NOAA says 2014 was warmest year worldwide on record

[AUDub 11,147]

Figured I'd start a climate change thread for a change.

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama - John Christy had a simple response to a federal government released Friday stating that 2014 was the hottest year on record worldwide.

"It wasn't the hottest," said Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville as well as the state's climatologist.

While the National Climatic Data Center in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) disagreed, it included climate research from UAH in its report.

According to NOAA, the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest since record keeping began in 1880. It surpassed the previous high marks by 0.07 of a degree Fahrenheit.

The average temperature across the globe in 2014 was 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average, according to NOAA.

The conflict is that UAH measures atmospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. The UAH data focuses on the lowest troposphere - the area between the earth's surface and roughly five miles into the atmosphere.

The atmospheric temperatures, Christy said, indicated that it was the third-hottest year on record - topped by 1998 and 2010.

"2014 was in a cluster of warmish years," said Christy, long known to be skeptical of claims of dangerous global warming. "That cluster is distinctly cooler than the two hottest years - 1998 and 2010."

Another study of atmospheric temperatures also included in the NOAA report by Remote Sensing Systems said it was the sixth-hottest.

"(NOAA) is using surface data and that has its own issues and we're using satellite data, which is the bulk atmosphere - the surface to five miles," Christy said Friday. "I think that's a much more robust indicator about what's happening."

So what should be more valued: Surface temperatures or atmospheric temperatures?

To Christy, the surface temperatures are affected by industrial growth. But if humans were truly the cause of an increase, it would clear in atmospheric temperatures, he said.

The key, Christy said, is the lack of carbon dioxide in the atmospheric measurements. Carbon dioxide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities ... The main human activity that emits CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transportation."

"You look at the things that caused that temperature change (on the surface) and it's called buildings and farms and so on," Christy said. "Do you want to change those back? You go to the central valley of California. If you want to cool the nighttime temperatures, turn that place back into a desert and knock out $5 billion worth of agriculture production. Just address the problem if you think it's a problem. But the carbon dioxide does not look like it is the problem.

"If the C02 is causing a temperature rise, according to the models, you should see it very dramatically in the atmosphere - in the deep atmosphere that we measure. It's just not there. It's not happening in the real world."

Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University, pointed directly at the burning of fossil fuels to explain the rise in temperatures.

"We are witnessing, before our eyes, the effect of human-caused climate change," Mann told The Associated Press. "It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record warming decade, during a multi-decadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium if it were not for the rising of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning."

Click here to read more details from the NOAA report.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Good . Space is very cold. Warm weather is better for growing. More co2 is beneficial to plants.

Weather, climate are the least of mans problems.

[AFTiger 282]

Climate Depot's Marc Morano: 'Claiming 2014 is the 'hottest year' on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming 'pause' is continuing.'

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: 'The NASA press release is highly misleading...talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.'

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: 'We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.'

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJanuary 16, 2015 11:48 AM with 2020 comments

The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2010 being in a tie for the “hottest year” ever. The UK Guardian headline sums up the media’s promotion:

UK Guardian: ‘Hottest Year’ Claim: 2014 officially the ‘hottest year’ on record US government scientists say - ‘Nasa and Noaa scientists report 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than previous records…The global average temperatures over land and sea surface for the year was 1.24F (0.69C) above the 20th century average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and Nasa reported. The scientists said 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than the previous records set in 2005 and 2010.’

But scientists and climate skeptics are countering that the claims of “hottest year” are based on immeasurable temperature differences that are based on hundredths of a degree differences.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Morehttp://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Christy is right......it wasn't the hottest. What NOAA said was it was the hottest on record. There is also evidence that there have been hotter years and that earth temps go in cycles over thousands of years.

[homersapien 11,366]

For the record, I have given up trying to educate the ignorant regarding this subject. It's not really that difficult to do when a specific claim is at issue, but of course deniers aren't really willing to discuss the science. For them, it's an ideological/political issue. There's really nothing I can do to encourage someone to be more rational. Willful irrationality cannot be fixed.

So, hopefully, the rational minds will ultimately prevail in time to mitigate the inevitable. Polls are hopeful in that regard (even the majority of Republicans accept the science).

Meanwhile, time will tell. I'm guessing as little as 10 years will do it.

"Ultimately, reason will prevail; in the long arc of scientific history it usually does. How much ocean and atmosphere and wildlife we’ll have left when that happens, however, is another matter entirely."

From: A Bad Day for Climate Change Deniers … And the Planet

http://time.com/3672...-change-oceans/

Meanwhile, all you deniers should make sure your positions are known to your kids and grandkids. After all, you're betting their future, so they should know about it.

Heck, put it on paper, seal it in an envelope and tell them to open it in 10-15 years.

[AUDub 11,147]

For the record, I have given up trying to educate the ignorant regarding this subject. It's not really that difficult to do when a specific claim is at issue, but of course deniers aren't really willing to discuss the science. For them, it's an ideological/political issue. There's really nothing I can do to encourage someone to be more rational. Willful irrationality cannot be fixed.

So, hopefully, the rational minds will ultimately prevail in time to mitigate the inevitable. Polls are hopeful in that regard (even the majority of Republicans accept the science).

Meanwhile, time will tell. I'm guessing as little as 10 years will do it.

"Ultimately, reason will prevail; in the long arc of scientific history it usually does. How much ocean and atmosphere and wildlife we’ll have left when that happens, however, is another matter entirely."

From: A Bad Day for Climate Change Deniers … And the Planet

http://time.com/3672...-change-oceans/

Meanwhile, all you deniers should make sure your positions are known to your kids and grandkids. After all, you're betting their future, so they should know about it.

Heck, put it on paper, seal it in an envelope and tell them to open it in 10-15 years.

Don't really blame you. These debates get tiresome. I find the opposition tends to hop from one point to the next as or before you even get a chance to refute whatever point they point forth. Even after you do refute it, there's always another PRATT right behind it. The metaphorical equivalent of trying to put out ten fires in ten minutes, otherwise known as the "Gish Gallop."

[AFTiger 282]

Real scientists question there own data. The alarmists do not question dogma and if they succeed they will have to explain to future generation the economic and environmental ruin they have wrought.

Global Analysis - Annual 2014

Calculating the Probability of Rankings for 2014

Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. The reported global value is not an exact measurement; instead it is the central value within some range of possible values. The size of this range depends on the method used to evaluate the global temperature anomaly, the number and placement of the stations used in the analysis, and so on. Because of this, NCDC provides values that describe the range of this uncertainty, or simply "range", of each month's, season's or year's global temperature anomaly. These values are provided as plus/minus values. For example, the 2014 temperature anomaly was reported as "0.69°C above the 20th century average, ±0.09°C.". This may be written in shorthand as "+0.69°C ±0.09°C". Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval".

http://www.ncdc.noaa...lemental/page-1

[cole256 17,043]

Well I agree it was a hot summer

[AUDub 11,147]

Well I agree it was a hot summer

It was actually a relatively mild summer around here. Which is good, as the AC in my car has been out for a while.

[Weegle777 78]

Weather does change, yep. It's cyclical.

[DKW 86 7,419]

This is one of the misunderstood debates. Most of us don't deny we are in a hot plateau. I think there is a 100% agreement there. What we mock is the 101 AGW Prognostications that completely failed to accurately predict the 15 year plateau. Many pointed out that maybe there was some connection to sun spots. We were told that sunspots had almost zero to do with global warming and that it was strictly AGW. BUT then, with supposedly even more bad gas in the air and more fossil fuels burned this platteau was suddenly reached.

Please remember that Dr Mann, in his infamous hockey stick graph, claimed a LINEAR correlation between man made gases and AGW. How is this linear correlation still true if there is a plateau?

The world wonders.

Are we warm now? Yes.

Are the fantastical predictions still looking ludicrous? Yes.

[Weegle777 78]

The way the world is going as far as people losing their minds, the climate naturally changing is the least important of all of our issues. Instead of wasting time worrying about co2, go feed people.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

All I know is I froze my bum off this summer. I'm used to 90's and humidity. We stayed in the 80's most of the summer and I hated it.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I think NYC had the fewest # of days below 90 since ...well, a long time. Maybe zero days, I can't recall.

2nd summer in a row here in ATL that's been mild and wet, relatively speaking. Fine.

[MDM4AU 332]

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were

right.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PEd5C3q5

[DKW 86 7,419]

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were

right.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PEd5C3q5

and there you go trashing a perfectly good meaningless narrative. Ichy and homer are gonna be so mad...lol

[AUDub 11,147]

How did we get to the point on this forum that people link the Daily Mail unironically?

[Weegle777 78]

What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling.

[AUDub 11,147]

What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling.

Cracked link. So prep yourself for some very NSFW language.

Number 4 on the list.

[DKW 86 7,419]

What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling.

Cracked link. So prep yourself for some very NSFW language.

Number 4 on the list.

Don't freak out about those numbers -- pollsters also found that they could make up a completely fictional government program and get 25 percent of people to claim they have heard of it and express an opinion about it. In other words, in any poll there is a solid 5 to 25 percent of people who are just saying random things into the phone so they can get back to masturbating.

Read more: http://www.cracked.c...2#ixzz3PHTWdRnj

That was actually an awesome read. Now if he had just added TPM to the crapfest. And also the NYT for all those bogus Jason Blair articles....

[TexasTiger 12,831]

What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling.

Cracked link. So prep yourself for some very NSFW language.

Number 4 on the list.

Don't freak out about those numbers -- pollsters also found that they could make up a completely fictional government program and get 25 percent of people to claim they have heard of it and express an opinion about it. In other words, in any poll there is a solid 5 to 25 percent of people who are just saying random things into the phone so they can get back to masturbating.

Read more: http://www.cracked.c...2#ixzz3PHTWdRnj

:rimshot:/>

That was actually an awesome read. Now if he had just added TPM to the crapfest. And also the NYT for all those bogus Jason Blair articles....

Any credible info on what's wrong with TPM? If no, please-- no rants.

[AUDub 11,147]

Don't freak out about those numbers -- pollsters also found that they could make up a completely fictional government program and get 25 percent of people to claim they have heard of it and express an opinion about it. In other words, in any poll there is a solid 5 to 25 percent of people who are just saying random things into the phone so they can get back to masturbating.

That was actually an awesome read. Now if he had just added TPM to the crapfest. And also the NYT for all those bogus Jason Blair articles....

I'd recommend perusing it daily. Lots of juvenile humor, but they'll churn out an excellent, hard-hitting article from time to time. Robert Evans' articles in particular.

[MDM4AU 332]

What's so bad about the daily mail? Serious question, not trolling.

Cracked link. So prep yourself for some very NSFW language.

Number 4 on the list.

I don't often link The Daily Mail. Is there something I am overlooking with this article? Assuming Cracked is right, would this not be a "blind squirrel" or a "broken clock"?

[DKW 86 7,419]

TPM-Talking Points Memo.

It is a website for extreme partisan hacks that does pretty much what BB42's article said: They take innocent sounding events and twist the wording just like was said about the polls in the article above.

http://talkingpoints...-security-fight

Top Senator: Dems Better Not Give An Inch In New Social Security Fight

1) Sherrod Brown is a Top Senator? that would be news to everyone including Brown.

2) SS is the Third Rail of American Politics, anyone messing with it does so at his own peril.

Hell if i was a true Democrat i would be TELLING-DARING the GOP to do something, anything with SS.

This is just another in a long string in bogus reporting.

Money Shot:

The House passed a rule on the the first day of the new Congress that prohibits a routine transfer of tax revenue between the retirement and disability funds, which is called a "reallocation." The reallocation has happened on a bipartisan basis 11 times in the past, most recently in 1994. Without it, the disability trust fund is projected to start being unable to pay full benefits in late 2016. Republicans have made clear their intent to use that as leverage to make some changes to the 80-year-old program in exchange for avoiding benefit cuts.

"They want to dramatically slice Social Security, so we negotiate and compromise a small cut in Social Security?" Brown told TPM. "No, that's not the way you negotiate."

I rest my case.

One sentence plainly states: "avoiding benefit cuts."

The next sentence states: ""They want to dramatically slice Social Security..."

If anyone wants to "Dramatically slices SS, they will be out of power by the next election.

People read TPM to hear whatever they want to hear and to get the water cooler talking points for the day, with ZERO deference to the truth.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

First blog to win a Polk award:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk_Awards