NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

vikingpower writes: Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much. The British Met office also reports on the same phenomenon, even forecasting that global temperatures are very soon going to reach the one-degree-Celsius marker. According to Stephen Belcher, Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, "We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we're set to reach the 1 C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory."

Comments

Deniers?

[laing]

I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.

All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?

When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?

I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.

Thank you.

Re:Deniers?

[HiThere]

There's a fair amount of evidence that the official projections are intentionally filtered to avoid the more alarming scenarios that the scientists are actually projecting. Some of those scenarios *are* rather improbable, but the improbable scenarios that are ameliorative aren't being filtered out.

I wonder how confident they are this year?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year Schmitt was 36% confident 2014's land based temperature end product was the hottest year ever. Hotter than 1934 and hotter than 1998.

Meanwhile non-homogenised satalites (2 networks) and billions of weather balloon launches over the last 50 years all agree - the land based temperature network is not reporting the same information.

Anthony Watts has a new paper in peer review which explains why NASA et al always seem to record temperatures 33% hotter than any other temperature measurement network on earth.

And that is even before we start to discuss the new methodologies with how container ships measure temperature vs ARGOS measurements.

If you can follow any of that then you deserve a career in politics. Where for art thou science?

Re:Looking forward

[hambone142]

If it weren't for "global warming", we'd be in the ice age.

Re:record-shattering recording instruments

[riverat1]

and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments

Actually if you compare the unadjusted record to the adjusted record it's the unadjusted record that shows more warming. Link.