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.
How could our Gods allow such a thing? This doesn't mesh with my personal worldview, and therefore did not happen!
If I recollect right, the figure that 2014 was the warmest year in record appeared in /. already. An if I recollect one more thing right, the winter in the East Coast of US was deemed exceptionally chilling. I think it's hard to convince human-related climate change sceptics within this situation.
I have noticed that here in São Paulo the best time to talk about greenhouse effect is during the hottest days of the Summer, even though the rise in temperature downtown has more to do with deforestation and concrete than with greenhouse effect.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
If you're going to link to a site, you should link to one that involves actual scientists using actual science.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Personally, I'm disappointed in the weather. I like the heat, and I don't like cold and snow. But I live in New England. I've been hoping since I can't relocate my family to warmer climate, that the warm climate would come to me. But it's certainly taking its sweet time getting hot around here! The rest of the globe is getting warm while I'm still freezing in New England. I'm disappointed.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed.
Your wish is granted. The article discussed is a 267 page report with pages of data and extensive references explaining where the numbers come from.
Which, of course, you haven't read and have no intention of reading. It's just easy to say "show me the data" when you actually don't have the slightest interest in it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
First link on page: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any other uninformed questions?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And what makes you think that isn't just EXACTLY what they do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
Very first result: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any uniformed suggestions?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Both groups of ppl deserve to be blamed for this nightmare.
If the west , esp America's far left, REALLY wanted to solve this, they could within 10 years:
BTW, that is why I oppose the idea of putting taxes on JUST OUR CO2. America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
1) we need ACCURATE numbers of what CO2 is going into and coming from what areas. The only way to do that, is from orbit with OCO2 and shortly, with OCO3. Already, China has been shown to emit a great deal more than is widely accepted.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...
2) we need a SANE normalization. Skip this garbage of per capita. Ppl do NOT create the bulk of the CO2. BUSINESSES do. In particular, utilities, iron works, even commercial vehicles, etc are the major polluters.
So, instead, do emissions / $ GDP (REAL). THis has to be real GDP, and not PPP GDP. The later is a calculated value that allows them to basically cheat on their exports. By using REAL GDP, it means that if a nation drops their monetary value, then they also need to drop their emissions, or suffer higher taxes.
3) now create a tax that starts at 5% of the product and increases by 10% a year.
If you have a product in which all sub-parts are from a clean area, then you simply register it, and list the parts and country/state of origin. Then a % of the above tax is applied.
So, assume that some is 100% from Sweden. It is one of the cleanest nations in the world. As such, it would likely get 0% of the tax. Even when the tax hits 100% of the product value, it would still get nothing.
Assume that one of the parts comes from China, which is by far the WORST nation. As such, it would get 100% of the taxation, so, it would get 5% the first year, 15% the next, 25% the next and so on.
However, assume that a good comes from a relatively clean place such as say Colorado (which is in the middle of states). We might get around 33% of the tax, but lets assume 50% of the tax. That means that the good would be taxed at 2.5% and then 7.5%, and 12.5%, and so.
This approach will make each state responsible for cleaning up their own emissions. They might choose to go after cars, or they might choose to go after coal plants, etc.
Point is, that this tax takes the feds out of the equation and allows LOCAL govs, along with other nation's gov to make choices to clean up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
" the effect of increased temperature will depend on the crop's optimal temperature for growth and reproduction. [1] In some areas, warming may benefit the types of crops that are typically planted there. However, if warming exceeds a crop's optimum temperature, yields can decline"
Not to mention that the available land mass for agriculture (due to rising oceans and increasing desertification) will be much less.
hard to do when you have less snow and rain.
Look at Mexico and the middle east to get an idea of what 30-50 N and S will look like.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Agreed.
Yearly Temperature
CO2 levels
It's too bad I have no way to put those charts right next to each other. It's not like we can't predict what happens when infrared light streams through CO2-laden air. And there's no denying that we're the ones filling the atmosphere with it. They're both such easily verifiable claims. It's high-school level science. But when you suggest that our CO2 is causing the world to heat, somehow there's this mental disconnect.
Ah yes. Newsbusters understands neither science nor probability, and misrepresented the statements of scientists in order to imply that the scientists are most likely wrong...news at 11:30.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?
The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.
The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005.
According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available.
The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted:
Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.
Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record.
In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be.
If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know.
A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record.
Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes:
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04C, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.0
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I did not read any further than "ppl". You are a damning indictment of whatever education system failed you.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
How about the bees dying off? There was a recent study that showed that while the climate amenable to bees is moving north, the bees aren't. So the bees in southern regions are dying off (too hot) and the entire population of bees is suffering. If the bees die off, many plants (including crops) will suffer.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
Nope, wrong. The magic you're trying to get away with is accounting magic. We can incur the cost of carbon, and never have to pay the principle ......plus interest.
Looko, all that has to happen is the effects of carbon become so consequential that car and truck travel become tightly regulated. Long before human civilization itself becomes threatened by climate change, the government will get involved in bigger and bigger ways NO MATTER HOW UNHAPPY IT MAKES PEOPLE.
The real, least painful answer is found in the appoaches offered by Princeton University "wedges" concept and simlar incremental but substantial approaches other universities have calculated WILL work. They call for RIGHT NOW a scaling back of gas and oil and stepping up- through whatever subsidies are needed- of solar wind ocean and nuclear.
Fact is, we've been avoiding the cost of carbon and the sooner we begin to pay that cost the better off we'll be. We can pay it now in subsidies to solar and wind and increased taxes on carbon - or pay it in the future in draconic laws no one is going to like.be.
You suffer from a delusion that reality will not catch up with you that you can just keep avoiding physical reality. Well, I'm here to tell you you can't. None of us can.
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.
It's not "eliminating pesky data": when you compare the old and new data reconstruction--which they show on their link --the difference is almost trivial:
1998 indeed was the warmest year on record... and kept that record until 2005. But that didn't change with the new data analysis-- the same years hold the same records.
The data analysis methods are discussed in detail here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4
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.
What are you talking about and do you have a source for what you're talking about?
Raw data is available and has been used. For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands, bad sources, etc.
http://berkeleyearth.org/about....
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
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!
The Koch brothers tried that with Berkeley Earth and that didn't turn out so well (for them). The researchers at BE were pretty much unconnected with the climate science community and use their own methods of adjustment yet their results came out about the same as everyone else.
AGW "skeptics" have had more than a fair hearing over the past few decades, statistically their minority views have been given way too much attention in the MSM for the past 20 odd years, using exactly the same tax free 'think tanks' that tobacco companies used to perpetuate the lie that smoking doesn't cause cancer within the MSM.
Their long list of unsupported claims and illogical objections have been found wanting time and again. The national academies of science (and many, many, similar institutions) have stated on several occasions that AGW is "established science" in the same way as relativity, quantum mechanics, tectonics, evolution, etc, are 'established science', to the best of my knowledge the NAS were the first major institution to make that kind of statement, they have held that view since the late 1950's when spectrometers were finally sensitive enough to detect that the CO2 and H2O IR absorption spectra were interleaved and not overlayed as previously thought.
Every scientific institution on the planet that has an opinion in the subject has stated they agree with the basic claims that the earth is warming and human emissions are responsible for most, if not all, of the observed warming. Even the American Petroleum Institute (publically) agrees with those basic claims. The pentagon regards it as the greatest medium and long term threat to global stability, and has done so for over a decade.
How much longer are you going to sit on the fence deciding whether or not it's a serious problem?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.