October global temps above average for 332nd straight month The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its global temperature analysis for October, and – no surprise – the planet remains in a sultry mood. As NOAA explains, a bit dryly – no pun intended, and no offense meant to unfortunate Americans fleeing drought-crazed rabid skunks: "This is the 332nd …
This post has been deleted by its author
Wiki wisdom words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India#Official_languages
-- "The official languages of the Republic of India are Standard Hindi (41% of the country speaks Standard Hindi or another Hindi dialect) and English. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
-- 2008 figures have Indian CO2 output as 1/3 of USA, Chinese 30% greater than USA (total figures, not per-capita)
But your underlying point is sound, that as the 6/7ths of the world that aren't members of the first world pursues a standard of living closer to ours we can expect resource consumption and pollution output to soar. Lowering our output isn't automatically futile: it can pioneer ways of achieving a given quality of life for a lower pollution output, develop technology sectors that may prove lucrative, and provide a nebulous moral example (weak, but without it we're even more screwed - imagine trying to persuade anyone else to reduce output if we're not attempting it too)
Beer icon because contemplating the future drives me to drink...
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
It's pretty easy to cherry pick out a few single years as warmer than some seemingly likewise cherry picked average as they seem to have done with the specified examples. Or, in the case of the UK, cooler than average (the UK being cooler would fit, for a time, with localised projections of global warming).
A single year being above or below average means little. It's the long term trend that's important. The data is preliminary, so we'll have to wait and see what it really adds to the long term picture I suppose.
This is more likely a weather pattern, even 30 years would sill more likely be weather and not climate. From the raging climate debate, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on the dividing line between weather and climate (if there is any.) Until the Climate Science field can get away from popular science and to something approaching the rigor of the physical sciences there is no reason to use it for the foundations of decisions that can cost trillions of dollars and lower the standards of living for the entire globe.
Note: It's also fairly easy to get the results you want when the data are being adjusted periodically so that the older data shows lower temperatures than were actually recorded years ago. (We know this is being done because old written records do not match the data online with NASA.) The adjustment of online versions of archived temperatures without explanation makes newer charts useless for scientific purposes but perfect for political purposes.
"We know this is being done because old written records do not match the data online with NASA"
Have you tried graphing it and comparing it? There's no significant difference between NASA's data 20 years ago and the same data today, except of course that there is 20 additional years of data.
"Have you tried graphing it and comparing it? There's no significant difference between NASA's data 20 years ago and the same data today, except of course that there is 20 additional years of data."
20 years isn't climate, it's weather. The Weather Service has data going back to the 1800s and the older data has been manipulated several times over the last decade. Note: I'm referring to the historically climate network not satellite data which does not show warming.
What is really interesting is that people will go on-line now and pull down the currently posted data and assume it has remained the same since it was put on-line. It should but it hasn't. NASA is applying corrections retroactively to archived. In my mine this is intellectually questionable.
"The Weather Service has data going back to the 1800s and the older data has been manipulated several times over the last decade. Note: I'm referring to the historically climate network not satellite data which does not show warming."
Satellite data shows warming too. Surface data. Satellite data. Land data. Ocean data. All show warming.
The older data from the Weather Service shows warming too.
This post has been deleted by its author
There have been many periods in our planet's past when we would have found life if not impossible very nearly so (think mountains striking the earth at km/sec). Yes in the past the earth may well have been completely covered in glaciers or much hotter than even the worst prediction we will encounter but self aware life as delicate as us was certainly not around.
This post has been deleted by its author
that's a shame, cos i was thinking of relocating to the Indian ocean off the coast of Somalia, but from what you suggest, the place is teeming with new cities, so the commute to work will still be a nightmare. guess ill relocate to northern Europe where the population density is clearly so much lower.
Is this corrected for measurement site location 'cause Climategate data was not (as picked by the Russians who analyzed it).
Let's take South Eastern Europe. This year is supposedly one of the hottest for South Eastern Europe.
Based on my own recollections it was hot, but not much hotter than: 1979 and 1987. In 1987 the temperature hit the 30-es in May, 40-es in June, remained in the 40-es until end of July and stayed in the 30-es range till October (same as this year). There were a couple of very hot years in the early 1990-es too (before South-Eastern Europe going wet and miserable towards the decade end).
If you look at met station locations - in 1987 the measurements locations in the largest South Eastern European cities - Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, etc were all in the suburbs or on the city border. Example - data for Sofia comes from the met-office at 8km on the E80 motorway. That was where the city ended in 1987. It is now 5km further down that road with 10+ times the traffic down the motorway. This should skew the data by at least several degrees. The other location is the airport which once again was outside the built up area up to the early 80-es. Bucharest - same story. Belgrade - same story. Ohrid - same story. And so on.
So is this showing heating or urbanization (or both)?
I simply don't trust the yanks figures. Satellites sensors that show the Great Lakes boiling sometimes fail to encourage confidence. We had a bloody cold winter for last 2 years. cooler than average winter with an average spring. this year. Not that the cool winters are in the NOAA map. The thermopocalypse lovers predictions keep getting put off for another 100 years. I spot a trend !
I suppose AGW will be blamed for the ice advancing into Scandanavia. Oh, wait, it already has been blamed for the extra ice in Antarctic Ocean. Oz icebreaker stuck for weeks. If the ice-agers are right, at least there will be undeniable evidence by 2020.
Antarctic ice overall is reducing, mass being lost inland on the continent. The ice sheet advancing slightly further into the ocean is partly due to atmospheric disturbance from that lovely ozone hole we have down here, partly due to where that inland ice is going.
It's all quite complicated, but the up-shot is that there is just as much warming down here. (The atmosphere and oceans mix over time.)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1209/S00048/nature-of-antarcticas-ice-sheet-revealed.htm
"Satellites sensors that show the Great Lakes boiling sometimes fail to encourage confidence."
Satellite sensors sometimes fail?! wow that's a surprise.
Wasn't it fortunate that said sensors were never used in any global warming records? Oh you didn't know that did you. Because your climate skeptic sources made sure to not mention it so they could mislead you into losing confidence in the records.
"We had a bloody cold winter for last 2 years. cooler than average winter with an average spring. this year. Not that the cool winters are in the NOAA map."
Oh look they are.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/ann/201012-201102.gif?opt=ann/
Another climate skeptic caught making up their own facts.
ooh we are hot, aren't we ? Never said outliers were used, but then with the track record of the IPCC and its camp followers, nothing would surprise me. Not locally cooler in the two maps I saw. agree some areas are warmer. Just like real weather.
As for sat sensors, are they are regularly recalibrated ? CSIRO do ground truthing of some kind , but that covers how much of those projections and for what ? vegetation and soil moisture, fine. temperatures being more volatile are a different matter.
No, more a skeptic in genera, l noting official statements do not match my observations. I know that is now heresy, but tough.
"Tuesday was the wettest day last week", say scientists.
I don't get this at all. We have the met office publishing data that shows no warming for 17 years, and this lot saying all the polar bears are on fire.
Is it any wonder climate "science" is widely viewed as a joke, a refuge for the 2nd and 3rd raters who couldn't get a job in a real science like reflexology or aromatherapy?
I'm putting together a clubbing holiday - a seal clubbing holiday. With hockey sticks. Any takers?
"I don't get this at all. We have the met office publishing data that shows no warming for 17 years, and this lot saying all the polar bears are on fire."
Data and projections for 23 different countries can be found here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/policy-relevant/obs-projections-impacts
Met Office general observations for the UK:
1) There has been warming over the UK since 1960 with greater warming in summer than winter.
2) Since 1960 there has been a decreasing trend in the frequency of cool nights and cool days and an increasing trend in the frequency of warm nights and warm days.
3) There has been a general increase in summer temperatures averaged over the country as a result of human influence on climate, making the occurrence of warm summer temperatures more frequent and cold summer temperatures less frequent.
Further, "For the A1B emissions scenario the UK is projected to experience temperature increases of up to around 3°C in the south and 2.5°C further north. The agreement between models is moderate in the south of the UK and low further north."
"There has been a general increase in summer temperatures averaged over the country as a result of human influence on climate..."
Bullshit. There's no evidence for that assertion and you know it. When someone proves a detectable human signature in the climate it'll be the science discovery of all time. Hasn't happened yet.
"Further, "For the A1B emissions scenario the UK is projected to experience..."
"Scenario". "Projected". In other words, more computer modelling fantasy nonsense, not actual real science.
Do you not understand that computer models of barely understood chaotic systems that require thousands of initial condition parameters, many of which are simply guessed at, are nothing more than expensive digital masturbation? When someone creates a model that can hindcast, then I might not immediately dismiss computer modelling of the climate out-of-hand as bullshit.
Warming since 1960? By what - a fraction of a degree? Big deal, let's run for the hills. I take it you're one of these cretins that denies the medieval warm period and all the other times in Earth's history when it was significantly warmer than today?
@LazyGun
""Bullshit. There's no evidence for that assertion and you know it. When someone proves a detectable human signature in the climate it'll be the science discovery of all time. Hasn't happened yet.""
You're firing blanks. Here's why: No point replying to me. All that is quoted from the Met Office.
"Do you not understand that computer models of barely understood chaotic systems that require thousands of initial condition parameters"
I do. But like I say, all the text in my post is quoted from the Met Office - They are not my words. Had you actually followed the link you would not have wasted your time by replying to me.
I would suggest that you share your intellect with the Met Office meterologists who are responsible for each and every word of my post and then come back and let us know how you get on.
"cretins that denies the medieval warm period"
Before you resort to childish behaviour and name calling, had you actually taken the time to look at some of my older posts you would realise just how silly you sound.
As for the name calling i.e. 'cretin', now that you are aware of the facts behind my post - every one of which you could have discerned for yourself had you the sense and had you not been so eager to emit your whining, I would suggest that you now look in the mirror.
It always pays to at least do a little reading before you gob off.
I should also have noted at the end of my above post, that some science (can't get the link right now, but Reading University and other perhaps more illustrious sources) state that global warming will, in essence and due to a shift of the jet stream, cause the UK to (on average) cool for a period. e.g. More cold, dry winters.
If the jet stream meander persists, then the proposition of much colder weather, in and around the UK, could be further compounded if the north Atlantic oscillation/conveyor system weakens or breaks down (due to increased sea water temps and reduction in salinity from northern ice sheet melt) - a very chilling prospect indeed. However, it is worth pointing out that the planets natural state is global aridity without snow caps at either pole. As has been said, global time for these systems, is, relatively, very, very slow indeed. But, then again, we are apparently due another glacial period in northern Europe and such periods are heralded by warming spells. So, are we adding to global warming with our industry/consumption, in such a way as to postpone the arrival of glaciation, or, are we in a period of pre-glacial warming ? It's scary either way for the generations to come and I hope their adaptability enables sufficient numbers to survive and prosper in a sustainable manner. Either way, human population is probably about to peak in the next 100-200 years. A combination of global systems, our own perverse behavior, towards each other and the planet, disease, famine, water shortages and war, will almost certainly then be major causes of a dramatic decline in human population. Perhaps we we will take all this amassed date with us and no one will be the wiser. Or perhaps we might struggle on and learn that even if our foot hold on this rocky place is at best tenuous, it's worth indulging in some good house keeping while we are here. I mean, even if you are only going to sit down for a picnic for a short time, it's jolly good practice to tidy up when you leave the beauty spot and go home.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
