Slashdot Mirror
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."
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Clearly then there must be a nonlinear effect on the temperature scale because it's cold in my house. By the way, I haven't worked in a decade.
is frosty
It may have been on average warmer, but at least in Minnesota we didn't get the massive heat wave weeks in the middle of the summer we use to get in the past.
looks fucking dangerous
The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades. ... While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend,
contradict the fast that we have not had any rising in the past 20 years according to these same people? They call it the "warming hiatus"
Im not saying that the world is not warming, Im not even saying that we humans dont contribute to it. But god damn do they do a crappy job of conveying the message when there are contradictions like this. I could (probably am) reading it wrong but thats my take on it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Big banksters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI ) need another scientific organization they can completely control to manipulate public opinion. That's where the NOAA comes in.
"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.
Ted Cruise will "fix" this quickly...
funny how they conveniently forget this little tidbit every. single. time.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
...note that there's a large ball of cooler-than-average over the mid-Atlantic, riiiight on top of the largest and most influential concentration of climate change deniers...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Early last year they added another radio shack, quadrupled the number of antennas, and put in a pair of huge diesel generators.
So that data point is definitely higher than before.
Lies. For the truth, read this.
Except they never said that, you did. The last record was in 2010.
www.climatedepot.com
This 'climate change' bullshit is getting sickening. Is this Slashdot, or 'Catastrophic man-made global warming daily' - sorry - 'Climate change daily'?
We AREN'T INTERESTED in this NON-TECH bullshit.
We live in the middle of fracking land during the 'warmest year in the modern record' and my damn gas bills are still going up. I'm moving to Panama.
NASA recently changed the way they compute the average, it made 1998 NOT the warmest year on record. This hooplah could just be an artifact of that alternative method of calculation
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth. At most, bands of climate that support particular crops will move northward. We are capable of surviving just fine in a very wide range of climate. Slowly increasing warmth of a few degrees is not a serious threat in and of itself.
Sea level: The seas have been much higher, and the consequences of a sea level rise of such tiny amounts as are predicted over such a long period are going to be irrelevant in the big picture. Human society is already extremely mobile over such time periods, and we are almost trivially capable of being even more so. Such moves can potentially benefit us in the sense that we can start over, smarter, for those of our older coastal cities that are so low that a few centimeters sea rise will result in their inundation. Better public transport, better street layout, better zoning, better utility transport and balance, more parks, opportunity to be more efficient in many ways (for example, monorails instead of trains; pumped canals instead of or in addition to streets; raised domiciles that allow 100% utilization of the ground underneath for vegetation... all kinds of opportunities arise when you don't have a gnarly old city infrastructure in the way.)
Long term continuation of CO2 increase: Unlikely. We're already transitioning to solar and so forth. There's no sane reason that wouldn't continue (and we should be pushing government hard to get it done sooner rather than later -- perhaps moving the ~40 billion dollars/year utterly wasted on the drug war (that's just the US costs -- leaves out tax gains and ignores world costs and gains) to solar panel and control electronics and energy storage production might be one way to do so. There is every reason to reduce emissions, even without the potential threat of emissions-related climate change.
The issue that seems to carry the most actual weight in the immediate sense is the possibility of the chemical changes that some scientists have predicted for the oceans. If the oceans undergo major changes in chemistry, the consequences are likely to be both sudden and very serious (as in, we may be royally fucked no matter what we try to do.) All that is, is a yet stronger argument for an even faster transition to stored solar.
The sensible path is to reduce emissions ASAP and as much as possible, while transitioning to stored solar power. In the case of the USA, this also reduces our country's vulnerability to the middle east's whims, something that continuously comes back to bite us on just about every level there is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's warm, there's more sun, Arizona will have beaches, more CO2 and sun makes crops grow better. What's not to like. Oh, and for the warmists that don't like the above, it could also kill the majority of the offenders, fixing the problem. It's a true win-win.
Earths climate should be properly accounted over centuries and millenia and not decades in order to be statistically significant.
Statistically, decades are not a valid set of data points. People using such information are attempting political acts and not proper long term scientific work.
Earth's weather is almost entirely determined by Solar activity (or lack of same in the Maunder Minimum) and large volcanic eruptions. Krakatoa is the last big eruption which caused a large drop in northern hemisphere temperatures as I recall.
I though they were reducing the number of Radio Shacks?
Judth Curry a more reasonable Scientist:
"Berkeley Earth sums it up well with this statement:
That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.
The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger."
instead of making questionable measurements of the planet, why don't you figure out how to build a decent space vehicle? Which is your raison d'etre.
"there are at least 4 peaks higher than last year. meaning they were hotter than this past year."
The claim is that the _year_ 2014 was the hottest. Not that the highest temperature ever observed occurred in 2014. I think you are a denier, despite your claim that youâ(TM)re only a âoeskepticâ. Deniers are the type to intentionally misunderstand simple English phrases like âoe2014 was the warmest yearâ on record. Also, the graph you are talking about shows nearly the most clear, obvious warming trend possible. The green line _screams_ warming, and the trend is _still_ obvious in the more chaotic red line. You, kind sir, do not sound like a careful and reasoned skeptic to me...
There's no way these numbers are accurate. Last winter was the coldest one on record around here, in over 100 years of record keeping. Pipes were freezing everywhere and the roads got pretty much destroyed.
There's no way to tell where anonymous coward is posting from, but if "around here" means "United States east of the Rocky Mountains," then, looking at the Wired article and specifically at the 2014 map of average temperature, 2014 was indeed colder than average.
The Wired article is here: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/2...
The map is here: GISTEMP 2014 Anomaly with respect to 1951-1980
Regional is not global average. Even regional average is not global average. One region can be indeed colder than average over a year, and nevertheless the world as a whole warmer than average.
On the average.
I'm not sure who's benefitting from this global warming shit that they're trying to spread, but nobody who actually experienced last winter believes it for a second.
That's the problem: people experience their local region, but draw conclusions about the global average.
Just one question for the deniers....When the mean temperature is up ten degrees globally and humanity is tanking it because of massive environmental change and crop failure, you won't be upset when we lynch you for being the liars and shills who prevented proactive fixes from being implemented, will you?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
These climate change alarmists are starting to sound like Baghdad Bob:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
Most unbiased folks will agree that global warming is caused, atleast partially by human activity.
What I fail to understand (and please help understand out without trolling) is IF the "global warming alarmists" are wrong, the most you had to give up was driving your hummer for a more fuel effecient vehicle while living by a set of rules that might curb a few activities. Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
If the "global warming alarmists" are right, well, can you really afford to take that chance? Seeing that there is only one planet and if the ice age, and hell or whatever rains down on earth should be cause for alarm in my opinion. I don't even care to argue WHEN it will happen. Shouldn't the possibility that it will happen be enough?
One thing that is going to likely cause some real problems: I think that many large cities rely on water supplies that are refilled via melting snow packs, providing a steady and predictable clean water supply. If snow packs and glaciers are radically reduced or eliminated, the water supply becomes much more seasonal, and supplying potable water for large numbers of people becomes...problematic.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
--> Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Record or near-record years are interesting, but the ranking of individual years should be treated with some caution because the uncertainties in the data are larger than the differences between the top ranked years. We can say this year will add to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last decade."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2014-global-temperature
While the planet definitely didn't cool in 2014 (which is a good thing), accelerated warming also didn't happen apparently. So in the last 130 years we have 90 years of slow warming (as it's been warming up since the last ice age), 30 years of fast warming, then 10+ years of slow warming again? Not sure the computer models are quite up to speed yet with the complexity of the climate or the appropriate forcings. And definitely sure that nothing we can do will affect CO2 output from China/India which will soon the North American output.
So.. hoping for the best about sums it up.
There is nothing wrong with that. That wouldn't account for the anomaly at all. RIGHT.
However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year.
Because every year happens in a vacuum with regards to every other year...
Departure of global temperature from average for 2014 (NOAA)
Earth's departure in temperature from the 20th century average during the period 1880 - 2014, according to NOAA.
global departure of temperature from average from 1965 - 2014 (scepticalscience.com)
Article: 2014: Hottest Year in Recorded Human History, Dr. Jeff Masters' blog entry at wunderground.com.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Here is nice peer review paper with a simple model that describes the actual temperature better than the IPCC complex models at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/
The problem for the models is the CO2 keeps going up, but for 15-20 years there has been NO or no significant warming much to the embarrassment of the warmest partisans. Here have been many excuses published post facto to explain, but the models were wrong.
So why trust the politically motivated models for the future.
It's all about the wealth transfer and the power over the energy infrastructure, and hence peoples lives and economies.
The climate sensitivity has been way over estimated adn the harms of a little warming way exaggerated. Heck, CO2 helps us grow more crops, it is plant food after all, not as Obama calls it "carbon pollution"
The year was the warmest on record by 0.01 deg C. Yet the error bars are 5 times that amount for this year (and 20 times that amount just 30 years ago). Statistically - it's among the warmest dozen or so, but you can't claim beyond that because of the measurement error.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
...that they still haven't found a way to correct the skew in their data caused by long term shutdowns of remote monitoring stations thereby letting the data skew from the heat island effect. It's almost as if they were trying to prove a foregone conclusion. Oh, well, they are still better than the UNCC, which basically made up data, got caught at it, then excused itself and kept the same people on the project because they were so trustworthy.
NO. CREDIBILITY. WHATSOEVER.
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not only the hottest year ever, but the hottest hottest year ever:
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
The last time CO2 levels were this high we had a massive die off. But okay, I'm sure it'll be great now that we're admitting that it's happening at all.
Ted Cruz
So the environmentalists ran the governments of Reagan, Bush, Always on Vacation Playboy Prince Bush and Thatcher?
Interesting.
Do you really believe such a thing or do you just think we are all idiots that will swallow such stupidity? Insane or an utter prick - your choice.
Berkeley Earth study took look at the urban heat island effect, and found while its is a real effect, it is localised and not effecting the global averages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also Slashdot matters less and less everyday. Coincidence?
Good luck, and think twice if you think it's not a good idea to use a condom.
Get up!
Going to get rid of your ride and take mass transit?
Going to use your electricity more efficiently eg. turn off pool pump/heater when not in use, shut off A/C/furnace when not in house, turn off lights and 'always on' appliances when not in use?
Going to start paying for repairs instead of throwing out whatever seems a bit broken?
Going to lose the dream of living in your own, lawn-ringed, home and move in to a small unit in an energy efficient, high density high-rise?
Didn't think so.
So how to stop these inane pseudo science, politically fuelled announcements?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Skepticism about climate change is useful only if one is right. If one is wrong, it is totally useless and since skepticism about carbon dioxide induced global warming is demonstrably wrong, your skepticism is totally useless and irrelevant.
Speaking of questions, I have one for those skeptics.
If its not getting hotter, why is virtually every single glacier on the planet melting?
The interesting and extraordinarily revealing thing about this question as all will be able to soon see is that
1) skeptics and deniers never have an answer to this question and avoid answering like the plague,
and
2) skeptics and deniers of carbon dioxide induced global warming are unable to provide a credible answer of any kind.
What most who seek "theoretical" reasons not to worry fail to recognize is that even if there are negative feedbacks that might mitigate the known and increasingly predominating positive feedbacks, such as release of carbon from permafrost and peat soils and increase in heating due to loss of ice cover, these don't matter a wiff if the species upon which we depend for human survival are unable to reproduce in their natural environments. Sadly, climate forcing that results from carbon dioxide accumulation is now progressing at a rate that many species are going extinct rather than flourishing in the newly emerging climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/17/on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/
Great discussion of how the NOAA biased their report by omitting key discussions.
Oh by the way there are 5 global temperature datasets and the 2 most accurate are the RSS and UAH satellite records. They come in at 6th and 3rd. Funny thing is that RSS is run by a scientist who favours the CO2 controls climate and the UAH is run by a skeptic of CO2 controlling climate.
Being a skeptic is irrelevant unless you have data to demonstrate the basis of your skepticism. While its great sophism to be skeptical about everything since it makes one APPEAR to be thinking critically. However, in the absence of evidence, it is NOT science nor part of the process of science. That skepticism might appear to be a substitute for critical thinking to those unfamiliar with how to actually do science, supposed critical thinking is irrelevant unless it is backed up by real, testable observations.
It is instructive to note that every single claim of skepticism in this entire thread is based on the appearance of critical thinking that sophism provides, all of which are entirely devoid of any actual substantive data that would contradict the now obvious fact that carbon dioxide global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels is real and getting more obvious all the time. So far, from the skeptics and the deniers all we have heard is their singular inability to distinguish between seasonal variation in temperature and climatic changes in temperature.
Skepticism without evidence is best called BS and we might as well be honest about the consequences of bearing false witness. Bearing false witness, no matter how much skepticism one couches it in, does not make false assertions true.
And all the kids grades are above average?
Pour another cup of coffee and pass the lutefisk to the next person, while I kill some mosquitos
CO2 levels have not been this high in any time period we've been able to provide an estimate for. Look at the historical CO2 levels against temperature.
Yow! That graph is pretty frightening. CO2 basically goes off the chart in the present, way above anything in the past..
That's temperature in Antarctica, though.
-- that graph only goes back half a million years. As a previous poster noted, the last time the CO2 was this high was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: carbon dioxide levels spiked, the Earth heated by about 5.6 C, and there was, indeed, a massive die-off. That was 56 million years ago.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp
That's beside the point: the thing to observe is that that graph clearly indicates that climate temperature is not significantly tracking CO2 levels. While there may be some effect, it's demonstrably not what drives temperature in the graph.
We can reach this conclusion because in the graph, historically speaking, temperature and CO2 track each other very well; but when CO2 was pushed separately consequent to our emissions, temperature did not follow. A likely conclusion is that either temperature drives CO2 (the reverse of what we're generally being told), or something else -- something not on that graph -- is driving them both. But that graph definitely does not support the contention that CO2 drives temperature.
So how well can we determine what is actually going on? We're limited here because we have no prior example of this particular sequence of events, and so we're reduced to guessing about a system that has, at least so far, proven too complex to accurately predict. Predictive models fielded to date have uniformly failed to present an accurate picture of the conditions of the last 15 years or so, but we're being asked to take action based on predictions those same models make that are within the same order of magnitude. Should we really do that?
If you were risking your money at a game of chance, and someone gave you a system that was alleged to predict the coming betting events, but when used, it seriously failed to do so, would you then elect to use that same system to guide your other bets well into the future? The way I see it, it's better to make your individual bets very conservatively based on the best estimate you can make at the time of the bet based on whatever known factors you can access instead of failed predictive mechanisms. It's also not at all wise to bet everything in any case where you could lose it consequent to a single event of betting wrong.
In that light, my primary concern lies with the state of the chemistry of the oceans; and I am fairly certain that the prudent thing to do is stop adding so much CO2 (or anything else, really) to the atmosphere, no matter what the eventual effects might be predicted to be, or not be. The bottom line is I don't consider it wise to significantly alter the state of a complex system we can't control or fully understand.
The whole thing pisses me off. It's not really science as we know it; we have no experiment to run that will validate the contentions of either side; we do have lots of near-term indicators, but they aren't particularly consistent and they certainly aren't predictable. Yet from this, we are in receipt of glassy-eyed claims from people on both sides of the issue, delivered with utter conviction.
So what to do? The best metaphor for this is we have a potentially dangerous animal at our feet. Do we really want to kick it and throw sand in its face to see if it'll turn around and bite us?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Bravo, Stoney McStonerstein! All of my incessant posting of a single stupid tagline has finally sunk into your head! In case you're confused as to what I am saying, and for the unknowing readers out there, let me sum up the post as I usually do:
That's just, like, your opinion, man!
Whoa there cowboy! I'm sorry but I'm of the attitude that if you want something done right, you do it yourself!
Also, something actually pertinent to the discussion at hand, your explanation of why we call it climate change is utter bullpussy. It was changed because the original term they used was simply WRONG. The scientists claimed we were combatting global warming but everyone else just made jokes about it. It's snowing here, THANKS GLOBAL WARMING OBAMA! You know how nerds get when you make fun of them, right? They simply did a goalpost shift/redefinition and picked a new word that was cryptic enough to the general public that they couldn't easily make fun of it nor understand it, so that they could just say "trust us, we know what we're talkin bout, Willis". And before your lose your Jesus, I'm a believer, son! I know that we're fucking up the environment and that temps are rising in general. But I am also a Man, and as such, I can admit when we were wrong. The original global warming hysteria was incorrect. It has since been updated, as it should have been, but that scar is cut directly across our face for the entire world to see. We won't live it down. At best, again in true nerd fashion, what will happen is that the entire time the world is failing around us, all the geeks will do is bitch about "SEE WE TOLD YA SO" and the jocks will push them into the volcano for being smartasses. At least they'll suffer less.
And since all knowledge is contingent on something better coming along, and you must always make judgements before you know anything 100%, your ravings do not constitute any form of counter for the requirements suggested by the IPCC to combat AGW and mitigate its effects on us.
It's now known that global warming is caused by the conflagration of the pants of NASA and NOAA spokesman; no one can call them scientists any longer...