2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record (Depending on Who You Ask)

Now that some official tallies for 2014’s global temperature are starting to roll in, you can expect the usual crapstorm of bickering to ramp up. That’s because 2014 just went down as the warmest year ever recorded, at least according to ground based observations. So far only the Japanese Meteorological Agency is reporting it:

2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record

But you can expect the other 3 major data centers - Hadley, NASA and NOAA - to check in with similar results, since they were declaring it a virtual certainty in late 2014.

Where the bickering will ensue is the fact that satellite data doesn’t fully add up to the same result. There are two major satellite records - UAH and RSS. UAH (which is run by two very prominent global warming skeptics) just declared 2014 as “only” the 3rd warmest year on record, and they were very eager to point out it was just that by a hair:

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

So the result is now you are going to have more obnoxious prattling between global warming skeptics and proponents about whose record is more legit. The fact is both systems have their own benefits and shortcomings, and it actually makes for a pretty interesting discussion, but none of that will happen since this will inevitably just devolve into more “my dad can beat up your dad” schoolyard nonsense.

I’m posting this then to get ahead of the game and remind everyone how utterly irrelevant it all is.

The fact is the two datasets are still broadly consistent with each other over the long term, which is what really matters, and both show a very distinct warming trend.

Here’s JMA:




Here’s UAH:



It’s interesting to see though UAH trying to even rationalize their own data away by claiming that the last 13 years show a “statistically insignificant” trend (in keeping with the notorious “there’s been no warming since [insert cherry pick here]” meme). All you have to do is look at their very own graph in its FULL context, observing for example the steadily increasing maxima and minima over the last 35 years, to witness how intellectually dishonest this kind of claim actually is.

So whether 2014 is a record breaker or not really has no bearing on the bigger picture. Within these graphs you can see all sorts of natural variability from year to year. But it is that subtle yet steady long term trend where the influence of greenhouse emissions consistently resides.

The other interesting thing about 2014 though is that this was an ENSO-neutral year, so even if it was "only 3rd" in the satellite record, that still makes it the warmest non-El Nino record we’ve experienced. There is a new narrative emerging in the global warming dialogue that the oceans are largely buffering our induced warming (which is true since water has a much higher heat capacity than air), but that buffer is short-lived since the energy is eventually oversaturated like a buildup of gas, and “belched” out again. Here's a complex climate model representation:



2014’s exceptional warmth was largely driven by record ocean temps, but it is during significant El Ninos where we may actually see the development of periodic “new normals” in this process. Currently there is an El Nino developing for 2015.

It’s going to be a very interesting year. So look past all the petty bickering and keep your eyes on the bigger picture. Time will tell.

Thanks for the thread. I think it worth pointing out that satellite measurements are somewhat inaccurate. See, for example, the past divergence between UAH and RSS.

I know they have been touted in the past - and they are great in certain respects - but accuracy is a problem.

a reply to: Greven

Absolutely. Satellites of course don't measure temperature directly, but infer it from other methods, and calibration of that process is notoriously sketchy and complicated. As I mentioned above it's actually a very interesting discussion, but one that will likely lead to little more than another climate pissing contest here, so I steered clear of it

Every one should also remember that the temperature has been increasing steadily for the last 10,000 years so anything else would be very surprising.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
Every one should also remember that the temperature has been increasing steadily for the last 10,000 years so anything else would be very surprising.

P

That is what happens when an ice age ends...glaciers melt the temp rises etc....

Much better warm than cold, crops like warm and hate cold, as well as all life for the most part.

In TN we had a fairly mild summer. I didn't mind it at all.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Every one should also remember that the temperature has been increasing steadily for the last 10,000 years so anything else would be very surprising.

P

I was waiting for this response…2nd post in…woohooo!

Any time you start a thread about climate change you can absolutely count on one thing: someone inevitably pointing out “climate changes all the time, it was warmer xxx years ago, it’s been warming since xxx”, etc.

But the fact is all of that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because it does nothing to undermine the root basis for man made global warming, which is the proven and well-understood mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

Most skeptics seem to be very confused about this and still think the whole theory came about instead because someone noticed the climate was changing, so they just cooked up some fancy computer model to blame it on people after the fact.

The truth however is that the theory was formulated over 100 years ago. It predicted this would happen without a single computer to work with, and that prediction is validated by the exceptional warming we've seen over the last century since:



This is the scientific method in action, and that’s what makes it so robust, and frankly a much better approach than “meh, I dunno, it’s probably just natural…” And hey, before you tell me the hockey stick graph is a big hoax because some denier blog says so, please explain that to the National Academy of Sciences, who published this 150+ page report in response to the supposed controversy, verifying the result through numerous independent studies and data sets around the world. There is indeed no hockey stick - there is actually a whole hockey team:



So you're right about one thing - it's not surprising, because scientists completely predicted it. But every one else conveniently ignores that little fact so they can just continue pretending it's nothing unusual.

a reply to: mc_squared

Temp has been rising for 10,000 years.

It is a cycle.

Stop listening to the MSM.



P

Anyway, judging from the rest of the responses in this thread, it looks like since 2014 is now officially the warmest year on record - we're all going to move from the "it's not happening" meme to the "it's actually a good thing" spiel.

This is particularly hilarious considering the one comment from the Scientific American article I linked to in the OP:

Ok guys - forget the 'Global warming magicaly stopped in October 1998" meme and switch to the "Global warming is a good thing" meme or "The scientists have faked the data" meme.
Got that?

Arguing with climate skeptics is like playing whack-a-mole, but man do they ever run on one predictable algorithm.

a reply to: pheonix358

I don't listen to the MSM - I've been researching this topic both academically and personally for years. There is no comprehensive global data set that shows temps rising for the last 10,000 years. Your graph shows nothing of the sort. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago and temperatures have been relatively stable ever since, if anything cooling slightly, until the last century of course.

Stop making stuff up.

www.geocraft.com...

I consider the above to be more true than any model of "global wariming".

Read it all.

Global warming is a fad and a "false" argument based on skewed data over a very short time line.

Charts and graphs are one thing but how about this?

'Some corn still not ripe' The conditions bode ill for further strong progress in the US corn harvest, which US Department of Agriculture data overnight showed had made good strides last week, with farmers gathering 15% of their crop. That took the harvest to 80% complete, catching up with the average pace for the first time this season, after a start delayed by wet weather and the late development of the corn crop, a reflection of a slow spring harvesting season and a cool summer. "The summer was exceptionally cool, increasing the yield potential in corn but also retarding maturity," Ms Martell said. "Corn still not ripe, a week behind schedule, is mainly in Iowa and South Dakota, while corn in Wisconsin, Michigan and North Dakota is at 10-14 days delayed."

www.agrimoney.com...

Hundreds of Agri sites are all saying it was a cold wet growing season, not hard to get in touch with the actual farmers and get their opinions instead of some scientist whom is paid to say what he is paid for:-).

Regards, Iwinder

I currently have 2 FEET of snow in my backyard that is screaming "not so much"! 2 FEET of snow... with another foot predicted for this weekend... no warming here...

a reply to: madmac5150

Well that settles the debate then: clearly this data from all over the world + orbiting satellites must be invalid somehow, because you have snow in your backyard in January.

Thanks for clearing things up

a reply to: mc_squared

clearly this data from all over the world + orbiting satellites must be invalid somehow

It is!

Ever since Global Warming became a multi-billion dollar industry data has been skewed and bastardized by scientists who whore themselves for the likes of Al Gore and his cronies.

All of the principal data prior to 1995 shows the cycles clearly and precisely.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Lol and there you have it.

Let me *ahem* quote that comment from the Scientific American article one more time:

Ok guys - forget the 'Global warming magicaly stopped in October 1998" meme and switch to the "Global warming is a good thing" meme or "The scientists have faked the data" meme.
Got that?

Looks like we’re 2 for 2.




Edit to add: one of the data sets used in the OP is from two of the most notoriously outspoken global warming SKEPTICS in climate science.

a reply to: Iwinder
a reply to: madmac5150

Why yes, it was cold in some parts of the U.S. this year. It was mostly the opposite elsewhere:

There is a great big world out there beyond your local area.

a reply to: mc_squared

The good news here is that no matter who is right, we are all going to die. It might be in a Noah-esq flood because all the ice melted and the polar bears are pissed, or we might just burn up into small piles of ash after spontaneous combustion due to excessive heat. Or.....global temps might even out. But I am sure if they even out, it will be because of all out "efforts" to solve the big AGW disaster. (But then again, if we all die, it will be because we did nothing about the big AGW disaster.)

Funny how the pissing contest humor goes both ways.

(in the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think. Until you can convince the 1% who $urvive from Oil profits that we need to use a less toxic fuel, nothing will change)

Whack away sport!

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Iwinder
a reply to: madmac5150

Why yes, it was cold in some parts of the U.S. this year. It was mostly the opposite elsewhere:

There is a great big world out there beyond your local area.

You are correct my friend their is indeed a great big world out there beyond my local area. Now If you study the map you so kindly posted please look at North America if you choose to. That is a heck of a lot of blue over the "Bread Basket" of the world.
A majority of countries rely on bread for substance, but yet most wheat and grains are grown in North America and exported overseas.

I recall reading about the USA actually importing wheat or if not that at least they stopped exporting wheat and other grains. I could not find a link for that but there is this link which I think explains my concerns.

· The bulk of the world’s wheat production (80 percent) is located in North America (United States and Canada), Argentina, Europe (EC, CEEC, Russia), China, India, Australia and North Africa. For maize, the same share of world production is concentrated in a smaller number of countries, i.e. the United States, Europe (EC, CEEC), Argentina, Brazil and China. The United States alone accounts for 40 percent of the world’s maize output. Other grain production is more widespread around the world.

www.fao.org...

Regards, Iwinder

in regards to climate emissions, i've always stated the increase in human population, results in more deforestation, which means more carbon in the atmosphere. More people, need more food equals more livestocks.