Slashdot Mirror
Earth on Pace For Fourth-Warmest Year on Record, NOAA and NASA Say (weather.com)
The first nine months of 2018 was the fourth-warmest such period on Earth since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA and NASA said in their analyses this week. From a report: 2016 had the warmest January-September period, according to NOAA, followed by 2017, then 2015. NASA's analysis agreed the Earth was on pace for its fourth-warmest year. NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt said in a tweet that 2018 was "almost guaranteed" to be the fourth-warmest year in its period of record. Record or near-record warmth in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America helped propel the January-September 2018 period to the fourth-warmest on record, NOAA said.
With temperatures 3.35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.86 degrees Celsius) above average, Europe had its record-warmest first nine months of the year, exceeding the previous record set in 2014 by more than 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius). Records in the continent date to 1910. Breaking it down a bit further, Africa had its fifth-warmest year-to-date temperature on record, Asia its sixth-warmest and South America its eighth-warmest, according to NOAA. North America experienced its lowest January-September temperature departure from average since 2013. The only notable pocket of cooler-than-average temperatures in 2018's first nine months was over the far North Atlantic Ocean just south of Greenland.
With temperatures 3.35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.86 degrees Celsius) above average, Europe had its record-warmest first nine months of the year, exceeding the previous record set in 2014 by more than 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius). Records in the continent date to 1910. Breaking it down a bit further, Africa had its fifth-warmest year-to-date temperature on record, Asia its sixth-warmest and South America its eighth-warmest, according to NOAA. North America experienced its lowest January-September temperature departure from average since 2013. The only notable pocket of cooler-than-average temperatures in 2018's first nine months was over the far North Atlantic Ocean just south of Greenland.
We've already crossed several thresholds on the climate, the damage we've done will take hundreds of years to undo, if it's undoable at all.
Humanity just better get used to a hotter world, cuz that ship sailed a long time ago. We're fucked.
Don't laugh. It could happen, according to our big, wet, President. We just have to wait it out.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
And we know for sure that he knows what he's talking about, because he says he has a "natural instinct for science".
https://www.politico.com/story...
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's good enough for me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Too bad the EU emissions are going up: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
This can actually be undone because we have the technology. However, it requires people to actually believe it's real, care and vote for leaders who care. There are far too many people who simply don't believe/care until it personally affects them. For proof of this, you need look no further than the newspaper.
In North Carolina, hurricanes did what scientists could not: Convince Republicans that climate change is real
How we turn this around is actually charge corporations money to pollute and use that money to clean up the pollution. We can build the machines needed to remove CO2 from the air and the solar panels need to power them but they need to be paid for. Pushing this policy globally would make it easy to undo the atmospheric damage we've already done.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?
No, it doesn't. From the article: January-September period for years 2015,2016,2017 and 2018 are four the warmest since data started to be recorded (1880).
2018 was not the warmest of the four, to better understand it draw a sinusoidal line at lets say 45 degree angle, you will see the difference between long term trend and short term fluctuations.
If the world was truly in some kind of runaway global warming dealie, this would be the WARMEST year on record. ...
No, it doesn't. As the answer to another "AC", to understand difference between long term and short term changes draw a sinusoidal curve at e.g. 45 degrees angle. Then look at the global average temperatures plot available online, compare it with CO2 levels.
As a bonus you can learn something about how the data are acquired, and how scientists forecast weather in short term and long term, also other things. Take yourself out of your comfort place and when questioning - first question yourself.
Oh, we'll be hearing about the "pause since 2016", like the so-called pause after 1998. 2016 was, like 1998, a massive outlier, which means they'll be using it for their basis of comparison.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?
If by "now" you mean the period of time between last year and this year, sure.
But climate is naturally noisy. Even without any climate change, average temperature isn't the same from year to year; in roughly half of all years, the average temperature will be lower than the year before, and in the other half it will be higher than the year before. If climate change adds a small increase to every year, then you end up with, for example, 75% of all years with an increase and 25% with a decrease. In such a scenario, the overall trend is increasing, even if there's a decrease pretty often.
Here are some numbers to illustrate. This is a list of all integers between -10 and 10 (generated by using random.shuffle in Python):
-10, 5, 7, -2, 4, 8, 10, 3, -1, -4, 2, -6, -7, -3, -8, 9, 0, 6, -9, 1, -5
The sum of these integers is 0, i.e. no total change over time. Now add 2 to each of those numbers:
-8, 7, 9, 0, 6, 10, 12, 5, 1, -2, 4, -4, -5, -1, -6, 11, 2, 8, -7, 3, -3
There are still 8 negative numbers out of 21 numbers total, but the net change is +42, more than 4 times the largest single increase.
Yes and if you bother to look into it, it addresses known problems with instrument accuracy arising from, for example, isues arising from local location. On balance, the scientists perspective seems to be that greater precision is worth the price of ill-informed or wilfully ignorant comments.
Its one of the themes of the history of good science.
Mind you, there is a farce in Australian science funding. CSIRO is now a hollow shell and $450m was porkbarelled to a boutique Barrier Reef research institute. Our government has no science policy ideas.
Not just the Australian BOM. (though there have been some real whoppers from them...)
The surface temp records are heavily adjusted. They warm the recent temps and cool the past records (this kind of data fudging would be called data tampering in any other "science". The whold thing is manipulated to for political purposes to create a bigger warming trend and serve the agenda.
And an Austrailian PhD student did a thesis on the global temperature records (HADCRUT I believe) and found lots of bogus data, impossible numbers, which now CRU says they will correct.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
But when ever skeptics pry open the door to look at the data, they find problems, and the scientists maintaining these records never seem to find them.
The fact that it's the 4th warmest means we are making progress and the problem is not intensifying - nay, it is healing.
That's a little shortsighted. It's a bit like saying that because an alcoholic hasn't had a drink in the last week that they're well on their way to being cured.
And they will do it again next year, maybe sooner.
The fact that you seem unconcerned with that is very telling.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Its one of the themes of the history of good science.
So is being ridiculed, ignored, and attacked until people realize decades or centuries later that they're right. Unfortunately, this time, we don't have decades or centuries.
so has the earth ever been warmer than this? colder? where are we now in that spectrum? we're no where near as warm as it's been in say the last 100,000 years. "the sky is falling" - chicken little.
nothing to see here - move along
is acting like you're just a helpless leaf tossed on the wind whichever way it blows.
You've got a brain and a pair of hands (assumption, I admit) so try to do something useful.
If we're all doomed in several billlion years, fine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it a nice place til we all turn into entropy.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, this is what you've been *told* that they've done.
The ClimateGate thing was the University of East Anglesey dealing with a problematic proxy dataset. It has no effect on the global instrumental record, just on estimates of temperatures in the pre-industrial era.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm pretty sure "measurably" doesn't mean what you think it means, because "measurably" 3 of the last 4 years have been the hottest ones one record, going back 150 years or so.
Look up "boiled frog syndrome".
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I'm having the time of my life. My Trump posts have revitalized Slashdot's comments section and I continue to be the most popular Slashdot commenter, and it's moral soul. If you didn't have me, you'd have to invent me.
May Trump reign another 50 years. Vivat Rex!
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is not a subject that you should feel free to spread lies about. Climate change denial is dumber and more harmful than Holocaust denial.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
tell me - what was a lie in this: the earth is 5 billion years old - we've only measured temp for the last 150 years
nothing to see here - move along
In 1900 humans were barely able to get a machine to hop inches off the ground. By 1969 humans had walked on the moon.
Humans are _very_ good at massive engineering projects. I suspect we will be able to geo-engineer the atmosphere of the planet. In the process, we might actually establish colonies on another planet. Who knows, we might even distinguish ourselves from termites.
Oh, and, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
That's one spectacularly weak straw man. I wonder if you can really understand that little about statistics or even basic weather.
It's like claiming that in order for a team to improve its record, it has to win every single game. It's normal even for winning teams to have streaks one way or the other.
In the case of climate "streaks" are called "weather", and the 800 pound gorilla of inter-year variation is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which send the entire planet's temperature careening back and forth by 2/10 of a degree one way or the other (against the projected 2 degree/century, .02 degree background rise).
Now you can reduce the ENSO transients on the data by taking a moving average -- this in effect creates a low pass filter. Since ENSO events frequently span adjacent years, a five year moving average does the trick. If you do that, since 1980 the moving average has increased 26/37 times, something that has about a 1% of happening the underlying trend was just flipping a coin.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Take a look at the temp records and you'll see it was pretty flat from ~2001 to ~2014 as well. And if you look at the graph at the bottom of the post you'll see GISS data showing the warming from 1970 to 2000 was not unique (same thing happened ~1915 to ~1945). And that GISS' own data shows essentially no trend from ~1990 to the present. And the models show poor correlation with the early rise - and the current pause.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A comparison of RSS 3.3 and 4.0, showing a 50% increase starting in 2000. Why the big adjustment? This isn't propaganda - this is a direct plot of the actual RSS data with two different adjustments - and the later adjustment increasing the temperature increase by 50%.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
GISS data V3.3 to V4.0. A rather significant change starting in 2000, wouldn't you say? Given improvements in measurements and instruments, I'd expect the adjustments to be pre-1980, not post-2000.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We had the same heating from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000. Supposedly CO2 really didn't start impacting things until post-WWII - so what drove the earlier rise? How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"...the animals, plants, lakes, and coastlines were also different..." - among other things, in other words we have no idea what the trend means...long term we've seen way warmer and way colder trends and averages...chicken little dressed up as climate scientist
nothing to see here - move along
the key is 150 years out of 5 billion or so...meaningless drivel
nothing to see here - move along
Which dataset is correct? How about in light of the fact that we had similar warming rises pre-WWII with the same slope and magnitude.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
GISS is accurate to about 0.2 deg C, meaning this claim is within a few dozen previous years, when you include the tolerance bands.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Both versions show a robust warming effect, so even though the difference is mathematically significant, it's not practically so. Also note the high degree of correlation between versions.
The reason for the revising an aggregate data set is to correct systematic errors in aggregation, and you can read about the reasons in the scientific literature. Some of the adjustments are due to better calibration of remote sensing readings. Others are due to accounting for instrument biases -- for example one change was accounting for the fact that ships consistently give higher readings than buoys because of waste heat from the ship.
Revising an estimation based on additional information isn't some kind of dodgy practice, as long as you document why and how much. If you have a problem with the adjustments (other than the result) it's all there for you to contest.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Under which category does a nuclear winter fall? Engineered or political?
Warmer then than now. For 400 years it was warmer then than now.
warmer there then than now. Not warmer, on average and scientifically verified everywhere.
From the link:
Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[214]
Regional weather patterns do not make global trend.
One has us under the new-magical 1.5 deg C over the next century; the other has us well over. And which is correct?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why, is the data presented there bad? It's straight from GISS, RSS, HadCRUT and more. I know with many people the messenger is more important than the message, but if you're open-minded enough to accept data you didn't personally capture, then why not look at the graphs? Data is data - it has no bias, unless it's "adjusted" (faked) to create a bias.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'm not sure what you think is important about these graphs. You seem confused.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Well, aside from both of those numbers being inaccurate, it's not a valid criticism of AGW, and you have no idea why, and refuse to learn. Any other questions?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It's important because they say significantly different things about the rate of warming. Which is correct, and why do they only diverge after 2000? Was the data correct before, and then corrupted after 2000? I guess they aren't important if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Figure out an engineered solution.
Nuclear power. It doesn't have to be anything fancy because nuclear power as we build it today is very low CO2, very safe, plentiful to the point of being nearly infinite, and inexpensive.
Let's make a few things clear on nuclear power being defined as "safe". Chernobyl was a first generation design, it didn't have even the most basic of safety mechanisms of a containment dome that are nearly the defining feature of second generation reactors. Fukushima was a second generation reactor, while it had a containment dome the safety of the reactor was dependent on an external source of power. Third generation has passive safety, meaning it uses the most basic of physics to render it safe. Things like gravity causes things to fall, heat causes things to expand, and bodies in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
Mentioning safety failures of prior reactor designs to make decisions on future designs is like deciding to buy a 2018 model year Ford F-250 based on the performance of the 1918 Ford Model T.
We have an engineered solution for global warming. What we need are politicians with a sufficient understanding of the science to get out of the way of nuclear power to solve the problem. The only problems with nuclear power today are political. Elections are coming up, vote for politicians that take global warming seriously enough to allow nuclear power plants to be built in large numbers.
Like I said, read the paper; everything's there. Calling the conclusions "magical" isn't an argument, it's just posturing when you haven't done the work.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Your eyeball is being misled by ENSO events, which obscure the underlying trend. Yes, *what is physically happening* is actually important, not just what your eyeballs tell you. You can smooth out the weather events by taking a moving average.
Oh, and why we're at it, why leave out 1940-1970, during which the globe actually cooled on the instrumental record. Here's a hint about why you don't want to go there: what physically happened actually matters.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No it's not there. There is no talk about tolerance bands, adjustments are not described, it's just "this is the 4th warmest". It's a leap of faith, not a scientific paper.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Exactly.
But the second you bring up this particular "n-word", people start screeching and spewing bullshit left, right and center.
Too expensive! If it reduces our carbon output by all the coal, oil and natural gas in the world, WHO CARES?
They cite safety record. Again, how many people have died due to nuclear in the history of nuclear POWER? Not nuclear WEAPONS.
How many have died with coal, oil and gas?
Also, these idiots think we're going to keep building reactors with tech from the 50's.
But these half-wits can't get beyond "Nukez eekwalz BOMZ!!!!!1111111ELEVENTY!!!"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The EU emissions aren "going up", asshole. ... that is not a trend. And if you did not pay attention: the winter 2016/2017 was unusually hard. Obviously people heated more than the years before.
There was a 1.3% fluke in 2017 versus 2016
So if you want to make a smart argument it would be: "The EU did not reduce CO2 emissions by itself so much as people might believe, but benefitted from extremely mild winters in the previous years. The mild winters contributed quite a lot to the CO2 reduction efforts".
But that is not what you want to write, you want to be an asshole instead ... good luck with that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It is not in the article that they will again go up in 2018 ... and most likely they will drop by a record mark ... because the summer brought lots of wind and solar power and the winter will most likely be very mild.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
and the 800 pound gorilla of inter-year variation is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which send the entire planet's temperature careening back and forth by 2/10 of a degree one way or the other (against the projected 2 degree/century, .02 degree background rise).
No, it does not.
El Niño and La Nina only shuffle the warm and cold patches on the planet around. The average temperature is just the same.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We did not have such warmings as you claim. ...
1945 and the surrounding years where extremely cold. At least in Europe
How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?
Pretty stupid question. Everything is man made. There is no natural effect that can increase the temperature on the planet that much over a course of 100 years.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So when you yell at the kids for leaving the front door open in the winter, they'll say: "it's only been cold for 10 minutes out of 5 billion years... meaningless drivel".
if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...
You have just described yourself.
It's really is amazing people believe that. No data has been adjusted. Fantasists claim that to make observations fit their theories.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Temperature should be well under 18/20 C by now and be around the 14 C average dropping toward low teen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
WTF does the US government have *TWO* agencies giving out their own *DIFFERENT* "official global temperature anomalies"???
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
No. Just... no.
For further explanation of why, I suggest reading Gleik's Chaos and looking up papers by Edward Lorenz. Even looking up
Climate isn't a one-dimensional function, it is a series of trillions of non-linear feedback loops with non-linear changes to components.
That is why increase is turbulent, not smooth.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Except that no climate scientists has ever used faked data. Only the critics have.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When did they edit this data, exactly?
The hokey stick graph has been around since the 60s.
Global warming has been described by science since 1890.
So when did the data get faked?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Both.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, temp records go back 10,000 years.
Next.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The key is 10,000 years out of 4.5 billion.
If you're going to use numbers, use the right ones.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ah, yes.
Which explains why global warming was first reported by British scientists in 1890.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No problem.
Give fusion researchers the subsidy currently given to fossil fuels.
They've just cracked a major problem, but could have done so decades ago if they had the resources.
No impact for next ten years, then essentially unlimited power and superior access to resources.
That work for you? Engineering at its finest.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, it really didn't. There's no evidence Earth's temperatures are impacted beyond background noise by sunspots.
And good on the freemasons to keep this secret for 128 years, the time global warming has been studied. I'm impressed. That shows serious skill.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
More like 10,000 out of 4.5 billion.
And yes, that's good enough to build models you can test.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So if an ice cube on a glacier melted, by being crushed under the weight for example, you'd conclude the whole glacier had melted?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We have engineering solutions. Unfortunately they all either fall into cateogories that include "politically unacceptable" or "socially unacceptable".
Pretending that you can magically fix this with technology without involving politics or society is just (I refuse to be polite here) sheer stupidity.
I refuse to go back to digging up grubs and eating grass while shivering in a cave.
See: You are part of the social problem because you think the current solutions require you to do this. Stop being part of the social problem.
ENSO moves heat between atmosphere and ocean, so it influences average temperature of the surface air which is what we usually talk about when discussing temperature.
We had the same heating [wordpress.com]from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000
Looking at GISS LOTI numbers directly, I see about 0.3 degrees heating from 1915-1945, and about 0.5 degrees between 1970 and 2000, and about 0.75 degrees between 1975 and 2015.
I recommend you do the same, instead of relying on Bob Tisdale's graphs.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2...
According to the graph Emissions by source, we exhale today as much as we burned in 1950 by all our machinery combined.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Yes it does.
But both phenonema have the exact same effect: only at different places on the earth. While El Nino makes is cold her and warm there, La Nina just reverses that.
So: the average temperature as far as the two ENSO extremes are concerned: are the same.
E.g. look at the maps here: https://www.climate.gov/enso
The BoM used to have good maps, but they reworked the website so I don't find them right now, but here is a start: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Simple googling the title of this document leads you to multiple, convincing debunkings:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So what you are asking for is a technical solution for a social problem. Perhaps this time it'll work.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
We have all those things. Maybe you need to STFU and listen?
First develop even better renewable energy tech, including batteries. Figure out how to make them cheaper and more durable. There is a lot of money to be made doing that.
Also develop some new batteries that are lighter weight and higher energy density so we can have electric aircraft. Design us some even higher power chargers.
Now engineer us some CO2 capture devices that either store or convert CO2, to fit the atmosphere. Make them cheap and high capacity.
Some ultra efficient buildings would be great, no need to waste so much energy heating and cooling them.
Oh and while you are at it get fusion power working too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What energy? Are you talking upwelling IR, or IDK, just talking out of your posterior? First it was Carbonic Acid, then CO2, then Carbon, now you're trying to convince people it is energy? It's not energy, it's the byproduct of energy.
Look kiddies, Uncle Al didn't invent the internet. He voted for funding a government program. He never said no to any government programs so taking credit for the one that worked is the way creepy Uncle Al thinks. The earth doesn't have a fever. The added warming is 5-10% of the overall greenhouse effect, and if we didn't have the other 90-95% we would all be Eskimos or living on the equator. The effects of CO2 are logarithmic and are bounded by negative feedbacks. Otherwise our rodent ancestors would never have survived past epochs when there was even more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It was inevitable given our current exodus from an Ice Age and in addition ...
Quite the opposite, we're suppose to go into a mini ice-age right now, and the average temperature trend instead of going down is going up.
Measuring temperature is one of the simplest measurement there is, you can do it by yourself if you really wanted to know.
"Average" global temperature means taking measurements (temperature) across the globe at various points several times per day and then calculating the average.
These measurement have been done by countless number of people in many (sometimes not very friendly) countries, later exchanged between the scientific organizations (yes, scientists mostly exchange data - even when they governments do not like each other much), so there are multiple copies of the measurements across decades stored in many countries across the globe.
Additionally scientist in many countries (unlike in the US) are payed fix salaries based on teaching students, having guaranteed time for research, they criticize each other a lot - as this peer criticism is the very foundation of the scientific methodology. I am yet to hear about a scientist supporting some faked data from a competitive laboratory not to mention country. Your suggestion is preposterous and I hope you will realize it and revise your sources.
Contrary to common believes, Earth climate is a complicated system, and despite that everybody can see the sky and feel the wind, not everybody is a specialist in forecasting the weather - it requires data and computational power, not to mention knowledge. My question, if some friendly radio host started to advise you in your very specialty based on some brief readings online - what would you think about it?
In this case - the post is the same data as used by the climate scientists - and it shows the pause.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because the IPCC was unable to fudge the numbers enough to make it the hottest year on record.
we haven't been recording temp for 10,000 years - only less then about 150 - I rounded up 4.5 billion years to 5.
nothing to see here - move along
temp records don't go back 10,000 years - and the article says 1880
nothing to see here - move along
my kids are smarter...but then that's from at home schooling
nothing to see here - move along
The hockey stick graph was around before Mann was born.
And, no, it doesn't ignore it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's not important how long we've been directly recording them, only how long we can measure them with equal reliability.
We have an enormous amount of indirect data - snowfall rates in the Antarctic, atmosphere content in the Antarctic, limestone deposition rates (a measure of rainfall), isotope ratios (a measure of sunlight), tree ring data (which depends on atmosphere, rainfall, sunlight and temperature).
Local temperatures affect broader rainfall patterns, which affect the snow in the Antarctic.
This is, ultimately, no more indirect than the mercury in a thermometer expanding by a measured amount for each degree of temperature change. You're still inferring one thing from the behaviour of another.
If you accept mercury thermometers, you must logically accept we have temperatures going back as far as we have reliable measurements and means to verify. Currently, this stands at around 10,000 years.
Climate scientists would doubtless argue their data is good enough for 200,000 years or more. Take it up with them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
We need the infrastructure to carry lots of power with minimal loss even if we use solar, so we can do that now. We know the general parameters for a fusion reactor, so we can pick sites, discuss limits a reactor must be between, and build the skeleton of the site now.
You're right, it won't be a quick fix, but that shaves 10--15 years off the timeframe. If half the trillion dollars per year went to solar, we'd have enough solar power to bridge the gap without worrying. Half a trillion buys a lot of solar.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
temps measured in cores have been going up and down for at least 450,000 years, maybe 1.5 million years. https://www.google.com/imgres?...
nothing to see here - move along
A contributing factor is all of the hot air being expended by deniers
I am referring to the paper which explains the changes in the dataset. It's easy to find.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The validity of the theory isn't really dependent on the temperature record. Particularly, the properties of carbon dioxide are not determined by the temperature record. The exact value for climate sensitivity is an interesting academic question, but the lower bound is based on some pretty hard thermodynamics. A doubling of CO2 must produce at least 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Yes, and it takes tens of thousands of years to produce a global four degree shift. That's quite a difference from a single century, don't you think? It's the gradient that matters. However, even with absolute values, there are very very few species that are around today that were around 450 million years ago, simply because the climate was too different for them to survive.
We also have less global data with ice cores alone. With the points up to 10,000 years ago, we can get a detailed picture of the climate across the entire globe. We can therefore test our ability to predict based on historic data and an understanding of historic outcomes. However, we do have some data points for 1.5 million years, as you say. Glad we're in agreement that temperatures are known for more than just the past century.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, it's not flat 2001-2016. Even eyeballing, it's not flat. If you do regression on the period 1970-2000 and 1970-2016 the trend continues upwards, and doesn't change by very much. There are statistical techniques you can use to determine if there was an inflection point in 2001: there was not. And this is even without the corrections suggested by Cowtan and Way showing that polar warming was underestimated. Add that in and the trend doesn't change, and the rate of change barely even changes.
The reason is that polar warming and be underestimated. There is satellite data for the poles but few direct measurements. They had made an assumption about the relationship between direct and satellite measurements that was incorrect. It turned out that warming at the poles was greater than they had been indicating. This is what happens in science - errors get corrected.
The 1940s were cold, relatively speaking. Data back to the 19th century is published. Anomalies have to be published relative to a baseline, and the period picked in the past was essentially the period just passed that everyone remembered so people had an instinctive reference point. However, that baseline has simply become the standard.
Swedish.
You're talking about events 2 years ago. These scientists arent talking about the current temperature recordings
They are figures from 2018, not 2016. They are very much talking about current temperatures, up to and including last month.
A test was done by removing the urban stations from the record. The temperature trend showed greater warming without the urban sites.
Not to mention that the actual locations of the weather stations are not evenly distributed around the world. Most of them are in the US and Canada. So, you can't just take an average of all the reporting stations and expect to get a world average. It'll be heavily skewed towards North America, which completely invalidates it since the northern hemisphere has a higher variance than the southern hemisphere.
So if they use the raw data it's bad, but if they adjust the data to remove outliers and adjust for the mix of locations of measurement sites, it's bad too?
the article says since 1880 - but we've been hotter at least 4 times in the past based on core data. the gradient does not mean as much as the absolute. sun blocking particulates from the likely asteroid strike (or maybe volcanoes) on earth had a much, much bigger effect. we're nowhere near that from burning fossil fuels. all that is ignored in the article. and in most arguments.
nothing to see here - move along