Does this even mean anything? Since year 2 of keeping records there has ALWAYS been a warmest year on record.
2024: Leas snow than normal
- Thread starter B the Hiker
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
I think that B the Hiker’s point is that the CURRENT year, 2024, was the warmest year on record, which is not always the case if you look at the cool NASA graphic, as some La Niña years are cooler than the preceding El Niño years. That is the significance of 2024 being the warmest year on record as we have transitioned out of the recent peak El Niño years 2022-2023 and yet the average global temperature is still going up without even minor reversals. Other than Earth’s orbital cycles, which work on much longer 23k, 41k, and 100k year scales, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) was the strongest climate forcing (3-7 year scale), but now apparently greenhouse gas emissions have eclipsed ENSO as the primary climate forcing.
I’m not saying the current year is always the warmest, just that there’s been a warmest year since we had 2 years of records to compare. What happens if 2025 is cooler than 2024? And 2026 as well? People will say the danger has passed, which (maybe) wouldn’t be the case if the “warmest year on record” sound bites hadn’t been incessantly pounded into people’s heads. Maybe say something like “the global average temp continued to climb in 2024” instead of using an absolute term.
Then what would you say if 2025 is cooler than 2024?
The short report is worth the read. Here is an excerpt:
Global temperatures in 2024 were 2.30 degrees Fahrenheit (1.28 degrees Celsius) above the agency’s 20th-century baseline (1951-1980), which tops the record set in 2023. The new record comes after 15 consecutive months (June 2023 through August 2024) of monthly temperature records — an unprecedented heat streak.
“Once again, the temperature record has been shattered — 2024 was the hottest year since record keeping began in 1880,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “Between record breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet.”
NASA scientists further estimate Earth in 2024 was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-19th century average (1850-1900). For more than half of 2024, average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the baseline, and the annual average, with mathematical uncertainties, may have exceeded the level for the first time.
“The Paris Agreement on climate change sets forth efforts to remain below 1.5 degrees Celsius over the long term. To put that in perspective, temperatures during the warm periods on Earth three million years ago — when sea levels were dozens of feet higher than today — were only around 3 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. “We are halfway to Pliocene-level warmth in just 150 years.”
[...]
“Not every year is going to break records, but the long-term trend is clear,” Schmidt said. “We’re already seeing the impact in extreme rainfall, heat waves, and increased flood risk, which are going to keep getting worse as long as emissions continue.”
NASA - isn't that the outfit that one day, long ago was phenomenal, but can't do today what they were able to do over 55 years ago? And when they did it 55 years ago, it was mostly with slide rules, or at best, computers with a fraction of the power most folks have in their phones today?
And they not only think they can take the temperature of the Earth now, but in 1880 as well.
That's just adorable.
TomK
And they not only think they can take the temperature of the Earth now, but in 1880 as well.
That's just adorable.
TomK
Sir, with all due respect, civilians and scientists have been accurately recording the temperature for centuries. (Fun fact: Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson routinely recorded the temperatures at their estates).
From the official timeline of the National Weather Service:
- By the end of 1849, 150 volunteers throughout the United States were reporting weather observations to the Smithsonian regularly. By 1860, 500 stations were furnishing daily telegraphic weather reports to the Washington Evening Star, and as the network grew, other existing systems were gradually absorbed, including several state weather services.
- 1860: 500 stations are making regular observations, but work is interrupted by the Civil War.
- 1869: Telegraph service, instituted in Cincinnati, began collecting weather data and producing weather charts
The ability to observe and display simultaneously observed weather data, through the use of the telegraph, quickly led to initial efforts toward the next logical advancement, the forecasting of weather. However, the ability to observe and forecast weather over much of the country, required considerable structure and organization, which could be provided through a government agency. - 1870: A Joint Congressional Resolution requiring the Secretary of War "to provide for taking meteorological observations at the military stations in the interior of the continent, and at other points in the States and Territories...and for giving notice on the northern lakes and on the seacoast, by magnetic telegraph and marine signals, of the approach and force of storms" was introduced. Congress passed the resolution and on February 9, 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law. A new national weather service had been born within the U.S. Army Signal Service’s Division of Telegrams and Reports for the Benefit of Commerce that would affect the daily lives of most of the citizens of the United States through its forecasts and warnings for years to come.
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
You doubt their ability to read a thermometer?
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
Sorry, thermometers.
B, Thank you for those interesting tid-bits of information regarding the historical collection of weather information in the US.
But I thought the subject was the Earth's temperature, not the temperature of the part of the Earth that is in the United States. Pretty jingoistic. Hardly a representation of even a large portion of the Earth, let alone a majority of it.
And what is meant by "Earth's temperature" anyway? Temperature isn't uniform over the entire Earth, and in any one place, can vary widely, even over short periods of time. The term "Earth's temperature" really doesn't appear to have any useful meaning. It is too vague and varied a thing.
Are the places, equipment and times of measurement identical from 1880 to the present? Unless they are, you are not comparing the same thing. I have no data on the subject, but I'm going to go out on a limb, and say they are not.
Sorry, but I don't consider "the Earth's temperature" a thing, at least a thing that is useful.
TomK
But I thought the subject was the Earth's temperature, not the temperature of the part of the Earth that is in the United States. Pretty jingoistic. Hardly a representation of even a large portion of the Earth, let alone a majority of it.
And what is meant by "Earth's temperature" anyway? Temperature isn't uniform over the entire Earth, and in any one place, can vary widely, even over short periods of time. The term "Earth's temperature" really doesn't appear to have any useful meaning. It is too vague and varied a thing.
Are the places, equipment and times of measurement identical from 1880 to the present? Unless they are, you are not comparing the same thing. I have no data on the subject, but I'm going to go out on a limb, and say they are not.
Sorry, but I don't consider "the Earth's temperature" a thing, at least a thing that is useful.
TomK
This might be worth the two minute's of your time it would take to read it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature
It's quite well written and approachable.
When looking for accurate and unbiased information, wikipedia is certainly a source many people think of immediately.
I am not one of those people.
Since you took the trouble of pointing the article out to me though, I thought I should do you the courtesy of reading it. If you read it in two minutes, my hat is truly off to you! I always considered myself a reasonably quick reader, and it took me better than 10 minutes, and that was a really cursory read, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing it after reading it a couple times, there was a lot of stuff there to digest.
But one thing that I will point out now, is the extensive use of words like "estimate", "infer" "proxy", and "consensuses". Particularly with that last word, science does not operate as a democracy, at least in my understanding of it. It is one area where truly, "one person who is right makes a majority". And the other words do not strike me as being conducive to a conclusive or definitive understanding. They may be persuasive, possibly even helpful. And often, "estimate", "infer" or "proxy" is all we've got.
But that was kind of my point.
TomK
I am not one of those people.
Since you took the trouble of pointing the article out to me though, I thought I should do you the courtesy of reading it. If you read it in two minutes, my hat is truly off to you! I always considered myself a reasonably quick reader, and it took me better than 10 minutes, and that was a really cursory read, I'd feel much more comfortable discussing it after reading it a couple times, there was a lot of stuff there to digest.
But one thing that I will point out now, is the extensive use of words like "estimate", "infer" "proxy", and "consensuses". Particularly with that last word, science does not operate as a democracy, at least in my understanding of it. It is one area where truly, "one person who is right makes a majority". And the other words do not strike me as being conducive to a conclusive or definitive understanding. They may be persuasive, possibly even helpful. And often, "estimate", "infer" or "proxy" is all we've got.
But that was kind of my point.
TomK
Similar threads
