Anticipation

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

The CO2 obsessed are patiently awaiting the GISS and NCDC global surface temperature data for December 2014 and for the calendar year.  GISS normally publishes their monthly updates on or around the 15th of the month, while NCDC publishes theirs about the same time.  The UKMO updates their HADCRUT4 land+sea surface temperature product later in the month.

In the post here last month, we showed that the GISS Meteorological Annual Mean (December to November) surface temperature in 2014 was just shy of the 2010 value. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1

I suspect there will be a noticeable increase in December 2014 so that the calendar mean of the GISS land-ocean temperature index in 2014 is slightly warmer in 2014 than in 2010…maybe by 0.01 deg C.

For NCDC, as shown in Figure 2, the meteorological annual mean (December to November) surface temperature in 2014 was 0.01 higher than the 2010 value.

Figure 2

Figure 2

And as illustrated in Figure 3, the HADCRUT4 data are the same as GISS, inasmuch as their Meteorological Annual Mean (December to November) surface temperature in 2014 was 0.01 deg C less than the 2010 value.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Will Gavin Schmidt, the new head of GISS, release their data early to steal the headlines, or will GISS and NCDC publish their long-anticipated press releases at the same time?

The suspense has to be driving the CO2 obsessed crazy…or should that be crazier?

To spoil their day, I’ve already written and prepared the graphs for a post titled The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality.  As you can well imagine, a swing in 2014 of a few hundredths of a deg C doesn’t noticeably change the outcome of that post, but I’m waiting for the December 2014 values to finalize it.  I believe most of you will enjoy it.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
205 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 13, 2015 4:00 pm

The point you will make with your “prepared” post is the relevant one: the divergence between models and observations grows even larger with 2014 data. And this is before the “knee” in the curve bends their projections up non-linearly. As a modeler, I would have critically re-examined my assumptions a long time ago.

joelobryan
Reply to  Alex H (@USthermophysics)
January 13, 2015 10:21 pm

The modellers will produce the model outputs that earns them the money grants and intramural funding awards that the politically-motivated grantors want to see, that pays their salaries. Failure to produce the alarmist’s output is cause for funding termination.
The desired output was pre-defined by the biased assumptions that built and tuned the models of what is, in the real-world, an unmodel-able, nonlinear, highly interconnected on a decade scale, chaotic system.
Climate Science in the US and UK is corrupt. Completely. and Sadly.

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  Alex H (@USthermophysics)
January 14, 2015 1:46 am

Indeed, It’s time for that “knee” to genuflect to reality.

January 13, 2015 4:02 pm

To spoil their day, I’ve already written and prepared the graphs for a post titled The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. As you can well imagine, a swing in 2014 of a few hundredths of a deg C doesn’t noticeably change the outcome of that post, but I’m waiting for the December 2014 values to finalize it. I believe most of you will enjoy it.

I am looking forward to that post Bob.
Just once though I would like to see you post one of those graphs using whole degrees on the y-axis and going from, say, -20C to 50C. I think that we sometimes lose sight of the near nothing changes that we are all debating. Anyway, thanks for the update and looking forward to that post you mention.

Trent
Reply to  markstoval
January 14, 2015 6:50 pm

“Just once though I would like to see you post one of those graphs using whole degrees on the y-axis and going from, say, -20C to 50C. I think that we sometimes lose sight of the near nothing changes that we are all debating. Anyway, thanks for the update and looking forward to that post you mention.”
I also believe this would be very helpful

Reply to  Trent
January 14, 2015 6:54 pm
Leo Morgan
Reply to  Trent
January 15, 2015 7:15 am

I’m pleased to see dbstealey’s graph of Global Warming. I presume it’s in degrees Fahrenheit? Did you graph it yourself?
I’d be grateful to see one prepared in Kelvin, and preferably with a link to the web page GISS has their data on, not merely to GISS said it, user can hunt through everything GISS ever said in order for user to find out where they said it.
If anyone can create such a graph I’d appreciate it.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Trent
January 15, 2015 2:51 pm

Leo Morgan,
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QXdunHCrwfA/VLg67ZumzrI/AAAAAAAAASA/Peeyw9DRJKk/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
GISTemp LOTI data are here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Bottom of this page describes how to convert anomaly to absolute (add 14°C): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Tack on another 273.15 for Kelvin.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Trent
January 15, 2015 7:13 pm
joelobryan
January 13, 2015 4:03 pm

2014 was a sort of, almost, coulda-woulda-shoulda, been an El Nino year. The upticks in those plots above all correlate with El Nino years (98, 02, 04-05, 06-07, 09-10). The big downticks are the La Nina years. If it had been the whopper El Nino year the warmists had hoped for last April-May, then 2014 final temp anomaly would have been much larger. But the latest weekly 3.4 SST departure is at 0.4º C and still dropping, and nothing in the subsurface pipe to rescue it. So this one is finished. It’s ENSO neutral to La Nina from here forward in 2015.
A La Nina is quite possible for the second half of 2015 going into 2016. So my money is on a notable downtick on those charts for 2015, i.e. this time next year.

January 13, 2015 4:07 pm

Given the extent of data homogenization, gridding, conflation in all these data sets, any claim to 2014 being the warmest is utter nonsense. The satellites say otherwise.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Alan Poirier
January 13, 2015 4:41 pm

Nevertheless, IPCC-exponent Thomas Stocker claims the end of “The Pause” because of this alleged “heat record” of 2014. He wrote in a Swiss newspaper (issued on 28th of December 2014):
“I am glad about the record year 2014 because the term warming hiatus is now disproved.”
(Translation of “bin ich froh über das Rekordjahr 2014, denn der Begriff «Erwärmungspause» ist nun vom Tisch”)
Full text see here:
http://www.schweizamsonntag.ch/ressort/meinung/kann_die_menschheit_die_erderwaermung_stoppen/
That is a rather unscientific conclusion of course, but Stocker is more a political activist than a true scientist, according to this very fitting quote by Matt Ridley about the alleged heat record of 2014:
“True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.”

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 13, 2015 5:10 pm

“I am glad about the record year 2014 because the term warming hiatus is now disproved.”
This is what kills me about the climate obsessed. He’s glad that terrible, awful things might be happening to the planet. So certain was he of catastrophe, that he sees any evidence, no matter how weak, as a good thing merely because he thinks it vindicates his belief.
How sad to wish catastrophe on your fellow man just so you can be right?

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 13, 2015 5:30 pm

I know. It disgusts me. I really don’t know how they manage to hold their food down.

MichaelS
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 13, 2015 5:59 pm

The only conclusion I can draw is that he really doesn’t believe AGW and therefore sees no downside to wishing for a record year. Or he’s a monster.

Steve Case
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 14, 2015 6:46 am

DavidMHoffer’s remark about how sad it is that they wish for catastrophe just so they can be right, is spot on!

rooter
Reply to  Alan Poirier
January 13, 2015 11:40 pm

The irony.
The satellites. The temperature indexes with most adjustments. And depends on models. RSS even uses a climate model to adjust for diurnal drift.

Latitude
January 13, 2015 4:08 pm

Don’t make me have to post ” GISS Global Temperature Series on Alcohol Thermometer in Fahrenheit”
………….again

1saveenergy
Reply to  Latitude
January 13, 2015 4:21 pm

Can you do it in Centigrade this time !!!

Rick K
Reply to  Latitude
January 13, 2015 4:25 pm

But it’s so… GOOD, Lat!

Reply to  Rick K
January 14, 2015 7:07 pm
DD More
January 13, 2015 4:08 pm

Can you find or do you have a record of what the ‘Annual Mean’ as reported were back in 2010, 2005, 1998 and see how much they have been reduced / altered in the last release?

January 13, 2015 4:11 pm

Eagerly anticipated by the BOM here in Australia too. Their Annual Climate Statement 2014 states:
“Based on preliminary data (January–November), the estimated global mean temperature for 2014 is 0.57 ± 0.10 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Using this three-dataset method, 2014 is likely to be the warmest year on record (global observations commence in 1880).”
Our Bureau staff are up there with the keenest global warming enthusiasts in the world.
Ken Stewart

Leigh
Reply to  kenskingdom
January 14, 2015 1:20 am

I kept this bit of highly emotive over the top alarmism as well.
But that’s not what has actually happened ….is it?
Over the top highly emotive clap trap. 
So far they’re not doing real well in their crystal ball gazing and I’m certainly not holding my breath for the statement, “we got it wrong……..again.”
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/summer-201415-weather-forecast-bushfires-heatwaves-and-severe-heat/story-e6frflp0-1227076059759

Leigh
Reply to  Leigh
January 14, 2015 1:22 am

Oops.I forgot to mention Ken, note the date at the link.

January 13, 2015 4:17 pm

Anticipation about what? Year 2014 was not a record warm year . Satellite data verifies this which is the only relevant data.

Mike Smith
January 13, 2015 4:21 pm

Anyone else seeing huge savings on their winter heating bills?

Hugh
Reply to  Mike Smith
January 13, 2015 9:30 pm

I don’t see any relevant savings. On the contrary, the scare makes it easy to add more tax on energy and increase the public sector until every one dog and person has hir/its own personal bureaucrat checking at all times that regulations on personal health are being followed and greens are eaten.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Mike Smith
January 14, 2015 5:37 am

No, the ‘green’ taxes keep them rising. Some of the tax is labelled as such and is obvious, but in the UK there are the transport costs which keep rising which are the costs of linking the windmills that are in remote places or out at sea to the grid with new power lines and pylons.

richard verney
Reply to  Gerry, England
January 14, 2015 1:29 pm

You are only too right on this. More than 1/2 of the electricity bill is made up of charges/expenses/subsidies/taxes that would not be there but for the UK Government’s drive towards renewables/green energy.
About 18 months ago the BBC interviewed (on Hard Talk) the boss/financial direcctor of SSE. He clearly stated that only half the bill pertains to supply costs, and that about 25% of the bill pertains to new infrasture required to link the windmills/solar to the grid, and about 25% for green taxes and subsidies paid for home insulation, boiler replacement etc and assisting those in fuel poverty.
The supply costs (a little under 50%) are also higher than they need to be since these costs include paying windfarms for expensive electricity at an inflated/government guaranteed rate, the costs of paying windfarms not to produce electricity when the grid already has more power than required, the costs of balancing the grid with diesel generators (which is even more expensive than off-shore wind).
If power generation was by only only fossil fuels (coal and gas), the supply costs would be significantly reduced.
In essence the electricity bills could be decreased by 55%/60% but for government policy. The position with respect to gas bills is not so stark since gas bills do not need to include the infrasture upgrade, nor the high costs of supply by renewable sources (windffarms/solar), nor paying windfarms not to produce electricity, nor balancing the grid etc. Gas Bills, which are generally higher since most people heat their homes by gas, are probably only about 15%/20% higher than they would otherwise be but for the drive towards renewables.
The Government likes quoting dual fuel invoice proces since this masks/conceals the true excess cost of electricity, and how electricity has gross inflated these past 10 or so years.
One day, an investigative journalist will get to the bottom of all of this and the full extent of the rise in energy prices due to Governement Policy. When this comes out, the consumer will not be a happy bunny.

January 13, 2015 4:21 pm

In my opinion the hype on year 2014 being a record warm year (which it is not ) should not be getting so much attention . Other then to say satellite data says otherwise end of story.
That is how I look at it ,why others play along with their nonsense I do not get.

January 13, 2015 4:44 pm

Thanks, Bob. A microscope was needed for this.
I’ll just wait, expecting more of the same, political “facts” are in the mix.

Brandon Gates
January 13, 2015 4:48 pm

Bob,

To spoil their day, I’ve already written and prepared the graphs for a post titled The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality.

Far more interesting than the possibility of a scientifically meaningless single-year record broken by a few hundredths of a degree is whether your model-observation comparison will be done in absolutes this time, or anomalies. If anomalies, my bet is that the reference period will NOT be 1986-2005. Do feel free to surprise me.

Brute
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 13, 2015 4:58 pm

Do surprise us all and please explain failed predictions such as the one in the previous post regarding the disappearance of Arctic ice… that has never taken place.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brute
January 13, 2015 5:19 pm

We muffed it.

joelobryan
Reply to  Brute
January 13, 2015 11:27 pm

If global temps were climbing the way the IPCC models said they would be at this point, then quibbling over starting dates would be irrelevant. But since the temps haven’t even come close to the IPCC models scenarios, we find ourselves quarrelling over minutiae. That should at least tell the unbiased observer that the IPCC GC models are in serious trouble at the present time.
So Brandon, how much minutiae are you willing to quibble over?

Brute
Reply to  Brute
January 14, 2015 1:37 am

@Brandon
Who is “we”? And please explain like an adult what “it” is that you “muffed”.
The 2nd graph you posted below is interesting, btw.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brute
January 14, 2015 4:07 pm

joelobryan,

If global temps were climbing the way the IPCC models said they would be at this point, then quibbling over starting dates would be irrelevant. But since the temps haven’t even come close to the IPCC models scenarios, we find ourselves quarrelling over minutiae.

Ok. What do you think the IPCC said temperatures would be at this point, how far exactly are they off, and how do you know quibbling about starting dates would be irrelevant if all that were the case?

That should at least tell the unbiased observer that the IPCC GC models are in serious trouble at the present time.

Man, you’ve got a lot of quantifying to be doing before even thinking about leaping to that conclusion.

So Brandon, how much minutiae are you willing to quibble over?

In this context, any significant portion of 0.25 °C, as shown in Bob’s graph from his post on Sunday the 11th:comment image
or if you like, the “anomaly” plot from the same post:comment image
I already know that Bob’s plan to compare NCDC and GISTemp LOTI to CMIP5 using an 1880-2014 rather than the conventional 1986-2005 reference period won’t make a difference worth splitting hairs about. Different story for the above two plots, which is what this conversation is really about.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brute
January 14, 2015 4:18 pm

Brute,

Who is “we”?

My fellow human beings.

And please explain like an adult what “it” is that you “muffed”.

[chuckle] Well yes, children are known for being candid to a fault at times. I’m not so sure it’s the best thing to grow out of.
Ask a specific question about a missed prediction, and you may get a more specific answer. Real simple concept.

The 2nd graph you posted below is interesting, btw.

The Greenland Summit Holocene temperature record from Alley (2000)? What specifically do you find interesting?

Reply to  Brute
January 14, 2015 7:08 pm

Gates says:
We muffed it.
Along with every other alarming prediction.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 13, 2015 5:29 pm

Bob,
When comparing recent observations with previously published predictions, I find it helpful to compare apples to apples:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
As well, note that the RCPs begin in 2006. So when the topic is model divergence from observation, it makes the utmost sense for the reference period to not include the out of sample observational data. That way, each successive update does not change the reference values used to calculate the anomalies, and again facilitates comparing apples to apples.
If common mathematical sense is a psychiatric disorder, I hereby admit that I am certifiably nuts.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 13, 2015 7:19 pm

Bob,
Apparently you misunderstand. Selection of the reference period does not limit the period of comparison. What it does do is ensure consistency across all such comparisons no matter what observational series and/or time periods are being compared.
Being consistent with standards is not something I’m likely to “get over”. Nor would any other honest skeptic who is vetting the common sense and integrity of random people posting charts on the Internet who appear ignorant of the standards to begin with, and who are belligerent when both their existence and rationale are pointed out to them.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 14, 2015 1:36 am

I can’t remember much what it was like in 1986, when we didn’t have these mega droughts and super hurricanes, and sea level was so much lower. My recommendation to Bob Tisdale is to use the average over the current century. Or if it has to be longer it could be the average from 1995 to 2014?
A second proposal I have for Brandon Gates is to select the 10 climate model runs which use the RCP 6 inputs and have the closest match to actual data over the last 30 years, and show them in a plot ranging from 1985 to 2050. This will allow me to figure out if I really have to worry before we run out of oil.
I know I sound like a broken record but I think we are going to see very high oil prices by 2035 (more or less). I’m more worried about the economic impact of high energy costs, and the adverse effect of the dumb CO2 reduction efforts in places like California and Germany, which could cause a lot of economic harm. So I’m very interested in seeing what you think are your best models so I can use them to think about this topic.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
January 14, 2015 4:27 am

I think it’s pretty easy to prove that we were no where near a mega drought, or had an abundance of super hurricanes. Further, we are no where near running out of oil or natural gas. Take a look at the number of LNG plants that are due to open for export here in the US. Enormous amounts. Who would have ever thought that we would be ever exporting any fuels? If gas and oil prices rise, it will be from increased tax hikes to supposedly counter global warming. Let’s see how much of that money does anything except. It is in reality an unequal tax on the poor. Governments pass special bills all the time, like for storm water abatement, like in Colorado. I’m sure it is the same in many other places. The money goes into the general fund, and whoosh, it’s gone. After ten years they are back asking the public for more money because nothing was done. New Jersey is a perfect example of that with preserving farm land. The first green acres project did anything but. And the next bought property that couldn’t or shouldn’t be developed in the first place. After 30 or 40 years, and many lost farms later, and the closing of I 95 between Hopewell to NY, and it helped the bond holders of the turnpike ( truckers HAVE to pay a toll) (which was to save a farm and is now wall to wall housing), they did finally manage to buy the development rights. Which means that the state can now build or sell those rights whenever it wishes, for any purpose.
I saw an ad for global warming that what we are eating is contributing to GW. So since it is a well established fact that being obese is not only unhealthy, but results in a poorer quality of life, that we establish a government that controls the amount of calories that you consume. Additionally, you will be required to join a gym and prove that you exercise regularly. Since that directly affects medical costs and everybody is getting to know how well the current health care system is working. That doesn’t mean you can keep your health care or that prices will go down. If not you will be subject to fines and penalties. I don’t see anything that can go wrong with that idea. (sarc)

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
January 15, 2015 5:53 pm

Fernando Leanme,

A second proposal I have for Brandon Gates is to select the 10 climate model runs which use the RCP 6 inputs and have the closest match to actual data over the last 30 years, and show them in a plot ranging from 1985 to 2050.

I did the six best RCP6.0 model runs selected according to your criteria, and plotted them against GISTemp LOTI and NCDC for two reference periods.
1986-2005:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tEqxVSGwIis/VLhrzHbuORI/AAAAAAAAASg/CJuA01lJyaA/s1600/GISTemp%2BNCDC%2BRCP60%2BBest%2B6%2B1986-2005%2Bbaseline%2B1985-2050.png
1880-2014:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K2xNSjw51IM/VLhsIGdKB_I/AAAAAAAAASo/5pX8acAv50E/s1600/GISTemp%2BNCDC%2BRCP60%2BBest%2B6%2B1880-2014%2Bbaseline%2B1985-2050.png

David Socrates
January 13, 2015 5:04 pm

All this talk of “new records” is getting old. Anybody know when the global cooling is supposed to start?

Richard M
Reply to  David Socrates
January 13, 2015 5:12 pm
David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 5:14 pm
Martin C
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 5:33 pm

Ooooh, David, that ‘warming’ looks so scary. Here, look at this one . .
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2010/to:2014/trend
. .yeah, it makes a difference when you start and stop, huh . . . though I like Richard M’s plot better – longer period.

David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 5:38 pm

Yeah, you are right.
It does make a difference when you start.

For example, if you look at the entire data set…..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
Not much global cooling happening.

Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 6:19 pm

I like to look at the big picture [“the entire data set” as Socks says], because looking at any particular tiny slice of time can give the wrong impression. This chart is from the 1800’s.
And this chart shows the same thing, from a slightly different perspective.
Notice that the global climate and temperature always stays within the same relatively tight parameters, as the planet continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age [LIA].
Recent warm temperatures are nothing unusual or unprecedented. In fact, we have been very fortunate to have lived in such a “Goldilocks” climate for the past ≈150 years. Here is another view, using NASA/GISS data:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png
At times not so long ago geologically, temperatures changed by TENS of degrees, within only a decade or two! If that happened now it would be catastrophic.
All the wild-eyed Chicken Little arm-waving over a few tenths of a degree fluctuation will seem preposterous to future generations. There is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening. Everything we observe now has happened in the past repeatedly, and to a greater degree, and more often than recently. We should consider ourselves lucky, instead of constantly wringing our collective hands over little non-events.
The sky isn’t falling, as the alarmist crowd wants us to believe. It’s not even a little acorn. The carbon scare is literally nothing at all.

David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 6:23 pm

Nice charts.
The Greenland chart doesn’t show recent behavior.
They all show warming.
When will global cooling start?

Martin C
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 6:56 pm

David Socrates says on January 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm . . .
YES, I agree with using the data set you did. But NOT the SINGLE trend line. How about this?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1998.25/to:2015/trend
So the ‘trend’ for the last 15+ years is slight cooling. So according to your question “when does global cooling start?’ , well it did 15+ years ago .
But in the next 10-15 years:
will it go on about the same ? OR will it go down FASTER? OR maybe it will go up?
Depends if the solar activity is SOMEHOW a player – or the AMO/PDO.
But the MAIN thing is, even IF CO2 were a player in it, it sure isn’t that big of a player compared to ‘natural variation’. AND, even if temps do start up again BECAUSE of CO2, there is PLENTY of time to adapt.
. .so stop being so alarmist, and just enjoy this nice INTERGLACIAL weather/climate. . .

David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 7:27 pm

If “So the ‘trend’ for the last 15+ years is slight cooling.: why all the fuss about 2014 ???

Martin C
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 7:41 pm

David, I am not fussing about 2014. Sure, the media is trying to make a big deal of it.
Let’s just watch temps SEVERAL MORE YEARS, maybe a decade or two, and see how the trend continues;
Let’s NOT just ‘cherry pick one’ that, in the temperature swings, MAY be on the higher side, and make something of it. I don’t care. But you do for some inane reason. . .
You can have the last comment ( as I’m sure you will); Enjoy it. I’m outta here for now . . . it won’t change my opinion on what I see is your ‘alarmism’ . . .

Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 7:46 pm

Q: How long is a piece of string?
A: Twice the length from the middle!
Given the start point of the satellite record is arbitrary, I propose that measuring the trend from either end is just as relevant:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend

David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 7:46 pm

Martian C
..
I’ve been waiting now for over 15 years for the global cooling to start.
..
I’m disappointed it hasn’t.

David Socrates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 7:49 pm

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Look what happens to your “graph” when you use a different data source
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1997/trend
Exactly the same parameters.

Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 8:22 pm

And here is yet another view. We are realizing that nobody knows global temperatures to within a couple of tenths of a degree. There is too much disagreement between the various data sets.
What we’re left with is this: within reasonable error bars global T is flat, and has been for many years. Not one alarming prediction of runaway global warming, accelerating sea levels, disappearing Arctic ice, vanishing polar bears, etc., has ever come true. Every prediction has failed; no exceptions.
So why would reasonable folks still listen to anything the alarmist crowd says? They haven’t been right yet, not once — but now suddenly they have the right answers?
Nope. Nope, nope. One great big ball of NOPE. They don’t have the answers. Not the right answers, anyway.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 8:28 pm

dbstealey,
You proudly post the following chart:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
All the way to the right it reads, “Mann Hockey Stick”. You mean you actually trust that garbage now? [1]

At times not so long ago geologically, temperatures changed by TENS of degrees, within only a decade or two!

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
For the past 10K years the temperature min/max rates of change at Greenland’s summit are:
Min: -0.36/decade
Max: 0.36/decade

If that happened now it would be catastrophic.

Don’t be alarmist.
——————
[1] It isn’t Mann’s Hockey Stick, it’s the tail end of the data from Alley (2000) cited above.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
January 13, 2015 8:31 pm

David Socrates, when your first choice is to pick a La Nina starting point to try and claim some warming, all you are doing is proving you are dishonest. I could have chosen 2001 and it would also have shown cooling as well (or 1998) but that really doesn’t line up with any mechanism. My choice of 2005 is based on the approximate date the PDO changed modes.
I suspect you are in denial of natural climate factors so it is probably a waste of time. You aren’t interested in the truth.

Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 10:54 am

Gates says:
All the way to the right it reads, “Mann Hockey Stick”. You mean you actually trust that garbage now?
I never trusted Mann’s garbage.
And:
It isn’t Mann’s Hockey Stick, it’s the tail end of the data from Alley (2000) cited above.
Ah, but it is part of Mann’s Hokey Schtick. You know — the part you fell for.
Just compare Mann’s nonsense with the twenty or so identical ‘hiockey stick’ global warming episodes that came before. Only Chicken Little could get alarmed about something like that.
And:
Don’t be alarmist.
Don’t be a fool.
===============
Richard M says:
You aren’t interested in the truth.
None of them are.

Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 11:29 am

“EVERYBODY PANIC!!”
~ Ms. C. Little
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png
.
☺☺☺☺☺

Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 3:10 pm

Really??? You really think 4 years of data in global climate is a trend? Why not just show the last 4 months that “proves” warming at 12 degrees per century. e-Gads!

John Finn
Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 4:01 pm

Already in progress according to the better quality satellite data.

No – there’s no cooling. The RSS trend is NOT significant – not even close.

Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 7:18 pm

Socks sez:
why all the fuss about 2014 ???
There wouldn’t be any fuss at all if the alarmist clique wasn’t constantly lying about ‘the hottest year EVAH!!

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 7:32 pm

dbstealey,

I never trusted Mann’s garbage.

Alley’s not in on the racket?

Ah, but it is part of Mann’s Hokey Schtick. You know — the part you fell for.

http://uc00.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/mbh98smooth.png
Alley (2000) data only go to 1855.

Just compare Mann’s nonsense with the twenty or so identical ‘hockey stick’ global warming episodes that came before.

MBH98 was a NH reconstruction. Read up on polar amplification: http://bit.ly/1C9fzGF

Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 8:10 pm

Gates says:
We muffed it.
Along with every other alarming prediction.
[Repeated for effect.]

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 9:21 pm

dbstealey,

Along with every other alarming prediction.

Being alarmed is a personal choice. In answer to this graph you posted:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Here’s what it looks like with the instrumental record for comparison:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hksiecM4u3Q/VLYC3ecYOKI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZsJFpmrxgZo/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene.png
Oh yes, and you were saying something about Mann’s Hockey Stick?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G1qMbhCpQ-k/VLYSTfkAj-I/AAAAAAAAAQI/NSaunzIV6t8/s1600/GISP2%2BHADCRUT4CW%2BHolocene%2BRate.png

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Richard M
January 14, 2015 9:24 pm
mpainter
Reply to  David Socrates
January 13, 2015 5:44 pm

The previous post gives that the 2014 ice loss of Greenland as only 2% of the average loss of recent years. If this is true, it is a very impressive indicator of NH cooling.
This could be the beginning of the cooling trend that the alarmists so feverently long for.

David Socrates
Reply to  mpainter
January 13, 2015 6:12 pm

The “average” loss is still a “loss”…

Got any idea when there will be a net “gain?”

mpainter
Reply to  mpainter
January 14, 2015 1:14 am

We don’t want a “gain” sockrats. Glaciation is bad for us.
In fact, a warmer world is better than a cooler world.

mpainter
Reply to  mpainter
January 14, 2015 1:19 am

But sockrats didn’t know that. See what one can learn at WUWT? Assuming one wants to learn.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 13, 2015 8:20 pm

I agree, arbitrary windows in the data, are interesting but maybe not very useful:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1932.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1932.5/to:2015/trend

joelobryan
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
January 13, 2015 10:51 pm

Let’s be thankful the LIA ended long before we were all born. SO that our great-great-grandparents had to deal with its epic climate changes,changes whose hand we invisibly mention in passing, like The Great War, the Great Depression, Our Darkest Hour, when men sought power over the weak and control of their lands. We are where we are today only because our predecessors successfully adapted to Climate Change coming out of the the LIA. And we will too,not because that intellectually dishonest brand of CC that permeates our presents and defiles our past, but in spite of it.

rooter
Reply to  David Socrates
January 13, 2015 11:49 pm

dbstealey’s problems with the time of present continues. According to him the blade of Mann’s hockeystick ended in 1855.

Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 11:31 am

rooter,
You mistake me for someone with problems.
Sure I have problems. Who doesn’t? But I have no problem with the runaway global warming scare.
Measurable man-made global warming is nonsense. No problem. ☺

rooter
Reply to  rooter
January 15, 2015 3:18 am

dbstealey:
Your mistake is your problem. The mistake that 1855 is now.
My guess is that you will continue having that problem. You will present the same graphs and mix 1855 and now.

Phlogiston
Reply to  Phlogiston
January 13, 2015 5:07 pm

A Saudi snow camel.

Reply to  Phlogiston
January 13, 2015 5:33 pm

Uh oh, an effigy of the Prophet.

Reply to  Phlogiston
January 13, 2015 6:29 pm

Infidel!

joelobryan
Reply to  Phlogiston
January 13, 2015 7:10 pm

Why is the camel smiling?

BFL
Reply to  Phlogiston
January 13, 2015 10:11 pm
handjive
Reply to  Phlogiston
January 14, 2015 12:20 am

Snowmen condemned in Saudi Arabia amid concern they ‘promote lustiness and eroticism’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic/6013480
“Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: “It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun.”
“They are afraid for their faith of everything … sick minds,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a “snow bride” wearing a bra and lipstick.”

herkimer
January 13, 2015 5:22 pm

The anticipated potential global annual temperature record for 2014 may be of interest to some but it has very little interest and significance for many regions of the globe, especially North America . The 2014 annual temperature anomaly for Contiguous US was the 4th coldest in 17 years and only 0.26 F from being the coldest in 17 years. The annual temperature anomaly for US has been trending negative at -0.47 F/decade since 1998. In United States where annual , winter, spring, fall and 9 month of the year temperature anomalies are all trending colder or negative for almost 2 decades or 17 years , a one year global temperature spike due to mostly ENSO effects has very little significance to the general public .. However it will be played up in anticipation of the Paris Conference and all other more relevant temperature trends like the cooling of North America seasons and Northern hemisphere winters , may not be even mentioned in the media headlines.

Robert B
Reply to  herkimer
January 13, 2015 6:48 pm

Places like Australia will make up for it. http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=12month&area=nat
The only two places with 2-2.5°C above the long term average have single stations for 100s of kilometres. One is missing data from 1969-1999 and the other only started in 1998. I don’t think that there is a station in the pink areas around them and one skirts two stations that were only 1°C warmer than the average. That will balance out about 100 stations in the US that have long records and were 2°C colder than the long term mean.

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
January 13, 2015 7:44 pm

Correction – there is no station in one of those read areas (SW Queensland) but there a few stations on the fringes of the pink area around that area. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

mikewaite
Reply to  herkimer
January 14, 2015 4:56 am

An interesting point. If the UN operated on the Bentham principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” then the climatic effects on the regions of highest population density would be the priority .
If climate change means undesirable cooling in the highly populated areas of Europe and North America then that might take priority for future policy(eg on fossil fuel) over the detrimental effects of those policies on warming on the populations of South East Asia – or maybe not , but at least debate it.
Unfortunately the UN is misnamed and sometimes does not appear to take a “whole globe” view on these issues but seems to listen only to the opinions of a few selected groups of nations.

January 13, 2015 5:34 pm

So much hoopla over a tad of a degree.

TRG
January 13, 2015 5:40 pm

Since it’s not warming in the U.S., where exactly is the warming coming from?

joelobryan
Reply to  TRG
January 13, 2015 7:12 pm

The 2014 El Nino that wasn’t still released a good deal of heat into the Earth’s climate system last Fall.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  TRG
January 14, 2015 7:41 am

Perhaps from the 98 per cent of the world which is not part of the contiguous USA

Reply to  Richard Barraclough
January 14, 2015 12:17 pm

And 70% of that we can’t live on, it’s water. And of that 30%, the US is still the most desired destination. ” No body says thank god I made it to North Korea. ” Or Saudi Arabia or Syria or any number of other places…

Rex
January 13, 2015 5:42 pm

Can anyone tell me what the 2014 global mean (if such a thing has
any meaning) is likely to be in absolute terms? 14 point something ?
One decimal point will do thanks very.

Reply to  Rex
January 14, 2015 1:43 am

It depends on the source. The way I see it nobody seems to know for sure.

Michael Jankowski
January 13, 2015 5:43 pm

Tamino over at Empty Mind doesn’t just claim that the pause/hiatus has ended, he calls it a myth in the first place using GISS temps.

Robert B
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 13, 2015 7:22 pm

The figure that is supposed to show how well the data fit the model has a proper title in Real Climate.comment image?w=500&h=325

Global temperature (annual values, GISTEMP data 1880-2014) together with piecewise linear trend lines from an objective change point analysis. (Note that the value for 2014 will change slightly as it is based on Jan-Oct data only.) Graph by Niamh Cahill.

Dave O.
January 13, 2015 6:01 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, El Nino’s don’t indicate an energy gain in the biosphere, but represent an energy transfer from the ocean to the air above the ocean, thus making the energy more easily measured. So even with a “record” warm year, it would not be an indication of record energy in the system.

Dave O.
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 13, 2015 6:26 pm

Thanks

rooter
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 13, 2015 11:58 pm

Of course the heat content in that area in the Pacific was higher. 1997-98 had a massive ninjo. No ninjo i 2014-2015. Lack of high heat content there equals no ninjo.

rooter
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 15, 2015 10:05 am

No one but you will define 2014 a ninjo year Tisdale. Check the ONI index. Or the SOI. Or MEI.
Total miss Tisdale.

RH
January 13, 2015 6:26 pm

Here’s a satellite image of the UHI around Minneapolis last night. Do you think they took that into account when calculating global temps?
fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/s960x960/1669614_907712642595532_719275901374672686_o.png

RH
Reply to  RH
January 13, 2015 6:29 pm

I guess I’ll never get the image embedding thing down. Here’s a link to the NWS facebook page that showed the MN UHI
https://www.facebook.com/NWSTwinCities/photos/a.209333942433409.59745.200752513291552/907712642595532/?type=1

Reply to  RH
January 13, 2015 6:33 pm

RH,
Drudge has this one a lot. I like it:
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/ustemp.gif

joelobryan
Reply to  RH
January 13, 2015 7:19 pm

A balmy night.

Steve Thayer
January 13, 2015 7:30 pm

A few months ago Anthony ran a story about the tabulation of record highs and lows for 2014, national and globally, showing they were about the same for the global numbers. I’d like to see how the year end numbers came out when the December data comes available. My simple mind tells me most adjustments to raw temperature measurements should be negative, to negate urban heat effects, proximity to asphalt, cement, or buildings, etc., and there would be much fewer occasions where adding to raw measurements would be necessary. High and low records though, are based on raw measurements, I am assuming, only because in over 30 years of hearing reports about new temperature record highs and lows for a location no one has ever mentioned whether it was before or after adjustments. So if 2014 was the hottest year ever globally, even after adjusting the raw measurements for urban heat effects (and other effects), then the raw measurements should have a really high ratio of record highs to record lows, a record high ratio one would suspect. A comparison of the record highs to lows for previous years would be interesting too.

joelobryan
Reply to  Steve Thayer
January 13, 2015 10:32 pm

Sadly, the USHCN dataset and its analogues in Australia and the NZ have seen the older temps adjusted downward relative to present. If they were adjusting for UHI effects, the adjustments of the past would be upward relative to present. The adjustments always seem to be such that the linear trend from past to present is steepened upward… always. Never downwards, if it were random corrections to the db it should have some near equal distribution. Sadly, the data keepers are corrupting the databases for politically contrived purposes, probably due to Noble Cause Corruption.

knr
Reply to  joelobryan
January 14, 2015 3:23 am

To be fair many times it can be said they are adjusting becasue the ‘right ‘ adjustments make a considerable difference to current and future career prospects . Its not all politics.

Jeff Alberts
January 13, 2015 7:46 pm

“The CO2 obsessed are patiently awaiting the GISS and NCDC global surface temperature data”
So much money and effort expended on something so meaningless.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
January 13, 2015 8:16 pm

[trimmed, off-subject. .mod]

sinewave
January 13, 2015 10:04 pm

I anticipate that the previous years’ poster child for global warming, Artic Ice decline, will not be discussed at all after the “2014 was the hottest year ever” story comes out. “Hottest year ever” claims should be pointed to reports like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/13/al-gore-wrong-again-polar-ice-continues-to-thrive/ and ask why the ice at both poles increased during the “hottest year ever” if Artic Ice decline was such strong evidence of global warming (Antarctic Ice increase has never counted of course).

Tony
January 13, 2015 11:10 pm

GISS to 0.01 degrees and hacrut4 to 0.001 degrees Who are they kidding?

knr
Reply to  Tony
January 14, 2015 3:21 am

Unfortunately quite a few , hence why although y the claim has no scientific values its still held has an unquestionable truth by their friends in the press, true believers and some politicians. Snake oil salesman stay in busy because no matter what you think there is always some sucker willing to buy ‘snake oil’

rooter
January 14, 2015 12:18 am

2014 will not have the highest land-ocean temperature. The index with the best handling of areas with missing observation Cowton & Way will have 2014 as the second warmest. After 2010. Makes sense. Lower Arctic temperatures in 2014. Slightly more Arctic ice as well.
So go for C&W Tisdale.
The ocean indexes is another matter though. They have all 2014 highest. One could of course wonder where most heat is accumulated. In the atmosphere or in the oceans.
Prediction: 2015 will be warmer than 2014. But of course. That makes no difference. If 2015 gives lower temperatures than models then AGW will of course be a hoax.
One problem with that argument though: It presupposes than the models are right.

Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 11:42 am

Cowtan & Way have been pretty solidly debunked here.

David Socrates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2015 11:49 am

Do you have something better for debunking besides a news and opinion blog?

John Finn
Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2015 4:13 pm

Cowtan & Way have been pretty solidly debunked here.

In what way is C&W debunked? Bob Tisdale concludes

The Cowtan and Way (2013) revisions to the HADCRUT4 data do nothing to explain the absence of warming that is occurring in the non-polar regions during the hiatus period.

Bob’s not saying the C&W results are wrong or the methodology used is invalid, he simply observes that C&W can’t explain the lack of warming in non-polar regions.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2015 4:33 pm

@sox,
WUWT is the internet’s BEST SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY site, winner of that award for the past three years running. So it is more than a “news and opinion” site [although most of what you post is opinion].
And John Finn, I gave a link to support what I posted. You could start there.

David Socrates
Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2015 4:44 pm

Dbstealey…

Chevy’s Impala out sells the Mercedes SL 550. Does that make the Impala the best car?
This site is not more than a news an opinion site.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2015 8:16 pm

Socks says:
This site is not more than a news an opinion site.
I have shown, chapter and verse, how wrong socks is. He is always wrong; it’s only the degree that might fluctuate slightly.
Since socks is so unhappy here, why does he continue to visit? Is it so he can disparage the host for all the time he has to put in, so reprobates like socks can be critical?
Not only is socks consistently wrong about science, he’s just an unhappy guy. Maybe some time out would help his mental problems?

rooter
Reply to  dbstealey
January 15, 2015 3:26 am

dbstealey prefers the indexes with 2014 as the warmest year.
That implies course mean that the warming has stopped. It must be evidence of the global cooling I guess.

Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 4:40 pm

rooter says:
It presupposes than the models are right.
No, it pre- [and post-] supposes that the models are wrong — which they have been, consistently.
You can’t go wrong assuming that the models are wrong, and that they will be wrong in the direction of their [routinely wrong] predictions of increased global warming.
Also, don’t forget that not one model was able to predict the stasis in global warming, which has been going on for many years. Models can’t predict because they are captive to the preconceptions of the modelers and programmers: Confirmation Bias In; Failed Predictions Out.

rooter
Reply to  dbstealey
January 15, 2015 3:34 am

Well dbstealey: If the models are wrong they can not tell us anything of AGW. You cannot use something that is wrong to test if AGW is happening.
Simple fact.
Just to underline that you state that no model was able to predict the stasis in global warming.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 15, 2015 9:11 am

hi rooter!
You say:
If the models are wrong they can not tell us anything of AGW.
I agree completely. In fact, no empirical measurements can tell us anything about AGW.
So please, tell me something:
Is there anything about the climate that cannot be fully explained by natural variability?
Because everything we observe now has happened before. Repeatedly. And to a much greater degree.
The simplest explanation is the best, you know.

Chris Schoneveld
January 14, 2015 1:06 am

Global surface temperatures? The “surface” at the oceans is the top of the water column, the “surface” on land is the bottom of the air column. What a funny meaningless mix. Give me satellite mesurements any time; at least they don’t mix apples and oranges.

Nylo
January 14, 2015 1:40 am

I already did the exercise to calculate how big should the December anomaly be for GISS to set a new anual record. Anomaly for December would have to be 0,65ºC at least. But then I thought… hey, wait a minute, that would be true if they only put the december anomaly without changing the past. But we know that they DO change the past. So there’s no way to anticipate how big the december anomaly will have to be for the year to be a record year…

ren
January 14, 2015 2:01 am

Sorry.
A large increase in GCR cosmic radiation on the polar circle.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/inbrwn.jpg
After the strong explosions solar radiation is very strong, but it takes a few hours. High GCR depends on the strength of the solar wind.

January 14, 2015 3:11 am

H2O is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
If it is logical to tax man-made CO2 emissions, it is logical to tax man-made H2O emissions.

Reply to  Gerald Wilhite
January 14, 2015 5:52 am

When you light your farts (to impress the chicks) is it Carbon Dioxide, Methane, hydrogen, nitrogen or oxygen you’re igniting?

Reply to  Sparks
January 14, 2015 5:35 pm

Reading up on colonoscopy bowel preps I came across one paper that said some bowel preps used sorbitol or mannitol, sugars we don’t digest. However, bacteria do, and release both methane and hydrogen. (The only two flammable gasses on your list.)
When the colonoscopist sees a polyp, he cuts it out and often seals the blood vessels that fed it with an electrocautery device. The paper said there were something like 10 recorded cases of explosions (they feed in some air to inflate the colon), six resulted in rupture and one was fatal.
Bowel preps don’t use sorbitol or mannitol today.

knr
January 14, 2015 3:17 am

‘Will Gavin Schmidt, the new head of GISS, release their data early to steal the headlines, or will GISS and NCDC publish their long-anticipated press releases at the same time?’
Given he got the job because Dr Doom knew he be a safe pair of hands to carry-on his ‘good work ‘ and has done nothing but supporting that view ever since he started , you can take good guess that Schmidt what ever it takes to support and advice ‘the cause ‘ with data ‘manipulation’ is just bread and butter stuff.

rooter
Reply to  knr
January 14, 2015 3:51 am

What data manipulation? Averaging? How are you supposed to make a temperature index without data manipulation?
Impossible.
Btw. JMA is first. Warmest December.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html
And warmest year
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/dec_wld.html
An interesting aspect of the JMA index is that they use a different ocean index.
Note however that they use 5×5 gridding with no infilling/interpolation (like Hadcrut). That suggests it is too warm as it will not get the missing areas right.

Man Bearpig
January 14, 2015 3:27 am

To be honest, I wouldn’t pay it too much attention. It will only get the warmists crowing about how upset we all are about it, when it is not even worth getting upset about anyway.

January 14, 2015 3:44 am

From the top GISS graph 2014 to November was about 0.66 +/-0.1 Degrees C.
The year 2010 was about 0.67 +/-0.1 Degrees C.
I assume the uncertainty for each year is +/-0.1 C. as Met Office uses
( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html )
The difference between the years is then (0.66 +/-0.1)°C – (0.67 +/-0.1)°C = (0.01 +/-0.2)
(The individual uncertainties shall be added)
That is, the difference is less than 1/10 of the uncertainty !
The difference between years is 0.01°C . The uncertainty is +/-0.2°C
True?
How can we state that 2010 was warmer the Jan-Nov og 2014?
See for example http://www.rit.edu/cos/uphysics/uncertainties/Uncertaintiespart2.html or https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/errorman/propagat.htm

Why are error bars usually omitted in temperature graphs?
Why are uncertainties almost never stated?

rooter
Reply to  Agust Bjarnason
January 14, 2015 3:57 am

Perhaps the error bars just are unobserved by you?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
And of course it is rather meaningless to say that 2010 was warmer og 2014 considering error bars. The error bars also implies that it the numbers will change with new observations. That includes past values.

Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 11:41 am

That last observation cuts both ways, you know.

Editor
January 14, 2015 4:07 am

How anybody can seriously claim “hottest years” based on such sparse temperature data coverage is beyond me.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/noaa-make-false-claims-again/

richard
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 14, 2015 4:28 am

wow, i knew GISS estimated up to 1200 kilometers from weather stations from around the world but i didn’t realize that the majority of the world is guesstimated.

Reply to  richard
January 14, 2015 5:47 am

Yep and the word “guesstimated” is underestimated.

richard
Reply to  richard
January 14, 2015 6:00 am

in the words of the MET about GISS methodology-
“NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station”
I have assumed a lot of things over the years…..!

knr
Reply to  richard
January 14, 2015 6:19 am

Given that you can have two different weather systems in areas dividend by mountain ranges no where near this big , this claim is hilarious.

rooter
Reply to  Paul Homewood
January 14, 2015 5:13 am

Some would of course say that we cannot claim hottest years because of sparse data.
The same people who claim there has been no warming.

mpainter
Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 5:38 am

Like me. Not for the past 18 years, according to the more reliable satellite data.
Some claim the warming will resume. All the signs point the other way.

Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 4:47 pm

I have plenty of data, and I can see clearly that global warming stopped many years ago.
Sorry if you can’t see that. But even many IPCC scientists have said the same thing: global warming has stopped [or ‘paused’, or that we’re in a ‘hiatus’. But it all means the same thing].
The carbon scare has been debunked for a long time now. The fact that global warming has stopped is not even relevant to the original debunking. It’s just icing on the cake for skeptics, who have always had a problem with the lack of any measurements showing that human emissions matter. Now it appears that human emissions do not matter at all.

rooter
Reply to  rooter
January 15, 2015 3:42 am

mpainter: It seems you have not read this post. Oiv2 includes satellite data. 2014 warmest.
I guess it a sign of cooling.

mpainter
Reply to  rooter
January 15, 2015 8:57 am

Rooter: check out RSS and UAH. I recommend these as more reliable indicators of temperature.
Stay away from those nasty, tampered with, instrument data sets and you will feel a lot better.
To feel even better, stay away from the alarmists. When they try to spook you with tales of daemon CO2, simply tell them that atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, being the basis for life and the more, the better.

JamesS
January 14, 2015 4:23 am

All the warming in the world isn’t evidence that CO2 is causing it. Correlation is not causation, and to say “What else could it be?” is not science. Where are the alternative hypotheses? Just for purposes of argument, if one ruled out CO2 and any positive feedback systems, what else could be causing this mild, benevolent warming of the planet?
If you can’t think of one, you’re not scientists.

Reply to  JamesS
January 14, 2015 5:39 am

The planet has not warmed from this “political catastrophe” and is not warming as a result of ‘X’. An alternative hypotheses about ‘X’ would be just as useless. .

Bill Illis
January 14, 2015 4:43 am

This is probably the most realistic assessment of temperatures in 2014 (from Ryan Maue at weatherbell).
Cold year where you live. Warmest on record where the surface temperature record adjusters live.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_2014.png

rooter
Reply to  Bill Illis
January 14, 2015 5:09 am

Interesting view of the word’s population there for Illis. No people living in places like California, Europe, China. Only adjusters.
Good to know
Another interesting bit from Illis: He trust models more than measurements.
Good to know.

January 14, 2015 5:24 am

I like how Bob uses ‘their’ own data against them. Even when these past few years have been the coldest of the warmest or the warmest of the coldest! who knows any more? lol Seriously though, temperature readings whether by satellite land based or by sea adjustments, we’re really only looking at a few tenths of a degree, and even if we go back a few years we would see wider swings in these measurements.
In my opinion the various climates on earth are doing fine and there is no cause for alarm over the silliest of things.

Joe Bastardi
January 14, 2015 5:30 am

NCEP CFSR, while I believe is a more accurate representation against Actual satellite era data, is not what they use. I believe that was 6th warmest in 35 years and given November was 7th or 8th, its almost a sure bet that GISS is going to be warmer given how they do things
They are afraid to go to the finer grid in the satellite era, cause it would destroy their missive. Most of the warmer months were in the front decade (00-10) and its been cooling since

rooter
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
January 14, 2015 6:19 am

So Bastardi prefers model output as well.
Anyone else?

Just an engineer
January 14, 2015 5:41 am

Well no matter what you unbelievers say, IT IS STILL the hottest year since 2013!
/SARC

knr
Reply to  Just an engineer
January 14, 2015 6:16 am

If you could get a bookies to allow you to put a bet of next years being the ‘warmest ever ‘ you could make a ton of money , given no matter what happens ‘adjustments’ will results in this being the claim made.

Reply to  knr
January 14, 2015 12:50 pm

With the adjustments, it will be a wonder that the time before 1979 the world wasn’t in glaciers. I suppose they could adjust that too. … There is a problem with that though, with adjusting data. They run into a problem with the correlation of co2 with temperature. For instance, how far back do they cool the temps, and given the current amount of co2 that is produced how does their math explain it. IPCC has a problem. Are they going to show that the temps dropped after the Industrial Revolution? Or are the temps before that going to drop further, Making the LIA even colder, an event that they have to deny simply because co2 levels didn’t vary during that time period. And now if co2 levels did vary ( oh, we (AGW) were wrong co2 levels did drop, just saying) , what caused it? Oh the irony !!!

herkimer
January 14, 2015 5:52 am

Does anyone know if there is a data set that gives the annual temperature anomaly by continent?

rooter
Reply to  herkimer
January 14, 2015 6:26 am
richard
Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 6:37 am

hard to believe that that graph is made up of mostly estimated temps from around the world.

richard
Reply to  rooter
January 14, 2015 6:39 am

well should have actually looked at it , but lets say made up from temps from mostly urban areas.

herkimer
January 14, 2015 6:51 am

rooter
thanks for the reference .

herkimer
January 14, 2015 7:08 am

I think it is rather hazardous for us to focus on global annual temperatures only and ignore regional events and what is happening seasonally in any region . Take for example the cooling of winters in the Northern Hemisphere the last 20 years and the seasonal cooling of winters ,sprig and fall in North America since 1998.
Why are winter temperatures as important?
Because very cold winters can lead to cold spring and fall and if sustained over several years, to cold summers and thus lower annual temperatures as we have seen during 2014. and could potentially see in 2015 also.
This pattern of declining temperature anomalies in recent seasons of the year has been quite evident over the last several decades in the Northern Hemisphere. I mentioned previously that the trend of NH Land winter temperature anomalies showed a decline of (-0.18 C /decade) since 1995. By 1998, the trend of NH Land winter temperature anomaly was declining at (-0.35 C/decade). Since 2002 it is (-0.54C/decade) and since 2007 it is (- 0.81C/decade). The decline is steadily increasing.
Since 2000, the NH spring land temperature anomaly also stopped rising and went flat between 2000 and 2007 after which it also started to decline at (-0.08 C/decade)
Since 2005, the trend of the NH fall land temperature anomaly stopped rising and has been declining at (-0.05C/decade)
Finally the trend of the NH summer land temperature anomaly stopped rising in 1998, was flat from 1998 to 2010 and has been declining since 2010 at (-0.7C/decade)
This pattern has led to a 17 year pause in the rise of global and hemispheric temperatures.

Reply to  herkimer
January 14, 2015 12:52 pm

+1

January 14, 2015 7:10 am

See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
for what me might call “ peak heat “ of the millennial trend in about 2003.
The RSS satellite data provides a consistent record of relative temperature trends since 1979. The non satellite data has been homogenized, reanalyzed and changed by adjustment algorithms so as to be highly suspect.
Section 2 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
shows that the earth is entering a cooling trend which will possibly last for 600 years
This link also provides more detailed forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling.

David Socrates
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 14, 2015 7:50 am
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 8:24 am

As I understand it a new version – 6.0 of the UAH data is in preparation. Spencer has suggested that the revision will move UAH closer to RSS – we will see.

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 8:30 am

There is good reason to not trust satellite data.
..
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1958-7

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 8:42 am

David Note I said “The RSS satellite data provides a consistent record of relative temperature trends ”
I believe the RSS data is more self consistent than the non satellite data. The relative trends tell the story.

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 8:53 am

RSS data is not consistent with UAH data.
Both use the same raw AMSU readings, and process it with different “models” of the atmospheric column.
For example, a ground based thermometer is not affected by cloud cover.
..
It’s best to take all sources of data, and not exclude any, because each source has it’s strengths and weaknesses.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 9:06 am

David You say “It’s best to take all sources of data, and not exclude any, because each source has it’s strengths and weaknesses.” I agree – and I am certainly cognizant of the other temperature data sets.
I just think that the RSS data best illustrates what is actually going on when looked at in context with changes in solar activity etc.

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 9:19 am

“I just think that the RSS data best illustrates what is actually going on”

Of course you do. All you are doing is selecting the dataset that best illustrates what you believe in. It is a form of confirmation bias. .

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 10:01 am

When dealing with complex multi-variable systems, scientific insight and understanding comes from recognizing relationship between emergent patterns in the data. You might refer to this as confirmation bias -I think of it as a working hypothesis which provides forecasts to be tested against future empirical developments. ( see the link to my site).For example I am anticipating a significant cooling 2017 -18 +/-
If that doesn’t appear I would have to another look at my inferences.

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 10:07 am

“recognizing relationship between emergent patterns in the data.”
..
I agree with you 100%.
However you need to look at multiple datasets instead of the one you believe in
..
(reference: “I believe the RSS data is more self consistent ” ) …..my emphasis added.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 10:25 am

David O.K I will change my wording – instead of believe insert “I have carefully considered the matter and think that……………..”

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 10:32 am

That’s a great start. Now all you need to do is provide evidence for your thinking. You need to show why RSS is better than UAH, and why RSS is better than HADCRUT, or GISS.

milodonharlani
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 10:46 am

It should be obvious why satellites are superior to the cooked to a crisp ¨surface¨ series.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 11:20 am

Milodonharlani
Exactly.

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 11:30 am

“It should be obvious”
..
milodonharlani & Dr Norman Page
Citation please?

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 12:13 pm

David I’ll just quote from my original comment
“The non satellite data has been homogenized, reanalyzed and changed by adjustment algorithms so as to be highly suspect.”
You are certainly free not to believe that statement. I’m happy to wait until 2017-18 to see what happens.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 5:03 pm

Satellite data is tantamount to a snapshot of the planet [I know, and for the nitpickers it isn’t an actual snapshot…]
So the entire [almost] planet is measured, instead of many different land locations. It is clear to me that satellite data has advantages, and is superior.
More importantly, satellites measure the warming/cooling trend. It is now below background noise, so the auto-generated trend lines are pretty meaningless. But it’s very clear that the incessant alarmist predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe were nonsense.
The fact is that CO2 just doesn’t have the claimed effect. How could it? We are putting [harmless, beneficial] CO2 into the air, but global temperatures are not going up as predicted. Something is wrong.
Here is what’s wrong: the alarmist crowd got causation backward. Rather than CO2 causing global warming, it is global warming that causes CO2 to rise. That has been proven over and over. However, there is no such proof that CO2 causes changes in temperature. There aren’t any empirical examples of that happening.
When scientific skeptics are wrong, we generally acknowledge it, and then re-adjust to the new fact. But when climate alarmists are wrong, they just dig in their heels and argue louder. There is really no difference between the typical alarmist, and a convert to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is there?

David Socrates
Reply to  David Socrates
January 14, 2015 5:59 pm

” there is no such proof that CO2 causes changes in temperature.”

Here is proof
..
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.3867
More if you want it
..
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

sideline observer
Reply to  David Socrates
January 15, 2015 8:28 am

David Socrates I followed your proof links. The first paper was on how selectively sampled greenhouse gasses can alter observed “clear sky” infrared radiation spectrum measurements.
The Nature article specifically states in the abstract “The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature.” and then explains that the observed temperature and co2 levels show a correlation.
Hardly definitive proof that CO2 causes temperature changes.

Reply to  David Socrates
January 15, 2015 12:44 pm

David -To understand the immeasurably small effect of CO2 on climate read and digest
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprincipia-scientific.org%2Fpublications%2FPSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf&ei=-5G2VP3YB8G8ggSi1IOYDA&usg=AFQjCNECt_RAPMgotfZPalUH3_5_ScFB5A&sig2=CBg5_-ds3lLdvfTPabqf1w&bvm=bv.83640239,d.eXY
Here is part of the Abstract.
“In the case of Earth’s atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called “greenhouse effect” and pseudo-mechanisms, such as “backradiation,” have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth’s surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics.”
The entire CO2 – GHG scare is a scientific scandal of major proportions

Reply to  David Socrates
January 15, 2015 12:52 pm

David In order to understand the immeasurably small contribution of CO2 to temperature take the time to read and digest :
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprincipia-scientific.org%2Fpublications%2FPSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf&ei=-5G2VP3YB8G8ggSi1IOYDA&usg=AFQjCNECt_RAPMgotfZPalUH3_5_ScFB5A&sig2=CBg5_-ds3lLdvfTPabqf1w&bvm=bv.83640239,d.eXY
Here is a quote from the abstract
“In the case of Earth’s atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called “greenhouse effect” and pseudo-mechanisms, such as “backradiation,” have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth’s surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics.”
The entire CO2 – GHG scare is a scientific scandal of major proportions

Alan Robertson
January 14, 2015 7:15 am

Again, the local mill is running a special on troll feed. Bob Tisdale’s posts always seem to bring out the best/worst of ’em. Extra discounts for boxcar size orders.

jaffa
January 14, 2015 7:25 am

Discussing the temperature is nonsense, it just lets the alarmists off the hook. We’ve seen some warming and consequently it’s warmer – sometimes – so what?
The issues are how much and why. The alarmists are saying “it’s warmer – it’s a disaster – it’s mankinds fault – everyone must pay”, let’s focus on making them prove (1) it’s a disaster and (2) mankinds fault instead of allowing this diversion into an argument over whether the climate has changed – of course it has and of course it will.

January 14, 2015 7:40 am

I’m looking at a min/max swing of .15 C since 2002. What’s the uncertainty? +/- .25?

herkimer
January 14, 2015 7:48 am

Just to illustrate further why the 2014 global annual temperature is meaningless unless the figure is presented in proper context of what is really happening globally in all major parts of the globe . The YEAR-TO DATE [ jan-nov] NORTHERN HEMISPHERE LAND TEMPERATURE ANOAMLY FOR 2014 was the 11th coldest in the last 17 years . The warmest was 2007 . In another words , there were at least 6 years warmer than 2014 for the year- to- date period of January to November or most of the year. So how can we have global temperatures of any noteworthy or record importance when for half the globe there were 6 years warmer for 11 months of the year.

SAMURAI
January 14, 2015 8:56 am

Since there hasn’t been a global warming trend in 18.5 years, the poor Warmunists are relegated to ranking years….
It’s like the 42 year-old village idiot dancing around the courtyard with bells on his shoes singing:
I’m growing, I’m growing
Why can’t you see?
I’m at my highest height since 23…

January 14, 2015 9:11 am

What matters is what is going to happen going forward and it will not be a temperature trend which will be increasing.

jorgekafkazar
January 14, 2015 10:46 am

“The suspense has to be driving the CO2 obsessed crazy…or should that be crazier?”
It’s not a drive; it’s a short putt.

January 14, 2015 11:44 am

The first three words in Bob’s article explains everything…

AJB
January 14, 2015 11:48 am

Chaos in motion …

1sky1
January 14, 2015 5:38 pm

The annotated GISP2 Holocene emperature reconstruction posted here by Gates unmistakably shows that since the invention of beer ~4500 years ago, the climate has become cooler. That is the by far the most profound discovery discussed here. 😉

richard
January 15, 2015 2:12 am

Flagged up by real science a while back-
Fake temperatures are marked with an “E” in their final database, as seen below in the 2008-2011 January-June data for Cadiz, Ohio.comment image
Nearly 40% of the 2014 final temperatures are marked with an “E” – which is even larger than the 29% percentage of stations which are completely fake. This indicates that they are also making up temperatures for a large number of stations which actually do have thermometer data.

Jim G
Reply to  richard
January 15, 2015 4:58 am

With all this fakery and they can still only manage a .01 degree increase in temp! There must be significantly more uncertainty in the data than that in any event. Some forget all of the equipment, sampling, and various other potential sources of error not covered by the stated confidence intervals estimation.

%d bloggers like this: