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.
That's why the article talks about the five hottest years on record (the last five years, with 2018 being the fourth hottest), and not about the weather of a few days.
only idiot zealots still deny AGW
"if you disagree with my orthodoxy it's heresy!"
who's the zealot?
As I stated in a prior post, this has been true for most years for the last 200 years or so. "It is warmer" does not provide evidence for CO2 based AGW, since it has been getting warmer for at least 200 years.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/la...
Personally, I think the satellite data set is better - it is harder to mess with, avoids the problems of only measuring near humans, and measures more of the system in question.
But again, none of this really says anything about proving CO2 based AGW.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
I've been hearing this a lot more frequently recently, and I wonder what you think scientific "proof" is, and what happens when something is scientifically "proven"?
The reason I ask is that I'm married to a scientist (as it turns out a geophysicist), and as a technologist I've spent decades of my life dealing with scientists and scientific data, and I do not believe I have ever heard a scientist utter the word "proof" in connection to any scientific question. I've heard lawyers, politicians and other laymen do so... even science teachers. I've seen movie scientists talking about proving things. But never actual scientists, at least not when they're talking among themselves.
I think this is because "proof" presupposes something that's outside the scientific paradigm -- establishing a kind of unassailable truth.
It is simply factually false to say there are no findings that there has been warming, but I think you are using "finding" in a way that a scientists would not. There have been findings that contradict the warming hypothesis all along, as well as findings that support it. But when you look at systematic reviews, they have for decades now concluded that the bulk of the evidence is overwhelming in favor of anthropogenic climate change. But I have a feeling that isn't really "proof", which seems to mean "beyond any possible doubt".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Pollution will us much quicker than fucking Global warming.
You accidentally a word there.
you put a stop to pollution, your fucking Global Warming crisis will disappear.
Sure, as long as you include CO2 pollution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"