Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record
The Associated PressSETH BORENSTEIN Oct 20th 2014 3:06PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Earth is on pace to tie or even break the mark for the hottest year on record, federal meteorologists say.
That's because global heat records have kept falling in 2014, with September the latest example.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that last month the globe averaged 60.3 degrees Fahrenheit (15.72 degrees Celsius). That was the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping.
It was the fourth monthly record set this year, along with May, June and August.
NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm.
The first nine months of 2014 have a global average temperature of 58.72 degrees (14.78 degrees Celsius), tying with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"It's pretty likely" that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.
The reason involves El Nino, a warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. In 1998, the year started off super-hot because of an El Nino. But then that El Nino disappeared and temperatures moderated slightly toward the end of the year.
This year has no El Nino yet, but forecasts for the rest of the year show a strong chance that one will show up, and that weather will be warmer than normal, Blunden said.
If 2014 breaks the record for hottest year, that also should sound familiar: 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all broke NOAA records for the hottest years since records started being kept in 1880.
"This is one of many indicators that climate change has not stopped and that it continues to be one of the most important issues facing humanity," said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.
Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but "no one's told the globe that," Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.
The record-breaking heat goes back to the end of last year - November 2013 broke a record. So the 12 months from October 2013 to September 2014 are the hottest 12-month period on record, Blunden said. Earth hasn't set a monthly record for cold since December 1916, but all monthly heat record have been set after 1997.
September also marks the fifth month in a row that Earth's oceans broke monthly heat records, Blunden said.
The U.S. as a whole was warmer than normal for September, but the month was only the 25th warmest on record.
While parts of the U.S. Midwest, Russia and central Africa were slightly cool in September, it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S. West, Australia, Europe, northwestern Africa, central South America and parts of Asia. California and Nevada set records for the hottest September.
If Earth sets a record for heat in 2014 it probably won't last, said Jeff Masters, meteorology director for the private firm Weather Underground. If there is an El Nino, Masters said, "next year could well bring Earth's hottest year on record, accompanied by unprecedented regional heat waves and droughts."
it ain't true or confirmed until gina checks in.
Their predictions are always so accurate!
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
I knew that. You always find facts to be inconvenient.
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
I knew that. You always find facts to be inconvenient.
Do you feel that nine months of data represents a long term trend?
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
I knew that. You always find facts to be inconvenient.
Do you feel that nine months of data represents a long term trend?
No, But this continues a trend that has been going on for a while now. If you don.t believe me, go ask a farmer in California. Or maybe ask someone in the crab business in the Chesapeake. Maybe you could check out how small the snow pack has been in the Rockies for the last 10 years. Don't believe me? Fine. Go ask those whose livelihoods have been adversely affected by climate change.
Soylent Green is people!
i would like to add.....nowhere in that article was climate change mentioned as caused by human activity.
climate change is coming though.......no matter who or what is causing it. can you accept that basic premise?
Soylent Green is people!
Damn Straight!
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
I knew that. You always find facts to be inconvenient.
Do you feel that nine months of data represents a long term trend?
No, But this continues a trend that has been going on for a while now. If you don.t believe me, go ask a farmer in California. Or maybe ask someone in the crab business in the Chesapeake. Maybe you could check out how small the snow pack has been in the Rockies for the last 10 years. Don't believe me? Fine. Go ask those whose livelihoods have been adversely affected by climate change.
But we're told to ignore short term data (particularly cooler than normal periods.) So how can an article like this hold water? It's impossible to expect it to.
That's a big problem with the climate alarmists. Short term data that supports their case is proof positive. Short term data that doesn't? Well, just ignore that. Doesn't mean anything.
This is NOT the way to start winning over skeptics.
are you saying that there is no way to even contemplate climate change because we have only truly been tracking climate for maybe 140 years so there is no way we can understand what is happening. that ice core data is irrelevant to the evidence?
i don't want to put words in your mouth but and i'm sure the other folks have heard your answer before but it seems that you are saying humans are not advanced enough to understand what is happening to the world.
i will even add that it seems you are saying that the earth is fine and nothing is happening. its as though you believe that even glacial melting is a lie.
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by LeglizHemp]
Their predictions are always so accurate!
That wasn't a prediction. That was a report on the past year.
Doesn't change my response.
I knew that. You always find facts to be inconvenient.
Do you feel that nine months of data represents a long term trend?
No, But this continues a trend that has been going on for a while now. If you don.t believe me, go ask a farmer in California. Or maybe ask someone in the crab business in the Chesapeake. Maybe you could check out how small the snow pack has been in the Rockies for the last 10 years. Don't believe me? Fine. Go ask those whose livelihoods have been adversely affected by climate change.
But we're told to ignore short term data (particularly cooler than normal periods.) So how can an article like this hold water? It's impossible to expect it to.
That's a big problem with the climate alarmists. Short term data that supports their case is proof positive. Short term data that doesn't? Well, just ignore that. Doesn't mean anything.
This is NOT the way to start winning over skeptics.
You are right short term data does not mean much. But climate predictions are based on trends, and the weather is trending to more extremes between the seasons and longer droughts in many places, and colder winters with more snow in other areas. The overall expectation is for average temperatures to drop slowly over time. Even though the temps are expected to rise, climate change is a better term than global warming because some areas will experience colder winters.
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by Muleman1994]
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by Muleman1994]
LOL, World Natural Health Organization a prestigious organization fo' sho'
Nothing gets the right fired up and frothing at the mouth like global warming.
But we're told to ignore short term data (particularly cooler than normal periods.) So how can an article like this hold water? It's impossible to expect it to.
That's a big problem with the climate alarmists. Short term data that supports their case is proof positive. Short term data that doesn't? Well, just ignore that. Doesn't mean anything.
This is NOT the way to start winning over skeptics.
The people who actually understand the science do not do this. The problem is that this has become so politicized that all kinds of people with agendas of every stripe cloak themselves in the veil of expertise and publish article after article and blog post after blog post pushing their agendas. Meanwhile, the lay people i.e. general public are left not knowing who to believe and fall back on political ideology by default.
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by gondicar]
Nothing gets the right fired up and frothing at the mouth like global warming.
Except for one thing...The Clintons.
😉
As to the topic...
ALGORE
As to the topic...
MattDamon
As to the topic...
MattDamon
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by Muleman1994]
and you are dumb enough to believe every word. 😛
_____________________________________________
It is just so much fun to watch the little eco-kids get all frustrated.
[Edited on 10/22/2014 by Muleman1994]
The global warming folks really need to learn how to sell your beliefs better otherwise the real world will continue to laugh.
First the anti-nuclear energy crowd said we were all going to die from radiation. Didn’t happen.
Then in the 1970s it was the new ice age was coming and the world was going to starve to death.
When that didn’t happen the same people went away for a while discredited.
Next up was Al Gore. Man you have a bad track record at picking a spokesperson for your mission. Every time he goes off in one of his rants on stage he comes across as an idiot with no credibility.
Then y’all started with the global warming thing. When that was proven to be nothing more than one degree over the last 18 years, they had to “re-brand” their cause as climate change.
Here come the politicians demanding billions to combat climate change never once saying how they want to pay for it.
Reports and other documents appear from organizations nobody has ever heard of featuring pseudo scientists who’s “analysis” is questionable at best.
Obama sends his EPA after the coal industry that inflicts regulations that are impossible to attain forcing thousands of hardworking Americans out of work. I know that elitists think of coal workers as hillbillies but they are people too.
The climate change argument lacks creditability and a respectable spokesperson. Put a professional private sector face on it. When a politician starts screaming about climate change, most people see nothing more than a politician.
Stop trying to push alternative energy solutions that are not ready for primetime. Solar and wind may eventually provide a supplemental option in addition to others but they cannot get the job done yet.
Yelling at people and demanding they conform to your ways just turn people off.
Get the science right first. Then selling it to the people will go much better.
Note: the earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time.
I don’t need to post a link to anything here folks, open a window and stick your head outside.
The global warming folks really need to learn how to sell your beliefs better otherwise the real world will continue to laugh.
First the anti-nuclear energy crowd said we were all going to die from radiation. Didn’t happen.
Then in the 1970s it was the new ice age was coming and the world was going to starve to death.
When that didn’t happen the same people went away for a while discredited.
Next up was Al Gore. Man you have a bad track record at picking a spokesperson for your mission. Every time he goes off in one of his rants on stage he comes across as an idiot with no credibility.
Then y’all started with the global warming thing. When that was proven to be nothing more than one degree over the last 18 years, they had to “re-brand” their cause as climate change.
Here come the politicians demanding billions to combat climate change never once saying how they want to pay for it.Reports and other documents appear from organizations nobody has ever heard of featuring pseudo scientists who’s “analysis” is questionable at best.
Obama sends his EPA after the coal industry that inflicts regulations that are impossible to attain forcing thousands of hardworking Americans out of work. I know that elitists think of coal workers as hillbillies but they are people too.
The climate change argument lacks creditability and a respectable spokesperson. Put a professional private sector face on it. When a politician starts screaming about climate change, most people see nothing more than a politician.
Stop trying to push alternative energy solutions that are not ready for primetime. Solar and wind may eventually provide a supplemental option in addition to others but they cannot get the job done yet.
Yelling at people and demanding they conform to your ways just turn people off.
Get the science right first. Then selling it to the people will go much better.Note: the earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time.
I don’t need to post a link to anything here folks, open a window and stick your head outside.
Well, we all know where you stuck your head.
First the anti-nuclear energy crowd said we were all going to die from radiation. Didn’t happen.
Dude how can you ignore Chernobyl? There were over 4000 fatalities.
Muleman you are fact freakin' challenged dude. There is no hope. Was it a head injury?
First the anti-nuclear energy crowd said we were all going to die from radiation. Didn’t happen.
Dude how can you ignore Chernobyl? There were over 4000 fatalities.
Muleman you are fact freakin' challenged dude. There is no hope. Was it a head injury?
______________________________
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.
The rest or your post is exactly my point. When you go off on a rant with a personal attack the regular people just laugh at you.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA vs World Natural Health Organization.
Hmmm i can't seem to find any published scientific studies from WNHO, plenty of opinions about scientific organizations. please enlighten us about your source as i am having a hard time finding anything scientifically credible (peer reviewed) from this organization.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA vs World Natural Health Organization.
Hmmm i can't seem to find any published scientific studies from WNHO, plenty of opinions about scientific organizations. please enlighten us about your source as i am having a hard time finding anything scientifically credible (peer reviewed) from this organization.
Muleman don't do sources.
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.
I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
