Slashdot Mirror
Earth Hit Record Hot Year in 2016: NASA (news.com.au)
Earth sizzled to a third-straight record hot year in 2016, government scientists have said. They mostly blame man-made global warming with help from a natural El Nino, which has since disappeared. From a report: Measuring global temperatures in slightly different ways, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that last year passed 2015 as the hottest year on record. NOAA calculated that the average 2016 global temperature was 14.84 degrees Celsius (58.69 degrees Fahrenheit) -- beating the previous year by 0.04 Celsius (0.07 degrees F). NASA's figures, which include more of the Arctic, are higher at 0.22 degrees (0.12 Celsius) warmer than 2015. The Arctic "was enormously warm, like totally off the charts compared to everything else," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, where the space agency monitors global temperatures. Records go back to 1880. This is the fifth time in a dozen years that the globe has set a new annual heat record. Records have been set in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2010 and 2005.
Don't worry, deniers. With 2015's El Nino now over, you can look forward to cooler temperatures in 2017, and then when 2018 rolls around, you can declare that 2017's lower average global temperature proves that global warming has ended (again). Patience is key. Good luck!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Trump announces he's firing half of the staff at NOAA and NASA.
(and bans either organization from owning a thermometer.)
Exxon knew about it 40+ fucking years ago. EVERYONE knows it's real, even people with a multibillion dollar interest in pretending otherwise, which they did for DECADES NOW.
It's OVER. The issue is settled, mankind's massive emissions affect mankind's environment, Earth.
The only question now is what the fuck are we going to do about it, and who can we trust not to line their pocket on both sides of that line?
So far I've got zero ideas in Neo-Trump's America. I see a can getting kicked again, best case.
Right, so you're saying that because a car wheel rotates on itself the car itself can't drive up a hill. Got it.
CNN is fake news, you imbecile. Too bad that's the only stupid shit you are allowed to listen to.
I'm pretty sure he is listening to a lot more stupid shit than just CNN. Don't forget PuffHo, MSNBC, NPR, Daily Kos, Salon, Slate, and the Grey Whore (NYT)...
The stupid is strong in this one!
Really I'm saying if you are driving up a hill and you're a 10'th of the way up to where you are every year, maybe it's not so appropriate to panic about the terrifying height you're at.
This afternoon, I watched clips on Youtube from the 1992 Presidential debate. It's not that far in the past, but there was a massive difference in the tone from 2016. The three candidates did go after each other, but were respectful and focused on the issues, mostly the economy. The debate had real substance and addressed the real issues rather than being characterized by personal attacks. All the AC comments at -1 on this story make me feel the same way about public discourse. Those comments are at -1 mostly because they are attempting to prevent rational discussion of the issues.
There are still uncertainties about global warming, notably the effects on certain types of extreme weather (such as cold air outbreaks), the role of positive feedbacks (like the release of methane) and mitigating factors (such as aerosols), and the societal impacts in the 21st century. Although computer models are continually improving, there are still significant limitations in what can be simulated in the configurations used for climate simulations. Specifically, the need to simulate longer periods of time comes at the expense of the resolution of the models, meaning that processes resolved in models used for weather prediction may not be resolved in global climate models. However, the idea that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause warming really should be settled by now, as the greenhouse effect is a long-established matter of physics and chemistry. But it doesn't mean there's no room for rational discussion on a lot of issues. And certainly the solutions to our global warming problems should be up for debate, because it's not at all clear that carbon taxes and other proposed are good and effective solutions.
The problem is that we aren't discussing those issues. If every aspect of global warming was settled science, there would be no reason for any further research, yet there's a lot of funding going toward studying climate change. However, that there some topics that can be debated should not be considered a license to deny basic physics and chemistry. It seems like a deliberate attempt to prevent the discussion from ever reaching the real issues.
In many of these discussions, the credibility of the scientists is more on trial than the actual science. Much of it is based on statements that are misleading at best. For example, data sets and methodologies used by federal administrations like NOAA and NASA are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, along with other requirements for accountability and transparency. Data sets collected by researchers receiving NOAA funding are obligated to release those data sets to the public within two years and keep them archived. The claim that scientists are keeping data secret and cutting corners with their methodologies is almost completely invalid, yet the claim keeps being made.
I'm reminded that we once focused our discussions on actual issues and were capable of rational discourse despite our disagreements. That 1992 debate featured large disagreements on economic issues between Perot, Bush, and Clinton. Bush clearly lost the debate, but it was because the discussion was about the economic plans of the candidates, and Bush came across as very out of touch with the economic issues facing the middle class. He lost on the issues, which is incredibly refreshing compared to what we see in 2017. Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion on so many other topics, including climate change, has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, to the point that we never actually get to discussing the issues. That's a damn shame.
And if you choose other stations the adjustments make the past look warmer.
You can't cherry pick a handful of stations and use the results to impugn the validity of the adjustments. You have to look at the justifications made for the adjustments to decide whether they make sense or not.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If the recent warming trend is due to the El Nino:
1. Why is 2016 hotter than every other year in which there was an El Nino?
2. Why was the trough of the last La Nina hotter than every La Nina that came before it: and indeed, so hot that that trough was level with the El Nino that happened 10 years prior?
3. Why do you accept the concept of an El Nino at all? Surely if the concept of atmospheric composition impacting climate must be reject for [error! no reason supplied], then El Nino (ocean temperature driving climate) ought to be rejected as well? Explain the logic behind that.