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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'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)
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)
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
A test was done by removing the urban stations from the record. The temperature trend showed greater warming without the urban sites.