NASA: July 2016 Was Earth's Warmest Month On Record (weather.com) 271
mdsolar quotes a report from The Weather Channel: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), operated by the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), calculated the global average July temperature was nearly one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records set in 2015 and in 2009. July was also 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010. Compared to the July average, the south-central part of the United States including Texas and into northern Mexico were the most anomalously warm for North America. Globally, portions of western Russia and the Southern Ocean were warmest compared to average. In Russia, fires and an anthrax outbreak have been blamed on warmer than average temperatures. Each of the last 12 months has been the warmest on record for their respective months. This is due to a combination of global climate variability and human activity according to C3S. July is typically the warmest month of the year globally because the Northern Hemisphere has more land masses than the Southern Hemisphere. (NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) confirms today.)
Gets popcorn (Score:2, Interesting)
In all reality, whether you agree with AGW or not, even if it is just GW, as the only sentient, tool wielding species on the planet don't you think we should fucking prepare for the worst?
Re:Gets popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Migration, disease and war are already occurring. " The Mid-East and Africa (and India, I believe) are experiencing a very large heat wave that is forcing people to move as their subsistence farming can no longer keep up. Ask the Europeans how that's working out for them. Bangladesh is slowing sinking under the waves due to rising sea level due to global warming. Fresh water is becoming scare due to global warming drying up lakes and rivers and changing rainfall patterns.
Now, what was that you were saying
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He'll build a wall to keep the atmosphere out.
Re: Gets popcorn (Score:2)
Don't worry, we've already prevented that from happening for the foreseeable future and we know how to stop it by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Duh. (Score:2)
Anthrax? (Score:2)
Re:Anthrax? (Score:5, Informative)
It's the other way around. Warming has thawed sites where frozen bodies of animals killed by 20th century anthrax outbreaks, and those carcasses have now caused numerous cases of anthrax in animals and people in Siberia. You just got the relationship backwards. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
No no, it's like when you go outside and get wet. That causes it to start raining.
El Nino (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey dummies, nobody mentioned El Nino.
Projections for next year range from +.5 to -2.5 year on year, as La Nina kicks in.
We shall see, and it won't make any difference. The world will get hotter or colder. Politicians will tell lies and steal money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you are right, science doesn't exist.
Unlucky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:4, Insightful)
Was this before or after adjusting the data?
The procedure is outlined here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html [noaa.gov]
The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat.
It's bad news when you have to control for various factors in order to obtain an interesting result. It's also very arbitrary because the researcher can pick and choose which factors to account for and how to do so, in order to obtain the desired result.
These kinds of abuses lead to all sorts of nonsense conclusions like claiming vaccines cause autism. If the warming doesn't show up until you adjust for certain factors, you're doctoring the data.
So, I'd really like to know whether this is before or after the adjustments. The adjustments to the data create the mostly fictional warming.
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
Re: (Score:3)
The importance of the adjustment is when you're comparing months that are decades apart; there hasn't been any massive urbanization spurt in the last several years that could account for the July anomaly even in the unadjusted data. So July clearly was hotter than any month in the past several years, and those were very hot years indeed.
So basically you're making a pointless conjecture here. We have no reason to suspect the data weren't adjusted in the usual fashion, but if they weren't it wouldn't change
Re: (Score:3)
Just how much longer are you going to keep up this pseudo skepticism? Basically you're calling scientists liars, or at best, morons. So let's here your interpretation, and let's hear who you've submitted it to, and how it has been received.
Take pity on them.
This is what we get when people get their science education from politicians.
Take pity on them. It is summer, hotter than blue blazes, and they can't look out the window, see s few snowflakes, and yell - "So much for global warming!"
Take pity on them.
This is the summertime lull, where they have to pretend that they understand statistics, and lo and behold, a guy or gal who thinks that if you flip a coin 25 times and it comes up heads, its a dead lock the next 25 will be tails.
Take
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an ad hominem attack to call a pseudoskeptic out. The poster made no indication of understanding how data is analyzed, but basically claimed either incompetence or conspiracy by NOAA scientists.
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going? If there's some unknown heat sink dumping the solar radiation being absorbed by CO2 back into space, what exactly is it? After all, thermodynamics still reigns supreme last time I heard, so there's no perpetual magic refrigeration unit in the sky getting rid of excess energy be capture due to higher CO2 concentrations, so where is it?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I'll ask everyone who rejects AGW, where in the hell is all that energy being absorbed by CO2 going?
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
1) The insane people. No more explanation.
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
3) Those
Re: (Score:3)
Most scientific skeptics don't disagree that the energy is being absorbed by CO2, they more generally think that it's overstated or not a problem. There are three main 'unorthodox' groups on AGW:
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
2) Those who agree with the standard science line, but disagree on economics principals. Thus Bjorn Lomborg claims that economically speaking, it's better spend our resources on growing our economy, and helping poor people now, rather than trying to stop AGW.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
They consider AGW to be worth watching, but not worth worrying about yet.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until y
Re: (Score:2)
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in th early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Seriously, you must be drunk or something because your normal posts are much better than this one which looks like you didn't read anything.
Re: (Score:2)
So you gotta tell us - where is that 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing going? Or do you find that a trivial number with no need to go any further? Or do you dispute the number?
Dingbat, I answered that question in the very quote that you quoted.
No, you didn't If you gave me some facts and figures, you could claim as refutation I will accept that. I am asking for facts and figures, and science.
I do not find the scientific prowess of the people who brought us the economic meltdown in the early years of this century very comforting. Regardless, not many economic systems are ever designed to help poor people, so that's a real non-starter.
You're a moron and this is a logical fallacy, ad homenim. I can only assume that you don't actually understand AGW.
I understand much, and if all you can do is calll me names, that appears to be your best argument. The idea that we will somehow help poor people by ignoring the greenhouse effect is quite simply, ludicrous.
After all, falling off a cliff can be pretty pleasant at first. No point worrying until you hit the sudden stop.
This is another logical fallacy, a false analogy, from which again I can only conclude that you didn't understand what you read.
Oh dear. My point is that there might be some point that we would want to worry about it. When and where is that point? The Carteret Islands are now uni
Re: (Score:2)
I am of the second camp I guess. The changes being predicted, at worst case, are so gradual that it can be dealt with in most cases. Why worry when people do much stupider things like rebuilding New Orleans...below sea level...
When the government instead suggests people who lose their houses move them, maybe I will start listening, but until then, what is the big freaking deal? We can't even convince people to move houses that are clearly in danger now, why would we expect people to move their houses for
Re: (Score:3)
One causes higher storm surges in the world's most valuable real-estate upon which the financial capitals of the world are built and are an absolute necessity for our civilisation to continue, and the other pisses off cartographers. Trying to equate the two shows either a complete lack of understanding of the subject, or an intellectual dishonesty worthy of nothing but scorn. Pick one.
Re: (Score:3)
The thinking is this:
1. I don't like climate change
2. It doesn't exist
Re: (Score:2)
The thinking is this:
1. I don't like climate change
2. It doesn't exist
A few of the most emphatic deniers I know actually like the idea at the same time as rejecting the science. One likes his temps in the upper 80s - honest to gawd, he keeps his house at around 85, and has been reveling in the tropical weather here in the Northeast this summer. I think there might be something a little wrong with him physically.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is rather like saying "blood pressure exists and changes every 24 hours". No matter how many times you say that, it won't make a blood pressure of 140 over 90 healthy.
I don't imagine you care one iota, or will even listen, but oddly enough, climatologists can determine what is a normal statistical fluctuation and what points stand out against the normal background, and can identify trends.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your cherry picking an entire study based on the word "adjusted". In other words, you're partaking of the favorite aspect of pseudoscience, out of context quoting, because you either cannot understand the research, or don't want to.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data. There are nearly always adjustments made to account for known errors in the data. The only issue is whether the adjustments are scientifically justified or not. It takes science to determine that.
Mycology (Score:3, Interesting)
> I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data.
Im a mycologist and when doing spore measurements we measure the length and width or many spores. Then average the length and average the width. Providing largest measurements, smallest measurements, and average. We don't "adjust" our actual measurements to make sure the spore size meets the expected size.
Possibly you should, since other mycologists do make corrections. Here are some corrections factors noted by Smith et al: "Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Fungal Spore Yields": http://aem.asm.org/content/54/... [asm.org]
Re:Mycology (Score:5, Informative)
Correction factors are used for systematic errors.
Correct. And if you read the link, that's exactly what the NOAA corrections were: they corrected for known systematic errors, such as the change from fluid-in-glass thermometers to electronically-measured thermistors.
The measurement errors are random errors.
Random errors can be reduced by taking many measurements (which NOAA also does). The random error decreases as the square root of the number of measurements.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you "fix" time dependant measurements made in the past? All you can do is work with the data you have.
People like you make accusations of political bias all the time but never provide any scientific evidence for why the adjustments are wrong. Seems like a clear case of projection to me.
Re: (Score:3)
And that NEVER includes the bias of those making the adjustments, right?
The adjustments are done automatically by software. You can download the GISS sources here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov] You're kindly invited to point out the bias, or withdraw your accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be unaware that data is usually always adjusted. You suck at science, yet here you are thinking you know enough to disprove an entire field. Your arrogance (or is it just wishful thinking?) is pathetic.
Assertion without evidence (Score:3)
First time I heard that adjusting data to fit sought for conclusions is science.
You just asserted, without evidence, that the data was adjusted "to fit sought-for conclusions."
Again, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers. If the data isn't adjusted to correct for known instrument drift, the deniers shout "the data needs to be corrected," and if it is, the deniers shout "the data was adjusted." All data is analyzed. If you don't understand that, about all I can say is that you've never done real experimental science. If you don't correct for errors, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The joke is on you. All that is needed to understand AGW is to understand the properties of green house gases, in particular CO2, and to accept that thermodynamics is a real property of the universe. Increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even by very small percentages, and you greatly increase the atmosphere's ability to capture and trap energy. This isn't rocket science, it isn't mythology, it is a simple property of CO2, that has been known for over a century.
Get over it. Dumping millions of tonne
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and if there's one thing that everyone who is skeptical about climate change has in common, it's that they all love science and the scientific method. They are the virtual embodiment of Aristotle, every one of them.
Anything less is religion.
Thanks for the lecture, Archangel Michael.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:4, Insightful)
You haven't made any points to rebut. All you've done is spout a baseless opinion that the adjustments are bad because you think they are, without ever saying how they're bad, or why they should not be made.
When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion
And where is your evidence for this claim of deliberate data fudging? Where is your evidence that NOAA's adjustments are incorrect, given that the reported land temperature rises correlate with tropospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level rise, physically-based CO2 models, and indeed independent data from the NASA and HadCRUT sets as well? Are you also going to claim a global conspiracy next?
All measurements need proper calibration. Raw sensor output is meaningless without this, particularly if the sensor's bias is expected to change over time. Your link cites peer-reviewed methodology for the adjustments described, so unless you can explain convincingly why all those scientists are flat-out (and deliberately) wrong, don't expect your nonspecific ramblings to be taken seriously by anyone who counts.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aaah the old "massive global conspiracy involving every single accredited academic institution in the world, which also ignores the massive awards awaiting anyone who could expose it" excuse for ignoring science. You seriously don't seem to understand the amount of awards, prestige and funding awaiting anyone who can overturn these findings. Nobel prizes, you name it. That all is waiting for the first to be able to do so. No one has as it's like asking people to prove cows are jellyfish.
Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:3)
I hope you're trying to be funny but if you're not it should be relatively easy for other competent scientists to show they are wrong. Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
This is what makes you part of a minority on here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but ad hominem arguments don't rebut the points I made. It's not my job to interpret the data and draw conclusions.
But you did just that. Now that you did, instead of just saying "Something is wrong here" Give us your conclusions, and support them.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was 97%. Sounds like OP is correct.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a perfect illustration of the problem with the entire debate on this issue.
"I thought" that X was true. Therefore, I'm telling you the conclusion that you should believe.
No one gives a shit what you think. Instead of throwing out some random figure, would it really kill you do to a single piece of research?
Here is one survey [monmouth.edu], which found that 70% of Americans believe the climate is changing, 41% think it is a very serious problem, 19% say somewhat serious, 9% say not too serious, 22% believe that c
Re: PhD skepticism (Score:2)
97% is of working climate scientists. 88% must refer to scientists in general.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's your view that there is no such thing as an expert, that all claims are equal, and that a person who has studied climatology their entire career has no more knowledge than a burger flipper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"I'll get modded to oblivion but "scientists" aren't any smarter or dumber than the average person. They just managed to find a job that pays out more when the headlines aren't positive."
Hey, a Degree from Burger U, (Is that where you got yours?), isn't quite the same as a BS from Columbia and a Phd. from Berkeley. Richard Muller was a Skeptic coming from a perspective far away of yours; A Genuine Skeptic. He is also an Internationally known Physicist, very good a Data Analysis, and he felt the the Data Ana
Re:Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Interesting)
Climatologists have no reason to lie at all. They will still be involved in that research whether it's global warming, global cooling, or nothing at all.
But you tell me, where does all the extra energy absorbed and re-eimitted as IR by CO2 go? If you think the climatologists are lying, does that also lead you to believe that physicists who have known CO2's properties as far as absorbing certain wavelengths of CO2 for over a century are also lying? Just how many people will you stack into your conspiracy to make the theory go away?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So tell me, how was this comment overrated? How is it that so many science deniers get mod points, and why is it that they choose to use it to punish those that accept the science? Do you think you win debates by downmodding people?
Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's the alt-right moderation block. Those people live in a post-factual world where Trump makes sense, and mod accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, continuation of grants and funding is no reason to lie at all.
Re:Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:4, Informative)
The climategate link which showed absolutely nothing wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Care to provide an actual citation to this claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated?
Re: (Score:2)
And further, if your claim that there's a maximum amount of CO2 beyond which energy trapping stops, then why does lead melt on the surface of Venus?
Re: (Score:2)
They're simply following the example set by private industry, particularly those on Wall Street such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
Re: (Score:3)
When was phrenology ever a science?
In fact, how many actual scientific theories (as defined as actually having a methodological approach, founded on a theory, built out of hypotheses and attempting to explain actual evidence) been overthrown? Newtonian mechanics never was, and is still used in the context of being a simplified set of formulas for velocities where relativistic calculations are not necessary. Non Big Bang theories of the universe were thrown out, in particular the steady state theory, but eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was this before or after adjustments? (Score:5, Informative)
The adjustments generally used (which always have to be performed when you mix data from different measurement techniques) are lowering the recorded temperature. You are either woefully ignorant of this field, or are being intellectually dishonest.
It's a record hot month with or without adjusting (Score:3)
Was this before or after adjusting the data?
If you looked at the page you linked, you'd see that the heat-island effect you reference is 0.1F (0.056 C). The article says that this July was 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010, so that's ten times more than the entire heat-island correction between 1900 to 2000. And it was is one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records-- which still five times larger than the entire heat island change between 1900 and 2000.
Note that all data is always "adjus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're wrong because you're constructing statement, and seem to have no interest in the science at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Dont bother men, the so called sceptics are irrational, as becomes obvious by their silly clamis of scientists being corrupt.
I never reply to them, why argue with irrelevant old blinkered right wing morons who wont accept evidence.
We had one of these idiots on TV last night debating Brian Cox, the audience ended up just laughing at him, as Brain destroyed the usual denialist bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is ... I've heard it enough times that it must be at least 5 degrees C hotter on average per year than just a few years ago ... which seems ... catastrophic ...
Errr... If May, June, and July are all 0.5 higher than average, that doesn't mean the earth is 1.5 higher. And if 2015 is, say, 0.45 higher and 2016 is 0.55 higher than average, that doesn't mean that we're 1.0 higher than average. Statistics don't work that way.
Since you don't understand numbers and averages, the rest of your rant seems likely to be nonsensical. Which -- surprise! -- it is.
You can educate yourself on statistics, how they can be used to lie, and how to detect that deceit. Then your op
Re: (Score:2)
And why not, it' not like we do anything against it. Of course the next year's $month will be hotter than this year's $month, how the fuck should it be colder?
Re: (Score:2)
Historical records for land stations go back centuries. We haven't had publicly known monitoring stations in orbit for more than a few decades.
Actually, orbiting measurements need to allow for the air being warmer. The speed of light partially is affected in the medium of air depending on it's temperature. This also includes other "weather" impacts. So measurements from a period with colder air do not exactly match those from periods with warmer air. Since we talk about full temperature changes in F over th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
records before this century are a joke. thermometers weren't accurate. if you actually look at them some just have am or pm recording "time", and gaps of years....they're useless. putting them into a computer and running stats on them doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Mercury thermometers accurate to less than 0.05 C have existed since the early 1800s. But go ahead and post some more nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For pseudoscientific advocates all that counts is a response is made. The response doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to make sense. But what is necessary is that some sort of criticism, no matter how moronic, false or absurd, exists, so that all the other advocates of pseudoscience can declare "You see, someone made a response, so your theory is wrong!!!!"
Answers In Genesis has done this for years in attacking biology. Some of the objections, like the bizarre moon dust claims, are so incredibly
Re: (Score:2)
Christ almighty Slashdot. Would you start revoking the mod points of these bloody people. What will I be permitted to say on this place without getting my karma bashed to pieces? Just mindlessly agree "AGW is a lie and Trump is the bestest ever!"
Re:Why are land stations used? (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife is a geophysicist, and I used to read the journals she subscribed to all through the late 80s and 90s -- well before "Global Warming" became a political issue.
It was the tail end of the shift in consensus between global cooling and global warming. By then almost everyone was convinced, but they still argued like cats and dogs over how to interpret the instrumental record. If they were convinced, why fight the data that supported what they believed to be true? Because they wanted the data to be more equivocal. The lack of ambiguity in the data struck in their craw, so they attacked it, over and over and over again. It was kind of like the way baseball purists must have felt when the dead ball era ended. Yeah, we like to see runs scored, but this is just ridiculous.
It amazes me that layman believe that scientists never thought to question how the instrumental record should be interpreted. Do you really thing all those people getting geophysics PhDs from MIT and CalTech are so much more obtuse than you are? Believe me, if you can think of a nit, it got picked. It's probably still getting picked, although the range of impact has likely been reduced to practical insignificance. That's what scientists are paid to do: argue with each other. If they have nothing significant to disagree about, then trivialities will do. I know an astronomer who claims to have seen fist fights break out over whether the moon was full or not -- although I suspect that might have been the boozing.
Re: Why are land stations used? (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. Reading accuracy to the nearest degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements into a single composite it's reasonable to express it to thousandths of a degree.
Re: Why are land stations used? (Score:2)
Actually satellites don't collect data over the poles because of the tilt of their orbit so they don't cover the whole earth. Some of the strongest warming is in the Arctic.
Re: (Score:2)
We have satellites collecting temperature readings from the whole earth
The problem is that we are usually interested in the temperature of a narrow layer of air just above the surface. That's what we measure with a weather station. You can't really measure that with a satellite, without getting confused by temperature radiation and the actual surface or the higher layers of atmosphere.
July is special (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's simply shifted the trend upwards.
Well at least you aren't denying the steady trend of global temperatures marching higher and higher, year after year. Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
A bit like saying that a steadily sinking boat, as it bobs up and down, will be higher and lower, since natural wave variation has not stopped, it is s
Re: (Score:2)
Remember this is the warmest month ever recorded, which makes it the warmest month since the last Ice Age (we passed the historic peak since the last Ice Age a decade or more ago). And that makes it the warmest month in the last 100,000 years.
Uh, no. Where did you get that from? "recorded" goes back to the mid/end of the 19th century - not further.
It was warmer than today for thousands of years during this interglacial (~8000 years ago) - known as the Holocene Optimum. In some parts, like anthrax-ridden Siberia, it was up to 9 degrees warmer than today.
(Yes, I can link the actual papers if you really don't believe it - but it's not difficult to put the keywords into a search engine)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate isn't weather. If you don't even know that much, then how can you possibly have ability to assess the theory in question?
Re:Please explain (Score:5, Interesting)
Please explain the following:
1.) When the weather is hotter than normal, it's evidence of Global Warming (or climate change), but... 2.) When the weather is colder than normal, the AGW apologists immediately remind us that Weather is not Climate.
If indeed the Earth is getting warmer, the press sure aren't doing the AGW advocates any favors with stories like the above.
These stories about extreme weather events only reinforce the perception that it's all a scam for political control. It's not helping.
I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest request for elucidation (but that this is an AC post is not promising).
The article is not stating that it is "hotter than normal". It is stating that is hotter than ever recorded, indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years. July is typically the hottest month so one expect historic records to be broken in July, and the last time the record was broken was - last July. If we go by seasonal records (hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, etc.) the last time was such a record was broken was - last month. And the last time before that was - the month before, and so on and so on.
When was the last time that it was colder globally than ever before recorded? Based on a relatively recent 1961-1990 average the last time we had a cooler than average month was 31 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest request for elucidation (but that this is an AC post is not promising).
The article is not stating that it is "hotter than normal". It is stating that is hotter than ever recorded, indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years.
Eh?
"Global mean temperatures in July 2016 were the warmest on record not just for July, but for any month dating to the late 1800s, according to separate just-released analyses."
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that statement is that extreme weather events (both hot and cold) are a symptom of climate change. In the last five years in the Northeastern US, we've had more extreme weather events than in any of the years prior - from heat wave records that seem to get broken year after year to absurdly high (30+ inch) single-storm snowfall totals and snowstorms happening earlier than they should. It's not just the Northeast, either. Look at California and their record-breaking temperatures and record d
Re:No Problem Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the five stages of climate denial. You are on number 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Problem Here (Score:5, Insightful)
The main issue I have is, No matter how much money is siphoned from the Western Economies (up to and including everything along with shutting down the economies) and provided to other nations, the UN or what ever scientific or world body.
First of all, nobody is "siphoning money" from the U.S. and shutting down its economy to give the spoilers to some filthy foreigners. That's something you made up after being overexposed to someone's fearmongering.
What we do for the next 30-40 years is going to determine the Earth's ultimate temperature for at least 10,000 years. History is closely watching what we're doing right now, and it's watching from farther in the future than you might be realizing. Long after WWII is a footnote of history like the Napoleonic or Punic Wars, the apathetic idiocy on this subject being expressed by the fools alive today- the few who saw it coming, had a chance to do something about it, and did nothing about it for bullshit reasons (like who might be "siphoning money")- will be analyzed for literally tens of thousands of years by all of those affected who will regard the few generations of people alive today as the most despicable generations in all of human existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The world did very well combating the ozone hole by agreeing to limit certain CFCs.
The only hope for this planet is for dystopian morons like you to do the honorable thing and leave the planet at your earliest convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's too bad you didn't transcribe the flatulence, which likely contained more useful information than your post.
Let me spell out the obvious for you:
1. Warmer + dryer conditions than normal -> greater chance of forest fires.
2. Warmer conditions -> long-frozen bodies of animals that died from anthrax thaw out, releasing $guess_what into the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
The hottest year on record is just the last data point of an increasing temperature over time http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov]
Granted I would like to see a story of "This is the warmest 10 years" or 20, but that kind of news doesn't trigger the newspapers (well not until the numbers are nice and round when we hit 2020)
And there still might be some merit in pointing out this bit of weather since it's the hottest it's been for the last 100+ ye
Re: (Score:2)
What the actual fuck is up with the comments and moderation on this article.
I know Climate Change has it's skeptics but this is another level.
I would pay good money to have access to the IP source of the comments and moderation on this one.
Re: Really.. Really??? (Score:2)
Accuracy to 1 degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements the results can be expressed in thousandths of a degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the errors are systematic. And they often are.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
Re: Really.. Really??? (Score:2)
Even if the errors are systematic that may only affect the absolute reading you get but not necessarily the trend over time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if the errors are systemic they can absolutely change the trend. Not only within a measurement system (human readers rounding to nearest half degree) but most definitely when you switch measurement devices (bucket intake on ships).
Most research in the world would benefit from having professional statisticians help out with the statistics. It's simply quite hard to get right. One principle that is never used as it should is the Bonferroni correction.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't remember that. There were a handful of people making that claim, and it was never generally accepted. This is just a tired meme that people like you invoke.
Re: (Score:3)
AGW skeptics aren't being censored. Idiots who screw up the facts and think that minor discrepancies that are likely already reconciled disprove the whole science do get downmodded.