Record Global Temperature—Conflicting Reports, Contrasting Implications

Guest essay By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels

Despite what you may think if you reside in the eastern United States, the world as a whole in 2014 has been fairly warm. For the past few months, several temperature-tracking agencies have been hinting that this year may turn out to be the “warmest ever recorded”—for whatever that is worth (keep reading for our evaluation). The hints have been turned up a notch with the latest United Nations climate confab taking place in Lima, Peru through December 12.  The mainstream media is happy to popularize these claims (as are government-money-seeking science lobbying groups).

But a closer look shows two things: first, whether or not 2014 will prove to be the record warmest year depends on whom you ask; and second, no matter where the final number for the year ranks in the observations, it will rank among the greatest “busts” of climate model predictions (which collectively expected it to be a lot warmer). The implication of the first is just nothing more than a jostling for press coverage. The implication of the latter is that future climate change appears to be less of a menace than assumed by the president and his pen and phone.

Let’s examine at the various temperature records.

First, a little background. Several different groups compile the global average temperature in near-real time. Each uses slightly different data-handling techniques (such as how to account for missing data) and so each gets a slightly different (but nevertheless very similar) values. Several groups compute the surface temperature, while others calculate the global average temperature in the lower atmosphere (a bit freer from confounding factors like urbanization). All, thus far, only have data for 2014 compiled through October, so the final ranking for 2014, at this point in time, is only a speculation (although a pretty well-founded one).

The three major groups calculating the average surface temperature of the earth (land and ocean combined) all are currently indicating that 2014 will likely nudge out 2010 (by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius) to become the warmest year in each dataset (which begin in mid-to-late 1800s). This is almost certainly true in the datasets maintained by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the UK Met Office Hadley Centre. In the record compiled by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the 2014 year-to-date value is in a virtual dead heat with the annual value for 2010, so the final ranking will depend heavily on the how the data come in for November and December. (The other major data compilation, the one developed by the Berkeley Earth group is not updated in real time).

There is one other compilation of the earth’s surface temperature history that has recently been developed by researchers Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way of the University of York. This dataset rose to prominence a year ago, when it showed that if improved (?) methods were used to fill in data-sparse regions of the earth (primarily in the Arctic), the global warming “hiatus” was more of a global warming “slowdown.” In other words, a more informed guess indicated that the Arctic had been warming at a greater rate than was being expressed by the other datasets. This instantly made the Cowtan and Way dataset the darling of folks who wanted to show that global warming was alive and well and not, in fact, in a coma (a careful analysis of the implications of Cowtan and Way’s findings however proved the data not up to that task). So what are the prospects of 2014 being a record warm year in the Cowtan and Way dataset? Slim. 2014 currently trails 2010 by a couple hundredths of a degree Celsius—an amount that will be difficult to make up without an exceptionally warm November and December. Consquently, the briefly favored dataset is now being largely ignored.

It is worth pointing out, that as a result of data and computational uncertainty,  none of the surface compilations will 2014 be statistically different from 2010—in other words, it is impossible to say with statistical certainty, that 2014 was (or was not) the all-time warmest year ever recorded.

It is a different story in the lower atmosphere.

There, the two groups compiling the average temperature show that 2014 is nowhere near the warmest (in data which starts in 1979), trailing 1998 by several tenths of a degree Celsius. This difference is so great that it statistically clear that 2014 will not be a record year (it’ll probably fall in the lower half of the top five warmest years in both the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) datasets). The variability of temperatures in the lower atmosphere is more sensitive to the occurrence of El Niño conditions and thus the super El Niño of 1998 set a high temperature mark that will likely stand for many years to come, or at least until another huge El Niño occurs.

Basically, what all this means, is that if you want 2014 to be the “warmest year ever recorded” you can find data to back you up, and if you prefer it not be, well, you can find data to back up that position as well.

In all cases, the former will make headlines.

But these headlines will be misplaced. The real news is that climate models continue to perform incredibly poorly by grossly overestimating the degree to which the earth is warming.

Let’s examine climate model projections for 2014 against the observations from the dataset which has the greatest chance of 2014 as the warmest year—the NOAA dataset.

Figure 1 shows the average of 108 different climate model projections of the annual surface temperature of the earth from 1980 through 2014 along with the annual temperature as compiled by NOAA.

cw_12_10_14_fig1[1]Figure 1. Global annual surface temperature anomalies from 1980 to 2014. The average of 108 climate models (red) and observations from NOAA (blue) are anomalies from the 20th century average. In the case of the NOAA observations, the 2014 value is the average of January-October.

For the past 16 straight years, climate models have collectively projected more warming than has been observed.

Over the period 1980-2014, climate models projected the global temperature to rise at a rate of 0.24°C/decade while NOAA observations pegged the rise at 0.14°C/decade, about 40 percent less. Over the last 16 years, the observed rise is nearly 66 percent less than climate model projections. The situation is getting worse, not better. This is the real news, because it means that prospects for overly disruptive climate change are growing slimmer, as are justifications for drastic intervention.

We don’t expect many stories to look any further than their “2014 is the warmest year ever” headlines.

As to the rest of the picture, and the part which holds the deeper and more important implications, well, you’ll have to keep checking back with us here—we’re happy to fill you in!


 

The Current Wisdom is a series of monthly articles in which Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, from Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, review interesting items on global warming in the scientific literature or of a more technical nature that may not have received the media attention that they deserved, or have been misinterpreted in the popular press.

Advertisements

166 thoughts on “Record Global Temperature—Conflicting Reports, Contrasting Implications

    • It has been unusually cold on nearly every continent this year including Africa!!!! The ‘warm’ stuff is all ocean water and that is due to oceans cooling slower than land. But the land masses are definitely showing signs of global cooling and the oceans will catch up with us in less than 20 years if this is a new ‘Maunder minimum’ solar event.

    • It could be by a millionth of a degree and still not matter at all.

      By far most of the people for whom this “information” is being manufactured do not know the first thing about climate… nor do most of those that will dismiss the very same “information”.

      Good for popcorn, though.

    • I’m pitching this idea for a new tv series to be made in Paris next year. NutFlux, a New Zealand company, is interested.

      It’s called “Breaking Mad”. It’s the pitiful adventures of a couple of geezers (Mikey, a tenured nerd at an ancient university, and Johnno, an aspiring cartoonist) who team up to establish a myth lab (which is a math lab used for nefarious purposes). In the myth lab, Mikey and Johnno cook up batches of scary temperature sets to sell to progressives (users) all around the world.

      The cooks have developed a special process they call “homogenization”, which is their secret treatment of raw temp sets to make them extra scary.

      They have also co-opted a slick distribution network called The MSM, who love the product, because it is 97% pure (according to a self-determined standard from a couple of Mikey & Johnno’s henchpersons).

      Anyway this is all going along nicely for many years, but then the raw ingredients start to disappear for about 18 years. This hurts Mikey & Johnno’s business model somewhat. A number of MSM dealers and their customers have to go cold turkey and reluctantly have to resort to consuming the bland, un-scary product. But like dedicated disaster junkies, they wait desperately in anticipation for the raw ingredients to come on stream again so Mikey & Johhno can put the myth lab into top gear and churn out scarier than ever, 97% pure product.

      The plot line hasn’t been finalised yet, because I’m in two minds as to whether “homogenization” should be what Mikey & Johnno use from the start, or whether they invent this as a result of the 18-year unavailability of good raw ingredients.

      Maybe some readers could help with suggestions . . .

      • I have had a similar Ide : Stand-up comedian, or give presentations, named something like “The Climate Idiot”.
        Since I am not a perfect speaker, I can do the script and hire a Hollywood-star to do the talking/show ?

    • Eric: Don’t you realize that 0.01 degrees every 4 years mean a full degree over the next 400 years! You see how much climate disruption has been caused by 0.01 degrees, image what they claim will happen with a full degree.

    • Newsel,
      Thanks for not saying anything. Some of us are busy and find skipping, rather than clicking, links to be an advantage.

  1. what a pity that the scientific wisdom in CATO does not appear to reach the ones who are taking the decisions. Will CATO be able to pull together a positive convincing story about what is really happening? For the moment the ‘deniers’ are in a reactive mode. We can only change the politics if we come with documentation that is convincing enough to put the other side into a defensive mode.

    • no moderation needed. delete if you deem necessary. merely want to stress that we should change from being reactive to becoming active.

    • Patrick

      Your frustration is palpable…and deservedly so.

      My summary of current “climate change” debate:

      (1) The vast majority of people delegate studying, understanding and explaining complex things to “experts” – raising a family, earning a living, mowing the grass, etc prevents everybody from being experts in everything.

      (2) Evangelical warmest have knowingly and willingly violated this delegation of trust.

      (3) People with limited scientific education are slowly understanding this violation of trust. This learning process appears to be accelerating, but 100% of people will never understand the folly of what has happened (e.g.: some people still believe in astrology).

      (4) Evangelical warmest are on the defensive in the scientific debate (AKA use of scientific method) – actual data spectacularly fails to match the models…PERIOD…end of story.

      Frustration results because the climate debate is not owned or moderated by qualified “experts”. Willfully deceptive “experts” knowingly conduct the discussion as an emotional political campaign in the public forum. This post is a perfect example: the vast majority of people have no meaningful skill-set for determining the appropriate technique for calculating average global temperature.

  2. So what if it is the “warmest”? Lukewarmers certainly believe in temperature rise and that records will be broken. But at a much slower rate than projections indicate.

  3. Global warming science is propaganda driven and it is a cause for rejoicing for them to have this propaganda coup after so many years of dismal news on the climate front.
    They will be dancing in the streets.

  4. All the president’s pens
    And all the President’s phones
    Couldn’t put global warming together alone.

  5. When you look at thermometers in a Stevenson Screen, it is easy to ascertain it the temperature is an exact degree – or so close to an exact degree that you cannot distinguish any difference.

    It is reasonably easy to say that the temperature is near enough exactly half way between two exact degree marks.

    It is not so easy to guess that it may be at the levels 0.1, or 0.4, or 0.6 or 0.9 in relation to an exact degree. But 0.2 or 0.3, 0.7 or 0.8?

    If Stevenson Screen thermometers are what is relied on, what is the real accuracy of the temperature recording? With the canvas bucket used for sea surface temperatures, I would doubt that past observations were to better than the nearest degree, taking into account the possible length of time between immersing the bucket and reading the temperature – especially if conditions outside suggested it was desirable to get back into the accommodation asap!

    Surely the only set of observations that should be relied upon are the NOAA’s 10 years – now about 10.5 year – series referred to a few months ago which showed a slight decrease in the first 10 years for the United States. Not global, but the best series we have for any part of the world and hence a useful indicator for the rest of the world.

    • Bucket temperatures are probably not accurate to better than 2 degrees. There is much margin of error, not least caused by the difficulties of scooping up water from the surface as opposed to that say 1 metre below the surface.

      The fact is that we have no high quality data, of working length, for temperature whether this be land or sea.

      Satellite data has its issue, but these are the most sophisticated and state of art of our measuring devices (which are checked and callibrated against balloon data), and but for the fact that the warmists do not like what they say, one would expect that since 1979 only satellite data would be used.

  6. We are relying on instruments which, for a variety of reasons, are expected to be in error by an average of more than 1C. We are reporting anomalies to 0.1C, which assumes, however inaccurately, that the instruments and their surroundings have not changed in any way that might affect their measurements over time. We then report decadal rates of change to 0.01C, though we know that neither the instrument data nor the anomaly calculations support such precision. We are delusional.

  7. …and the Arctic has record high ‘red’ ice…………

    Global warming is the stupidest thing I’ve see in my life time…….

    • I think that becomes even more ludicrous if you show the daily and annual ranges of temperature change. It not only dwarfs the apparent warming, it completely obscures it.

      We need error ranges!

    • Why don’t you plot the temperature data on the kelvin scale. The increase would look even less significant. However, the temperature change following the LGM would also appear as a barely detectable departure and we all know about the profound changes that have took place since then.

  8. I wonder how they are going to explain the disparity between the GISS and NOAA temp records when USCRN shows all that upward adjustment wrong?

    Its baffling how this information is still somewhat hidden and these people are never called on it.

    • You’re assuming they are going to explain it at all. I expect them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing LALALA.

    • That downwards slope is getting on for a glaciation by 2100. CAGW may morph into catastrophic global cooling.

  9. To be fair, If the temperatures leapt by 5 degrees c this year, so what ?
    It is interesting, but was it caused by humans ?

  10. Warming is comforting to me. I still think biblical Hell is ‘hot’ because people of that time and locale could not comprehend a frozen tundra with no shelter.

  11. “In the lower half of the top five warmest years.” Is that 3rd, 4th or 5th, or 4th or 5th? So out of 35 total years, it could still be in the top 10%, right?

      • dbstealey,

        How about looking at ALL the RSS data? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend

        2014 currently tied for 6th:

        Year TLT
        Year TLT
        1998 0.55
        2010 0.47
        2005 0.33
        2003 0.32
        2002 0.32
        2007 0.25
        2014 0.25
        2001 0.25
        2006 0.23
        2009 0.22

        3rd place in UAH:

        Year Globe
        1998 0.53
        2010 0.51
        2014 0.38
        2005 0.37
        2013 0.34
        2002 0.33
        2009 0.32
        2007 0.31
        2006 0.29
        2003 0.29
        2012 0.28

        Isn’t it funny that except for 1998 every year in the top 10 is in the 21st century? Yep, CMIP5 is running hot. But to call the temperature record “nonsense” because the models don’t agree with it is rather silly. To make that silly point by selecting only the portion of the data which support your argument is dishonest.

      • Brandon,

        I was all set to reply. But then I got to the part where you called me dishonest, just because I don’t see it like you do. Am I a liar for that?

      • dbstealey,

        Way to double down! [Reviews comment for “seeing things differently is lying” … doesn’t find any such statement. Shrugs.]

      • oppti,

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

        Goes down some, goes up more, goes down some, goes up more. Not knowing a thing about the underlying physics involved, a betting man would say, “my money’s on up within the next 10 years”.

      • Brandon Gates
        December 11, 2014 at 12:08 am

        ///////////////////////////

        Your plot gives good insight as to what is going on, and far more relevant to some straight line lenear trend drawn throgh data that is not showing such a linear response.

        As your plot confirms, absolutely no (first order) correlation whatsoever with CO2. Something that everyone knows but yet something that the warmists refuse to acknowledge.

        From your plot CO2 does not appear to be a first order driver of temperatures.

      • richard verney,

        As your plot confirms, absolutely no (first order) correlation whatsoever with CO2. Something that everyone knows but yet something that the warmists refuse to acknowledge.

        That plot didn’t show CO2, so let’s not rush to judgement.

        From your plot CO2 does not appear to be a first order driver of temperatures.

        It’s not the dominant driver over interannual and decadal time periods:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSOUpZMWViQkZncEk

        Top plot is the average of HADCRUT4, GISTemp, UAH and RSS vs. CO2 with a 20-year lag. Bottom plot is the same, except I throw stratospheric aerosols, solar variability, ENSO, AMO and other GHGs into the regression. AMO alone is accounts for +/- 0.2 °C of variability over its ~60 year cycle. In the end, I come up with 2.4 °C/CO2dbl transient climate response which is in general agreement with published values. If “warmists” are denying anything, it’s not that correlation.

      • “Isn’t it funny that except for 1998 every year in the top 10 is in the 21st century? ”

        First of all, that is a dry humor you have. Second of all, what else would we expect?! The Earth was several tenths of a degree below the Holocene average from 1550-1800 during the Maunder Minimum. Since then the sun has been relatively more active, especially during the 20th century Modern Maximum.

      • First of all Brandon, anyone using a land based data set on this site will be summarily ignored. This site has covered the errors in measurement, UHI, adjustments, etc. too well for us to take these series seriously. Unless you are going to use UAH or RSS, don’t waste our time.

      • Jeff in Calgary,

        We accept the new climate reference network, but don’t think any conclusions can be drawn from it for another 10 or 20 years. So not ALL surface data sets are bad, just those that show obvious signs of slicing and dicing and torturing the data into a confession of warming.

      • Robert W Turner,

        First of all, that is a dry humor you have.

        Thanks.

        Second of all, what else would we expect?!

        Being a physical system, we would expect the planet to react in accordance to the sum of input and internal dynamics, net outputs. Conceptually simple, not so much in practice as GCM projections amply attest.

        The Earth was several tenths of a degree below the Holocene average from 1550-1800 during the Maunder Minimum. Since then the sun has been relatively more active, especially during the 20th century Modern Maximum.

        Mmm hmm. This only goes back to 1600, but it shows a nice dip between 1650 and 1700, and a goodly rise from then into the 20th century: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_wls_ann.png

        How might we figure out the Sun’s contribution to the observed temperature rise since 1650?

  12. Nice way of presenting the data and something interesting also when looking at the years prior to the 16 straight years.
    Just for fun, I counted that for the preceding 19 years, the models predicted less warming than was observed for 14 of these years.

    • Nice try – the models were in hindcast mode so I would be VERY surprised if they didn’t “model” events that had already occurred ;-)

  13. Is raw data (not adjusted for any reason) for the last 30 years on US land based temperature sites that were proven by the site survey project (conducted by this site) to not be subject to urban crawl, poor maintenance, etc. (in other words considered accurate) available so I can see the temperature trend of just those sites? I don’t care if it is only 10 sites. I would just love to see some raw data over a significant amount of time. So much is done here at WUWT it must be available I just can’t find it.

    • Tom,

      Yes, the data for the global surface stations, including all US stations, used by GISS (and CRU) are available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

      The unadjusted datafile is: File:ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz
      The adjusted datafile is:File:ghcnm.tavg.latest.qca.tar.gz

      (qcu = quality controlled unadjusted, qca = quality controlled adjusted)

      I made the following chart which roughly estimates the net global difference between raw and adjusted since 1880:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaST082SnBJdXpvTVk

      The adjustment process adds about 0.5 degrees C. GISS backs out about 0.2 degrees of that in their “brightness index” calculation for growing urban areas.

      • So, of the 0.4°C of warming, 0.3°C is a result of adjustments. Well done GISS!
        The crazy thing is that over and over, we see sites that should be adjusted down due to UHI, or new placement, but they get the same 0.3°C up adjustment as the rest. It really is just gaming the system

      • Jeff in Calgary,

        So, of the 0.4°C of warming, 0.3°C is a result of adjustments. Well done GISS!

        My plot doesn’t show temperature rise, only differences between raw and adjusted. From 1880-2014, the reported temperature rise is 0.87 °C according to GISS. Without their brightness adjustment for UHI (and whatever else), GISTemp would report 1.07 °C warming. Back out of that the 0.5 °C — which NCDC does, not GISS — and the implied change according to the raw data is 0.57 °C, not 0.4.

        The crazy thing is that over and over, we see sites that should be adjusted down due to UHI, or new placement, but they get the same 0.3°C up adjustment as the rest.

        My naive expectation was that such adjustments new placement to go both was and net out. Years ago when Anthony first started his surface stations project — one of his most genuinely appreciated constructive efforts in my view — I dug into the data and recall finding not that much net difference. Those analyses are on a backup drive somewhere, and it behooves me to dig them out because my current findings are unpleasantly different from my recollection. Short story long, I share your sentiment that it smells bad.

        The main thing I push back against is your contention that all stations get the same upward adjustment. Where is that information coming from?

        It really is just gaming the system

        I have a real problem with that argument for a number of reasons. Both the raw and adjusted data are publicly accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and the know-how to suck it into their own data processing and analysis software — which I’ve done for myself. The software which performs the adjustments is also freely available as source code and can be compiled and executed by anyone who knows how to do that. Which I do, I just haven’t gotten up the gumption yet. It’s on the list. Conspirators are not that transparent, by definition. That’s strike one swinging against the gaming the system argument.

        Assuming a conspiracy exists, I have a difficult time (to put it mildly) understanding why the temperature data aren’t synchronized more closely to GCM output … or vice versa. It seems to me that if the goal were political domination by taking away our fossil fuels by trumping up AGW would be a far easier sell if models and observations more closely matched. Too good a match smells wrong, yes? But why not a much better one? Strike two swinging against gaming the system.

        Conversely, it could be not everyone is in on the rigged game, and our hypothetical conspirators have to work within the constraints of honest brokers. So they fudge where they can all the while appearing to be as objective as possible by releasing data just wrong enough to look real, but cooked just enough to be convincing to those who count most. The question now becomes, just what is it that they control and what can they reasonably get away with? Probably not temperature records since instrumental observations lend themselves to independent verification. Proxy reconstructions? Not as easy, but it’s difficult to imagine in this scenario that all the paleo guys are in on the game. So we’re down to GCMs and related models again. But those are also open source and can be downloaded, compiled, executed and reviewed independently as well.

        So it’s difficult to imagine even a semi-conspiracy that’s plausibly effective. Think the BEST project, etc. Called third strike against the system gaming hypothesis. The managers are vehemently arguing this call to little avail, which makes sense because there’s no plate umpire in sight, and the benches have only just begun to clear. Bit of a mess if you ask me.

  14. “In a dead Heat” “dead” being the operative adjective. Alarm over a number so far inside instrumental error as to be…..meaningless. Yet, there they are, screaming “hottest” as if the oceans were boiling. As if, in the 150-year temperature record, global history was being shattered. What a shifty lot of horse-hockey.

  15. Only marginally related –

    Take a look at the PIOMAS graph. Notice building mass over last 2 years. PIOMAS was the volume model used in the “Hiroshima Bomb” counters that alarmists loved trotting out. Do those counters run negative now?

      • Hey dbstealey..

        Give us a graph over the past 30 years for Arctic ice iextent if you think you have a better one.

      • David Socrates


        Give us a graph over the past 30 years for Arctic ice iextent if you think you have a better one.

        Why? From today’s arctic sea ice extents, losing more arctic sea ice only increases the cooling trend now evident. At the latitude of the edge of the arctic sea ice, too little solar energy is present for too few hours a day to make up for increased evaporation, increased radiation losses, increased convection and conduction losses.

        For the past years, arctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctic sea ice – which DOES REFLECT ever more solar energy from the earth every day of the year – has been increasing since 1992. And has set a new record high of 2.06 million sq km’s in June. An “excess” sea ice area equal to the size of Greenland.

        Arctic sea ice? has stayed within 2 std deviations of the normal all year.

      • D. Socrates says:

        Give us a graph over the past 30 years…

        Hey D. Socrates,

        I’ve posted literally dozens of graphs, which you have completely ignored, along with all my questions and other folks’ questions.

        That makes you a troll, no?

      • dbstealey please read clipe post above and web reference. It seems the greens vandalized the Nazca lines in Peru, animals.
        michael

      • Hey Mr Socrates,
        There is nothing happening in the Arctic (temperature-wise) that hasn’t happened before, most recently in the 30’s and early 40’s before human CO2 emissions could have been a significant factor.

      • Interesting he (David Socrates) cannot control his temper. Frustration levels must be maxing out.
        michael

  16. Funny how the CO2 increase from 1850 (end of little ice age) to 1996 from 280 ppm to 362 ppm (82 ppm increase) coincided with a temperature increase of 1.3 F.

    Then the additional increase in CO2 1996-2014 has been 37 ppm, or 45% more than the 1850-1996 amount, but temperature has not increased at all since 1996?

    Why has CO2 lost its mojo since 1996?

    • Tom Sullivan,

      Funny how the CO2 increase from 1850 (end of little ice age) to 1996 from 280 ppm to 362 ppm (82 ppm increase) coincided with a temperature increase of 1.3 F.

      You sure you want to cherry pick 1996? 1998 was a lot hotter. ΔT1996-2014 = 0.41 °C, ΔT1998-2014 = 0.04 °C according to HADCRUT4.

      Then the additional increase in CO2 1996-2014 has been 37 ppm, or 45% more than the 1850-1996 amount, but temperature has not increased at all since 1996?

      That’s some wonky math right there. The back of napkin value for total greenhouse effect is 150 W/m^2. With CO2 today at 398.43 ppmv, it provides about 32.03 W/m^2, or ~20% of the effect. [1] Plug 287.40 ppmv for 1850 into that, and the total greenhouse effect then was 148.25 W/m^2. For 1998 we have 366.50 ppmv, 149.55 W/m^2.

      From 1850-1998 the net increase in forcing attributable to CO2 by this (very rough) estimate is 0.9%. From 1998-2014 that works out to an increase of 0.3%. Total for 1850-2014 is 1.2%.

      Why has CO2 lost its mojo since 1996?

      You are effectively complaining that your stove lost its mojo because yesterday it boiled your tea water in 5 minutes whereas today it has failed to set the kettle whistling at a 0.3% higher burner setting … but only for a tenth of the time previously given.

      —————————————

      [1] 5.35 * ln(398.43) = 32.03

      • Yes, I want to include 1998, which was merely a spike from the Super El Nino. I use 1996 as the starting year because the average warming since then is zero. A period of 18+ years without warming is significant, in the statistical sense.

        Teakettles aside, an increase of 45% more CO2 since 1996, above the CO2 which theoretically caused (or triggered through H2O) 1.3 F of warming, should have produced more warming, if the global warming CO2-H2O theory were correct. To my way of thinking a 45% increase with no warming proves the null hypothesis. Global warming theory is dead.

      • Tom Sullivan,

        Yes, I want to include 1998, which was merely a spike from the Super El Nino. I use 1996 as the starting year because the average warming since then is zero.

        Well …. ENSO is cyclical isn’t it? Stands to reason if El Nino Grande can cause a spike upward, La Nina Pequena could do the reverse. And ENSO isn’t the only ocean/atmosphere coupling on the block. Think AMO for starters, it explains a good deal of the runup between 1980 and 2000 as well as much of the flat/slightly declining trend from 1940-1980.

        A period of 18+ years without warming is significant, in the statistical sense.

        Here’s a stat for you: there are a bazillion statistical significance tests, plus or minus a few zillion. Myself, I like to start with simple standard deviations and use my eyeballs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSOUpZMWViQkZncEk

        The purple envelope is the 1-sigma standard deviation of the residual of a simple regression of CO2 vs. temperature. The lower plot shows a “hindcast” (the yellow dashed line) which is a slightly more complete model that factors in aerosols from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity, AMO, PDO, ENSO, and other GHGs like water vapor, methane and N2O. You can see that it doesn’t do so well prior to 1985, but it pretty much nails the most recent hiatus decades. It’s almost as if observational data are able to explain what’s going on here.

        Teakettles aside, an increase of 45% more CO2 since 1996, above the CO2 which theoretically caused (or triggered through H2O) 1.3 F of warming, should have produced more warming, if the global warming CO2-H2O theory were correct. To my way of thinking a 45% increase with no warming proves the null hypothesis. Global warming theory is dead.

        Your way of thinking leaves out a few important details. CO2 only accounts for 20% of the net estimated greenhouse effect, so you’re talking 45% of 20%. Besides, your 45% figure is bogus because that’s comparing the CO2 increase from 1850-1996 to the increase from 1996-2014 when the proper comparison is percentage change of total predicted forcing. I’ve already run through the calculations based on the actual theory from literature, not some make-believe arm-waving strawman of a non-theory. I suggest you read up on what it is you think you’re falsifying before declaring anything dead.

  17. The graph alone tells us there were significant baseline changes done to the model coding, that stuck, in 92ish.

    I wonder why? I assume that is documented……

  18. If a buyer’s market, then Ban Ki Moon will indulge, and demand that all meteorological and weather agencies fabricate their near-surface temperatures to coincide with the “Tastes” of Ban Ki Moon, or else face extermination by nuclear detonations ordered by Ban Ki Moon.

    You have to remember that Korea was occupied, brutally, the the Japanese from about 1899 through 1945. Old-Boy-Ban himself is half Japanese and this fact is of the greatest distaste to him.

    In Korea, growing up Half Breed, he had to survive on the streets. His “Brothers and Sisters” kidnapped to Japan grew up as slaves to the Japan Industrial Complex, Fujii, Mitsubishi and Sony and the like.

    Old-Boy-Ban’s hatred of the Japanese is unbounded. If pushed, he will call you a Japanese Nigger, even though you were born in Germany.

  19. D. Socrates,

    Feel free to keep calling me a “stupid fuck” [December 10, 2014 at 7:23 pm], it’s water off a duck’s back to me. I have a thick skin. Now, if you want a chart I will be happy to post more charts than you can handle. But first you need to start answering questions from other readers, and responding to the dozens of charts I’ve already posted that debunk your climate alarmism. Until you do, don’t expect me to jump every time you demand something. It’s a two way street.

  20. It would be nice to see what the models at the time actually predicted, rather than models that hindcast to 1980. With the hindcast, there is a deceptively close correlation from 1980 to about 2004-2005.

    What are the reference dates of the 108 models that were averaged to get the red bars in the first figure?

    • A hindcast is necessarily accurate because the parameters for the model were developed using the data in those past years.

      The only hindcast that could be considered a reasonable test is one that goes far back before the time of start of data used for the model.

      Thus suppose a model is developed using data from 1850 to present, it cannot be considered relevant that the hindcast gives, say, a 97% correlation back as far as 1850.

      However, having developed that model, it would be considered great if the model then gave 97% accuracy when used to hindcast temperatures back from 1850 to 1066.

  21. Socrates

    Ok, the Arctic chart is interesting. A consolidated chart of Arctic + Antarctic (showing total sea ice exceeding average) is more interesting.

    Well, assuming we’re being intellectually honest about discussing the thing called GLOBAL warming.

  22. From the Washington Post recently,

    ……… marvel at the the perversity of cheering on a strategy that would, through inaction, bet human welfare on the notion that elite scientists with their elite models and elite consensus are so spectacularly and systematically wrong on the risks of greenhouse emissions that the rational strategy is to rapidly ramp up fossil fuel burning.

    Is the rest of the world really that deluded ?

    • I think they come from HotWhopper. He is subject to particular vitriol there and he is seen as being easy to anger. Making someone angry will win the argument – practically.

      Neutral lurkers are always swayed away from the angry one’s position.
      They used to bait my father quite well too.

      • M Courtney,

        I have no knowledge of what goes on at that thinly-trafficked blog since I never give them clicks. But if the best they can do is what we see here, they are über lame.

    • Given the fall-off in traffic volume on some warmest sites (Hot Whopper comes to mind), flaming trolls may indeed be looking for new homes. I don’t mind reading contrary opinions if they’re civil and well defend, but the continued snarky, childish name calling and refusal to engage in civil debate does get tiresome. Especially the stuff seen here today from Brandon.

      Example: Brandon’s 9:09a comment to dbstealey:

      “To make that silly point by selecting only the portion of the data which support your argument is dishonest”

      …and then refusing to admit he accused him of lying is a classic troll rat-hole technique – argue about anything other than the data and it’s interpretation.

  23. “Record Global Temperature Meaningless Metric—Conflicting Reports, Contrasting Implications”

    There, fixed.

  24. Brandon Gates;
    Isn’t it funny that except for 1998 every year in the top 10 is in the 21st century?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This has got to be one of the silliest arguments there is in support of CAGW, but it keeps on appearing. The earth has been warming for 400 years. So given that the dominant temperature trend for close to 1/2 a millennium is warming, what else would you expect? The question is not if the present is the warmest in some given time period, but how much warmer than it would be without anthropogenic effects.

    If I put $100 in a jar every week for 10 years, and then for the next ten years I put in just 1 penny per week, I could rightfully say that I now had the most savings ever the last 10 weeks out of 20 years. It would be technically true, but it would still be only an extra ten cents on over $50,000.00. Trivially true, but insignificant.

    • davidmhoffer,

      This has got to be one of the silliest arguments there is in support of CAGW, but it keeps on appearing.

      Some people say similar things about men evolving from monkeys. Funny that they don’t take the time to learn that we descended most directly from apes.

      The earth has been warming for 400 years.

      I agree, but I’m curious … from whence you get the information to support your conclusion?

      So given that the dominant temperature trend for close to 1/2 a millennium is warming, what else would you expect?

      The Earth being a physical system, I would expect it to behave according to measurable phenomena. IOW, I would expect that someone who was capable of telling me that the planet had warmed for 400 years might just know some of the reasons for that. If I chose to reject their explanation for the change, I’d find it tough to explain why I believe any of their observations.

      The question is not if the present is the warmest in some given time period, but how much warmer than it would be without anthropogenic effects.

      IIRC, about 50% of the trend since the 19th century is attributable to human influence. Tough one to validate since we can’t rewind time and run the experiment forward absent our influence.

      If I put $100 in a jar every week for 10 years, and then for the next ten years I put in just 1 penny per week, I could rightfully say that I now had the most savings ever the last 10 weeks out of 20 years. It would be technically true, but it would still be only an extra ten cents on over $50,000.00. Trivially true, but insignificant.

      Why pull random numbers out of a hat that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the actual figures? https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/FAQ_Figure%202.jpg

      Global temps at the LGM 22,000 years ago were -3.5 °C from the Holocene average. 12,000 years was the time it took to rise that amount, for a rate of 0.3 °C/1,000 years.

      From 1850 until now, temps have risen 0.9 °C. That’s just over one-quarter the entire rise from the last glacial to the top of the interglacial. If 25% doesn’t sound non-trivial to you, that temperature rise occurred at a rate of 5.5 °C/1,000 years. What is that … 18 times a faster rate.

      Extra ten cents on $50,000 … holy Toledo, I’m too tired to calculate how many orders of magnitude your “estimate” is off.

      • Brandon says:

        Why pull random numbers out of a hat that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the actual figures?IIRC, about 50% of the trend since the 19th century is attributable to human influence.

        “About 50%” is what’s called an “assertion”. It has no verifiable connection to the real world. It could just as well be 5%, or 95%, or 0.5%. No one knows.

        You also say:

        I’m curious … from whence you get the information to support your conclusion?

        I would ask the same thing. Post a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW. But instead, you’re just projecting. You ask:

        Why pull random numbers out of a hat that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the actual figures?

        Yes indeedy. So let’s stop pulling numbers out of a hat, and post testable, empirical measurements quantifying AGW in a way that they show the true fraction of human-caused global warming, out of the total.

        That is the central question, which would settle the debate once and for all. But there are no verifiable measurements of AGW, which means that AGW is an unproven conjecture. It is an opinion, nothing more.

        The alarmist crowd is engaging in a giant head fake. They tell everyone that human emissions are gonna fry us. But that is nothing but speculation. And direct observations do not support it.

        The lack of credibility on this issue is astonishing. There is not a single verifiable measurement of something that we are told we must take immediate action upon, drastically altering Western civilization in the process; something that millions of people have been discussing non-stop for more than thirty years. It’s like discussing what kind of green cheese the moon is made of, without going to the moon. Is that crazy, or what?

      • dbstealey,

        “About 50%” is what’s called an “assertion”.

        It’s called an estimate.

        It has no verifiable connection to the real world.

        Rational people understand that the planet is complex and accept the uncertainties that go along with attempting to figure out what it’s doing, and what if any effect we’re having on it.

        I would ask the same thing.

        I asked someone else first. I’ve shown you plenty of observations on the past two days. Your main complaint is that those data cannot be found in the WFT database. “Why should I trust it” you ask. Well, why do you trust what’s in WFT?

        But instead, you’re just projecting.

        ROFL!!!

        Yes indeedy. Let’s stop pulling numbers out of a hat …

        My numbers were pulled mainly from HADCRUT4 and Shakun et al. 2012. The 150 W/m^2 GHG effect is a canonical value based on too many observational studies to cite, as is 5.35 * ln(CO2 ppmv), which goes all the way back to Arrhenius in 1896. I’m not making anything up here.

        10 cents out of $50,000 is making things up, plus money in a cookie jar is about as far away from the physics — you know, actual science — as it gets. If you don’t know the difference between these two things, that likely explains your confusion.

      • Brandon Gates December 11, 2014 at 12:47 am
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        LOL. Just intent on dragging the discussion into rat holes and ignoring the main point, huh?

        1. Since the LIA which was 400 years ago. Don’t give me any crap about it not being global, we’ve just crushed that stupidity on another thread.
        2. I don’t need to propose a mechanism, I’m just making an observation, which is that the trend for the last 400 years is positive, so the last few years being the warmest is no surprise.
        3. The “50% attributed to humans” meme comes from the models, which have since turned out to be a total bust, even the IPCC agrees they are too sensitive to CO2, and hence since their estimates of sensitivity are high, so are estimates of human contribution based on them.
        4. The example was meant to illustrate a point about misuse of minute amounts to make a technically accurate but misleading statement. There was no intent to present same as a model of temperature change, your attempt to characterize it as such is disingenuous.

      • Brandon says:

        It’s called an estimate.

        No, it’s called a guesstimate. Emphasis on “guess”.

        Face it, you can’t find any comparable chart from the WFT databases, showing that CO2 is the control knob of the climate. Instead, you’re all over the map as usual. Hoffer is right, you’re simply trying to mislead.

      • davidmhoffer,

        1. Since the LIA which was 400 years ago. Don’t give me any crap about it not being global, we’ve just crushed that stupidity on another thread.

        Wasted effort on me, I’ve been looking at Moberg et al. (2005) data, a NH temperature proxy reconstruction from 1-1979 CE for the past few days: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imoberg2005.dat

        Clear MWP and LIA. I see no reason to distrust those data. Try arguing the points I make, not the ones you want me to be making.

        2. I don’t need to propose a mechanism, I’m just making an observation, which is that the trend for the last 400 years is positive, so the last few years being the warmest is no surprise.

        I’m so sorry, I thought this was a discussion of science, which is concerned with proposing mechanisms and matching them against observation.

        3. The “50% attributed to humans” meme comes from the models …

        You’ve read every paper out there, and not one of them has anything remotely resembling an observation? Amazing.

        4. The example was meant to illustrate a point about misuse of minute amounts to make a technically accurate but misleading statement.

        [cough, cough] $0.10 / $50,000 ≈ 0.25 is not misleading? That one doesn’t even have the benefit of being technically accurate.

        There was no intent to present same as a model of temperature change, your attempt to characterize it as such is disingenuous.

        That’s some furious backpedaling you’re doing there, I must say. If you weren’t talking about temperature change, what WERE you talking about? The price of tea in China?

      • dbstealey,

        Face it, you can’t find any comparable chart from the WFT databases …

        Face it, there’s something in the data I’ve presented you don’t wish to look at. Why your choice should be my problem is a complete mystery to me.

        Hoffer is right, you’re simply trying to mislead.

        Far be it for me to confuse anyone with the facts.

      • Wow Brandon Gates is brilliant, he questions the global origin of the LIA and whether it has warmed or not since and then categorically states that it was “-3.5 °C from the Holocene average” 22,000 years ago when there was not a single thermometer in the world.
        One has anecdotal evidence and the other has “guesses”, which would you put your money on?

      • A C Osborn,

        Wow Brandon Gates is brilliant, he questions the global origin of the LIA …

        Please point to the exact text where I alleged the LIA was not global.

        … and whether it has warmed or not since and then categorically states that it was “-3.5 °C from the Holocene average” 22,000 years ago when there was not a single thermometer in the world.

        I trust thermometers and satellites over proxy reconstructions any day of the week. You?

      • Brandon,

        This chart shows clearly how much effect CO2 has on temperature geologically: none. CO2 is not a measurable long term [or short term] cause of rising T.

        I’ve already posted a dozen or so charts showing clearly that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature, and although your link claims that T “lags behind” CO2, that is not clear at all in their simple overlay. If anything, their chart shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2.

        Once again, I await an empirical measurement quantifying AGW. So far, no one has been able to produce one.

      • Brandon

        Your comment “Why pull random numbers out of a hat that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the actual figures?” is the very definition of my reaction to climate models.

      • Brandon,

        Yes, face it: you cannot produce a chart using the same databses, showing that CO2 is the magic cntrol knob of the climate. I would be more impressed if you just admitted that any effect from CO2 is simply too small to measure, since there are no such measurements. [As usual: if there are measurements of AGW, please post them.]

        The entire ‘carbon’ scare is based on the belief that CO2 is a problem. But the promoters of the scare cannot support their conjecture with testable evidence. Doesn’t that bother you, even a little?

  25. I guess I just don’t see what the ‘warmest’ year even matters to the warmists? Shouldn’t every year from 2000 or so on be roughly close or breaking the record for the warmest year on record? Fact is, it was basically just as warm in the 30’s as it is now when there was a ‘hill’ of warmth. So now it’s taken 80 years of AGW global warming to warm us back up be rivaling those years for the warmest ever, before there was ever any effect from humans? And what is all the fuss about? Is this real life?

    Doesn’t this basically demean their product by trying to sell it in this way?

  26. If you remember photos of Cape Town, you will remember seeing Table Mountain. When you climb to the top, you have been rising, and rising and rising. You can walk about, roughly at the same height, but if you keep going in a straight line (a “time-line”?) you will eventually come to the edge and start going down.

    Temperatures have been climbing. We have got to a plateau. The future is blindfolded. We don’t know whether they will stay the same, resume rising or start falling. If temperatures resume rising, we can assume that the present plateau is due to “natural variation” effectively cancelling warming due to CO2 over the last 18 years. But the corollary from that is that natural variation must have been contributing to the temperature rise over the previous 20 years.

    As we don’t know what it will do, before spending pots of money to alleviate effects of something that might not happen, we should follow the advice given by the great Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith:- “We had better wait and see.”

  27. Does anyone know how many posts I have to make to get rid of the ‘Your comment is awaiting moderation.’ message and wait? It seems I should not be a bot.

    • No I don’t. But it happens a lot to me too – and they definitely know I’m not a bot.

      My language and subject matter of interest keeps hitting the filters. Perversely, the problem is the mods rely on bots.

      [Reply: We don’t, at least not willingly. WordPress shunts numerous comments into the Spam folder for reasons known only to them. Our job is to fish out the legit ones. Often there is a delay. ~mod.]

  28. KNMI reported the hottest year ever for The Netherlands, last 300 years. And the MSM as propaganda machine for the greenies let us know how bad the situation is. Indoctrination to fulfill their agenda.

  29. 1998 was a ‘super El Nino’ year, 2010 was a ‘strong El Nino’ year, and 2014 is a ‘quite mediocre El Nino’ year. If these three are tied in lead then we really need to be careful about what we claim.
    Much more important than ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ is the continuing divergence between real world temperatures and climate models on which we are building our policies for the future.

  30. Who is to be blamed for the record year 2014? Was it Pope Gregory XII in 1582? No, he introduced the leap days at every 4 years. Was it Julius Caesar in 46 BC? No. The Julian calendar has a regular year of 365 days divided into 12 months. New Year’s celebrations are founded before. Some have suggested this occurred in 153 BC in Rome. Other nations used or use different New Year’s celebrations. I think it is better to use running annual means : The records including data until Oct 2014 are: NOOA 14,53 °C, Oct 2009-Sep 2010, HadCrut4 14.55 °C , Sep 2009-Aug 2010, GISS 14,58 °C, Aug 2009 –Jul 2010 with an estimated uncertainty +- 0.05 °C.

    • +1

      A very good demonstration of how to properly interpret data, and the folly of putting a straight fit linear trend line on data that is not responding on a linear time basis, and why the claim of the ‘warmest’ year on record, and/or the claim that 10 of the past dozen or so years are the warmest on record, carries no scientific significance.

      • Thanks Richard, absolutely true. When even defining the surface temperature is hard, presenting it as a dot in one dimension and expecting a straight line as function of time is somewhat depressing.

  31. Here is what I find interesting…

    The Cowtan and Way dataset is considered an improvement in that it adjusts “better” for areas where no direct temperature data is available. Its impact is enough to change the calculated average of the Earth’s temperature and reorder the hierarchy of the years with the highest calculated temperature.

    If you think about the last 150 years as a continuum then every decade you go back, the more sparse the temperature record and the larger effect this kind of interpolation will have on the calculated average temp. I would imagine that by the time you got back to say, 1900, the accuracy of the calculated average is pretty poor.

    And yet, somehow we seem to believe that we have a good temperature record to work with…good enough to calculate within a hundredth of a degree what the so called average temperature of the Earth is.

    Sounds a bit farfetched to me. It falls into the same category of people believing they can measure the ocean levels to within a few millimeters. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

    I am also skeptical that tree rings or ice cores can be measured with that level of accuracy either.

    • “The Cowtan and Way dataset is considered an improvement in that it adjusts “better” for areas where no direct temperature data is available.”

      Wrong.

      There are no LAND stations on the ICE.

      To calculate a global average you have THREE and only THREE choices.

      A) Do not infill.
      B) Infill with the closest data
      C) Estimate the values using other data sources.

      Option A. This is what CRU does. Refusing to infil is the mathematical equivalent of INFILLING with the global average. That is demonstrably wrong.

      OptionB. This is GISS, they extrapolate from the nearest land stations

      Option C. Use other data sources. C & W use satellite data. There approach is similar to one used by
      McIntyre and Odonnell ( yes that steve McIntyre) in estimating antarctica. To do this you establish
      a relationship between the satellite data and the land data. You then use the satillite data over the arctic
      to estimate what wasnt measured directly.

      All of these options can be tested for their accuracy of estimating the arctic.

      How?

      Simple.

      1. Reanalysis data. Reanalysis data exist for the arctic. In fact it is used on WUWT arctic page.
      2. Bouy data. Cowtan and Way used bouy data collected in the arctic. These bouys sit on the ice and
      collect daily data.

      In short. C&W has been shown to be a better estimate than CRU or GISS.

      • Interesting info. Thanks. Not sure you completely understood what I was saying.

        Actually, there is a fourth option…Build a time machine and go back a million years with enough sensors to cover the Earth in a reasonable grid. Make sure the black boxes have enough battery life to last until you retrieve them in 2014. Then you will have a reliable and accurate record of temperatures and you won’t have to measure tree rings or ice cores or whatever and try to convince people you can calculate the temperature on March 23rd, 853,924 BC to three decimal places.

        I favor option four.

  32. This whole discussion is another illustration of the principle of science that says, the more you know, the less you understand. Or more eloquently, the old Chinese proverb:

    Man with one watch knows the time
    Man with two, not sure

  33. One thing is clear: regardless of the truth of whether 2014 turns out to be the warmest EVAH, and even if it’s by a millionth of a degree, and despite the fact that it is scientifically meaningless anyway, the Climate Ignorati need to be able to trumpet it to their brain-dead followers (those who remain, anyway).

  34. Despite what you may think if you reside in the eastern United States, the world as a whole in 2014 has been fairly warm.
    = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Here’s what our “fairly warm” planet did in 2014:

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    ‘Polar vortex’ grips the US in coldest temperatures in decades
    Telegraph UK, Jan 04
    The United States is spending the first days of 2014 in the grips of record-breaking cold and snow as freezing Arctic winds sweep across the country

    Niagara Falls frozen: tourists flock to see icy spectacle
    Guardian UK, January 13

    Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
    NCDC-NOAA, March 02
    During the winter of 2013/14, very cold temperatures covered the Great Lakes and surrounding states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana each had winter temperatures that ranked among the ten coldest on record. The persistent cold caused 91 percent of the Great Lakes to be frozen by early March. This was the second largest ice coverage for the lakes, with data dating to 1973, and the largest on record for the date.

    Niagara Falls comes to a halt AGAIN: Millions of gallons of cascading water is frozen in bitter temperatures
    DailyMail UK, March 04

    Great Lakes covered in record-shattering amount of ice this late in spring
    Washington Post, April 23
    “There is roughly 16 times more ice than normal right now!”

    Great Lakes are FINALLY ice free after record breaking seven months frozen
    DailyMail UK, June 10

    Stunning satellite images show [Arctic] summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres more than 2 years ago
    …despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ice-free by now
    DailyMail UK, August 31

    With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode
    TheNewAmerican, September 15

    Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
    NASA, October 7

    Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
    Telegraph UK, Oct 27
    Climate sceptics often claim that recent icy winters show that global warming is not happening. New research suggests the opposite is true

    Earliest ice on record appears on Great Lakes
    NOAA, Nov 24

    Fall snow cover in Northern Hemisphere was most extensive on record, even with temperatures at high mark
    Washington Post, December 4

    In 46 years of records, more snow covered the Northern Hemisphere this fall than any other time. It is a very surprising result, especially when you consider temperatures have tracked warmest on record over the same period.
    Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show the fall Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers, exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  35. When they’re saying that 2014 will be the highest ever recorded, are they speaking in total average temps for the year, or in terms of anomolies?

  36. Satellite temperature data is the most objective and it says 2014 is no where near the warmest year. End of story.

    In addition it is where the temperatures will be going forward which is down.

  37. Brandon Gates December 11, 2014 at 6:24 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wow, what a diatribe. You even managed to contradict yourself within your own diatribe. No, I’m not going to point out where, you’re not worth it. Most people who get tagged with the “troll” term here are just people of a particular point of view an the term is not really apt. In your case though, you appear to be putting an honest effort into being 100% troll and 0% value to the discussion.

    • Davdmhoffer,
      You are right, Brandon is an incorrigibly
      unrepentant troll who is ignorant of the radiative properties of water and who thinks that latent heat is returned to the surface via rainfall.
      He refuses to be corrected or informed on any topic.
      He is good for laughs, however.

      • Brandon is an incorrigibly
        unrepentant troll who is ignorant of the radiative properties of water and who thinks that latent heat is returned to the surface via rainfall.

        I’m not sure he did say that. The point is that latent heat does not remove anything from the climate system, The heat remains in earth’s atmosphere. It is only by radiation that earth can lose heat.

      • John Finn:
        Brandon speaks for himself and affirms it. It is a common misconception among AGW types, with all the junk science that they swallow down; poor, deceived, would-scientists that they are.
        That brings to your case.
        Do you claim that latent heat does not cool the earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere? Because that is the whole point.

      • John Finn,

        I’m not sure he did say that.

        I didn’t. Not that I expect mpainter or anyone to hang on my every word, I did discuss this in some detail here with someone else: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/many-thanks-to-kevin-trenberth-for-being-open-minded/#comment-1806291

        The latent heat transfers in the water cycle are a somewhat different matter [as opposed to radiative and sensible transfers] because now phase changes are involved. Evaporation at the surface is endothermic, leading to most of the cooling at ground level. As convection carries it to altitude, lapse rate kicks in which dissipates much of the absorbed energy. When the moist air cools sufficiently the water condenses back to liquid, an exothermic process. The surrounding atmosphere gains most of what the surface lost from the latent heat transfer, precipitation comes back down even cooler than when it left. Not being a gas at that point, lapse rate isn’t as significant — liquid precipitation reaches the ground faster than the warmer air at lower altitudes can transfer energy to it.

        In sum, this part of the water cycle is, on balance, a net cooling effect at the surface during the day when it is being pumped by absorbed LWR from the Sun. At night the situation is reversed — more moisture content above the surface reduces the rate of loss. Water content (including clouds) combine to constrain min/max temps — on balance — in more humid climates. Drier climates experience greater diurnal extremes, again, on balance.

        I’ve been through those tidbits several times with mpainter here. Only once have I seen him allow that higher humidity at night has an effect consistent with my understanding of theory backed by gobs and gobs of observation.

        That I’m the ignorant troll for learning as much as I can about how the entire system interacts with itself, then pointing out the folly of ignoring all that in favor of a small handful of ’em is quite telling.

  38. Using the same base period (1981-2010) the GISS and UAH 2014 mean anomalies are virtually identical. GISS and UAH have tracked each other quite closely over recent years.

    So why is GISS likely to show 2014 as a record year while UAH will only show 2014 as 3rd warmest at best?

    It’s because LT temperatures have a more pronounced spike during El Nino years than the surface temperatures. Basically, it’s less likely that a non El Nino year will be the warmest year in the UAH record. See, for example, the mean GISS and UAH anomalies for 2010.

    GISS 0.27
    UAH: 0.40

    Note the much bigger temperature response in the LT to the El Nino.

    While none of this means a great deal in the general AGW debate, it does seem to put the kibosh on any thoughts that the sun might have some significant influence as a climate driver.

    • Wow. Looks like the Peruvian government will get its hands on some of that Greenpeace loot. This is a perfect opportunity to force an outside audit of G’s finances, since they have never accounted for any of the hundred $million-plus they’ve collected in dues, grants, and other contributions. The boys at the top live large on their income stream.

      Of course G will never agree to an audit, so Peru can squeeze them for plenty — if it wants to.

      This reminds me of a recent news item, where a Greenepeace director was caught taking first-class air flights for short, journeys several times a week, for years, instead of taking the train that went directly to his destination.

      It seems that ‘carbon footprint’ nonsense is just something for the little people; the credulous dues payers who actually believe their money is Saving The Planet™. Darwin must have had them in mind when he wrote about natural selection, because only the stupid would send their after-tax earnings to that racket.

  39. One thing that could come out of the ongoing Peru-meeting, or next December Paris Meeting :
    This decade will, for sure, be the hotest or second hottest in this Century !

  40. dbstealey,

    This chart shows clearly how much effect CO2 has on temperature geologically: none.

    I’m quite familiar with the shape of those curves because I’ve spent no small amount of time with the raw data and plotted it myself. Which data by the way are found here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/

    I wasn’t aware that the WFT database contained this kind of stuff. Why the sudden change in rules?

    I’ve already posted a dozen or so charts showing clearly that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature, and although your link claims that T “lags behind” CO2, that is not clear at all in their simple overlay.

    You could start by reading the actual paper itself: https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf

  41. Chip Javert,

    I don’t mind reading contrary opinions if they’re civil and well defend, but the continued snarky, childish name calling and refusal to engage in civil debate does get tiresome.

    But you do it so well!

    Especially the stuff seen here today from Brandon.

    Example: Brandon’s 9:09a comment to dbstealey:

    “To make that silly point by selecting only the portion of the data which support your argument is dishonest”

    …and then refusing to admit he accused him of lying is a classic troll rat-hole technique …

    Let’s rewind tape, shall we? Start with:

    Barry
    December 10, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    “In the lower half of the top five warmest years.” Is that 3rd, 4th or 5th, or 4th or 5th? So out of 35 total years, it could still be in the top 10%, right?

    Next we read:

    dbstealey
    December 10, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    Barry,

    Please. Get off that nonsense. Look at a graph. This isn’t anywhere near the ‘warmest evah’ year. Where do you get your misinformation?

    Did Barry say anything about 2014 being the ‘warmest evah’? Why no, he didn’t.

    For the record, the link to the graph is: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend

    Beginning of the plot is 1997. Beginning of the trendline is 1997 point 9. That’s strange, why could that be? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend Ohhhh … I get it now, we couldn’t be satisfied with a flattish trend, we wanted to show a downsloping one.

    Does RSS only go to 1997? Why no, it goes all the way back to 1979: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/plot/rss/from/trend

    Trendlines … aren’t they just so much fun? You can pick one to tell any story you like!

    – argue about anything other than the data and it’s interpretation.

    [scoff] Funny thing to say since I actually answered Barry instead of twisting his words around and posting a graph which was irrelevant to his question: 2014 RSS tied for 6th warmest, UAH edging out 2005 by a tenth of a degree for third place.

    And no, I don’t see any need to retract my statement about dbstealey making a dishonest statement. All I’m doing is holding him to his own standard:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/absolutely-amazing-a-climate-scientist-writes-a-blog-post-about/#comment-1811134

    dbstealey
    December 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Bill 2,

    Please explain why Rahmstorf would use a pick from 2009, when he could have used the 2014 widget.

    Lemme guess, to hide the decline: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009/plot/rss/from:2009/trend [The crowd goes wild!]

    Yeeesh. But fair is fair don’t you think? It’s kind of not sportsman-like to complain about 5 missing years from Stefan’s old dusty version of the WUWT widget, then turn right ’round and lop off 20 years of data which show how we got here. Is it?

  42. Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    This is exactly right no matter what the temperature for 2014 is it is way below what the temperature must be if the models are correct and since data trumps theory every time the models are in fact wrong!

    • Ding! Ding! Ding!
      I was thinking the same thing for some time now, a remarkably similar style.
      Then I noticed what seems to be the same person on another blog commenting under “Brandon R Gates”
      Now it is an awfully big world out there, lots of similar names, but what are the chances?

      • Brandon R. Gates is me, and you probably did read a post elsewhere with me using that particular identity. As well, my middle initial does in fact derive from the father who gave it to me. However the R. Gates of yesteryore here at WUWT is not the same guy. Neither is the former BSA president, ex-CIA boss and retired Secretary of Defense who shares both my old man’s first and last name. My dad is but a humble retired biologist who likes to putter in his garden and futz with the sailboat parked in his driveway while incessantly complaining about the stupid PhD/MDs he used to work for and politicians who raise his sewer bill without first asking him for permission. A lot of my snark and sarcasm comes from him, but y’all might like his opinions better than mine.

        That’s probably more than you cared to know, another hallmark trait of our particular branch of the Gates line.

      • However the R. Gates of yesteryore here at WUWT is not the same guy.

        Ah well, if you say so, I will take your word for it. I must admit, I was looking forward to tormenting him about the bet he lost with me.

      • I think hell just froze. What bet?

        When evidence emerged that Bill Nye had faked the results of his on air experiment for Al Gore’s TV show, I wagered that if the experiment was properly replicated, the results would be the opposite of Bill Nye’s claim. R. Gates said he would take the wager. Anthony later replicated the experiment, and I was proven right.

      • davidmhoffer, re: Nye. That was a pretty dumb stunt. For shame. I would have wanted to rub that one in too.

  43. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Several main attributes of this article :
    1. Although purely a scientific discussion it is straightforward and easy to read and understand, ideal for public consumption :-)
    2. It is written without any agenda bias.
    3. It reminds us of the complexities of the “climate science”, the relatively miniscule variations (tenths of a degree), in global temperature averages which are processed from temperature variations ranging hundreds of times larger. Polar (seasonal variations roughly [NP: 0 to minus 40 degC], [SP: minus 15 to minus 100 degC]), compared to Equitorial variations (seasonal variations small, perhaps 3 degC but diurnal temperatures can range from 18 to 35 degC). All this, plus temperature measurement vagaries due to LOCATION, accuracies and SELECTION, plus computer averaging program adequacies makes real science a difficult achievement. Add in the human factors of goals and incentives and we have a very unclear science outcome indeed!
    4. Also revealed is the obvious lack of balance in the media and general reporting.

    This is a very important social and political concern and deserves global exposure. The lack of substance supporting world-shattering economic controls, including a payment of $AU200 million demanded from Australia, indicates a very poor level of intelligence or understanding by governments, or complicity.

    • Not sure if Australia volunteered the $200M or acceded to demands. However, if the Australian government is wise (says he hopefully) Treasury will earmark $200M for the Fund, and wait for relevant proposals for spending. These then will be examined by Environment Australia for effectiveness and probity, and then, if confirmed by Cabinet, will be passed to Treasury for payment to the actual project. This means that the money will actually go to the project, and Environment Australia and Foreign Affairs (remember the money has come out of the Foreign Aid budget) can check that the work is being done. On confirmation that the project is proceeding, Treasury can advise the Fund that $XM is being spend on behalf of the Fund as part of Australia’s contribution to the Fund.

      If we are going to spend $200M on assistance to other nations to help them deal with impacts resulting from Global Warming, we need to ensure that (a) the relevant nation is suffering from such an impact, (b) that there is a properly developed project which will mitigate such impact, and (c) that the money goes to the project and not to International Airports, five star hotels, high class marinas (brothels, bordellos or other amusements parks) or to ‘climate scientists’ hoping to find where the missing heat has gone.

      • Dudley, your comments are very welcome.
        If your hopes are realized, Australian citizens will not be further out of pocket for inadequate, or worse still, corrupt reasons.
        You are really on the ball in questioning the real benefits of our foreign aid payments.
        However, handing money over on the pretext of helping to solve a problem that itself is scientifically debatable, with no contribution to a valid solution to a meaningful reduction in pollution, is justified only if some people actually benefit in a real way, as you suggest. Therefore the principle is flawed, even if some benefits result somewhere along the line.
        The sad part is that our politicians are either ignorant, incompetent, or in cahoots! Of course , they are not own their own, whichever word fits. We seem to be partly there in not blindly falling for the bullshit, but they seem to be under the influence, nevertheless.

Comments are closed.