
2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record - gregcrv
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/20/its-official-2015-smashed-2014s-global-temperature-record-it-wasnt-even-close/
======
ps4fanboy
Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only
clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no
where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at
scale solution.

[http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source...](http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/sources-
overview.png)

By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power
generation we could really make a dent in 58% of this pie.

There are people who simultaneous worry a tremendous amount about global
warming who will actively protest against nuclear power.

All while an extremely large amount of pollution is being burned all around
us. Be reasonable we need a now solution or there wont be a when.

~~~
vectorjohn
Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and
wind work _fine_ at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they
don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although
batteries that can run a house overnight aren't _that_ expensive.

~~~
ps4fanboy
If we went fully "renewable" how much industrial waste would these batteries
that everyone needs create? Solar and Wind really doesnt work for everyone,
where it is cost effective, available and reliable it makes sense to mix them
in, but you cant tell me you fully expect every country to go 100% Solar and
Wind?

~~~
moultano
Global population is concentrated near the equator and near the coast, both
great conditions for solar and wind.

~~~
ekianjo
Paris is a good example of that.

~~~
nl
Denmark is a net power exporter, from renewables.

------
oolongCat
I live in one of those "Record Warmest" boxes, it really was hot during the
past year.

Its funny how people you would consider uneducated and poor in my country
would understand that there is clearly something going wrong with the world
around us, while some people with lots of money, influence and education
choose to believe that this is all a conspiracy by a foreign government.

It's just nuts, really, something is terribly wrong with our world, and we
need to fix it.

Please, if you have the time, please join a local group that helps conserve
the environment, learn how you could help reduce your carbon footprint, even a
little could go a long way.

~~~
flubert
>I live in one of those "Record Warmest" boxes, it really was hot during the
past year.

You can sense a 0.23 degree F average temperature difference? Or maybe you are
unhelpfully confusing weather with climate?

~~~
Afforess
As you helpfully state, it is a 0.23F _average_ temperature difference. That
could mean the temperature was significantly warmer for a large period of
time, then somewhat cooler. Depending on the magnitude, the temperature could
have varied widely, but only increased 0.23F, _on average_.

So it could be incredibly easy to sense.

~~~
brc
Or it could be personal bias filtering memories and inputs.

I know which one I'd bet on.

------
jupiter90000
Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any
possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed
window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-
shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is
about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2].

Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that
humans are not impacting climate, but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of
motivated agendas about it rather than facts.

[1] [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-
series/global/globe/land/...](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-
series/global/globe/land/ytd/12/1880-2015) [2]
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-
big-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one)

~~~
rayiner
> but I get concerned I'm hearing lots of motivated agendas about it rather
> than facts.

What motivation does anyone have to predict disaster?

~~~
jupiter90000
Here you go [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thing, a relevant part:
"News media is tightly entwined with the attention economy. Newspapers try to
capture people’s attentions through headlines. TV and radio stations try to
entice people to not change the channel. And, indeed, there is a long history
of news media leveraging fear to grab attention, often with a reputational
cost."

[1] [http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-
citi...](http://www.poynter.org/2012/fear-undermines-an-informed-citizenry-as-
media-struggles-with-attention-economy/192509/)

~~~
DasIch
This argument ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence. There is no one
who deserves to be taken seriously arguing that climate change doesn't exist
or isn't caused by humans.

~~~
mikeash
This really should not be downvoted. It's absolutely true. Yes, there are good
reasons politicians and news organizations would want to peddle fear. But in
this particular case, the origin of the fear is the work of thousands of smart
people who have made it their life's work to study this stuff, and they almost
all come up with the same answers over and over and over again.

The media wants to scare us? Sure. Politicians? No doubt. But tell me why (and
how!) all these climate scientists would want to predict disaster when there
isn't any.

~~~
midwest1
I used to evaluate the work of scientists for the US government. You would be
surprised at the rampant amount of fraud in science.

To answer your last question, job security. Many other reasons... adulation,
professional competition. Generally the types who go into environmental
science are true believers to begin with.

In rare cases, there is some money to be made by whoring yourself out.

~~~
mikeash
I don't doubt there's fraud in science. Stories pop up pretty frequently that
show researchers claiming some new breakthrough with fudged data.

But what would be required here would be far more than that. Individual
fraudsters wouldn't be enough. Even systemic fraud wouldn't do it. It would
need to be _universal_ fraud, across basically the entire world. And it would
need to be _coordinated_ , to ensure everybody gives the same kind of
fraudulent results.

It's especially unbelievable because many countries have a vested interest in
the world's ability to continue burning fossil fuels. If climate change were a
fraud, they would have a huge incentive to show that. Why would places like
Saudi Arabia, Russia, and indeed even the United States not massively fund
climate science to debunk the climate change fraud?

I could buy the fraud argument if it were a few people. I could even buy it
if, for example, there were a massive schism in the field, with one big group
saying climate change is real, and another big group saying it's not. But when
they all speak with one voice, aside from a few tiny dregs of dissent, fraud
isn't a good explanation.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Another reason: the evidence is worldwide and obvious. Siberia melting in a
couple of years, which it hasn't done in 40,000 years. All the glaciers
receding drastically. The Antarctic ice shelf undergoing irreversible melting.
It doesn't take a century of temperature measurement to see the _result_ of
heating up.

~~~
midwest1
Did a scientist tell you this? That is not how science works. You cannot
attribute events around you to some notion of obviousness. That reasoning
would not pass any physicist's approval.

Climate science is predicated upon a proper understanding of physics. Any
scientist who tells you that worldwide evidence is obvious should be treated
with the same level of respect as Dr. Oz.

The typical response would be that the physics is proven. Well, AFAIK, yes, at
least to the degree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it has SOME effect
on climate. The magnitude of contribution to toal effect by various sources
and sinks seems far from certain.

To draw a parallel, which a physicist (scientist) would do when instructing -
this is like saying salt makes blood pressure go up, so it's bad for you...
And ignoring all the ways the body can come to equilibrium. Stop eating salt,
today, or you'll burst.

So if a physicist calls it bullshit, that's pretty much your trump card. Which
is why people put so much stock in Dysons opinion, because he was an expert in
properly using the tools that most climate scientists are not experts in.

Were you to go study physics at a masters level for a bit, and then read
scientific studies yourself with a critical eye, you'd learn how much of what
we call science is grade A bullshit.

Until then, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to debate with you. It's kind
of like me arguing American football with John Madden.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The earth is heating up, we know, because
all the ice is melting. And that hasn't happened for hundreds of centuries -
long before people were a significant actor on this globe. What is in dispute?
The cause, sure. That's still very much an interesting subject. But the _fact_
of the earth heating up is, yes, obvious.

------
colmvp
If this keeps up, I have no idea how countries are going to deal with
displaced migrants. We barely have the capability right now to properly deal
with Syrians and African refugees.

~~~
VLM
Moving is expensive. Cheaper to stay in place and work around it.

Note that I'm talking about overall total world costs. The only reason you
have refugees now is the costs are being externalized. Bombing Syria is pretty
cheap if Europe pays the refugee price, not sure the last time Germany bombed
Syria, but they're paying the price for someone else doing it right now...
Because of the ease of externalizing costs, I suspect we will get more
refugees, but reducing it would be a wise goal.

Obviously there are very small exceptions to the very large general rule, like
if your whole island submerges or whatever.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I would say that Bangladesh is a large exception. Population ~160 million.
Most of the countries is ~10m above sea level.

------
sago
So next year, when there's a modest decrease in global temperature (as per
regression to the mean, even if the mean is monotonically increasing), the
climate skeptics will be out in force with their 'I told you so - it goes up
and down'. Such a huge record seems like good news for climate change deniers,
just deferred.

~~~
mikeash
Maybe 2015 was the regressing to the (increasing) mean after slower increases
before, rather than 2015 being an unusual spike.

Certainly what you describe seems to have happened after the record hot year
of 1998, though. It sure would be nice if we could all stop trying to play
silly "gotcha" games and get on with the serious business of figuring out 1)
what's happening and 2) what to do about it.

------
themgt
Incredible. If we continued to break records at this pace we'd be at 2C above
preindustrial in 2019.

Not that we will, but it gives a sense of how close we've come to the
precipice, if indeed we have any < 2C carbon budget remaining.

------
sebringj
I usually question conventional wisdom and was stuck on the part of co2 being
the root cause of recent global warming based on the co2 lag but this helped
me clear it up a bit -> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-
interme...](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-
intermediate.htm)

------
orf
It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this.
There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation.

Just imagine if Trump did get into office as well...

~~~
api
IMHO the problem with stopping this and many other forms of environmental
degradation is that it's better to reign in hell than serve in heaven so to
speak.

Poverty is worse than all but the most severe natural disasters. Infant
mortality in many poor countries is probably a lot higher than it is in Miami
_during a hurricane_. Poverty is worse than pollution or storms. Even if the
sea level rises it would be better to be forced to uproot cities and move them
inland than it would be to go without modern sanitation, health care, food
availability, education, etc. Only acute natural disasters like severe
earthquakes and tornadoes approach chronic poverty in their destructive power.

As a result it is in the self-interest of everyone on Earth to prioritize some
level of wealth -- say the achievement of a basic first-world middle class
standard of living -- over any environmental problem save the most immediate,
acute, and apocalyptic. That's why the response of the developing world to
suggestions like CO2 reduction or limiting overfishing has so far been "screw
you, we're poor."

This is also why I really think that what I call "abstinence based solutions"
to these problems are dead on arrival. Telling people to forego the benefits
of energy consumption or modern technology is like telling teenagers not to
have sex. The only hope we have is to develop the world to the point that
people can afford the _luxury_ of caring about the future beyond the next 48
hours. Only then will we be able to transition to anything more sustainable.
Desperate people can't afford to care. It's also a total non-starter to try to
sell first world people on regressing their standard of living. They're not
stupid.

~~~
fmihaila
Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate
change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms),
contributed most to the problem and have the economic power to start
addressing it. The reason Canada (to take another example) hasn't done more to
prevent climate change has more to do with greed and misallocation of
resources than with poverty eradication.

The choice between lifting people out of poverty and addressing climate change
is a false dilemma. Both can, and should, be worked on. Energy abstinence is
not the solution. Instituting a carbon tax, ending the monopoly of rent-
seeking energy utilities like NV Energy (who do all they can to stop
renewables in their track, see [1] and [2]), and letting the market work would
be far more effective. All that is needed is political will.

[1] [http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-
price-...](http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/12/nv-energy-puc-price-solar-
energy-beyond-residents/)

[2] [http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-
metering-s...](http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/01/review-of-net-metering-
studies-finds-utilities-underpaying-for-solar-electricity/)

~~~
api
Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living
in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty.

Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of
living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death.

I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there
do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who
push solutions that amount to the same.

~~~
fmihaila
> Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of
> living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death.

Of course not, nor should they.

> I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But
> there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or
> who push solutions that amount to the same.

Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the
strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic
than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the
tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both
sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).

------
ergothus
Okay - help someone that doesn't truly understand this.

Earth's surface can gain heat through 4 ways I can think of (and this is just
what I can think of and is likely wrong):

1) Geothermal brings more heat from core/mantle up. I don't think this is
currently any larger than normal, nor do I imagine this varies much.

2) Oceans can give up heat they are storing and provide it on the surface. I
don't know if El Nino is this, or if that just means "surface" ocean
temperatures are up from whatever source.

3) Solar radiation (including infrared) can be higher than normal. I honestly
have no idea if there's any significant variation in this, ever.

4) Earth can retain more heat that it was previously (global warming, be it
man-made or not)

When they say the annual variation is usually hundredths of a degree, that
sounds to me like 1-3 are generally non-factors, but that's all gut
interpretation. Can someone with actual knowledge validate this?

~~~
Afforess
The Earth can only "gain" heat through #3, solar radiation. The other 3 items
you list can _store_ and release heat at a later time, but they can not
generate more heat than they already possess now. (This is not strictly true,
conversion of mass to energy, e=mc^2, means that nuclear and fusion energy
could create new heat at the expense of matter, but we generally assume that
on planets, this is negligible.)

So if people talk about "El Nino" increasing the temperature for the year,
this is only possible because previous "La Nina" cycles decreased the
temperature by an equivalent amount in previous years, and the oceans are
returning the heat to the atmosphere.

Geothermal energy was stored back during the formation of the planet and there
is generally just enough to keep the planet a few degrees above absolute zero.
The energy released is highly variable though, volcanoes can release lots on
one particular day, but then diminished activity for years follows.

~~~
flubert
>Geothermal energy was stored back during the formation of the planet

"Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth's Heat"

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-
fis...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-
confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/)

~~~
JBReefer
That's talking about radioactive decay, not fission. The article doesn't do a
great job distinguishing between the two, but it's _not_ talking about the
process of splitting atoms.

>The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of
Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures
found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust.

~~~
kaybe
AFAIK nuclear fission also includes radioactive decay, which does split atoms,
or at least part of atoms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)

------
codecamper
What if all these guesses & models are WAY OFF?? What happens when the average
temperature change is 10C, not 2C?

A family member works at Nasa & he says that their model is written in
Fortran.

And those models do not really take into account feedback loops. (like Siberia
thaws & releases giga giga tons of methane.. Greenland disintegrates instead
of melting slowly)

------
citrin_ru
I'm recently come to US and currently live in (rented) apartments where gas
stove with pilot light is used. 24x7 small fire inside stove turns gas into
heat and CO2 with water. I was very surprised - it is waste of energy. I never
seen pilot light before (in other countries).

~~~
oldmanjay
I would be amazed to find out that a) this only exists in America and b) it is
significant

Edit: it is significant, although the citations are impossible to follow. I am
amazed. But I see nothing that indicates it unique to the US.

~~~
green7ea
I can confirm that they also exist in Canada but that they are rare.

------
js8
I like to look at the State of the Climate:
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513)

------
karmawitch
is it just me or is it quite rare to see such a low level of discussion on HN?

~~~
nikdaheratik
I think it depends on what kind of article you're looking at. It's related to
a political issue early in the U.S. election year, so there's alot of noise
from people who don't usually comment. Only 10.5 months until the nonsense
goes away for awhile.

~~~
midwest1
Is this a typical thing on HN in election years? This is where I come to
escape, dammit! :)

I would give a finger to have an entire forum of people from various technical
backgrounds who could have intelligent conversations about various topics
without the bumbling interference of the devoted true believers of whatever
creed.

------
drinchev
My home country is suffering enormous climate anomalies, that are becoming
usual for the population. We have big floods, forest fires, enormous heat
waves and huge snow storms.

This is so obvious that people are having hard time to talk about it. First
years this happened it was "just a nature glitch", but recently it is becoming
more and more "climate has changed".

------
567945679
[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-
in-1997-no...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-
claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/)

------
jokoon
I wonder if there is a planned study of the melting of the permafrost, since
I've seen on Cosmos that it will be one of the "irreversible" side effects of
global warming.

------
tahssa
My 3 wishes....

1\. Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and
have exponential taxes applied accordingly.

2\. Automobiles should be banned from cities, roads should be turned into
parks maybe with some commuter trains.

3\. The top 62 richest people on the planet should give their money over to
make wish number 1 and 2 come true.

;)

~~~
flubert
>Every person on the planet should have a carbon consumption rating and have
exponential taxes applied accordingly.

Anyone know how practical it might be to have a "progressive" carbon tax,
similar in nature to a progressive income tax? I can't think of a good way to
measure individual carbon-dioxide generation offhand, but that doesn't mean
that there isn't. Maybe in a piecemeal fashion? Bringing back carbon based
Luxury taxes on airline tickets, with a $100 tax on the first transoceanic
flight, $200 for the second, $400 for the third, etc.?

~~~
prawn
Would piecemeal through household/business energy bills and fuel costs cover
the bulk of it? I'd guess transport, home heating/cooling, etc to be a
significant portion?

------
nsxwolf
Wasn't clear to me if 2015 would have been hotter than 2014 had it not been an
El Niño year.

~~~
pdabbadabba
>2015’s sharp spike in temperatures was aided by a strong El Nino weather
pattern late in the year that caused ocean waters in the central Pacific to
heat up. But the unusual warming started early and steadily gained strength in
a year in which ten of 12 months set all-time records, scientists said.

~~~
nsxwolf
That doesn't answer the question.

------
InclinedPlane
Ah yes, an El Nino "this proves global warming" versus a La Nina "weather is
not climate" year.

I hate that this is the narrative. Can people just ... stop doing this? Maybe?
If you try to use the "record breaking heat, it was warm this one year"
argument to argue for acceptance of theories of climate change you are only
going to be hoist by your own petard a few years later when natural weather
cycles result in record breaking cold years. It's the wrong playing field to
be on.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
It's not that it was warm "this one year," it's another data point in the
pattern of record-breakingly warm years over the past few decades. Checkout
the animation in this Bloomberg report if you want a better idea.[1]

[1]
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-01-20/2015-was-t...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-01-20/2015-was-
the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-stunning-margin)

~~~
InclinedPlane
It's still fundamentally the _wrong argument to make_ if you're trying to
convince the public. As I mentioned, all of that precious work goes right out
the window the very first year there's a record breaking cold snap (because
there will be). And then you'll end up spending all your time trying to break
people out of the logic you set them up for. Getting complex science across to
the public is a difficult bargain but if you short cut it you're just going to
pay the price later.

------
monochromatic
> "But this record, we literally smashed. It was over a quarter of a degree
> Fahrenheit, and that’s a lot for the global temperature.”

We literally smashed it Thomas? Literally? The record is broken into pieces
and scattered around the literal floor?

------
Laaw
2015 was a strong el nino, I dunno if it's gonna tell us much about global
warming...

It's actually alarming to me that this post is being given any traction on
here, when I _know_ everyone here is smarter than to attribute one year to
global warming. How many times have we mocked Fox News for saying shit like,
"It was -10F outside today, so much for global warming!"

Climate change is clearly a big deal, and one of (if not the) biggest threats
to _every_ nation's national security, but it's not the cause of a warm 2015.
Sorry folks, it just isn't.

~~~
joenathan
You talk about how smart everyone here is but you offer no data for your
assertion. You mention the el nino being the cause but some might argue that
climate change lead to a a bigger el nino. You have evidence showing that
there is no link?

~~~
Laaw
What kind of data do you want to see that something _isn 't_ causing something
else? That's a pretty insane thing to ask for, if you know about
falsifiability.

Usually this works by me saying "there's no known link between a single year's
temperature and overall global warming", which is a falsifiable statement, and
then you/anyone else can go ahead and provide _any_ evidence that what I said
is false.

If you can prove that a single year's temperature variance is primarily
explained by global climate change, now would be the time to do it.

------
galactical
What's a good book for someone who wants to know more about climate change? I
recently bought the most scientific, written by scientists book I could find
on Amazon, and the gist of the book is that any amount of warming that is
happening is due to geologic cycles and not human activity. The consensus here
seems to be that it is due to human activity, so if that's the case can you
point me to a good explanation of what's happening? I'm not biased either way,
I just want to know the truth according to science, which seems to be really
hard to find for some reason.

~~~
drewrv
I'm curious what book you read because it sounds like it does not agree with
what almost all scientists believe.

Perhaps you should start with The IPCC Reports.

~~~
galactical
This was the book, chosen because it looked like the most objective one
available:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986398306](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986398306)

~~~
drewrv
This book seems explicitly one sided to me, it says right in the blurb:

> The authors of Climate Change: The Facts number some of the most prominent
> dissenters from Big Climate alarmism

~~~
galactical
It's definitely one sided, I just thought the author list consisting of
climatologists, professors, and scientists would be more fact-based than a lot
of the other books out there. Which is why I'm frustrated that that does not
appear to be the case.

------
pfarnsworth
There is a 10F difference in temperature between my upstairs and downstairs
without any heat turned on. There is a 4F difference in temperature between
the front of the house and the back of my house.

There are so many factors as to how temperature is calculated, how exactly can
we take a temperature today and compare it to values from years ago? I'll buy
that satellite imaging will produce values that are useful over large areas,
but those only go back 20-30 years. To compare against values before that
seems like pseudoscience at best.

~~~
vectorjohn
Do you think people have systematically moved the locations of thermometers to
warmer places? There's a thing called averages, medians, and other statistics
that can remove or put error bars on that kind of uncertainty.

~~~
gus_massa
[Not the op] I neither think that someone moved a thermometer to a warmer
place. The problem is that some weather stations were originally placed
outside a city many years ago, but the city grow until the weather station is
surrounded by the city. Cities are 2°F or 3°F warmer than the countryside, so
this creates a fake temperature. Obviously, this changes are not ignored, so
the temperature tables have corrections for this kind of problems.

Some of the weather stations were moved the countryside, to avoid the problem
or because the office they were placed was relocated. So when the place
changes, it necessary to adjust the temperature tables to compensate any
differences between the locations.

So, there are a lot of corrections that have to be calculated correctly to
have reliable temperature values.

~~~
vectorjohn
That's a good point about cities growing to encompass weather stations, and it
would be a slow steady change. But like you said, that can be corrected for
and I presume you or the gp are not the first to have thought of it. So I
still strongly disagree with the assertion that using this data is
pseudoscience. Almost everything in science has to compensate measurements for
known anomalies or biases.

