1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

2015 Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by cyptomcat, Jan 20, 2016.

  1. cyptomcat

    cyptomcat Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    872
    NASA Slides: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/noaa_nasa_global_analysis_2015.pdf

    NASA release: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

    [​IMG]

    "Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates."

    link for graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    There is also a researcher that updates on how the IPCC AR5 temperature predictions fare with the real temperatures. His most recent graph:
    [​IMG]
    link: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
     
    msargent1 and GTNavyNuke like this.
  2. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    3,640
    Interesting information. Thank you.
     
  3. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
  4. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589

    I have to say that .2 deg C of warming over just the last 2 years sure makes a big difference.
     
    Jamar33 likes this.
  5. cyptomcat

    cyptomcat Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    872
    It's thought to be caused mostly by the El Nino, so I don't think it's completely the global warming signal.

    Unfortunately for this discussion, we will literally have to wait couple decades to really see what's going on. First of all for more data to be available, but also as important for improvement on our analysis and understanding of how it all works.
     
  6. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
    Yeah, I wish that I could be confident of that. If I understand correctly, the crowd pushing the warming story are questioning the satellite data while the crowd saying the human contribution isn't as significant as reported and not yet a cause for concern are questioning the data used in your graph.

    When the scientists can't even agree on the data, then it seems that reaching an agreed interpretation isn't going to happen.
     
  7. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    852
    I do believe we will get somewhat of a consensus on global warning in the next few years. Science always wins and this should be at the forefront of all research right now. I will be interested to read further studies on this over the next few months.
     
    msargent1 likes this.
  8. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    724
    Consensus =/= correctness
     
  9. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
    Whom do you think science is playing?

    If trends continue, we'll learn in the next few months that the past was cooler.
     
  10. JacketFromUGA

    JacketFromUGA Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,791
    We already have a consensus. It's about 97% of the scientific community that agrees.

    That's more than the percentage of dentists who recommend crest.
     
    msargent1 and Dottie1145 like this.
  11. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    852
    I know that a majority of the scientific community agrees. The problem is getting society as a whole to come to a consensus. It is very similar to evolution. We have undeniable evidence of evolution but a large percentage of society that refutes it. In order to tackle the worlds major problems we need to work together on a common goal.
     
    msargent1 likes this.
  12. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    724
    Whiskey_Clear and AE 87 like this.
  13. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
    What do you mean by "evolution" ? The scientific theory of the neo-Darwinian synthesis has been falsified by data. Faith that a new theory will arise and succeed is still faith and not science.

    The problem is that this faith is propogated by our public schools, and many are too unwilling to question this faith by looking at data. They cite consensus stats like fundies cite the bible.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  14. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    852
    Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules

    Simple google answer.
     
    msargent1 likes this.
  15. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    724
    Molecules don't evolve. That is a ridiculous premise.
     
  16. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    852
    God is a flying spaghetti monster is a ridiculous premise, which there is no evidence for.

    Molecular evolution is not a ridiculous premise. There have been countless studies and years worth of ongoing research on the matter. If you feel you have data to back up a statement like that i would love to read it.
     
    msargent1 likes this.
  17. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
    I appreciate that you think a simple Google answer is responsive. However, those informed on the topic knoq that the word is used in a variety of ways which is why I asked how you were using it. You shouldn't need Google to explain your usage.

    However, your response discloses the equivocation which often arise in this discussion. People use "evolution" to refer to both adaptation and speciation. However, since the discovery of DNA, we've learned how radically different those processes must be.

    What I don't understand is why people who simply accept things like macro evolution and dangerous AGW by faith have such difficulty admitting it.
     
  18. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    724
    If the molecular structure changes, that isn't evolution. It is a chemical reaction.

    Additionally, I said nothing regarding God. But since you brought it up, how it is any less a ridiculous premise than "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. Then the explosion came to life because science."?
     
  19. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    852
    And what would you claim is the difference between evolution adaptation and speciation?

    If anyone claims to deny evolution you can only do so from a religious viewpoint, in that case there is no discussion needed.

    Also I don't have faith so I can't help you with your last point.
     
  20. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    12,589
    If you don't know the difference between changes within a species as it adapts to its environment and the changes which result in a new species, then you may be out of your depth in a conversation about the science.

    Consequently, you've accepted the "answers" of some who claim the label science by faith whether you admit it or not.

    Let me say it again. There is no consensus scientific theory of macro evolution which the facts have not falsified. Therefore, any belief in macro evolution is faith.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.

Share This Page