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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
As Dr. Roy Spencer said:
“[T]he climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
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.
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 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: http://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.
Found this in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11286404/Watch-Climate-change-explained-in-60-second-animation.html
“Climate scientists at the Royal Society produce a 60 second guide addressing common assertions made by people who dismiss climate change “
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.
Record insult from Greenpeace. Peru not happy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30422994
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/79651000/jpg/_79651375_79651327.jpg
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.
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 !
dbstealey,
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?
You could start by reading the actual paper itself: https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf
Chip Javert,
But you do it so well!
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!
[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:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/absolutely-amazing-a-climate-scientist-writes-a-blog-post-about/#comment-1811134
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?
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!
B. Gates,
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hmm-m-m-mm. B Gates. Haven’t I seen that name somewhere?
dbstealey, I’ll add selective vision and/or memory to your list of endearing qualities.
Another lame non-explanation.
I think the style of B Gates’ writing is not similar to that of R Gates. Son perhaps ?
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.
davidmhoffer,
I think hell just froze. What bet?
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.
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.