The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record 552
New submitter NatasRevol (731260) writes The last three months were collectively the warmest ever experienced since record-keeping began in the late 1800s. From the article: "Taken as a whole, the just-finished three-month period was about 0.68 degrees Celsius (1.22 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average. That may not sound like much, but the added warmth has been enough to provide a nudge to a litany of weather and climate events worldwide. Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East." Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing.
bizwriter also wrote in with some climate related news: A new report from libertarian think tank Heartland Institute claims that new government data debunks the concept of global climate change. However, an examination of the full data and some critical consideration shows that the organization, whether unintentionally or deliberately, has inaccurately characterized and misrepresented the information and what it shows.
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
Well here we go again. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't know about you, but on MY systems, you don't need elevated privileges to get popcorn.
Comes with that rack of Pentium IVs in the closet.
Re:Well here we go again. (Score:4, Funny)
Comes with that rack of Pentium IVs in the closet.
You mainline Pentiums?
Re:Well here we go again. (Score:5, Funny)
Lazy bum.
# wget popcorn-6.2.1.tgz
# tar xvf popcorn-6.2.1.tgz
# cd popcorn-6.2.1
# ./configure --libs="-lbutter -lsalt"
# make
# make -install
Please forgive errors, I don't eat popcorn anymore so my popping skills are rusty, but still better than that microwave apt-get popcorn.
It'd be better, except the OS versions of libbutter and libsalt are either too old or too new, possibly both. So you need to build them too. But to build the right version of libbutter, you will need a specific version of libcow, which they forgot to actually tag in the source code repo. First you almost try to configure libbutter with -disable-dairy to get a non-dairy version only, but then you realize that it won't be real butter, and you're not desperate enough to consider getting popcorn without real butter yet. Trying random versions from libcow source repo doesn't give success either. So, you decide to get older popcorn version 5.6 instead. But after going through the process of building libcow, libbutter and libsalt, you discover that popcorn version 5.6 has a really annoying bug for your use case. First you see if you can backport the fix, but too much has changed so the fixed code in newer version does not look anything like the broken code in 5.6, and it's not easy to see how you could just simply fix it. So, then you fall back to apt-get source popcorn, because that should have the right versions and fixes and so on. And it does, it builds and installs perfectly!
Then, while enjoying the popcorn, you suddenly realize that it's exactly the same software you would have gotten with simple apt-get install, because you didn't actually change any configure options for your "custom" build.
But its cooler here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Rush Limbaugh claims there is no empiracle evidence for hlobal warming. I don't see why he would claim a need for weather to support that.
Re:But its cooler here... (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand Rush... He is actually claiming that "there is no empirical evidence of MAN MADE global warming."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually Rush has his head up his butt and can only see the inside of his intestines.
Re:But its cooler here... (Score:4, Insightful)
He does parody stuff, illustrating the logical failings of those who oppose his view
Rush has plenty of, uh, "logical failings" of his own. See below.
All you got to do is go back and read his books and listen to him for a few hours to know that he hasn't changed all that much....
Right, let's talk about his books.
In one, he tells people to stop worrying about the ozone layer because "the Sun makes ozone." A half-truth: yes, the Sun does make ozone, but it can't make it fast enough to overcome the destruction of ozone by CFCs.
Another similar fallacy: he says there are more trees in the USA now than when the first settlers arrived, so stop worrying about trees. I don't know, maybe that's true, but he ignores the fact that we are cutting these trees down at a much higher rate than the settlers ever did. Forestry management is about ensuring rates of growth are higher than rates of depletion, not how many trees you have at any moment.
I agree that Rush hasn't changed all that much. And he's still wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
The ozone layer is regenerating because the use of CFCs was regulated. If we had continued to pump more, it would overcome the sun's rate of production. Therefore I'm not sure of the point you're making; it's a success story for regulation. If we just forgot about it and didn't regulate, it wouldn't be regenerating fast enough.
Re:But its cooler here... (Score:4, Funny)
Though he discusses politics, He's not a pollination.
Ever since web browsers started enabling auto-correct, Internet comments have become very surreal.
Re: (Score:2)
Check those numbers, submitter (Score:3, Insightful)
Those aren't year over year increases, they are deltas from the 1951-1980 mean - and they have indeed been flat for a while.
C'mon, I believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat - but let's not make stuff up.
Re:Check those numbers, submitter (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously didn't actually look at the articles.
The deltas are increasing. They have not actually been flat for a while, like since the 60s.
say it isn't so! (Score:5, Funny)
Heartland Institute deliberately misrepresenting something to influence public policy? Surely you jest!
Re: (Score:2)
The scam works about like this. Anyone wanting to generate CO2 would have to buy carbon credits, imaginary items which are sold and speculated on by big finance. As CO2 limits decrease price increases = big profit.
It's like a tax, except the revenues go directly to the banks, bypassing the government entirely.
Re:say it isn't so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Heartland is factually lying to use, and the government telling us about AGW is based on actual scientific facts.
Hottest? (Score:2)
I have bad news for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear reality-based people,
You're talking to fantasy-based idiots who don't care about reality, they just want an excuse to keep treating Earth as an infinite resource and bottomless dump. They'll find an excuse to ignore this just like they find one to ignore all the rest. I'm sorry but the only thing that will make them shut up is when the changes punch the whole world in the teeth... Perhaps when I'm an old man and I tell stories about how California's central valley used to be one of the world's breadbaskets, and how the world's cities used to have beaches instead of shorewalls, and how the ocean used to teem with life before acidification killed most of the diatoms.
But at any rate, the idiots have "won" in that it's almost certainly too late to prevent some degree of disaster. All we can do now is treat the symptoms, and do our best to avoid any of the really bad ideas for treating them.
Re: (Score:3)
You leftist misanthropes are at the end of your con and you know it. The Central Valley used to be a breadbasket until the leftists started diverting vital irrigation water from farmers in favor of a minnow.
And before that it was a desert.
And before that it was an inland sea.
let me solve this right now (Score:2, Insightful)
1.Burning hydrocarbons: CnH2n+2 + 2O2 -> 2H2O +nCO2
2. CO2(atm) absorbs sunlight, increases vibrational energy, energy is released as atmospheric heat, warms up earth (just a little tiny bit, fine)
3. Even tho earth has it's own heat cycles, best not mess with it too much
Thus:
1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
3. Captains of Industry win on both sides: need hydrocarbons today & then drive new markets in energy efficiency. conservatives win on making money, Libera
Re:let me solve this right now (Score:4, Informative)
CO2 does NOT absorb sunlight in significant quantities. It's lowest wavelength absorption band is in the short-wave IR where the solar incidence is already very weak.
What CO2 does that makes it a greenhouse gas is that it prevents long-wave IR emission from the Earth into space, therefore helping to keep some of the energy that reaches the Earth from leaving.
Please get your "facts" straight.
Re:let me solve this right now (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Try to burn less hydrocarbons
2. Be more energy efficient
The problem is that your "solutions" are wrong. CC is not a problem today, and will not be a problem tomorrow. But it will be a problem 30-100 years from now. In the long term the best way to reduce CC is population control ... and the best way to do that is third world education and poverty elimination ... and the best way to do that is to maximize economic growth ... and burning less hydrocarbons is NOT going to do that. A coal fired plant in Africa may emit more CO2 today, but it will improve people's lives, make them prosperous enough to educate their children, and lead to a lower population 50 years from now, this reducing CO2 emissions in the long run.
For The Love of Glob! (Score:5, Insightful)
Miami is fucked. NYC, unless they build some wall, is fucked. So where are the debates on how to build the containment walls? Or the storm-proofed shelters? Or the projected increase in FEMA budget?
Or, you know, we could spin our wheels yet again bleeting on and on if humans caused this pickle or not. It doth not matter.
Re:For The Love of Glob! (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't give a shit about C02 emissions. It's stupid to assume that the world would give a shit, even if some other countries managed to. Honestly, I'm more pissed off about the other effects of burning coal (have you checked your mercury levels lately?) and fracking.
I'm also not suggesting the earth dies. I'm suggesting we/our economy/culture very may well. The earth doesn't give a shit, it's seen plenty hotter and plenty colder. It's humans that are fucked, well, keeping our pop above 7 billion anyway.
In terms of being a 'far-left' radical...I've hung out with that crowd. They are just as dumb and backwards as the far-right (surprise!). Now, my political philosophies can certainly be considered radical, but I bet not in the way you think. In brief: Computational Socialism (gasp!! The S word!) made viable through modular GW-scale lead-cooled fast reactors.
If your philosophy doesn't involve trying to raise the whole world (countries/borders are inhumane and out of date) out of poverty with the end goal of a stabilized world population...well then...fuck you.
Re:For The Love of Glob! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have seas 30 feet higher in 100-300 years and living with (say) 2314-year tech than current seas and year 2200 tech in 2314...or 2214. Hech, a 10% slowdown, miserably easy for an overbearing government to achieve, would yield a 30 year delta at the end. Hell, I'd rather have 2014 tech than 1984-tech.
Proposed solutions matter and should be judged in the context of tech advancement, or lack thereof. That's what saves lives.
You seem to be creating a false dichotomy, implying that addressing climate change would slow technological growth. Modernizing the power grid, storing energy from non-greenhouse gas generating power sources, better power management, electric cars, solar power, nuclear power, fusion, etc are all technologies that would make life better. Besides reducing green house gasses, energy ultimately becomes cheaper and pollution is reduced worldwide.
Sounds horrible. It's interesting to me that many opposed to AGW (not saying you), complain about the AGW alarmists, but they themselves are economic alarmists. As if addressing climate change will destroy the economy.
Re:For The Love of Glob! (Score:5, Insightful)
What - ocean acidification that kills off shellfish, warmer waters that kill off reefs, warmer climates that spread pine borer beetles to brand new areas causing billions in forestry damage and millions in local business damage, the current droughts in Texas and CA that have caused millions in agricultural losses - that's not enough?
Oh, right, it isn't. Some people will say that it isn't happening until the sea floods their house and their crops and animals die. It took famously seven plagues to convince the pharao that something was amiss. I'm guessing that we'll need our own seven plagues in a year before anything happens.
Keep it honest (Score:2)
The Heartland Institute skews the data by taking two points and ignoring all of the data in between, kind of like grabbing two zero points from sin(x) and claiming you're looking at a steady state function.
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Single data points cannot be used to make an argument - on either side - even if you're actually right. Intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the debate has made global warming/climate change a toxic topic.
Re:Keep it honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate: it's kinda like pointing out that the last 3 months have been the warmest on record in an attempt to convince people that there's a warming trend.
Not really, as that statement is not a comparison of two single points. It's guaranteeing that all points on record are lower than the latest one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Keep it honest (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a counter to the continuing lye that the temperature hasn't been increasing in the last decade.
There is no debate. It's happening, it's real, it's due to the excess CO2 human have been throwing into the air.
The debate we should be having is the best way to move forward with clean energy, and looking at any engineering ways we could reduce CO2 back to about 300ppm
Be we aren't having those becasue people keep lying and denying scientific facts.
There is a reason denier don't actually talk about the scientific facts, but instead lye and cherry pick.
Selective data (Score:2, Insightful)
Studies have been done on this before where the data was "managed". Certain readings that would show no temperature increase were not included citing "old equipment" or claimed that data was not relevant to their sample set. Certain instruments that would not support a desired result would have the equipment moved from the sheltered spot it was in to a much hotter area, for example over asphalt. Environmentalist have also been caught in changing the temperature reading on certain devices to be more favorabl
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
Absolutly-GISS temps heavily "adjusted" (Score:5, Interesting)
I see that the GISS temperature series is quoted to maintain the "hottest quarter" narrative.
See for example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
Much of the data has been created by infilling gaps, homogenization, and other adjustments. They cool the past, add adjustments to the present, and drop stations out of the network creating a warming signal.
It is no coincidence that the cleanest most reliable temperature measurement system for the USA the CRN (climate reference network run by NOAA) shows NO warming over the last decade, confirming that there has been no warming as seen in other temperature records for 13-17 years. (The 17 year is a satellite record also without adjustments by the global warming partisans).
The CRN has triple redundant air aspirated sensors in pristine observation sites spread uniformly through out the USA, so no adjustments are needed. Despite CO2 rising. The computer models are broken. See...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
The claim that the latest X period is the warmest is like a 30 year old man claiming that the last 5 years of his life have been the tallest in his entire record. Yet hes is not growing anymore !
Wanna buy a bridge? (Score:2)
If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. Hardly used, great condition.
First, clean up the data and explain the continual adjustments. You know, those adjustments that keep making the past look colder, and the present look warmer - despite effects like UHI. Make the raw data available, along with the methodology used in the processing.
Then, and only then, should anyone believe pronouncements about "warmest months ever".
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong focus. (Score:3)
I really wish the pro-AGW side wouldn't focus on these events so much. It's pretty much irrelevant whether a month or quarter were "the warmest on record" and only leads to deniers pointing out all the "coldest on record" events as they happen.
AGW is about long-term trends. Focus on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't that many "coldest on record" events happening.
Really? We broke record lows just this morning. And our last month has been well below average.
Yes, I realize my above was BS, but so is the "it's hot so it's GW" statements.
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't that many "coldest on record" events happening.
Actually, there are: Google: "Coldest on record" [google.com], first hit is "NOAA: Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record"
Re: (Score:3)
Close.
AGW is about the excess trapped energy do you too much CO2
Climate change is about the impact on the climate from the increase in energy.
AGW is easy falsifiable science. All the test could literally be done in a decent 8th grade science class.
Exact to the moment prediction in the climate, that's hard.
It's important to remember the AGW and climate change are not the same thing, although closely linked, natch.
Lie by omissions (Score:2)
Conveniently omitted from the report is a mention of Antarctic ice — which continues to set a record after a record [wattsupwiththat.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Volume vs. spread — hair-splitting. The submitter's write-up makes no distinction either.
My point was, an important piece of data was omitted. Which, in my not so humble opinion, constitutes a lie by omission.
And an important piece it is. You may not like the source I offered, but, whoever the messenger is, the facts are undeniable. Contrary to predictions of the computer models, the ice sheet in Antarctica is expanding — not shrinking [washingtonpost.com]. Mind you, these ar
Why bother arguing anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have two religious factions bickering. No amount of evidence for either Global Warming or the opposite will ever convince anyone. So here's my suggestion:
If you think Global Warming is real, move inland and arm yourself to shoot those that try to follow once the waters rise.
If you think Global Warming is a myth, move to the shores and enjoy the surprisingly cheap real estate.
Deal?
Re:Action is needed; arguing is a delay tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you keep electing people aged 50+, don't expect them to consider anything 20+ years in the future important.
"Supposed fact" (Score:5, Informative)
You know when they're using weasel words like this they're being disingenuous:
"Also, it puts to bed the supposed 'fact' that there's been a pause in temperature increase the last 17 years. Raw data shows it's still increasing."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Note also CO2 rose the entire tie, it just didn't get any warmer for 17 years.
This is an NOAA.gov stateent based on NOAA data. And they disagree with this? Ok, what's the source of their data? Have they told the NOAA they're wrong yet?
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe... [climate.gov]
The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score:2, Troll)
lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?
Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score:4, Informative)
lololololololol, were you expecting anything else?
Certainly a link [boston.com] to ice measures from various places on Earth and a discussion of how various models have held up to measurement over the past decade, regarding their predictive value.
Oh, nevermind - shut up and pay your carbon tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you notice, Bill, the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score:5, Informative)
The raw data shows the same warming trend [guim.co.uk]. And the adjustments are there for a good reason - otherwise the deniers would be complaining even more about the heat island effect and siting / instrumentation problems than they even are today (oh, and to head people off, the warming trend gets even stronger [noaa.gov] when you outright remove the "bad", "artificially hot" meteorological stations the deniers complain about). And all of the adjustments are cross-checked by a variety of peer-reviewed verification methods. For example, the heat island effect on stations is (among other methods) cross-checked by comparing windy days with still days, as wind greatly reduces the heat island effect.
In short, to anyone who thinks they've got some killer reason why the adjustments are wrong, simply write a paper, go through peer-review like everyone else has to do, and viola, you're part of the actual scientific debate and I'll take you seriously. Until then...
Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet if you take the raw data it doesn't show any significant difference from the adjusted data, certainly not enough to say they contradict each other.
As far as polar ice being measured from 1979, that's when the satellites went up that allowed us to monitor it continuously. Older records of ice are more fragmented (but still useful).
Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you should be taken seriously for the same reasons Jenny McCarthy should - the utter garbage you spew on a regular basis could lead innocent people with pitiful levels of scientific literacy to make harmful choices.
I take you seriously.
BTW everything roughly matches up with GISS. Everything. [csmonitor.com] There's nothing wrong with adjustments as Rei helpfully explained below. [slashdot.org]
Re:The Carbon Tax (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember my father talking with their friends. They would complain about high taxes and say about the politicians, "They'd tax the air we breathe if they could." They would all shake their heads. (c. 1960's)
Now these politicians have found the way to tax the air we breathe00it's called the Carbon Tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. "Heartland Institute cherry picks data... news at 11"
Re:The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
What gets me about cherry picking is that it's so common among the deniers that(from what I've seen and tried to understand of their behavior) they've just decided that "cherrypicking" is some kind of non-criticism that is dropped without reason as a trite dismissal, rather than a serious charge about intellectual integrity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I follow the Pope on Twitter.
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Informative)
So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.
Actually the summary is fairly untainted by facts. For instance:
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?
Except...
1) Arctic sea ice [uiuc.edu] is actually currently above last year's level, which was already a rebound of over 25 million square km more than the previous year at the minimum extents.
2) The ocean waters in the North Atlantic hurricane region are right around average [wxug.com] for this time of year, by no means "abnormally warm".
3) "Rashes of heat waves plague" various places every summer, and always have. NOAA recently reinstated 1934 as the hottest year in the US on record.
The article attacking the Heartland data does have a minor point, but it is absolutely true that temperatures have been essentially flat for around 17 years, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers trying to explain this pause, so it's clearly a real phenomena. We'll see if it continues, the El Nino this year is now expected to be a fairly minor event [noaa.gov].
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, the first chart you've linked to shows the sea ice curve being shifted progressively lower on the chart with each passing year.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. 2012 was a record low minimum, but 2013 was a significant rebound. This year is slightly above 2013 levels so far, contrary to the summary's alarmism.
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how a level that's still lower than almost all of the years that preceded it is "a significant rebound". If I was getting shorter by a foot a decade and one year I found I grew by an inch, I'd not take much solace in the fact.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to Arctic sea ice in 2013 is known as regression to the mean. [wikipedia.org] If that trend continues over the next 10 years or so then you might have something, otherwise you're just getting excited over a blip on the long term trend.
"Essentially flat" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from temperatures being fairly steady (e.g. a fairly small positive growth rate) over the past decade-ish. The preceding hundred years have been a very steady upward trend, and if that was some sort of fluke wouldn't the temperature have started regressing to the mean by now? It seems more likely to me that whatever long-scale effects are causing the upward trend have been attenuated by some short-term system.
Re: (Score:3)
The preceding few thousands years (since the last Ice Age) have been a very steady upward trend.
You don't know what you're talking about. Temperatures hit a maximum during the Holocene Climatic Optimum [wikipedia.org] ~5,000-9,000 years ago and have been on a slight downward trend ever since as you would expect from an examination of trends in Milankovitch Cycles. [wikipedia.org]
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Informative)
Your second chart shows a positive temperature anomaly over most of the area covered.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very close to average, with the main development region flat or below normal. The highest anomalies are well north of hurricane formation territory.
Regardless, the temperatures on that map are well within natural variability, not "abnormally warm". Also bear in mind that the "anomalies" are versus an arbitrarily chosen baseline in the first place.
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Like the first guy said, your chart shows sea ice area is clearly near the bottom. The summary says "trending near", not absolute lows. So you proved that point for them.
2)Your temperature graph shows quite a bit of white but on the whole, there is a lot more red tint than blue, especially considering the scale is over +/- 10C. Ask any 5 year old what the main color is for the ocean and they'll say red. Its obviously abnormally warm.
Every now and then I go down your "informed skeptic" rabbit holes to make sure I didn't miss anything in my personal conclusion that AGW is real and a problem, but every time the data YOU present always ends up refuting your point. Whats your game in all this?
Re: (Score:3)
Addendum: And if you do take the time to refute the supposed connection between the point presented in the post and the information in the link (or sometimes the info in the link itself), then you have fallen into a Research Glue Trap. Quick and easy for the trapper to lay down, nasty work for you to trudge through, and all it really accomplished was to waste your time and effort.
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
everything you said has been debunked by actual facts.
No, it is NOT true that temperatures have been essentially flat.
The sea ice is only a "rebound" because its being compared to the previous year which was THE LOWEST SEA ICE EVER RECORDED.
Thank you for the public service of displaying your ignorance, now go away.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad... [slate.com]
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, all those super-rich climatologists picking on poor impoverished Big Oil.
Re: The Heartland Institute (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what's so funny, they're one of the few groups untainted by the widespread liberal pro-warming bias the climatologists lean on to fill their coffers.
In stead, they are tainted (nay, funded) by the widespread corporate anti-science that big business inflict on the planet.
Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't just Japan. According to the article, the Japan Meteorological Society did do a study that focused on Japan, but NASA ran a similar study using different methods that got virtually the same results in a completely different part of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (Score:5, Informative)
This looks like a temperature map of the WHOLE EARTH [jma.go.jp] to me, found on the source site after about 10 seconds of terribly difficult clicking on a couple of buttons.
Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014
Why not? What prevents them from requesting data from other national science bodies? Is there some sort of science embargo on Japan that I don't know about?
English. So much fun. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the word "globally" is used in context with a subject that directly affects the globe, it's not a metaphor for (local) completeness, it means "everywhere on the globe." This is basic English.
It's been a consistently cool and wet spring and summer in the northern plains of the USA. This data is relative to the region of the northern plains, and is comprehensive within that region, but not globally. This data cannot, by itself, be interpreted as a global indicator, regardless of if it agrees or disagrees with the global data. One would not say "It has been globally cool and wet" based upon data for the northern plains.
Global climate data (you know, for the globe) will include data from all regions of the globe in order to determine a global average weather datum of any kind -- temperature, rainfall, etc. Anything less is regional. "It has been regionally cool and wet in the US northern plains this spring and summer."
Re: (Score:3)
The language was also probably translated from Japanese. So the author looked at the Japanese, considered the corresponding adjectives available (global vs. regional), and picked the one that would attract the most attention while still maintaining some credibility.
And as I said elsewhere: I guarantee you the Japanese Meteorological Agency does not have global records (in Antarctica, Argentina, the Sudan, Sweden, etc.) back to 1891. So in the proper context, the adjective "global" here can only mean comprehensive to their Agency's records for Japan.
You are a clown who does not know how to follow a link.
From the Slate article:
The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June globally since at least 1891, when its dataset begins.
The words "June 2014" are a link: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html [jma.go.jp]
If you follow it you find a nice page written in English which explains where the data comes from:
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.'s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, thermometers were invented around that time. But to record GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, you need two thing: 1) an accurate thermometer. Yes, they existed prior to 1980. But you also need 2) global measurements. Prior to satellite measurements, there were very large parts of this globe that didn't have any measurements at all. There were accurate thermometers, they just weren't located all over the place.
And, surprise, the satellites, when they are correctly calibrated, confirm the thermometer data.
In a qualitative sense, not getting the small area over the poles is MUCH different than not getting the vast majority of the planet at all.
ignoring the little problem that the poles may be warming faster than the rest of the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no doubt that the dataset referred to is that collected by the Japanese Agency alone, specifically on Japanese-governed lands and territories. If you want to prove me wrong, then have at it.
Here's your proof. Not that you'll believe it. It took all of 3 clicks from the first article to find it.
"JMA monitors the global climate with CLIMAT and SYNOP reports from NMHSs through the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) of WMO. Quality-checked data on temperature and precipitation are assembled to assess extreme climate events. Weekly, monthly and seasonal monitoring reports on extreme climate events with brief descriptions of disastrous events are available on this page, along with world distrib
Re: (Score:2)
Data that goes ALL THE WAY BACK to the 1800s?
Yes, the set that shows global warming starting to significantly ramp up in the 1830's - current models not yet successfully covering that period.
Re:1800s (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the last sentence of the first article good enough for you?
In April, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a monthly average of 400 parts per million for the first time in at least 800,000 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, just no humans. Or any of our current livestock.
Sounds great. No livestock, huge predators. Sign me up.
Re: (Score:3)
Proto humans.
Re: 1800s (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the MWP was a full three degrees warmer then the 1990's. Which were warmer then now.
What you think, is, of course, your own problem (although the "a full three degrees warmer" must come from some very creative interpretation of the record). But how do you get the ideas that the 1990's were warmer than it is now? The 1990s were about 0.2 degree C colder than 2013, and this year will most likely be warmer still. There was one exceptional year (1998) that was marginally warmer than 2013. Of course, these short-term trends are heavily influenced by noise, so the significance of these results is low. But that's no reason to make wrong claims.
Re: (Score:2)
This article isn't about a single observable proof of climate change so I don't get what relevance your rant has. In fact, given that the story is allegedly about climate change deniers mis-using data that shows climate change as '
Re: (Score:3)
The summary claims that these were the three warmest months in history, measured all over the world. That isn't proof of global warming, and I don't think anybody said it was. It's evidence of global warming, sure. I'm pretty sure global warming has caused serious problems, although it's impossible to say "X event was a result of global warming".
Also, while last winter here was really cold, the theory predicts global warming, which means they average temperatures where we're freezing our asses off wit
Re:ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
"And every time we have an unusual hurricane, the people who were saying 'weather is not climate' point at the hurricane and say 'see, proof positive of global warming!'
No, actually we don't. The most anyone credible will say is that a warmer climate might mean more intense and more frequent storms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would never confuse my opinion on this science with being a Libertarian opinion
The problem is that Libertarians are against government regulation, but are theoretically for being forced to pay for fucking shit up. In practice, a lot of Libertarians fall into two camps: "I want to toke up whenever I want" and "I want to dump whatever I want on everyone else". That practice leads to things like this, where they are desperate to prove the shit coming out of their smokestacks and effluent drains smells like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are a number proxies for climate in the past. [wikipedia.org]
Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments, and carbonate speleothems. The character of deposition or rate of growth of the proxies' material has been influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. To produce the most precise results, systematic cross-verification between proxy indicators is necessary for accuracy in readings and record-keeping.
Re:Its even worse than we thought (Score:5, Interesting)
If I raised your core body temperature by 2C indefinitely you would eventually keel over and die. Don't underestimate small changes when they act globally.
Re:Its even worse than we thought (Score:5, Insightful)
I am eventually going to keel over and die anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Me too. I'd just rather postpone that day as much as possible, and have a good time while getting there.
On an achy day, my mother used to say, "Never grow old." However upon further consideration, I think growing old is usually preferable to failing to.
(Many caveats apply, "Growing old" is meant in the physical sense, of course making lifestyle choices to retain capacity. "Growing old" in the mental sense is also something of a choice.)
Re: (Score:3)
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
Well, yes, yes we are. (filter error: 'Don't use so many caps' I'm QUOTING the OP you moronic filter bastard!)
Re: (Score:3)
So the global average was the warmest on record, and you point out that the US was a bit cool. You think this means that global warming isn't happening (actually you are probably smarter than that you are just trying to trick those that casually read your comment); but actually what this means is that it must have been _crazy hot_ somewhere else to balance out the relatively cool US and still come out as the top temp.
-AndrewBuck
Re: (Score:3)
No matter any medium-sized volcano can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do in a century of industrial production ...
I stopped reading when I got to that line. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released about 42 million tonnes of CO2. That's less than 0.2% compared to the 23 billion tonnes released by humans that year,
Re: (Score:3)
The weather will get bad in many places, with continued global warming. Various areas are probably suffering from it right now, it's just that we don't know which areas and how much influence.
By "GW advocate", you are referring to the nonscientists, aren't you? There's a bunch of idiots on both sides, but the science seems to be rather one-sided.