What does that even mean warmest year yet measured? How would you even measure something like that? The technology used today and the number of data points collected today is vastly different than 10years ago or 20 year ago and in no way comparable to say 100 years ago. And who decides what to include and not include in the data? What biases are introduced by the people who make these calculations? Even if they could somehow have an accurate measurement of temps over a hundred years or so, does that really tell us anything. The earth has been around for billions of years. No one knows what the average should or should not be. Its all a bunch of crap if you ask me.
The source for this information is my head.
Two things, satellite temperature datasets do not show 2014 to be the warmest year on record.
Also, NASA and NOAA, the source for the 'warmest year on record' claim, have error margins, and when this is accounted for, they declare that the chance of 2014 being the warmest year on record is less than 50%. 2014 is according to them the likeliest warmest year on record, but not a guarantee because it is just a few hundredths of a year difference.
The source of information is the typical denier blogs whose authors make a habit of making inconsistent claims.
Today they claim neither UAH nor RSS show warming (both satellite recorded temperatures), while only a little over a year ago they claimed that satellite data was unreliable:
Anthony Watts: "NOAA knows high latitude near-pole data will be noisy and not representative, so they don’t even try to display it. UAH is the same way. Between the look-angle problem and the noise generated by sea ice, their data analysis stops short of the pole. RSS does the same due to the same physical constraints of orbit and look angle."
Judith Curry: [UAH satellite analyses are] "not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature)."
Both Watts and Curry used that argument back then to try to debunk a paper by Cowtan et al. which had used satellite data to fill in the gaps in the HadCrut4 dataset.
Yet now all of a sudden that is all forgotten it seems and satellite datasets are the only reliable source they argue. Sure....
The "past" temperature data changes several times every year lately.
If you really think that taking and interpreting temperature data doesn't evolve, then you are a TRUE "Climate Clown".
Variations in temperature anomalies have been within 1 or 2 10ths of a degree for several years. The past data used as "the record" clearly shows many temperature fluctuations of 0.5C from month to month.
It's a "TEMPERATURE ANOMALY RECORD"! Not an "actual" temperature record.
Climate Science Advocates keep trying to change the game to suit their purpose!!!
When you've witnessed 20+ years of outright lies, failed predictions, data manipulation and both political and media bias, then only a total fool would give any credence to already proven liars.
UAH satellite measurment says it is 3rd warmest, RSS a little less.
Does that apply locally or globally?
