NOAA: Earth Smashed A Record For Heat In May 2014, Effects To Worsen

Freshly Exhumed (105597) writes with news that NOAA's latest global climate analysis is showing things are getting hotter. From the article: Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts say. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 15.54 C beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880. Experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called statistics moron. The thermometers were surprisingly accurate, there were quite a lot of them actually, and by being smart about it, scientist can produced very good estimates of global tems back that far. Yes, the error bars are larger than recent estimates, but therer's nothing controversial or fundamentally difficult about makeing estimates back that far.
 

Re:It's about time

[sumdumass]

I dunno.. Do you?

http://www.techtimes.com/artic... [techtimes.com]

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Goddard = not scientist but expert on global climate change? Think I'll consult him about my bone cancer. He's just as qualified.

Re:It's about time

[ArmchairGeneral]

Absolute rubbish! This 'story' goes alllll the way back to 2007 when they realized the measurements were incorrect. Goddard is recycling old news to spread FUD. He's an idiot for not doing the proper research!

Read it here http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/... [geotimes.org]

Re:Is it if A then B, or is it if B, then A?

[drinkypoo]

The question is not only if the climate is changing, but if it's directly related to CO2. Robert Essenhigh's point is quite interesting. http://bit.ly/11IsUri [bit.ly]

It was quite interesting until he failed to explain how heat produces CO2, after claiming that it was easily explainable; when he claimed that a ~5% increase in CO2 release from burning fossil fuel for energy was "statistical noise" and implied that it was the extent of industrial production of CO2, he became a denialist liar. There are numerous other industrial sources of CO2; for example, the production and curing of concrete alone (not accounting for the CO2 release of burning the energy, already accounted for here) accounts for approximately 2.5% of our CO2 emissions. Iron and steel production are likewise carbon-intensive processes, even putting aside the energy consumption. He also doesn't back up his statement that only two possible causes deserve explanation, nor what the four possible causes are, etc etc. He also blames the entire thermal forcing on water vapor, but relative humidity (the only kind of humidity he mentions in the linked page) is decreasing due to rising temperatures.

tl;dr: Essenhigh is trivializing human CO2 production, which exceeds volcanism, and also failing to back up his statements.

Re:It's about time

[thaylin]

You are way off base there. You have to separate the ocean data because its temperature changes MUCH slower then everything else, ask your neighborhood chemist about specific heat. The problem is that because of this it has a longer lasting effect then the ground or air temps, because it is going to retain that heat into the fall and winter months, keeping those temperatures higher.

Deniers can't make up their minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the global warming deniers can't decide whether warming isn't happening, it is happening but it isn't human-caused, or it is happening, it is human-caused, but it isn't economical to do anything about it? It can't be all 3, yet the deniers can't seem to get their story straight.

The truth is that it's the 3rd option. Deniers first argue that it isn't happening. When science proves them wrong, they then argue that it is happening but isn't human caused. When science proves them wrong again, they fall back to their real position that despite it existing and being human caused, it isn't worth doing anything about because that would take work and cost money. It's very dishonest.

Re:records go back to 1880, very funny

[techno-vampire]

Nobody in their right mind is saying that it wasn't cooler 200 years ago; there are enough accounts of both the Thames and Hudson rivers routinely freezing over back then, even if you completely ignore temperature readings. However, thermometers back then were nowhere near as accurate as they are now, and the idea of using those records to get a global temperature that's accurate to .1 degree Celsius from measurements that were, at best, accurate to half a degree is just plain ludicrous.

Re:It's about time

[sumdumass]

The source of heating is believed to be a tearing apart, or rifting, of the crust under the Antarctic ice sheet. This allows movement of magma and creates volcanic eruptions, melting the ice. Liquid water and geological activity under the sheet allows the massive feature to slip off the continent.

So yes, it does appear that it is recent as in happening now. Otherwise tearing would have been replaced with something like torn apart and allows would likely have been allowed. So even if they were active in the past, the wording suggest it is happening recently.

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Get serious [vice.com]. There is nothing in that paper about increasing geothermal flux. Nothing. Any rift under West Antarctica has been there for many glacial cycles. You really have no clue what you are talking about. Read my link. It has quotes from the authors of the paper you are spreading lies about.