2014 Was Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
2014 Was Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html
17 comments
Thank you for the data, but it brings up a big question for me. How do they boil down "Global Temperature" to a single number from 1880 to 2014? In 1880 there were only 38 states and the Statue of Liberty hadn't been delivered yet for 5 years.
Today they have temperature sensors in Antarctica, the North Pole, Alaska, Utah, the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the middle of the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc. Did they have these same sensors in 1880? In 1900? In 1920?
Where is the data that shows the constituents of the "one true number" that claims to stretch over a period of 134 years?
Today they have temperature sensors in Antarctica, the North Pole, Alaska, Utah, the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the middle of the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc. Did they have these same sensors in 1880? In 1900? In 1920?
Where is the data that shows the constituents of the "one true number" that claims to stretch over a period of 134 years?
You know the phrase "The sun never sets on British soil"? Well that dates to the 18th Century, and they we measuring temperature everywhere they were. True, expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic were later, but they also recorded temperature.
So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good.
So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good.
So, the record, while incomplete, is pretty good.
Do you have any evidence of this claim? Specifically, do you know where I can find the formula used to calculate the global temperature and the constituent temperature readings, locations and time/dates?
Common sense says that such readings would be spotty at best and also that they would be incomparable between 1880 and 2014 but since they are comparing them I'm very curious of their methodology.
EDIT OK I found what claims to be the source code of the software that massages the numbers here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
EDIT2 OK I found the underlying data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
It's exactly what I thought. Hardly any of the stations go back to 1880 and the ones that do are unbelievably spotty with sometimes two years or more of missing data. Oh and they're apparently not even measurements - they're "reconstructions". And apparently they re-adjust these reconstructions all the time. (see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_rul...)
The environment would be much better off if we stopped pretending we know things we don't and just agree that it is stupid to squander a finite resource like fossil fuels and start conserving it.
Do you have any evidence of this claim? Specifically, do you know where I can find the formula used to calculate the global temperature and the constituent temperature readings, locations and time/dates?
Common sense says that such readings would be spotty at best and also that they would be incomparable between 1880 and 2014 but since they are comparing them I'm very curious of their methodology.
EDIT OK I found what claims to be the source code of the software that massages the numbers here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
EDIT2 OK I found the underlying data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
It's exactly what I thought. Hardly any of the stations go back to 1880 and the ones that do are unbelievably spotty with sometimes two years or more of missing data. Oh and they're apparently not even measurements - they're "reconstructions". And apparently they re-adjust these reconstructions all the time. (see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_rul...)
The environment would be much better off if we stopped pretending we know things we don't and just agree that it is stupid to squander a finite resource like fossil fuels and start conserving it.
[deleted]
That's because god doesn't trust the British in the dark.
That links says that temperatures are rising "at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970."
So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.
So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.
The "average rate per decade" is highly variable depending on your starting decade. The average "pace" of the last 4.5 decades is 0.16 C per decade, the "current" annual "pace" of the last 10 years is less than 0.01 C per year.
Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
The last 10 years are far too short a time period to establish anything due to the variability of the data. If you include more data you get a more accurate result, so do that. 30 years is the usual minimum period considered for climate, so what's your purpose in choosing something considerably shorter?
Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.
Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.
Mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline" [1], and it's very interesting. In particular, I feel persuaded that nuclear power is our big shot at bringing atmospheric levels of CO2 down to manageable levels.
Brand was one of the first "Greens". His Whole Earth Catalog inspired a lot of the 70's techno-hippies, like Steve Jobs, and it's fascinating to read how his positions have evolved over the decades, and how he is championing positions he wouldn't have expected to be championing when he was younger.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline
Brand was one of the first "Greens". His Whole Earth Catalog inspired a lot of the 70's techno-hippies, like Steve Jobs, and it's fascinating to read how his positions have evolved over the decades, and how he is championing positions he wouldn't have expected to be championing when he was younger.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline
Brand was always, in some sense, a counter-counterculturist; a lot of "Green"/hippie folks were and are not just antiwar and anti-environmental-destruction but anti-technology and even, in some sense, anti-civilization. Brand's always been at the opposite extreme, at the same time as he shared the counterculture's inspiration to build something new. Sort of like a Yankee Hernando de Soto.
Ten years ago, even five years ago, it was plausible that nuclear power would be our only viable option to get off fossil fuels. Now it's clear that photovoltaic can get us there, and maybe even without a carbon tax or equivalent restrictions.
http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_N... has his updates on the nuclear energy chapter. (He doesn't have much to say about solar.) I can't find the text online.
Ten years ago, even five years ago, it was plausible that nuclear power would be our only viable option to get off fossil fuels. Now it's clear that photovoltaic can get us there, and maybe even without a carbon tax or equivalent restrictions.
http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_N... has his updates on the nuclear energy chapter. (He doesn't have much to say about solar.) I can't find the text online.
Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?
He briefly mentions it and enumerates its potential benefits.
If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then.
The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two.
At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two.
At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
That just suggests that nuclear power is inherently uneconomical! It also doesn't make sense, because there are many nations that have nuclear reactors, but don't have or want nuclear weapons - Japan, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain come to mind offhand.
Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
The countries without military nuclear programmes still made use of knowledge and technology that was developed in military programmes elsewhere. As with the bomb itself, just knowing that it can work will save a lot of time.
Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.
Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.
Nuclear power was killed off by
the World Secretary of Energy at Large
Jane Fonda.
Admiral Rickover was over ruled.
Admiral Rickover was over ruled.
At this point it's obvious: CO2, which traps heat by a clearly understandable and straightforward physical mechanism, is altering the Earth's climate with unknown but likely mostly negative consequences.
That means we can add this fact to an already very long list of reasons that we must go beyond fossil fuels.
I personally don't think the CO2 problem is at the top of that list. The top slot by far belongs to the depletion problem. There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization. This might also involve global warfare, possibly nuclear, and a "mass die off" of the human species. At the very least all economic growth would cease and with it all opportunity for anyone to advance their condition in life. The pie would begin shrinking, and this would bring a return to a scarcity mentality in all things. An "orderly die-back and return to bare subsistence" is probably the best case scenario.
The fact that our entire modern technological society is absolutely dependent upon a finite source of energy is probably the greatest existential threat that we face. That this isn't talked about more is likely a result of denial in the face of a very terrifying problem. A good way to think about it is to compare it to a planet-killer asteroid that we know is headed our way.
Next up is probably the geopolitical nightmare of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels transfer massive quantities of wealth from (relatively) liberal open societies to brutal totalitarian states where people are beheaded for questioning the dominant religion or dictator. It finances both terrorism and the ideologies behind it. The only alternative way to still get these fuels would be to embark upon a blood-soaked imperial crusade to simply seize these fossil fuel reserves, an alternative that's arguably worse than the existing state of affairs for many reasons.
I'd put the CO2 problem in the third slot below these. The fourth slot would probably belong to the other environmental damages inflicted by fossil fuel mining and use including air and water pollution and the destruction of otherwise valuable land.
Anyone who argues for the fossil fuel status quo at this point is delusional or insane. I personally think this is the greatest problem facing our civilization.
That means we can add this fact to an already very long list of reasons that we must go beyond fossil fuels.
I personally don't think the CO2 problem is at the top of that list. The top slot by far belongs to the depletion problem. There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization. This might also involve global warfare, possibly nuclear, and a "mass die off" of the human species. At the very least all economic growth would cease and with it all opportunity for anyone to advance their condition in life. The pie would begin shrinking, and this would bring a return to a scarcity mentality in all things. An "orderly die-back and return to bare subsistence" is probably the best case scenario.
The fact that our entire modern technological society is absolutely dependent upon a finite source of energy is probably the greatest existential threat that we face. That this isn't talked about more is likely a result of denial in the face of a very terrifying problem. A good way to think about it is to compare it to a planet-killer asteroid that we know is headed our way.
Next up is probably the geopolitical nightmare of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels transfer massive quantities of wealth from (relatively) liberal open societies to brutal totalitarian states where people are beheaded for questioning the dominant religion or dictator. It finances both terrorism and the ideologies behind it. The only alternative way to still get these fuels would be to embark upon a blood-soaked imperial crusade to simply seize these fossil fuel reserves, an alternative that's arguably worse than the existing state of affairs for many reasons.
I'd put the CO2 problem in the third slot below these. The fourth slot would probably belong to the other environmental damages inflicted by fossil fuel mining and use including air and water pollution and the destruction of otherwise valuable land.
Anyone who argues for the fossil fuel status quo at this point is delusional or insane. I personally think this is the greatest problem facing our civilization.
To think that a resource will suddenly disappear with no replacement is to ignore the entirety of history.
Fossil fuels will not simply run out, and we are already transitioning to alternatives. That transition will speed up as costs increase. The market works.
What the market is NOT doing is pricing in the impact of CO2. Which is why the CO2 emissions are the bigger problem.
Fossil fuels will not simply run out, and we are already transitioning to alternatives. That transition will speed up as costs increase. The market works.
What the market is NOT doing is pricing in the impact of CO2. Which is why the CO2 emissions are the bigger problem.
Nothing will suddenly disappear, but it will suddenly become impossible to increase production. Since it's the rate limiting reagent, that limits the economy to flat or shrinking.
> There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization.
Whoah, that seems a little overly pessimistic. We _do_ have alternatives, they just aren't economically competitive with fossil fuels. So I say bring on supply constraints... anything that raises the price of fossil fuels helps to make alternatives more attractive and increase investment into their research and refinement.
So I'd still be way more concerned with the CO2 problem, overfishing, pollution, mass-extinction... all that stuff.
Whoah, that seems a little overly pessimistic. We _do_ have alternatives, they just aren't economically competitive with fossil fuels. So I say bring on supply constraints... anything that raises the price of fossil fuels helps to make alternatives more attractive and increase investment into their research and refinement.
So I'd still be way more concerned with the CO2 problem, overfishing, pollution, mass-extinction... all that stuff.
The problem with this discussion is that it positions climate change is the biggest threat to humanity. But there are other dangers such as AI far more lethal to humans and there are other factors to take into consideration.
For instance its hard to see the world in general becoming richer and getting more people out of poverty by doing green if we dont find effective alternatives to the green energy we have today as it's simply not enough to just replace current usage but also develop solutions that are exponentially more effective.
At the same time its obvious that the way we currently ignore externalities in economy is not giving us a full picture of how things are really looking.
In my mind we have to trust technology to be the solution even though it might end up advancing us.
For instance its hard to see the world in general becoming richer and getting more people out of poverty by doing green if we dont find effective alternatives to the green energy we have today as it's simply not enough to just replace current usage but also develop solutions that are exponentially more effective.
At the same time its obvious that the way we currently ignore externalities in economy is not giving us a full picture of how things are really looking.
In my mind we have to trust technology to be the solution even though it might end up advancing us.
Conservatives who deny that C02 is bad, simply don't like the solution, which they fear being more government...
http://today.duke.edu/2014/11/solutionaversion
http://today.duke.edu/2014/11/solutionaversion
I'm not aware of any other political course of action that's ever been able to cope with a tragedy of the commons where property rights within the commons are difficult to assign.
"Can we stop arguing at this point? Anyone who still thinks the fossil fuel status quo is okay is insane."
72%[1] of republicans in the senate are insane apparently.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54
72%[1] of republicans in the senate are insane apparently.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54
They're perfectly sane (they see their constituency as their funders - of which Big Oil is a big name), but corrupt.
How do you remediate a corrupt system?
How do you remediate a corrupt system?
[deleted]
"72%[1] of republicans in the senate are insane apparently."
I never doubted it.
I never doubted it.
I guess it comes down to your definition of sanity. A hell of a lot of people think they can talk to the creator of the universe by closing their eyes once a week. The human race does not generally set the sanity bar all that high.
CO2 argument aside, just because oil makes such a large portion of energy doesn't mean we are dependent on it to that degree.
It's simply the most economic way to currently fill that energy need. If oil runs out, which may be way further into the future than anyone realizes, then it will no longer be the most economic option and thus replaced by the next in line.
Mass die off? bare subsistence? What kind of comic books are you reading that in?
It's simply the most economic way to currently fill that energy need. If oil runs out, which may be way further into the future than anyone realizes, then it will no longer be the most economic option and thus replaced by the next in line.
Mass die off? bare subsistence? What kind of comic books are you reading that in?
I'm just going to say that you should research this a bit.
How much sunk cost do we have out there in fossil-fuel-based infrastructure and technology? How much would it cost in energy to replace all that sunk cost? Where's the investment capital going to come from for all that in a shrinking economy?
Many people thought we'd hit "peak oil" in the 2000s. They were wrong. That's the nature of bubbles -- they always go higher than anyone anticipates. The amount of oil we produce will continue to rise with demand on a kind of stair-step function until it doesn't. The people who predict the bubble popping always sound like fools until they don't. Then they sound like prophets, but then it's too late.
When will this point be? Next decade? Four decades from now? Nobody really knows. You're comfortable with that? Do you have kids?
Also keep in mind that we might be able to keep stretching it out very far if we adopt things like coal to liquids, gas to liquids, etc. But as we do that, the environmental damage will increase exponentially as will the CO2 emissions per unit energy generated. If you think we have a CO2 problem now...
I would think our recent experience with economic bubbles would provide some sense of how these things unfold. Bubbles make everyone look like a fool in turn. First they make the skeptics and "bears" look like fools, and then they pop and make the believers look like fools.
Fossil fuel extraction -- the self-catalyzed exponential utilization of a finite resource -- behaves quite a lot like an economic bubble and will ultimately end the same way because physics. The question is whether we will have moved on enough by then that the blow is cushioned. That's an existential question IMHO. If the answer is "no," there won't be much of a future.
How much sunk cost do we have out there in fossil-fuel-based infrastructure and technology? How much would it cost in energy to replace all that sunk cost? Where's the investment capital going to come from for all that in a shrinking economy?
Many people thought we'd hit "peak oil" in the 2000s. They were wrong. That's the nature of bubbles -- they always go higher than anyone anticipates. The amount of oil we produce will continue to rise with demand on a kind of stair-step function until it doesn't. The people who predict the bubble popping always sound like fools until they don't. Then they sound like prophets, but then it's too late.
When will this point be? Next decade? Four decades from now? Nobody really knows. You're comfortable with that? Do you have kids?
Also keep in mind that we might be able to keep stretching it out very far if we adopt things like coal to liquids, gas to liquids, etc. But as we do that, the environmental damage will increase exponentially as will the CO2 emissions per unit energy generated. If you think we have a CO2 problem now...
I would think our recent experience with economic bubbles would provide some sense of how these things unfold. Bubbles make everyone look like a fool in turn. First they make the skeptics and "bears" look like fools, and then they pop and make the believers look like fools.
Fossil fuel extraction -- the self-catalyzed exponential utilization of a finite resource -- behaves quite a lot like an economic bubble and will ultimately end the same way because physics. The question is whether we will have moved on enough by then that the blow is cushioned. That's an existential question IMHO. If the answer is "no," there won't be much of a future.
Completely comfortable with it. I'd rather have cheap oil subsidize as much technological advancement as possible while we figure out how to replace it with an equal or better solution. If we cant, we'll pay more and use less. I don't think my 7 year old is gonna be living in a mad max scenario.
You're assuming individual or social utility-maximizing rational behavior if we do hit limits and begin deflating. I don't share that faith.
Look at what happens domestically when we have a year or two of recession and take the exponent of that. Now imagine a contracting economy for decades with the rate of contraction accelerating over time.
The "genetically rational" (not hedonic or utility maximizing) selfish-gene course of action in a shrinking pie world is to reproduce as much as you can and then kill as many other people as possible, preferably those from lineages further from yours (other ethnicities). This increases the odds of your offspring successfully reproducing by eliminating their competition. Our genes are ancient, and they know what to do when the famine comes. They don't "care" whether it sucks from the perspective of their sentient but disposable constructs/vehicles. Evolution is amoral, and nature doesn't care about you.
An alternate "genetically rational" strategy is to retreat to the margins and wait for the episode of "Walking Dead" to end, but there'd be competition for good but isolated places to live off the land. In this scenario you'd want to actually look poor, if not be poor, since that would make you less attractive to raiders.
Not exactly a future I want to see. I'd rather just be at ground zero when a nuke hits. Quick and painless.
Look at what happens domestically when we have a year or two of recession and take the exponent of that. Now imagine a contracting economy for decades with the rate of contraction accelerating over time.
The "genetically rational" (not hedonic or utility maximizing) selfish-gene course of action in a shrinking pie world is to reproduce as much as you can and then kill as many other people as possible, preferably those from lineages further from yours (other ethnicities). This increases the odds of your offspring successfully reproducing by eliminating their competition. Our genes are ancient, and they know what to do when the famine comes. They don't "care" whether it sucks from the perspective of their sentient but disposable constructs/vehicles. Evolution is amoral, and nature doesn't care about you.
An alternate "genetically rational" strategy is to retreat to the margins and wait for the episode of "Walking Dead" to end, but there'd be competition for good but isolated places to live off the land. In this scenario you'd want to actually look poor, if not be poor, since that would make you less attractive to raiders.
Not exactly a future I want to see. I'd rather just be at ground zero when a nuke hits. Quick and painless.
There is a BBC show called Bang Goes the Theory that is similar to mythbusters. There was a particular episode where they took a typical UK family and unbeknownst to them put them into a house that was solely powered by electricity generated by bicyclists. It is a stark lesson on how much we take easy energy from fossil fuels for granted:
http://www.electricpedals.com/human-power-station/
It is quite foolish and selfish that generations living from about 1900 to 2100 will burn up 3 billion years of stored sunlight in the form of fossil fuels.
It will be at the least drastically painful when the fossil fuels run out if we don't take action.
http://www.electricpedals.com/human-power-station/
It is quite foolish and selfish that generations living from about 1900 to 2100 will burn up 3 billion years of stored sunlight in the form of fossil fuels.
It will be at the least drastically painful when the fossil fuels run out if we don't take action.
Another way of thinking about it:
You're in a startup, and you see that your "burn" gives you approximately six months of runway. Your revenue is increasing, but too slow. The lines do not intersect.
Doing nothing proactive about the fossil fuel problem is identical to doing nothing proactive in that scenario. "Burn" is quite literal in this analogy, and "revenue" is analogous to our ability to tap and utilize other sources of energy economically. Right now we're like a startup on a death march to bankruptcy. Barring benevolent aliens, I doubt there's any more venture capital available.
A lot of people have a cognitive block about this issue because historically it's an issue raised by "liberals" and "hippies." But it's not a political issue. It's a physics issue. It's as "hard" and objective an issue as it gets.
If humanity were to fail as a species and you asked me (in the afterlife?) why, I'd say "because we used ideas and facts as indicators of membership in social cliques, making it impossible to think objectively about things without threatening our standing in those groups."
You're in a startup, and you see that your "burn" gives you approximately six months of runway. Your revenue is increasing, but too slow. The lines do not intersect.
Doing nothing proactive about the fossil fuel problem is identical to doing nothing proactive in that scenario. "Burn" is quite literal in this analogy, and "revenue" is analogous to our ability to tap and utilize other sources of energy economically. Right now we're like a startup on a death march to bankruptcy. Barring benevolent aliens, I doubt there's any more venture capital available.
A lot of people have a cognitive block about this issue because historically it's an issue raised by "liberals" and "hippies." But it's not a political issue. It's a physics issue. It's as "hard" and objective an issue as it gets.
If humanity were to fail as a species and you asked me (in the afterlife?) why, I'd say "because we used ideas and facts as indicators of membership in social cliques, making it impossible to think objectively about things without threatening our standing in those groups."
Some eye opening tidbits in here:
"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997"
"Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño"
Of course all of this is in relation to a history starting only in the late 1800s, so we are looking at a blip on geological time scales, but still even micro-cycles within macro-cycles can be instructive and meaningful. Would like to hear from the experts on the macro view.
"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997"
"Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño"
Of course all of this is in relation to a history starting only in the late 1800s, so we are looking at a blip on geological time scales, but still even micro-cycles within macro-cycles can be instructive and meaningful. Would like to hear from the experts on the macro view.
Not an expert, but the wiki page seems pretty accessible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Satellites: 35 years
Balloons: 65 years
Instruments: 165 years
Ice cores: 800,000 years
Sediment cores: at least 500,000,000 years
It' not very clear, but the "on record" probably include only the instrument measurement period, or something like that. The ice cores graph (linked near the bottom) says that 125.000 years ago the temperature was much hotter (+8°C).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/...
The rate of change probably matters as much as the absolute difference. Given enough time, life can adapt. I'd love to see a chart of both the temperatures and the rate of change over those time periods.
Note that these are Antarctic temperatures (as you might guess from "ice core"), not global temperatures.
I had seen the anomaly graph a month or two ago and it had confirmed my perception of Summer 2014 in the the upper Midwest USA (Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota). We had a relative cool summer; The temperature didn't even hit 90 degrees until well into August.
It was a welcome change, as our hot summers are always accompanied by brutal humidity. I'd like to know why it was so cool last year.
It was a welcome change, as our hot summers are always accompanied by brutal humidity. I'd like to know why it was so cool last year.
Minnesota's winter of 2013-1014 was brutal. I have never experienced such cold in my 16 years here. Schools and businesses closed regularly for days because it was unsafe to be outside for any length of time.
This is anecdotal, of course, but it ties to the cool summer, I think.
This is anecdotal, of course, but it ties to the cool summer, I think.
Because as the Arctic warms, the Jet Stream becomes more chaotic and reaches further south.
"Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records." Terrifying.
[deleted]
That's likely to be either this year or next year. NOAA puts out an update weekly, and they are currently saying "There is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the next two months".
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/la...
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/la...
In the meantime, scientists are struggling to make lawmakers actually believe in science! Scary stuff. I really hope that the GOP turns on this issue soon enough. It's hard to believe that this is actually needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis
No you aren't crazy if you notice that engineering fields tend to attract many brilliant people with wacky beliefs.
It's very evident in any controversial topic, even on HN as you can see ITT.
No you aren't crazy if you notice that engineering fields tend to attract many brilliant people with wacky beliefs.
It's very evident in any controversial topic, even on HN as you can see ITT.
Back when I helped edit wikipedia physics articles, it was very noticeable that almost every crank with an anti-relativity agenda had an EE background. Not just engineering, but very specifically electrical engineering.
Was the cooler eastern US an anomaly or is this an expected long term result?
2014 was the hottest year. But the summer in my city was complete crap. It was cold and rainy.
Hope its better summer this year :)
Of course, no mention that this is based on the ground-station temperature record which is continually being "revised" so that the past is cooler and cooler. I believe the raw station records have now been "revised" three times so that the original data is becoming meaningless. The satellite record does not show that 2014 was the warmest.
No surprise I'm being downvoted, but here's the satellite temperature record:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015
[Edit: why would people downvote a link to the satellite temperature record?]
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015
[Edit: why would people downvote a link to the satellite temperature record?]
[deleted]
Why? Like Galileo, you are a heretic,
fighting the orthodoxy, willing to contradict
the true religion! Pope Laureate Guru
will send out his acolytes to deliver his
inquisition and excommunication! That's why!
So here's a question... why is the older data being revised? The way it's phrased, and it may not have been your intent, is a deliberate conspiracy to make the changes look greater than they actually are.
This touches on the inexplicable assumption driving much of the anti-warming crowd... the idea of a massive conspiracy of scientists worldwide to lie about climate change, fake data, and supress evidence to the contrary. Those making that assumption never really address why such a conspiracy exists.
This touches on the inexplicable assumption driving much of the anti-warming crowd... the idea of a massive conspiracy of scientists worldwide to lie about climate change, fake data, and supress evidence to the contrary. Those making that assumption never really address why such a conspiracy exists.
Well, you tell me. Why would the manually produced, subsequently "adjusted" thermometer data be trumpeted so that everyone is announcing that 2014 was the hottest ever, when the satellite record shows no such thing?
What would you do if your livelihood depended on towing the company line?
I've looked at the data local to me for the stations that are rural and have had no development. The raw data shows no warming. The adjusted data suddenly shows warming.
My view is that it's just odd to emphasize the error-proned data over the more reliable data for dramatic effect. That's not science. And when governments and media just pick it up and run with it, it weirds me out.
What would you do if your livelihood depended on towing the company line?
I've looked at the data local to me for the stations that are rural and have had no development. The raw data shows no warming. The adjusted data suddenly shows warming.
My view is that it's just odd to emphasize the error-proned data over the more reliable data for dramatic effect. That's not science. And when governments and media just pick it up and run with it, it weirds me out.
Does every climate scientist's livelihood depend on repeating a lie that they know to be a lie? Do you think that little of professional scientists?
People don't go into hard science to get rich. They do it because they're obsessed with the truth. And career advancement, such as it is, happens not from "towing the company line", but rather from breakthroughs that directly challenge the conventional wisdom. That's how science works in social terms.
So you have the rewards exactly backwards. If the facts are truly against climate change, then scientists who use the facts to question climate change would be rewarded for it, not punished!
People don't go into hard science to get rich. They do it because they're obsessed with the truth. And career advancement, such as it is, happens not from "towing the company line", but rather from breakthroughs that directly challenge the conventional wisdom. That's how science works in social terms.
So you have the rewards exactly backwards. If the facts are truly against climate change, then scientists who use the facts to question climate change would be rewarded for it, not punished!
The salaries afforded to lobbyists and spin doctors in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, on the other hand...
[deleted]
Perpetual crisis is an effective way for government to expand their power. "Global" warming, being a global phenomenon, is particularly useful for expanding global government, which has been an obsession for oligarchs for thousands of years. Plato wrote about the "noble lie" in The Republic.
I'd be interested in seeing that data, if you happen to know where I could find it.
I believe it's available here, but they don't make clear the revision details:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
Ah yes. Always remember, "weather isn't climate", except when it's warmer, then it is.
Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?
Let me ask you this, if 2014 were merely an anomalously cold year, would the reporting and commenting be different?
Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow.
One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many.
Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.
Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow.
One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many.
Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.
Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand.
Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie."
What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie."
What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
Climate models are complex. The data needed to validate them is also enormous and difficult to get right. Validating a climate model is an enormously challenging prospect, and represents far more work than simply saying "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot."
As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that isn't present in anything I wrote.
As for the rest, you seem to be arguing against a strawman that isn't present in anything I wrote.
I didn't realize that the current overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is based on "seems like a couple years recently have been pretty hot.". If thats not the case, does that count as a strawman in something you wrote?
yes it would be different, it would be about how it was a record breaking cold year. If it rained unicorns it would be about it raining more unicorns than normal, but since we live in this universe instead of one of those alternate ones this story is about (yet another) record breaking hot year.
For the US, it was only the 34st warmest.
To put it in a bit more perspective what the NY Times is saying:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
To put it in a bit more perspective what the NY Times is saying:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
Ahh yes. Climate Depot. Brainchild of Marc Morano, whose previous career highlights include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano):
"He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry ... Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications of Senator Jim Inhofe."
This is totally the person I trust to get an unbiased perspective on science reporting.
"He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry ... Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications of Senator Jim Inhofe."
This is totally the person I trust to get an unbiased perspective on science reporting.
Ahh yes. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Let's bash a guy because he hangs out with someone you dislike instead of refuting his centrals points.
You're total the person I trust to make logical arguments.
You're total the person I trust to make logical arguments.
We are talking about someone who doxxes scientists he disagrees with as a debating tactic and then justifies it on the basis that he receives hate mail, so why shouldn't they.
I think the swift boat stuff alone puts him firmly in the camp of 'people who have shown themselves not to be trustworthy with the facts'.
Ooh Latin! Fancy. His central points are eminently refutable, but in my experience trying to have a rational, scientific debate with this crowd leads nowhere. And anyways, Guess what! Personal behavior matters. Somebody whose professional history is full of instances of lying and willfully distorting the truth in order to peddle his agenda (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-m...) is not a credible witness.
"For the US, it was only the 34st warmest."
That has no significance at all though. You are talking about under 2% of the world's surface area.
That has no significance at all though. You are talking about under 2% of the world's surface area.
Did you read the article? It was about global warming, not US warming.
It was more of poking fun, but I am a skeptic. I believe the government can come up with any data the want to push their agenda. I believe almost any scientist can "prove" almost anything, especially when trying to prove it to people outside their knowledge set(like the general public).
Now don't get me wrong. I believe in making the world a better place for my kids. But to get caught up in all the hype that comes from the media (including the article I linked to) is laughable.
This argument is about politics and $$$ (both sides of the argument).
Now don't get me wrong. I believe in making the world a better place for my kids. But to get caught up in all the hype that comes from the media (including the article I linked to) is laughable.
This argument is about politics and $$$ (both sides of the argument).
I thought the argument was about the effect on temperature from the various absorption spectra of different chemicals as their ratios are changed within a volume. The basics of it are pretty solid. We know that there is an effect because that is dictated by the physics. You can even test it at home with a few sealed fishtanks.
The government (at least, the US government) does not want to push this agenda. One key data point dating back to G.W. Bush is, NASA/NOAA actually built a satellite to measure one of the most important unknown variables in Earth's climate ("albedo" -- basically how "white" the surface of the Earth is when seen from space) but it has been stuck in a warehouse because the US administrations didn't want to launch it. It is finally getting to launch at the end of this month; but it was completed in 2001.
Individual scientists might be able to "prove" arbitrary points in the sense of baffling people with things they don't understand until they accept the scientist as authority. They could perhaps even "prove" in the sense of cooking up statistics to support an arbitrary point. But we're not talking about an individual scientist talking to an individual person.
What's instead happened is that a bunch of disparate scientists for disparate reasons have called attention to one central historical question (the trend of global average temperature); and a whole scientific research program has been created to investigate it involving lots of scientists at lots of institutions in lots of countries. That research program has confidently been able to conclude that those early scientists were wrong -- they predicted global cooling precipitating a new impending ice age -- and that instead we are going in precisely the opposite direction, and that the major causal force emerging in the models is a forcing term from CO2-emissions which have spiked dramatically.
This research program has also been able to identify several risk factors for runaway warming, which would be just as bad as runaway cooling. Slight warming and slight cooling are also both bad, mostly because the Earth is huge. So, I'm from a physics background and the basic problem is what we'd call "relaxation to equilibrium." If you imagine a massive boulder which is stationary and you dig a hole next to it so that it rolls somewhat to the side, there are a couple of concerns. Only one of those is whether there's an appreciable slope which will cause the boulder to roll uncontrollably downhill -- the "runaway warming" idea. But you can still get injured even if it doesn't roll very far, if you're in its way when it rolls -- and the bigger the boulder, the more momentum it will have to do that damage.
That's sort of a two-minute way to understand why slight warming/cooling can enhance tropical storms and send parts of the polar vortex out over the US midwest: the Earth has a new equilibrium point for all sorts of climate variables which were functions of the global temperature, and as things relax to this new equilibrium they will potentially cause large weather upsets simply because the Earth is big.
Individual scientists might be able to "prove" arbitrary points in the sense of baffling people with things they don't understand until they accept the scientist as authority. They could perhaps even "prove" in the sense of cooking up statistics to support an arbitrary point. But we're not talking about an individual scientist talking to an individual person.
What's instead happened is that a bunch of disparate scientists for disparate reasons have called attention to one central historical question (the trend of global average temperature); and a whole scientific research program has been created to investigate it involving lots of scientists at lots of institutions in lots of countries. That research program has confidently been able to conclude that those early scientists were wrong -- they predicted global cooling precipitating a new impending ice age -- and that instead we are going in precisely the opposite direction, and that the major causal force emerging in the models is a forcing term from CO2-emissions which have spiked dramatically.
This research program has also been able to identify several risk factors for runaway warming, which would be just as bad as runaway cooling. Slight warming and slight cooling are also both bad, mostly because the Earth is huge. So, I'm from a physics background and the basic problem is what we'd call "relaxation to equilibrium." If you imagine a massive boulder which is stationary and you dig a hole next to it so that it rolls somewhat to the side, there are a couple of concerns. Only one of those is whether there's an appreciable slope which will cause the boulder to roll uncontrollably downhill -- the "runaway warming" idea. But you can still get injured even if it doesn't roll very far, if you're in its way when it rolls -- and the bigger the boulder, the more momentum it will have to do that damage.
That's sort of a two-minute way to understand why slight warming/cooling can enhance tropical storms and send parts of the polar vortex out over the US midwest: the Earth has a new equilibrium point for all sorts of climate variables which were functions of the global temperature, and as things relax to this new equilibrium they will potentially cause large weather upsets simply because the Earth is big.
> The government (at least, the US government) does not want to push this agenda.
You haven't been reading your e-mail from Obama: Fighting global warming is one of his favorite issues.
You haven't been reading your e-mail from Obama: Fighting global warming is one of his favorite issues.
The e-mail I got from Obama emphasized
just climate change,
the ACA (Obamacare), and immigration reform.
That's what was in the e-mail.
I didn't write it -- presumably
the White House did.
[deleted]
So, your link says that 2014 was in a statistical, er, dead-heat with 2005 and 2010. But the NYT's graph show's 2014 is noticeably above 2005 and 2010, certainly not just a hundredth of a degree higher. What's the resolution?
Best thing is to go to an actual source. The NOAA has it as 4 hundredths of a degree higher.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
"The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F), breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.
The 2014 global average land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
"The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (60.9°F), breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.05°C (0.09°F). Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.
The 2014 global average land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record."
"But scientists and climate skeptics are countering that the claims of “hottest year” are based on immeasurable temperature differences that are based on hundredths of a degree differences."
So they agree it's the hottest year on record, just not as hot as they think the climate change people think it should be, well that's good to know?
So they agree it's the hottest year on record, just not as hot as they think the climate change people think it should be, well that's good to know?
Political theater,the differences are within margin of errors for measuring devices, however if we needed more evidence that all models of warming were wrong and we still aren't, well here you have it.
After all, which models that all the alarmist have been using since the beginning of the century have modeled what we have been seeing?
I am not saying there is no climate change, mother nature does damn well on her own. I just find all the alarmist to be, rather like members of a radical religion
After all, which models that all the alarmist have been using since the beginning of the century have modeled what we have been seeing?
I am not saying there is no climate change, mother nature does damn well on her own. I just find all the alarmist to be, rather like members of a radical religion
Scientific literacy is one heck of a radical religion!
"Within the margin of errors for measuring devices" What is this nonsense? Yes... a single thermometer will have a known margin of error, but when you take a measurement across thousands of thermometers, and then look at the trend of those measurements over decades... I mean... what the hell are you talking about?
I agree. Claiming that a 0.01 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature averages compared to 5 years ago somehow indicates that the warming "pause" is over is merely political grandstanding. Climate Depot has more:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
Do you have a citation for the claim that the margin of error for the measurements is larger than the measured difference? That seems unlikely. 0.04 degrees is plenty big for modern scientific instruments.
Oh great, now we are back to "Global Warming". For years that label was not working because many areas were experiencing record low temperatures which kind of made the "Global Warming" advocates all look a bit silly. Thus the term "Climate Change" was introduced because after all who can argue against the fact that the climate is changing! I am on the fence as far as "Global Warming" is concerned but even I must admit that the climate is changing - the fact that the climate has always changed and always will seems to be besides the point.
Now we have a warm year and back we go to "Global Warming". Really hard sometimes to take these people seriously.
Now we have a warm year and back we go to "Global Warming". Really hard sometimes to take these people seriously.
>For years that label was not working because many areas were experiencing record low temperatures which kind of made the "Global Warming" advocates all look a bit silly.
Demonstrably false. Both terms are equally old and their level of usage has not markedly changed over the years in scientific literature.
>I am on the fence as far as "Global Warming" is concerned
Not suprising; you're giving unwarranted credence to claims whose origins are fossil fuel lobbyists and spin doctors. The scientific community is practically unanimous about the reality of global warming.
Demonstrably false. Both terms are equally old and their level of usage has not markedly changed over the years in scientific literature.
>I am on the fence as far as "Global Warming" is concerned
Not suprising; you're giving unwarranted credence to claims whose origins are fossil fuel lobbyists and spin doctors. The scientific community is practically unanimous about the reality of global warming.
what? Are you saying you dont think on average the planet is becoming warmer?
I am saying we do not know yet if the climate change is within normal parameters, and even what is the definition of "normal change". The earth has been much much warmer and much much cooler.
What I find irritating is the rather poor science behind much of this (statistical modelling being presented as scientific proof for example), and government agendas and business interests are all clouding the picture.
The UK government for example have raised a huge amount of tax on the back of these fears.
What I find irritating is the rather poor science behind much of this (statistical modelling being presented as scientific proof for example), and government agendas and business interests are all clouding the picture.
The UK government for example have raised a huge amount of tax on the back of these fears.
I find the lack of numeracy in this criticism disconcerting. It's not just a question of whether the Earth has been historically warmer or cooler - it's a question of how quickly the Earth became significantly warmer or cooler. A temperature change over thousands of years is a tremendously different thing than a temperature change over a few decades, when it comes to how temperature-sensitive life forms respond.
Moreover, it's not just a question of temperature. Changing CO2 levels are also measurably impacting ocean acidity, which affects extremely sensitive single-celled life forms at the root of the ocean's food chain.
Moreover, it's not just a question of temperature. Changing CO2 levels are also measurably impacting ocean acidity, which affects extremely sensitive single-celled life forms at the root of the ocean's food chain.
By "these people", you mean Justin Gillis of the New York Times?
What do you care what the terminology is? Our climate doesn't really give a crap if you call it 'warming' or 'changing.' That has nothing to do with data.
I don't think you could be missing the point more if you tried.
What do you care what the terminology is? Our climate doesn't really give a crap if you call it 'warming' or 'changing.' That has nothing to do with data.
I don't think you could be missing the point more if you tried.
They have some data relatively good for the
NYT, e.g., graphs of global average
differences (they call anomalies which
is common but, still, wildly inappropriate
value-laden terminology)
temperature each year for the past 200 years, etc.
Good. Next question has to be, measured
how, by whom, and where we can get peer-reviewed
reports because, frankly, I just cannot take
what you publish seriously. Not a chance.
But, then, the NYT, with their usual interest in drama and their trilogy of human transgression, retribution, and redemption, go off on their usual, talking about extreme values.
NYT, again, once again, over again, one more time, just for you again, and not nearly for the first time, all your get'm up on their hind legs drama with extreme values (what's meaningful, nearly all that's meaningful in this case, are the averages; without the averages the extreme values would be better than nothing, but with the averages the extreme values are just mammary glands on a boar hog and at best distracting) is one of the main reasons all your many, nearly daily, in my e-mail inbox offers of full access to NYT I just ignore because I know your real agenda and your main techniques. NYT, occasionally you publish what at least looks like some good stuff (on big issues but typically without the evidence that would justify taking your reports on big issues seriously), but, for nearly all the rest of your stuff, if you take it seriously then you are just wacko. Instead, about the best that can be said for your stuff is that it is just light entertainment.
Just want you to know that you are not fooling everyone.
But, then, the NYT, with their usual interest in drama and their trilogy of human transgression, retribution, and redemption, go off on their usual, talking about extreme values.
NYT, again, once again, over again, one more time, just for you again, and not nearly for the first time, all your get'm up on their hind legs drama with extreme values (what's meaningful, nearly all that's meaningful in this case, are the averages; without the averages the extreme values would be better than nothing, but with the averages the extreme values are just mammary glands on a boar hog and at best distracting) is one of the main reasons all your many, nearly daily, in my e-mail inbox offers of full access to NYT I just ignore because I know your real agenda and your main techniques. NYT, occasionally you publish what at least looks like some good stuff (on big issues but typically without the evidence that would justify taking your reports on big issues seriously), but, for nearly all the rest of your stuff, if you take it seriously then you are just wacko. Instead, about the best that can be said for your stuff is that it is just light entertainment.
Just want you to know that you are not fooling everyone.
You have been down voted (not by me), which is reasonable given that you say the report is lying, but offer no counter-evidence.
If you look at the press release (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-...), you can notice a pointer to the data and the methods. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd have to engage that, rather than making empty claims and diverting the conversation to a referendum on the limitations of the NYT.
I also want to mention that the word "anomaly" in this context is a term of art for any difference between a value and a mean value -- this is not an editorial injection by the NYT. It is necessary to use these differences because seasonal and regional temperature variations make plots of raw temperature (or precipitation, etc.) fields not very useful. If you were aware of the literature in this area, you would know this.
If you look at the press release (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-...), you can notice a pointer to the data and the methods. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd have to engage that, rather than making empty claims and diverting the conversation to a referendum on the limitations of the NYT.
I also want to mention that the word "anomaly" in this context is a term of art for any difference between a value and a mean value -- this is not an editorial injection by the NYT. It is necessary to use these differences because seasonal and regional temperature variations make plots of raw temperature (or precipitation, etc.) fields not very useful. If you were aware of the literature in this area, you would know this.
> you say the report is lying
I never did any such thing. I just said that (1) their graph data was good but (2) their concern about extreme values was bad. Both (1) and (2) are plainly obvious and need no "counter-evidence".
I don't trust the NYT, but I didn't say that they were "lying".
> making empty claims
I made no claims except the obvious one that the NYT was emphasizing extreme values which, clearly for such data analysis, is wrong.
The argument about global warming is totally clear, "settled": No one knows what the climate will be in 10, 50, or 100 years for any scenarios having to do with humans.
Proof: Look at the results of the climate computer models; they are in fairly good agreement and predicted that today the temperatures would be much higher. They were wildly wrong. QED
Why were the models so wrong? For the technical part, assuming that the work was done honestly (and I don't really believe that), Freeman Dyson has a remark, I don't recall precisely, that maybe the problem was the models didn't do well modeling the effects of the biological responses or some such. So, maybe they did well enough with the Navier-Stokes equations, Planck black body radiation, sun spots, etc. but blew it on green leafy vegetables. But, at least from Freeman Dyson, we don't know.
Why would the NYT emphasize extreme values? That's not a scientific or technical question and, instead, is about their motivations. My guess about their motivations, YMMV and no technical references needed, is that they want to pass out drama to get attention for their ads. Believe it or not. But a long time ago people saw that truth and the newspapers were not good bedfellows:
Evidence: An Andy Hardy movie from the 1930s where, clearly, the audience accepted that newspapers passed out nonsense. More? Sure, Citizen Kane, which a lot of people can find believable.
For the sources of the NYT, I didn't see any mentioned. Sorry to say, at this point, given Obama's political positions, I can no longer take data from NASA or NOAA very seriously, but that is not a biggie in this case. I didn't claim that the extreme values were wrong, just that, when we do have average data, for the data analysis in question here, extreme values add nothing but confusion. Here I am on very solid ground: Clearly the temperature is a stochastic process; commonly we get new extreme values right along even if nothing is really changing. There are some quite precise results in the cases of coin flipping, Brownian motion, and martingales. What would be surprising would be that we didn't get new extreme values -- if we never got more extreme values, then we would have some bounds for the process that we would have a tough time believing.
"Anomaly" is still the wrong word. Actually, with a good meaning of anomaly, we should just f'get about them; that is, they are anomalies, and in that case the whole NYT article is moot.
Yes, I mentioned that it is common in this global warming mud wrestling to say anomaly -- it's still the wrong word. Critical reading comprehension 101 would have us conclude, correctly in my view, that here anomaly is intended to mean not really from nature but from humans and their evil CO2, and that is value-heavy. Or, the suggestion is that there is a reason for the anomaly, and their claim of the reason is human CO2. Send your money now to your favorite green political pressure group.
I never did any such thing. I just said that (1) their graph data was good but (2) their concern about extreme values was bad. Both (1) and (2) are plainly obvious and need no "counter-evidence".
I don't trust the NYT, but I didn't say that they were "lying".
> making empty claims
I made no claims except the obvious one that the NYT was emphasizing extreme values which, clearly for such data analysis, is wrong.
The argument about global warming is totally clear, "settled": No one knows what the climate will be in 10, 50, or 100 years for any scenarios having to do with humans.
Proof: Look at the results of the climate computer models; they are in fairly good agreement and predicted that today the temperatures would be much higher. They were wildly wrong. QED
Why were the models so wrong? For the technical part, assuming that the work was done honestly (and I don't really believe that), Freeman Dyson has a remark, I don't recall precisely, that maybe the problem was the models didn't do well modeling the effects of the biological responses or some such. So, maybe they did well enough with the Navier-Stokes equations, Planck black body radiation, sun spots, etc. but blew it on green leafy vegetables. But, at least from Freeman Dyson, we don't know.
Why would the NYT emphasize extreme values? That's not a scientific or technical question and, instead, is about their motivations. My guess about their motivations, YMMV and no technical references needed, is that they want to pass out drama to get attention for their ads. Believe it or not. But a long time ago people saw that truth and the newspapers were not good bedfellows:
Evidence: An Andy Hardy movie from the 1930s where, clearly, the audience accepted that newspapers passed out nonsense. More? Sure, Citizen Kane, which a lot of people can find believable.
For the sources of the NYT, I didn't see any mentioned. Sorry to say, at this point, given Obama's political positions, I can no longer take data from NASA or NOAA very seriously, but that is not a biggie in this case. I didn't claim that the extreme values were wrong, just that, when we do have average data, for the data analysis in question here, extreme values add nothing but confusion. Here I am on very solid ground: Clearly the temperature is a stochastic process; commonly we get new extreme values right along even if nothing is really changing. There are some quite precise results in the cases of coin flipping, Brownian motion, and martingales. What would be surprising would be that we didn't get new extreme values -- if we never got more extreme values, then we would have some bounds for the process that we would have a tough time believing.
"Anomaly" is still the wrong word. Actually, with a good meaning of anomaly, we should just f'get about them; that is, they are anomalies, and in that case the whole NYT article is moot.
Yes, I mentioned that it is common in this global warming mud wrestling to say anomaly -- it's still the wrong word. Critical reading comprehension 101 would have us conclude, correctly in my view, that here anomaly is intended to mean not really from nature but from humans and their evil CO2, and that is value-heavy. Or, the suggestion is that there is a reason for the anomaly, and their claim of the reason is human CO2. Send your money now to your favorite green political pressure group.
The IPCC reports are a good place to start your search if you're actually interested in the peer reviewed literature.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
However, I find your insistence regarding peer-reviewed reports a bit puzzling in light of the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions, given that they aren't out of line with the conclusions drawn by the scientific community. Is there a similarly thorough and rigorous body of peer-reviewed literature out there supporting different conclusions? Because AFAIK the situation looks like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/files/2013/05/climate-...
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
However, I find your insistence regarding peer-reviewed reports a bit puzzling in light of the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions, given that they aren't out of line with the conclusions drawn by the scientific community. Is there a similarly thorough and rigorous body of peer-reviewed literature out there supporting different conclusions? Because AFAIK the situation looks like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/files/2013/05/climate-...
> The IPCC
100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review.
After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful.
They are a political organization trying to raise money by carbon taxes on the developed countries to transfer wealth to the third world.
Somehow I just lost 37 points today, 5 points from my post here and another 4 points on a post on how to help a 7 year old girl who went to the wrong comic book store. Apparently with HN arithmetic, 5 + 4 = 39.
For the girl, I suggested she go to a music store that focused on classical music. I also suggested the movies, stores of American Girl. The comic book shop was right next to porn. Gee, my suggestion was not liked.
> the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions
The NYT has long been and still is a NYC wild-eyed liberal, bleeding-heart, emotional hysteria organization, heavily for wealthy English majors and wannabees.
I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise the NYT, but I fired no "vitriol" but (1) said good things about their graph but (2) criticized them for using extreme values to get people excited.
Again, once again, over again, one more time, rock solid, for such a situation extreme values may be better than no data at all but, given good average data, one more time, this time just for you, once again, maybe you will actually read it this time, you can read, right, the extreme value data is useless. Or, some solid advice -- f'get about extreme value data. Stuff it for the hottest, the coldest, the least ice, the fastest winds, etc.
Leave the importance of extreme values to, say, Olympic records. For GDP, that's an average. For the corn crop, we want an average. For crude oil production, we want an average, say, monthly. For global temperature to consider global warming, we want an average. An average, not extreme values.
One biggie reason for the importance of the average is that it essentially is, has to be, what's important, e.g., the area under the curve, the total energy involved, etc. The average per day times the number of days is the total, e.g., as for your income and paying your taxes.
But the NYT will use anything they can get away with to get their readers all hysterical, up on their hind legs, believing in their trilogy of transgression by evil humans against the pure, pristine, precious, 100% all-natural mother earth. So, it's a 1000 year old morality play they learned in English literature class. Then there is the retribution part -- destroy the coral reefs, the oceans, the whales, the forests, NYC via rising sea levels, etc. Then there is the redemption -- suffering, sacrifice, self-denial. So, walk or ride bicycles, use electric cars (NYC liberals hate anything having to do with cars -- in Texas, Wyoming, and Montana they like cars). In this way the NYT creates a story and an audience for their story and then just keeps running such stories to feed their audience. They also make NYC liberals feel good. If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades. You've been manipulated by some people who want your eyeballs, your money, your time, etc.
What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off. The models are far too much in agreement and far too far away from reality -- what the models predicted for now is much, much higher temperatures than we are seeing.
Just why the models are wrong, no one knows. Maybe they got the Navier-Stokes equations right, or the sunspot data right, or the black body radiation right, or the convection right, or some such, but messed up on the biological effects, the oceans, or whatever.
Maybe we are still slowly pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we warm from The Little Ice age, we will also have to warm the oceans, and they are mostly 3 miles down and 7 miles or so over much of the Pacific; it might take a long time to warm the oceans from the cooling they got in The Little Ice Age. There is the NAS report that shows that from year 900 to year 1000, just before The Little Ice Age started, the temperature was increasing very rapidly, about the same as the past 100 years, and that increase had nothing to do with human generation of CO2.
But, given their record, and their nonsense with extreme values, there's no way to trust the NYT. So, we need to get their data from other sources. They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama. NASA? Sadly they may have been bent by Obama who wants global warming as one of his issues.
While I hate the NYT, all I wrote about them was that they wanted people to get excited about extreme values, and there I was rock solidly correct. If you can't see this, then that's your problem.
100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review.
After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful.
They are a political organization trying to raise money by carbon taxes on the developed countries to transfer wealth to the third world.
Somehow I just lost 37 points today, 5 points from my post here and another 4 points on a post on how to help a 7 year old girl who went to the wrong comic book store. Apparently with HN arithmetic, 5 + 4 = 39.
For the girl, I suggested she go to a music store that focused on classical music. I also suggested the movies, stores of American Girl. The comic book shop was right next to porn. Gee, my suggestion was not liked.
> the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions
The NYT has long been and still is a NYC wild-eyed liberal, bleeding-heart, emotional hysteria organization, heavily for wealthy English majors and wannabees.
I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise the NYT, but I fired no "vitriol" but (1) said good things about their graph but (2) criticized them for using extreme values to get people excited.
Again, once again, over again, one more time, rock solid, for such a situation extreme values may be better than no data at all but, given good average data, one more time, this time just for you, once again, maybe you will actually read it this time, you can read, right, the extreme value data is useless. Or, some solid advice -- f'get about extreme value data. Stuff it for the hottest, the coldest, the least ice, the fastest winds, etc.
Leave the importance of extreme values to, say, Olympic records. For GDP, that's an average. For the corn crop, we want an average. For crude oil production, we want an average, say, monthly. For global temperature to consider global warming, we want an average. An average, not extreme values.
One biggie reason for the importance of the average is that it essentially is, has to be, what's important, e.g., the area under the curve, the total energy involved, etc. The average per day times the number of days is the total, e.g., as for your income and paying your taxes.
But the NYT will use anything they can get away with to get their readers all hysterical, up on their hind legs, believing in their trilogy of transgression by evil humans against the pure, pristine, precious, 100% all-natural mother earth. So, it's a 1000 year old morality play they learned in English literature class. Then there is the retribution part -- destroy the coral reefs, the oceans, the whales, the forests, NYC via rising sea levels, etc. Then there is the redemption -- suffering, sacrifice, self-denial. So, walk or ride bicycles, use electric cars (NYC liberals hate anything having to do with cars -- in Texas, Wyoming, and Montana they like cars). In this way the NYT creates a story and an audience for their story and then just keeps running such stories to feed their audience. They also make NYC liberals feel good. If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades. You've been manipulated by some people who want your eyeballs, your money, your time, etc.
What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off. The models are far too much in agreement and far too far away from reality -- what the models predicted for now is much, much higher temperatures than we are seeing.
Just why the models are wrong, no one knows. Maybe they got the Navier-Stokes equations right, or the sunspot data right, or the black body radiation right, or the convection right, or some such, but messed up on the biological effects, the oceans, or whatever.
Maybe we are still slowly pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we warm from The Little Ice age, we will also have to warm the oceans, and they are mostly 3 miles down and 7 miles or so over much of the Pacific; it might take a long time to warm the oceans from the cooling they got in The Little Ice Age. There is the NAS report that shows that from year 900 to year 1000, just before The Little Ice Age started, the temperature was increasing very rapidly, about the same as the past 100 years, and that increase had nothing to do with human generation of CO2.
But, given their record, and their nonsense with extreme values, there's no way to trust the NYT. So, we need to get their data from other sources. They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama. NASA? Sadly they may have been bent by Obama who wants global warming as one of his issues.
While I hate the NYT, all I wrote about them was that they wanted people to get excited about extreme values, and there I was rock solidly correct. If you can't see this, then that's your problem.
>> 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review.
You clearly know nothing about the IPCC. Yet you feel compelled to write long comments on the subject.
I supervise people who contribute to the IPCC, and they work their asses off to get data together so that their work has been peer reviewed and published in time for the IPCC AR5 report.
Because if it's not peer reviewed by a given deadline, it's not even discussed during the IPCC writing period. And if it has not been published by the time the IPCC AR5 is finished, it and the statements it supports are removed from the IPCC report.
See http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml :
"In order to be reflected in the AR5, literature must be accepted for publication before the final draft is finalized. Any reference that does not fulfill these criteria was removed from the draft contribution together with the statement(s) that it supports."
You clearly know nothing about the IPCC. Yet you feel compelled to write long comments on the subject.
I supervise people who contribute to the IPCC, and they work their asses off to get data together so that their work has been peer reviewed and published in time for the IPCC AR5 report.
Because if it's not peer reviewed by a given deadline, it's not even discussed during the IPCC writing period. And if it has not been published by the time the IPCC AR5 is finished, it and the statements it supports are removed from the IPCC report.
See http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml :
"In order to be reflected in the AR5, literature must be accepted for publication before the final draft is finalized. Any reference that does not fulfill these criteria was removed from the draft contribution together with the statement(s) that it supports."
> 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review.
See the 1-2 pages of references at the end of every section of the IPCC report? Those are (almost) all articles in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are cited according to the names of the last authors within the text where their conclusions are used. Finding a few that were not peer reviewed would be a scandal; claiming that none of them were peer-reviewed seems akin to claiming that our government is run by lizards wearing human suits. Any chance you have some extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claim?
> After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful.
Are you referring to this? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ch...
Or perhaps the updated version? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha...
On one hand I have 130 pages of careful, meticulous reasoning employing detailed physical and statistical arguments culled from ~700 peer-reviewed journal articles which are each cited by name when they are used and listed in detail at the end of the chapter.
On the other hand I have a one word insult from, uhh, you.
> Somehow I just lost 37 points today... [unrelated story about a comic book store]
Not sure what you're trying to argue here, that seems about right to me.
> [the NYT cherry-picks extreme values that aren't representative]
Fair enough, but the IPCC report isn't guilty of this sin and the statistical distribution of predicted outcomes is still quite disturbing.
> [suggestion that climate change concerns are based on some religious nonsense involving the retribution of Mother Earth]
Where do you get this from? I've got "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" open in another window, so I can see exactly what they're basing their arguments on. There's a hell of a lot of physical observations and mathematical analysis. I don't see mother earth or the word "retribution" anywhere in the text.
> What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off.
You're right about the models being off, but wrong that the scientific community wasn't quick to figure out what happened. Turns out they underestimated the deep ocean's ability to soak up heat, even though they've gotten the radiative models (and therefore the fact that "heat in > heat out") more or less spot on. If the radiative models continue to hold, thermodynamics says the buy won't last forever.
I'm off campus right now but you can chase down the literature through this article (unless you think Nature isn't peer-reviewed either?):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/514142d...
> They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama.
The Chapter of the IPCC report that you cited named ~700 peer-reviewed sources over about 17 pages. The conclusions in the NYT are in rough agreement with that and other chapters in the IPCC report.
> If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades.
The NYT's various sins concern me far less than the underlying science. The meticulous attention to detail, alternative hypotheses and interpretations, and confidence analysis I've seen in the IPCC report impresses me. What I've heard from conservatives does not. You included. Care to try to change that?
See the 1-2 pages of references at the end of every section of the IPCC report? Those are (almost) all articles in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are cited according to the names of the last authors within the text where their conclusions are used. Finding a few that were not peer reviewed would be a scandal; claiming that none of them were peer-reviewed seems akin to claiming that our government is run by lizards wearing human suits. Any chance you have some extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claim?
> After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful.
Are you referring to this? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ch...
Or perhaps the updated version? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha...
On one hand I have 130 pages of careful, meticulous reasoning employing detailed physical and statistical arguments culled from ~700 peer-reviewed journal articles which are each cited by name when they are used and listed in detail at the end of the chapter.
On the other hand I have a one word insult from, uhh, you.
> Somehow I just lost 37 points today... [unrelated story about a comic book store]
Not sure what you're trying to argue here, that seems about right to me.
> [the NYT cherry-picks extreme values that aren't representative]
Fair enough, but the IPCC report isn't guilty of this sin and the statistical distribution of predicted outcomes is still quite disturbing.
> [suggestion that climate change concerns are based on some religious nonsense involving the retribution of Mother Earth]
Where do you get this from? I've got "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" open in another window, so I can see exactly what they're basing their arguments on. There's a hell of a lot of physical observations and mathematical analysis. I don't see mother earth or the word "retribution" anywhere in the text.
> What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off.
You're right about the models being off, but wrong that the scientific community wasn't quick to figure out what happened. Turns out they underestimated the deep ocean's ability to soak up heat, even though they've gotten the radiative models (and therefore the fact that "heat in > heat out") more or less spot on. If the radiative models continue to hold, thermodynamics says the buy won't last forever.
I'm off campus right now but you can chase down the literature through this article (unless you think Nature isn't peer-reviewed either?):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/514142d...
> They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama.
The Chapter of the IPCC report that you cited named ~700 peer-reviewed sources over about 17 pages. The conclusions in the NYT are in rough agreement with that and other chapters in the IPCC report.
> If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades.
The NYT's various sins concern me far less than the underlying science. The meticulous attention to detail, alternative hypotheses and interpretations, and confidence analysis I've seen in the IPCC report impresses me. What I've heard from conservatives does not. You included. Care to try to change that?
It is true that the data shows a continually warming trend, with 2014 as the warmest on record. It is also true that the recorded warming is proceeding at a very slow pace, with the new record anomaly of 0.69 C only 0.04 C higher than the previous records of 2005 and 2010 and only 0.06 C higher than the record of 1998.
It is false to say that the globe is not warming, but it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century. The "warmest X years have all occurred since Y" but they are also clumping together pretty closely and moving up from that clump ever so slowly (which incidentally makes me quite optimistic about our continuing technological progress away from fossil fuels)
[0]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13