2014 Officially the Hottest Year on Record: Is this not of concern?

a reply to: cuckooold

The problem I see is that weather records only go so far back in history. The Earth is billions of years old and has fluctuated with weather and life for the most part. So how is it that scientists and meteorologists feel that they have all the answers and are quite happy to force those answers on a populace that really has no understanding of how the world functions?
It may very well be a terrible occurrence that the globe is heating on average or it may just be a normal fluctuation. Honestly who can say with any real conviction that it's a bad thing or a normal one.

not at all... not if your one of those people who read history books every now and again, its all cyclical, next year might be the coldest on record

Why dont you guys want to slow down our rate of pollution?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Why dont you guys want to slow down our rate of pollution?

Star!!

Something I've been saying for years. Having been fortunate enough to have grown up on a small farm, I feel deeply connected to nature. Pollution and litter are something that everyone can do something about!

a reply to: cuckooold

I'd like to know where it was hot in 2014. It sure as hell wasn't hot in Wisconsin! We had one of the coldest winters ever, several weeks where the mercury did not even get to 0 for a high! There were a few weeks where it averaged MINUS 10 for a high and MINUS 25 for a low. It was absolutely brutal. I've lived in Wisconsin over 40 years, and I cannot remember anything approaching that brutal. So this bs about it being hotter is crap as far as I'm concerned.

Big business contributes most of the problems in our environment.

We (the people) can change only certain things. How much we drive. Composting. Seperating trash and recycling. But all of that means literally nothing when big business gets a free pass to destroy the world.

Big oil/Energy dumps massive amounts of greenhouse gases
Big food has wrecked soil, animal farts make up a portion of the contributed gasses (lulz)
Military industrial complex (do i need to say much) (example: nuclear testing)
Forestry has taken the planets means of co2 scrubbing.

So when all those things change to more environmentally friendly alternatives.. well, thats not gunna happen so we better get used to excessively cold winters. If the whole world heats up and we don't have winter anymore.. well i think i'd be okay with it. I hate winter.

originally posted by: LittleGreenAlien
a reply to: cuckooold

The problem I see is that weather records only go so far back in history. The Earth is billions of years old and has fluctuated with weather and life for the most part. So how is it that scientists and meteorologists feel that they have all the answers and are quite happy to force those answers on a populace that really has no understanding of how the world functions?
It may very well be a terrible occurrence that the globe is heating on average or it may just be a normal fluctuation. Honestly who can say with any real conviction that it's a bad thing or a normal one.

Completely agree. A couple of hundred years data out of several billions of years is not enough to draw any conclusions from. You only have to look at the history of the earth to see that the worlds climate has been changing and will continue to do so. The seas and land masses have been growing and shrinking. The whole of the surface of the earth was covered by ice twice in its lifetime so far and may well be so again.

I was watching a programme British Isles: A Natural History BBC Programme Pages today about the climate history of the UK and how we have seen everything. Where Stonehenge used to be was once a desert. There was a huge ice flow all the way from Scotland to London and the West Country was covered by sea. We have even had tropical areas in the UK with Hippos (is that why the BBC had them in their indent?) and the like roaming around.

These so-called breaking records, are headlines that cause controversy but does nothing except to further the agenda to tax us all and not deal with the real issue which is our world climate is always changing and there is nothing much we can do about it.

There is no real policy in place and all the governments are doing are taking advantage of this opportunity to tax us and make themselves and their cohorts richer. While we continue to live in areas that have proven high to medium risk of flooding, earthquakes and droughts then there will continue to be unnecessary human, economic and environmental costs. While we continue to be dependent on electrical technology then the interruption or downfall at key moments will severely effect us. While we meddle with our sources of food and water and pollute our land and seas then we make ourselves less well to cope with any changes we might face.

The masses are sitting ducks as the climate will change and when it does we will be unprepared and vulnerable.

a reply to: AzureSky

Yep! Big business in bed with the governments to make money and at any cost.

Whilst man-made disasters like the Gulf oil spill and Fukushima may be enough to disrupt the natural sea currents and flows, which in turn may have an effect on our weather systems, we are still doing little to nothing to help ourselves be less vulnerable.

In the past billions of years, the climate has got hotter and colder, the seas have risen and fallen and the continents have been on the move. When the next part of this great cycle gets more pronounced that it really effects our daily lives, we will either live or die through it.

I get as much as a 3 degree F difference on the thermometers in my yard depending on where they are placed.All thermometers are calibrated the same.Ground color has an effect(I have light and dark soils on my lot),placement near outbuildings has an effect.House color has an effect.Do these scientists take into account all the variables that are possible that affect temp readings?I don`t think so,our local thermometer is at the airport surrounded by a half mile of asphalt paving,the readings there are always higher than mine.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yeah, I'm from Scotland too and 2014 was definitely one of the mildest years I can remember. Even in October I was still wearing shorts outside! It just didn't seem "natural", especially in this country.

That said, I can't recall a heatwave in 2014. A lot of warm days in the summer - and very little rain - but never really "taps aff!" weather

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Why dont you guys want to slow down our rate of pollution?

We are, but how do you do the same in China, Russia, South America, Africa?

I think everyone can agree that humans do have an effect on the planet, the question is how much of what is going on is due to human involvement. We got out of a mini ice age about 200 years ago. Back when the Hudson river would freeze over every year. We been warming up ever since so I do not know what part of all this is the earth coming back to a norm or how much humans are facilitating that change.

With global sea ice at its highest extent since 1988, and a rather cool August, plus augments in climate depot and climate etc. websites, about tenths of a degree, I'm not sure, satellites tell scientists no warming for the last 18 years, plus its government funded alphabet agencies saying that the temperature is up, does not feel like it to me. very poor growth in my garden vegetable patch last year.
The news blogs I get in my inbox each day tell me hurricanes and twisters were very low in number last year, I don't really know what that means, unless cool weather means less nasty stuff??

a reply to: tkwasny

Certifications, chain of custody, sensor calibrations. You ask too much. (sarcasm)

They'll keep throwing bits of "evidence" every now and again meanwhile setting up another opportunity (like the GFC) to fleece investors and when it goes belly up they' be bailed out by the taxpayers or "bailed-in" by ordinary savers.

Follow the money...JPM Weapons of Financial destruction

www.washingtonsblog.com... e-very-center-of-cap-and-trade.html

Round Two: Carbon Derivatives

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be largely centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases…

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM’s carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities…

As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.

Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap.

Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:

“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”

Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino — except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release…

However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:

The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges…The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake…The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress…

Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:

Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it — because there are financial opportunities”…

Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities…

The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.

“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”

a reply to: cuckooold

Nope temperatures are of no concern to me.

The financial shenanigans are of direct concern to me. It doesnt take much science or economics to see the real crimes here.

The anomaly for 2014 was 0.52 degrees.
The "anomaly" is a variation from the "average" that has been selected--not a continuous rise or even a rise over previous year. So the "hottest year on record" is barely hotter than the average.
We have only had remote satellite measurements used for 40 some years.
The 1970s were very cold. They thought an Ice Age was approaching.
We could actually benefit from some warming and increased CO2.
If we get a few degrees colder, we will be in a world of hurt---starvation-wise.

originally posted by: D9Fox
not at all... not if your one of those people who read history books every now and again, its all cyclical, next year might be the coldest on record

There hasn't been a monthly or yearly cold record established in over 100 years.

Some important points...

Nine of the 10 hottest years in NOAA global records have occurred since 2000. The odds of this happening at random are about 650 million to 1, according to University of South Carolina statistician John Grego. Two other statisticians confirmed his calculations.

Earth broke NOAA records set in 2010 and 2005. The last time the Earth set an annual NOAA cold record was in 1911.
NOAA also said last month was the hottest December on record. Six months last year set marks for heat. The last time Earth set a monthly cold record was in December 1916.
"The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years," said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, who wasn't part of either research team. "Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind."

9 of 10 hottest years;
No cold records in 100 years....shows a certain trend

The heat was driven by record warmth in the world's oceans that didn't just break old marks: It shattered them. Record warmth spread across far eastern Russia, the western part of the United States, interior South America, much of Europe, northern Africa and parts of Australia. One of the few cooler spots was in the central and eastern United States.

While parts of the US froze, most of the world sizzled. For those of you who live in the US northeast and Midwest, please stop whining about how cold you are, thus there can't be any warming. Warm Pacific air pushed all the way up over Alaska (which set warm records), which then pushed cold Polar air down over us. Very simple really.

Every year in the 21st century has been in the top 20 warmest years on record, according to NOAA.

Francis said with the margin of error it doesn't matter as much if 2014 was the warmest or second, third or sixth — what matters is that there is a "clear, consistent and incontrovertible" warming of Earth.

Source

a reply to: cuckooold

In all fairness to you, I am aware of the theory concerning how melting Arctic ice and glacier melt from Greenland can disrupt the weather in Northwest Europe. The difference in density between saltwater and freshwater from ice melt is one of the conditions thought to have contributed to the Little Ice Age.

As it is, they have Weather Warnings out for Scotland and England right now...

Data from the same people who said the USSR would last forever and the 2008 housing bubble was a big surprise.

The data is suspect, and their promotions depend on it.

The weather will get warmer, colder or stay the same.

33% chance to get it "honestly"

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Data from the same people who said the USSR would last forever and the 2008 housing bubble was a big surprise.

The data is suspect, and their promotions depend on it.

The weather will get warmer, colder or stay the same.

33% chance to get it "honestly"

Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com...

It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past. Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter. The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.