Year after year after year of "warmest on record," and some people still want to cling to their beliefs that climate change is a hoax. SMDH.
h/t Andres Soolo
Originally shared by Pierre Markuse
NASA Analysis Finds July 2016 is Warmest on Record
July 2016 was the warmest July in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Because the seasonal temperature cycle peaks in July, it means July 2016 also was warmer than any other month on record. July 2016’s temperature was a statistically small 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than previous warm Julys in 2015, 2011 and 2009.
Full story here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/20160816/
More information here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
Where to start when looking for information on climate change?
Check out NASA's Global Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet website with lots of information on global climate change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Image credit: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
#science #earth #climate #climatechange #globalwarming #temperatureanomaly #nasa #giss
This being ordinary news is very sad.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to know if the warming is constant (deltaT°=k, acceleration =0), the acceleration in warming is >0 but constant (I mean the acceleration, not the deltaT°) or the acceleration is increasing.
ReplyDeleteIf it is the last case, I am very worried because it means typically in geoscience that we initiated a process which self-reinforced, positive feedback if you want.
That kind of chain :
A > B > C, D > A, B etc...
The graph seems to show an acceleration >0, impossible to know if it is constant.
'Cause Jesus gonna fix that shit just like that, according to Jumpin' Jimmy Inhofe.
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus won't clean your room and he won't do your homework, what makes you think he's gonna fix the planet?
Olivier Malinur: Warming data is a noisy signal. "Constant" is not readily applied in such a context.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that at least in my circles the climate change deniers don't argue that the climate isn't changing, but whether we should do anything about it (ie, is this just part of a cycle or not).
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of when I was a contractor at IBM and each month a graph of level-1 bugs in what was to become AIXv3 was going up at a steady clip, and the dashed projection line showing it shortly peaking and dropping off. Next month, it kept going up, and the projection showed it was just about to start dropping, then next month and the next, etc.
Presumably they think any day now the planet will start cooling off, and we can look back and laugh at this panic.
but y dont the governments of every country ban the usage of products tht cause this... or mk schemes to protect the environmnt.. everyone is just busy how to gain more and more money no matter how detrimental that can be!!!! plllllllzzzzz each individual should take action
ReplyDeleteThe amount of sea level rise in the Pacific Ocean can be used to estimate future global surface temperatures, according to a new report led by University of Arizona geoscientists. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818212759.htm
ReplyDeleteJohn A. Tamplin
ReplyDeleteYour IBM experience is similar those who constantly say the stock market is too high, sell and watch as it goes higher. Global temperature is an ascending staircase of higher highs and higher lows. This trend will continue until the cause (atmospheric CO2) is removed or reduced. http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/marketindexes.html
And come to think of it, it makes for a new denialist argument: "But scientists said the last year was warmest on record, and before they said the year before was warmest on record! Which is it? Can't they get their story straight?"
ReplyDeleteAssumption of time travel is a fun and popular way to make fallacious arguments of all stripes.
Some folks might deny human caused climate change, but not the US Dept. of Defense. I still like the MIT study published a couple years ago. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-scientific-debate-on-global-warming-in-one-chart-2014-3/#.U7yKzo1dWkQ
ReplyDeleteFundamental anti-science twaddle. The denialists can't accept climate change because it would require them to re-evaluate most of their other beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe biosphere is not designed to compensate for human technology that did not exist 200 years ago. People should not assume that Mother Nature can heal the wounds caused by human stupidity. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160824135035.htm
ReplyDeleteBah... On a geological point of view, the Earth can withstand much more than this global warming. Even if 30-40% of species were to get extinct, which I doubt, the world will still run. Within 100,000 years, a part of diversity will have reappeared. And in 2 million years, it will be a joke. 2 million years is like few minutes on the history of life.
ReplyDeleteNope, what is at stake is US: the most threatened species is homo sapiens. Our post- industrial civilization is very fragile. I am pretty pessimistic on what will happen in the next 50-100 years.
Olivier Malinur What those of us are concerned about is not whether or not the Earth itself is around -- we aren't going to affect that. And yes, in time, all things are cold and dark anyway, so if you take the nihilist perspective, nothing matters. What we care about is retaining and sustaining the biodiversity that we have now. Losing even 10% of the species is a huge loss for our planet IMO and a sign that we, humans, are probably doing far more harm than good overall.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle, what I pointed out is that on the lifetime of Earth, there will be a tiny little indentation in the biodiversity and it will come back to its point.
ReplyDeleteNow, you place yourself on a human point of view, and you are right. But it is US, OUR societies who are losing the most with global warming.
Olivier Malinur Right, but we're also taking gobs of species with us, and that's totally not fair to them. Basically, future humans and current and future other species are the true victims of humanity's failure to live sustainably.
ReplyDeleteAgree. On geological point of view, it's a small dent.
ReplyDeleteDoes it mean it has to be ignored ? No.
First because it can sweep our society with it (not the humans, we are like rats, we survived Toba super eruption and many glaciations.)
Second because it is ethically wrong to sweep species.
Olivier Malinur
ReplyDeleteTo add to Craig's post, the resilience of the biosphere is far below that of the physical planet. The balance of atmospheric CO2 is essentially stable for millions of years permitting the evolution of life as we know it today. Along comes human technology and industry, and the balance is disrupted, precipitating another mass extinction event. There have been five previous mass extinction events, each following a disruption of natural processes and cycles, and this one, already in progress, will be no different, if we allow it to continue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150619152142.htm
Yes and no.
ReplyDeleteOnce more, we are talking about two different scales.
Btw, there is nothing like "if we allow it to continue". We have already reached a point of no return for both the extinctions and the global warming.
The question now is not how to prevent but how to mitigate.
"There's been a lot of attention paid to climate tipping points where some major change in the climate happens, but this study gave me a chance to think about how social systems will respond to climate change," she said. "Social system tipping points can worsen or reduce the impacts of climate change." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160711122607.htm
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you regarding mitigation or human adaptation to climate change. Civilization, as it currently exists, will be severely tested under the pressure of exponential human population growth versus resource constraints and rising sea level, the economic cost of which is staggering. The economy is the weakest link in maintaining a civilization and has been the cause of failure for virtually all earlier civilizations and empires. All human industry and technology depends on sustaining the global economy and maximizing human participation in its benefits rather than manifesting something like the "Hunger Games".
The future of Humanity depends upon our ability to redirect our economy to a more sustainable model. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160826142012.htm
ReplyDeleteClimate change and what's coming to a neighborhood near you. http://blog.nature.org/science/2016/08/19/migration-in-motion-visualizing-species-movements-due-to-climate-change/
ReplyDeleteBob Lai How are you doing today? And how is everything out there. I am Seidu Mariam by name and i would like you to send me a message through this email. Mel.mike30@yahoo.com for more information's about me...
ReplyDeleteOlivier Malinur How are you doing today? And how is everything out there. I am Seidu Mariam by name and i would like you to send me a message through this email. Mel.mike30@yahoo.com for more information's about me...
ReplyDeleteWhen God destroys this world for its inquity it's going to be by FIRE...personally I believe solar flares will be the beginning of the end. The heavens will fall from their positions, then a NEW EARTH WILL BE
ReplyDeleteYes. And the little fluffy pony will pursue sinners and also, there will be an invasion of leprechauns in New Zealand who will defeat the All Blacks.
ReplyDeletePlease, Tammy Marlar, give me the name of your weed provider.