backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by PlasmaBomb.. on Jan 18 at 7:29 AM


NASA's temperature data shows 2010 to tie the record for the warmest year in recent (recorded)history.  (Source: NASA/GISS)

GISS's James Hansen   (Source: NASA)

  (Source: Northern Arizona University)
Record heat ties 2005 -- the previous hottest year on record

According to climatologists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, 2010 was a very hot year.  While anyone who witnessed the Vikings Metrodome collapse [video] might not have seen this coming, NASA says that data from 1,000 climate stations shows 2010, as a whole, to be statistically tied for being the hottest year in recorded history [press release].

The man leading the report was infamous climatologist James Hansen, well-known as being Al Gore's climate advisor; for his claims that oil companies were committing "crimes against humanity" by doing business; and for receiving a $250,000 grant from a nonprofit run by the wife of Democratic Senator John Kerry. 

Hansen states in the report, "If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long."

Much uncertainty remains, however.  NASA's data comes from 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements.  But NASA must choose how to process that data when measurements conflict.  In the past, ground based stations have reportedly shown anomalous heating in select regions (such as Russia), but NASA chose to throw out or reduce the statistical significance of satellite measurements, which showed far cooler temperatures.

It is unknown if there are similar discrepancies in this year's temperatures, but one would hope that the data is carefully scrutinized by independent interests given Dr. Hansen's vested financial interest in showing the Earth is warming and mankind is causing it.

If the NASA data holds up, the average surface temperature in 2010 was 1.34 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average temperature from 1951 to 1980.  Since the 1970s, NASA says statistics show the Earth to be warming 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit a decade.

2010 was within 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit of 2005, the previous record holder, earning it a tie.  In a tie for third place are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009.  NASA says its analysis closely matches separate analysis from the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

Dr. Hansen reports that the record warmth was especially exceptional given that 2010 was the start of a strong La Niña pattern, which brings cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and should have offered a cooler global temperature.  He states, "Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature."

While this data might worry some, it could actually be happy news for mankind.  The slow, gradual warming shown in the report would likely over time open new shipping routes and improve agricultural viability in many regions.  While some areas might be gradually rendered uninhabitable (e.g. small low-lying islands), humans would naturally migrate to new homes, and the climate change would likely make some previously minimally habitable regions more hospitable.

Loss of species from climate change has certainly been suggested as a possible concern as well, but biodiversity in the Earth's warming periods has increased, not decreased historically.  Current temperatures are still far below these epochs of lush biodiversity that lie in the Earth's distant past.  The destruction of the rainforest and pollution of the sea have been put on the back burner during the climate debate, but represent far more serious immediate threats to our planet's biodiversity.

Other pressing questions include how fast warming will proceed and what other factors may be at play, besides greenhouse gases.  A recent study suggests that atmospheric dust levels may have significantly different effects on global temperature than previously thought.  Historical levels of atmospheric dust are poorly understood.  Further, it is unknown how much the Earth will dampen temperature increases.  Past history suggests that the Earth's biosphere resists the kind of run-away warming some experts' models have predicted, at least to a point.

Despite these distinctions, the NASA report is certainly intriguing and will likely be keenly observed and analyzed by those in the fields of agriculture and urban planning.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

1 degree C in 30 years
By zozzlhandler on 1/14/2011 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
These results sound like 1 degree C in 30 years. I wonder if this is less than the errors in their measurement process? Is it just me, or is it ridiculous to give results to three decimal places for data that hardly supports 1?

It should also be noted that in past times of warming, longer growing seasons made the world a more comfortable place for those alive at the time.

It is also strange that the colder it gets, the more data we hear about how it was a recorm warm year.




RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By VahnTitrio on 1/14/2011 1:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered about this a bit too. Not that thermometers aren't accurate now, but who knows about 70 years ago. Also, a lot of the warming areas according to the map tend to be in areas not many people inhabit. How accurate were those measurements 70 years ago and who was taking them for that matter?

Also last year was an el nino year, which may have something to do with it. We are now in la nina, which will likely bring the 2011 numbers down a bit. Here in Minneapolis are warm spell was early in the year, late in the year winter set in quickly and with a fury. Looking at the long term forecast, we may set a new record for consecutive days below freezing. Also precipitation is up, after lakes were dropping to record low levels (some down as much as 17 feet, and these aren't reservoirs they are natural lakes). I'm sure dry conditions pushed the temperature northward (especially in the spring when snow reflects sunlight and keeps the air near freezing).


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By zozzlhandler on 1/14/2011 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 5
I left out the question of "How do we take the temperature of a planet?". What about oceanic measurements? How many? At what depths? How often? In what seasons? It is *not* a trivial problem. Also, do the great all-predictive climate models take into account warming due to heat transfer from the interior of the earth? As one who has had occasion to work with computer models, I trust their predictions on complicated matters like climate about as far as I can throw a brick chimney by its smoke.
We cannot even predict the economy, so how do we get to claim we can predict the climate?


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By tharik on 1/14/2011 3:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Where are the ocean measurements?

It takes a while for water to heat and cool, with the amount of water the earth has it may take as many as 30 years to heat and 30 years to cool. That is probably as close to the cyclical temperature that we have been experiencing.

Remember when the earth is warmer the atmosphere can absorb more water vapor and carbon, hence that is why carbon levels increase. Also, cloud cover increases which blocks/reflects a lot of the suns energy back to space.

For the next 30 years we will be cooling and after that the earth will start warming again for 30 years. Charging people taxes for carbon usage is the biggest scam in the history of the world.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By vol7ron on 1/15/2011 2:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
I don't want to dismiss any claim, which may have merit, but I would like more information.

I don't know how they determine it's the warmest year, what concerns me is the extreme colds and extreme hots and how long those heat and cold waves last. If all that's taken is an average, that means nothing to me. That means if the temperature rotated between 1000F and -860F, it would only average to 70F, which sounds perfect, but not livable.

Averages mean nothing, it's when the fronts come, how severe they are, and how long the severities last.

The Earth has always gone through global warming and ice ages long before "man" had influence on the environment. Whether we contribute to the shift in climate is purely subjective and speculative. The day the weatherman can accurately forecast the weather is when I'll start believing in the scientists that say we're having influence on it.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By SPOOFE on 1/16/2011 11:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what concerns me is the extreme colds and extreme hots and how long those heat and cold waves last.

That concerns everyone. What concerns me, in addition, is whether or not those effects are natural; if they are, nothing we do will significantly affect the trend, but trying to may leave us incapable of properly adapting. Are we sure we want to make that commitment? Devote ourselves to one course that is mutually exclusive to properly adjusting to another possible course? I don't like burning bridges like that, and the political impatience with this issue doesn't leave me with a lot of trust for proposed "remedies".


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Belard on 1/15/2011 8:09:36 PM , Rating: 3
Uh... they've been reporting warmer oceans for quite a while.

The earth is not going through 30-year cycles.

USA is the *only* country that even questions the data.

Uh... taxes, money and what not matters if we are having enviromental problems on a global scale.... floods, fires, crop failures - those cost money too. But hey, you saved 2 cents per gallon of gas.

Look up the "Ocean conveyor belt" with Google.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By zozzlhandler on 1/16/2011 1:01:55 PM , Rating: 1
How can we be sure the ocean is really warmer? Have we measured enough of it, at enough depths? I doubt it. But assume for a moment it is warmer, is this (for certain) a bad thing? Is it caused by human activity? Are we really all doomed as some want to insist? I think that that answer to all of these is not yes, possibly not to any of them.

We need competent investigation of climate, not chicken-little panics and knee-jerk reactions.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By SPOOFE on 1/16/2011 11:07:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
USA is the *only* country that even questions the data.

That's why China is rushing to Go Green, right? Right?


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By YashBudini on 1/15/2011 7:10:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"How do we take the temperature of a planet?".

One rectal thermometer inserted into Washington DC.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By TheBaker on 1/17/2011 12:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, do the great all-predictive climate models take into account warming due to heat transfer from the interior of the earth?


Better question: Do they take into account the variability of the sun, also known as the source of 9.9999999% of all heat energy on the planet?

I seem to remember that they in fact do not, but that may be my faulty memory and I will gladly be corrected. In fact, I hope that I am corrected (with citation), otherwise these climate models mean exactly nothing.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Sylar on 1/14/2011 2:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Accuracy in itself to a degree is irrelevant. 70 years ago may have been the hottest year for all we know but that's not what was recorded for whatever reason[limitations]. So by having a hotter year this year, you can make the claim that it is the hottest on *record* which in itself does not literally means this was absolutely the hottest year.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/14/2011 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Right. It is easily scientifically provable that if you take 3 identical thermometers and place each of them in a different color area, they will all read quite differently. For example, take green grass, white vinyl, and black asphalt. The thermometer placest amongst the black asphalt will read as much as 20 degrees C higher than the same thermometer placed amongst the white vinyl. This of course is highly dependent on the amount of sunlight and wind received.

So the question is, of all these thermometers we have taking readings around the world, how many have not had their surroundings change significantly over the decades?


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By fic2 on 1/14/2011 3:24:02 PM , Rating: 4
The article doesn't even mention how badly the ground climate stations are placed - at least in the U.S. If you look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ they have been doing an audit of the climate stations sites - 61% have an error >= 2C, 8% have an error >= 5C. Only 10% are sited acceptably. Call me skeptical, but when you crunch bad data you are going to get bad science.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Nutzo on 1/14/2011 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
There are also 2 other issues that result in bad data.

1. The number of monitoring stations has fallen. It's not just that there are less stations, it's the location of the station that are no longer in use. Most of the stations that have been abandoned are in the more remote locations, like high mountains. Because of this the numbers have been skewed due to a large percentage of data from warmer costal areas.

2. Many of the remaining stations are now in urban areas, and report higher tempratures due to the "heat island" effect of being surounded by concrete and blacktop. People that have looked at the raw data point out that the higher averages are mainly due to a ligher nighttime tempratures, which is what happens when you suround something with concrete and blacktop.

They say that they "adjust" for these differences, but then refuse to release (or just say it was deleted) the original data so noone can prove/disprove thier assumptions.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By wookie1 on 1/15/2011 11:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that with the GISS data, historical temperatures are always changing. Each month, the entire historical record changes as part of its urban heat island adjustment algorithms or something similar. Some data is shifted warmer, other data cooler, but the majority of the time the historical data becomes cooler. So the temperature for August 2, 1938 depends on if you look at data from last year, 5 years ago, or today. Check out rankexploits.com/musings , a while ago they compared some of this. There may be more info on climateaudit.org . Also, the same person that set up the Surface Stations project (Anthony Watts) has a site wattsupwiththat.com which I've enjoyed reading.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By 0ldman on 1/15/2011 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
History is written by the victors.

Or in this case, the people in control are presumed to be actual scientists.

Reminds me of a guy I worked construction with when I was a teenager. If the stuff didn't line up with the mark, he just said to move the mark...


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2011 6:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks I had forgotten the link to the site that referenced what my comment said below.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Da W on 1/14/2011 4:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
We've got one inch of snow up here in Quebec city! I can't even skate outside the ice is too ugly because of the rain. This is freaking Quebec city! No mather how accurate thermometer used to be, historical records shows years when we used to get well over 9 feet of snow! We won 2 sieges against the english colonies in the XVIII century because the St-Laurence river froze by september back then and the ships got stuck in the ice! Today in mid january there's barely ice to be found.

And you tell me you doubt the thermometers are accurate????

All of the snow is going south to New-York and Boston. Something freakinly wicked is going on, some people are stealing our snow...


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Camikazi on 1/14/2011 5:23:42 PM , Rating: 3
Climates on the planet are not static, deserts can and do turn into forests and forests can and do turn into deserts. We only see them as static since no one person lives long enough to see these changes.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2011 6:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest thing is you have to look at where those sensors are. It has been shown many in urban areas are under heat exhaust vents for buildings. Or other areas close to a man-made heat source. There are standards for how the sensors are supposed to be placed and they're not being followed. The number of sensors has also been reduced.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By walk2k on 1/14/2011 8:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
No it's not strange climate does not = weather.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By Belard on 1/15/2011 8:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
1c is more drastic than 1f.

Take a CPU of your computer. modern CPUs typically run about 30~40c, but 5 years ago, 50~60c was not uncommon. The difference between 60 and 62c could mean if your CPU fails.

We've had this cold front hit the south. The difference between 30f and 35f is noticeable. If the human body temp is 5f hotter than normal, you can die. Hey, its only 5f!

30°C is a comfy 86°f
40°C is a human killing 104°f. Water evaporates away more, plants have a harder time growing.

Yes, the earth has always been changing for billions of years. We can't stop that. But the issue is sudden artificial changes.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By SPOOFE on 1/16/2011 11:59:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the human body temp is 5f hotter than normal, you can die.

My body temp was 5f hotter than normal just a few months ago. I must be a zombie. Blaaargh!!


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By jonmcc33 on 1/15/2011 10:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, not sure if they looked outside but it's freezing freaking cold in Ohio. Last Feb 2010 had a record snow fall for the month of February in Ohio. Getting hotter my rear end. That's a whole lot of white stuff for an entire month.


RE: 1 degree C in 30 years
By fake01 on 1/17/2011 8:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know about other places in the world but I found 2010 to be one of the coolest years I've experienced in a very long time.

I remember in 2005 that I could sit in front of a fan and still have sweat literally dripping off me in 43 Degree Celsius heat wave. In 2010 I experienced maybe one or two hot days and they weren't even hot enough to have the fan running.

And Australia is known for it's hot weather.


Just wait for next year's report
By JimboK29 on 1/14/2011 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
The tone will suddenly shift to cooling come 2011 and beyond.




By cpeter38 on 1/14/2011 1:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the first shot across the bow: The claims of the death of arctic/northern Pacific/Atlantic sea ice will soon be over. One such claim said that "recent global warming has weakened the Sea of Okhotsk’s workings as a pump" http://www.pices.int/publications/scientific_repor...

The truth is quite different. Sea ice in Okhotsk (Northern Pacific) has rebounded significantly this year. It has caught the Russian's by surprise and may lead to the abandonment of 2 enormous Russian fishing ships - the Sodruzhestvo and the Bereg Nadezdy . For more information see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-seriou...


RE: Just wait for next year's report
By kattanna on 1/14/2011 1:30:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.


doesnt that above sound very familiar?

but take a wild guess when it was printed...

That was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press


By vortmax2 on 1/14/2011 4:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I thought for sure that would be something written in the 21st century...amazing.


What is the CORRECT temperature for Earth?
By mitchelvii on 1/14/2011 1:51:22 PM , Rating: 5
The great unanswerable question.

It could be argued that the prior temperatures 2010 is being compared with were too cold as we were arising from the remnants of a mini-ice-age.

And still, there is nothing more than the flimsiest of post-hoc arguments that mankind has anything in the least to do with this temperature rise. Has the temperature risen before when we were not here? Of course. And so how is it our fault this time, simply because we are here this time? I turned 50 in the year 2010. Am I to assume the Earth was warmer due to my turning 50?

The chart showing the temperature rise looks dramatic until you compare it to a chart showing millions of years in temperature movements derived from the fossil record. Only in that context do you see the rise in this chart is a minuscule blip lodged somewhere in the middle of a much larger up-trend.

Don't even get me started on the unreliability of global temperature measurements over the last 100 years. Manmade Global Warming is not science, it is religion because it requires faith in order to believe it.




RE: What is the CORRECT temperature for Earth?
By nonmose on 1/14/2011 2:12:21 PM , Rating: 1
There is not a correct temperature for the Earth.

But our present civilisation has grown up with the climate as it is - not as the climate was a million years ago.

If the climate changes from what it is now, then a lot of our unquestioned assumptions about how society works will be tested.


RE: What is the CORRECT temperature for Earth?
By Schrag4 on 1/14/2011 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the climate changes from what it is now, then a lot of our unquestioned assumptions about how society works will be tested.


First off, I have bad news for you. Nothing we can do will stop the climate from changing.

Second, what "assumptions about how society works" will be tested? Please spell it out for me, because beyond the obvious assumption that people in North Dakota have a lot of winter clothing, I'm not following what you're getting at.


RE: What is the CORRECT temperature for Earth?
By nonmose on 1/14/2011 3:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with you that the Global Climate has always changed and always will - that is absolutely not in question. But lets consider the impact of alteration (independently of Anthropgenic Forcing) to the Monsoons and Himalayan Glaciers.

I don't want to get into the actuality of whether or not these will change or over what time period - I'm well aware that this is hotly contested - instead this is a what if.

I am in no way an expert on either of these, this is a worst case scenario thought up to make my point

Let's assume for a minute that (over some unstated time period for now) the monsoons were disturbed by Global Warming leading to a different pattern of heat distribution in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

This could lead to very different patterns of rainfall - perhaps the rain could fall in different places, perhaps it could fall in different time periods.

The net result of these changes is that the rain would potentially not fall where and when it currently falls.

If the Himalayan Glaciers were to decrease in size due to a rise in local temperatures (again, caused by whatever reason and without human involvement) then they can no longer be relied on to feed the Ganges all year round as they currently do. Instead, there would be the risk of more frequent floods and the resultant impact in India and especially Bangladesh.

Indian society - from its agriculture to the placement of its cities - is based on the way water moves though time and space; this is true of all countries and it is a dependency that has grown up over centuries if not millennia. If these patterns were to change then the society after these changes would not be the same as the society before the changes.

You may be an optimist and say that the changes would occur painlessly. I cannot say I am that optimist.

Consider another option, that sea levels rose by a couple of meters without human intervention. This has happened many times in the existence of humans, but barely in recorded history and especially not when we have major population centres on the current coastlines.

What would happen to New York? London? Mumbai?

What about Water Wars in the Middle East?

You may not live in India or Bangladesh, you may not live anywhere near the coast. You may say that I have made all this up - and you would be correct!

But the point I'm trying to make is the dependency we have on the current climate. If it changes slowly over the course of centuries well, then maybe we'll cope peacefully - but even so I doubt it.

But if the climate were to change faster because of us?


By SPOOFE on 1/17/2011 12:30:53 AM , Rating: 1
Let me counter your long-winded fear-mongering with very brief and succinct fear-mongering of our own:

If we're wrong and the Earth's climate is changing independently of anything we do, crippling our society with "Stop Global Warming" legislation will kill our ability to adjust to new conditions and cause all the problems you brought up.

/succinct


Warmest year on record ...really?
By callmeroy on 1/14/2011 1:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
...Mean while around where I live (North East US)....its been damn cold so far this fall/winter...definitely more cold than warm or mild days especially since last month.

In fact just this morning watching the news before work -- the local weather guy marked that this past week we've been well below seasonal average temps.




RE: Warmest year on record ...really?
By fic2 on 1/14/2011 3:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's been up and down in Denver this year. But last year we set a new record of number of days in a row below 60. I think the old record was broken by something like 20 days. The mountain areas seem colder. So far I have snowboarded 3 days now were it was below 0F.


RE: Warmest year on record ...really?
By FastEddieLB on 1/14/2011 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
It was the coldest summer in my memory for where I live in Central California. Can't say for sure if it's the coldest winter or not since it hasn't snowed (it's only snowed here twice in the last 40 years, once in the 1970s and once in 1998.) But all throughout spring, summer and autumn it's been pretty dang cold.


By FITCamaro on 1/14/2011 6:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is probably the coldest winter in South Carolina in 30 years. Funny how it works that about 30 years ago was when they started screaming about global warming. And about 30 years before that they were screaming about global cooling.

As far as last summer. Definitely had some hot days, but it lasted a far shorter time than normal. It was in the 70s through May. Only June through August was really hot. In September it was already getting cooler.


Rubbish
By ValkyrAssassin on 1/14/2011 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
We've had the coldest december in Britain since records began, and alot of other months last year were colder than average. I see this "official" data as nothing more than fudged numbers to force people to pay higher taxes, and also line the back pockets of government officials who most likely have a deal with all the private wind power companies. I've had enough of "global warming".




RE: Rubbish
By Nutzo on 1/14/2011 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but it was too cold in Britain to collect the data, so they had to extrapolate (make up) the data from the information they already had.


RE: Rubbish
By walk2k on 1/14/2011 8:23:56 PM , Rating: 1
Weather does not = climate


RE: Rubbish
By SPOOFE on 1/17/2011 12:47:05 AM , Rating: 3
Climate models =/= climate.


Quick wording fix needed
By cpeter38 on 1/14/2011 12:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Jason,
I greatly appreciate your recent "balanced approach". I am sure the statement that "Since the 1970s, NASA says statistics show the Earth to be warming 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit a year" was an inadvertent error. Clearly we have not seen a 30F+ increase in average temperature.

Would you please fix that?

Thanks!




RE: Quick wording fix needed
By cpeter38 on 1/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Quick wording fix needed
By cpeter38 on 1/14/2011 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
I should have looked at the original press release before commenting - it says "The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s." Clearly the period they are referencing is not 31 years.

The caveats you mention (such as ignoring satellite measurements) lead me to question ANY figure Hansen or his organization provide.


By HoosierEngineer5 on 1/14/2011 6:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
Or, maybe 78% of all statistics are made up on-the-spot by only 1.7% of individuals with references cited an average of 23.76% of the time!


Quote of the Day
By inaphasia on 1/14/2011 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 4
Unless we are willing to settle down into a world that is our prison, we must be ready to move beyond Earth. . . . People who view industrialization as a source of the Earth's troubles, its pollution, and the desecration of its surface, can only advocate that we give it up. This is something that we can't do; we have the tiger by the tail. We have 4.5 billion people on Earth. We can't support that many unless we're industrialized and technologically advanced. So, the idea is not to get rid of industrialization but to move it somewhere else. If we can move it a few thousand miles into space, we still have it, but not on Earth. Earth can then become a world of parks, farms, and wilderness without giving up the benefits of industrialization.

— Isaac Asimov, 'Our Future in the Cosmos—Space,' lecture given at the College of William and Mary, 1983.




RE: Quote of the Day
By menace on 1/14/2011 1:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a fan of Asimov but about that time in 1984 the "Green Revolution" was taking flight. I'm not talking about an environmentalism movement but a leap in agricultural technology. His vision was that competition between industry, population, and agriculture for land use would force industry to space. He (along most people at the time)was not smart enough to figure out there was another solution evolving right under his nose.


Where is the actual data?
By HueyD on 1/14/2011 3:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
Did they "interpolate" the data for the northern regions again?

Last time they only used the actual measurements from the lower, southern regions and "interpolated" the temperatures for the northern regions.

They are cooking the books...




RE: Where is the actual data?
By HueyD on 1/14/2011 3:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
A happy view
By nonmose on 1/14/2011 2:08:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
humans would naturally migrate to new homes


I'm impressed that humans will naturally migrate. I'm glad that people in the USA will welcome people migrating from Mexico as the temperature there risks becoming unbearable, just as I'm glad that people in Europe will welcome them from North Africa. Isn't it great that the human race is so welcoming?

quote:
the climate change would likely make some previously minimally habitable regions more hospitable


You have to assume there's a quid pro quo right? Whether the human race as a whole benefits depends on the balance.




RE: A happy view
By diggernash on 1/14/2011 5:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
You can worry about how much food you can grow at home or you can ensure that you have the biggest guns. If you have the biggest guns, then it matters little where the food is grown. Unfortunately we are becoming too civilized to worry about military spending. To not be prepared to win only ensures that you will be invited to the game.


RE: A happy view
By SPOOFE on 1/17/2011 12:54:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm glad that people in the USA will welcome people migrating from Mexico as the temperature there risks becoming unbearable,

Yes, dealing with natural fluctuations in climate is not always a pleasant task, so let's flush our economy down the toilet and bring on the misery right away! No more dilly-dallying!!


NASA????
By DXRick on 1/15/2011 4:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Here is their about page: http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nas...

Why is NASA issuing a report on our climate? Isn't this what the EPA should do?

Now that NASA has also been tasked with making the Muslim world like us more, I can't help wonder if this is more propoganda than news (regardless of what it means).




RE: NASA????
By Solandri on 1/15/2011 5:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
It belongs under NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. They're the guys who study the oceans and atmospheric phenomena like weather (the National Weather Service is under NOAA).

Personally I think it got chucked under NASA because it has more name recognition among the public. Ostensibly it fits under NASA because of the remote sensing (use of satellite data). But long-term and comprehensive study of this sort of thing really belongs under NOAA.


Questionable surface data
By ZachDontScare on 1/14/2011 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with surface measurements is that the measurement stations can provide bad data. A station may have started off positioned perfectly in a field 20 years ago, but now be surrounded by pavement and buildings. This leads to dramatically inaccurate measurements. And the error always trends to the warmer due to the impact of surrounding buildings and pavement. This makes it look like the temperature went 'up', even when it didnt.

http://www.surfacestations.org/




NASA
By RugMuch on 1/14/2011 12:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is as the temperature rises the economy gets worse.

Its the whole astin kutisens butterfly thing right.

(Name is spell horribly due to Waiting 2 allusion)




Tough chance
By zmatt on 1/14/2011 6:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
We are already having an abnormally cold winter where I live, so at least for the region, to be the warmest ever the snow will need to melt soon. heck it snowed on Christmas which is only the second time I can remember it happening here. Most years we don't get snow until after New years. So far we have at least 4 separate cases of snow and ice.




By CZroe on 1/14/2011 10:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Dr. Hansen reports that the record warmth was especially exceptional given that 2010 was the start of a strong La Niña pattern, which brings cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and should have offered a cooler global temperature. He states, 'Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature.'"

I guess this explains why things were so mild here in San Diego last summer. It was the coolest summer most here could remember despite that record high in September.




yet here in georgia at least
By MindParadox on 1/15/2011 4:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
it snowed for the first time in 100 years on christmas day, or so the news tells us

then of course theres "winter storm 2011" which basically shut the city down for 6 days in a row(last time we had anything like this happen since ive been in georgia, atlanta shut down for a day in 92)




Accuracy is relative
By tygrus on 1/17/2011 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
They do not average the temperatures of all locations to calculate the changing average. They measure the temperature difference overtime at each location and aggregate the differences called the anomaly. If a temperature sensor is the same 1 degree out today and 10 years prior then the measured change overtime is still accurate. If the inaccuracy is due to changes in the local geography (buildings, relocation, AC unit added nearby) then the results will be skewed. They use the results from other reliable sensors in the area to re-calibrate a station that has moved based on all the differences to the previous year/s. I’m not saying their calculated results are representative or accurate but it’s not as obvious as some think.




By Graviton on 1/17/2011 10:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death

It reminds me how easy it is for a population to be consumed by a falsehood to the point where it is parroted by even governmental and "scientific" sources, as well as alters people's behaviors and product design.




I can has warmth...?
By PlasmaBomb on 1/18/2011 7:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
Send some of that warmth over here, the UK summer sucked as normal and we've just had the coldest winter in 25 years...




Real concern
By Philippine Mango on 1/16/2011 1:59:06 AM , Rating: 1
The real concern is the nitrogen runoff from agriculture and the over saturation of CO2 in the Ocean which is destroying the coral reef and effectively will kill the ocean. This should be dealt with ASAP assuming anyone gives a shit about eating seafood because a dead ocean means no more seafood and turning it into a wasteland. Too much CO2 in the ocean increases the acidity which means carbonic acid which is what destroys the coral. Deal with the CO2 and other fossil fuel pumping (drilling) issue and you've dealt with global warming and "saving" the ocean..




It's entirely possible....
By marvdmartian on 1/14/11, Rating: 0
also glad to see Jason Mick tack left
By surt on 1/14/11, Rating: 0
Rapeture
By zippyzoo on 1/14/11, Rating: -1
And -
By Dr of crap on 1/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: And -
By ltgrunt on 1/14/2011 1:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
There is temperature and atmospheric oxygen and carbon content evidence for much the Earth's history, actually.

Sure, there weren't thermometers and satellite readings, but conditions in prehistoric times have been extrapolated from alongside other geologic findings.


RE: And -
By SPOOFE on 1/17/2011 12:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is temperature and atmospheric oxygen and carbon content evidence for much the Earth's history, actually.

Data that is open to some interpretation and has a much larger margin of error compared to thermometer temps, actually.


RE: And -
By kattanna on 1/14/2011 1:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And we have no data from the past 10,000 plus years to compare it to, to say that is is not just some cyclical trend.


but we do

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%9...

quote:
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.


RE: And -
By Kurz on 1/14/2011 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Temperature by Proxy... Eh Don't like it.


RE: And -
By theapparition on 1/14/2011 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'd also like to add that many of the warming trends we see now are a direct result of slashing 75% of the world wide weather monitoring stations, where this data is collected.

I find it quite interesting that only the stations that recorded the highest temperatures were kept, and the others shut down.


RE: And -
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2011 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Do not look at the man behind the curtain.


RE: And -
By BurnItDwn on 1/14/2011 2:34:12 PM , Rating: 1
The fact that the temperature is rising does not prove that we are the cause, true. Nor does the fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have been rising at a corresponding rate (correlation does not imply causation), however, the "greenhouse effect" has been proven on a smaller scale to be real, rather than imagined.

As others have said, we have data from 10,000+ years ago.
Just because you do not understand it, or because you personally don't have that data in front of you, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

So, While we can disagree about the extent about how much humanity is impacting the global temperature, to suggest that we are not at all impacting the temperature is a rather uninformed opinion that goes against all known evidence.


RE: And -
By Nutzo on 1/14/2011 4:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I'll agree, but I don't see how people raising the temperature .01 degrees is a crisis.

You easily arguable that tree or even insects have as much or more of an impact than people.


RE: And -
By SPOOFE on 1/17/2011 12:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
however, the "greenhouse effect" has been proven on a smaller scale to be real, rather than imagined.

Yup, they're called greenhouses.

What makes a greenhouse a greenhouse?

Water vapor.

How many studies have actually closely examined the behavior of water vapor in our atmosphere?

One, that I know of. All others since at least 1990 have simply assumed that water would cause a positive feedback effect and left it at that.

So, this one study, that actually studied the subject of the study... what did it find?

Water causes a negative feedback effect.

Seems water vapor is only an excellent greenhouse gas when it doesn't have the volume to experience large pressure differences... like in a greenhouse.


Bias much?
By gamerk2 on 1/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Bias much?
By zozzlhandler on 1/14/2011 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 3
Who says a warming trend would likely be exponential? How likely?
0.00001? less? We had warmer climate in the past (Medieval Optimum) and it was pleasanter all around. Also, the polar bears and coral survived.

There were dairy farms in Greenland, and grapes grown in Scotland.

There are HUGE areas of the planet that would become more habitable with warmer temperatures.


RE: Bias much?
By Schrag4 on 1/14/2011 2:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except a warming trend would likely be exponentaial over time, so any short term "benifit" would very quickly be offset. IE: Less ice would darken the earth, and as we all learned in basic chemistry: White reflects, black absorbs.


So I suppose 100 years ago we were at the optimal temperature, and now we're slipping exponentially upward. And if we had cooled slightly instead of warming 100 years ago, there would be more ice reflecting more sun and we would be instead slipping downward toward an ice-covered earth? Give me a break.

quote:
I also find it hilarious that the author points out the "financial interests" in "proving" GW, but fails to cite any such interest, or point out those same interests for those hoping to prove the exact opposite.


So you say he didn't cite such interests. Let me help:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+financial+...

Obviously you'll find interests for both sides, I'll give you credit for that. But to suggest nobody is profitting from the AGW movement is incredibly naive, IMO.


RE: Bias much?
By Nutzo on 1/14/2011 4:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the more the warming, the more the earth will react to cool the planet.

Higher Temperatures result in more evaporation and more wind blow dust. This results in more clouds and more rain. Clouds and rain cool the planet.

These cycles have been going on for millions of years. If the earths climate wasn't self regulating, life would have been wiped out many time before this.
Even a massive metor strike millions of years ago wasn't enough to completely destroy the climate and all life.


RE: Bias much?
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2011 6:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
1) benefit. not benifit
2) nutrients. not nutirents
3) poles. not poals
4) available. not avaliable
5) Israel. not Isriel
6) unbiased. not unbaist

quote:
don't write it at all.


Please follow your own advise.


RE: Bias much?
By Vertigo101 on 1/15/2011 5:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please follow your own advise.

As much as I agree with your post...

It's advice.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki