Did we miss this? 2014 was the warmest year on record

[fskimospy]

A visual representation of the margin of error.

An important thing however would be that you want to look at the margin of error for the whole data series, not for individual observations within it.

Also, that site has been repeatedly busted while attempting to mislead people about climate change science, so it's not a very credible source.

 

[dphantom]

I read an interesting paper yesterday that analyzed observational temperatures vs modeled temperatures. Observations are diverging from modeled at a significant rate. Why is this the writers are not sure. Their point, using data from with the technical parts of the IPCC AR5 report, is to display this anomaly and propose the actual effect on temperature of GHG emissions may in fact be quite a bit lower than what the IPCC summary (policy part of the paper) indicates.

Current data indicates a forcing of around 1.3-1.8C with a confidence level of 13%-87% (I think) using observational data, not modeled data. Will attempt to find paper and link to it.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/A-Sensitive-Matter-Foreword-inc.pdf


It was a fairly easy read, no higher math needed.


In the interests of fairness, there is a rebuttal out there too.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Can you point to where I (or anyone else for that matter) posted in support of pollution?

The thread is about the warmest year in a while. Alarmist drivel, with the usual lack of solutions other than the tried and true "give your money and/or more power to liberals, they'll fix it". Sorry, not buying it.

It's not going to be free, but the world is becoming more polluted, over populated and we rely heavily on fossil fuels, I stand with the vast majority of scientists who believe that climate change is real, man is HEAVILY contributing to it and unless we cut back, we will reach a breaking point.

 

[fskimospy]

So, in 40 years it was up 1 degree fahrenheit? Yawnnnnn.....

That should merit a 'holy shit', not a 'yawn'.

You realize that a few degree change in average global temperatures can have major impacts, right?

 

[rudeguy]

That should merit a 'holy shit', not a 'yawn'.

You realize that a few degree change in average global temperatures can have major impacts, right?

I know you like reading up on this stuff, so I am hoping you can give me an answer:

I keep wondering how we can compare the super accurate temperatures we currently collect with the temps collected back in the 1800s and early 1900s. If the separation is only 1 degree, is it possible that degree comes from us more accurately measuring temperature rather than an actual increase in termp?

I really hope you can help me with this. It seems like a huge variable and I honestly don't know if its been addressed.

 

[bshole]

That should merit a 'holy shit', not a 'yawn'.

You realize that a few degree change in average global temperatures can have major impacts, right?

Yea massive catastrophic impacts that are completely unobservable to the average person living in the hell hole of global climate change. We need "scientists" to explain all the catastrophe that is happening. If not for them we would have never know how shitty and unlivable the world is.... and getting worse every day....

Meanwhile in the real world, lifespans contintue to expand right along with waistlines.... providing objective evidence of the catastrophic consequence of global climate change on the food supply.

 

[dphantom]

An important thing however would be that you want to look at the margin of error for the whole data series, not for individual observations within it.

Also, that site has been repeatedly busted while attempting to mislead people about climate change science, so it's not a very credible source.

I believe the margin of error for the data series is +- .1C

 

[dphantom]

I really hope you can help me with this. It seems like a huge variable and I honestly don't know if its been addressed.

That is a very good question and is under study. The question of how to adjust temperature data to reflect changes in the measuring station, its location, time of day and so forth are all significant to understanding temperatures.

From my reading of the published studies I have come across, on average globally, the adjustments to the temperature records do not make much of a difference - that is they do not add to a warming or cooling trend.

But there is much yet unresolved hence the argument among scientists over how much the observational data should be adjusted to reflect actual temperatures. And coverage of large parts of the globe is minimal or even non-existent so we use models to try to fill in the gaps. Much discussion over that as well.

 

[rudeguy]

That is a very good question and is under study. The question of how to adjust temperature data to reflect changes in the measuring station, its location, time of day and so forth are all significant to understanding temperatures.

From my reading of the published studies I have come across, on average globally, the adjustments to the temperature records do not make much of a difference - that is they do not add to a warming or cooling trend.

But there is much yet unresolved hence the argument among scientists over how much the observational data should be adjusted to reflect actual temperatures. And coverage of large parts of the globe is minimal or even non-existent so we use models to try to fill in the gaps. Much discussion over that as well.

Thanks for informed and civil reply. I appreciate it.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically illiterate and whose only guiding principle in life is that they live in constant fear their wallets will be raped. Fuck the grandkids, there's a fingerprint on my patent leather. The curse of the primitive simian brain.

 

[rudeguy]

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically illiterate and whose only guiding principle in life is that they live in constant fear their wallets will be raped. Fuck the grandkids, there's a fingerprint on my patent leather. The curse of the primitive simian brain.

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically incapable of explaining their thinking and resort to personal attacks rather than stating facts.

 

[Jaskalas]

An important thing however would be that you want to look at the margin of error for the whole data series, not for individual observations within it.

Also, that site has been repeatedly busted while attempting to mislead people about climate change science, so it's not a very credible source.

1: What "individual observations"? You want to throw out the HadCRUT4 dataset? I'd always enjoy moving the onus of the subject to Satellite Data.

2: Are you refuting the margin of error? Of course you aren't. The source is UK's Met Office.

The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.

Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.

 

[fskimospy]

1: What "individual observations"? You want to throw out the HadCRUT4 dataset? I'd always enjoy moving the onus of the subject to Satellite Data.

2: Are you refuting the margin of error? Of course you aren't. The source is UK's Met Office.

Each year is an individual observation, and years can have different margins of error.

Also, you're linking to more people who have been busted in the past making false claims when it comes to climate science. Why read from such disreputable sources?

 

[werepossum]

It is kind of amusing how he chose 1970 as the starting point so he wouldn't have to include the cooling trend of the decades preceding 1970.

By far the most important class in the climate studies curricula appears to be "Selective graphing 101".

Ah, "so I have nothing constructive to add so I am going to hide behind what I have been told is the majority scientific opinion". That is your position it appears.

In actuality, better than 97% of all scientists and others engaged in climate study do in fact agree the climate is changing, that there has been a warming trend since the end of the LIA and that man has some affect on the warming due to release of CO2 and other GHGs.

All of whom you may consider "deniers", including me, that I follow via their published papers and blogs if any, ALL support some man effect on warming. ALL

So where do we go from here?

I think the bolded is noncontroversial and just common sense. Let's call that Step 1. My problem is not with Step 1. My problem is with:
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Catastrophe!

At some concentration of atmospheric CO2, it becomes a growth inhibitor as plants must spend energy removing CO2. We aren't so far from that point for some plants as to make it wholly ignorable. High CO2 also has other bad effects such as increased rain acidification, leading to fresh water acidification and increased erosion. So common sense measures to reduce CO2 output and increase atmospheric CO2 removal make sense.

I know you like reading up on this stuff, so I am hoping you can give me an answer:

I keep wondering how we can compare the super accurate temperatures we currently collect with the temps collected back in the 1800s and early 1900s. If the separation is only 1 degree, is it possible that degree comes from us more accurately measuring temperature rather than an actual increase in termp?

I really hope you can help me with this. It seems like a huge variable and I honestly don't know if its been addressed.

Personally I think that's a huge part of it, and not just measurement inaccuracies but subsequent revisions. Look at all the NASA "corrections" dropping temperatures recorded decades ago.

 

[dphantom]

Here is the link I referred to earlier about raw versus adjusted data. An excellent read. Especially follow up on the comments and see the debate. Mosher et al make a case where the adjustments made to raw surface data do not - globally - make a difference.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/#more-17768

"In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it’s possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it’s possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It’s minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out."

 

[dphantom]

So with all that said, and all the possible issues with surface measurement data, I look to the satellite record for the definitive measurement of surface temperature and ARGO data for ocean temps.

Neither record is yet long enough to see climatic variations (over 60/100/millennial periods) but our measurements today using those systems are the best we have ever had.

 

[Jaskalas]

Each year is an individual observation, and years can have different margins of error.

Also, you're linking to more people who have been busted in the past making false claims when it comes to climate science. Why read from such disreputable sources?

Are you trying to distract from HadCRUT4's range of uncertainty by focusing on the source of the charts that I link? Yes.. for "some reason" the warmists don't like to showcase the data that disputes them. The easiest source for linkable images to make my case, are skeptics.

The point stands that counting individual years in hundredths of a degree is a nonstarter, and that satellite data continues to diverge from surface stations.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you trying to distract from HadCRUT4's range of uncertainty by focusing on the source of the charts that I link? Yes.. for "some reason" the warmists don't like to showcase the data that disputes them. The easiest source for linkable images to make my case, are skeptics.

You misspelled 'deniers', haha. The 'warmists' are scientists, and they are in fact the source for all this data. If it weren't for the 'warmists' you wouldn't have any images to post at all.

Both Watts and Goddard are well known for posting deliberately deceptive content. I'm not sure why you would keep going back to someone for information when they are known to have lied in the past.

The point stands that counting individual years in hundredths of a degree is a nonstarter, and that satellite data continues to diverge from surface stations.

Not really. There are multiple datasets for temperatures for each year and they are all measured on the same scale. It's possible from various error terms that last year wasn't the hottest in history, but it's the most likely answer.

 

[HomerJS]

0.07°F?


Won't someone think of the children!?!?!?!

Every fly a plane? What do you think would happen when programming in compass heading you entered 310 vs 310.5 and the response is "its only 1/2 degree what's the big deal"?

Don't focus on the pure number while you may thing its not significant may have significant ramifications.

 

[jhbball]

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically incapable of explaining their thinking and resort to personal attacks rather than stating facts.

Is it amazing? You're literally bringing nothing to a scientific discussion, other than gut-feelings about global warming being true or false.

 

[rudeguy]

Is it amazing? You're literally bringing nothing to a scientific discussion, other than gut-feelings about global warming being true or false.

Please show where I posted my gut-feelings true or false.

 

[dphantom]

Every fly a plane? What do you think would happen when programming in compass heading you entered 310 vs 310.5 and the response is "its only 1/2 degree what's the big deal"?

Don't focus on the pure number while you may thing its not significant may have significant ramifications.

First of all you, missed a decimal point so you are off by a factor of 10 in your example.

Second, we know with certainty what happens when an airplane departs from its path. It ends up someplace it did not intend to go.

For climate, and you agree based on your own statement, a .07 change in temperature MAY be significant. That also means it MAY not be significant. In other words trying to use your analogy, changing the climate course by some currently small amount may or may not have an effect. The larger the change, the larger the likelihood of some effect probably trending towards the worse.

But that would be true of cooling as well and I would argue a world 2C cooler than today is one much worse than 2C warmer. We can look at the historical record for the implications of both.

 

[blastingcap]

I feel like this thread is full of people who are arguing the wrong thing. I personally do not give a damn about CO2, but I do give a damn about energy. And folks it is getting so much harder to get cheap energy that we are desperate enough to drill underwater, break down shale, etc. Oil cost between 10 and 20 dollars per barrel for most of the 1980s and 1990s; now it's 50 and people think it's cheap? No it's not cheap, it's vastly more expensive, and even 50 won't last long as it's too low relative to the cost of producing the last (marginal) barrel of oil in global supply.

Therefore even if CO2 were not a problem at all, you STILL need to go to renewables because the world economy is way too dependent on fossil fuels, which do eventually get scarcer and scarcer as we're seeing before our eyes. You get a 3-for-1 benefit from switching to renewables: lower energy prices so we don't spend so much money on freaking electricity bills and gasoline every week, lower CO2 just in case it's a problem, and hurting people like Iran's leadership which sponsors terrorism worldwide. Most of the top oil producers are unfriendly regimes like Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia (in theory we're friends but in practice their subsidizing hardcore Islam has lead to much more conservatism in the Muslim world over the last several decades), etc.

Even if we manage to switch to renewables faster than the slothlike pace we're on now (look at the % share of renewables globally or even nationally and it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to coal/oil/gas and that's been true despite all the news you hear about how we're allegedly switching to renewables that quickly... we're NOT!), the ultimate problem is overpopulation. But nobody wants to touch that politically so you have to attack it indirectly like promoting women's education in areas where women breed like rabbits. (More edu leads to lower birthrate.) A lot of those "breeder" countries are jihadi factories so the sooner we shut those down via education, the better. You get a 2-for-1 benefit from increasing female education in those countries: the actual benefit of education, plus the side benefit of breeding fewer jihadis. Do you guys realize that a global population growth rate of only 1% still means a DOUBLING of population every 72 years? We're currently at 1.14%?

So WAKE UP people, it's not about "climate change." It's about switching to renewables and lowering population growth because we have to. If you don't give a shit about temperature rise--I know I don't, due to the overdue ice age--you should give a shit about switching out of fossil fuels ANYWAY for the reasons stated above (and some others I won't get into here). We'd HAVE to switch away from nonrenewables (coal/oil/gas) even if climate change didn't exist.

 

[dphantom]

Is it amazing? You're literally bringing nothing to a scientific discussion, other than gut-feelings about global warming being true or false.

Amazingly you don't bring anything to the discussion. How weird is that.

 

[dphantom]

so you have to attack it indirectly like promoting women's education in areas where women breed like rabbits. (More edu leads to lower birthrate.) Some of those rabbits also turn into jihadis so you get a 2-for-1 benefit from increasing female education in those countries.

actually, you get a lower birthrate as the wealth level of a country rises. As wealth increases, health and education become better and more widespread. Wealth comes from the application of energy to production.