Click for an interactive graphic.
Source: Bloomberg
2014 Was the Hottest Year on Record
January 22, 2015 3:00pm by Barry Ritholtz
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web:Posted Under
Previous Post
Bull and Bear Market DurationsNext Post
Super Mario Delivers
I worry about things that have been done to the historical record.
e.g The 1930s were hotter in older published papers.
Satelite data is newer, less tampered, and maintained by the US gov.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
i would also just how accurate the data is before it was automated? cause in can see that we humans arent really all that big on cold or heat
Apparently even Senator Inhofe agrees that something is happening. What is happening exactly, he doesn’t know. Only Sen Wicker from Mississippi voted against a simple statement that climate change is real and not a hoax.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-senate-climate-hoax-20150121-story.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-senate-officially-believes-climate-change-is-real/384724/
So, is that progress?
So they have changed from denying the reality of climate change to denying that humans have anything to do with it. Eventually they will have to accept the reality that humans had a lot to do with it, and they will claim that there is nothing we can do to reverse it without destroying the economy – and by that time they may actually be right.
The “I’m no scientist” Republicans sure have strong opinions about marijuana, fructose, health care, FEMA needs, nuclear power, NSF funding, fracking, infrastructure, FAA, the EPA, pipelines, NASA, Offshore drilling, and the “right” number for Pi.
Only 6% of scientists are Republicans…
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/
…which seems high to me.
It is very difficult to survive as a scientist if you let your dogmatic narrative trump your data. I am surprised that 6% of scientist are members of the GOP tribe – maybe they are RINO’s
The consequences of manipulated data are trivial compared to the consequences of sustained climate change.
Amen. The possibility of manipulated or erroneous data is a red herring even if true.
The problem of evaluating risk is actually simplified when risk asymmetry is appropriately assessed. Whether it is the risk of a central bank raising interest rates too soon and quenching recovery or the risk of spending too little in preparation for climate change and condemning our grandchildren to face catastrophe unshielded, the opposing risks are so relatively trivial and easy to ameliorate that they effectively become zero in contrast.
and here is how “we know”.
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/know-2014-hottest-year/
Of course some argue that satellite data is more relevant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/18/satellite-data-indicate-2014-will-not-be-warmest-year-on-record-but-among-top-several/
But why let science get in the way..?
So yes lets cherry-pick the layer of the atmosphere where 2014 is only the 3’rd hottest, cause then all is good? Next year I am sure we can find some other layer where it is not the hottest year, so we won’t be needing to stop our self-indulgence and invest in our grandchildren’s future. Science is just fantastic, especially if you have no clue how to conduct it.
The temperatures at surface level are a lot more relevant to people (and melting surface ice) than the temperatures at 10,000 feet. Those who live at 10,000 feet may be relieved to hear that they are only undergoing the third worst frying of their life, but that is not much relief to most of us. But why let common sense get in the way of cherry-picking science data to support your favorite narrative?
Probably the most relevant temperature is that of the oceans because the oceans have the ability to absorb and destroy heat in a dramatic fashion. The thermodynamics of the energy it takes to warm water verses air make this very interesting. The story I am following closely is that new science shows that the trade winds and ocean currents work together to have a cooling effect on the earth. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html .
The facts are that global warming has stalled since the trade winds started blowing again. This new record that has been repeated so much has a margin of error because of the nature of the measurements. NASA admits that there is only a 38% certainty that it is not correct that 2014 was actually the hottest year..
I am not one of these “Climate Change Deniers” of course humans have an impact on the earth and carbon in many forms is pollution. The earth also clearly went through a significant warming period however the warming pretty much stopped in 2001. It is still hot however the movement up since then is statistically insignificant. Regarding climate change If we actually get the numbers and the science right maybe we can start to take action example there are large plastic bag islands in our oceans one is the size of Texas let’s clean this up it is easy to execute and will have a positive effect on ocean circulation which might actually cool the earth.
My point is that if you are serious about helping our planet being wrong on global warming is not going to help.
Yes the facts are that global warming has not stalled since 2001, and that the ocean warming is really a much bigger story than the surface temperature warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/22/3614256/hottest-year-ocean-warming/
I am so glad to hear you are not one of those “climate change deniers” or one of those data cherry-pickers.
Thanks for the article. What I like about this web site is that there are smart people who appreciate information. To be honest I had not seen this data. Like most people I have mostly seen the media published stuff which in my mind calls into question the coalition of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures since 2001. I also noticed that suddenly the name was “climate change” instead of “global warming” and we were all supposed to just believe this because of some 10 question survey of scientists.
I will take a close look at the information on this web site which does correlate with my understanding of earth science, physics, and theory of global warming. If this does indeed check out you will have had profoundly positive influence on my conversations and good will efforts. At the moment what puzzles me is that the earth is 2/3 ocean and if 2/3 of the planet has warmed appreciably and consistently why did that not show up in the surface temperature measurements published by the media?
It is important for our planet that we get the narrative correct and start to take action and debates like this one help. I am glad that we can agree that the oceans are the elephant in the room if one is to discuss global warming intelligently.
Not to mention that there are non-temperature data series out here that also match up with rising temps (i.e. spring migrations happening earlier, spring plants blooming earlier, plants growing/animals found at higher altitudes every decade, etc.)
Hi Barry, recently, you have been posting about climate change more often. Do you have a trading idea brewing? I am thinking of agricultural commodities or farm land but besides agric. futures which are very volatile, I don’t know how to play this event. Thank you,
~~~
ADMIN: BR says “Stay tuned”
I’ve always wondered what it must be like to live in an alternate universe where facts and data can be brushed aside so the end results fits neatly into your rigid view of reality. In a way it would be fun, you can do whatever you like and not be worried about the consequences.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-climate-change-has-altered-life-on-earth-2014-12