Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Earth Stats

NOAA: Earth Smashed A Record For Heat In May 2014, Effects To Worsen 547

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This discussion has been archived.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

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

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    That's not a confusing sentence at all...

  • No (Score:5, Funny)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Monday June 23, 2014 @07:23PM (#47301551)
    No, no it didn't happen. La La La La La - I can't hear you
  • And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data []

    • by bhlowe ( 1803290 )
      What, was that posted on FauxNews or the Sludge Report? /sarcasm
      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        People seem to have this reality problem, when they can't figure out that drudge is an aggrigator and posts news from all spectrum's of the isle. From Alexjones to Motherjones and everything in between. I guess reality has a factual bias for you.

    • by CaptainLard ( 1902452 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @01:42AM (#47303749)
      Thanks for pointing that out. Its a good thing Christopher Booker (author of your "story") is here to report on NOAA data fabrication.

      AND ALSO to let us know that 2nd hand smoke and lung cancer are not related, asbestos poses no risks and the /. favorite...get ready, its a doozy... Evolution is based on BS assumptions and BLIND FAITH and Intelligent Design is the truth!. If you include that last bit when you quote him it will be much easier to keep the stories straight. Your welcome!
  • 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. []
    • 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. []

      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.

  • 1. Decide your position
    2. When findings are presented that call into question your position, find any flaw with said findings. Preferably one that can't be verified.
    3. Present flaw as proof that the findings are not only invalid, but through being invalidated prove your position

    • 1. When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
      2. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
      3. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.

  • Outcomes from surveys where technology, sensor placement and encroachment of cities even if super careful have error bars on the same order of signals from multi-decade surveys... are... mostly... useless.

    They always result in the same tired predictable rumblings of fools who see what they want.

    All the while very important and relatively uncontested facts such as continued decrease of ocean pH and sea level rise are summarily ignored.

  • why are so many people her suckered by pundits?

    Pay attention:
    1) Visible light hits the earth. Falsifiable, and tested.
    2) When visible light strikes something, IR is generated. Falsifiable, and tested.
    3) CO2 is transparent to visible light. Falsifiable, and tested.
    4) CO2 absorbed energy from IR. Falsifiable, and tested.
    5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested.
    6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.

    That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper.
    If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.

    Some of you are very disappointing, falling into ad hom attacks and bad science. Scien that can trivally be checked out. But no, some of ypu moron keeps spouting the same crap.
    AGW is a scientific fact.

    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday June 23, 2014 @09:10PM (#47302381)

      The big spoiler that makes models a bit more difficult is water vapor. It is both more prevalent than CO2 in the atmosphere and more variable in the amount (CO2 is pretty uniform, water vapour varies a lot based on location, time of year, etc). Also when you look at the absorption spectra, water vapour absorbs larger bands of IR than CO2, particularly in the thermal IR region.

      That's not the only extra bit of complexity, but it is one that confounds the situation.

      Now before you fly off the handle and start screaming and ranting: I'm not challenging the validity of the theory here, I'm just saying you are oversimplifying things. Going after people for being stupid, but then showing ignorance of the complexity of the issue is rather silly.

      The problem is that it is complex. If it were a simple system, we'd likely have a very accurate model for it. The complexity is precisely why despite general agreement on the theoretical mechanism of action there are such wide error bars on the predictions.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2014 @09:22PM (#47302449)
        Water vapor isn't a spoiler - the bands that it absorbs are different from the bands that CO2 absorbs. That's all there is to it really. There's so much water in the atmosphere that water vapor bands are essentially entirely absorbed. We can't reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't want to even if we could, so any gains that we make have to be outside the water absorption spectrum.
    • by khallow ( 566160 )
      And how much warming does that "simple" phenomena cause? It's interesting how much effort is devoted to debating the radiative model and how little to whether global warming is a serious threat or not, or if it is, what, if anything we should do about it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:37PM (#47302169)

    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.

  • Smash? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:54PM (#47302279)

    I am not so sure you understand what "smash" means. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces in 2010 was 0.72C. The same data for this year is 0.74C. I would hardly call 0.02C as smashing.

  • Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @12:09AM (#47303353) Journal

    When El Nino leads to a new record high temperature by a large margin (for argument's sake, in 2015), the denialists will quietly adopt this as their new standard for 'normal' and in 2025 they'll be saying "warming is a hoax because temperatures haven't risen on average since 2015." []

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.