NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record 360
Titus Andronicus writes: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both announced today that 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental temperature record, surpassing the prior winners, 2010 and 2005. NASA also released a short video. They said, "Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years. However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year."
pics or it didn't happen (Score:5, Informative)
Departure of global temperature from average for 2014 (NOAA) [wxug.com]
Earth's departure in temperature from the 20th century average during the period 1880 - 2014, according to NOAA. [wxug.com]
global departure of temperature from average from 1965 - 2014 (scepticalscience.com) [wxug.com]
Article: 2014: Hottest Year in Recorded Human History [wunderground.com], Dr. Jeff Masters' blog entry at wunderground.com.
Bad science, at least the claim... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
No need; they'll just mandate a switch from Farenheit to Celcius. Instant drop in temperature!
Do you really buy your own BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Who is this we? None of us (you, me, them, us) will be around when what you describe happens. And while it will be different when it does happen, it isn't like it will happen over night and the world will adjust to it as it is happening so it's not entirely likely to play out as you think it might.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In over 100 years the average has warmed 8/10's of a single degree.
Given the rate we are reproducing we will run out of resources as well as overpopulate ourselves into a corner well before we are done in by global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait what? Did you read the Summary?
In over 100 years the average has warmed 8/10's of a single degree.
Given the rate we are reproducing we will run out of resources as well as overpopulate ourselves into a corner well before we are done in by global warming.
I think you sorely underestimate the impact a few degrees can have on global climate, and the effects a slight change in global climate can have on our food supplies and energy consumption. The hyperbolic 10 degree shift is a long ways off (and we may self-correct before then), but any shift has consequences, and not all of them are in the distant future.
Reproduction rates self-correct in a generation or so; resource management is bounded by definition. But there's only a small wedge of potential planetar
Re: (Score:3)
No, all of the climate change deniers will move to Florida to take advantage of the bargain prices on beachfront property.
Re:Do you really buy your own BS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity, if its not getting hotter how do you explain why of 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years?
Its basically the same question as why if its not getting hotter, how do you account for the fact that virtually every single glacier on the planet is melting away faster than ever previously recorded?
The odds that it is not getting are by any credible estimate one may care to take, incredibly small, so small that no one needs any longer to take such assertions seriously.
However, the AWG deniers are free to answer the above two questions. The fact that 1) they have not done so and 2) the fact that they can not do so pretty much demonstrates its getting hotter to anyone who is able to think clearly. In fact, it is now getting hotter at a rate of about 36 times the rate that it got hotter during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the fastest climate induced heating spike in Earth's planetary history.
The inconvenient truth is that the reason it is getting hotter is the accumulation of carbon dioxide generated predominantly by humans burning fossil fuels. This is particularly inconvenient since most of the carbon dioxide enters the oceans and is causing an extraordinary lowering of the pH of seawater. In as little as 200-300 years most of what we now think of as the marine food chain will be gone, because many of those creatures at the bottom of the food chain will be unable to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons. A rather big deal for humans, who derive about 50% of their protein from the oceans. Its already beginning to happen over big swaths of the NW Pacific Ocean.
Re:PDF chart (Score:5, Funny)
There are obviously hiding something!
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
It started 3 years, 1 month, 4 days, 1 hour, 5 minutes, 9 seconds after the Roswell incident. Unfortunately they had no atomic clocks then, or we knew more precisely how less a coincident that is!
Re: PDF chart (Score:5, Informative)
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Here's the Berkeley Earth graphic, with temperatures going back to 1870:
static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf [berkeleyearth.org]
(also comparing models to measured data)
Re: (Score:3)
NOAA and NASA use SATTELITES to get the SURFACE TEMPERATURE?
Mate, I guess you have gone already too far with your drinking games.
And... why aren't you building sattelites right now and setting up your very own global non-warming plot if yo uare so smart ?
Re: (Score:3)
In which way has the theory been falsified? Has AGW failed to predict that this past year would be warmer than the others before? Quite obviously NOT.
First of all, you are just answering to a random bloke who says some random idiocy pulled out of his ass. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence of all these "discrepancies ? I see it only among you climate deniers repeated as a mantra to see if it somehow becomes reality. None of you ever checks anything, Of course not: Knowing that half of you guys including yo
call me skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
Except they never said that, you did. The last record was in 2010.
Re:call me skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Nature is a scientific journal - not just a magazine. If you didn't know that, you shouldn't be posting on threads such as these.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean with not had any rising in the past 20 years
Where I live the temperature is rising since 1970, every year. Yes we don't have a new heat record every August. But we have every year a new record for a random month.
My guess is, this January is the hottest (pun intended) January since a few hundred years.
Note: average day time temperature is far above +15 degrees, it should be below -15, approaching -25/-30 even. But it does not. (That is Celsius).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why do you focus on January, when we talk about YEARS? Or more precisely AVERAGES of years! ... I wonder why you trust an US company more than me :)
And, as I live here
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I checked your link.
Unfortunately it has no way to show an evolution of temperature over the last 10/20 or what ever years.
Why did you post that link? (weatherspark.com)?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have to say 19 years for that cherry-picked date-range statement to be true.
Of course, even that isn't accurate anymore given the article. Maybe you should stop repeating it.
Re:call me skeptical (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's start with the fact that "warming" is the wrong term to use (which is why people use the term "climate change" now). It's not really warming. It's energy retention. Warming is just one side effect of the atmosphere retaining more energy.
There are a lot of feedback loops and redundancies built into the world's natural ecosystem. You see it on a small scale, where a bloom of certain resource results in a bloom of the consumers of that resource, followed by over-consumption which results in the decline of the consuming population. On the large scale, there is the same type of feedback loop that's made up of multiple smaller ones.
Right now, what's happening is that these feedback loops are handling a good chunk of the extra energy retained by CO2 so that actual atmosphereic warming is not terribly pronounced. But there's a tipping point. Once the amount of energy exceeds the capacity for these feedback loops to handle, it's going to shut down, and the moderating factor suddenly ceases to exist. The precise points are uncertain, but we know it'll happen based on what we see happening in smaller systems. For example, as prey increases, predators will also increase. This results in prey decline and then predator decline. But if due to external circumstances, the predator population grows out of control, or the prey population is completely decimated, both predator and prey (whichever wasn't affected by the initial event) will die off.
The real open questions today involve when things will happen, and how bad they'll get when these things do happen. For example, if one system fails, it can cause a domino effect on all the other feedback loops and cause them to fail too. That's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that the feedback loop most susceptable to failure won't affect the others much. It's possible that this will happen in a century. Or it's possible there are yet more feedback loops that we currently don't know about that'll push significant atomspheric temperature increase farther into the future.
What we do know is that there's definitely more energy in the atmosphere today. Weather events are getting more extreme. Stronger, more frequent storms. Colder cold snaps and hotter heat waves. And global temperatures are increasing, even if not by as much as predicted in the short term. Just keep in mind when thinking about these things that the entire planet isn't going to feel the same impact at the same time. It's about averages, over the entire system, over long periods of time (geological time scales). Also keep in mind that while certain one-off events can throw the numbers off, the trends will continue barring no behaviorial changes on our part.
The ultimate point is, we, if not as a species then as a civilization, are not facing any imminent danger yet, but we're getting more vulnurable, and by our own doing. It'd be nice to not be digging our own grave, no matter if we're using a large shovel or our bare hands. Of course, it all may not matter in the long run and our civilization and our species will ultimately be doomed anyway. But I'd rather not think that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The science is settled, like land bridges and the movement of light through the aether.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:call me skeptical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:call me skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
They're talking about a slowdown, not a full stop, and the data is not inconsistent with the long term trend.
Here you can see it in a graph: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... [woodfortrees.org]
The temperatures from the 10-20 years have not dipped below the long term trend line.
Re:call me skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because the graph is made from monthly data. There have been a few hotter months before, but 2014 still ranks #1 when you average the whole year.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, how do they average for the whole year? Is it monthly averages that they average for the year? Is it daily data that is averaged for the whole year?
No, I didn't RTFA. Just curious is all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, how do they average for the whole year? Is it monthly averages that they average for the year? Is it daily data that is averaged for the whole year?
It's a least squares mean calculated over the daily temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it monthly averages that they average for the year? Is it daily data that is averaged for the whole year?
Are you really not aware that those are the same number?
If so, well it's good that you seem to realize that you truly do not belong in this discussion.
Actually, it's quite common for local weather data to play fast-and-loose with the concept of "average" in ways that produce such anomalous results.
Thus, it's common to record the "average" temperature for a day by averaging the high and low temperature. It should be fairly obvious how this can produce days that are mostly below (or above) average, like when a front moves through and produces a peak high or low that's very different from most of the day. Similarly, I've seen the "average" monthly highs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That graph is plotting months, rather than years. Those are monthly spikes rather than yearly ones. (Spikes in the differential over the long-term average for that month, so you don't end up seeing the seasonal swings.) The number being discussed in the article is the global mean temperature for the entire year. Other years had higher spikes but this past one had the highest yearly mean.
Re:call me skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
I never said it reversed i said it hasnt increased.
Your citation says that it has increased, only more slowly in the last two decades than in the decade before. It shows the opposite of that which you want it to show. It suggests that at the current scale, there is a reduction in the compounding effect of the positive feedback loop, or that there is a negative feedback loop which is mitigating it, or both. But it doesn't actually do anything to contradict the concept of global warming. Those of us who believe in global warming are not arguing that the precise course is laid out in full, and that it will be utterly predictable. If it were, then the problems produced by global warming would be much easier to compensate for, because you could foresee them and plan for them. The precise scope is going to be varied and unpredictable, because that's life. We lack a system of sufficient complexity to model the system that we're discussing. That doesn't prevent us from making certain generalized statements, which are being proven out as we speak.
Re:call me skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
Im still in the camp that we shouldnt change everything overnight because OMG CO2!!!
Yeah, the problem with the idea that it's "overnight" is that scientists have been warning about this stuff since before I was in elementary school. We discussed CO2 and global warming then (I am not so very old, but I am in my thirties now so I can pretend to be an adult on occasion) and here we are, seeing the predicted consequences now. And I don't recall these consequences coming with a date back then, but now we're actually able to perceive the problem. It's "overnight" just like a musician who is an "overnight success" — yeah, overnight if you don't account for the years of sweat, tears, and possibly other bodily fluids. This is not a new idea, it's not a new warning, some of us have been hip to the idea that the average human lifestyle is harmful to the planet, let alone the western one. And get this straight, humans have been harmful to their environment as long as they've been recording history. Deforestation, it's not just for breakfast any more. It's been suggested that absent the plague, Europe would be basically denuded due to cutting down forests in order to build naval vessels which then got taken out and sunk in the ocean where they did very little good to anyone. Maybe created a little bit of artificial reef if they were sunk sufficiently shallow.
CO2 is not a new problem, and you have not been asked to change everything overnight. You have been asked to change for the last three decades. Now you are being asked more insistently, because the situation is more dire. You can complain about the scope of the changes you're being asked to make today, or you can accept that changes thirty years ago would have led to a lot less upheaval now. If you can do that, then I'll accept that it wasn't just you that refused to change. And hopefully, along in the bargain, people who decided to care before I did will find some way to forgive me. I could, after all, still be doing more. Or, depending on how you look at it, less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Im saying that 20 of those 30 years didnt see any warming.
If you want to claim this (nonsense), you should at least back it up with some links, so we can add the involved web sites to our kill files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When people go crazy, they often think their beliefs are data, but really they're just living in a fantasy world.
Right wing sociopaths have put a lot of effort into creating a false narrative, and so many former-conservatives have been turned into frothing-at-the-mouth wingnuts from internalizing far-right-wing propaganda from hate-radio, wingnut blogs, and Fox "News".
Re: (Score:3)
Not data that contradicts his beliefs, I don't think.
No he clearly intended to "kill file" any site that contradicted his beliefs. he stated it quite clearly. if he meant something else then he should have said something else. But this is common with the AGW side of things .. they exaggerate like hell for the purposes of making their arguments seem stronger... but those with a keen eye see it the other way... their arguments seem weaker whenever they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Rofl, I merely made a joke. (kill file - as I would say 99% of the /. users don't know what that is, the parent included)
Thanx for not getting it.
On the other hand I have the strong impression that we have the opposite problem here.
'Religious believers' that there is no AGW: posters in this thread suggesting that 2014 is not the warmest year and that we had an 'hiccup' the previous years are proof for that.
And yes, web sites disagreeing (oh, you meant me disagreeing? ) I rather would not visit to save my ti
Re: (Score:2)
Im saying that 20 of those 30 years didnt see any warming.
If you want to claim this (nonsense), you should at least back it up with some links, so we can add the involved web sites to our kill files.
you would ignore data that contradicts your beliefs???
It would be helpful here if everybody pointed to a common data set, so we all knew that we were talking about the same thing.
Here's the NASA-NOAA, showing NOAA (in blue) and NASA (in red) 's values for average temperature since 1880: http://www.wired.com/wp-conten... [wired.com]
You can see the "hiatus" in the far right of the graph: the curve to right of about 2000. If you blow up just this portion of the graph, and leave out everything to the right of 1998, you can make a graph which makes it appear that global warmi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:call me skeptical (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:call me skeptical (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed the fucking scientists, idjit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And what exactly does that mean? I can give you a list of biologists who claim Intelligent Design is true. It's a small list, dwarfed by the number of biologists who outright repudiate ID.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny thing about science is that it doesn't give a fuck about your ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, these days 1.4% is probably higher than current inflation.
And it's too low given the differential risks to 4% inflation vs 0% or 0.5% deflation.
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking averages here not specific points of temperature. If you had to pay an average of 1.4 more cents for every dollar or euro for purchase you made, you'd be pissed.
Inflation of only 1.4%? Economic utopia!
Local beef prices were on the order of $4 a pound a year ago for the cuts I usually buy. Today they're $6.50. Wired was 68 cents a can, now it's over a dollar. Pistachios were $15 for three pounds, same bag today is almost $20.
I yearn for the days of 1.4%.
Re:Someone teach me something here... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet, probably with the exception of local conditions associated with asteroid or large meteor impacts. The last major spike in global temperatures occurred in during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that occurred about 55 million years ago. In a very brief period of time, geologically speaking, the Earth warmed about 5.6 C in a period as short as 10,000 years. During this brief period over half of the species of North American mammals went extinct and places like Wyoming, not exactly known for hot weather, went from having redwood forests to having palm forests. Today with far more discontinuous habitats extinction rates of plants and animals will be very much higher.
Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there. However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon. Considering that humans obtain about 50% of its protein from seafood, in all likelihood, humans face the prospect of loosing half their protein supply in as little as 300 years based on present trends as many areas in the world oceans are already reaching pH levels that are killing off pteropods, one of the primary links in marine food chains.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet
Probably not (temperature reconstructions are problematic, which is why I say 'probably'). If you look at temperature reconstructions for the last 1,500 years [iop.org], they vary but you can see there are clearly measured periods of time with a rapid rise in temperature, before the industrial age. Look at the time period at the year 750, for example.
Re:Someone teach me something here... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Since 1880, EarthÃ(TM)s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit"
So we need to be alarmed because in 135 years the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees?
I am clearly missing something here.
You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that can cause extinction events (and may currently be doing so). It can also cause issues for humans in the form of shifting weather patterns, shifting water availability, changed coastlines (water rises, but so do landmasses that used to be covered in ice), changed food supplies (the fisheries we currently depend on my vanish, the aquifers that feed grain supplies may dry up), and other more subtle shifts.
The other point is that you need be no more alarmed just before you hit the ground than you were after you fell out of an airplane -- the situation isn't likely to change for you from 3,000 feet to 1 foot. But when you make contact, the result is the same. So better to raise the alarm at 3,000 feet when there's still time to have someone intervene or deploy a parachute.
*Farenheit, in pure fresh water at standard pressure. The actual temperature melting the world's ice reserves is different but immaterial to this line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Someone teach me something here... (Score:4, Funny)
what if its all a lie, and we make the world a better place for nothing?
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you, to a certain extent. People are afraid to address climate change because they are afraid of the impact on our society. We can't ignore that fear.
I do have a question for you, though - how do you know that "Dealing with climate change is going to itself be a huge economic disaster, and people will suffer because of it."
Most of the plans I've seen would be so gradual that I don't even see economic slowdowns, much less huge economic disasters.
Re: (Score:3)
The answer is simple: there was no large scale measures before 1880
Any global temperature before that date would not come from real measures but from a reconstruction using indirect data.
There are plenty of scientific papers listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:nothing to do with the end of the last ice age? (Score:4, Informative)
No, the warming after the last ice again stopped a few thousand years ago. The current (much faster) warming is a very recent event.
Re:nothing to do with the end of the last ice age? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.
The post notes:
While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'last years' we had no El Nino.
We are in an La Nina event since roughly eight years. The next El Nino is supposed to pick up force this or the next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that "Last Ice Age" and "Little Ice Age" are two different events.
Re: (Score:2)
Now look at the last 12000 years [wikipedia.org] - The last ice age completely ended 9500 years ago.
Every. Single. Time.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:5, Interesting)
It may have been on average warmer, but at least in Minnesota we didn't get the massive heat wave weeks in the middle of the summer we use to get in the past.
Yup, that's due to arctic warming, causing a pressure slump that now pushes more moist air into that region during the summer months. Interestingly, it has also resulted in dryer weather on the west coast of North America, and colder weather down the east coast.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:4, Funny)
BAH! you're both full of it. Last year was the most average I've ever seen. Not too hot, not too cold. The roads were not too hard, or too soft. And the pipes only bulged a little. It was just right.
Re:Interesting to note... (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing local weather with global climate. They are not the same thing. Just because you had a cold winter where you are does not mean that everyone, everywhere else, had a cold winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because one would never actually want to read what the experts in any field have to say, but rather go to some blog populated by people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you apply your nihilistic philosophy to all branches of science?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wee little issue (Score:5, Informative)
You can download the code they use for the calculations. Feel free to analyze it, and write a paper about any flaws you find. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov]
Re:wee little issue (Score:4, Interesting)
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)
Solar, solar, solar. Also, solar. (Score:2, Interesting)
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth. At most, bands of climate that support particular crops will move northward. We are capable of surviving just fine in a very wide range of climate. Slowly increasing warmth of a few degrees is not a serious threat in and of itself.
Sea level: The seas have been much higher, and the consequences of a sea level rise of such tiny amounts as are predicted over such a long period are going to
Re:Solar, solar, solar. Also, solar. (Score:5, Interesting)
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth.
The most notable consequence of the last temperature change of this rapidity was a dieoff of what percentage of life forms inhabiting the region now known as North America? I'm not sure. Another comment claimed half the mammal species, though. We might find that inconvenient.
Sea level: The seas have been much higher, and the consequences of a sea level rise of such tiny amounts as are predicted over such a long period are going to be irrelevant in the big picture
It might seem that way if you ignore the fact that small changes in sea level can mean very serious changes for storm surges.
Long term continuation of CO2 increase: Unlikely. We're already transitioning to solar and so forth.
Not in any serious percentage, and we continue to produce CO2-producing power plants as fast as we can, as a species.
There is every reason to reduce emissions, even without the potential threat of emissions-related climate change
Not for a psychopath. Our particular political system is apparently designed to put them in office and keep them there.
Re: (Score:2)
By chance were any of those species that died out capable of farming? Or have access to our level of technology?
Re: (Score:3)
By chance were any of those species that died out capable of farming? Or have access to our level of technology?
This is one of those times when you really have to learn to look past the end of your own nose for organisms to care about. You depend on them whether you realize it or not. Frogs are pretty fragile as life goes, how would you like to deal with all the bugs that they eat... up your nose?
So we move inland and lose Florida and Brussels.
Yeah, but we won't do it until after a lot of bad things happen. And also, what do you think happens to the ocean when the land that the humans use the most is repeatedly inundated? The ocean is big, but it only takes a few
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simplistic. More bugs? Population explosion among birds and bats and fresh water fish (just to start with. I'm sure there are other follow-on consequences as well.) The biosphere is huge and complex. There's no indication that disaster is looming based on loss of frogs. Or whatever. We already killed most of the large predators here -- when's the last time you saw a mountain lion
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simplistic. More bugs? Population explosion among birds and bats and fresh water fish
you haven't been following the bat populations, have you? they've had their ass kicked by some kind of fungus.
when's the last time you saw a mountain lion or a bear?
Normally, I only see their poop. Although some illegal growers killed our local bear.
Did the ecology collapse? Hardly. Obvious follow-ons? Yes. For instance, deer populations grew. And what did we do? Manage those populations -- we even turned it into entertainment.
Which we've dissuaded with our modern attitudes towards guns. These days you can get in trouble for being insensitive if you tie a carcass to the outside of your jeep. Also, wild pigs are now proliferating due to the loss of those predators, and they are a serious problem. The erosion damage they do is comparable to
Re: (Score:3)
By chance were any of those species that died out capable of farming? Or have access to our level of technology?
You seem to think that because we have technology, we will be able to adapt to dramatic abrupt changes to the ecosystems that support us.
Humans get about 50% of protein they consume from the oceans, yet in the past 150 years, because of the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations Hydronium ion concentrations in seawater have increased by about 30%. We can expect an additional 30% in the next 50-100
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. We are very competent in controlling our environment, moving crops around, etc. And again, this is not a large temperature change from our perspective.
I didn't mention it because it means the same thing either way. If people need to move, they will. And they should. And it's OK. In no way does it represent a civilization threatening issue. I
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, everything will be fine.
Of course in the long run we'll all be dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Other problems to solve. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way no matter what we do the earth will correct itself once we run out of fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
The current trend is statistically significant over decades.
Re:Trends versus Data Points (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Trends versus Data Points (Score:4, Informative)
Earth's weather is almost entirely determined by Solar activity (or lack of same in the Maunder Minimum)
The link between solar activity and weather is discussed in great detail in the IPCC Working Group 1 report, with voluminous references to the literature; have you read it? You can find it here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... [www.ipcc.ch] The analysis is chapter 2.7, Natural Forcings, section 2.7.1 "Solar Variability."
and large volcanic eruptions.
Another effect discussed in the same report: section 2.7.2 "Explosive Volcanic Activity"
The key point is that we measure the sun, and we record volcanic activity. There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
Krakatoa is the last big eruption which caused a large drop in northern hemisphere temperatures as I recall.
The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was an important event, because its effects were well measured.
Re: (Score:2)
There haven't been changes in the sun or in volcanic eruptions that are sufficient to account for the temperature trend.
The models also fail to account for the temperature trend (where or where did the predicted heat go?)
This is why you shouldnt be in bed with the modelers. But we see that you actually are...
Re:Trends versus Data Points (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, your claim is incorrect.
The IPCC AR5 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... [www.ipcc.ch] makes it clear that if you don't cherry pick date ranges, the models are spot on.
A lot of people like to quote the following:
Let's put that in context
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also cool spots on Russia, and China who are also fairly good at denying climate change.
Unfortunately I think this fact makes it much harder to push for climate bills, because it is difficult to explain Global Climate change, when you particular group isn't being affected in that way.
It is like trying to get the US to fight against famine in Africa. We know about it, however because it isn't a common experience we do not feel motivated to do anything about it.
Re:Hey NASA... (Score:5, Informative)
instead of making questionable measurements of the planet, why don't you figure out how to build a decent space vehicle? Which is your raison d'etre.
One of them. NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [nasa.gov]. In the list of what NASA was established to do, the first item is:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
Re: (Score:2)
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
Good point made. I'm saving this for other forums.
Impossible to change (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ [berkeleyearth.org] That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... [jma.go.jp] Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.