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.
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 the other way around. Warming has thawed sites where frozen bodies of animals killed by 20th century anthrax outbreaks, and those carcasses have now caused numerous cases of anthrax in animals and people in Siberia. You just got the relationship backwards. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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
Ah, the five stages of climate denial. You are on number 4.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
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.
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.
Correction factors are used for systematic errors.
Correct. And if you read the link, that's exactly what the NOAA corrections were: they corrected for known systematic errors, such as the change from fluid-in-glass thermometers to electronically-measured thermistors.
The measurement errors are random errors.
Random errors can be reduced by taking many measurements (which NOAA also does). The random error decreases as the square root of the number of measurements.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com