NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

Titus Andronicus writes: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both announced today that 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental temperature record, surpassing the prior winners, 2010 and 2005. NASA also released a short video. They said, "Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years. However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year."

Comments

Re:nothing to do with the end of the last ice age?

[Layzej]

Right - Warming from the last ice age peaked about 8000 years ago. Since then we have had a very gradual cooling trend - until about the last 100 years where we appear to be in a warming trend again.

The post notes:

While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.

Curiously, last year was warmest even though the ENSO trend was neutral. Typically it would take an El Niño to nudge us up past the previous El Niño year, but not so last year. This means that the next El Niño will probably mean another record temperature.

Re:Lies

[MightyMartian]

Yes, because one would never actually want to read what the experts in any field have to say, but rather go to some blog populated by people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.

Re:Someone teach me something here...

[Em Adespoton]

"Since 1880, EarthÃ(TM)s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit"

So we need to be alarmed because in 135 years the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees?

I am clearly missing something here.

You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that can cause extinction events (and may currently be doing so). It can also cause issues for humans in the form of shifting weather patterns, shifting water availability, changed coastlines (water rises, but so do landmasses that used to be covered in ice), changed food supplies (the fisheries we currently depend on my vanish, the aquifers that feed grain supplies may dry up), and other more subtle shifts.

The other point is that you need be no more alarmed just before you hit the ground than you were after you fell out of an airplane -- the situation isn't likely to change for you from 3,000 feet to 1 foot. But when you make contact, the result is the same. So better to raise the alarm at 3,000 feet when there's still time to have someone intervene or deploy a parachute.

*Farenheit, in pure fresh water at standard pressure. The actual temperature melting the world's ice reserves is different but immaterial to this line of reasoning.

Re:call me skeptical

[drinkypoo]

I never said it reversed i said it hasnt increased.

Your citation says that it has increased, only more slowly in the last two decades than in the decade before. It shows the opposite of that which you want it to show. It suggests that at the current scale, there is a reduction in the compounding effect of the positive feedback loop, or that there is a negative feedback loop which is mitigating it, or both. But it doesn't actually do anything to contradict the concept of global warming. Those of us who believe in global warming are not arguing that the precise course is laid out in full, and that it will be utterly predictable. If it were, then the problems produced by global warming would be much easier to compensate for, because you could foresee them and plan for them. The precise scope is going to be varied and unpredictable, because that's life. We lack a system of sufficient complexity to model the system that we're discussing. That doesn't prevent us from making certain generalized statements, which are being proven out as we speak.

Re:call me skeptical

[drinkypoo]

Im still in the camp that we shouldnt change everything overnight because OMG CO2!!!

Yeah, the problem with the idea that it's "overnight" is that scientists have been warning about this stuff since before I was in elementary school. We discussed CO2 and global warming then (I am not so very old, but I am in my thirties now so I can pretend to be an adult on occasion) and here we are, seeing the predicted consequences now. And I don't recall these consequences coming with a date back then, but now we're actually able to perceive the problem. It's "overnight" just like a musician who is an "overnight success" — yeah, overnight if you don't account for the years of sweat, tears, and possibly other bodily fluids. This is not a new idea, it's not a new warning, some of us have been hip to the idea that the average human lifestyle is harmful to the planet, let alone the western one. And get this straight, humans have been harmful to their environment as long as they've been recording history. Deforestation, it's not just for breakfast any more. It's been suggested that absent the plague, Europe would be basically denuded due to cutting down forests in order to build naval vessels which then got taken out and sunk in the ocean where they did very little good to anyone. Maybe created a little bit of artificial reef if they were sunk sufficiently shallow.

CO2 is not a new problem, and you have not been asked to change everything overnight. You have been asked to change for the last three decades. Now you are being asked more insistently, because the situation is more dire. You can complain about the scope of the changes you're being asked to make today, or you can accept that changes thirty years ago would have led to a lot less upheaval now. If you can do that, then I'll accept that it wasn't just you that refused to change. And hopefully, along in the bargain, people who decided to care before I did will find some way to forgive me. I could, after all, still be doing more. Or, depending on how you look at it, less.

Re:Trends versus Data Points

[Saanvik]

I'm sorry, your claim is incorrect.

The IPCC AR5 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm... makes it clear that if you don't cherry pick date ranges, the models are spot on.

A lot of people like to quote the following:

Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years.

Let's put that in context

There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years.

Now, the details (emphasis mine)

During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02C per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13C per decade).
There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.

The take away is this - don't cherry pick date ranges. Instead, look at the effectiveness of the models over the long term. When you do, you'll see they are quite accurate.