NASA says 2014 is record warmest year in world history.

[Fatstrat]

But they're only 38% certain. Which leaves 62% uncertain. And makes me 99% certain that it's a good thing that we are no longer sending manned space missions. With ridiculous science like that, they'd get somebody killed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ure-right.html

[Pick guard]

And then another noted NASA scientist says not: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/...-temperatures/

[Teleman52]

This thread will end up closed too.

Hilarious though that they make the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record, and now they say they don't even know if 2014 was warmer than 2010 or 2005.

It saddens me to see what nasa has been transformed into

[Dirk Hofman]

I would assume they didn't include the margin of error specifics because it's clear that people don't understand what it means.

[wcap]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I would assume they didn't include the margin of error specifics because it's clear that people don't understand what it means.

Highlighting the need for more scientific (and statistical) literacy, the the U.S. at least...

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by wcap

Highlighting the need for more scientific (and statistical) literacy, the the U.S. at least...

I don't know how literate I am. But I'm sharp enough on math that I know that 38% certainty makes it far from a fact.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

I don't know how literate I am. But I'm sharp enough on math that I know that 38% certainty makes it far from a fact.

But you do understand that it is clearly one of the hottest years ever, right? And possibly the hottest.

I believe the data comes from this source, but I could be wrong and would appreciate a correction.

Detail:

Global Averages (land and sea)
The nominal ranking of the top ten years according to our analysis is given in the table below.

Rank / Year/ Average / Margin of Uncertainty

1) 2014 0.596' ±'0.049
2) 2010 0.586' ±'0.045
3) 2005 0.585' ±'0.047
4) 2007 0.541' ±'0.044
5) 2006 0.533' ±'0.046
6) 2013 0.517' ±'0.046
7) 2009 0.517' ±'0.044
8) 2002 0.516' ±'0.048
9) 1998 0.512' ±'0.048
10) 2003 0.501' ±'0.048



Discussion:
Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.

The margin of uncertainty we achieved was remarkably small (0.05 C with 95% confidence). This was achieved this, in part, by the inclusion of data from over 30,000 temperature stations… Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little. Note that the ten warmest years all occur since 1998.

Reference: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memo...tter.pdf?/2014

Maybe someone can explain where the 38% number comes from.

[Teleman52]

The interesting thing is that first off, they reported something as a fact when in truth they knew it couldn't possibly be determined.

The second interesting thing is that the temprature has stayed pretty constant over the past ten years. That is not what climatologists said it would do according to their models. So that means we're missing something here

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Pick guard

And then another noted NASA scientist says not: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/...-temperatures/

Was a NASA scientist now ...... not so much http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Teleman52

The interesting thing is that first off, they reported something as a fact when in truth they knew it couldn't possibly be determined.

It is accurate to 95% statistical probability within the range given above. It's quite accurate. If one is looking for a reason to dispute the facts, apparently it serves as a vehicle for such, but the statistical likelihood of it being true is relevant. To my mind it simply illustrates the gap between those with basic statistical literacy and those without it, or those who are willing to look at the facts and those who are hoping to find facts which support a narrative, and in many cases (in articles I've read online) showing they don't understand what the numbers mean.

The second interesting thing is that the temprature has stayed pretty constant over the past ten years. That is not what climatologists said it would do according to their models. So that means we're missing something here

The models project an increase in temperature, that is absolutely correct. As a long-term phenomena, nothing happening right now has been going on long enough to make that a large concern regarding the models. One would certainly not expect the increase to remain constant over time. Look at the above graph. Does the flat(ish) average from 1950-1980 disprove the larger (strong, un-disputable) trend? No. Nor does the flat(ish) line of the last 10 years. If I were to take the arbitrary 1980-2010 section of the graph it would show a much steeper increase than the trend. Neither is informative.

So we have temps which haven't followed the model exactly. Is anyone suggesting the trend overall is not increasing, and at a dramatic rate we've never seen before? The data does not support any such conclusion.

This is, as best as can be determined (and that's really, really good) the hottest year ever recorded. They reported that fact. And the spin doctors are trying to turn it into something else with their lack of understanding of math and statistics. And the agenda.

The top 10 have all occurred in the last 15 years. Not sure how that equals anything but a confirmation of what we expected, unfortunately, to see.

We owe it to ourselves to be smarter about this topic.

[D. Shelton]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

But you do understand that it is clearly one of the hottest years ever, right? And possibly the hottest.

.

I do . I see the well-documented trend, and well-researched connection to causation . It should be enough for nearly every perceptive person, and IS enough for the vast majority of scientists . People should act in less
self-destructive ways, but we're nothing, if not stubborn .

[Dirk Hofman]

I'll take a crack at explaining what the confidence intervals mean in this data set. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. I was an art major.

My understanding is that the data collected (some 30,000 data points) show the temperature to be "X". Can't recall the number, doesn't matter.

Those 30,000 data points are a SAMPLE of the ACTUAL temperature the earth and land experienced. They are a sample, in the same way a poll is a sample of opinion on a particular topic, where you might get 2500 people weighing in to form a percentage of people who agree or disagree with "Y" statement.

With that fairly massive data set, they have a confidence of 95% that the data collected is the same as the actual temperatures which occurred on the planet, within a range set by the confidence interval, in this case .05. Because the increase in temp was only .01 degree Celsius, it falls within the margin for error.

This means one cannot know for sure if the ACTUAL temperature the planet experienced is EXACTLY the same as the TEMPERATURE DATA which was measured.

The data is the data. It shows a temperature increase. The actual land and sea temperatures which were NOT measured could have been slightly higher or lower than the measured temperatures. There is really no realistic way to get more accurate, and all the data is collected and analyzed in the same way. If someone has an issue with the methodology, they should speak to it generally, not complain that it shows 2014 as the hottest year.

What we do know is that it was one of the 3 hottest years ever recorded. Hope that helps clarify, and again if someone has a better or corrected explanation I'm eager to learn. Thanks.

[Teleman52]

Another important thing to note. Is that we only have information dating back to 1800.

There was a period called "the little ice age" that occurred from 1350-1880. While not a true ice age of course, it was a much colder period of time than average. So naturally, yes the temprature is on an upward trend. That's a good thing really.

I will hold out for more data before I make any wild conclusions. 215 years Is really not a very big sample in the grand scheme of things. I'm not a climate change "denier", I'm just not so sure that climate change is a bad thing. And I also don't like the way that the media and the scientists have gone about studying and reporting this type of research. It is highly politicized, on both sides of the issue of course.

I think any reasonable perceptive person should see that we don't really have a whole lot of data

[Pick guard]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Was a NASA scientist now ...... not so much http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html

What, is that supposed to be some sort of dig against the man? He "was" a NASA scientist, now not so much? Does that somehow make his learned and well-respected opinion not worthy of consideration? Baloney.

[HHP]

We are still in an interglacial period, right?