The Top Weather/Climate Events of 2015 (wunderground.com) 256
Layzej writes: With only a few stations left to report, 2015 is virtually certain to beat 2014's record as the planet's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880. The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, combined with a extra bump in temperature due to the strongest El Niño event ever recorded in the Eastern Pacific. Record warm ocean temperatures in the tropics in 2015 led to a global coral bleaching event, which is expected to cause a loss of 10 — 20% of all coral worldwide. Weather Underground recounts several other records that accompanied the heat including the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere, the ongoing agricultural fires in Indonesia — the most expensive disaster in Indonesia's history estimated at $16 billion in damages, flooding in America and India, and record central pacific hurricane activity.
So...a year with fewer hurricanes = no warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
>> the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere...and record central pacific hurricane activity.
I believe the biggest knock on Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie was the prediction of lots of new super-hurricanes that hasn't come true, especially not in recent years. I'd be careful trying to link the two again...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't you understand BASIC SCIENCE?
Extreme weather of any kind is evidence of global warming.
Mild weather isn't evidence against global warming because weather isn't the same as climate.
Data that shows warming is obviously valid evidence.
Data that shows anything other than warming is invalid because the measurements must have missed ocean heat sinks or something, or obviously it would have shown warming.
So sick of you deniers who don't even understand basic scientific method.
Re:So...a year with fewer hurricanes = no warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades? I mean, let's face it, your opinion should be every bit as valid as these experts because we all know your gut feeling is without question far more valuable than mountains of accumulated data.
By the way, should you be stricken with cancer, you might shun those very same scientists and make up your own cure based on your beliefs. I'm sure the rest of us here would broadly support your efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades?
In one of the most interesting paradoxes ever, is the fact that most deniers hate politicians, but they have decided to get their entire science education from them.
Just this past week, I heard a new level of denialism for them to latch onto. A guy on a radio show that was denying that dinosaurs ever existed. Sounds legit, so get cracking, deniers!
Stupid is the new smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid is the new smart.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything. The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation. This is not a failing
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid is the new smart.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
This. Once upon a time, matters were reported, and that was that. There might be opposition, but they needed to get their own time.
Now we can have Michael Mann give an interview or paper, and the news outlets feel they have to give equal time, so they get someone to deny everything immediately afterwards. Denialism doesn't need research, or education, all it needs is "NO!"
The best example I ever heard was ironically not a scientist, but on the Don LaBatard show - a sports show. Sarah Spain ( one time ba
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we all know there's no such thing as climate, and anyone who claims so is a communist, democrat libertarian out to take away our guns and SUVs ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that it's the job of experts to convince anyone of anything? You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.
Re: (Score:2)
As experts, it's your job to convince people. You have failed. You are bad at your job. You are a failure. Why should I listen to a failure?
As a stupid person, you do not get to make laws of physic untrue just because you deny them.
The universe does not care that US Republicans have decided that stupid is the new smart, and that denial of science is job one. The greenhouse gases effect on atmospheres is a proven fact (unless gawd is just making it look that way, like when he planted fossils as a test of our faith) and your accepting that or not won't change it a bit.
You must have been really upset (Score:2, Troll)
Virtually every glacier in the world is in full-on retreat.
Ice chunks the size of small US states have broken off of Antarctica in the last few years.
Rising surface temperatures in the subarctic are melting permafrost, permitting decay (with associated methane release) and destabilizing shallow methane calthrate deposits of unknown but possibly substantial extent.
You must have been really upset when the Laurentide Ice Sheet almost completely melted. 5 million square miles of ice up to 2 miles thick just *me
Re: (Score:2)
How many caveman lifetimes did it take for that massive campfire melt event?
Re: (Score:2)
Forget basic science and the scientific method. I think the main thing he doesn't understand is sarcasm.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet. There's so much hyperbole on the net that isn't intended as sarcasm that it's completely impossible to tell when it is.
Slashdot commenters really need to start learning this.
Re: (Score:2)
What's to forget? You never knew anything about it.
Neither did/do anyone who actually believes man is actually behind any steep curve in climate change/global warming. I guess if you drilled down to a granular-enough level, humans might be responsible for speeding up warming by like... 3 weeks and 4 days.
You made the statement - you prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize my post was not serious, correct? Last paragraph and all.
Poes Law in action.
Re:So...a year with fewer hurricanes = no warming? (Score:5, Informative)
So you take the most powerful hurricane ever to be evidence AGAINST a prediction of super hurricanes?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yes. It was the most powerful hurricane, but it wasn't the most powerful tropical cyclone. Not by a long shot. There were 4 to 7 more intense cyclones [wikipedia.org], all in the West Pacific during the 1950s-1970s. (A lot of the early measurements were in inches of Hg, while recent measurements are in mm of Hg. The uncertainty in the measurement of the early "880 mmHg" storms overlaps with the uncertainty in
Re: (Score:2)
More heat in the climate system or more warm tropical water are only a couple of several key factors in the formation of cyclones.
Another is the absence of wind shear. If one of the outcomes of a warming world in greater wind shear where hurricanes & cyclones form, then the trend will be towards fewer really large storms.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/keyno... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great deal of effort to downplay the whole thing, but doesn't change my statement even a jot. Even if it was the smallest and weakest weather event ever measured, it's existence doesn't contradict a prediction that there would be more strong storms, it just doesn't support it.
However, it was rather large in a place where they don't typically get that large. That could be a fluke or part of a trend, but it certainly doesn't HARM the case for stronger storms.
As for the larger case of storm activity,
Re: (Score:2)
Please define "most" and "ever", because it's clear you're not using them correctly.
Heh. This nitpick was just for decorative purposes only.
Re: (Score:2)
>> the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere...and record central pacific hurricane activity.
I believe the biggest knock on Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie was the prediction of lots of new super-hurricanes that hasn't come true, especially not in recent years. I'd be careful trying to link the two again...
That was a prediction for the end of the century, not the next decade. And even then, there are fairly large error bars still around any such claims since relatively small scale phenomena like Hurricanes are far more subject to local weather conditions than climate conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
>> the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere...and record central pacific hurricane activity.
I believe the biggest knock on Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie was the prediction of lots of new super-hurricanes that hasn't come true, especially not in recent years. I'd be careful trying to link the two again...
I predict that you will not die of an aggressive cancer in the next few months.
I pray that my prediction is as "wrong" as your colorization of the hypotheses presented in An Inconvenient Truth.
That is, I hope you die – soon. People like you are stymieing real political and technological progress that can address this threat to human existence.
No need to 'Save the Earth' — It will do just fine without humans around to foul it up.
Re: (Score:2)
The prediction was for a likelihood of stronger hurricanes over a time scale of fifty to a hundred years.
The time scale is important.
Any one year-- even a bad year-- is still just weather.
Re: (Score:2)
The prediction was for a likelihood of stronger hurricanes over a time scale of fifty to a hundred years.
The time scale is important.
Any one year-- even a bad year-- is still just weather.
Once again - yes. The extreme short term outlook of what happens today, versus the trends that take many years, should not be that hard to understand, but for some reason it doesn't sink in. A warming trend does not mean that there will not be cold times. It doesn't mean that there can't be a year with no hurricanes at all.
And weather such as it is, has some weird localizations. I think it was 6 years ago, Washing D.C. was hit by some nasty snowstorms and a cold winter. I was supervising a video team from
Does anyone have a list of the hottest years? (Score:3)
Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years. Can't find it on NOAA's website. Anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Come on, if this is the hottest average worldwide year on record, there must be a list of average temps for each year SOMEWHERE, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You could have shown an ounce of intelligence and tried clicking the link in the summary ( http://icons.wxug.com/hurrican... [wxug.com] ).
Of course that assumes you know how to read a chart.
So let me help you:
See the tallest red lines?
Those are the biggest years.
Find the 10 tallest, and there's your list.
Now repeat for the blue ones.
Re: (Score:3)
That chart is not showing what I'm asking for. It shows "Global Departure of Temperature from Average."
I just need a simple list of average temps from each year, so I can do a top ten list of hottest and coldest. Not a chart, not using "departure from average" or whatever the fuck. Just just a simple list of average worldwide temps for each year going back as far as possible.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Those goddamn SJW charts and graphs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so what you're saying is not only do you not know how to use google, but you dont understand math either.
hint: the years with the highest departure from average are the same as the hottest years
Re: (Score:2)
That chart is not showing what I'm asking for. It shows "Global Departure of Temperature from Average."
I just need a simple list of average temps from each year, so I can do a top ten list of hottest and coldest. Not a chart, not using "departure from average" or whatever the fuck. Just just a simple list of average worldwide temps for each year going back as far as possible.
Well then you know the old saying, "If you want it done right, go fuck yourself." Find your own data and quit bitching about it when others try to help.
Re: (Score:2)
You never know with the certainty to satisfy all doubters, which is why conspiracy theories will always exist.
Re: (Score:2)
At least if they are honest. Then you get something like the Berkeley Project.
I've seen graphs floating around which claim to show different, and whenever you look at the data set they claim to be based on, you see that they were creatively manipulated to show the foregone conclusion. So the blame goes in the opposite dir
Re: (Score:2)
What? They don't have Google in your reality?
Here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=annual+gl... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow a climate change denialist^Wskeptic and someone who rants and raves about teh evul SJW.
I award you today's "walking stereotype" prize.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the hottest years? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the data [ornl.gov].
If you look through the data you'll see these are the ten coldest years after 1849, coolest first:
1911, 1909, 1904, 1908, 1862, 1910, 1903, 1864, 1917, 1893.
These are the ten hottest years prior to 2015, hottest first:
2014, **2010, *2005, ***/++1998, **2003, *2006, **2009, **2002, *2007, 2013.
I've also noted El Niño years with stars and La Niña with plusses:
* = weak El Niño year
** = moderate El Niño year
***/++ = 1998 started as a very strong El Niño and ended as a moderate La Niña.
2015 is an El Niño year (which tend to be hot), but is not in this dataset yet. Note that 8/10 of the top 10 years have an El Niño component, except 2013 and 2014, which were "ordinary" but very warm years.
I didn't note the ENSO (El Niño / Southern oscillation) status for the coldest years, because all ten of the coldest years are before 1912 and there is no reliable ENSO data for before 1950 so far as I know. However it's a safe bet that many of these were La Niñas, which tend to be colder than average. The last colder-than-average year was 1985, which was a La Niña; all six La Niña years since have been warmer than the 1850-2014 average. The last "ordinary" (non-ENSO) year that was colder than average was 1970.
Here is the average temperature anomaly by decade: // partial, obviously
Decade Anomaly
1850 -0.3174
1860 -0.3296
1870 -0.2548
1880 -0.3
1890 -0.3623
1900 -0.4099
1918 -0.2494
1930 -0.1182
1940 -0.0036
1950 -0.061
1960 -0.0535
1970 -0.0769
1980 +0.0943
1990 +0.274
2000 +0.4622
2010 +0.4998
Note that all the decades up to the 70s are colder than the "average" year because "average" is dominated by the acceleration of warming from the 90s to present.
I hope this helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the average temperature anomaly by decade....
Thanks. I always like to point out warming is nothing new also. It is an interglacial after all so that is an easy bet.
Without an understanding of natural climate, there’s no strong basis for predicting climate change
http://business.financialpost.... [financialpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Except this interglacial reached its peak forcing from Milankovitch Cycles around 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and has been slowly cooling since then. From Milankovitch Cycles alone you would conclude that the cooling would continue. But it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get the data for years 10,000 BC to 1848 as well please? I'd like to check against those numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar magnetic activity is easy to measure (using sunspots and the aurora) and has been measured since 1755 and the latest cycle was lower then normal which may be one of the reasons for the "pause" at the beginning of this century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which has some nice graphs of solar activity (peaked in the '50's) and a section on the effects on climate (small, hard to find correlations).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, if he's right it means that it is even more important to do something about CO2 as the cosmic rays are going to do half the warming and the CO2 the other half, so perhaps a 2 degree warming without CO2 and a 4 degree warming with our CO2 additions. To quote your wiki article,
Re: (Score:2)
This is called Sealioning.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J... [rationalwiki.org]
it's a form of trolling, marked by asking basic, inane questions readers would be expected to already know hte answer to.
for example: no its not solar activity.
solar activity is on a downward trend and has been.
no the kockey stick is not debunked.
no you didnt say anything factual.
Re: (Score:2)
So throw out Michael Mann's 1998 hockey stick graph. Since then more than a dozen studies by other researchers using different techniques show essentially the same thing. So much so that if you put Mann's 1998 graph in with the others you couldn't pick out the original hockey stick graph from the rest of them. Mann's 1998 graph is old news. You've got a bunch of other hockey stick graphs to debunk. Better get to work.
Why anomaly and not average? (Score:2)
FYI, honest question here. Why is NOAA so insistent on only releasing data by anomaly and not by actual temperature?
Because the average temperature isn't actually interesting, and not actually terribly useful.
If you want the global average temperature, just calculate the global average temperature of the baseline year, and add the anomaly relative to that baseline year. As should be obvious, the global average temperature is just a baseline shifting the whole curve up or down, and it's simplest to just subtract it out, unless there's some reason you want that absolute number-- and I can't think of any reason you would w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years. Can't find it on NOAA's website. Anyone?
Here's a page that has a table that ranks the years from 1880 to 2014 [noaa.gov] with 1 being the coldest and 135 being the warmest. You can suss out the bottom and top ten from it. It doesn't have 2015 yet because the official numbers haven't come out yet but you can bet that 2015 will be ranked 136.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years.
http://icons.wxug.com/hurrican... [wxug.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not city (that can vary wildly). I mean worldwide average.
Re: (Score:2)
See below for NOAA's time series / histogram chart for the list of years in their record, going back to 1880. There are separate tabs for US & Global
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t... [noaa.gov]
You can sort the table by year, temp anomaly or rank.
Solving `climate change' is easy... (Score:2)
Tons and tons of paid posters here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Tons and tons of paid posters here
Thanks for being so forthcoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time there's anything about climate change, there are tons and tons more AC posts than usual, and of course, a large majority of them are making fun of the idea that humankind can change our climate. I wonder if it's just a few nutters, or a team of people paid by the oil industry to do this...
I think it's more that certain people are trolled by certain topics. They don't comment on much, but bring out a topic that they're passionate about and they come out of the woodwork to express their views. I'll do the same thing on some right leaning or libertarian blogs, I don't troll, but on some topics I think it's important to challenge the consensus and try to sway people.
On Slashdot the two big ones seem to be global warming and feminism (particularly in gaming or software development). I don't think
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the oil industry cares about a bunch of posts on an obscure website like Slashdot. Pull yourself together man.
Or a more realistic hypothesis: A science related matter posted on a nerdy site with loads of political bullshit to spare brings the nutters out of the woodwork, because opinions on global warming are like arseholes, everyone has one, whereas relatively few people give a shit about Oracle being the database of the year.
The good thing is (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the EU has been enlarging?
Truth (Score:2)
You don't have to sell the truth, it sells itself. Conversely, if you find yourself having to sell something, it probably isn't the full truth.
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live in a cave? The truth selling itself is so last century. Today outright lies have far more credibility.
So? (Score:2)
Weather Underground recounts several other records that accompanied the heat including the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Western Hemisphere, the ongoing agricultural fires in Indonesia — the most expensive disaster in Indonesia's history estimated at $16 billion in damages, flooding in America and India, and record central pacific hurricane activity.
So? Those are just weather. And possibly arson. They are not indicative of climate change of any kind.
Data manipulation (Score:2)
While I'm sure the climate is warming, and I'm sure that humans are exacerbating the trend, it is hard to be impressed with the alarmist rants when the models used and raw data are not made available. When even the people developing the models cannot explain what they are doing. When the data is massaged beyond recognition. Not to mention that rather than being treated as a ecological problem, AGW has morphed into a treatise on income inequality, rich nations vs poor ones, etc.
"In early 2001, CPC was reques
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm sure the climate is warming, and I'm sure that humans are exacerbating the trend, it is hard to be impressed with the alarmist rants when the models used and raw data are not made available.
If you think the models and raw data are not available you haven't looked very hard. Of course I doubt you'd know what to do with them if you got them.
Here's the 10000 year view (Score:2)
Slashdotters love data, right?
Here is the 10000 year view of the situation:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... [amazonaws.com]
Here's the data from the Arctic:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice... [ocean.dmi.dk]
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old... [ocean.dmi.dk]
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Here is a correlation between CO2 and various surface and satellite data-sets: http://www.woodfortree [woodfortrees.org]
Kool-Aid Summary should not be relied upon (Score:2)
" ... The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, combined with a extra bump in temperature due to the strongest El Niño event ever recorded in the Eastern Pacific. ..."
This is, of course, the Kool-Aid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); here is another summary from the IPCC's webpage:
" ... the human influence on the climate system is clear and is evident from the increasing greenhouse g
Come on, no mention of the record-smashing winter (Score:2)
From Canada (Score:2)
The warmer the better.
Bring it on.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I am misreading this graph but it looks to me like this is only showing temperature variance due to El Nino not global temperature averages.
Re:Not according to satellites (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"there's no "hiatus" any more"
What's your definition of "hiatus"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, by what metric was there a hiatus until December (?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hiatus = pause
in this context, means no warming.
surface temps showed slow (but not none!) warming.
if you graphed the RATE OF CHANGE, it appeared to flatten out recently.
but note, that because this is a rate of change (akin to a derivative 9in calculus), because it's non-zero, even flatted out meant it was still warming.
but even accepting the slowdown was apparent....it wasnt real.
surface temps are incapable, by definition, of tracking subsurface ocean temperatures and therefore cannot spot the energy being
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly 2015 was the hottest year since 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
2015 is going to blow 1998's record out of the water and chances are 2016 will be even hotter. But never fear, 2017 will be cooler than 2015 or 2016. New meme: No warming since 2016!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not according to satellite data cherry picked and misrepresented by well known serial climate liar Roy Spencer
FTFY.
Plus, unless you just have no clue how to read a chart, the chart at your link clearly does show warming.
which is probably the rest of the climate science community stopped taking Roy Spencer seriously a long time ago.
For more his greatest hits, check out:
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, unless you just have no clue how to read a chart, the chart at your link clearly does show warming.
which is probably the rest of the climate science community stopped taking Roy Spencer seriously a long time ago.
Technically I think Roy is right in this case. I looked through it for a bit and it looks like that graph is showing a spike around `97 or so. They usually factor out volcanic, solar, and other activities to get an overall trend. This is the raw data that still has all that. If you're *just* looking for the hottest year on record, regardless of trends, then it looks like that spike is probably it.
That's not to say that the trend isn't still terrifying though. If the same conditions arose today that caused t
Re:Not according to satellites (Score:4, Interesting)
also note that what he states is This makes 2015 the third warmest year globally (+0.27 deg C) in the satellite record (since 1979).
this is not at all contradictory or mutually exclusive. the flaws or inadequacies of the satellite data are well known, and its completely possible to be only 3rd warmest in one flawed data set, and warmest in another more complete dataset.
But congratulations on mastering how to lie with statistics 101 and moving onto 102 methods.
That's progress, albeit not the kind honest people like to see.
Re: (Score:2)
and the reason satellites show the hiatus?
because they aren't capable of showing subsurface ocean temperatures, aka the place storing all that 'missing' energy.
seriously.
its now 2016.
this line of BS has been known for the last few years.
you really need to get some new material.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh my god, there was a hiatus in the warming, whatever shall we do?
Well, satellite temperatures don't show everything, we'll blame it on that.
But wait, surface temperatures show a hiatus too!
Oh, we'll just carefully examine all the datasets for signs of a systemic error in favor of cooling, and correct for each of those errors until the hiatus goes away.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
(Note that the procedure described produces invalid results even if all the systemic errors in favor of cooling actually exist and are
Re:What was "Adjusted" this year? (Score:4, Funny)
The average of the instrumental record ... just like last year, and the year before that. The thing that you're missing is that it's reasonable to do this to account for the fact that you've added additional stations to the dataset, which would alter the raw average.
Re: (Score:2)
OK...now I'm not sure if you just forgot the sarcasm tag or if you're serious.
Poe's Law - How does it fucking work? [urbandictionary.com]
Re:What was "Adjusted" this year? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample"
So you are pleading that we should still use the same instruments and measure locations than in 1880?
Re:What was "Adjusted" this year? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could, but you'd get a less precise tracking of changes in recent years.
You basically have three choices here:
(1) Limit yourself to in instruments and stations in use in 1850.
(2) Add new stations and technologies but ignore their effect on the average.
(3) Add new stations and technologies then use statistical techniques to find the approximation that best fits the datapoints you have.
Simply limiting yourself to the instruments you had in place in 1850 is bound to *overestimate* the amount of warming. That's because the land-based instruments are likely to be overwhelmed by waste heat generated by urban sprawl. Instruments that were in quiet rural suburbs are now in the center of cities with hard, heat-catching surfaces like asphalt and concrete, surrounded by buildings heated with what by 1850 standards are vast amounts of energy. So even if you tried approach 1 you'd still have to adjust the figures (in this case discounting some of the spurious "warming" you're seeing) to get a reasonable estimate of change.
The instrumental "global average temperature" is an artificial construct in any case. We know there must *be* a global average temperature, but we can't measure it directly, short of measuring the temperature continuously over very point on the surface of the Earth. All we have are discrete measurements taken from a finite number of stations. You need some kind of model for how representative you think those measurements you do have are of the whole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no such thing. Oh, there's remote sensing, but you have to ground truth that. And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Re: (Score:3)
And it leaves you in the dark about anything that happened before the 1990s when the first climate observation satellites were launched.
Temperature satellite records go back to the 70s. See for example [wikipedia.org]. Generally I consider them to be much more reliable than terrestrial data, for a lot of reasons, but essentially they're harder to mess up.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at the number of adjustments required for the UAH satellites - Christy & Spenser have a scrawny leg to stand on when they talk about other people's adjustments.
And when I want to know the temperature, why would I rely solely on a device that does NOT measure temps directly but has to extrapolate?
Here is the adjustment (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the "adjustment" you're referring to:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-... [arstechnica.net]
The recent correction is the difference between the black line and the red line. The temperature rise between 1959 and 2014 is about 0.9C. The adjustment, in the last two years, is just barely large enough to see, about 0.05C. Over the full period analyzed, the new global analysis changed the observed rate of warming from 0.065C/decade to 0.068C/decade, less than the noise.
Really, I need to point out that analyzing data sets is what science does. But, if you actually look at the data, even if you throw out the new corrections entirely, it doesn't make a difference. The corrections didn't change whether warming exists or not.
That image is from this article: http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
For reference, here is the paper with the adjustments explained: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... [sciencemag.org]
(Karl, et al., "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus," Science Vol. 348 no. 6242, 26 June 2015: pp. 1469-1472
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632)
Re: (Score:2)
Which data set [Re:Here is the adjustment] (Score:3)
It's better to just trust the satellite record. (Also, it's fairly annoying how infrequently the error bars are included on those temperature graphs).
There are several satellite data sets, and they have a very large number of corrections required to convert radiance to atmospheric temperature profiles. In general, they give tropospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
Which data set do you like?
Re: (Score:2)
Stations sample at a point. Adding more stations is adding more sample points. The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample,
That is not correct. Stations are grouped by grid boxes. The grid boxes are then averaged. Adding stations does not change the distribution, it just adds detail to a grid box.
Adjustments typically address known biases such as time of observation bias. These methods are published and thus far no fault has been found with them. In fact they are acknowledged as necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the connection. During El Nino, the prevailing winds in the Pacific ocean are to the East, this draws heat and humidity away from the East coast of Australia and Indonesia and into Chile which is usually very dry. It changes the weather patterns for both Americas and Eastern Asia and Oceania.
Re: (Score:2)
"The new record was caused by the long-term warming of the planet due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide"
Do you like flame wars???? Because that is how you turn the comments section into a flame war.....
And heaven knows we don't need any more flame wars. The planet's getting warm enough as it is. /s
Re: really? (Score:2)
The science shows that it keeps getting warmer.
Perhaps we should be concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't show that is getting warmer, the math that scientist are using to massage the measurement is showing that it is getting warmer.
We get it, we get it - but we need the help of people like you to save us. You - the proud AC - know a whole shitload more about Global warming or actualy the complete lack of it, tha any scientist ever did? How? I don't know, but you really need to show your work, publish the papers. You WILL win a Nobel prize for showing the proof that you and all of the non scientists know is God's truth. Now Get off Slashdot and save the world from the scientists! Good luck - we're counting on you! I get all of my dat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because global warming is something that happens on a very long time scale, and real estate investment is something that happens on a relatively short time scale.
By the middle of the 2100s, the sea level will, if present trends continue, rise enough to flood Miami. But real estate investors look for profits in ten years or less, and sea levels will rise by no more than millimeters over that time scale.
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the icecaps??? They are huge
And it was cold today when I looked out my window. So much for global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermometers (as we would recognize them) were developed in the mid to late 1600s and by the 1720s they were making accurate mercury thermometers. By the mid 1800s making accurate thermometers was a well developed skill. You may not have been able to read them with the same degree of precision (decimal places) as modern thermometers but there's no reason to believe they weren't as accurate (within the limits of their precision).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm breaking out the carbon-neutral popcorn as we speak.