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.
were produced in california
anyone know
...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.
And if you can't discuss that without shouting HERETIC!!!!, err, "denier", you're just another religious fanatic.
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.
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...
More liberal lies!
We just don't know it yet.
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.
...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.
Just a little while ago /. ran an article about the internet becoming more civil. Then this article happened.
The sun heats the earth. C02 does not heat the earth nor at 420 PPM does it enhance the insulation affects of the air. There are large amounts of evidence that the sun's output has varied during the industrial age and many eons in the past.
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
You don't matter punkass traitor, you're not intelligent enough to have an opinion either way faggot. You're too dumb to matter. We'll do whatever regardless of whatever your faggot ass says anyway. You're just a pile of dumb shit.
Your value = 0.
Face it, you are nothing but a head-in-ass faggot trying to deny reality. Good luck with that, don't fart or you'll blow your faggot head clean off.
"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
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... this is just more hysteria to drive the climate change agenda. The earth has been hotter, it's been colder, seas have risen, seas have fallen. Reporting about the five hottest years out of a pool of 39 years is meaningless data to something that moves as glacially as climate.
The time period chosen for comparison supports the political agenda for justifying global taxation. When examined over much longer periods of time, the climate change appears to be cyclical over 60 years and cycles within cycles of thousands of year.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
And hence this is why nobody believes it.
temperatures in 1880 questionable. A date somewhere in the 1970's or 80's would seem to be more realistic.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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