Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday May 18 2018, @10:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the gonna-need-a-MUCH-bigger-parasol dept.

It was December 1984, and President Reagan had just been elected to his second term, Dynasty was the top show on TV and Madonna's Like a Virgin topped the musical charts.

It was also the last time the Earth had a cooler-than-average month.

Last month marked the planet's 400th consecutive month with above-average temperatures, federal scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday.

[...] "We live in and share a world that is unequivocally, appreciably and consequentially warmer than just a few decades ago, and our world continues to warm," said NOAA climate scientist Deke Arndt. "Speeding by a '400' sign only underscores that, but it does not prove anything new."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/17/global-warming-april-400th-consecutive-warm-month/618484002/?csp=chromepush


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:44AM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:44AM (#681113)
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:11PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:11PM (#681122)

      That doesn't contradict TFA. A two year dip can still be warmer than a long term average. This is from the article you link (perhaps a bit further down than you read):

      None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 18 2018, @01:01PM (11 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday May 18 2018, @01:01PM (#681133)

        One "feature" of global warming is increased variability in the weather systems: hotter hots, colder colds... reading that, I wonder if there's a global wind energy index? Seems like it would be challenging to measure on a global scale, even with satellite data, but as total global weather energy increases, one might expect more wind.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @01:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @01:10PM (#681139)

          By extreme weather they mean extremely stable weather like droughts, etc.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:13AM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:13AM (#681494) Journal

          One "feature" of global warming is increased variability in the weather systems

          That's an interesting assertion, but where's the evidence?

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:23AM (3 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:23AM (#681499)

            2 seconds of Google gets this:

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965212000047 [sciencedirect.com]

            variability of surface air temperature (SAT) associated with the AO index shows high correlation with recent global warming trend.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:44AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:44AM (#681505) Journal
              And? Shouldn't one first establish that this index measures some sort of variability?
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 19 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday May 19 2018, @05:02PM (#681611)

                Shouldn't one first establish that this index measures some sort of variability?

                So, establish your own peer reviewed journal and write your own rules - I'm sure if it's of value it will be widely read and respected.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:17PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:17PM (#681702) Journal

                  establish your own peer reviewed journal

                  Why would I bother to do that? What's in it for me?

          • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:36AM (4 children)

            by fritsd (4586) on Saturday May 19 2018, @08:36AM (#681547) Journal

            There's a Wiki article on "dissipative systems" [wikipedia.org]. (Not the easiest wikipedia article I've read, I must say, but I'm a fan of Prigogine)

            It's like when you boil an egg and the Bénard cells form when the water is almost boiling. The heat transfer from the hot bottom of the pan to the water is so big that simpler, more "gentle" methods get overshadowed by more vigorous and random and "violent" phenomena.

            If you'd put the pan on too hot a flame, you'd *probably* burn yourself if you got close, because the statistical probability of some boiling water sometimes splashing over the edge of the pan becomes significant.

            I say *probably*; the splashes could miss you, or not occur just when you get the egg out with a long spoon. But would you risk it? Is it worth the risk? Or would you say: "I'm not Pris from the film Blade Runner, turn the bloody cooker off NOW and wait until the system rebalances itself to a level I can cope with".

            (hey not a bad analogy I think)

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @09:50AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @09:50AM (#681556) Journal
              You don't get that in a block of slightly warmer steel - I mean there is some sort of increase in such variation, but it is an insignificant change. Again this is an interesting assertion, but apparently without any empirical backing as usual. There are two problems with the analogy given. First, to be a proper analogy, we need to consider a boiling water situation to a boiling water situation with slightly greater heat retention. While yes, there is an increase in activity when one slightly increases the temperature (or similar), it is overshadowed by the activity that is already present.

              Second, if there is a significant increase in weather systems activity and variation, then we run into a different problem, namely that one can't eat one's cake and have it too. Such notable increases would significantly increase the collective heat dissipated to space and greatly reduce the potential for positive feedback "tipping points" in the system. Current climate models aren't taking that into account.
              • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:01AM (1 child)

                by fritsd (4586) on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:01AM (#681567) Journal

                You don't get that in a block of slightly warmer steel - I mean there is some sort of increase in such variation, but it is an insignificant change.

                Yes, but that's because steel is a solid at those temperatures. The molecules get to rotate and vibrate, but not to translate (move) -- at least not in any appreciative amount. Boiling means water molecules actually leave the pan (steam). There is an interface layer between 100° water and 100° steam.

                Second, if there is a significant increase in weather systems activity and variation, then we run into a different problem, namely that one can't eat one's cake and have it too. Such notable increases would significantly increase the collective heat dissipated to space and greatly reduce the potential for positive feedback "tipping points" in the system. Current climate models aren't taking that into account.

                I understand what you say, but I think the weather we see on Earth is practically all in the "Troposphere". So maybe hurricanes mix warm air from ground level with cold air from Stratosphere level (10 km? 20km?) and warm up the lower Stratosphere.

                But I don't know how quickly Stratosphere air mixes with Ionosphere air, and that with Thermosphere "air". There is no weather that high. Vacuum is an extermely good insulator; that's why Dewar buckets [wikipedia.org] for liquid air and N2 are made of double glass with vacuum in between. If those dissipation processes take longer than a few hundred years then the Earth will still "boil over" in the meantime, so to speak.

                I'm not 100% sure but I think the most significant way that Earth sheds its heat, is by radiation of infrared to outer space, and that's a very inefficient process, so we shouldn't upset the steady state as we do, because it takes long to get rid of the heat we've already built up down here (500 years? don't remember where I read that ballpark figure).

                Oh I found an interesting link khallow:
                http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php [weather-climate.org.uk]

                Troposphere:

                The troposphere is the layer where most of the world's weather takes place. Since temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere, warm air near the surface of the Earth can readily rise, being less dense than the colder air above it. In fact air molecules can travel to the top of the troposphere and back down again in a just a few days.

                Stratosphere:

                The stratosphere defines a layer in which temperatures rises with increasing altitude. At the top of the stratosphere the thin air may attain temperatures close to 0°C. This rise in temperature is caused by the absorption of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun by the ozone layer. Such a temperature profile creates very stable atmospheric conditions, and the stratosphere lacks the air turbulence that is so prevalent in the troposphere. Consequently, the stratosphere is almost completely free of clouds or other forms of weather.

                So air gets mixed horizontally (jet stream) but not much vertically in the Stratosphere.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:34PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:34PM (#681704) Journal

                  But I don't know how quickly Stratosphere air mixes with Ionosphere air, and that with Thermosphere "air".

                  There is very little air at those higher altitudes to transfer heat to. Instead, the chief loss of heat would be through radiation to space. And that's the point about a lot of the extreme weather that is discussed. Much of it efficiently transfers heat via convection to altitudes where it can be more efficiently radiated to space. Greenhouse gases would have a little effect at these higher altitudes (but not much due to the low densities of atmosphere at these altitudes).

                  And that leads to yet another geoengineering approach that isn't talked about. There are natural features of Earth that already routinely trigger extreme weather, such as mountain ranges and some lakes (such as Lake Maracaibo [wikipedia.org]). It's not going to address high concentrations of greenhouse gases in atmosphere, but it can stabilize the climate away from tipping points, should they exist, and provide local relief to areas particularly hard hit by high temperatures from global warming.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:56AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @11:56AM (#681570)

              Instead of spoons and splashes of water, I just steam my eggs nowadays. They're much less likely to overcook, shells slide off with minimal hassle, and no risk of burns from near-boiling water.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 18 2018, @04:44PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 18 2018, @04:44PM (#681246) Journal

        Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend.

        Looking at a specific two years in a global, long-term, phenomenon just reeks of cherry picking.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @05:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @05:42PM (#681286)

        You know there are giant ice cubes being melted right? Short term cooling will disappear after the last ice melts, then you'll really see the temperatures rise. Also the point about global vs. local weather patterns.

        Maybe we'll get lucky and cloud cover will increase and prevent the worst warming trends.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday May 18 2018, @08:52PM

        Long stretches of warmer than the long term average don't really mean much anyway. Any decent pre-ice-age warm swing is going to be almost entirely warmer than the long term average and those happen naturally like clockwork.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @10:01PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @10:01PM (#681417)

      Hmmm, where should I get my climate news from...

      1. https://noaa.gov
      2. http://bleachuranus.ru

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday May 19 2018, @12:33AM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Saturday May 19 2018, @12:33AM (#681446)

        That's an easy one: Courtesy of the administration's tireless efforts, that noaa.gov link is a few months away from being replaced by a fixed page showing Pleasantville forecast.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:09PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday May 19 2018, @06:09PM (#681624) Homepage Journal

          Thank you, working hard! National Weather Service, they have so many forecasters. Hundreds of them. But most folks watch the TV forecast. The TV always has a sexy lady or a good-looking guy. We did the biggest Tax Cut in history, we have to cut the budget. Obviously we have to cut it. So I said, cut the National Weather Service, let's tell those forecasters "you're fired." And the ones that look VERY NICE can go on TV. Big savings!!

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 18 2018, @11:47AM (2 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday May 18 2018, @11:47AM (#681114) Journal
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday May 18 2018, @04:36PM (1 child)

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday May 18 2018, @04:36PM (#681240)

      The US Congress will soon pass (along party lines) a resolution defining "avarage" as 10 F above current scientific consensus.
      Look forward to campaign ads saying that thanks to their action, the weather is definitely cooler than avarage, has been for a long time, and any other claim is pure fake news.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by RS3 on Friday May 18 2018, @07:02PM

        by RS3 (6367) on Friday May 18 2018, @07:02PM (#681322)

        Longer bikini seasons!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:49AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:49AM (#681115)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:53AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @11:53AM (#681117)

      Actually, add april and may to get 630 months.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:03PM (#681119)

        Still wrong. From the same source (USA today) only a few months ago:

        The last time the Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/ [usatoday.com]

        So actually its been 1.5 million months... not sure what type of denier shit theyre trying to pull by saying its only 400.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @12:48PM (#681129)

    Looks like this is the data source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt [nasa.gov]

    Here is a plot by month: https://image.ibb.co/daWWfd/TempByMo.png [image.ibb.co]

    Looks interesting... I'd say there are three phases (pre-1940, 1940-1980, and post-1980)

    Here is a plot of the number of stations over time: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/output/numStations.png [nasa.gov]

    I'd say there are three phases (pre-1950, 1950-1990, and post-1990), so almost a perfect 10 yr lag.

    More details on the methods:

    Documentation and Assessment of Results

    The analysis method was fully documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), including quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change. This was done by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability. This however only addresses the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements.

    As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which reached about 0.8°C in 2010, twice the magnitude reported in 1981.

    Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).

    More recent documentation (Hansen et al. 2010) compares alternative analyses and addresses questions about perception and reality of global warming; various choices for the ocean data are tested; it is also shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. A multi-year smoothing is applied to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. Despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature, the conclusion could be made that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the 21st century, new record heights being reached in every decade.
    GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)

    One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ [nasa.gov]

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday May 18 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday May 18 2018, @03:52PM (#681216)

    Since we KNOW the data is no longer reliable no conclusions drawn from it has any meaning at all. And we do KNOW that all of the climate data has been seriously fudged up by people with political axes to grind and in most cases the original paper records destroyed so there is no going back and starting over. Period, end of line.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @05:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @05:59PM (#681297)

      You THINK you KNOW stuff, but you ARE wrong. Period, end of your stupidity.

      You gonna go back to AC bombing every story?

  • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday May 18 2018, @04:51PM (2 children)

    by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday May 18 2018, @04:51PM (#681252)

    Warmer-Than-Average Month Thanks to Global Warming

    This just in from the tautology department: warming leads to warmth.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 18 2018, @07:27PM (1 child)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday May 18 2018, @07:27PM (#681337) Journal

      Not necessarily. If the Gulf Stream shuts off, you're gonna see some stupidly-cold winters in Western Europe. What global warming does is 1) cause greater extremes while the current negative feedbacks like the cryosphere and the thermohaline loops keep working, and 2) cause all hell to break loose when the feedbacks are overwhelmed.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @08:43PM (#681377)

        Woah woah woah, you gotta ELI5 that shit around here.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday May 18 2018, @09:39PM

    When I left home for work this morning I was wearing my winter coat, a wool scarf and a beanie with some manner of Space Age[TM] insulation fabric sandwiched between the inside and outside layers of knit synthetic.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19 2018, @02:18PM (#681578)

    Therefore we should all become communist. That'll fix it. Look at China they have zero emissions. We should emulate that.

    Sounds like troll remark, this is basically what the problem has devolved into since it has been treated into a political issue.

(1)