Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015

Comments Filter:
  • It's a scam (Score:4, Funny)

    by watermark ( 913726 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @08:59PM (#51340917)

    It's a scam, Trump/Palin 2016!

  • Ive been taught since a young age that not only are facts subjective but science is uncool, pointless, and only stupid nerds like it. What has this so called "science" ever done for anyone? Just gonna stick my fingers in my ears and hum till this all blows over. /s
  • by danomatika ( 1977210 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @09:02PM (#51340937)

    Well, good thing gas is cheaper than it's been in a long time! That outta spur people into sustainable vehicles and energy usage.

    • 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.

  • <p><a href="http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG">This?</a></p><p><a href="http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg">Or this?</a><p>I wonder which this news scare story is using and why?</p>
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @09:34PM (#51341099) Homepage

    I keep hoping for a rapid 3C increase. I want my northern canada property value to skyrocket!

  • Deniers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laing ( 303349 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @09:42PM (#51341153)
    I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

    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.

    • Me too. I've been playing with a new pool controller I built to replace the old one and added a couple more thermistors. I've been very surprised with how difficult it is to calibrate them. Getting accuracy to even one degree is not trivial. I ended up calibrating to ice water, because I really just want to make sure pumps are running below freezing. Even that was not easy as unless you stir continuously and fairly vigorously, the temp of the water is around 36 even though it is ice water in a styrofom cup.
      • Re:Deniers? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by serbanp ( 139486 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:54PM (#51341479)

        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)

        by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:55PM (#51341485)

        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, 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)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        "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

        • 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)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:16PM (#51341325) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by HiThere ( 15173 ) <charleshixsn&earthlink,net> on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:33PM (#51341399)

        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)

        by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday January 21, 2016 @01:28AM (#51342005) Journal

        "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)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@nOSPAM.world3.net> on Thursday January 21, 2016 @06:39AM (#51342639) Homepage

          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.

    • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

      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)

      by Nexion ( 1064 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:24PM (#51341349)

      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)

      by goodmanj ( 234846 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:50PM (#51341461)

      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.)

    • 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)

      by willy_me ( 212994 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @11:40PM (#51341675)

      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:Deniers? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Thursday January 21, 2016 @02:48AM (#51342183)
      Good measures of reliability are (a) the presence of evidence, rather than assertions (b) Whether this evidence can be readily and repeatedly observed (c) In the event of errors or observations that contradict the hypothesis, how have the parties responded to explain the contradiction, and if necessary adjust or reject the hypothesis in favor of a better one. (d) Whether the hypothesis relies on a rhetorical device. So let's compare:

      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.

  • by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @09:55PM (#51341213) Journal

    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)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Wednesday January 20, 2016 @10:26PM (#51341363)
    Its the new creationism.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Thursday January 21, 2016 @01:01AM (#51341935)

    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.

    • 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.

    • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

      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.

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.