Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
IainT said:
ViperPict said:
There is very limited evidence of this type of event in the Holocene.
What do you mean by 'granularity of the proxy data'?! Sediment size distribution analysis of glacial deposits?
Sorry VP - rate and temporal granularity. i.e. is the current measured rate of change significant when viewed within the accuracy we draw from proxies and do the proxies allow sufficient rate detail.What do you mean by 'granularity of the proxy data'?! Sediment size distribution analysis of glacial deposits?
i.e. there is reason to ask questions if the time period of observations is short and the accuracy of time series of a proxy is 'long'.
If we're measuring the worrying rate over 30 years but the proxy has a resolution of 300 years there are a lot of issues. Equally if we have accurate observations for 30 years and extrapolate them to a 300 year period we have the same issues.
Unprecedented implies certainty that is dangerously close to unscientific.
There is surely a destructive force of "nature" that can very effectively destroy all previous history except the last significant event as far as the human capacity to derive a history of long term activity is concerned.
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
LongQ said:
There is surely a destructive force of "nature" that can very effectively destroy all previous history except the last significant event as far as the human capacity to derive a history of long term activity is concerned.
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
Some recent studies have shown that morraines and eskers from previous glacial periods to the Devensian (the most recent one) still exist. This caused a lot of consternation in Quaternary science circles, prior to the advent of reliable dating methodologies.Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
The Viper - getting some work work done to it as we speak! I have done just over 10,000 miles in it in 10 years. Even with it's ludicrous emissions rate, total CO2 over that time is much less than my economical DD!
ViperPict said:
LongQ said:
There is surely a destructive force of "nature" that can very effectively destroy all previous history except the last significant event as far as the human capacity to derive a history of long term activity is concerned.
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
Some recent studies have shown that morraines and eskers from previous glacial periods to the Devensian (the most recent one) still exist. This caused a lot of consternation in Quaternary science circles, prior to the advent of reliable dating methodologies.Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
The Viper - getting some work work done to it as we speak! I have done just over 10,000 miles in it in 10 years. Even with it's ludicrous emissions rate, total CO2 over that time is much less than my economical DD!
Does the work suggest a percentage evidence survival rate and the likely degree of accuracy?
As for the Viper. Even 10k miles is too many. There are no excuses. You are clearly and evidentially murdering the planet ... along with the tens of thousands of "delegates" who travel to all of the climate discussion jamborees every year.
You should take a lead and set some standards for your peers. Destroy the Viper. Make a video. Put it on You Tube and shame your peers into making similar advances to change political philosophy into action. Those who eschew motorised ground transport could start be boycotting long distance air travel and petitioning all their likeminded colleagues to do the same. That would surely be a win-win situation for humanity and the planet.
LongQ said:
ViperPict said:
LongQ said:
There is surely a destructive force of "nature" that can very effectively destroy all previous history except the last significant event as far as the human capacity to derive a history of long term activity is concerned.
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
Some recent studies have shown that morraines and eskers from previous glacial periods to the Devensian (the most recent one) still exist. This caused a lot of consternation in Quaternary science circles, prior to the advent of reliable dating methodologies.Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
The Viper - getting some work work done to it as we speak! I have done just over 10,000 miles in it in 10 years. Even with it's ludicrous emissions rate, total CO2 over that time is much less than my economical DD!
Does the work suggest a percentage evidence survival rate and the likely degree of accuracy?
As for the Viper. Even 10k miles is too many. There are no excuses. You are clearly and evidentially murdering the planet ... along with the tens of thousands of "delegates" who travel to all of the climate discussion jamborees every year.
You should take a lead and set some standards for your peers. Destroy the Viper. Make a video. Put it on You Tube and shame your peers into making similar advances to change political philosophy into action. Those who eschew motorised ground transport could start be boycotting long distance air travel and petitioning all their likeminded colleagues to do the same. That would surely be a win-win situation for humanity and the planet.
I fear that there is nothing to be done now about runaway human-induced climate change - I think we missed the last boat to do something that could really make a difference around the mid-90s. It requires a 'regime shift' in the attitude to the issue and token gestures have no real value. I'll just watch from up north as Norfolk, Somerset and London disappear under the waves...
ViperPict said:
LongQ said:
ViperPict said:
LongQ said:
There is surely a destructive force of "nature" that can very effectively destroy all previous history except the last significant event as far as the human capacity to derive a history of long term activity is concerned.
Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
Some recent studies have shown that morraines and eskers from previous glacial periods to the Devensian (the most recent one) still exist. This caused a lot of consternation in Quaternary science circles, prior to the advent of reliable dating methodologies.Thinking in more recent terms for those experiencing Climate fright ... what have you done with the Viper Mr. Pict?
I assume that the realisation that you were almost single handedly destroying the planet came as a great shock and led to the decision to destroy the weapon of mass destruction that you owned lest it fell into the hands of others who would perpetuate its destructive potential?
Did you find this to be a difficult decision or was it an immense relief to absolve yourself from any future responsibility for the decline and fall of humanity?
The Viper - getting some work work done to it as we speak! I have done just over 10,000 miles in it in 10 years. Even with it's ludicrous emissions rate, total CO2 over that time is much less than my economical DD!
Does the work suggest a percentage evidence survival rate and the likely degree of accuracy?
As for the Viper. Even 10k miles is too many. There are no excuses. You are clearly and evidentially murdering the planet ... along with the tens of thousands of "delegates" who travel to all of the climate discussion jamborees every year.
You should take a lead and set some standards for your peers. Destroy the Viper. Make a video. Put it on You Tube and shame your peers into making similar advances to change political philosophy into action. Those who eschew motorised ground transport could start be boycotting long distance air travel and petitioning all their likeminded colleagues to do the same. That would surely be a win-win situation for humanity and the planet.
I fear that there is nothing to be done now about runaway human-induced climate change - I think we missed the last boat to do something that could really make a difference around the mid-90s. It requires a 'regime shift' in the attitude to the issue and token gestures have no real value. I'll just watch from up north as Norfolk, Somerset and London disappear under the waves...
I think it probably tells us even less about how much we may think we understand about any influence human activities may have on climate.
And that lack of understanding means that we cannot be at all certain (or even vaguely aware, frankly) of the effects any "mitigation" might have - especially anything that is dreamed up to be of enough significance to actually change anything in the sort of timescale that people would expect to see "results" produced.
Pretty much every eco-intervention, undertaken for whatever reason as a scientifically considered activity, has resulted in unplanned and seemingly unexpected outcomes.
Even matters quite close to our hearts (literally) in the medical science field seem to have "factual" lives of not more than a generation. Or maybe a career?
In fact you could quite rationally put forward a scientific theory that the root cause of the problem is too many humans. Indeed such a suggestion was made some decades ago by scientists of the time and has not yet been disproved as far as I am aware.
In the meantime we have seen the world population increase quite dramatically and continue to do so in many parts of the world, much of Africa being the next area for dramatic increases.
The past increase is, to all intents and purposes, incontrovertible fact (though there may be some disagreement of the actual numbers) and the future predictions look pretty convincing so we can probably accept them as factually acceptable too.
From this the logical conclusion would be that we cannot do much about managing the climate without controlling population (based on existing thinking). One thing we could control rather easily would be population although the means of doing so may be less than ethical. Perhaps even less ethical then forcing "green" agendas for political purposes.
Now to most people, probably a 97% consensus or greater, it is quite clear that easy food availability and medical knowledge have encouraged population growth and therefore the sciences involved, well meaning thought they were, are clearly the root cause of excessive consumption and thus "carbon" output and therefore quite directly lead to predictions of catastrophic climate change. Clear proof that medical interventions are dangerous for the longevity of humanity though not exactly critical for the continued existence of the planet.
Medicine and biology have a lot to answer for - 2 examples of catastrophic interference in natural processes by the science community. Why would wish to make the same mistakes again?
Of course if some of the current scientific suggestions were allowed to develop and proved to be mistakes they would seem likely to instigate a reduction of global population for a number of different reasons. Whether such events would be any more acceptable than certain lands eventually disappearing under water and completing a trend that has been around for a few thousand years can only be decided by whoever is around at the time. They may not have a clear historic (or even scientific) view of the decision making process. Nor any data that categorically gives the survivors anything to work with to educate themselves and help them with their future decisions. (By that time such things may not matter much ....)
So, I think it is quite evident that at the very least one strand of the problem that has led us to this current situation is the misapplication of Science.
Do we really want the the certainty of making the same mistake again by applying the same incomplete thinking that has caused the problems in the first place? And that even before the politicians get involved?
There seems to be a tendency in post-modern science (and especially medicine) to jump over most of the theory testing and make decisions based on the pre-theory hypothesis or the first signs of any sort of data that might suggest a "successful" outcome. In climate matters testing the theory fully is likely to take too long to be of benefit to the careers of those working in the field so such attempted short cuts are only to be expected - and preferably rejected.
Looked at logically (and very unemotionally) based on the scientific consensus so far, stopping Africa (or indeed anywhere else) being the source of an additional 4billion humans by the end of the century would seem to be a far more beneficial step for the planet's climate than Europe going for no carbon energy.
Sir David Attenborough amongst other luminaries, has said as much many times (though not in quite those words). Why does no one take the appropriate action? The science, surely, is clear.
LongQ said:
I'm not sure a video of an event in 2008 tells us much about facts related to something as complex and ever changing as the climate of the planet.
I think it probably tells us even less about how much we may think we understand about any influence human activities may have on climate.
And that lack of understanding means that we cannot be at all certain (or even vaguely aware, frankly) of the effects any "mitigation" might have - especially anything that is dreamed up to be of enough significance to actually change anything in the sort of timescale that people would expect to see "results" produced.
Pretty much every eco-intervention, undertaken for whatever reason as a scientifically considered activity, has resulted in unplanned and seemingly unexpected outcomes.
Even matters quite close to our hearts (literally) in the medical science field seem to have "factual" lives of not more than a generation. Or maybe a career?
In fact you could quite rationally put forward a scientific theory that the root cause of the problem is too many humans. Indeed such a suggestion was made some decades ago by scientists of the time and has not yet been disproved as far as I am aware.
In the meantime we have seen the world population increase quite dramatically and continue to do so in many parts of the world, much of Africa being the next area for dramatic increases.
The past increase is, to all intents and purposes, incontrovertible fact (though there may be some disagreement of the actual numbers) and the future predictions look pretty convincing so we can probably accept them as factually acceptable too.
From this the logical conclusion would be that we cannot do much about managing the climate without controlling population (based on existing thinking). One thing we could control rather easily would be population although the means of doing so may be less than ethical. Perhaps even less ethical then forcing "green" agendas for political purposes.
Now to most people, probably a 97% consensus or greater, it is quite clear that easy food availability and medical knowledge have encouraged population growth and therefore the sciences involved, well meaning thought they were, are clearly the root cause of excessive consumption and thus "carbon" output and therefore quite directly lead to predictions of catastrophic climate change. Clear proof that medical interventions are dangerous for the longevity of humanity though not exactly critical for the continued existence of the planet.
Medicine and biology have a lot to answer for - 2 examples of catastrophic interference in natural processes by the science community. Why would wish to make the same mistakes again?
Of course if some of the current scientific suggestions were allowed to develop and proved to be mistakes they would seem likely to instigate a reduction of global population for a number of different reasons. Whether such events would be any more acceptable than certain lands eventually disappearing under water and completing a trend that has been around for a few thousand years can only be decided by whoever is around at the time. They may not have a clear historic (or even scientific) view of the decision making process. Nor any data that categorically gives the survivors anything to work with to educate themselves and help them with their future decisions. (By that time such things may not matter much ....)
So, I think it is quite evident that at the very least one strand of the problem that has led us to this current situation is the misapplication of Science.
Do we really want the the certainty of making the same mistake again by applying the same incomplete thinking that has caused the problems in the first place? And that even before the politicians get involved?
There seems to be a tendency in post-modern science (and especially medicine) to jump over most of the theory testing and make decisions based on the pre-theory hypothesis or the first signs of any sort of data that might suggest a "successful" outcome. In climate matters testing the theory fully is likely to take too long to be of benefit to the careers of those working in the field so such attempted short cuts are only to be expected - and preferably rejected.
Looked at logically (and very unemotionally) based on the scientific consensus so far, stopping Africa (or indeed anywhere else) being the source of an additional 4billion humans by the end of the century would seem to be a far more beneficial step for the planet's climate than Europe going for no carbon energy.
Sir David Attenborough amongst other luminaries, has said as much many times (though not in quite those words). Why does no one take the appropriate action? The science, surely, is clear.
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates). Not proposing that of course and the earth, being a finite resource, cannot support an ever increasing population. There will be some combination of negative feedback mechanisms that will resolve the imbalance eventually, none of which will be particularly pleasant. Famine and war might seem obvious ones. But we have exploded as a race during a phenomenally stable period in earth's history. Maybe a major climatic swing is enough to bring about a chain of physical and then socio-economic events that is the end of what we currently regard as civilisation?I think it probably tells us even less about how much we may think we understand about any influence human activities may have on climate.
And that lack of understanding means that we cannot be at all certain (or even vaguely aware, frankly) of the effects any "mitigation" might have - especially anything that is dreamed up to be of enough significance to actually change anything in the sort of timescale that people would expect to see "results" produced.
Pretty much every eco-intervention, undertaken for whatever reason as a scientifically considered activity, has resulted in unplanned and seemingly unexpected outcomes.
Even matters quite close to our hearts (literally) in the medical science field seem to have "factual" lives of not more than a generation. Or maybe a career?
In fact you could quite rationally put forward a scientific theory that the root cause of the problem is too many humans. Indeed such a suggestion was made some decades ago by scientists of the time and has not yet been disproved as far as I am aware.
In the meantime we have seen the world population increase quite dramatically and continue to do so in many parts of the world, much of Africa being the next area for dramatic increases.
The past increase is, to all intents and purposes, incontrovertible fact (though there may be some disagreement of the actual numbers) and the future predictions look pretty convincing so we can probably accept them as factually acceptable too.
From this the logical conclusion would be that we cannot do much about managing the climate without controlling population (based on existing thinking). One thing we could control rather easily would be population although the means of doing so may be less than ethical. Perhaps even less ethical then forcing "green" agendas for political purposes.
Now to most people, probably a 97% consensus or greater, it is quite clear that easy food availability and medical knowledge have encouraged population growth and therefore the sciences involved, well meaning thought they were, are clearly the root cause of excessive consumption and thus "carbon" output and therefore quite directly lead to predictions of catastrophic climate change. Clear proof that medical interventions are dangerous for the longevity of humanity though not exactly critical for the continued existence of the planet.
Medicine and biology have a lot to answer for - 2 examples of catastrophic interference in natural processes by the science community. Why would wish to make the same mistakes again?
Of course if some of the current scientific suggestions were allowed to develop and proved to be mistakes they would seem likely to instigate a reduction of global population for a number of different reasons. Whether such events would be any more acceptable than certain lands eventually disappearing under water and completing a trend that has been around for a few thousand years can only be decided by whoever is around at the time. They may not have a clear historic (or even scientific) view of the decision making process. Nor any data that categorically gives the survivors anything to work with to educate themselves and help them with their future decisions. (By that time such things may not matter much ....)
So, I think it is quite evident that at the very least one strand of the problem that has led us to this current situation is the misapplication of Science.
Do we really want the the certainty of making the same mistake again by applying the same incomplete thinking that has caused the problems in the first place? And that even before the politicians get involved?
There seems to be a tendency in post-modern science (and especially medicine) to jump over most of the theory testing and make decisions based on the pre-theory hypothesis or the first signs of any sort of data that might suggest a "successful" outcome. In climate matters testing the theory fully is likely to take too long to be of benefit to the careers of those working in the field so such attempted short cuts are only to be expected - and preferably rejected.
Looked at logically (and very unemotionally) based on the scientific consensus so far, stopping Africa (or indeed anywhere else) being the source of an additional 4billion humans by the end of the century would seem to be a far more beneficial step for the planet's climate than Europe going for no carbon energy.
Sir David Attenborough amongst other luminaries, has said as much many times (though not in quite those words). Why does no one take the appropriate action? The science, surely, is clear.
But I do see videos like that and just wonder if we should take stock of such events and think a bit. To say it is NOT due to human causes is wrong. It might well be. Most likely exacerbated anyway. And the implications of that being true are a bit scary.
ViperPict said:
But I do see videos like that and just wonder if we should take stock of such events and think a bit. To say it is NOT due to human causes is wrong. It might well be. Most likely exacerbated anyway. And the implications of that being true are a bit scary.
If the scenario you outlined earlier is true then spending money on reducing carbon output is utterly futile, we'd be better off directing the money into mitigating the effects of climate change. As it is we're effectively doing neither as windmills and solar panels are only any use for transferring wealth from the consumer to the landowner.ViperPict said:
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates).
Not true. It's quite evident that wealth, stable governance and a decent healthcare system reduces population growth. A wider distribution of global wealth would fix this particular issue.grumbledoak said:
Correlation. Not proven causation.
Sound familiar?
No causation in this case. When survival of the genes is no longer dependant on having many children then the culture changes to reduce the multiple offspring model pressure. Better health care also reduces the biological pressures to produce more offspring as quickly as possible - as the individual organism has more time to breed. Education reduces the traditional cultural pressures surrounding the many offspring model and medications and other methods provide the means to enjoy the biological desires without the genetic consequences.Sound familiar?
Correlation in this case merely provides the statistical tendency that the above causation has across all cultures.
Without the causation the correlation is merely curve matching........
durbster said:
ViperPict said:
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates).
Not true. It's quite evident that wealth, stable governance and a decent healthcare system reduces population growth. A wider distribution of global wealth would fix this particular issue.durbster said:
ViperPict said:
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates).
Not true. It's quite evident that wealth, stable governance and a decent healthcare system reduces population growth. A wider distribution of global wealth would fix this particular issue.ViperPict said:
durbster said:
ViperPict said:
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates).
Not true. It's quite evident that wealth, stable governance and a decent healthcare system reduces population growth. A wider distribution of global wealth would fix this particular issue.2013BRM said:
ViperPict said:
durbster said:
ViperPict said:
It is indeed true that human population is the ultimate problem. Managing that is almost impossible: reducing birth rates (hard enough anyway) will only result in economic meltdown in the future as the population ages and must be supported. The hard to accept truth is that a human 'die off' would be needed to fix the problem (after which we control birth rates).
Not true. It's quite evident that wealth, stable governance and a decent healthcare system reduces population growth. A wider distribution of global wealth would fix this particular issue.A worthwhile way to spend an hour, a documentary explaining why the world population growth is slowing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtwNKpGJ-eQ
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 2nd April 08:38
However, I am now a convert, yet another Friday clouds over for another dull, cold and miserable weekend, all our bank holidays are drizzled or freezing while our working week is bathed in glorious sunshine.
Now these events are relevant to humankind not nature, therefor I can only deduce that we are in fact responsible for the unpleasant vagaries of the climate
Now these events are relevant to humankind not nature, therefor I can only deduce that we are in fact responsible for the unpleasant vagaries of the climate
James Lovelock is a Guru like him or not he is one of our great Scientists ready to acknowledge when he has got it wrong but he is mainly right
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_859400...
The last video in that article he says humans can't save the planet it will save itself, the most damming thing is of course if we reach a steady state
and here where Muse explains the 2nd law of thermo dynamics, well its their interpretation https://youtu.be/EF_xdvn52As
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_859400...
The last video in that article he says humans can't save the planet it will save itself, the most damming thing is of course if we reach a steady state
and here where Muse explains the 2nd law of thermo dynamics, well its their interpretation https://youtu.be/EF_xdvn52As
continued from closed thread started by Shuvi Mctupya: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
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”.
More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-sc...
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”.
More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-sc...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff