Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured (scienceblogs.com) 369

GregLaden writes: Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record-breaking months. Now, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA have identified October as an extraordinary month. October 2016 is significantly warmer than any other in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured

Comments Filter:
  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @08:38AM (#50946653) Homepage
    Nice to know that next year will be even warmer.. I've been enjoying the warm October we've had here in 2015..
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      October 2016 is so hot that the heat has flowed back through time to make the scientists start sweating it today.

    • Same here in Finland...some days of last month felt almost summery.
  • How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?

    More importantly, should they really be releasing the results so long before the rest of us get some sweet October next year action? Its totally ruined the surprise.

    • Just to add - a simple typo like that is enough to give my conspiracy liking friends a hard on until next October.

    • by Nutria ( 679911 )

      IIRC, back about 20 years ago, the Chinese released audio of a successful rocket launch a few minutes before the rocket actually launched. Big chuckle in the West. Reminded us all of Soviet fakery.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        W\hen failure is not an option, its perfectly logical to release the information beforehand.

    • How did they get October 2016 a year early? Is there some kind of pre-release scheme I'm not aware of?

      No, no, it's the third release candidate, so it's feature complete. There were a couple of issues in the tracker that we had to work out, but it's on the whole pretty much identical to the final beta relase in 2012.

      If you're still on that, there's no hurry to upgrade, since there were no CVEs between now and then. If however you're having a problem with excessive numbers of flying insects still being presen

  • Why this is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. "

    There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago. In addition, the "estimate" of sea surface temperatures are done by models. And models have been proven to be complete utter bunk. How would they possibly have "estimated" what sea surface temperatures were

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Actually, there would be measurements of sea surface temperatures over many decades. This is done for good reason.

      Even before meteorology was a science, people had a good reason to want to know sea surface temperatures. They affect fishing, which is a source of money and food. In shipping routes, it would affect when they might see ice on the waters, which is a hazard. Sea surface temperatures were measured then. I'm aware of data sets [noaa.gov] going back to the 17th century. You can easily get this data online for [noaa.gov]

  • by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @08:55AM (#50946737)

    That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

    UAH [drroyspencer.com] RSS [remss.com]

    The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

    It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

    • That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

      UAH [drroyspencer.com]
      RSS [remss.com]

      The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

      It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

      And the first satelite was launched when?

      Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

      • by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:28AM (#50946929)

        That's amazing! Especially, given the complete lack of correlation with the satellite datasets:

        UAH [drroyspencer.com] RSS [remss.com]

        The satellite datasets directly integrate temperature over almost the entire globe, with no interpolation and no revisionist "adjustments". They use laboratory grade instruments, and are frequently calibrated against balloon soundings. And no, there is nothing magic as far as detecting temperature trends gained by measuring at ground level only.

        It's beyond ironic that NASA is trumpeting ground-based measurements while ignoring better data gathered from space.

        And the first satelite was launched when?

        Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

        Certainly. However, since the last adjustments, the surface datasets of record have been diverging from the satellite measurements:

        The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records [euanmearns.com]
        The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again [euanmearns.com]

        Interesting that this is taking place going into another big climate conference complete with demands for "climate justice", and also while we're on the eve of a solar Grand Minimum [nationmultimedia.com]...

        A quote from that last linked article:

        Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

        Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.

      • Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.

        It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?

    • by Yoda222 ( 943886 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:13AM (#50946829)

      Which part of the statement "This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured" is the uah data supposed to completely "lack of correlation" with? When I look at the global temperature in the uah data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt , Globe column) and take only October (month=10), I see that October 2015 is indeed the warmer, with a delta of 0.57 degC with 1981-2010, where the previous warmest were 2012 and 2014 with 0.37 each.

      It's relatively difficult to see that in your plot, as you give a plot with all temperatures, including October and the other 11 months of the year.

      • by Glock27 ( 446276 )

        The most important thing influencing policy in these datasets are the trends. Both major satellite datasets show much less of a warming trend from the mid-90's until now than the recently "adjusted" surface datasets. No doubt this is a strong El Niño, we'll see if it can beat the massive average temperature spike in 1998. It's not close so far.

        It'll be interesting to see how things play out over the coming decades...

        • by Yoda222 ( 943886 )
          So when you said before "complete lack of correlation", what you meant was "not 100% correlation", right?
    • by CaptainLard ( 1902452 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:40AM (#50947001)

      Lottery Commission: "Congratulations! You just won our largest ever estimated jackpot! $539M is greater than the next biggest jackpot by 0.08% +/- $2k! We'll know for sure in 2 weeks."
      You: "Yawn. I only deal in absolutes and percentages greater than (some moving target)% and spend all my time pointing out anything less than perfect information delivered by time travelers from the future. As you can imagine the internet keeps me too busy to deal with that worthless jackpot."

    • Surely you must realize that satellites do not measure temperature directly. Instead they measure various wavelengths of light, and then use a weighting system to interpret the data Of note, most of the spectral readings are of the lower troposphere and *not* the surface. Additionally, there is a major issue of contamination from cloud cover when trying to use satellite data. That you put forth the idea that there are no revision or interpolation or adjustments shows an appalling lack of understanding of ex
  • This is a great news for "climate skeptics". They will be able to use the 2015 (or maybe 2016, if next year still benefits from el nino) for the next five years in the following sentence: "2015 was an outlier", and if the next el nino is not as strong as the current one, they will be able to use 2015 in their favorite argument in the 10 years after that: "the warming stop in 2015. There is a flat line if you use 2015 as reference".

    2015 is the new 1998

    .

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cbeaudry ( 706335 )

      But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

      If after this el nino, the avg. temperature curve is flat from about 1997 to present, with 3 el ninos in the mix and 2 large ones at that, it most certainly is an important observation.

      The el nino is one thing, unfortunately for those cheering at "the warmest october evah", the la nina might just wipe the smirks of their faces... we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, the alarmists will be smiling and happy that nature is finally cooperating with their mode

      • But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

        OK let say 2015 is an outlier. Then the hottest year ever recorded is 2014. And if 2014 is also an outlier, then 2010 and 2005 are both tied as the hottest years. Then 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009 and finally 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Why are all the hottest years in the 2000s (save 1998, which is close enough)? Why are all the coldest years before 1920? Sounds like a trend.

      • But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

        The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).

    • This is unfortunate but you are probably right.
      Hopefully, I may live long enough to assist to a clathrate gun event that would put an end to that nonsense.

         

  • Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the measurements are accurate, and that our data from 1880 is as accurate as today's data - it isn't, but let's just say that.

    We have data that goes back about 135 years - how long has man been on the planet? The most 'conservative' estimates I've heard, which are resoundingly mocked by many here is around 10,000 years, which would put our sample size at about 1.35%. If man has been rolling around the planet longer than that (and we know he has), the sample size

    • We have various lines of evidence going back thousands of years which suggest quite strongly that it hasn't been as hot on average as it is now for at least 120 000 years, and for the previous 5 decades, each decade has been on average hotter than the previous one.

      We have a physical mechanism which even in relatively simple modelling predicts such a rise quite convincinglyn, and in more sofisticated models which include unpredictable events like volcanic eruptions manage to reproduce the climate of the last

  • Cui bono? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:13AM (#50947263)

    Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

    What's in it for you, specifically? I can see why corporations would fight accepting human created climate change tooth and nail considering that emission control is coming up right behind such an admission. What do you have to gain or lose from siding with whatever side you're not on that you go into full blown shitstorm mode whenever the topic comes up?

    And this is by far not the only topic that gets people worked up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have no problems so you have to create some to get worked up about, so you feel like you still exist?

    • I think mental illness plays a large part.

      • I don't even think that would be it. It seems more that people feel compelled to take sides in debates, no matter what. Whether you're for or against something is secondary as long as you can get worked up over it.

    • Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

      If you really want to know, you should probably read [merchantsofdoubt.org] or watch [imdb.com] Merchants of Doubt [wikipedia.org] (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.

      What's in it for you, specifically?

      Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.

  • by truck_soccer ( 4286027 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:34AM (#50947449)
    You can't answer THAT, scientists.
  • Note - part of this is about weather, not climate.

    Part 1 - Here in the northeast, the leaves are finally off the trees. I've been exercising my motorcycle with 100 mile rides every few days, took a big ride yesterday. Mid 60's temps. Almost too warm for my leathers. We haven't had a real frost yet, just a couple nights when the more vertical surfaces would get a kiss. Hot peppers in the garden still producing. Insects and butterflies still doing their thing. Hunters in T-shirts when once they would hope

  • by CheckeredFlag ( 950001 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @01:26PM (#50949037)

    A recent Rasmussen poll [rasmussenreports.com] states:

    But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming.

    Seriously? 32% of Americans are not opposed to imprisoning scientists having theories that differ from the political establishment?!

    Ridiculous you say? It's already happening with a number of climate scientists calling on Obama to bring racketeering charges on skeptics [dailycaller.com]:

    The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

    Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

    Have we really not progressed from the inquisition of Galileo [wikipedia.org]? Time to wake up, America!

Happiness is a hard disk.

Working...