8 ms·

2014 Was Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010

104 points by gz5 12y ago

marpstar 12y ago
I had seen the anomaly graph a month or two ago and it had confirmed my perception of Summer 2014 in the the upper Midwest USA (Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota). We had a relative cool summer; The temperature didn't even hit 90 degrees until well into August. It was a welcome change, as our hot summers are always accompanied by brutal humidity. I'd like to know why it was so cool last year.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  Because as the Arctic warms, the Jet Stream becomes more chaotic and reaches further south.
- beat 12y ago
  Minnesota's winter of 2013-1014 was brutal. I have never experienced such cold in my 16 years here. Schools and businesses closed regularly for days because it was unsafe to be outside for any length of time. This is anecdotal, of course, but it ties to the cool summer, I think.
_xander 12y ago
"Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records." Terrifying.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  That's likely to be either this year or next year. NOAA puts out an update weekly, and they are currently saying "There is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the next two months". http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/la...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
mrfusion 12y ago
Was the cooler eastern US an anomaly or is this an expected long term result?
gz5 12y ago
Some eye opening tidbits in here: "The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997" "Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño" Of course all of this is in relation to a history starting only in the late 1800s, so we are looking at a blip on geological time scales, but still even micro-cycles within macro-cycles can be instructive and meaningful. Would like to hear from the experts on the macro view.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  Not an expert, but the wiki page seems pretty accessible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record Satellites: 35 years Balloons: 65 years Instruments: 165 years Ice cores: 800,000 years Sediment cores: at least 500,000,000 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:All_palaeotemps.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#med...
  - gus_massa 12y ago
    It' not very clear, but the "on record" probably include only the instrument measurement period, or something like that. The ice cores graph (linked near the bottom) says that 125.000 years ago the temperature was much hotter (+8°C). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/...
    - mark-r 12y ago
      The rate of change probably matters as much as the absolute difference. Given enough time, life can adapt. I'd love to see a chart of both the temperatures and the rate of change over those time periods.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      Note that these are Antarctic temperatures (as you might guess from "ice core"), not global temperatures.
graycat 12y ago
They have some data relatively good for the NYT, e.g., graphs of global average differences (they call anomalies which is common but, still, wildly inappropriate value-laden terminology) temperature each year for the past 200 years, etc. Good. Next question has to be, measured how, by whom, and where we can get peer-reviewed reports because, frankly, I just cannot take what you publish seriously. Not a chance. But, then, the NYT, with their usual interest in drama and their trilogy of human transgression, retribution, and redemption, go off on their usual, talking about extreme values. NYT, again, once again, over again, one more time, just for you again, and not nearly for the first time, all your get'm up on their hind legs drama with extreme values (what's meaningful, nearly all that's meaningful in this case, are the averages; without the averages the extreme values would be better than nothing, but with the averages the extreme values are just mammary glands on a boar hog and at best distracting) is one of the main reasons all your many, nearly daily, in my e-mail inbox offers of full access to NYT I just ignore because I know your real agenda and your main techniques. NYT, occasionally you publish what at least looks like some good stuff (on big issues but typically without the evidence that would justify taking your reports on big issues seriously), but, for nearly all the rest of your stuff, if you take it seriously then you are just wacko. Instead, about the best that can be said for your stuff is that it is just light entertainment. Just want you to know that you are not fooling everyone.
- mturmon 12y ago
  You have been down voted (not by me), which is reasonable given that you say the report is lying, but offer no counter-evidence. If you look at the press release (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/ http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-...), you can notice a pointer to the data and the methods. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd have to engage that, rather than making empty claims and diverting the conversation to a referendum on the limitations of the NYT. I also want to mention that the word "anomaly" in this context is a term of art for any difference between a value and a mean value -- this is not an editorial injection by the NYT. It is necessary to use these differences because seasonal and regional temperature variations make plots of raw temperature (or precipitation, etc.) fields not very useful. If you were aware of the literature in this area, you would know this.
Shivetya 12y ago
Political theater,the differences are within margin of errors for measuring devices, however if we needed more evidence that all models of warming were wrong and we still aren't, well here you have it. After all, which models that all the alarmist have been using since the beginning of the century have modeled what we have been seeing? I am not saying there is no climate change, mother nature does damn well on her own. I just find all the alarmist to be, rather like members of a radical religion
- jnevill 12y ago
  "Within the margin of errors for measuring devices" What is this nonsense? Yes... a single thermometer will have a known margin of error, but when you take a measurement across thousands of thermometers, and then look at the trend of those measurements over decades... I mean... what the hell are you talking about?
- kevinskii 12y ago
  I agree. Claiming that a 0.01 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature averages compared to 5 years ago somehow indicates that the warming "pause" is over is merely political grandstanding. Climate Depot has more: http://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/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
- mikeash 12y ago
  Do you have a citation for the claim that the margin of error for the measurements is larger than the measured difference? That seems unlikely. 0.04 degrees is plenty big for modern scientific instruments.
- cholantesh 12y ago
  Scientific literacy is one heck of a radical religion!
godgod 12y ago
How convenient for the global warming I mean climate change scammers. This announcement is purely profit driven.
drc37 12y ago
For the US, it was only the 34st warmest. To put it in a bit more perspective what the NY Times is saying: http://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/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
- hyperbovine 12y ago
  Ahh yes. Climate Depot. Brainchild of Marc Morano, whose previous career highlights include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano): "He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry ... Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications of Senator Jim Inhofe." This is totally the person I trust to get an unbiased perspective on science reporting.
  - viggity 12y ago
    Ahh yes. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Let's bash a guy because he hangs out with someone you dislike instead of refuting his centrals points. You're total the person I trust to make logical arguments.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      We are talking about someone who doxxes scientists he disagrees with as a debating tactic and then justifies it on the basis that he receives hate mail, so why shouldn't they.
    - hyperbovine 12y ago
      Ooh Latin! Fancy. His central points are eminently refutable, but in my experience trying to have a rational, scientific debate with this crowd leads nowhere. And anyways, Guess what! Personal behavior matters. Somebody whose professional history is full of instances of lying and willfully distorting the truth in order to peddle his agenda (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-marc-mor/191878 http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-m...) is not a credible witness.
gdubs 12y ago
Mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline" [1], and it's very interesting. In particular, I feel persuaded that nuclear power is our big shot at bringing atmospheric levels of CO2 down to manageable levels. Brand was one of the first "Greens". His Whole Earth Catalog inspired a lot of the 70's techno-hippies, like Steve Jobs, and it's fascinating to read how his positions have evolved over the decades, and how he is championing positions he wouldn't have expected to be championing when he was younger. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline
- superobserver 12y ago
  Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?
  - beat 12y ago
    If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
    - rjsw 12y ago
      Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
      - 12y ago
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Ah yes. Always remember, "weather isn't climate", except when it's warmer, then it is.
- splawn 12y ago
  Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    Let me ask you this, if 2014 were merely an anomalously cold year, would the reporting and commenting be different? Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow. One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many. Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.
    - splawn 12y ago
      yes it would be different, it would be about how it was a record breaking cold year. If it rained unicorns it would be about it raining more unicorns than normal, but since we live in this universe instead of one of those alternate ones this story is about (yet another) record breaking hot year.
    - pistle 12y ago
      Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie." What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?
mollerhoj 12y ago
In the meantime, scientists are struggling to make lawmakers actually believe in science! Scary stuff. I really hope that the GOP turns on this issue soon enough. It's hard to believe that this is actually needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54
api 12y ago
At this point it's obvious: CO2, which traps heat by a clearly understandable and straightforward physical mechanism, is altering the Earth's climate with unknown but likely mostly negative consequences. That means we can add this fact to an already very long list of reasons that we must go beyond fossil fuels. I personally don't think the CO2 problem is at the top of that list. The top slot by far belongs to the depletion problem. There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization. This might also involve global warfare, possibly nuclear, and a "mass die off" of the human species. At the very least all economic growth would cease and with it all opportunity for anyone to advance their condition in life. The pie would begin shrinking, and this would bring a return to a scarcity mentality in all things. An "orderly die-back and return to bare subsistence" is probably the best case scenario. The fact that our entire modern technological society is absolutely dependent upon a finite source of energy is probably the greatest existential threat that we face. That this isn't talked about more is likely a result of denial in the face of a very terrifying problem. A good way to think about it is to compare it to a planet-killer asteroid that we know is headed our way. Next up is probably the geopolitical nightmare of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels transfer massive quantities of wealth from (relatively) liberal open societies to brutal totalitarian states where people are beheaded for questioning the dominant religion or dictator. It finances both terrorism and the ideologies behind it. The only alternative way to still get these fuels would be to embark upon a blood-soaked imperial crusade to simply seize these fossil fuel reserves, an alternative that's arguably worse than the existing state of affairs for many reasons. I'd put the CO2 problem in the third slot below these. The fourth slot would probably belong to the other environmental damages inflicted by fossil fuel mining and use including air and water pollution and the destruction of otherwise valuable land. Anyone who argues for the fossil fuel status quo at this point is delusional or insane. I personally think this is the greatest problem facing our civilization.
- mollerhoj 12y ago
  "Can we stop arguing at this point? Anyone who still thinks the fossil fuel status quo is okay is insane." 72%[1] of republicans in the senate are insane apparently. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54
thedangler 12y ago
2014 was the hottest year. But the summer in my city was complete crap. It was cold and rainy. Hope its better summer this year :)
jayess 12y ago
Of course, no mention that this is based on the ground-station temperature record which is continually being "revised" so that the past is cooler and cooler. I believe the raw station records have now been "revised" three times so that the original data is becoming meaningless. The satellite record does not show that 2014 was the warmest.
- JshWright 12y ago
  I'd be interested in seeing that data, if you happen to know where I could find it.
  - jayess 12y ago
    I believe it's available here, but they don't make clear the revision details: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
- jayess 12y ago
  No surprise I'm being downvoted, but here's the satellite temperature record: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 [Edit: why would people downvote a link to the satellite temperature record?]
  - graycat 12y ago
    Why? Like Galileo, you are a heretic, fighting the orthodoxy, willing to contradict the true religion! Pope Laureate Guru will send out his acolytes to deliver his inquisition and excommunication! That's why!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- beat 12y ago
  So here's a question... why is the older data being revised? The way it's phrased, and it may not have been your intent, is a deliberate conspiracy to make the changes look greater than they actually are. This touches on the inexplicable assumption driving much of the anti-warming crowd... the idea of a massive conspiracy of scientists worldwide to lie about climate change, fake data, and supress evidence to the contrary. Those making that assumption never really address why such a conspiracy exists.
joshuahedlund 12y ago
I wish the NYT article included more data (though there is a chart). Raw data is available at NCDC[0] It is true that the data shows a continually warming trend, with 2014 as the warmest on record. It is also true that the recorded warming is proceeding at a very slow pace, with the new record anomaly of 0.69 C only 0.04 C higher than the previous records of 2005 and 2010 and only 0.06 C higher than the record of 1998. It is false to say that the globe is not warming, but it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century. The "warmest X years have all occurred since Y" but they are also clumping together pretty closely and moving up from that clump ever so slowly (which incidentally makes me quite optimistic about our continuing technological progress away from fossil fuels) [0]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
- phaemon 12y ago
  That links says that temperatures are rising "at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970." So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.
  - joshuahedlund 12y ago
    The "average rate per decade" is highly variable depending on your starting decade. The average "pace" of the last 4.5 decades is 0.16 C per decade, the "current" annual "pace" of the last 10 years is less than 0.01 C per year. Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
    - phaemon 12y ago
      The last 10 years are far too short a time period to establish anything due to the variability of the data. If you include more data you get a more accurate result, so do that. 30 years is the usual minimum period considered for climate, so what's your purpose in choosing something considerably shorter? Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.
SeanDav 12y ago
Oh great, now we are back to "Global Warming". For years that label was not working because many areas were experiencing record low temperatures which kind of made the "Global Warming" advocates all look a bit silly. Thus the term "Climate Change" was introduced because after all who can argue against the fact that the climate is changing! I am on the fence as far as "Global Warming" is concerned but even I must admit that the climate is changing - the fact that the climate has always changed and always will seems to be besides the point. Now we have a warm year and back we go to "Global Warming". Really hard sometimes to take these people seriously.
- wnevets 12y ago
  what? Are you saying you dont think on average the planet is becoming warmer?
  - SeanDav 12y ago
    I am saying we do not know yet if the climate change is within normal parameters, and even what is the definition of "normal change". The earth has been much much warmer and much much cooler. What I find irritating is the rather poor science behind much of this (statistical modelling being presented as scientific proof for example), and government agendas and business interests are all clouding the picture. The UK government for example have raised a huge amount of tax on the back of these fears.
    - beat 12y ago
      I find the lack of numeracy in this criticism disconcerting. It's not just a question of whether the Earth has been historically warmer or cooler - it's a question of how quickly the Earth became significantly warmer or cooler. A temperature change over thousands of years is a tremendously different thing than a temperature change over a few decades, when it comes to how temperature-sensitive life forms respond. Moreover, it's not just a question of temperature. Changing CO2 levels are also measurably impacting ocean acidity, which affects extremely sensitive single-celled life forms at the root of the ocean's food chain.
- 12y ago
lumberjack 12y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis No you aren't crazy if you notice that engineering fields tend to attract many brilliant people with wacky beliefs. It's very evident in any controversial topic, even on HN as you can see ITT.
- wikithro 12y ago
  Back when I helped edit wikipedia physics articles, it was very noticeable that almost every crank with an anti-relativity agenda had an EE background. Not just engineering, but very specifically electrical engineering.

104 points by gz5 12y ago

I had seen the anomaly graph a month or two ago and it had confirmed my perception of Summer 2014 in the the upper Midwest USA (Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota). We had a relative cool summer; The temperature didn't even hit 90 degrees until well into August. It was a welcome change, as our hot summers are always accompanied by brutal humidity. I'd like to know why it was so cool last year.

Daishiman 12y ago
Because as the Arctic warms, the Jet Stream becomes more chaotic and reaches further south.
beat 12y ago
Minnesota's winter of 2013-1014 was brutal. I have never experienced such cold in my 16 years here. Schools and businesses closed regularly for days because it was unsafe to be outside for any length of time. This is anecdotal, of course, but it ties to the cool summer, I think.

_xander 12y ago

"Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records." Terrifying.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
That's likely to be either this year or next year. NOAA puts out an update weekly, and they are currently saying "There is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the next two months". http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/la...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mrfusion 12y ago

Was the cooler eastern US an anomaly or is this an expected long term result?

gz5 12y ago

Some eye opening tidbits in here: "The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997" "Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño" Of course all of this is in relation to a history starting only in the late 1800s, so we are looking at a blip on geological time scales, but still even micro-cycles within macro-cycles can be instructive and meaningful. Would like to hear from the experts on the macro view.

jjoonathan 12y ago
Not an expert, but the wiki page seems pretty accessible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record Satellites: 35 years Balloons: 65 years Instruments: 165 years Ice cores: 800,000 years Sediment cores: at least 500,000,000 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:All_palaeotemps.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#med...
- gus_massa 12y ago
  It' not very clear, but the "on record" probably include only the instrument measurement period, or something like that. The ice cores graph (linked near the bottom) says that 125.000 years ago the temperature was much hotter (+8°C). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/...
  - mark-r 12y ago
    The rate of change probably matters as much as the absolute difference. Given enough time, life can adapt. I'd love to see a chart of both the temperatures and the rate of change over those time periods.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    Note that these are Antarctic temperatures (as you might guess from "ice core"), not global temperatures.

graycat 12y ago

They have some data relatively good for the NYT, e.g., graphs of global average differences (they call anomalies which is common but, still, wildly inappropriate value-laden terminology) temperature each year for the past 200 years, etc. Good. Next question has to be, measured how, by whom, and where we can get peer-reviewed reports because, frankly, I just cannot take what you publish seriously. Not a chance. But, then, the NYT, with their usual interest in drama and their trilogy of human transgression, retribution, and redemption, go off on their usual, talking about extreme values. NYT, again, once again, over again, one more time, just for you again, and not nearly for the first time, all your get'm up on their hind legs drama with extreme values (what's meaningful, nearly all that's meaningful in this case, are the averages; without the averages the extreme values would be better than nothing, but with the averages the extreme values are just mammary glands on a boar hog and at best distracting) is one of the main reasons all your many, nearly daily, in my e-mail inbox offers of full access to NYT I just ignore because I know your real agenda and your main techniques. NYT, occasionally you publish what at least looks like some good stuff (on big issues but typically without the evidence that would justify taking your reports on big issues seriously), but, for nearly all the rest of your stuff, if you take it seriously then you are just wacko. Instead, about the best that can be said for your stuff is that it is just light entertainment. Just want you to know that you are not fooling everyone.

mturmon 12y ago
You have been down voted (not by me), which is reasonable given that you say the report is lying, but offer no counter-evidence. If you look at the press release (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/ http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-...), you can notice a pointer to the data and the methods. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd have to engage that, rather than making empty claims and diverting the conversation to a referendum on the limitations of the NYT. I also want to mention that the word "anomaly" in this context is a term of art for any difference between a value and a mean value -- this is not an editorial injection by the NYT. It is necessary to use these differences because seasonal and regional temperature variations make plots of raw temperature (or precipitation, etc.) fields not very useful. If you were aware of the literature in this area, you would know this.

Shivetya 12y ago

Political theater,the differences are within margin of errors for measuring devices, however if we needed more evidence that all models of warming were wrong and we still aren't, well here you have it. After all, which models that all the alarmist have been using since the beginning of the century have modeled what we have been seeing? I am not saying there is no climate change, mother nature does damn well on her own. I just find all the alarmist to be, rather like members of a radical religion

jnevill 12y ago
"Within the margin of errors for measuring devices" What is this nonsense? Yes... a single thermometer will have a known margin of error, but when you take a measurement across thousands of thermometers, and then look at the trend of those measurements over decades... I mean... what the hell are you talking about?
kevinskii 12y ago
I agree. Claiming that a 0.01 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature averages compared to 5 years ago somehow indicates that the warming "pause" is over is merely political grandstanding. Climate Depot has more: http://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/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...
mikeash 12y ago
Do you have a citation for the claim that the margin of error for the measurements is larger than the measured difference? That seems unlikely. 0.04 degrees is plenty big for modern scientific instruments.
cholantesh 12y ago
Scientific literacy is one heck of a radical religion!

godgod 12y ago

How convenient for the global warming I mean climate change scammers. This announcement is purely profit driven.

drc37 12y ago

For the US, it was only the 34st warmest. To put it in a bit more perspective what the NY Times is saying: http://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/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-ho...

hyperbovine 12y ago
Ahh yes. Climate Depot. Brainchild of Marc Morano, whose previous career highlights include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano): "He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996, during which time he was known as "Limbaugh's man in Washington".[1] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry ... Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications of Senator Jim Inhofe." This is totally the person I trust to get an unbiased perspective on science reporting.
- viggity 12y ago
  Ahh yes. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Let's bash a guy because he hangs out with someone you dislike instead of refuting his centrals points. You're total the person I trust to make logical arguments.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    We are talking about someone who doxxes scientists he disagrees with as a debating tactic and then justifies it on the basis that he receives hate mail, so why shouldn't they.
  - hyperbovine 12y ago
    Ooh Latin! Fancy. His central points are eminently refutable, but in my experience trying to have a rational, scientific debate with this crowd leads nowhere. And anyways, Guess what! Personal behavior matters. Somebody whose professional history is full of instances of lying and willfully distorting the truth in order to peddle his agenda (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-marc-mor/191878 http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/27/climate-change-m...) is not a credible witness.

gdubs 12y ago

Mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline" [1], and it's very interesting. In particular, I feel persuaded that nuclear power is our big shot at bringing atmospheric levels of CO2 down to manageable levels. Brand was one of the first "Greens". His Whole Earth Catalog inspired a lot of the 70's techno-hippies, like Steve Jobs, and it's fascinating to read how his positions have evolved over the decades, and how he is championing positions he wouldn't have expected to be championing when he was younger. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline

superobserver 12y ago
Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?
- beat 12y ago
  If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
  - rjsw 12y ago
    Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
    - 12y ago

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Ah yes. Always remember, "weather isn't climate", except when it's warmer, then it is.

splawn 12y ago
Weird, I thought this article was about a years worth of global weather data. Perhaps you don't understand scale?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Let me ask you this, if 2014 were merely an anomalously cold year, would the reporting and commenting be different? Maintaining scientific rigor is difficult in the best of times. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses to try to short cut the process and "prove" their position is correct even though the actual scientific process is slow. One hot year is just one year, as one cold year would be. It's proof of very little. Certainly the validity, or not, of incredibly complex climate models does not rest particularly strongly on one year out of many. Short circuiting the climate debate when a year is warm is no better than when a year is cold, and merely legitimizes the practice.
  - splawn 12y ago
    yes it would be different, it would be about how it was a record breaking cold year. If it rained unicorns it would be about it raining more unicorns than normal, but since we live in this universe instead of one of those alternate ones this story is about (yet another) record breaking hot year.
  - pistle 12y ago
    Exactly. Let's pick one hot year out of the whole series of hot years so we can then say, "It's just a data point." Each year is just a data point. Nothing to see here. I can't live long enough to prove a trend, therefore nobody can with their climate science based on 100's of measurement backed up way more history baked into the geology, etc. To argue the science, at this point, questions the arguers understanding of the process of science or the grasp of the quality of the science at hand. Unfortunately, people give in to vain impulses and try to desperately undermine science in action by parsing data and charts to cast doubt upon something which has an ever higher likelihood of being true. We can't wait 10,000 years to say, "Yep, the data didn't lie." What's the real downside to hedging your bets and leading on actions to wind down the climate impact of people? Disruption to existing market systems? Painful career changes for fossil energy industries? Increases in the price of beef? All of that happens without planned change anyways. Who's afraid of change when you still have a modicum of control?

mollerhoj 12y ago

In the meantime, scientists are struggling to make lawmakers actually believe in science! Scary stuff. I really hope that the GOP turns on this issue soon enough. It's hard to believe that this is actually needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54

api 12y ago

At this point it's obvious: CO2, which traps heat by a clearly understandable and straightforward physical mechanism, is altering the Earth's climate with unknown but likely mostly negative consequences. That means we can add this fact to an already very long list of reasons that we must go beyond fossil fuels. I personally don't think the CO2 problem is at the top of that list. The top slot by far belongs to the depletion problem. There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization. This might also involve global warfare, possibly nuclear, and a "mass die off" of the human species. At the very least all economic growth would cease and with it all opportunity for anyone to advance their condition in life. The pie would begin shrinking, and this would bring a return to a scarcity mentality in all things. An "orderly die-back and return to bare subsistence" is probably the best case scenario. The fact that our entire modern technological society is absolutely dependent upon a finite source of energy is probably the greatest existential threat that we face. That this isn't talked about more is likely a result of denial in the face of a very terrifying problem. A good way to think about it is to compare it to a planet-killer asteroid that we know is headed our way. Next up is probably the geopolitical nightmare of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels transfer massive quantities of wealth from (relatively) liberal open societies to brutal totalitarian states where people are beheaded for questioning the dominant religion or dictator. It finances both terrorism and the ideologies behind it. The only alternative way to still get these fuels would be to embark upon a blood-soaked imperial crusade to simply seize these fossil fuel reserves, an alternative that's arguably worse than the existing state of affairs for many reasons. I'd put the CO2 problem in the third slot below these. The fourth slot would probably belong to the other environmental damages inflicted by fossil fuel mining and use including air and water pollution and the destruction of otherwise valuable land. Anyone who argues for the fossil fuel status quo at this point is delusional or insane. I personally think this is the greatest problem facing our civilization.

mollerhoj 12y ago
"Can we stop arguing at this point? Anyone who still thinks the fossil fuel status quo is okay is insane." 72%[1] of republicans in the senate are insane apparently. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOPf0s5u5E#t=54

thedangler 12y ago

2014 was the hottest year. But the summer in my city was complete crap. It was cold and rainy. Hope its better summer this year :)

jayess 12y ago

Of course, no mention that this is based on the ground-station temperature record which is continually being "revised" so that the past is cooler and cooler. I believe the raw station records have now been "revised" three times so that the original data is becoming meaningless. The satellite record does not show that 2014 was the warmest.

JshWright 12y ago
I'd be interested in seeing that data, if you happen to know where I could find it.
- jayess 12y ago
  I believe it's available here, but they don't make clear the revision details: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
jayess 12y ago
No surprise I'm being downvoted, but here's the satellite temperature record: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2015 [Edit: why would people downvote a link to the satellite temperature record?]
- graycat 12y ago
  Why? Like Galileo, you are a heretic, fighting the orthodoxy, willing to contradict the true religion! Pope Laureate Guru will send out his acolytes to deliver his inquisition and excommunication! That's why!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
beat 12y ago
So here's a question... why is the older data being revised? The way it's phrased, and it may not have been your intent, is a deliberate conspiracy to make the changes look greater than they actually are. This touches on the inexplicable assumption driving much of the anti-warming crowd... the idea of a massive conspiracy of scientists worldwide to lie about climate change, fake data, and supress evidence to the contrary. Those making that assumption never really address why such a conspiracy exists.

joshuahedlund 12y ago

I wish the NYT article included more data (though there is a chart). Raw data is available at NCDC[0] It is true that the data shows a continually warming trend, with 2014 as the warmest on record. It is also true that the recorded warming is proceeding at a very slow pace, with the new record anomaly of 0.69 C only 0.04 C higher than the previous records of 2005 and 2010 and only 0.06 C higher than the record of 1998. It is false to say that the globe is not warming, but it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century. The "warmest X years have all occurred since Y" but they are also clumping together pretty closely and moving up from that clump ever so slowly (which incidentally makes me quite optimistic about our continuing technological progress away from fossil fuels) [0]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

phaemon 12y ago
That links says that temperatures are rising "at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970." So, "it also false to say that the warming is on pace for even a full degree of warming by the end of the century" is completely wrong.
- joshuahedlund 12y ago
  The "average rate per decade" is highly variable depending on your starting decade. The average "pace" of the last 4.5 decades is 0.16 C per decade, the "current" annual "pace" of the last 10 years is less than 0.01 C per year. Edit: here you can play with years and rate-per-decade trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
  - phaemon 12y ago
    The last 10 years are far too short a time period to establish anything due to the variability of the data. If you include more data you get a more accurate result, so do that. 30 years is the usual minimum period considered for climate, so what's your purpose in choosing something considerably shorter? Edit: That plotting page is quite nice and illustrates my point well. Plot the years 1987 - 1996. Notice that the trend for that decade is actually down. And yet, add another 10 years to take it to 1987-2006 and it gets pretty close to the 30 year trend.

SeanDav 12y ago

Oh great, now we are back to "Global Warming". For years that label was not working because many areas were experiencing record low temperatures which kind of made the "Global Warming" advocates all look a bit silly. Thus the term "Climate Change" was introduced because after all who can argue against the fact that the climate is changing! I am on the fence as far as "Global Warming" is concerned but even I must admit that the climate is changing - the fact that the climate has always changed and always will seems to be besides the point. Now we have a warm year and back we go to "Global Warming". Really hard sometimes to take these people seriously.

wnevets 12y ago
what? Are you saying you dont think on average the planet is becoming warmer?
- SeanDav 12y ago
  I am saying we do not know yet if the climate change is within normal parameters, and even what is the definition of "normal change". The earth has been much much warmer and much much cooler. What I find irritating is the rather poor science behind much of this (statistical modelling being presented as scientific proof for example), and government agendas and business interests are all clouding the picture. The UK government for example have raised a huge amount of tax on the back of these fears.
  - beat 12y ago
    I find the lack of numeracy in this criticism disconcerting. It's not just a question of whether the Earth has been historically warmer or cooler - it's a question of how quickly the Earth became significantly warmer or cooler. A temperature change over thousands of years is a tremendously different thing than a temperature change over a few decades, when it comes to how temperature-sensitive life forms respond. Moreover, it's not just a question of temperature. Changing CO2 levels are also measurably impacting ocean acidity, which affects extremely sensitive single-celled life forms at the root of the ocean's food chain.
12y ago

lumberjack 12y ago

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis No you aren't crazy if you notice that engineering fields tend to attract many brilliant people with wacky beliefs. It's very evident in any controversial topic, even on HN as you can see ITT.

wikithro 12y ago
Back when I helped edit wikipedia physics articles, it was very noticeable that almost every crank with an anti-relativity agenda had an EE background. Not just engineering, but very specifically electrical engineering.