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.
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.
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.'"
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.