Global Summary Information - March 2015

[turtlespeed 226]

winsor

***

Quote

March 2015 and first quarter of year warmest on record;
Arctic sea ice extent smallest on record for the month of March

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for March 2015 was the highest for the month since record keeping began in 1880. The year-to-date (January–March) globally averaged temperature was also record high.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2015/3

Full report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/3

Hopefully we can stop with the "but the earth stopped warming in blah, blah, blah year" now.

The point here is, it has not stopped warming.

What my real fear now has become, we've gone past the point of no return, we're screwed, but there isn't quite the quality of data to prove it satisfactorily to the still skeptical people, the deniers, yet even though we're beyond it.

"Sorry, Venkman, I'm terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought."

What is the point of no return? Return to what, Eden? Wild jungle? In the movie "I am legend" global warming didn't seem to have had an impact on society.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>When something stops calling it doesn't mean that it is gaining altitude.

Right. But when something continues climbing - just more slowly than it was climbing before - it's also not correct to say "it stopped climbing" just because it's not climbing as fast as you expected it to.

>The warming paused for almost twenty years.

Warmest years with anomaly:
2014 .69C
2010 .66C
2005 .65C
1998 .64C

If you really want an actual pause backed up by empirical measurements (rather than political spin) go back to 1943. From 1943-1966 there was a real pause, backed up by the data. Over 20 years!

according to NASA, there is a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year.

I keep wondering why you state it as fact when even NASA admnitted it probably wasn't

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>according to NASA, there is a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year.
>I keep wondering why you state it as fact when even NASA admnitted it probably wasn't

Every year has an average temperature with an associated statistical probability of getting it exactly right. To see whether it was the warmest year, they then compare the distribution of likely error against the distributions of other years. If they overlap, the area they overlap is the odds they got it right. You can then rank each year against every other to see what the odds are that it was the warmest year. For example, when looking at 2014:

NOAA's numbers:
2014 48%
2010 18%
2005 13%

NASA's numbers:
2014 38%
2010 28%
2005 17%

This is true for every year. Oddly, though, some people only notice that when they want to deny climate change. For example, the "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!" meme is quite common, and indeed seen all the time here. Yet even though 1998's status as the fourth warmest year has exactly the same sort of statistical uncertainty, it is treated as a rock-solid number, because it helps people with their claim that there was a pause. That's the sort of cherry-picking of information that results in climate change deniers being taken less seriously.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't disagree with you on this post. But I don't like cherry pckin data from one side. I don't like over reaching interpretations of data, either.

It looks to me like the pause in warming may be at an end. It was going to happen eventually. I'm interested to see what will happen the next few years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>I don't disagree with you on this post. But I don't like cherry pckin data from one side.
>I don't like over reaching interpretations of data, either.

Agreed there.

BTW good graphical illustration of the uncertainty in the various years, from 1850-2011 (this is Hadley data.) Intervals are 5-95%.

[quade 4]

turtlespeed

What is the point of no return? Return to what, Eden? Wild jungle? In the movie "I am legend" global warming didn't seem to have had an impact on society.

You should probably stop looking at remakes of '50s zombie apocalypse science fiction for your guidance in 2015 real world climate change issues. I realize that piece of advice ought to be somewhat obvious, but you are the one who made the comment, so . . .

So, "What is the point of no return?"

When the environment changes so rapidly the existing lifeforms do not have sufficient time to adapt to those changes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I like HADCRUT because it doesn't interpolate data. It also includes data outside of GHCN. GISTEMP, UDEL and MLOST provide more global analysis but so much data is infilled (GISTEMP uses 750 mile smoothing. It's like taking the temp in Eagle, CO and San Diego, CA and coming up with a temperature anomaly in Lake Havasu. I see why they try but HADCRUT won't do that. It's data has raw readings nearby that justify it.)

I like Hadley a lot

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>When the environment changes so rapidly the existing lifeforms do not have sufficient
>time to adapt to those changes.

That's true right now. Any climate change, manmade or otherwise, causes extinctions as old habitats are "opened" to new species by changes in temperature, elevation, precipitation etc. As we change the climate faster, those extinctions become more rapid. So the question becomes - how rapidly do we want to be driving new extinctions?

[lawrocket 3]

I don't get this idea that there must be a point of no return. The whole discussion seems to be that humans have their hands on the thermostat and keep pushing it higher. We can push it lower, too. That's what the global cooling thing was about in the 70s. We can Geoengineer lowering as much as raising.

Second point is that climate has changed rapidly. And species have either adapted or gone extinct. Back when Manhattan was under a mile of ice 12k years ago the image changed really rapidly. Rice forests turned to pine forests in the span of 30 years. Many animals did not adapt and died. Humans didn't adapt much. It turns out that humans generally prefer warmer environments. This explains why most of Greenland is uninhabited. As is Antarctica. And northern Canada. Animals there are either adapted to brutal winters or are nomadic and show up in summer. When it's warm.

It is a myth that climate does not go through rapid natural changes. It doesn't take tens of thousands of years. Or even thousands. Climate has ping pinged dramatically from century to century.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the path is to see all from His perspective.

Those affected by Stockholm Syndrome rarely recognize or acknowledge it for what it is, at least while it's occurring.

[quade 4]

billvon

So the question becomes - how rapidly do we want to be driving new extinctions?

I realize this may sound extremist and alarmist to some, but how about at least slow enough to not include the human race.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

lawrocket

I don't get this idea that there must be a point of no return.

Well, then I don't think you've thought the problem through to a logical and entirely possible conclusion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,111]

>I realize this may sound extremist and alarmist to some, but how about at least
>slow enough to not include the human race.

The climate won't drive us to extinction. At most we can make ourselves miserable. Should we do that? Or should we spend some effort now to reduce our future level of misery? _That's_ the question we should be answering.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***I don't get this idea that there must be a point of no return.

Well, then I don't think you've thought the problem through to a logical and entirely possible conclusion.

Maybe it's because we could easily and cheaply cool the planet. A point of no return will happen on earth. Species will go extinct. Homo sapiens will also go the way of the Neanderthal and Cro Magnon.

Question: should we do whatever is in our power to prevent the extinction of Homo sapiens? Doing so would also mean preventing the evolutions of Homo sapiens.

I have thought the problem. You are talking about possible conclusions. Possibilities are endless. It is possible a GRB will kill us all tomorrow. Possible and probable are two entirely separate things. Focusing on elimination of possible threats is a fool's errand.

Let's look at probabilities. Or possibilities that are significantly higher than extremely remote.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>In the movie "I am legend" global warming didn't seem to have had an impact on
>society.

True. And in Star Trek you never see people sweating. Therefore we don't have to worry about it.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>In the movie "I am legend" global warming didn't seem to have had an impact on
>society.

True. And in Star Trek you never see people sweating. Therefore we don't have to worry about it.

Ever see Waterworld?

Okay. Dumb question. Nobody did.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

lawrocket

I don't disagree with you on this post. But I don't like cherry pckin data from one side. I don't like over reaching interpretations of data, either.

Rushmc does that over and over again but I don't notice you calling him on it very often.

You try to claim some kind of impartiality, but your posting record belies that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***I don't disagree with you on this post. But I don't like cherry pckin data from one side. I don't like over reaching interpretations of data, either.

Rushmc does that over and over again but I don't notice you calling him on it very often.

You try to claim some kind of impartiality, but your posting record belies that.

I don't claim impartiality.

Second. I call rush out on it.

Third. I just have a better success rate at reaching an Accord with Bill or quade or you. It provides more interesting discussion for me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Oh oh

This is just above the graph you referened

Quote

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

This is just below said graph

Quote

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So I now hope you guys can get off the science is finished high horse






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,146]

rushmc

Oh oh

This is just above the graph you referened

Quote

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

This is just below said graph

*** Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So I now hope you guys can get off the science is finished high horse






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

What, no UFO stories from the Daily Mail today?

I guess the Telegraph is a small step up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Another post
More proof

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln