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."
There are obviously hiding something!
The fact that this chart start only 3 years after the Roswell events cannot be a coincidence.
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.
Yup, that's due to arctic warming, causing a pressure slump that now pushes more moist air into that region during the summer months. Interestingly, it has also resulted in dryer weather on the west coast of North America, and colder weather down the east coast.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes you are missing something extremely important. This rate is about 36 times faster than ever recorded in the history of the planet, probably with the exception of local conditions associated with asteroid or large meteor impacts. The last major spike in global temperatures occurred in during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that occurred about 55 million years ago. In a very brief period of time, geologically speaking, the Earth warmed about 5.6 C in a period as short as 10,000 years. During this brief period over half of the species of North American mammals went extinct and places like Wyoming, not exactly known for hot weather, went from having redwood forests to having palm forests. Today with far more discontinuous habitats extinction rates of plants and animals will be very much higher.
Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there. However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon. Considering that humans obtain about 50% of its protein from seafood, in all likelihood, humans face the prospect of loosing half their protein supply in as little as 300 years based on present trends as many areas in the world oceans are already reaching pH levels that are killing off pteropods, one of the primary links in marine food chains.
"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.
Who, exactly, says there has been no warming in the last 20 years and is calling this a "warming hiatus?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
You can download the code they use for the calculations. Feel free to analyze it, and write a paper about any flaws you find. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
They're talking about a slowdown, not a full stop, and the data is not inconsistent with the long term trend.
Here you can see it in a graph: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
The temperatures from the 10-20 years have not dipped below the long term trend line.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The earth has been much warmer in the past, and the most notable consequence of those conditions was rampant plant growth.
The most notable consequence of the last temperature change of this rapidity was a dieoff of what percentage of life forms inhabiting the region now known as North America? I'm not sure. Another comment claimed half the mammal species, though. We might find that inconvenient.
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
It might seem that way if you ignore the fact that small changes in sea level can mean very serious changes for storm surges.
Long term continuation of CO2 increase: Unlikely. We're already transitioning to solar and so forth.
Not in any serious percentage, and we continue to produce CO2-producing power plants as fast as we can, as a species.
There is every reason to reduce emissions, even without the potential threat of emissions-related climate change
Not for a psychopath. Our particular political system is apparently designed to put them in office and keep them there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's because the graph is made from monthly data. There have been a few hotter months before, but 2014 still ranks #1 when you average the whole year.
what if its all a lie, and we make the world a better place for nothing?
BAH! you're both full of it. Last year was the most average I've ever seen. Not too hot, not too cold. The roads were not too hard, or too soft. And the pipes only bulged a little. It was just right.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're confusing local weather with global climate. They are not the same thing. Just because you had a cold winter where you are does not mean that everyone, everywhere else, had a cold winter.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
One of them. NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. In the list of what NASA was established to do, the first item is:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(building space vehicles was number 3 on the list)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Here's the Berkeley Earth graphic, with temperatures going back to 1870:
static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf
(also comparing models to measured data)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
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:
Let's put that in context
Now, the details (emphasis mine)
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.