The GOP / FlatEarthers say just stop recording those pesky temperatures!
See how they are, they can fix all our problems with HillBilly science…
It’s bullshit like this that gives climate change deniers so much good ammunition.
I appreicate the author is an arts type, but surely she can’t have been asleep in every science class where “proof” was explained ?
Here’s the test, (we science grads like tests) , if a Republican had used a cold year to “disprove” climate change you’d ridicule him and accuse him of being a mouthpiece for Koch.
Be clear that’s the standard here, the article isn’t any better than Koch propaganda.
In science we have this term “correct by accident”, think how it applies to how you choose to present evidence.
Proof by ‘all my friends who think like I do, agree with me’, isn’t any better than what a Republican would use.
One year does not “prove” climate change. Two wouldn’t do it either., “proof” is when there is no plausible alternative. There is, of course the plausiblity of alternative explanations are in monotonic decline, but they ain’t gone yet.
Surely the means of monitoring the global average surface temperature in 1880 were so wildly different from those in use today as to be of questionable comparability? Just sayin’.
Don’t worry, Ted Cruz will stop this from happening again next year.
The big surprise is that it’s the hottest year ever on record in a non-El Niño year. Every other record-breaking year (which have been coming every 3-4 years now) have always been when El Niño pulls a large amount of heat out of the ocean.
What this means is that when we next get an El Niño year, it’s expected to blast this record-breaking year out of the water.
And so on and so on…
It has been lovely warm here in Finland. It’s easy to say “well, it’s no problem for us, let the sun shine!” (and some do, in all seriousness), but obviously climate change affects the whole ecosystem and we will all feel the consequences, one way or another.
Reading a thermometer and writing down the number + time of day? Not that much room for change there. Converting temperatures+locations into regional temperatures is done in the present, so it’s independent of any older models of global surface temperature (if such even existed) and can use the same model for the entire timespan.
There has been some worries that the stations have been engulfed by cities and that this would raise the measured temperatures, but IIRC someone looked into it and found it to not be a large problem - if you’re deeply interested, I’m sure I can find a paper or two about it.
Honey, it’s all real!
[quote=“dnebdal, post:8, topic:50107”]Converting temperatures+locations into regional temperatures is done in the present, so it’s independent of any older models of global surface temperature (if such even existed) and can use the same model for the entire timespan.[/quote]Okay, but aren’t there at least a lot more monitoring locations now than there were back then?
WHAT?! NO! But Fox News said…!
I’m going to be assisting with a statewide effort to look at river ecology this year by doing some environmental chemistry. One of the things we look at, that is absolutely critical, is water oxygenation. As the rivers and water bodies heat up, the level of dissolved oxygen goes down. Temperature is certainty not the only factor in water oxygenation, but it is the limiting factor. Low dissolved oxygen makes it harder for macrofauna, like fish, to thrive. Meanwhile algae tends to thrive in warmer waters and poison its environment. (I say poison, of course, in the context of algal blooms being where they shouldn’t and disrupting the ecology, not in the sense that all algae is bad.)
Global warming is real folks, you can see it right in your backyard.
I would expect so, yes. Which does make anything calculated from older data less certain.
On the other hand, we have enough years of “modern” observations that it’s possible to look into this: Take only as many measurement stations as there were in, say, 1850. Using their data from, say, 1990-2010 (perhaps adding a bit of random noise, if you expect the old measurements to be markedly less precise), calculate surface temperatures. Compare to the numbers you got using all available data.
I don’t know if that’s exactly what they did, of course - but I’d be surprised if it was just ignored.
This isn’t about only one year. Did you even read the article or look at the bar graph showing yearly temperatures rising? Did you know the NOAA site linked to archives years of supporting data to be observed?
The problem, sadly, is not about truth, but about rhetoric. Trying to argue with someone without a basic understanding of scientific principles about a fairly subtle scientific area is basically going to fail. Fortunately, science has the answer!
Did you read anything besides the headline?
Answer to this is:
We use practically the same things today we did back then, so the only incorrect thing to do is hypothesize reasons why we shouldn’t accept past data.
I wouldn’t say @Jorpho is trolling. However, you’re right in that her/his ideas for how to consider the data seems to construct an inherently biased framework for analysis.
He must have read something besides the headline, since the word “proof” isn’t in it. Or the writeup.
Luckily for American AGW deniers, much of the Bible Belt had a very temperate and pleasant summer.
I think the biggest news story was the massive downpours that rocked Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, New England, Detroit, and Nevada I think. These deluges weren’t part of larger systems, hurricanes, or fronts and came without warning. We had a couple gully-washers that delivered 6" of rain in less than an hour without rain being in the forecast. Just without warning, there are rainfalls that qualify as a civil defense emergency. The Florida panhandle had a spring rainstorm that dumped something like 20" of rain in a day, but we will never know how much rain fell because the gauges washed away. Of course this is an area that gets smacked by hurricanes, but there was no storm system, this just sort of happened.