashdot. Would you start revoking the mod points of these bloody people. What will I be permitted to say on this place without getting my karma bashed to pieces? Just mindlessly agree "AGW is a lie and Trump is the bestest ever!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest request for elucidation (but that this is an AC post is not promising).
The article is not stating that it is "hotter than normal". It is stating that is hotter than ever recorded, indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years. July is typically the hottest month so one expect historic records to be broken in July, and the last time the record was broken was - last July. If we go by seasonal records (hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, etc.) the last time was such a record was broken was - last month. And the last time before that was - the month before, and so on and so on.
When was the last time that it was colder globally than ever before recorded? Based on a relatively recent 1961-1990 average the last time we had a cooler than average month was 31 years ago.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
So tell me, how was this comment overrated? How is it that so many science deniers get mod points, and why is it that they choose to use it to punish those that accept the science? Do you think you win debates by downmodding people?
Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.
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"?
The importance of the adjustment is when you're comparing months that are decades apart; there hasn't been any massive urbanization spurt in the last several years that could account for the July anomaly even in the unadjusted data. So July clearly was hotter than any month in the past several years, and those were very hot years indeed.
So basically you're making a pointless conjecture here. We have no reason to suspect the data weren't adjusted in the usual fashion, but if they weren't it wouldn't change the fact that we're at least probably looking the hottest month ever and nearly certainly looking at one of the hottest. It makes no practical difference.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The problem with that statement is that extreme weather events (both hot and cold) are a symptom of climate change. In the last five years in the Northeastern US, we've had more extreme weather events than in any of the years prior - from heat wave records that seem to get broken year after year to absurdly high (30+ inch) single-storm snowfall totals and snowstorms happening earlier than they should. It's not just the Northeast, either. Look at California and their record-breaking temperatures and record drought.
That's not to say extreme weather didn't happen before the last five or six years, but there was less of it before. An increase in climate change means an increase in extreme weather events, and that's exactly what the data shows.
You are right that Nasa adjusted the temperatures, but in this case, it doesn't matter, because multiple temperature measuring methods concur that July was very warm. See for example
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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
...and that a person who has studied phrenology their entire career has no more knowledge than a burger flipper.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah, it's too bad you didn't transcribe the flatulence, which likely contained more useful information than your post.
Let me spell out the obvious for you:
1. Warmer + dryer conditions than normal -> greater chance of forest fires.
2. Warmer conditions -> long-frozen bodies of animals that died from anthrax thaw out, releasing $guess_what into the environment.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The difference between weather and climate is basically time.
The hottest year on record is just the last data point of an increasing temperature over time http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
Granted I would like to see a story of "This is the warmest 10 years" or 20, but that kind of news doesn't trigger the newspapers (well not until the numbers are nice and round when we hit 2020)
And there still might be some merit in pointing out this bit of weather since it's the hottest it's been for the last 100+ years. You don't want to over focus at a single data point but if that data point is an outlier it deserves some attention.
It's turtles all the way down.
Sounds about right. The 80's were cold. The 90's you started to see a warming trend - especially in the Atlantic Provinces. And except for a few outlier years, there hasn't been barely any appreciable amount of snow accumulation during the winter months since the early 90s.
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.
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.
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.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
.7-1.3 increase in global temperatures, but they reject as unfounded scientifically the various conjectural feedbacks that will bring the increase to anywhere from 2 - 15 degrees (as you can see from that range, there is a large amount of uncertainty there). They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
1) The insane people. No more explanation.
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
3) Those who claim that the predictions are unsupported by science. Thus John Christy and Richard Lindzen accept (along with the scientific community) that doubling CO2 will produce a
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The adjustments generally used (which always have to be performed when you mix data from different measurement techniques) are lowering the recorded temperature. You are either woefully ignorant of this field, or are being intellectually dishonest.
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.
You seem to be unaware that data is usually always adjusted. You suck at science, yet here you are thinking you know enough to disprove an entire field. Your arrogance (or is it just wishful thinking?) is pathetic.
The climategate link which showed absolutely nothing wrong?
I hope you're trying to be funny but if you're not it should be relatively easy for other competent scientists to show they are wrong. Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
Actually satellites don't collect data over the poles because of the tilt of their orbit so they don't cover the whole earth. Some of the strongest warming is in the Arctic.
Accuracy to 1 degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements the results can be expressed in thousandths of a degree.
Ah Slashdot. Never change. Your climate change has no power here..!! Gotta love motivated reasoning.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The thinking is this:
1. I don't like climate change
2. It doesn't exist
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
This is what makes you part of a minority on here.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
Uh, no. Where did you get that from? "recorded" goes back to the mid/end of the 19th century - not further.
It was warmer than today for thousands of years during this interglacial (~8000 years ago) - known as the Holocene Optimum. In some parts, like anthrax-ridden Siberia, it was up to 9 degrees warmer than today.
(Yes, I can link the actual papers if you really don't believe it - but it's not difficult to put the keywords into a search engine)
it's in my head
Not if the errors are systematic. And they often are.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
it's in my head
Bullshit. The world did very well combating the ozone hole by agreeing to limit certain CFCs.
The only hope for this planet is for dystopian morons like you to do the honorable thing and leave the planet at your earliest convenience.
It's the alt-right moderation block. Those people live in a post-factual world where Trump makes sense, and mod accordingly.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest request for elucidation (but that this is an AC post is not promising).
The article is not stating that it is "hotter than normal". It is stating that is hotter than ever recorded, indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years.
Eh?
"Global mean temperatures in July 2016 were the warmest on record not just for July, but for any month dating to the late 1800s, according to separate just-released analyses."
"I'm not a climatologist, but I'm certain my claimed knowledge in other fields qualifies me to call bullshit on actual climatologists". Got it.
It doesn't matter. Reading accuracy to the nearest degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements into a single composite it's reasonable to express it to thousandths of a degree.
Even if the errors are systematic that may only affect the absolute reading you get but not necessarily the trend over time.
Since the temperature readings are taken by instruments that are only accurate to tenths of a degree, averaging those readings to more than one decimal place would be introducing insignificant digits. Either they are bad at basic math or doing it on purpose.
No, if the errors are systemic they can absolutely change the trend. Not only within a measurement system (human readers rounding to nearest half degree) but most definitely when you switch measurement devices (bucket intake on ships).
Most research in the world would benefit from having professional statisticians help out with the statistics. It's simply quite hard to get right. One principle that is never used as it should is the Bonferroni correction.
it's in my head
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
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.
Take pity on them.
This is what we get when people get their science education from politicians.
Take pity on them. It is summer, hotter than blue blazes, and they can't look out the window, see s few snowflakes, and yell - "So much for global warming!"
Take pity on them.
This is the summertime lull, where they have to pretend that they understand statistics, and lo and behold, a guy or gal who thinks that if you flip a coin 25 times and it comes up heads, its a dead lock the next 25 will be tails.
Take pity on them.
For they believe there is no greenhouse effect - without we wouldn't exist, either that or grudginly admit there is one, but it automagically fails at a convenient place.
Take pity on them
For they think that calling Michael Mann an asshole, it invalidates an entire field of work.
Take pity on them
For they can endlessly cite old data, and cherry pick anomalous data, yet cannot find newer data that clears the anomaly and brings the data into agreement.
Take pity on them
For they are reduced to the search for smaller and smaller gaps, and are left only with their faith.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
But you did just that. Now that you did, instead of just saying "Something is wrong here" Give us your conclusions, and support them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
> 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
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
Some AGW predictions get wild, such as that the oceans will boil and it will be the end of civilization.
Which of course is preposterous. But all that proves is that there are kooks on both sides. That claim is right up there with denialists claiming that in the 1970's that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age, based on an article in Time Magazine.
But I'm not around to try to claim that AGW doesn't exist because of an article in time magazine that was laughable and merely trying to do a populist extrapolation of a cold and snowy winter to the future.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The thinking is this:
1. I don't like climate change
2. It doesn't exist
A few of the most emphatic deniers I know actually like the idea at the same time as rejecting the science. One likes his temps in the upper 80s - honest to gawd, he keeps his house at around 85, and has been reveling in the tropical weather here in the Northeast this summer. I think there might be something a little wrong with him physically.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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 thought it was 97%. Sounds like OP is correct.
Sure, continuation of grants and funding is no reason to lie at all.
"indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years"
How long have "accurate" measurements been made? What kind of temperature measuring devices were in use 100 years ago? How reliable and accurate were they? How many locations had temperature measurement devices?
I bet I know the answer, and it probably involves four words: fuck off shut up.
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.
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, and if there's one thing that everyone who is skeptical about climate change has in common, it's that they all love science and the scientific method. They are the virtual embodiment of Aristotle, every one of them.
Anything less is religion.
Thanks for the lecture, Archangel Michael.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And that NEVER includes the bias of those making the adjustments, right?
The adjustments are done automatically by software. You can download the GISS sources here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... You're kindly invited to point out the bias, or withdraw your accusation.
The joke is on you. All that is needed to understand AGW is to understand the properties of green house gases, in particular CO2, and to accept that thermodynamics is a real property of the universe. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even by very small percentages, and you greatly increase the atmosphere's ability to capture and trap energy. This isn't rocket science, it isn't mythology, it is a simple property of CO2, that has been known for over a century.
Get over it. Dumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year will trap more energy. Period. Full stop. Unless you can provide some magic heat sink that dumps that energy into space or somewhere else, all you're doing is denying simple physical laws, and for what? Why are you so needing of denying of reality?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We have satellites collecting temperature readings from the whole earth
The problem is that we are usually interested in the temperature of a narrow layer of air just above the surface. That's what we measure with a weather station. You can't really measure that with a satellite, without getting confused by temperature radiation and the actual surface or the higher layers of atmosphere.
I'm in the US and we're still waiting for summer to arrive. It's been a dud so far this year.
Really? I'm in the US and it's been insanely hot here for months. I'm actually looking forward to winter the first time ever-- in fact, last winter was pretty mild.
Really? I'm in the US and I saw 1 blizzard and several nasty snowstorms last winter.
BRE
"Dude check me out. I'm like a little otter. A SEXY little otter"
Care to provide an actual citation to this claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And further, if your claim that there's a maximum amount of CO2 beyond which energy trapping stops, then why does lead melt on the surface of Venus?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's a perfect illustration of the problem with the entire debate on this issue.
"I thought" that X was true. Therefore, I'm telling you the conclusion that you should believe.
No one gives a shit what you think. Instead of throwing out some random figure, would it really kill you do to a single piece of research?
Here is one survey, which found that 70% of Americans believe the climate is changing, 41% think it is a very serious problem, 19% say somewhat serious, 9% say not too serious, 22% believe that climate is not changing at all, and 8% don't know. 63% of Democrats and 42% of independents see it as a very serious issue, while 18% of Republicans do. 43% of Republicans think climate change is not happening at all, while 17% of independents and 10% of Democrats feel the same. Of those who believe that it's happening, 34% think it is a combination of natural and man-made factors, 27% think it is mostly human activity, and 8% think it is mostly natural.
If you click on the article in the comment you replied to, there is even more data there. The study there is 2 years older than the one I cited, and it specifically shows (really, without you having to "think" about any 97% number at all) that 87% of AAAS members believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity, 88% of working PhDs believe that, 90% of active research scientists, and 50% of US adults (which is exactly what the person you responded to said).
All of this data, all over the place, and you're still going to say "I thought it was 97%. Sounds like OP is correct." based solely on your own preconceived beliefs, without even attempting to find any data to back up your thoughts. Again, a perfect example of the problems with this whole debate.
You want another great illustration about how well-informed members of the general public, such as yourself, are?
"Humans have evolved over time"
All AAAS members surveyed: 98%
Working PhD scientists: 99%
Active Research scientists: 99%
US Adults: 65%
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
97% is of working climate scientists. 88% must refer to scientists in general.
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.
Good troll. I didn't get through the entire set of replies, but so far nobody has zoomed in into the fact that temperature is adjusted downward to correct for urban heat islands. Bravo!
Unless I'm reading that chart wrong, it looks like July was 0.4+ C below the reading for January 2016. Still very warm, but not the warmest month ever according to the UAH satellite record.
I am of the second camp I guess. The changes being predicted, at worst case, are so gradual that it can be dealt with in most cases. Why worry when people do much stupider things like rebuilding New Orleans...below sea level...
When the government instead suggests people who lose their houses move them, maybe I will start listening, but until then, what is the big freaking deal? We can't even convince people to move houses that are clearly in danger now, why would we expect people to move their houses for a future danger that is so slow, and small of an increase as to be less than the tide.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yeah, you're right, I guess there is a discrepancy there.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
No, you didn't If you gave me some facts and figures, you could claim as refutation I will accept that. I am asking for facts and figures, and science.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in the early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
I understand much, and if all you can do is calll me names, that appears to be your best argument. The idea that we will somehow help poor people by ignoring the greenhouse effect is quite simply, ludicrous.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Oh dear. My point is that there might be some point that we would want to worry about it. When and where is that point? The Carteret Islands are now uninhabitble due to saltwater incursion. At the present rate, the island will be totally submerged by 2020 - athough some have said 2015. In 2005, the Papua New Guinea Government funded total evacuation of the island because of the incursions, and storm surges flooding the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While mistakenly calling it the first climate change refugees, New Zealand has granted residency to residents of Tuvalu in 2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... The confusion over the "first" moniker was probably coming from being the first time refugee status was from a different country.
Then there is Bangladesh. http://www.worldwatch.org/clim...
Just ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and it is mainly poor people who are affected by some of the effects. So the concept of ignoring AGW to help the poor as econmic wisdom is simply bizarre.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
It was in the morning, I haven't had a drink since my son's wedding in June, and that was 1 IPA. You really didn't do a good job reacting to my post, finding it an excuse to unload on me. You are falling victim to "bullying guy on the internet" tactics. Nah - homie don't play that.
It's a little weird, your response to my pointing out the fallacies of the scientific skeptics as if I were making an unforgivable personal insult to you. Is that some way of saying you hold every single scientific skeptic outlook that you pointed out personally, and at the same time?
I'm not drunk, not on any drugs stronger than Aspirin, but you dear phantomfive, have some really severe anger issues. Perhaps there are some stressors going on in your life that make you need to lash out at people and it makes you feel better. I'm most sorry for arousing your indignant anger.
But I'm certainly not going to have a rational conversation with you about this, so you can go spout your anger elsewhere.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem is we've got a pretty damn good idea how much CO2 is in the air, and the mathematics behind calculating the thermal capture of that CO2 has been well understood since the 1800s, when scientists first started warning about the greenhouse effect.
These hetrodox "Its over stated" people never seem to be ble to explain where that energy goes. Its either being used as heat (warming), or its being converted
into kinetic energy (Tornadoes, floods and the like), or some combination of both.
The energy has to go *somewhere*
And no reputable client scientist makes that claim.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I'm not a climatologist.
Then shut up.
" However, I understand science and statistics "
The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".
This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"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."
Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"are you seriously denying the truth of my statement "this study reaches its headlined/highlighted conclusions by adjusting data"."
YES, because it's wrong and show a complete ignorance of science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes but this isn't skepticism, no more than being "skeptical" of evolution or being "skeptical" of gravity is actually skepticism. The correct term is denialism, refusing to believe an overwhelming preponderance of evidence because it doesnt fit in with ones ideological views.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Which is rather like saying "blood pressure exists and changes every 24 hours". No matter how many times you say that, it won't make a blood pressure of 140 over 90 healthy.
I don't imagine you care one iota, or will even listen, but oddly enough, climatologists can determine what is a normal statistical fluctuation and what points stand out against the normal background, and can identify trends.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.
Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.
There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.
When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands ,i f not 10's of thousands, or people, it's not real skepticism.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, they are not denied funding. It's just that there are so few actual denier climatologists out there in active research that they don't publish or actually do active research. The lack of skeptics in the research and peer review world is self-selecting. The guys like Spencer, who do have some expertise, are too busy being paid to shill for oil companies that they don't actually do real science any more.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you have any evidence that the climatological community has been "infiltrated by Communists?" For that matter, do you have any actual evidence that even environmental groups have been infiltrated by Communists?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1000's of experts? and the chinese government? And the european governments?
Explain How that work in the age of the internet? Explain how simple tests that can be done in any university and most high school is being kept down?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That will happen soon. We've got an El Nino remember. 2017 will not be the hottest on record, nor will 2018. And climate idiots will again start to proclaim that the warming has stopped.
Something that helps put it into perspective is realizing that continental drift moves faster than the current sea level rise.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.
Don't take downmodding seriously in AGW stories, your karma is more than good enough.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners.
I disagree with calling them "dirty foreigners," there is a lot of talks of money transfers from rich to poor countries lol. "One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020." Previous talks have broken up partly over that. Cui bono I don't know.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If we keep emitting CO2 it will end civilization. People can only breath so much CO2 and still function.
So......is there even enough oil in the ground to raise CO2 levels that high?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That is a good one, can I steal it?
It actually made me laugh out loud over here when I read that.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Dunning Kruger effect.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That's not how science works. I suspect scientists are more honest than the general population, but one of the really neat things about science is that it has ways to deal with liars. The only way to blame AGW on liars is to assume, without evidence, that almost all climate scientists and most other scientists are liars for some reason, and agree on the same lie. These scientists are from all over the world, from countries with varied political systems, and there's no obvious reason why they'd all agree on the same lie. It's not like there's one central planetary source of scientific funding, for example.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No. Given lots of readings with random errors, the average will be much more precise than individual readings, and it makes sense to use the data to more decimal places. Look up the Law of Large Numbers, and pick up a bit of statistics.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
AGW skeptics aren't being censored. Idiots who screw up the facts and think that minor discrepancies that are likely already reconciled disprove the whole science do get downmodded.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So you're saying this has happened in climate science, and continues, in spite of multiple different source sets of data, teams working on them, and lots of coordination with other proxies, and many different teams working on them? Every study on the subject I've seen has shown the warming trend in spite of instrumental inaccuracies.
So are you claiming that all the studies and correction methods and checking and re-checking and use of non-instrumental proxies have given us wrong results in spite of our best efforts? Or just that we literally can't measure temperature trends accurately at all?
What is your actual claim about climate trends, and where are the studies that back it over the studies that disagree with you?
French - The lingua franca of Europe!
I'm not responsible for any of the straw men you created. If you want to read the papers on systemic errors (I linked one) you're of course free to do so.
it's in my head
One causes higher storm surges in the world's most valuable real-estate upon which the financial capitals of the world are built and are an absolute necessity for our civilisation to continue, and the other pisses off cartographers. Trying to equate the two shows either a complete lack of understanding of the subject, or an intellectual dishonesty worthy of nothing but scorn. Pick one.
It really depends on the region, some subduction zones are dropping at a rate of 40mm/yr (compared to 3-9mm/yr of ocean rise). Each region has to be looked at separately. Erosion is typically measured in feet (in the US of course) not millimeters. Of course, rising sea levels can exacerbate erosion.
Like I care if rich people have problems with storm surges.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Our world is dying before our eyes.
"their useful idiots that have convinced themselves..."
Irony.
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.
absolutely false and ignorant statement by you.
A good laboratory grade mercury thermometer will come with a calibration sheet that has graph of corrections. those can go to more than 0.5C over range of the thermometer.
19th century thermometers were FAR less accurate, lip blown glass tubes.
those 19th century thermometers weren't accurate to within degree
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.