NOAA: 2014 is shaping up as hottest year on record[W:199]

NOAA: 2014 is shaping up as hottest year on record

The first ten months of 2014 have been the hottest since record keeping began more than 130 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That may be hard to believe for people in places like Buffalo, New York, which saw a record early snowfall this year.

But NOAA says, despite the early bitter cold across parts of the United States in recent weeks, it's been a hot year so far for the Earth.

Click to expand...

This October was the hottest October on record globally, NOAA data showed. The mercury climbed more than one degree Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 57.1 F.
It was the fourth warmest October on record for the United States, NOAA said.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Just a little something to foster debate on the forum :argue



Then we have yet one more reason, too many Americans don't believe the science


"See, I told you warmists - it's not getting any hotter, in fact temperatures have dropped slightly." say far too many clueless folks who for some reason think their personal experience is good for the whole world.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

Just a little something to foster debate on the forum :argue



Then we have yet one more reason, too many Americans don't believe the science


"See, I told you warmists - it's not getting any hotter, in fact temperatures have dropped slightly." say far too many clueless folks who for some reason think their personal experience is good for the whole world.

Click to expand...

IDNeon said:

Personal anecdote, I've lived in the mountains for 30 years. And every year the "snow line" has gone up in elevation so that now, our valley no longer receives snow in the winter but receives rain.

For the last decade we have had snow in the valley only 2 years of that decade.

We used to get 10 foot snow drifts...have snow days for school, have the city shut down by snow.

Haven't had a snow day in...almost 20 years? At least 15 years.

Now what could cause the snow line to rise, except atmospheric temperature?

What caused this snow line to rise?

Click to expand...

WCH said:

This doesn't include the last two years but those records in the 20s and 30s still stand.

Click to expand...

IDNeon said:

Personal anecdote, I've lived in the mountains for 30 years. And every year the "snow line" has gone up in elevation so that now, our valley no longer receives snow in the winter but receives rain.

For the last decade we have had snow in the valley only 2 years of that decade.

We used to get 10 foot snow drifts...have snow days for school, have the city shut down by snow.

Haven't had a snow day in...almost 20 years? At least 15 years.

Now what could cause the snow line to rise, except atmospheric temperature?

What caused this snow line to rise?

Click to expand...

Secondly, temperature changes with altitude. The impacts of a warmer climate are
different for different elevations. Areas at the snow line or freezing line will be af-
fected particularly heavily, as they might undergo a shift from mainly snow-covered
to mainly snow-free. For example, every degree Celsius increase in temperature will
cause the snow line to rise on average by about 150 m, and even more at lower el-
evations. In such regions precipitation will change from snow to rain. The decrease
in snow cover will lead to an above-average warming of mountains, because snow-
free surfaces absorb much more radiation than snow-covered surfaces.

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Well, for one, those mountains aren't the same place on the globe as they were 30 years ago. The plates are moving and they may be located in a place where 40 feet to the west or south makes a difference. There's probably a whole lot more blacktop in the area than there was 30 years ago, blacktop collects and reflects heat pushing weather higher up the mountain (that's what happens when warm wind strike a mountain range). Could be your memory isn't what it used to be, Have you checked old Almanacs going back thirty years to see what actually happened?

Click to expand...

Baralis said:

Let us assume that GW is real and that man plays a significant role. Why should I care?

I know that question may seem harsh but I honestly wish to know why I should really be concerned about it. Being on the latter half of my life what changes may happen that will significantly affect me personally?

If that seems a bit selfish than you would be correct. I have very little sympathy when it comes to humans. We are the most destructive force on the planet that by large could care less what our behavior does to other species or the planet. GW's possible affects personally bothers me more because of what it may mean for other life on the planet that played no part than I am about humans. As far as I am concerned if GW causes mankind great hardship or extinction it would be just what we asked for. We (most) totally disregard other life in our day to day, we do not even consider them we are so self absorbed. Why do we deserve anything better than self annihilation?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Your fatalist views aside, you should care for the same reason you should care whether a water resource is poisoned. Not only does it affect your generation, it affects the next. I care about what I'll leave for my kids and their kids. The fact that human beings through hunting and fishing with stone age weaponry managed to wipe out entire species and food chains makes our effects on the planet something which should not be disregarded. We've already destroyed entire ecosystems by building cities. Why is it so hard for people to consider that our rapid industrial expansion over the last 100 years could have negative effects on the planet?

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

The Democrats. ..." Climate Change is real and Man is causing it "..

" The worlds going to end but we can fix it ! "

" Just pay us ....."

Sorry, the left lost all credibility when they pushed this narrative and the promised they could fix it if only we gave thsm more power and money.

The NOAA got busted fudging Temperaturerature data and so did the Australian Meteorology Bureau.

No reasonable person believes the crap they put out anymore concerning climate change.

Click to expand...

Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.

As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country gathered temperature information over the decades.

Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.

"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time."

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Please stop repeating nonsense. Thanks:

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

You have no idea what it is your'e talking about, do you ??

NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012 - NaturalNews.com

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

Click to expand...

The report was not a review of the climate data itself. It joins a series of investigations by the British House of Commons, Pennsylvania State University, the InterAcademy Council and the National Research Council into the leaked e-mails that have exonerated the scientists involved of scientific wrongdoing.

NOAA welcomed the report, saying that it emphasized the soundness of its scientific procedures and the peer review process. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science,” Mary Glackin, the agency’s deputy undersecretary for operations, said in a statement.

Click to expand...

...while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case.

“Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn’t paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91’s to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here: New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

About half the warming in the USA is due to adjustments. We' received a lot of criticism for that paper, and we’ve spent two years reworking it and dealing with those criticisms. Our results are unchanged and will be published soon.

Click to expand...

Goddard made two major errors in his analysis, which produced results showing a large bias due to infilling that doesn’t really exist. First, he is simply averaging absolute temperatures rather than using anomalies. Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time. If the composition does change, you will often find that stations dropping out will result in climatological biases in the network due to differences in elevation and average temperatures that don’t necessarily reflect any real information on month-to-month or year-to-year variability. Lucia covered this well a few years back with a toy model, so I’d suggest people who are still confused about the subject to consult her spherical cow.

His second error is to not use any form of spatial weighting (e.g. gridding) when combining station records. While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

You didn't even read the link I provided did you? This nonsense has already been addressed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=0



As far as Goddard's claims, they've already been addressed for being nonsense:

Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000? - Hit & Run : Reason.com





Why are you still repeating nonsense? Are you fond of conspiracy theories?

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Yea I read it and its just revisionistic crap.

Click to expand...

Baralis said:

Let us assume that GW is real and that man plays a significant role. Why should I care?

I know that question may seem harsh but I honestly wish to know why I should really be concerned about it. Being on the latter half of my life what changes may happen that will significantly affect me personally?

If that seems a bit selfish than you would be correct. I have very little sympathy when it comes to humans. We are the most destructive force on the planet that by large could care less what our behavior does to other species or the planet. GW's possible affects personally bothers me more because of what it may mean for other life on the planet that played no part than I am about humans. As far as I am concerned if GW causes mankind great hardship or extinction it would be just what we asked for. We (most) totally disregard other life in our day to day, we do not even consider them we are so self absorbed. Why do we deserve anything better than self annihilation?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Revisionist? They pointed out that the person who 'caught' NOAA's fudging was not only ignorant of how the data was collected but why it was adjusted to begin with. That you're still regurgitating nonsense is your problem.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

One more time.

Lets see if you can answer my question this time.

If NOAAs process was legitimate, WHY DID THE NOAA REVISE THEIR ASSERTIONS?

Click to expand...

First, the database update was no secret. NOAA previewed the changes years in advance by publishing descriptions of its methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The government agency also announced the new data set through public statements, and created a tool for users to compare and contrast temperatures from before and after the update. NOAA also makes its data and computer code available for anyone who wants to check the numbers. The new data set is called nClimDiv, and you can find more information about it on NOAA's National Climatic Data Center website.

Second, NOAA never changes the actual temperatures that were so carefully recorded over the decades. But it's no simple task to compare the present with the past. Methods of measuring temperature have changed markedly over the past century. The database tweaks are meant to make the comparisons between modern and obsolete technology more accurate.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

LOL !!!

They're about as credible as a Used Car Salesman after the were busted for FRAUD !!

You remember, don't you ??

Fudging temperature data so the y could perpetuate the false narrative of " global warming " ??

Sorry NOAAA. You sold out any semblance of credibility when you got in bed with the Progressive agenda.

Click to expand...

WCH said:

This doesn't include the last two years but those records in the 20s and 30s still stand.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

Because everyone knows the US is the world. It's reeel big!

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

LOL...and your proof of this outrageous claim is what????

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

It think its because you find the Truth "Inconvenient" and often enjoy being out of step of 97% of the experts.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

Even the Pentagon thinks you are all wet.

Pentagon Warns Climate Change Will Intensify Conflict - Bloomberg

Go ahead and stick your head back in the sand.... it simply highlights your best feature...

View attachment 67176661

Click to expand...