Slashdot Mirror
2018 Was Earth's Fourth-Hottest Year on Record: NOAA and NASA Report (cnbc.com)
The string of hotter-than-average annual temperatures continued in 2018, as Earth experienced its fourth-hottest year on record, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [PDF]. From a report: Also in 2018, the United States suffered 14 weather and climate disasters with costs surpassing $1 billion during a warmer- and wetter-than-average year, NOAA reports. Global temperatures across land and sea were 1.42 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, making 2018 the fourth-warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA said in a report Thursday. In a separate report, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said global temperatures were 1.5 degrees above the 1951 to 1980 mean, also the fourth highest going back to 1880.
The 2-degrees Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century has been driven largely by growing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, said the institute's director, Gavin Schmidt. The conclusion reaffirms NASA's long-established finding that man-made emissions are driving climate change, which President Donald Trump and some senior administration officials frequently challenge. By both agencies' measures, Earth has now recorded its five hottest annual average temperatures in the past five years. "2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend," Schmidt said in a press release.
The 2-degrees Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century has been driven largely by growing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, said the institute's director, Gavin Schmidt. The conclusion reaffirms NASA's long-established finding that man-made emissions are driving climate change, which President Donald Trump and some senior administration officials frequently challenge. By both agencies' measures, Earth has now recorded its five hottest annual average temperatures in the past five years. "2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend," Schmidt said in a press release.
...weather isn't the same as climate. At least that's what all the AGW zealots say when we have a cold snap.
Have gnu, will travel.
NASA does not have a long-standing finding that Mankind is driving climate change; they have a long-standing belief, and have made statements, but still no scientific proof.
And here's another article that just parrots this misuse of words.
I want to solve some real problems. Er.. when those cookies get done can you please slap an extra cheesy slice of deep dish right on the end of my tongue please?
that dietary intake may finally explain this
https://science.slashdot.org/c...
The summary points out that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, but neglects to mention that the three hotter years were all this decade, with 2016 being the hottest since records began.
Of course, nothing with stop the global warming deniers...
Satellite data, last I heard, has 2018 ranked sixth hottest of all time, so technically you're correct if you're talking about the RSS dataset.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Satellites don't measure surface temperature
Believe what I believe or you're not doing science
How's that heliocentrism doing? I mean the science is settled right? 97% of natural philosophers agree!
We just don't know it yet.
And if you can't discuss that without shouting HERETIC!!!!, err, "denier", you're just another religious fanatic.
I wont' call you any of those things. I'm just calling you completely misinformed by fossil fuel industry propaganda. When we can see glaciers and ice caps melting at an alarming rate, average sea temperatures rising to the point that marine life is being damaged (let's remember how many billions of people depend on the sea), it becomes quite clear that the climatologists have been holding back the bad news. We have until 2030 to get our collective acts together or future generations are going to be screwed. And they will look back on us with utter contempt for our stupidity - not ignorance -stupidity.
...weather isn't the same as climate. At least that's what all the AGW zealots say when we have a cold snap.
Correct: weather is not the same thing as climate. A single cold winter in a single place is not evidence against global climate change, nor, on the other hand, is a single warm winter in a single place evidence for global climate change.
That's why this is relevant: this is not a single location, it is a global average, and it is not a single day or even a single month, it is a average over a year.
And it is one data point in a trend: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...
That is what we mean by climate.
But you knew that.
NASA does not have a long-standing finding that Mankind is driving climate change; they have a long-standing belief, and have made statements, but still no scientific proof.
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements.
That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
Crap, how did we forget the sun? You should contact the nearest scientist about that before it's too late.
Just a little while ago /. ran an article about the internet becoming more civil. Then this article happened.
All you've demonstrated is not that climate modeling has no value, but the opinions of dumb faggots like yourself with your head completely up your asshole trying muffle out excuses for denialism just simply do not matter. You're a worthless faggot.
It's an open question whether you can be educated in any way, or should just be killed for the good of society. I'm with the latter view. You retarded, uneducated, inbred denialist Republican faggots are worthless and not recovering.
Kill yourselves in a tidy fashion please, denialist faggot. Don't make us hunt you cowards like dogs, we certainly will. You traitors need to die.
Whiplash is a known denialist faggot. Not a climate researcher. A bullshit talking point turd polishing faggot of no actual value to science, the climate study, discussion, or this country. Just another FUD republican faggot.
Rope. That's the solution. That's how you handle shilling traitor exhaust-breathing faggots like whiplash. Don't bother entertaining denialist faggots unless you plan to clean up after their brutal murder, as I do.
When your lakes, rivers, ponds, and oceans are polluted to the point it is dangerous to even swim in. You have a problem.
Where you have ground water needing to be filtered and clean to make it drinkable. You have a problem
When you have a area of a very large ocean so polluted that it is visible from space. You have a problem
When you look out any window, any place, any where and see trash. You have a problem.
When you have to wear a mask to go outside so that you can breath. You have a problem.
Pollution will us much quicker than fucking Global warming. you put a stop to pollution, your fucking Global Warming crisis will disappear.
Fucking morons
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"at 420 PPM does it enhance the insulation affects of the air." Well, yes, it does. That science is very, very settled and for you to lie about it just makes you seem dumber than we know you to be already. Which is fucking retarded, faggot.
You really ought to get a head start running before we find out who you are.
Get your skinny ass over here scientist and bring the cookies so we will have enough energy to finish predicting where the solar flares will hit. And creinette! How does your crotch get so filthy? I literally have to give it a deep cleaning five times a day? There will be beatings
Yes, the sun heats the Earth, but CO2 slows the rate at which that heat escapes.
"As for the 420ppm is nothing" B.S. - The atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen(~78%), oxygen(~21%), and argon(~0.9%), all of which are transparent to infrared radiation, and thus irrelevant to the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet from being a frozen ball of ice. That leaves the last 0.1% of trace gasses for greenhouse warming - and over 93% of that is CO2. (There's also water, but that varies wildly and self-regulates through evaporation and precipitaion)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
Kurt Vonnegut
There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations, bewildered by the roaring of the sea and the surging of the waves. Men will faint from fear and anxiety over what is coming upon the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. .. But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. On account of My name, they will deliver you to the synagogues and prisons, and they will bring you before kings and governors.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
So now we have until 2030 before we're truly doomed? It seems like every 10 years that goalpost gets pushed another 10 years down the road.
I WILL watch you die, for free. Get ready. We will see you soon faggot traitor.
Do you french kiss your mother with that mouth?
temperatures in 1880 questionable. A date somewhere in the 1970's or 80's would seem to be more realistic.
It's so absurd to try and make sweeping assessments of things like climate based on a record that's less than 40 years old. We started tracking data in the 80's...
You might want to read the summary a bit more carefully.
since record-keeping began in 1880
That would be 140 years, not 40 years.
The global temperature appears to have had a positive slope for at least 200 years.
I notice you fail to give any source for your assertion.
Here is a graph of temperature data reconstructed back to 1850:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-sea-ice-comparison-large-1024x788.png
The slope has a marked increase after 1900.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements. That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
It's far from the only way science is done - try repeatable experiment, or control group (obviously difficult).
A repeatable experiment is one way to compare models to results, of course. In some fields, like astronomy and climate science, however, we use measurements. Either way, however, the point is to compare models with results.
That's how science is done.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
Someone not believing the model does not have to provide an alternative.
Obviously you're not a scientist, because in fact this is how science is done. You compare your hypothesis to an alternative hypothesis, and keep throwing out the hypothesis that doesn't match the observations.
The null hypothesis (LOOK IT UP), that human carbon dioxide doesn't affect climate, has failed to match observations. It has been ruled out. The best model we have right now is that the physical effect known as global warming is real. If you want to convince scientists it's not, you need an alternate model, and you need it to not be contradicted by the measurements.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
Those providing the model need to prove that it's true.
No, you weren't paying attention. Scientists don't "prove a model is true". The best they ever do is show that it fits the observations, and they then accept it as the best model until a model that explains the observations better is found.
In this case, the increased human contribution to greenhouse gases is minuscule compare to other sources, so the model is really assuming that we;'re at an (unproven) tipping point. Starting with a false hypothesis or set of assumptions can only lead to a false outcome.
Um, what? You are basically saying you don't know anything about the history of scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect?
Yes, indeed, the human-contributed greenhouse gasses produce warming that is small compared to the natural greenhouse effect. This has been known for a century. Without the natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (primarily water vapor), the Earth would have an average temperature below zero.
It is the change in temperature due to human contributed gasses that we're talking about. And, fortunately, we have really good measurements of how much carbon dioxide we've put in the atmosphere, and also good measurements of the infrared absorption profile of carbon dioxide.
Sort of - this is where the real dragons lay.
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out.
No, in fact you're wrong here. If you average noisy data, you get less noisy data.
This is fundamental to measurement theory.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/understand-tradeoffs-increasing-resolution-averaging
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3488/en/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_averaging
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
Why don't they post about solar activity like the upward trend in solar flares and the sun's cycle of sunspots. I beleive lower sunspot activity actually increases the amount of energy expelled into the solar system. What happens when you turn up the furnace in your house . . .it gets hotter.
Because we measure the energy output of the sun and have been measuring it constantly, with good resolution, since the 1960s (and with poorer resolution for longer than that.)
We know that changes in solar activity aren't causing the warming because we measure the changes in solar activity, and the sun is not putting out more energy now than it was in 1960.
(The main change is the 12 year sunspot cycle, which averages out)
Pretty soon the world will be too hot for the pale skins and you will be outbread by the black and brown skin people. This is why all the politically correct middle class white folks spend sooo much time worrying about CO2. Well guess what, there is a time coming when you will not be able to force your racist cold weather on the planet. The world is getting hotter, and the whites need to find another place to live. Or not.
There are more ways to measure historical temperature than with a thermometer. Hard to believe, but true.
I don't respond to AC's.
Seriously.
Come up with a real, working ENGINEERING solution to help fight the problem.
Standing there with your thumbs up your ass, screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!" accomplishes NOTHING.
People are basically becoming hardened to it. And it's being interpreted as "WAH! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" while having zero ideas about what to actually do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
CO2 is actually 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. Not 93% of 0.1% --- if I can do this math in my current sleep deprived state, it's more like 40% of 0.1%
And I'm going to double-down on the GP's assertion that such a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect for us to notice or care and certainly not enough to get us to bankrupt the world to try and change it EVEN IF IT DID have even as much of an effect as five degrees of warming over the next hundred years.
Your assertions are irrelevant, in the face of decades of evidence against you.
We could, however, ask you for sources.
You know, instead of screaming about persecution and heresy while pretending you actually contributed something of factual value.
We only have 20 years, for the 3rd time in a row, to save the planet before we all die.
Up next: The fear mongering Net Neutrality article if the day where we pretend its about equal bandwidth rules when it's actually about kicking conservative media off the internet.
Whatever, another article about how we are all doomed.
Here's what I want to see, solutions that work. Wind and solar don't work because without massive levels of storage to even out the varying load to the varying demand then it simply cannot keep the lights on. Also, add up all the resources needed to build all these windmills, solar panels, and batteries, and you will find yourself a situation that will destroy the economy and/or the environment in trying to dig up all the materials needed.
You think wind and solar don't have any environmental impact? Where do you think all that steel, aluminum, copper, concrete, rare earth elements, and so on come from? We dig it out of the ground, that's where it comes from. Same for the batteries, that stuff has to be dug up, refined, machined, molded, and transported to the construction site. This takes energy and materials. Energy and materials we cannot produce in any meaningful time frame.
We need solutions, not another restatement of the problem. Seems no one wants to speak of what that solution might be.
Oh, and I give citations on why the solutions brought up so often will not work.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
https://www.withouthotair.com/
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
farmers do not use Co2 to keep the green houses warm. They use big barrels of water . absorbs in the day, radiates at night.
deniers is a term given to people oppoesed to the tax policies, not the theory.
now its my turn to be called a faggot. and..... go
Ooh look, more dribbling idiocy from blind, how appropriate a name, given your blindness to reality.
Yes, rounding errors exist. But look at your own source a little more carefully, my error was in the 0.1%, NOT the 93%: All trace gasses combined are actually 0.04338% rather than 0.1%. Which means that CO2 is 0.0407%/0.04338% = 93.82% of all trace gasses. And it's worth noting that most of the remaining gasses are ALSO not greenhouse gasses, so CO2 is approaching 100% of greenhouse gasses.
You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the percentage of CO2 is only miniscule compared to the gasses that have no effect on global warming. It's like trying to shine a light through a stack of 996 sheets of crystal-clear glass, and 4 layers of mylar. The glass won't really make much difference compared to the mylar. We could have 10x more oxygen and nitrogen in the air, and the planet wouldn't get noticeably warmer. Or we could get rid of the CO2 and the surface of the planet would freeze solid.
The moon is a good reference point for the "normal" temperature of something our distance from the sun. It gets the same amount of sunlight we do, and actually absorbs a lot more than us since it's surface is basically coal black, but it's temperature swings from -183C at night to 106C during the day - averaging out to about -39C (-102F). Without the "miniscule amount" of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere Earth would be even colder.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The best part...the trend line shows the temperature going down not up. Of course this display was back when they were telling us were still in an ice age and all going to die and they needed more money to study the phenomena.
Basically I'm sure we could chart all the dangerous threats from weather/climate and discover a correlation with the funding levels in the scientific community. ....... "Ok just keep it at these levels until I can retire.....er I mean find a solution to the crisis"
Funding going down......"OH NO WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM.......please insert crisis here [cold/heat/flooding/bees dying/asteroids/starvation/radiation]"
Funding going up
Basically I've got my bases covered I live far enough south another ice age will at most just force me to start wearing pants on a regular basis, and I'm far enough from the ocean to enjoy a boost in my property values if the oceans were to rise from global warming. I've got plenty guns for dealing with all the starving looters that either crisis will generate.
Measuring temperatures on land surfaces and sea surfaces gives a misleading sense of the heating of the planet. Almost certainly 2018 is the warmest year in recent times if you consider the total heat content of the seas. Deep ocean temperatures are rising but there is not yet systematic measurement of the deep seas. But as long as CO2 keeps rising, it's very likely that total heating of the Earth does too. Every year is the hottest year on record and the capacity of the deep ocean to moderate surface temperatures via mixing with surface water and cooling the air is being diminished.
Measuring temperatures on land surfaces and sea surfaces gives a misleading sense of the heating of the planet. Almost certainly 2018 is the warmest year in recent times if you consider the total heat content of the seas. Deep ocean temperatures are rising but there is not yet systematic measurement of the deep seas. But as long as CO2 keeps rising, it's very likely that total heating of the Earth does too. Every year is the hottest year on record and the capacity of the deep ocean to moderate surface temperatures via mixing with surface water and cooling the air is being diminished.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
they measure radiance in IR and microwave bands and so get the surface temperature that way.
sounds like you made a Trump sound bite there. Satellites have been obtaining surface temperature via radiance measurements for decades.
(There's also water, but that varies wildly and self-regulates through evaporation and precipitaion)
Waitaminute. How does water self regulate? If a temperature rise causes evaporation and a temperature decrease causes precipitation then would not this process overwhelm any warming effect from CO2 given the far higher quantity of water on Earth by comparison?
The heat that Earth gets comes from the sun, with minor additions from things like radioactive decay, cosmic radiation, and so on. This heat is dissipated into space by the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun, and the movement of a powerful greenhouse gas we know as H2O in the atmosphere. The claim that the incredibly minuscule levels of CO2 is the cause of any kind of global warming seems quite implausible if one were to claim that H2O regulates it's content in the atmosphere based on temperature through phase changes from vapor to liquid.
The climate changes, we always knew that. What seems to be the debate is the cause. If we can show human activity is participating then there is debate on how much. Then we must debate on if this is good or bad. Seems quite possible that the change in CO2 could be not from human activity but a result of natural warming. It's also possible that the increase in CO2, and the warming that caused it or resulted from it, is beneficial to human life. Humans are a tropical species and a bit of warming might be helpful. Plants are currently starving for CO2 since they evolved through periods with far higher CO2 than we have now, more CO2 means more plant life. More plant life means more food, cheaper food, healthier food, and therefore an improvement in human lives.
Yes, the sun heats the Earth, but CO2 slows the rate at which that heat escapes.
Sure, I'll buy that. What I have a problem with is the teeny tiny contribution that CO2 has on the rate of heat loss compared to the huge self regulating effect H2O has on the atmosphere. Don't take my word for it because I'm a nobody. Listen to far more educated people than myself like Dr. Patrick Moore. There is no global warming gas like H2O. The CO2 will not acidify the oceans because there are far too many natural buffering agents for that to matter. Sea levels rise and sea levels fall, CO2 has next to nothing to do with it.
With that said I will go along with the theory of human CO2 caused catastrophic global warming so long as there are meaningful, logical, and practical solutions. You want to tell me that my daily commute in a gasoline burner truck is killing the planet? Fine, give me a practical alternative and I'll take it. I've seen practical solutions proposed but we don't seem motivated enough, yet, to make it happen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My bad... small screen, bad eyes. But even 140 years is nothing in terms of climate and we lack enough data to make any reasonable judgments.
You are correct, I just didn't want to get into the details with someone who quite likely doesn't care. Especially since the behavior of water in the atmosphere is quite complex, and not completely well understood (e.g. do clouds reflect more sunlight and cool the planet, or more infrared and warm it? Recent studies suggest the latter, though a narrow enough margin that there may actually be no net effect either way".) It's still very much an area of active research, and I'm far from an expert. I can give a basic 1000ft overview though.
Basically yes, water is a potent greenhouse gas, and as temperature rises (globally) the amount of water vapor in the air will also rise, and accelerate the process. But water alone can only push things so far - adding an extra unit of water to the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the air, but not by enough to raise the maximum amount of water the air can hold by a full unit. Keep adding more water, and eventually the air is saturated (100% humidity) and you get precipitation and/or condensation dumping water out of the air at least as fast as evaporation is adding more. That's the self-regulation: you can't get runaway global warming with water alone, because the higher you drive the %humidity, the faster the water leaves the air.
Add a unit of CO2 though and you get a similar warming effect, so that the air can hold more water, without changing the amount of water in the air, so the % humidity actually drops and precipitation becomes less likely. Evaporation will obviously continue adding more water until a stable %humidity is reached, but the important detail is that at the exact same %humidity, the absolute amount of water in the air is now higher, and thus so is the greenhouse effect of that water.
As for your various debates: We've shown pretty conclusively that Humanity is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 - it's easy to calculate roughly how much fossil CO2 we produce based on how much fossil fuel we consume, and we're producing it faster than the atmospheric concentration is increasing. If you were filling a pool with a garden hose, and the amount of water in the pool is increasing more slowly than you're adding it, then it doesn't matter how complex any other plumbing is, you can be fairly confident in stating that the amount of water would be decreasing without your contribution.
The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas can be tested in any middle-school science lab, and to argue that increasing amounts are somehow not raising the temperature of the planet is the extraordinary claim that requires evidence. Exactly how much it will do so directly is also relatively easy to calculate. The knock-on effects though, such as the effects of the correspondingly greater amount of water in the air on weather patterns, are indeed up for debate. As is exactly how much heating the planet can take before we tip its bistable climate out of the last 2.6 million years of icehouse conditions into the hot-house state it was in when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Which might be a good thing in the long term - but the transition has always been accompanied by mass-extinctions in the past, so even if we win in the long term, those intervening centuries of transition are likely to be brutal. There's also the rising sea levels to contend with, and it appears that the global climate patterns may actually have been even less stable than the glacial/interglacial cycle that characterizes an icehouse Earth.
We've also got some big data points already: as the polar icecaps melt the temperature difference between equator and poles decreases - and that difference is the driving force behind most of the world's wind and sea currents, which are slowing down in response. As those slow they start to wander, sometimes even looping back on themselves - the reason we're having to contend with the polar vortex here in the US, when it used to be a fast stream confined much closer to the poles. Slower more meandering air currents mean weather systems are
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Wouldn't that mean the Earth is cooling?
I don't deny climate change. I welcome it. The rich people that are denying it will be underwater and I'll have ocean front (or ocean-near) property.
If you reject all solutions by claiming without any credible evidence that they "don't work", what's the point? Why are you even talking here? What are you after? Are you just trying to sound smart by asserting superiority over people who know better than you?
There's a reason why most new generating capacity is already wind and solar. It's cheaper and faster to build than fossil fuel based power plants, and scales up just fine. You can keep denying it, or you can pull your head out of your ass and embrace the reality, and maybe start campaigning for some subsidies so we can make this transition happen even faster. The economy is already there, we just need to ramp up the rate of change by rewarding early investors.
If you reject all solutions by claiming without any credible evidence that they "don't work", what's the point?
My credible evidence:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
I'm taking Dr. Ripu Malhotra as far more credible evidence than most. Same for Dr. Patrick Moore. There's many others I follow on this topic, all very educated in energy and/or the environment. All far more credible on finding workable solutions than repeating the same mistakes with solar and wind hoping for a different result. Stop the insanity. We've had the solution for our power needs decades ago but it seems many are willfully blind to it. Civilization cannot continue without nuclear power, I'm quite certain of that as are many people smarter than you or I.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Oh wow, Gavin Schmitt? He failed statistics. How can anyone believe anything that alarmist conspiracy theoriest imagines?
The metrics dont even make sense. We're now down to counting warm days to determine average planetary temperatures?
How can we get a refund for such phony pseudoscience?
Um, that is not temperature, that is see ice. Google "global average temperature", and use the NASA data (I believe).
No, it's a graph of temperature. Read the axis label.
I happened to pick a temperature graph that shows two different methods of reconstructing past temperature, depending on whether the reconstruction puts sea ice in the "land" category or the "ocean" category, and showing that the TEMPERATURE result is the same. I picked that temperature graph, out of several choices, because it was the one that happened to a horizontal axis that covered the years in question.
I could have used a different one, this one for example: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...
I'm pretty sure I gave a link to the source data in this thread somewhere.
That's an assertion that can be easily checked.
No, you did not.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Best moving the goal posts slashpost post yet today. The data doesn't mean what we want, so we deny it. You are as bad as the deniers who think global warming is a hoax. You accept all the data, you don't remove outliers without a damn good reason (ideology is not a reason)
Um, no. The article and this discussion has been about SURFACE temperature. The post by WhiplashII linked to (one researcher's reconstructions of) temperature at 5 KM ALTITUDE. Saying "that's not surface temperature" is not "moving the goal posts"-- it's pointing out that the post was not relevant to the discussion.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com