Home >> News >> NASA: 2014 was by far the warmest year in last 5000 years

NASA: 2014 was by far the warmest year in last 5000 years

We have all read in our Geography books that the temperature is maximum around the equator and decreases as well move towards the pole. Although the statement still remains true, I certainly doubt that the temperatures will be on the descent at the same rate in the coming years. According to two United States Government agencies, the year 2014 was by far the warmest year in at least 5000 years. The agencies also fear that things might just get worse in the near future. The average temperature of the earth has been on the rise for more that a decade now and experts believe that it has reached dangerous extents now.Studies show that 2014 was by far the warmest year in last 5000 years

According to the statement released by the White House, studies by two major agencies, NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), show that the change in the climatic conditions is due to the excessive emissions of various greenhouse gases in the last decade of so. Both NASA and NOAA had warned way back in the past that such a day would certainly appear where things might just get out of control.

The 10 warmest years on Earth have all been since the year 1997 which is a direct indication to the effect that Global Warming has had on the temperature of the earth. The Temperatures during the year 2014 have broken quite a few records in many parts of Africa and Europe. The temperatures were above normal in regions like the western United States, eastern Russia, parts of Australia as well as interiors of South America.

NASA and NOAA have stated it clearly that the constant rise in the temperatures will have adverse effects on the Earth as the sea levels are already on a rise endangering millions of individuals living around the coastal regions. Antarctica has also suffered adverse effects owing to the Greenhouse effect.

Source ]

About Wayne Murphy

Writer and specialized in Mobile Phones (iOS, Android, BB etc), who was with the TND team since it's inception. Other than Blogging, he is also pursuing his graduation on Business Management at CA, California University. All posts by Wayne

34 comments

  1. Fossil fuels are the energy of freedom. Deny us the use of them and poverty and bondage will be the result.

  2. How do we know its the hottest year in 5000 years? Who has been tracking global temperatures that long? And Im confused why we connect global warming to pollution if the biggest polluters are the US, China, and India but the record high temperatures are found in Europe and Africa. Sounds dubious to me.

  3. I read another article that said temperature was up only.002 of a degree. And there was a big difference between satellite and measured water temperature. I am afraid you might be playing the sky is falling game to keep and get funding and you might do some real damage to quality of life and the environment. Making decision based on faulty information. This government is notorious for spinning reports then making bad decision based on that spin.

  4. The graph with full scale being +/- 0.6 degree is highly inflammatory. The entire range is within the range of possible errors of measurement.

  5. We use proxies to determine temperatures in times before we had thermometers. Carbon dioxide emissions rapidly spread over the entire globe, so the effects are global, not local.

  6. There'sa also the danger to our future quality of life if we take no action. It's a matter of finding the right balance between costs and benefits.

  7. Al Gore said the sky is going to explode! And his prediction is due to come true at any moment.
    Hippy followers of Al have infiltrated NASA. They are going to escape mans fate by building floating blimp cities on Venus's upper atmosphere.
    (See NASA's Venus Balloon cities on youtube if you do not believe me).
    Take me along Al Gore! I want to live and not die with the CO2 emitting humans on earth!

  8. Touting an insignificant finding undermines the scientific method. Especially when it is lower then the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

  9. Obviously, we haven't been recording temperatures for 5000 years so we have to use sentiment records, ice cores and other means. It's not as accurate but It doesn't have to be. The rate of increase has never, ever been so rapid even if measurements are off by an order of magnitude.

    Take a look at the following article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

  10. The finding is not of great scientific significance, but at least it should shut up the nitwits who keep screeching about the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on the record. As always, the best assessment is to look at the entire temperature record stretching back a century, and that clearly shows steady warming.

  11. No, the error of the sum is equal to the square root of the sum of the individual errors divided by the number of measurements.

  12. Chris Crawford
    Roy Spencer questions:
    " In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

    Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

    In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

    And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:" http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/.

  13. David L. Hagen Yes, this year's temperature change is too tiny to be important, as I said above. We're not worried about the year 2015, we're worried about years further in the future. Of course, you and I will probably be dead, so you may feel no responsibility for that, but I do.
    Also, we're not concerned with a catastrophe, we're concerned with the economic costs of climate change, running about $200 billion per year right now and rising quickly. How many trillions of dollars in damages are we going to suffer before we take measures to reduce those damages? It's all a matter of costs and benefits.

    The satellite data is not being ignored. It is integrated into different measurements. Surely somebody will come out and say that 2014 was not the hottest year, it was only the second hottest or third hottest. That doesn't matter because a single year doesn't matter. It's the long-term trend that matters.

    You're quite incorrect in claiming that the climate models were much in error. Please provide me with an error analysis showing the standard deviation of the net output of the models (over all measured variables) and the observations. If you can't provide that number, then you have no basis whatsoever to claim that the models are in error.

    Who are these mysterious "people" who are lying about severe weather getting worse? Are they part of the International Communist Conspiracy? SMERSH? The Girl Scouts of America?

  14. Because of fossils and ice core samples studied by people smarter than us let scientists know with a certain degree of accuracy know what the ancient climate was like. Just because you dont understand things doesn't mean it's wrong or that others don't. Do you know exactly how molecules work? I don't, but there are people that do

  15. Chris Crawford Then the spread should show gradual increases in the non-polluting Countries but the highest increase in temperatures should radiate from the population centers. And the Source sighted only states the hottest year since 1870, not the last 5000 years.

  16. The Global Warming religion is nearly identical to the earliest religions which were also weather based. The computer models are no different than throwing bits of bones, feathers, and rocks against the cave wall and 'reading' whatever one wants to see in the pattern.

  17. Todd Howes No, carbon dioxide spreads evenly through the atmosphere very quickly relative to the times required for climate change.

  18. So tell me, which model do you think is the worst? Don't be shy — name names! 😉

  19. It is fun to watch people when a tsunami comes in. At first the water is sucked from the shore, and the majority of people who are very stupid by nature curiously walk out to sea, following the receding water. The smart people who understand how the world works scientifically know that the great suck will be promptly followed by a great wave that will kill everyone. So they immediately move inland and survive. Lucky for us, all the stupid ones are drowned, which is not only entertaining to watch but also helps improve the human gene pool.

    The trouble with global warming is that there is no place for us smart people to move as you stupid people who deny it allow our planet to become inhospitable to all life. Worse, you stupid people outnumber us smart ones and there is no way to prevent your elective power from ensuring that our government does nothing about this.

    Look at the planet Venus. Do you like 900 degrees at the surface and raining sulfuric acid. That is what the earth will become if it suddenly switches into irreversible climatic runaway. And there will be no one left to tell you what a fucking idiot you were.

  20. Chris Crawford I doubt that its perfectly even. Even if it does dissipate incredibly it wouldn't be perfect (Have you seen how the Smog Clouds just sit over very populated cities like LA and Hong Kong?) which would indicate significantly higher temperatures and they would permeate out from the epicenter.

  21. Todd Howes You're forgetting that we're talking about years, not days. The greenhouse effect is itself tiny and takes years to build up an effect. That's why they're not talking about Doomsday tomorrow, but rather costly increases in temperatures over the course of decades. And over the course of decades, carbon dioxide has plenty of time to mix evenly.

  22. Chris Crawford – "You're quite incorrect in claiming that the climate models were much in error. Please provide me with an error analysis".

    Sure, are the IPCC AR5 charts good enough?

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png

    ^ ^ ^ ^ The above may be found in the IPCC AR5 WG1 report, Chapter 11, Fig 11.25.

    It may be found on page 1011 in the IPCC report, which you may download here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

    The vast majority of models were overstated. A couple seem to be right on the money though. Fortunately, they are on the low side.

    I blame the Girl Scouts.

  23. mr.kevin13 Yes, those are some of the model outputs. So what's wrong with them? How many standard deviations are they in error? Please carry out that calculation for the entire set of model results and tell me what you get. If it's anything less than 2 standard deviations, then you don't have a case.

  24. Chris Crawford Are you willing to look at hard facts? See Roy Spencer's graph showing 95% of climate models since 1983 exceed actual global temperatures. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
    See Lewis & Curry on climate sensitivity. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/
    Look at Monckton on 18 years of no warming in RSS, and Ross McKitrick's 26 years of no significant warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/

  25. Chris Crawford Are you willing to look at hard facts? See Roy Spencer's graph showing 95% of climate models since 1983 exceed actual global temperatures. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
    See Lewis & Curry on climate sensitivity. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/
    Look at Monckton on 18 years of no warming in RSS, and Ross McKitrick's 26 years of no significant warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/

  26. Chris Crawford Apply Einstein's Razor: MakeUp LaCindina scientific models as simple as possible but no simpler". For a reality check, see Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model“, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml (Briggs is a statistician if you have real statistical questions http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15237).

  27. Chris Crawford Restoure sound stewardship. There is far the greater danger of wasting most resources for negligible "benefits". See Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Concensus finding $15/$1 return on R&D, but only $0.03/$1 for mitigation.

  28. David L. Hagen

    No, he's apparently unwilling to look at hard facts. Chris Crawford is a DENIER. Probably paid to troll around on these pages. When you show someone a chart like this:

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png

    and their response is "So what's wrong with them?" you are obviously dealing with a troll. An enviro-troll. The simple fact is that the vast majority of models have overestimated the warming thusfar. Anyone who disagrees with this is clearly a CLIMATE DENIER.

  29. David L. Hagen

    No, he's apparently unwilling to look at hard facts. Chris Crawford is a DENIER. Probably paid to troll around on these pages. When you show someone a chart like this:

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hawkins.png

    and their response is "So what's wrong with them?" you are obviously dealing with a troll. An enviro-troll. The simple fact is that the vast majority of models have overestimated the warming thusfar. Anyone who disagrees with this is clearly a CLIMATE DENIER.

  30. David L. Hagen It's no difficult matter to cherry-pick a subset of any set of predictions and show that they're off base. The only honest way to assess a prediction to carry out a proper statistical measurement of the error over the full range of output. For example, consider the predictions of electoral outcomes based on exit polls. There are always some such predictions that are wrong, and if you look only at the incorrect predictions, you can falsely claim that exit polling doesn't work. But when you look at the entire set of predictions, the exit polls come out looking pretty good. Not perfect, of course, but pretty reliable. The same thing goes with the climate models. Yes, they err in some parts. But their overall outputs are excellent.
    Why in the world are you quoting Einstein on this? His statement has nothing to do with the subject.

  31. Chris Crawford
    Restore the Scientific Method.

    Why are you abandoning the scientific method for partisanship by publicizing as a "record" what only has a 38% probability of being true (vs at least 95%) with error bars 500% larger than the claimed record increase. http://bit.ly/1J64BpS

    Kick the tires. Should we not conduct reality checks on global climate models?

    By Einstein's Razor, Everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler.

    See statistician William Briggs: “NEW PAPER: Why Models Run Hot: Results From An.
    Irreducibly Simple Climate Model” http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15
    DOI 10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2

    Why does R&D not report that a least square analysis of RSS temperatures show NO.
    change for 18 years 3 months? http://bit.ly/1577wPR

    Why does Ross McKitrick's “Statistically-Robust Definition of the Length of the Global Warming Pause” find “the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used”? See: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust
    Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050. http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *