2014 Worldwide hottest year on record

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

Scientific proof: every year we get worse at reading the thermometer!
 
metalman said:
After "data correction" Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have all occurred in the 21st century

every year we get worse at reading the thermometer!
Click to expand...
So you prefer the John Christy satellite date as it puts 2014 not first but third?

Really this is the easy try to poke holes but don't do their own work approach. Temperature stations around the world and the satellites are public record. People that disbelieve in meterology can get this data first hand, unadulterated, and create their own models and describe why this isn't true. Afterall, there is a few dozen models out there. Seems to me since we don't have 1 we clearly are still working on better understanding. Another model would be more work but would indicate that the Anti-GWs had something other than 'you're wrong nanabooboo'.

Flashing back to John Christy. He's been anti-global warming and did the honorable thing by stepping up to the plate and building that model and using the data himself. Anti-GW activists loved him for a while. That was until Christy's work was showing the same problem at a slightly slower pace.
 
Flashback to MN last year. Coldest winter in about 18 years.

NOAA predicted this winter would be warmer than average with more snow. About Mid Winter (Dec-Feb) so are they are doing so far? December in MN was a bit more than 5 degrees above average. Jan, currently, is about 2.8 degrees under average. Short range forecast backs something close to that. So, we'll see if that happens. Snow is below average. Feb and March tend to be our snowiest months so we'll see if Feb makes up the differences.

This morning the weather reporter said we've had 15 consecutive days of 20 degrees or more above the average temperature.
 
Last edited:
@metalman - Here's a bit on how this is collected and handled. Including some light talk about 'correction'. http://www.wired.com/2015/01/know-2014-hottest-year/

I think the idea of correcting is fair. If say your town has two thermometers and they're a couple of miles apart do we weigh both measures equally in the total of all thermometers. Or do we do some sort of averaging between the two then use that data point. We have varying distances, varying elevations, and different climates (desert, vs tropical vs forested etc.) to deal with. I doubt one could come up with any unadjusted value and have that be an accurate representation of the planet as a whole. I will say the devil is in the details - are these adjustments fair, accurate, and consistent? It's a good question.

Though I go back to what I said before. The way to approach this is with science. The Anti-Global Warming crowd wants to throw out the data and claim 'no warming'. The problem is without data at all we have nothing to base a conclusion on. Instead the Anti-GW crowd should use the unadulterated data (the vast majority is open to anyone's access) and start building their own models. Then we can lay the anti-GW model against the Climatologist models and over time we can observe which does a better job of prediction. Heck, I'd argue it may make the existing models better. (For example: If the anti-GW model makes much more accurate predictions of South America and the Climatologists model is much more accurate for North America perhaps a combined model would be net better worldwide.)

But really until I see some anti-gwers doing some actual work instead of armchair quarterbacking the game their arguments aren't motivating. Attacking the models and putting no work up of their own to prove they do it better is rather lame don't you think?
 
we will never see the reality deniers taking that data and doing anything with it for one simple fact: that would require effort and work and those assholes are lazy.
 
faethor said:
smart idiot effects, college educated tea partiers are less like to accept the science.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...rvatives-more-likely-deny-science-and-reality
Click to expand...

SMUG ALERT!!


better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.
Click to expand...

College Educated Democrats have Bachelor of Arts degrees
College Educated Republicans have Bachelor of Science degrees

So your saying that everyone must believe in Global Warming as religious dogma!
If you understand statistics and physics and doubt that Global Warming is man made, your a heretic!
 
Smug alert? Nah. I found it interesting and a bit amusing. Honesty, I'd like to see more studies done to see how deep College education impacts one's points of view.

metalman said:
College Educated Democrats have Bachelor of Arts degrees
College Educated Republicans have Bachelor of Science degrees

So your saying that everyone must believe in Global Warming as religious dogma!
If you understand statistics and physics and doubt that Global Warming is man made, your a heretic!
Click to expand...
While both parties have a fair number of each it's well known that Scientists are liberals. (Or that's what the anti-climatology crowd has been saying at least. ;)) The studies I've seen there's some truth to that. I think there's some logical sense there. Progressive want to know more, see things change, and well progress. Science is all about progressing our understanding. To be a conservative one tends to 'conserve' the status quo or, as we see, work backwards. For example, Conservatives don't progress beyond the ACA instead they tell us we're better off if we went backwards and just negate it. )

As for saying we must 'believe' in science is just silly. Science doesn't bend to anyone's beliefs it is what it is. So no science doesn't care that 46% of the nation believe in creationism and not evolution. Instead we say that those 46% are scientifically wrong. As great a scientist as Linus Pauling was his belief that vitamin C cured cancer didn't change the science to make it true. In the end he became his own scientific proof against his belief. Likewise CO2 absorbs and releases energy at a set rate even if Metalman doesn't like or doesn't believe it.
 
Which year is the Warmest?
which one the coldest?


image69.png


We are in an interglacial warm period, and temperatures have been pretty stable over the last 200 years
 
metalman said:
Which year is the Warmest?
which one the coldest?


image69.png
Click to expand...
Hard to say at this resolution but it looks like maybe 2004. Looks like a 2 to 3 degree increase from the cooler temps at the start of the 20th Century and now.
 
@metalman
Talking about statisticians and then throwing out a graph that any statisticians worth their weight in salt would puke on doesn't inspire confidence.

Trying to give you the benefit of doubt and pretending you wanted a more honest scale --- If you want a wider scale go back to the Little Ice Age, about 700 years, and you'll find we're about 2 degrees C warmer. If you want to go back to the last ice age, 11K years, the average temp drops about 12 degrees C from today. If you want to go back 300 million years to the age of dinosaurs the temp would go up about 12 degrees C from today. Any good statistician will quickly tell you the temp scale you provide here is wrong.
 
Last edited:
15 days of 20+ above average is taking a toll on the State's Ice Arenas. The outdoor rinks have started announcing closings. As of now there's no reopen schedule for most rinks. Supposedly we're supposed to be closer to but still above normal starting Sunday, around 12 degrees this time of year. If it stays for the week predicted it'll be cold enough to reflood (yeah I made that word up) the ice rinks and let the ice setup for skating.

Update: Talked to the Rink where my son has hockey. Their outdoor rink will not be reflooded but closed for the season. They usually keep the outside rink open till March. They said with the amount of warmth in Jan the rink is going to need to be started over. The amount of work and cost to start over again wouldn't be a fruitful endeavor. The rest of the year they'll make do with the indoor rinks.
 
Last edited:
Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow today (Groundhog Day). In relation to MN '6 more weeks of winter' weather conditions the accuracy of Phil is 39%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top