NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov) 507
vikingpower writes: Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much. The British Met office also reports on the same phenomenon, even forecasting that global temperatures are very soon going to reach the one-degree-Celsius marker. According to Stephen Belcher, Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, "We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we're set to reach the 1 C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory."
It's a scam (Score:4, Funny)
It's a scam, Trump/Palin 2016!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we have a "choice".
It's between Hillary (Chucko) and Trump (Bozo).
Gotta love the two party system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Dump the Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
I could not, would not, give you a stump.
I could not, would not, vote for Trump.
That hair, that hair, it just goes fwump.
Who the heck would vote that chump?
That Palin Chick,
did Donald Hump?
Are we just randomly rhyming stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, Ted Cruz is posting on Slashdot! And once again, he's channeling Dr. Seuss. [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:It's a scam (Score:4, Funny)
Trump is satan.
In an attempt to bolster his image with evangelicals, this week Donald Trump shared his personal prayer with students at Liberty University:
Dear God: You're fired.
Re: (Score:2)
What would a demigod need with an election?
Facts schmacts (Score:2)
Cheap Gas! (Score:3)
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.
If they are at all smart they will. Rather than buy a 10 mile per gallon vehicle, I just put the money I've saved on gas into my investments. These lower proces are not only saving me money - I'm profiting from them.
Which to believe? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try it with href=link.com
of course use the < > and a
<a href=www.Google.com>whatever </a>
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and post as plain text. If you select code it preserves the syntax instead of interpreting the links
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! [kappit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. The current super El Nino will probably cause the satellite records to set new record highs in the next few months.
Sensationalized.... (Score:3)
I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!
Deniers? (Score:5, Interesting)
All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here [realclimatescience.com] and tell me who is actually lying?
When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?
I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're joking, right? thermal expansion coefficients are very stable in time and have long been applied to manufacturing very consistent thermometers. I'm pretty sure that a Hg-based one built 100 years ago still has the same accuracy today as when it was brand new.
As long as the glass inner tube is uniform in size, calibration for 0*C in an ice bath and for 100*C in boiling distilled water at 1 atm takes care of its accuracy and linearity.
A thermistor, with its highly nonlinear R=f(temp), is difficult to use to make an accurate thermometer. A thermocouple is better, but you need the cold junction reference.
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you can't figure out how to calibrate your equipment properly doesn't mean trained lab scientists couldn't calibrate a thermometer properly 100 years ago. Mercury thermometers were easily accurate to within 1/10th of a degree back then, and once they were calibrated they were a sealed glass tube whose calibration would be VERY stable over time. For the past century or so, there have also been standard calibration protocols in place where you could send you thermometers away to be tested and properly calibrated, and existing weather stations often had logbooks noting this sort of thing.
Oh, and as for yourself, if you're making a calibration ice bath properly, it should definitely not be 36F. Read up on the proper way to make a slush bath (use crushed ice, usually more ice than water, if the ice floats, there's too much water, etc.), which should at a minimum get you to within 1 degree of freezing even in poorly controled conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deniers? (Score:5, Insightful)
People get nasty when you discuss global warming no matter which side you're on or even if you just ask questions. It's like discussing religion or politics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Check out the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature, and the balloon dataset for correlation. These are both fairly robust measurements of temperature, in that urban heat island effect etc do not have to be 'adjusted' out (or not). It is also interesting to look at the trends in individual well sited terrestrial weather stations with good histories. For some reason these on average show a lesser warming trend than NOAA and GISS and all the other self publicists.
Having said that we probably will
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"and there isn't enough fossil fuel left to get us much over that."?????
Are you insane? We're quite likely to go over +2 even were we to try as hard as we can manage to avoid it. I suspect that we're already committed to +2 C just from the fossil fuels we've already burned.
And I'm not sure of your source that "IPCC says anything up to +2 is on average beneficial for mankind". I haven't encountered that anywhere I've looked. I'm not even sure it would be beneficial in areas where people would be more com
Re: (Score:2)
It was crop failures that triggered the Arab Spring, which set the ground for ISIS
There you have it, AGW is responsible for terrorism!
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Insightful)
When all else fails, watch the way the parties debate and assess their credibility from their actions.
On one hand, there are scientists who tell you what their error bars are, talk in terms of probabilities, and tell you where they need more data to offer firmer forecasts.
On the other side I have heard
o The planet is not warming up, satellite measurements prove it
o The warming, which isn't happening, ended in 1998
o The warming, which isn't happening, which ended in 1998, is caused by carbon dioxide from volcanoes
o The warming which isn't happening which ended in 1998 which is caused by CO2 from volcanoes has nothing to do with CO2 but is caused by solar output changes
There's more.
Some of it is honest backlash against people who go beyond the evidence. I dismiss anyone who talks about "saving the planet". The planet was just fine with palm trees growing in Antarctica.
Most of it is cynically calculated intentional disinformation. See the book "The Climate Coverup" for examples of how talking points were tested in focus groups without any investigation into whether they were true.
Then consider, if you don't believe the scientists, that they could be wrong in either direction and things could be worse than they expect. There's actually some data to suggest exactly that. See the book "With Speed and Violence", from a science magazine editor who has excellent BS filters.
Re:Deniers? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a fair amount of evidence that the official projections are intentionally filtered to avoid the more alarming scenarios that the scientists are actually projecting. Some of those scenarios *are* rather improbable, but the improbable scenarios that are ameliorative aren't being filtered out.
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Insightful)
"When all else fails, watch the way the parties debate and assess their credibility from their actions."
I agree.
Watch anyone who dares suggest AGW is still open to question get savaged in ANY public forum - from how the OP phrased the question, I believe he/she's seen that.
Google Bjorn Lomborg - someone who says "Global warming IS happening, there are just many many other things that are more imperative" - and see how he's been raked across the coals.
We've had 15+ years of prediction of doom from the Global Warming camp (a partial list at https://anotherslownewsday.wor... [wordpress.com] ), which are continually proven wrong, desperately quickly rationalized, explained away, then buried under the NEXT "forecast of doom".
Let's also review all the things that have been blamed on global warming: http://whatreallyhappened.com/... [whatreallyhappened.com] (it's hilarious, and fully linked)
I don't know if warming is happening. I don't believe anyone anymore either. I used to try to find raw sources, but I've been told dozens of times that I can't be expected to understand temp data and hell, it's probably been tweaked anyway. It's hard to imagine that 7 billion people busily generating heat and burning hydrocarbons wouldn't have SOME impact.
All I know is that the paleotemps seem to indicate very quick spikes of temperature and CO2 every 120k years or so for the last 2+ million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg)
The current spike looks EXACTLY like the others, and is coming pretty much right on time.
For me, the AGW crowd has failed to explain in broad terms why something that's happened periodically, and is happening again, is somehow "THIS TIME" characteristically different than all the previous instances.
Re:Deniers? (Score:5, Informative)
http://whatreallyhappened.com (it's hilarious, and fully linked)
I clicked on the first three links.
1. 404
2. Daily Mail, well known for its accurate and level headed science reporting
3. 404
At that point I gave up. What you have to remember is that shitty journalists mis-reporting climate science is not representative of the actual science. A better source would be the UN reports, that make clear statements and predictions, with stated margins of error and probabilities, and are of course fully sourced and verifiable.
While there have been revisions to the models, to say that predictions were "wrong" is inaccurate. The basic prediction, that the earth is warming due to human activity, is supported by a large body of evidence and is widely accepted. It's about as certain as theories like general relativity and gravity.
Just because some guy points at the sky and says "look at those clouds, they don't come crashing down to earth, and what about the birds?!" doesn't mean that the theory of gravity is wrong and they would rightly be rejected by the majority of people attending a conference on gravity who came to hear some actual science.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the corrected vs uncorrected temperature reconstructions. There is really no difference in the trend between the two: https://climatecrock.files.wor... [wordpress.com]
Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r... [woodfortrees.org]
and they don't agree with radiosonde data that takes actual measurements in the troposphere that the satellites are attempting to derive a temperature record for: https://tamino.files.wordpress... [wordpress.com]
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Funny)
No, you aren't a troll... you are just making too much sense. Stop that... choose an agenda and stick with it. The climate holy wars aren't kind to fence sitters.
Re:Deniers? (Score:5, Informative)
Just to pick the top story on that realclimatescience.com site: it's looking at NOAA's statement that 2015 had record *average* temperatures in the US, and is rebutting with data on the *frequency of hot days* in the US, which is an entirely different idea. Since greenhouse gases control the rate at which energy *leaves* the earth to cooling it down, you would predict it should warm the coolest days more than the warmest. Which is exactly what's happened. IPCC report finds, globally, a significant increase in night and winter temperatures, a statistically insignificant change in temperature of the hottest days.
The match between theoretical prediction, and basic physics is the best way to assess the truth. You'll notice that the denialists will try to poke holes in the standard global warming story, but very rarely will they show show that their revised data agrees with a physical theory. (In particular, if CO2 and water vapor concentrations are rising, why *doesn't* that cause global warming in their view? By everything we know about these gases, it should.)
Re: Deniers? (Score:2)
Short answer is your watching how science really works and most times non-scientists never pay attention. Climate scientists are under a microscope.
Does anyone think it's a good idea to dump ever increasing amounts of co2 in the atmosphere? If you don't think that is a good idea then we should be trying to put less or no co2 into the atmosphere.
If you do think that is a good idea, I'm at a loss for words. The science is dead simple for CO2 in a closed system, so simple an elementary school student could gra
Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Informative)
For someone who is not an expert it is quite simple. Trust the experts. More specifically, trust the general consensus of the scientific community.
All of the figures, plots, and graphs are not enough to truly understand the problem. Data can be formatted to backup almost any claim. You have to dive deep into the topic to understand enough to come to your own conclusion. So unless you plan on getting a PhD, trust those who already have. And do not trust individuals - they can be purchased. Rely on conclusions that have been presented, discussed, and argued by the scientific community thereby resulting in the acceptance of said conclusion.
And one last point. Ignore articles posted in places such as Slashdot. Rely on articles posted in reputable scientific journals. All of the newsfeeds that repost these things filter out anything they do not want you to see. Bogus papers will be posted but the numerous rebuttals showing that the paper is bogus will not. In essence - you are lied too. So go to the original source where crap is called out for what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Deniers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate Science:
(a) The current theory of 'Greenhouse Gases' relies on the observation of the temperature at the earths surface, which fluctuates less than we would expect and is also (on average) higher than we would expect in comparison to a control body (say, the Moon). A similar observation may be made at various heights within the atmosphere. This phenomena can't be explained by observing the properties of the most common atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) but less common components demonstrate behaviors (in terms of how they absorb and radiate radiation in the visible and infra red spectra) which account for the differential in both base temperature and variability. These are termed 'The Greenhouse Gases'.
(b) These observations are recorded and can be remeasured by anyone who feels the urge to do so. Repeated observations have yielded the same result, without exception, for 150 years.
(c) Various mechanisms were misunderstood in the earlier hypothesis (by Fourier and Tyndall) but these were acknowledged, corrected, and the modified hypothesis did not contradict the earlier observations.
(d) No fallacy, or rhetoric is necessary to prove the hypothesis, it is entirely demonstrated via independent, objective observation.
The Denier Hypothesis
(a) There is no apparent hypothesis. NO hypothesis has been proposed to explain the atmospheric temperature differential from a baseline control, or the measured differential at different zones within the atmosphere.
(b) There is no way to independently verify any observations because no observations have been published.
(c) Numerous assertions from Denialism have been disproven, without any forthcoming acknowledgement, nor adjustment to the underlying theory to match with new observations. The assertions include: saying that no temperature rise has occurred (disproven by observation), saying that the temperature was due to solar variance (disproven by observation), saying that the increased concentrations of CO2 were due to volcanoes (disproven by observation). et cetera. These theories are inherently contradictory but are often present in the same conversation (2 of these can be noted in this very thread)
(d) The Denier hypothesis makes frequent use of rhetoric: it is rarely presented without some rhetorical device (appeals to emotion e.g. "I'm concerned/confused" false equivalence e.g. "I'm not sure who to believe anymore" burden of proof fallacy e.g. "Why doesn't someone explain x to me?" ).
When considered using these criteria the choice seems pretty clear.
Global warming is a myth! (Score:4, Funny)
The average global temperature hasn't risen since 2015!
I just wanted to be the first person to make that argument. When this argument becomes popular in 2025, remember you saw it here first.
Denialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... [insideclimatenews.org] while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.
Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"
So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... [talkorigins.org] Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"
So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.
Re:Denialism (Score:5, Informative)
Denialist research [wattsupwiththat.com] Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.
Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.
I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.
Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.
Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?
Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss... [geocraft.com]
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events
17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.
Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00
8 March, 2007
Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
28 July, 2003
Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.
Source: Independent Institute report 2003
2 May, 2007
Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.
Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/... [mdpi.com]
Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.
But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that
Re:Denialism (Score:5, Insightful)
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
If you're worried about how much you're being asked to pay now (not that much really, less than 5%) you should be really worried about what it's going to cost you when some of the things we know are going to happen like sea level rise really start to kick in. Miami Beach, FL is spending some $400 million to install pumps and build some seawalls to stave off the effects of king tides that are flooding the lower areas. Those areas didn't used to flood as often when sea level was 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now. The pumps might save them for 25-50 years but I won't last because sea level rise is inexorable.
Re: Denialism (Score:4, Informative)
About 90 years ago, around the time Miami Beach was founded. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of skepticism is to find the truth for yourself, assuming you are intelligent enough to.
The point of skepticism is not, as you seem to believe, to be arbitrarily contrarian, full stop.
Re:Denialism (Score:5, Insightful)
One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation.
This is untrue, and a gross mis-characterization of the green movement and climate scientists. There are actually two issues here.
1) Climate change will cost us in the long run, so it is prudent to do something about it now. Fortunately, doing something often improves our quality of life, e.g. by having better buildings that provide a more pleasant environment to live and work in, and which suck up less of our money for heating and cooling.
There is also the issue of migration due to climate change, which could become a severe problem when a billion people decide they need to move next door to you because their former home is under water or otherwise uninhabitable.
2) Pollution and the moral aspect. Pollution harms people directly, while often benefiting the person who is polluting. This is a simple matter of what society considers reasonable behaviour, given what we know of the harm being done. Sorry, but your desire to pollute in order to save money or increase your wealth must be balanced against other people's health and right to live in a reasonably habitable environment.
The moral aspect is extended to the longer term effects of climate change on people in other parts of the world. Either their homes will be negatively affected by your actions, or they will want to benefit from the same polluting you and your ancestors did in the west, and damn the consequences. Thus, some consideration and assistance seems warranted.
Re: Denialism (Score:3)
I wish. If I were a millionaire I'd spend my time flying to climate change conferences in my Gulfstream.
I wonder how confident they are this year? (Score:2, Interesting)
Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.
Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks) and billions of weather balloon launches over the last 50 years all agree - the land based temperature network is not reporting the same information.
Anthony Watts has a new paper in peer review which explains why NASA et al always seem to record temperatures 33% hotter than any other temperature measurement network on
Too much recalibration (Score:3, Insightful)
The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.
Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.
Re: (Score:3)
The past gets adjusted up more than it gets adjusted down.
NOAA has a dataset that they and NASA/GISS use (each with their own adjustments) but there are also datasets that are independent of them like HADCRUT, JMA and Berkeley Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.
Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.
Wow. What a crock of shit.
There are multiple data sets, with almost all of them publicly available. Also publicly available are the papers that utilize said data, the methods used to adjust the data, why the data needs to be adjusted, error margins, so on and so forth. There's even a big section of the IPCC delegated to such topics, but since you're clearly ignorant on the subject of climate science I don't suppose you follow the research.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not happening where I live therefore it must not be happening anywhere!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...on a day when there's not a blizzard happening on the US east coast. Global warming my foot!
It's warmer down south than it is in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a serious problem, that nobody's figured out how to properly address. (Scorn doesn't work.)
People have a hard time believing climate predictions that run contrary to their current weather experience. A large part of this is the innate tendency of people to minimize both future gains and future costs. So they won't work now either to acquire a future benefit or to avoid a future loss. This is a readily measurable effect, not a theory. Any explanation of it would be a theory, but I don't have a u
Re: (Score:2)
We are still in what geologists consider an ice age and probably will still be for thousands of years, as long as there are still substantial ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica. When all known natural drivers of climate are considered we should actually be cooling slightly but we aren't.
Re:Hard to take this seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice how you human-made climate change morons never have any evidence to backup what you say?
Ever notice how you just coveniently ignore any evidence presented to you about anthropogenic climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been discussed here so often that even I have heard about it.
You have 100 100-year-old monitoring stations. You have new ones that were started more recently. To examine 100 year trends, do you
[a] ignore the more recent stations and do not correct for anything, even though this will bias your results towards more warming due to urbanization
[b] ignore the more recent stations and adjust the historical temperatures based on ???
[c] use all available data and try to correct for as many effects as you can think of
Doing anything, or not doing anything, has the potential to throw your numbers off. Unless you have some specific evidence that what has been done is not statistically rigorous do shut up. That also goes for the case where you don't have data to say one way or the other. There is not some massive conspiracy to fuck with the numbers here.
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:4, Insightful)
[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments.
[E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.
If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E.
If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At best it's an "unadjusted" aggregate of adjusted, manipulated, and otherwise tampered-with raw data.
Each sensor has its own different "corrections", "adjustments", reasons for exclusion, etc.
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc... [berkeleyearth.org]
Open up Monthly Climatic Data of the World TAVG, for example.
Look at the characterization files and look at how many missing values there are. In many cases there are more missing values than included values, with no reason given for the missing values.
Look at all the data where they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.
That being said, even assuming arg
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.
See the law of large numbers [wikipedia.org]. It is possible to get arbitrarily good estimates by combining sufficiently many fuzzy individual measurements. This is not an invention of some communist cabal of climate scientists, but was formalised by Bernoulli and Poisson in the 18th and 19th century. And it is, of course, used in every modern tracking radar system, wether to keep moving bodies apart or to bring them together.
That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.
Thank's for your well-considered opinion. I'm sure both I and the world will give it the attention it deserves.
Re: (Score:3)
[E] is not possible when the experiment is being carried out over centuries, with a civilization growing inside the test chamber.
[D] leads to biases (chiefly the urban heat island effect) which *increase* the apparent trend (see Layzej's reply). If you don't correct for them, global warming looks *worse* than it actually is.
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:5, Informative)
[D] Use all available data as-is and track trends only across the same groups of instruments. [E] Be an actual scientist and control your variables. If you want long-term studies you need long-term data so you need to make sure all measurements are taken reliably and in the same way from the same type of device, if possible.
If you want to be called a "climate scientist" you NEED to do E. If you want to be called anything other than a charlatan you need to at least do D.
Of course, Berkeley Earth [berkeleyearth.org] did take all the available raw data, automatically detected discontinuities (i.e. unexplainable jumps, especially if they conflict with overlapping neighbouring records), automatically cut series there, and then automatically realigned and reassembled all the snippets, in essentially the same way we do DNA reconstructions from fragmented DNA. And their result [berkeleyearth.org] is indistinguishable from the more conventional reconstructions. The fact that several independent groups using at least two very different mechanisms come to the same result is either evidence for the reliability of that result [wikipedia.org], or, of course, for a big global conspiracy of scientists [wikipedia.org]. Of course, the Berkeley study was mostly financed by the Koch brothers...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score:5, Insightful)
temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites
The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for orbital decay, diurnal cycle, remove stratospheric signal, accommodate for sensor degridation, and you need to stitch data from multiple satellites. On top of that, satellites don't measure temperature, they measure radiance which needs to be reinterpreted as temperature using a model. Yes, they are very expensive, but that doesn't really mean that they are infallible or somehow a gold standard. Even Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite data set says he trusts surface temperature measurements much more than the satellite models. Watch the video in this link: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/... [climatecrocks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.
IF you have three different thermometers
But the thing is we have one thermometers and two temperatures. The UAH and RSS teams are using (mostly) the same satellites and getting different readings.
The problem is that the adjustments made to the satellite data are vastly larger than the ones applied to the surface data, and to a much greater extent decided on by "judgement". UAH has gone through six major revisions, producing wildly different temperatures.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
Well, no. UAH has gone through 6 major modifications since it started because it turned out that the factors were not well known and are not predictable, why has the satellite data started to diverge from the radiosonde data? Is it a problem with the satellites? Change in atmospheric response due to humidity changes perhaps? Who knows?
The satellites are also not "under complete control and observation of their operators". They are in decaying orbits with instruments that are known to drift over time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your best bet is to consider all available evidence. Deniers would like to ignore the record warming that we're measuring on the surface in favour of the tropospheric temperatures obtained by the satellites... but not the UAH satellite data set because that shows rapid warming too. And not the tropospheric measurements obtained by RATPAC because they show rapid warming too. They would prefer you look only at the RSS data set. That is pure as the driven snow.
Regarding ocean warming... We've accumulated 1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.
But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.
And why not use t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have to pay attention to thousands of thermometers located world wide and keep track of how the terrain and structures have evolved over the 100 years or so that some of them have been in place. Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.
Satellites are much simpler to keep track of. Orbital decay and sensor degradation is constant and known. The satellites are also under constant con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments
Actually if you compare the unadjusted record to the adjusted record it's the unadjusted record that shows more warming. Link. [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"the unadjusted record"
I'd have to see something better cited. I've seen far too many re-re-re-re-adjusted time lines (history changed multiple times) to accept at face value that this particular chart is "unadjusted".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is that the sun is getting warmer and will continue to do so. Despite this it was warmer 125,000 years ago than it is now. Much warmer. Sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today during that period. I don't doubt for one minute that mankind has contributed to global warming but it's impossible to know for sure exactly how much. The world has gone through many stages of warming and cooling in the past and will go through more. I find the entire subject pretty fascinating. I was recently
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you compare the state of Milankovitch Cycles for the Eemian to their current state it's not surprising that the Eemian was warmer. Thing is currently Milankovitch Cycles are trending toward cooler and it was getting cooler since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago) until human emissions of CO2 started raising the level in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually not an exceptionally good argument, because the heat cycle has lots of feedback loops with lots of build-in delay loops and both positive and negative feedback controls. Which is why it's so hard to understand.
I agree with you that he's wrong, but even were he right, it would still mean that we needed to stop doing the things that pushed the temperature higher...which he doesn't seem to realize.
Re: (Score:2)
Without explanation, I have no trouble accepting both images as accurate, and neither as implying anything in particular about the story.
Would you care to explain? (Neither of those links was in the summary, and the summary linked to more than one additional web page.)
Re: (Score:2)
One is a picture of a NOAA temperature station in situ next to a large electrical transformer , the other is a rendering of a NOAA satellite in orbit. Whenever we get a alarming story like this they use the data collected from terrestrial stations located next to heat emitting electrical transformers and disregard data collected from satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, this happened [wikimedia.org] while it was being built, but the damage was fixed before launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Bartles thinks showing a weather station next to a transformer proves something as if the scientists compiling the records weren't aware of such issues. Problem is that satellites don't measure temperature but the radiance of microwave emissions of O2 which they then apply a model to to derive temperatures. There are far more adjustments made to the satellite data than the surface temperature record.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa whoa whoa dude... stop trying to factor in everything that should be in the equation. Its making it hard for both sides to ply their agenda!
Not to mention you are missing a few million factors.
Re:Damn those... (Score:5, Insightful)
Volcanoes (http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html)
We already know that humans create, on average, orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism [skepticalscience.com].
Termite mounds generating methane gas (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html)
Not even close to what we are releasing by fracking, then storing it under Los Angeles, then letting it leak out. [cbsnews.com]
Penguins pooping on the Antarctica ice sheets
A rounding error.
Evil climate heaters at the Trilateral Commission
hee hee
Tarps used by the UN that absorb sunlight too well
The story doesn't actually say anything about tarps that absorb sunlight too well — and the UN tarps are highly reflective.
Meteorites and asteroids polluting the atmosphere
Rounding error
Ancient Romans
...were making a lot of concrete. We're making a lot more. Nobody claimed that AGW didn't start a long time ago. The claim is that it's increased by orders of magnitude. Straw man.
People against increased food supplies
Only total fucking idiots who don't understand plants think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to be beneficial to them. It isn't. The maximum amount of CO2 they can use is tied directly to their maximum rate of photosynthesis, which is in turn capped by the number of photons they can receive in any given period of time without being damaged by ultraviolet radiation. As atmospheric pollution actually harms the ozone layer that filters UV, what it does is reduce the amount of CO2 that plants are capable of using. When most any plant gets over about 100 degrees, it "shuts down"; its stoma close, for example, which renders it unable to respirate. You know nothing about plants.
Aliens who are causing the sun to heat up [...] (except for the aliens part)
You must be a fucking alien. Go back to the planet of the chucklefucks and let us be.
Re: (Score:3)
Volcanoes, global annual total, average: ~300 million tons CO2
Humanity, global annual total, average: 40+ billion tons.
And volcanoes spew much more in the form of dust and aerosols, resulting in an overall cooling effect from eruptions, not a warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Immediately stop burning oil and coal. Totally reasonable. We don't need electric power or anything. I mean we could use nuclear generation but that's evil too. Let's just regress to the 1800s and fuck everyone that lives in places that are unliveable without refrigeration or Air conditioning.
As far as making fewer babies, good luck with that. The smarter parts of the population already are, which is why we're heading straight into Idiocracy. The mouth breathers and Wal-Beasts will continue breeding un
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it weren't for "global warming", we'd be in the ice age.
Re: (Score:3)
We're still in an ice age according to the definition that geologists use, just in an interglacial period. /pedant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's with the quotes? If you think that AGW is preventing an "ice age" (quotes because we're already in an ice age) then you believe global warming exists.
Anyway, no. AGW may prevent us entering an "ice age" in the next few thousand years, but there is no way we'd be entering one now.
Re: (Score:2)
However, statistical evidence is just an aggregation of anecdotal evidence.
No, sorry, completely wrong.
Statistical data comes from a well defined sample which is designed to be representative of an entire population. Anecdotes have no well defined selection criteria (my grandmother smoked until she was 100, and because I don't want to believe smoking is harmful, I remember and put great importance on this, and forget all the other people I have a connection to who were damaged by smoking) or (often where the selection criterion is 'stuff that happened to me') too little data to d
Re: (Score:3)
Leftist activists trying to promote foist their hippy lifestyle on the rest of us.
Damn [npr.org] those hippy [wikipedia.org] Koch brothers! [wikipedia.org]. Get a hair cut! [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And even if you do, you are bringing up a raft of unfounded assertions.
You are taking it on ~faith~ that the ecological systems are self correcting and very very stable against all shocks. You are taking it on ~faith~ that older temperature measurements are somehow inaccurate, and if they are inaccurate, you are going to assume they are merasuring cooler rather than hotter ( a rash assumption ).
The fossil records show that when huge events unfold, there is usually a mass dying off of old species and the int