Slashdot Mirror
2014 Was Earth's Warmest Year On Record
An anonymous reader writes: A lengthy report compiled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration using work from hundreds of scientists across 58 countries has found that 2014 was the hottest year on record. "The warmth was widespread across land areas. Europe experienced its warmest year on record, with more than 20 countries exceeding their previous records. Africa had above-average temperatures across most of the continent throughout 2014, Australia saw its third warmest year on record, Mexico had its warmest year on record, and Argentina and Uruguay each had their second warmest year on record. Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures." They've also published a page showing highlights of the major findings. Greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the global sea level reached a record high, and average sea surface temperatures reached a record high.
Cue rabid mud-slinging between fossil-fuel addicted Morlocks and nuclear-power fearing Eloi.
I weep for the future.
It's the scientific method at work. If the data doesn't support the hypothesis, then it's obviously flawed data. Adjust it until it's not flawed.
Why don't you just stick with "LALALA Can't hear you!! LALALA"?
Actually, it does NOT balance out. That is the problem.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The adjustments (cooling the past data, and warming the recent data to create or magnify a trend is well documented.
About a third of 20th century warming is from adjustments.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/29/one-way-adjustments-the-latest-alteration-to-the-u-s-climate-record/
All this flurry of new releases is a propaganda blitz to create a warming blitz prior to the bit Paris UN conference to ram something through.
And all the adjustments go to warmer, not cooler !
And they keep adjusting the old records again and again, always warmer. In most sciences, this would be called data tampering.
I guess we just won't know how warm it is now until a 7 years from now!
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.
But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground.
Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's the scientific method at work. If the data doesn't support the hypothesis, then it's obviously flawed data.
It's the denier method at work. If the data doesn't support the conclusion that it's ok to burn fossil fuels, then it's obviously flawed data. Throw it out and shout "it's biased!" Repeat as many times as needed Doesn't matter how many scientists, or how many different institutions in how many different countries; they're all biased.
It's far away from wild guesses. Yes, you can do awful things that might appear to someone not looking closely like Statistics, but they really aren't. And you can draw conclusions from Statistics that are not really supported by the data, but again, it might look like Statistic, but it isn't.
Statistics are a very valuable tool for Science. Science is of course not just Statistics, it is much more. But Statistics have their uses in Science, and in many cases, there is no replacement. Thermodynamics for instance are purely Statistics.
I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.
There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.
It's clearly been working out for California! Talk about bumper crop!
Without a hearing? The hearing happened, and they lost big time. At this point, they are just repeating vague and badly grounded accusations.
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
I'm pretty sure, the promise was that "God" would not create another global flood. Mortals can frack it up however they like without violating that promise. But hey, whatever maintains fossil fuel profits...
Of all the religions, I don't think any other religion has come to be so manipulated by outside actors as has American Christianity. How very apt is the metaphor of sheep used to speak of its adherents.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.
There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.
There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".
Grow up.
~X~
It's amazing how they can read the Old Testament, believe every word in it, and still think it's smart to play chicken with God.
There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".
The fact that it was explained is not evidence that the reasons were valid or sufficient.
They did some very unconventional things in Karl et al., and haven't rationally justified them.
For example: when you homogenize data, you don't normally take data with known small bias and uncertainty, and make adjustments to that in order to match another set of data with known greater uncertainty and known bias problems.
Further, you don't leave out data that is known to be more accurate and cover a greater area, just because it doesn't agree with what you want to show.
In science, nobody does those things. Unless, of course, you are NOAA, and have an axe to grind.
Is NOAA really doing that, or do you just have an axe to grind about NOAA?
Yes, they really did adjust data as I described.
Yes, they really did leave out more accurate data with wider coverage.
BUT, they were sure to INCLUDE data that was guaranteed to put a warming trend in their dataset.
Coincidence? I think not.
If you really believe that then just ignore the adjusted data, and only consider the raw data... which show even more global surface warming over the last century than the adjusted data do.