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.
WE'RE ALL GONNA BE DEAD IN 10 YEARS!
Isn't that the oft-repeated timeline?
It is just not happening according to them. There is no point in publishing the data. Mutual funds come before survival of the species don't you know?
Trump should build a wall around all those nasty old scientists, and make them pay for it.
The root cause may be all the hot air spewing from Trump's facial orifice.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
They mostly blame man-made global warming with help from a natural El Nino, which has since disappeared.
Incorrect summary. The naturally occurring oscillation is the cause, with some help from anthropogenic global warming.
You see how language is used - it sounds right, but mostly isn't. The summary is designed to enhance your fear only.
The temperatures were huge, I tell ya!
150 years of records over the 4.5 billion year age of the earth represents about 0.00000333%. So how significant is that?
I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.
Coming from the Washington Post, how is one to know if this is fake news or not? Or are they getting "this one" right? where they've gotten so many other things wrong in the last few months. Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
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.)
Do you want to discredit research with your false comments? Really. Some effects are already present and other effects will hit the net generation. Massive sea level rise, which would require to relocate many of our larger cities on this globe will be necessary in 200-300 years. Anyway, we will have problems with food supply long before that.
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.
Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.
I was disappointed that the article didn't provide links to NASA's and NOAA's findings.
The Goddard Institute for Space Science data is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
A press release from Columbia University about the findings is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist with Berkeley Earth, said “The record temperature in 2016 appears to come from a strong El Nino imposed on top of a long-term global warming trend that continues unabated.”
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/peter...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
(I had this Flyer idea last night, that your "many decades" will only exist strong societal resilience... Ultimately, as mind-uploaders, we have to leave, in order for Earth to heal. Whether that is one thousand or one million years is up to us.) - Any ideas for my Flyer?
New Auckland Backup Club licensing lowers cybersecurity costs; lowering barriers in the Climate Change adapting age.
If you see a logical need to mitigate *Unpredictable Certainty* the Backup Club has a home-based business for you helping those who avoid backup. Their beneficial service is tailored where continuous backups of your computer are monitored. They offer quick ways to remedy problems that are not isolated or reacted to in time, hopefully Avoiding Data Loss.
A recent computational model of argumentation, utilizing continuous recovery in a Macrium Reflect proposal, is called Unlimited History Mining. Browse on the Wayback to your past and retrain your AI significantly, e.g., someone calls up with a technique to reanalyze your present grids around events and documents that were forming whenever in the past you clicked "Add to Dictionary".
Backup Clubs are private bands of regular ole people making up Middle Age solutions for mind uploaders. They are serious about adapting to Earth's Energy Imbalance with a fighting chance to prevent, delay, and stall effects, and become more resilient. Members Meet Monthly at your nearest Internet Cafe or 5Ghz Spark phone booth. Set AP SSID to aucklandbackupclub with address as password at your time shown below.
(Meanwhile during a present tense research moment linking Wavelink with Macrium Reflect running Ingrid over my own AI sensor clones, I uncovered evidence that Microsoft used Wavelink as the basis for NTFS, launched in 1993. You can imagine how devastated I became after being told that Bill Gates would not be attending my Wavelink appointment because he was in the Bahamas. Accordingly my history of your aptly named "Delta Communications Ltd" from this time in 1988, is behind the technology that I have for sale in a one time knowledge transfer licence via the New Auckland Backup Club.)
They don't think El Nino/ PDO/AMO affects global temperatures? Really?
Now the NOAA is the one These guys are pushing hard as the stat bearers. The same guys who own the entire media and scientific establishment.
Exhale c02? You are damaging the enviornment!!! You should be personally taxed for destroying the environment with your man made exhales.
The same guys who also brought you the federal reserve with Warburg as the front man, taxing you so blindly every week :)
The Arctic "was enormously warm, like totally off the charts compared to everything else," said Gavin Schmidt
Gavin, wow, that is shocking. How much warmer is it from last year?
Gavin: "0.1 degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Me: Rolls eyes, ok global warming kook.
The temperature drop from July to the end of the year from satellite and balloon datasets is quite alarming. How quickly can the planet lose that much energy while greenpeace 'environmentalists' confuse the forest from the trees :)
Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.
All of the data is available on the GISS site, which I assume you haven't bothered to look at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/
The site includes the source code for the analysis and a discussion of what all the data corrections are, why they were done, and what the data looks like before and after corrections.
You might want to start with the FAQ on how the data analysis is done, here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
If you don't like the way NASA does the data analysis, there's an independent analysis from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, here: http://berkeleyearth.org/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Deniers: "No it's not!"
Supporters: "Yes it is!"
Next article please.
I went out today and it was really cold! I had to put wooly socks on and a thermal vest. *ducks*
Stop globalization to save the planet!
Fakety fakety fake fake. They're only saying this because Trump is president.
There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin. They are doing quality work there; however, the reporting of their efforts leave a lot to be desired.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
I often wonder how accurate their temperature monitoring is. Are their thermometers better accuracy than .01C? What is their drift?
Anyone who knows about metrology knows you need at least 10x the accuracy of your measurements to put the errors down in the noise a bit.
They're talking about hundredths of a degree, are they really calibrated that accurately down to millidegrees? I doubt it.
What's settled?
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It's effect is logarithmic, not linear. How much warming will we see if we continue pumping CO2 at current rates?
We currently sit just over 400ppm CO2. According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
Scale matters, if I spilled a glass of ordinary water on your carpet, it's not going matter much. If I poured 40 million times that into your living room, that is going to result in significant property damage.
Unless you are a climate scientist yourself and post your name, institution and the papers YOU published on the topic, you are nothing but some bored dork in a server room or a developer counting your days until your job is off-shored to India or replaced by a H1-b - Trump isn't gonna do jack shit.
You are no better than the anti-vaxers who think they know better than the physicians, virologists and epidemiologists.
Whatever, while you go home and sit your fat ass in front of the TV or video game console, I'm doing something about it - politically. I'm gonna just steam roll over your fat ass.
Anyone who knows about metrology knows you need at least 10x the accuracy of your measurements to put the errors down in the noise a bit.
Anyone who knows about metrology knows that by averaging thousands of individual measurements you can get precision that is much higher than that of any of the individual measurements.
But then, anybody who knows about slashdot knows that it's pointless to argue with anonymous cowards, so I'm not sure why I bother.
RTFA; 0.12 C was NASA's global difference from the previous year; not just the arctic. The article mentioned that inclusion of more of the arctic was why NASA's difference was larger than NOAA's. It didn't specifically give numbers for the arctic by itself, but it must have been pretty warm to sway the global average.
Fine then. You'll love living in a 100% CO2 environment then.
Nobody really knows the global temperatures prior to NASA recordings, because the surface temperatures depend on ocean currents, and there is not a reliable record of water temperatures. It is all a best guess, subject to a lot of noise and margins of error.
This we all know for sure:
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
2) Nothing done by any government of any country will significantly slow global CO2 emissions or stall the warming. Climate change "action" is all show and posturing.
Year to year changes are "NOISE." California had a drought for several years (virtually a blip in time) and then come the rains. It happens over an over.
Sun spot cycles are repetitive. Mega-Rains come to California every 160 years or so. Last time was 1862, so 2022 look out. These are formed over decades of hot water buildup in the Eastern equatorial Pacific.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
How these longer term cycles & their variences affect the Earth don't seem to be of concern in current evaluations where people are only interested in year to year or decade to decade changes.
Long term cycles are not "sexy", but may hold the fate of nations in their hands because of long term weather changes to dry or wet which cause massive changes in growing regions which means food for billions of people.
Click here to see the uncorrected data graphed alongside the main corrected analyses (source: Berkeley Earth via Ars Technica).
Hopefully this makes it abundantly clear that the raw data still shows an obvious warming trend even before known problems are removed. It also shows how little difference the corrections have actually made, particularly in the last 75 years.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
Once the arctic is ice-free, snow from evaporation will begin the march of the glaciers over North America, to an average depth of two miles. Don't toss your skiis yet!
All of this fear mongering is just to push forward the globalist agenda of bringing down western civilization. Climate fluctuations are cyclical, and solar output DOES have a lot to do with the climate.
The reason why I ask this is when you peruse Figure 6.1 of the IPCC Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles report, the listed errors of natural carbon sources far exceed those of anthropogenic origin.
I think you're mis-reading the numbers on that figure. The numbers in red aren't error bars, that's the change since 1750. (each individual element is listed in the form "123= 108.9+14.1", where the first number is the total, the second number is the estimated value in 1750, and the third number is the change since 1750 (printed in red). Note that all that matters from photosynthesis is the difference between the input and output (labelled "net land flux"), which they point out is known to a better accuracy than the component parts.
Sad. Just sad.
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago. We can see that very clearly in many different records, but possibly most clearly in the global sea level, which drops when the glaciers increase and rises when the glaciers melt.
One thing we know for sure, the present warming is not because the Earth coming out of the glaciation.
Cycles have been consistent over centuries and it looks like they are changing now due to more limited solar input.
We have very good measurements of solar output. We know with very high certainty that the current warming is not due to a change in solar output.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Good to know that we could raise global temperatures by 10 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years and some people STILL wouldn't care.
Me: Rolls eyes
At least that is how Trump declared it and therefore: case closed! Besides, anything else would be bad for his businesses.
Looks like the grandparent poster should have flagged it as sarcasm.
For the humor impaired: Buzzfeed and CNN are regarded as having been more "fake" than the Washington Post.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Poe's law.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet.
And PeOTUS Trump wants to defund NASA, since "it engages in bad science", and will very likely get his way through the rubber-stamp Congress he'll enjoy.
Sort of makes me glad that I won't be here for four years. I don't think four years of this sort of attitude and thinking will be very enjoyable to me. Still, for those that voted for Mr. Trump, I'm glad you got your guy. I hope you stay glad and that I'm wrong about him. I wasn't wrong about POTUS Obama or George W, though.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.
You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you? >By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.
The graphs show nothing of the sort. Look at it more closely and pay attention to the scale. http://geology.utah.gov/wp-con... The smallest time division on that graph is 50,000 years, and the temperature has been warm for about a quarter of a division.
The article summarizes it clearly: "Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago" which is pretty much what I just said.
Here's a good graph showing the sea level rise at the end of the glaciation. You can see the warming very clearly, and it's pretty much over by eight thousand years ago.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.o...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But then, anybody who knows about slashdot knows that it's pointless to argue with anonymous cowards, so I'm not sure why I bother.
But what happens when two Anonymous Cowards argue with each other? Is that doubly pointless?
At least. I think it's probably pointless squared.
After reading the source notes, i am a bit confused about the whole temperature anomaly thing and hoping someone could help.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
"The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value."
If i am reading this right, a month would only have to be above / below a reference value once to be considered an anomaly, and thus, that month would be listed as an anomaly (hot or cold).
Are the rest of the days considered or are just anomaly days considered?
What happens if there are 3 day that are anomaly, but the rest of the month is average? Heck, what if a month has 4 days of anomaly one way and 3 days of anomaly the other?
Yea. What happened before 1950?
The Second World War.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You don't start developing a plan until you accept the science has settled some questions. Is it happening? Settled. Is it is? Settled. But if you go sitting there pretending that it's those saying "It's settled" are the problem, please look at all the retards claiming that it's not proven and we must do nothing until it IS.
So, please don't give me any of that fake concern. Nobody other than other deniers are buying.
A Courageous Chemtrail Pilot Exposes The Global Geoengineering Program
https://geopolitics.co/2015/04/03/chemtrail-pilot-blows-the-lid-off-operation-indigo-skyfold/
What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain – Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock Reveals Shocking Facts
https://geopolitics.co/2015/04/13/what-chemtrails-are-doing-to-your-brain-are-shocking-neurosurgeon/
Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
Apparently, PEOTUS had some mod points. False downmod. So sad.
The amount of time and energy spent on this topic and nuclear topics is incredible. It makes me wonder if pro nuke and anti climate change comments are being generated by AI bots. It seems plausible.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
Chemtrails are creating and affecting weather. Why is there no mention of chemtrails in ANY comment?
I often wonder how accurate their temperature monitoring is. Are their thermometers better accuracy than .01C? What is their drift?
Anyone who knows about metrology knows you need at least 10x the accuracy of your measurements to put the errors down in the noise a bit.
They're talking about hundredths of a degree, are they really calibrated that accurately down to millidegrees? I doubt it.
When you're averaging a large number of measurements it's reasonable to have a much higher precision than the precision of the individual measurement itself. The clearest example of this I know of is baseball batting averages. A batter either gets a hit or an out, that is an integer 1 or a 0. But batting averages are typically expressed to 3 decimal places (thousandths).
that aren't there and for which data is made up. How about putting out some more sensors?
Republicans have different weather system where humans have not changed the planet in any negative way, and therefor don't have to be responsible for anything, and don't have to pass a working planet to our children.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You changed the AC's definition. Glaciation is different than ice age. Ice ages refer to parts of history where there are ice caps at the poles that last over entire years. There have been times in earth's history when that was not the case and life continued.
One thing we do know for sure. The earth is warming, humans are contributing, but we don't know how much of each of the climate factors are contributing. The earth has been warmer than it is now in the past.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I pay attention to the temperature, because I ride a motorcycle and I live out in those temps. Here in Houston, where it's a bit hotter than DC. We usually get a week or two with triple digit temps. I can tell you that we haven't gotten such a week in the last two summers. So whatever is going on, it's working for me.
Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It would be interesting to see the data before 'adjustment'. It has already been shown that 2014 and 2015 data was adjusted to make those years appear warmer, while sensor data in increasingly concrete and asphalt urban areas was not adjusted.
Trump is in office tomorrow and after than global warming doesn't exist for at least 4 years.
Here's a good primer on the economics of climate change (costs and benefits) http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/...
This graph starts in 1980. it counts number of events as well as cost. Look at the trend.
You changed the AC's definition. Glaciation is different than ice age.
I didn't change AC's definition. I did, however, use accurate terminology in my response, instead of replying in the commonly used but inaccurate terminology in which AC had phrased his post.
By the correct definition, we are still in an ice age, in that the poles of the Earth have ice caps. But with that definition, AC's post would have made no sense: we are NOT "climbing out of an ice age."
However the commonly-used definition of an ice age is the period when glaciation has advanced across temperate regions. This is one, but by no means the only, place where the common language differs from terminology used by experts. I don't bother correcting people when they say that they are conserving energy, either*.
*(Energy is conserved as a law of nature; you don't need to do anything to "conserve energy.")
Thunderstorms are impressive, but at their basics, they are just a manifestation of the convective transfer that establishes and maintains the adiabatic lapse, which has been incorporated into climate models for the last fifty years. Convective heat transfer is the cause; thunderstorms are merely a manifestation. That's the way (or much of the way) heat is moved in the atmosphere: by convection.
And, yes, convection is pretty well understood. Your proposal that convection represents a "new" feedback mechanism that atmospheric scientists have never thought about, and that therefore invalidates all the previous models, is a little naïve. In any case, however, precipitation represents 100% humidity. To "invalidate" the feedback effect of humidity, you need to show that humidity decreases with temperature. Saying that thunderstorms increase will, if anything, serve as a demonstration that humidity increased with temperature.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com