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
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
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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
GISS to 0.01 degrees and hacrut4 to 0.001 degrees Who are they kidding?
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’
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.
Cowtan & Way have been pretty solidly debunked here.
Do you have something better for debunking besides a news and opinion blog?
In what way is C&W debunked? Bob Tisdale concludes
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.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
When you light your farts (to impress the chicks) is it Carbon Dioxide, Methane, hydrogen, nitrogen or oxygen you’re igniting?
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That last observation cuts both ways, you know.
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/
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.
Yep and the word “guesstimated” is underestimated.
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…..!
Given that you can have two different weather systems in areas dividend by mountain ranges no where near this big , this claim is hilarious.
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.
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.
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.
mpainter: It seems you have not read this post. Oiv2 includes satellite data. 2014 warmest.
I guess it a sign of cooling.
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.
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.
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. .
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
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.
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.
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
So Bastardi prefers model output as well.
Anyone else?
Well no matter what you unbelievers say, IT IS STILL the hottest year since 2013!
/SARC
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.
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 !!!
Does anyone know if there is a data set that gives the annual temperature anomaly by continent?
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/
hard to believe that that graph is made up of mostly estimated temps from around the world.
well should have actually looked at it , but lets say made up from temps from mostly urban areas.
rooter
thanks for the reference .
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.
+1
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.
UAH satellite data does not agree with RSS
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980.1/plot/uah/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/uah/from:2003.6/trend
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.
There is good reason to not trust satellite data.
..
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1958-7
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.
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.
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.
“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. .
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.
“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.
David O.K I will change my wording – instead of believe insert “I have carefully considered the matter and think that……………..”
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.
It should be obvious why satellites are superior to the cooked to a crisp ¨surface¨ series.
Milodonharlani
Exactly.
“It should be obvious”
..
milodonharlani & Dr Norman Page
Citation please?
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.
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?
” 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
I’m looking at a min/max swing of .15 C since 2002. What’s the uncertainty? +/- .25?
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.
Scotland under a white quilt.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80268000/jpg/_80268403_26b51672-4b2c-4a31-a8a2-a92b82a29d5d.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30804065
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…