Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Funkthulhu

The numbers are in for 2014 and it's official...

Recommended Posts

DoomsDave

Oh yeah.

You're almost as warm as we are. (For now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Warmest in 135 years .

.... to bad I didn't see it....still trying to recover from the worst freeze in 30 years here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerarch

Eh, they seem to say that every year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJG

Weird, I thought it was hotter when the dinosaurs where here. Oh wait "on record". A blip on the radar.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

That makes no sense because its going to be 37 degrees tonight brrr... that must mean the earth is cooling ?!

I heard it on TV so it must be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

I didn't get below 32 for the entire calendar year of 2014. Dry year though.. It's time for some rain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dakotafl

I really don't see how its the warmest year on record...they say this every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerarch

I guess after being pressed, NASA says that they are 38% sure that it was the warmest on record. So.... I guess that makes it very official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

tl:dr

It's not the hottest year on record because they said last year was, also it was cold where I live so it can't be true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pando

Pretty soon I'll be able to grow C. renda I always wanted...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeyranch

ostrich.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerarch

tl:dr

It's not the hottest year on record because they said last year was, also it was cold where I live so it can't be true....

I knew that was coming, the rebuttal of all the extremely scientific rebuttals lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Warmest in 135 years .

.... to bad I didn't see it....still trying to recover from the worst freeze in 30 years here.

Amen on that one. And even on this warm year Mother Nature hit with a little venom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

2014 was .6 degrees warmer than 2013. Hope the trend continues so I don't have to move south!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

2014 was .6 degrees warmer than 2013. Hope the trend continues so I don't have to move south!

Actually, I'm worried that we'll drop down a zone. The additional energy in the atmosphere leads to average warming, but also destabilization of the polar vortex. It does me no good to be able to grow coconuts in my back yard "on average" if i'm also guaranteed a -20F freeze a couple times a year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
njoasis

But the Winter of 2013-2014 really was abnormally COLD in the Midwest, and North/South East of the USA. (Once again, we ARE special.)

So, like,....who cares about the rest of the planet. G-d once again, blessing America, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose
On 1/16/2015, 9:53:47, LJG said:

Weird, I thought it was hotter when the dinosaurs where here. Oh wait "on record". A blip on the radar.

It also rained everyday for 10,000 years, even in California.

Curious how 2015 ranked for warmth " on record"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Coconut Palm
On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2015‎ ‎7‎:‎12‎:‎29‎, Dakotafl said:

I really don't see how its the warmest year on record...they say this every year.

That's because each year with the rapid progression of climate change, we keep breaking new records.  2015 just went down as the HOTTEST year on record worldwide, and our oceans are heating up and acidifying too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Coconut Palm
On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016‎ ‎1‎:‎42‎:‎06‎, Moose said:

It also rained everyday for 10,000 years, even in California.

Curious how 2015 ranked for warmth " on record"

Set a new HOTTEST year on record.  We just keep breaking them yearly now with the rapid progression of climate change.  Also, this past Dec. was the warmest Dec. ever recorded in the lower 48 states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
14 hours ago, Mr. Coconut Palm said:

Set a new HOTTEST year on record.  We just keep breaking them yearly now with the rapid progression of climate change.  Also, this past Dec. was the warmest Dec. ever recorded in the lower 48 states.

If your blaming man made co2 be careful saying "rapid progression". All scientists agree on both sides of the argument that co2s impact diminishes  as its concentration increases. Meaning that as more co2 gets released its effect is less and less ppm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Coconut Palm

I thought it was the other way around, that as the level of CO2 increases, the effects also increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
2 hours ago, Mr. Coconut Palm said:

I thought it was the other way around, that as the level of CO2 increases, the effects also increase.

No. Each co2 Molecule that gets into the atmosphere has less impact as the previous. You can look it up. It's not an opinion it's a fact that's been lab proven and all climate scientists won't argue against this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Coconut Palm
1 hour ago, Stevetoad said:

No. Each co2 Molecule that gets into the atmosphere has less impact as the previous. You can look it up. It's not an opinion it's a fact that's been lab proven and all climate scientists won't argue against this. 

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
2 hours ago, Mr. Coconut Palm said:

Interesting.

Keep digging it gets better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu
19 hours ago, Stevetoad said:

No. Each co2 Molecule that gets into the atmosphere has less impact as the previous. You can look it up. It's not an opinion it's a fact that's been lab proven and all climate scientists won't argue against this. 

You're absolutely correct from a purely statistical viewpoint.

That last drop of water in your windpipe doesn't drown you nearly as much as the lungfull you already have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
20 minutes ago, Funkthulhu said:

You're absolutely correct from a purely statistical viewpoint.

That last drop of water in your windpipe doesn't drown you nearly as much as the lungfull you already have...

Your making the assumption that a sligh amount of man made co2 is comparable to drowning. So if you believe that the fraction of a degree is catastrophic and deadly I would be have to argue that the burning of fossil fuels is far more helpful to human life and that taking it away would be catastrophic to human life. Image a world where we have no reliable energy to give us clean water,transport goods, create plastics, fertilizers, tractors to grow crops, deliver-create and refrigerate life saving medicines. Take away fossil fuels to take away some co2 would mean an unlivable planet for many many people. It's common for us in the DEVELOPED world to live into our 80s and 90s but in the third worlds where we say they have a moral obligation to NOT use coal and oil for energy they're lucky to see 40 and have a massive new born death rate compared to our less than 1%. I think it's disgusting  that we hold these people back from living an enjoyable life. But maybe I'm nuts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

I'm glad to see you've evolved from "global warming isn't real", to "Okay, it's real, but anthropogenic warming is a myth", and finally to "Okay, fine, it's real, but we should still be allowed to burn hydrocarbons because of reasons and those reasons make you evil if you don't let us."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
40 minutes ago, Funkthulhu said:

I'm glad to see you've evolved from "global warming isn't real", to "Okay, it's real, but anthropogenic warming is a myth", and finally to "Okay, fine, it's real, but we should still be allowed to burn hydrocarbons because of reasons and those reasons make you evil if you don't let us."

I've always known that the earth is warming. If it wasn't we would still be rolling around with mastodons. How much is man made im highly skeptical of. Look at all the predictions from the 70s and even the models from the 90s and early 2000s. Pretty bad track record. And when "authorities" are basing there predictions on failed models how can you hold any faith in the predictions. 

More so I find it crazy that we are so willing to hold people back from using a cheap plentiful form of energy without solid proven predictions and what danger has come from it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Every anti-anthropogenic global warming sceptic keeps hauling out that old, flawed, "coming ice-age" theory from the '70's that was pushed by a couple guys who were wrong and vastly outnumbered back then.  All because it was in Time magazine, a publication known for its peer-reviewed scientific integrity...  As if a few articles from 4 decades ago means all science now is somehow completely wrong.

As to your "hold people back", I present this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging  

There are very few landlines in Africa, most all use cellphone tech instead.  The same could be true for energy production.  Get your solar and wind generation up and working and you won't be holding anybody back, and you're not burning hydrocarbons either.  You've "leapfrogged" over the power-technology that got us to 400ppm CO2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
52 minutes ago, Funkthulhu said:

Every anti-anthropogenic global warming sceptic keeps hauling out that old, flawed, "coming ice-age" theory from the '70's that was pushed by a couple guys who were wrong and vastly outnumbered back then.  All because it was in Time magazine, a publication known for its peer-reviewed scientific integrity...  As if a few articles from 4 decades ago means all science now is somehow completely wrong.

As to your "hold people back", I present this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging  

There are very few landlines in Africa, most all use cellphone tech instead.  The same could be true for energy production.  Get your solar and wind generation up and working and you won't be holding anybody back, and you're not burning hydrocarbons either.  You've "leapfrogged" over the power-technology that got us to 400ppm CO2...

sorry Funk but im not just talking about "old, flawed" models. im talking about the one the government based rules and regs on. 36 out of 38 have failed amazingly. lets not forget that tomorrow is Al Gores "dooms day" so we should all be swimming in melted ice caps.

Quote"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

 

as for wind and solar EVERY wind and solar power plant must be backed up by fossil fuels. none of them are reliable or cheap. I don't know how familiar you are with how a power grid works but the problem with a oil or coal back up is that when solar or wind is operating at peak performance at that exact moment you have to practically shut down the back up. at any moment wind can stop or slow and you have to drastically ramp up the oil or coal back up. very much like turning off you r cars engine and then turning it back on and flooring it this is a very inefficient way to make power. \

If this was just a Co2 thing then why are all the GW loud mouths even against fusion energy? no Co2 and extremely clean. most of the big talking heads are what I would call "anti human" and many have said they "wish the right virus would come along" and that cheap, clean and safe energy would be the biggest disaster on our planet. so if you are anti human then I cant reason with you but if you hold the humans existence as a high priority then I would strongly urge you to look deeper into this topic. like the Buddha says " question everything"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
52 minutes ago, Stevetoad said:

 

If this was just a Co2 thing then why are all the GW loud mouths even against fusion energy? 

 

Can you provide examples? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
2 hours ago, Zeeth said:

Can you provide examples? 

Paul Ehrlich on fusion "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,"

Jeremy Rifkin on fusion, "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet."

John Holdren on fusion  "Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would let the planet support many more people than its current population of 5.2 billion."

David M Graber environment  "Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature,some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along

Prince Philip on population "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
28 minutes ago, Stevetoad said:

Paul Ehrlich on fusion "like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,"

Jeremy Rifkin on fusion, "It's the worst thing that could happen to our planet."

John Holdren on fusion  "Worst of all to some observers, its cheap inexhaustible energy would let the planet support many more people than its current population of 5.2 billion."

David M Graber environment  "Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature,some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along

Prince Philip on population "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

 

None of those people are climate scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
1 hour ago, Zeeth said:

None of those people are climate scientists.

Correct but they are some of the top "experts" on global warming. Paul Ehrlich is one of the top of not the number one climate change speakers in the world and John Holdren is obamas senior advisor of science and technology. But I wouldn't listen to them either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorCalKing
On January 16, 2015 at 12:51:56 PM, Funkthulhu said:

Global Average Annual Temperature is Warmest on Record.

 

On a mostly unrelated note, I am sitting in my office in Nebraska in shorts in mid-January because it's 60F out. Looking forward to a magnificent weekend!

Hmm, looking at next Thursday: Omaha, NE shows 13f for the "high" with an overnight low of "7f" how's that warm up working out? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silas_Sancona

.. It has been said that people can be led to believe anything..

Have a Hummer?.. it'll make it through 4 feet of water in a raging flash flood, ..i promicee; Big blue sea eroding the cliff below your Apartment?, heck, i'll stay anyway. That slab of concrete below the 1st floor will divert any further erosion. Crazy " Bat Boy"-style newspaper reports it?.. Vote in favor of a moratorium on any further/future solar installations because, by gosh.. 'them solar panels will consume all of the sun's energy, and kill all the plants, 'teacher said so.  Seriously,...

Being on this planet 40 and a half years, i have no doubt that part of a post- glacial warming world is indeed natural.. i also won't deny that i play a part, and seek to find better ways to find balance. Oil won't last forever but the sun always shines.. Technology will catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
8 hours ago, Stevetoad said:

Correct but they are some of the top "experts" on global warming. Paul Ehrlich is one of the top of not the number one climate change speakers in the world and John Holdren is obamas senior advisor of science and technology. But I wouldn't listen to them either. 

Care to find the original source for the quotes? It's a funny thing how quotes can be taken out of context.

"I'm not saying I hate jews. I find their culture interesting, and they have some of the highest concentration of nobel prize scientists of any group"

can turn into:

"I hate jews"

 

When I google the quotes, I am only led to websites run by conservative think-tanks, which makes me think that they might be less than honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

Hey look, I found some of the original quotes, and they were horribly taken out of context, how funny.

 

"Stanford's Paul Ehrlich says he has no problem with the notion of cheap, clean, inexhaustible power, which could be a tremendous boon to mankind. Most problems in the Third World, though, are social, political or economic, not technological, he says. "The idea that you can solve the human dilemma with a single technological breakthrough is incorrect."

 

"The resources being devoted to fusion research of all kinds - from the most fundamental laboratory experiments to the integration of safety , environmental, and economic considerations in reactor design - need urgently to be increased” says Holdren

Holdren replied: "We need to develop and deploy approaches to nuclear energy that can minimize the liabilities that have inhibited expansion of that carbon-free energy source up until now. We need to see if we can make fusion work. This is a quest in which I've been engaged since 1965. Again, I started [my work at MIT] in that domain. At that time, people thought fusion was 15 years away. Now people think it's 40 or 50 years away. We need to shrink that time scale again by increasing the investment for making that domain."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad
11 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

Hey look, I found some of the original quotes, and they were horribly taken out of context, how funny.

 

"Stanford's Paul Ehrlich says he has no problem with the notion of cheap, clean, inexhaustible power, which could be a tremendous boon to mankind. Most problems in the Third World, though, are social, political or economic, not technological, he says. "The idea that you can solve the human dilemma with a single technological breakthrough is incorrect."

 

"The resources being devoted to fusion research of all kinds - from the most fundamental laboratory experiments to the integration of safety , environmental, and economic considerations in reactor design - need urgently to be increased” says Holdren

Holdren replied: "We need to develop and deploy approaches to nuclear energy that can minimize the liabilities that have inhibited expansion of that carbon-free energy source up until now. We need to see if we can make fusion work. This is a quest in which I've been engaged since 1965. Again, I started [my work at MIT] in that domain. At that time, people thought fusion was 15 years away. Now people think it's 40 or 50 years away. We need to shrink that time scale again by increasing the investment for making that domain."

Nothing was taken "horribly" out of context. And the "conservative" website these quotes were from is an L.A times artical called the "fear of fusion" you can look it up. As recently as 2012 during a debate Bill Mckibben a leading environmentalist and speaker on global warming was asked point blank if he would champion nuclear fusion. He flat out said no. If you want a source for that you can watch the hour long debate yourself. It Bill Mckibben and Alex Epstein.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • UK_Palms
      By UK_Palms
      I may have to crack out the shorts next week for work. My written rule is that anything over 16C / 61F is typically shorts and t-shirt weather in my line of work. Otherwise I will overheat if I am working in jeans and a hoodie inside the warehouse. Those forecasted nighttime temperatures are ridiculous as well for 51N during the last week of December. I would expect nighttime lows of 13-14C in July, let alone late December. Some model runs are putting the nighttime lows at 15C for Wednesday and Thursday following a high of 18C / 64F on Wednesday! 

       
      14C at 850hPa translates to about 17-18C at ground level. It will be interesting to see just how warm it gets, especially if some eastern places also benefit from a Foehn effect too. Potentially 20C / 68F in a few eastern locations, although I find that hard to believe during the last week of December at 51-54N. Probably 18C maximum. If we had a setup like this in July it would bring 35C+ temperatures. 

       
      The consistency of the ensemble runs is remarkable! I have never seen a set of ensemble runs so consistent like this. It looks like this warm/mild spell is nailed on now. 

      Here's the ECMWF for Wednesday, which is supposedly going to be the warmest day, although it could be any of Wednesday, Thursday or Friday in theory.

       
      UKMET pumping higher pressure and warm air up from Africa, although the airflow into western Europe and the UK is coming up from the Canary islands specifically.

       
      The GFS model puts Jan 1st / New Years day as the warmest day potentially...

       
      Here's the ECMWF model for New Years day. Both setups looking very similar. Potentially record breaking in many places on the western half of the continent. 

       
      December records, and possibly winter records too, may tumble next week in Spain, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany etc. Watch this space. Daytime maxima and nighttime minima both at threat.
    • Sabal_Louisiana
      By Sabal_Louisiana
      Of the the three major humid subtropical regions of the World:
      The southeastern United States
      East Asia (central and southern China, southern Japan, etc)
      The Pampas of South America (northern Argentina, far southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay)
      The last one listed is the least affected by severe cold waves and is also favored biologically since it is contiguous with the Neotropics.
      Even so, I am mildly surprised that the subtropical latitudes of South America are not immune to moderately low temperatures, even brief freezes.
      For instance, at the end of June 2021, a cold snap brought temperatures down to 0.8C at Asuncion and -1 at the airport near Iguazu Falls at the northern tip of Argentina.
      Both locations are inland, away from the coast, but at about the same distance from the equator as Miami, Florida. All time record lows for these places would be around 25F/-4C so I would say that the temps experienced a couple of weeks ago are worthy of note.
      The recent cold appears to be somewhat localized because Porto Alegre, Brazil at 30S latitude, but very close to the Atlantic, got no lower than 5C, even though they had cold rain with a high temp of only 10C on the last day of June.
      Even Buenos Aires, some distance to the south, comparable in latitude to Little Rock or Osaka bottomed out at around 3C. Earlier in the season, B.A. fell to about 1.6C and that is the lowest they've seen this winter so far.
      Like the southern United States, the coldest temperatures of the winter season in warm temperate parts of South America typically occur around or just after the solstice and less so during latter part of the season.
      In East Asia by contrast, February is usually the coldest month.
    • Tracy
      By Tracy
      La Nina patterns or cooler equatorial sea surface temps from the Central Pacific through to the Easter Tropical Pacific are occurring right now.  These patterns often lead to dry and clear Autumn and Winter weather patterns here in Southern California where I live.  The west coast just experienced a typical La Nina weather pattern last weekend with an inside slider storm coming down the coast with strong winds and leaving us now with cool dry nights and no marine layer.  I hope that this isn't a sign of what is to come as we get deeper into Autumn and enter Winter.  With clear skies, I bottomed out at 39 degrees last night, and even the weather station at Moonlight Beach right on the ocean was reading 43 degrees this morning at first glow. 
      The leaves on my banana plants got pretty beat up, and the Encephalartos laurentiaunus below which is flushing had some leaflets ripped off in the strong winds.  Everything below the wall was protected, while everything above the wall felt the full force of the wind.
      So how are you and your garden doing this during this La Nina Autumn?


    • PalmTreeDude
      By PalmTreeDude
      What exactly are sunset climate zones? I tried to look it up and basically every site just says, "it takes in all the factors of growing in a climate" and then doesn't really explain it. Is a higher number good or bad? What's the scale? 
    • John in Andalucia
      By John in Andalucia
      mountain-forecast.com
      This site has given me a better understanding of average temperatures for highland species. I think it's a great resource for palm growers.
       
×
×
  • Create New...