Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This post includes calendar year 2014 global surface temperature data from GISS and NCDC.
I thought it would be interesting to begin the introduction as if GISS and NCDC were announcing year-end business profits at their press conference today. [sarc on.]
INTRODUCTION
Today, two of the world’s climate-industry giants—the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)—posted their much-anticipated annual results for 2014. According to GISS, global surface temperature anomalies were an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010, making the 2014 results the highest in the history of GISS. These record-breaking results from GISS are under the guidance of their new Deputy Director, Gavin Schmidt. If you’re not familiar with numbers that remarkable, they’re read two one-hundredth of a deg C, which is equal to less than four one-hundredths of a deg F. According to the NCDC, their global surface temperature results were +0.04 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2005 and 2010, their two previous best years. The warmest years are within the margin of uncertainty for the data*, making it impossible to determine which year was actually warmest. Even so, these results bring new hope to global warming investors, who have had to endure disappointing results in recent decades. GISS and NCDC are once again showing why the CO2 obsessed turn to them for global warming data. GISS and NCDC are global-warming industry leaders…known for eking out record years from poor source data, even during these hard times of global warming slowdown. In related news, based on similar source data, Berkeley Earth too announced record highs in 2014, but only by 0.01 deg C. [sarc off.]
Figure 1
*The uncertainties are assumed to be the same as those shown in the Berkeley link (in the range of +/- 0.04 to 0.05 deg C).
Those results, especially the NCDC results, appear somewhat curious. We showed in the post here that the Meteorological Annual Mean (December to November) were 0.01 deg or less between 2014 and 2010. Then again, the differences between the Meteorological Annual Mean and Calandar Mean are being measured in hundredths of a deg C.
There will be all sorts of bizarre proclamations now that the 2014 global surface temperature data from GISS and NCDC (and Berkeley Earth) were found to be a tick warmer than the prior warmest year(s).
What eludes those making the claims—or what they are purposely directing attention away from—is the growing disagreement between the real world and the global surface warming simulated by climate models.
MODEL-DATA DIFFERENCES
We’ll use the GISS data for this discussion. Similar graphs, but with the NCDC data, follow later in the post.
The teeny-tiny uptick in global surface temperature anomalies does not really help the growing difference between observations and the projections by climate models…because the modeled surface temperatures continue to rise, too, and modeled surface temperatures are rising faster than observations.
Figure 2 presents the annual GISS global surface temperature data for their full term of 1880 to 2014. Also shown on the graph is the average of all of the outputs of the simulations of global surface temperatures by the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, models with historical forcing through about 2005 and with RCP8.5 (worst case) forcings thereafter. The predictions of gloom and doom are based on the worst-case scenarios so we might as well use them for the comparison. The models stored in the CMIP5 archive were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. Anomalies were calculated against the averages for the period of 1880 to 2014 so that the base years did not bias the presentation.
Figure 2
We use the average of the model simulations (the multi-model ensemble member mean) because it best describes how surface temperatures would vary if (big if) they varied in response to the numerical values of the forcings (anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc.) used to drive the climate models. For a further discussion, see the post here.
It’s very plain to see that the observed global surface temperatures have not risen as fast as predicted by climate model simulations in recent years.
Let’s put the growing difference between models and observations into perspective. We’ll subtract the annual values of the data from the modeled values, and we’ll smooth the difference with a 5-year running-average filter (centered on the 3rd year) to reduce the volatility from El Niños, La Niñas and volcanic aerosols. See Figure 3. The horizontal red line is the value of the most recent model-data difference—for the 5-year period of 2010 to 2014. Over that period, the model projections are running on average about 0.17 deg C too warm. Keep in mind, these climate model projections are only a few years old and already their performance is terrible.
Figure 3
We can also see that the models have not simulated surface temperatures this poorly (have not deviated 0.17 deg C from reality) since the 5-year period centered on about 1910. That earlier deviation was caused by the model failure to properly simulate the cooling of global surfaces that took place from the 1880s to about 1910. The present deviation is caused by the model failure to simulate the recent slowdown in global warming.
30-YEAR MODEL-DATA TRENDS
The carbon-dioxide obsessed often say we need to look at 30-year trends, so let’s do exactly that. See Figure 4.
Figure 4
An explanation of what’s shown in that graph: Each data point presents the 30-year linear trend (warming and cooling rate) as calculated by MS EXCEL in deg C/decade. The last data points at 2014 are the linear trends (warming rates) for the 30-year period of 1985-2014. Working back in time, the data points at 2013 are the warming rates for the period of 1984-2013…and so on, until the first data points at 1909, which show the model and observed trends for the period of 1880 to 1909. The term “trailing” in the title block indicates the data points are keyed to the last year of the 30-year terms.
The 30-year period when global surfaces cooled fastest ended about 1909. At that time, the models showed surface temperatures should have been warming if Earth’s surfaces responded to the forcings in the same way as the climate models. Obviously they didn’t. From the 30-year periods ending in 1909 to just before 1925 (when the data trends were still negative but the negative trends were growing smaller) global surfaces were cooling, but the cooling rate was decelerating. (To simplify this discussion, keep in mind that the years discussed are the last years in 30-year periods.) Starting just after 1925 and running through about 1945, Earth’s surfaces had warmed and the observed 30-year warming rate grew faster (accelerated), while the models did not show the same multidecadal variability in warming over that time.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In fact, for the period ending in 1945, the climate models show that global surfaces should only have warmed at a rate that was about 1/3 the observed rate—or, in other words, from 1916 to 1945, global warming occurred at a rate that was about 3 times faster than simulated by climate models—or, to phrase it yet another way, natural variability was responsible for about 2/3rds of the warming from 1916 to 1945. If Earth’s surfaces warmed much faster than simulated by the models, then the warming was caused by something other than the forcings used to drive the climate models…thus it must have been natural variability. Of course, that undermines the claims that all of the global surface warming in the latter part of the 20th Century was caused by man’s emissions of carbon dioxide. If natural factors were capable of causing about 66% of the global warming from 1916 to 1945, there is every reason to conclude that a major portion of the global surface warming during the latter warming period was caused by natural factors. The fact that the models better align during the latter part of the 20th Century is not proof that the warming in that period was caused by manmade greenhouse gases…the climate models have already shown that they have no skill at being able to simulate global surface temperatures over multidecadal periods. [End note.]
From 1945 to about 1964, observed global warming over 30-year time spans decelerated at rates that were much faster than simulated by models. But the modeled trends aligned with the data from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s, then diverged slightly during the 1970s and realigned until about 2003.
Over the last 11 years, the observed 30-year global warming rates decelerated slightly while the climate models show that global warming should have continued to accelerate…if carbon dioxide was the primary driver of global surface temperatures. While the 30-year trends do not show global cooling at this time, they also do not show global warming accelerating as predicted by climate models…and that is the problem that climate scientists are still trying to explain and coming up with dozens of excuses. If history repeats itself, global warming will continue to decelerate, maybe for as long as another 20 years.
30-YEAR MODEL-DATA TREND DIFFERENCES
Figure 5 shows the differences between the modeled and observed 30-year trends (trailing) in global surface temperatures. Referring back to Figure 4, the data trends were subtracted from the modeled trends. For the 30-year period of 1985 to 2014, the models show that global surfaces should have been warming at a rate that’s about 0.085 deg C per decade faster than has been observed. The last time the models showed 30-year global warming rates that were that much faster than observed was around 1920. Now consider again that these climate model projections are only a few years old.
Figure 5
NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA
Figures 6 through 9 are the same as Figures 2 to 5, but with the NCDC global land+ocean temperature anomaly data. The curves are so similar to those with the GISS data that there’s no reason to repeat the dialogue.
Figure 6
# # #
Figure 7
# # #
Figure 8
# # #
Figure 9
THE REASON FOR THE 2014 UPTICK IN GLOBAL COMBINED SURFACE TEMPERATURES
Figure 10 presents the global sea surface temperatures for the period of 1997 to 2014 based on NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data, which is used by GISS and NCDC for their combined global land plus sea surface temperature datasets. The 2014 value was 0.044 deg C warmer than the previous warmest year 1998. Obviously, because the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the planet, the uptick in global combined surface temperatures was the result of the larger uptick in global sea surface temperatures.
Figure 10
We have been discussing for more than 6 months the reasons for the record high sea surface temperatures in 2014. Recently, we confirmed that the uptick in global sea surface temperatures was caused by the unusual weather event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific. See the post Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014. No other ocean basin had record-high sea surface temperatures in 2014.
The following is a reprint of a discussion from that post under the heading of On the Record High Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014:
Again, of the individual ocean basins, only the North Pacific had record high sea surface temperatures this year, and the weather event there was strong enough to cause record warm sea surfaces globally, in the Pacific as a whole and in the Northern Hemisphere.
We’ve been discussing the record high sea surface temperatures since the June Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Update. We identified the location of the unusual weather event, the likely reasons for the record high sea surface temperatures and the fact that climate models could not explain that warming in the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys. We discussed the topic further in other posts, including Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… Our discussions of the unusual warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific were confirmed by the 2014 paper by Johnstone and Mantua (here) which was presented in the post Researchers Find Northeast Pacific Surface Warming (1900-2012) Caused By Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, NOT Manmade Forcings. Jim Johnstone, one of the authors of the paper, joined us on the thread of the cross post at WUWT and provided a link to his webpage. There you can find a link to the paper. Also see his comment here for an update on the recent unusual warming event in the extratropical North Pacific. Under the heading of NE Pacific coastal warming due to changes in atmospheric circulation at his webpage, Jim Johnstone updated one of the graphs from their paper and wrote:
Jan 1980 – Nov 2014. NE Pacific monthly coastal SST anomalies (red) and SST modeled from regional SLP. Recent warming from Jan 2013 to Nov 2014 occurred in response to low SLP over the NE Pacific, consistent with long-term forcing. Gray bars mark data beginning in January 2013 that were not included in the study. Negative SLP anomalies generate anomalous cyclonic winds, reducing the mean anticyclonic flow and winds speeds throughout the Arc. The drop in wind speeds reduces evaporation rates, producing positive surface latent heat fluxes and SST increases.
Also refer to the NOAA summary and FAQ webpage about Johnstone and Mantua (2014) for discussions about the paper in less-technical terms.
As we’ve been saying for years, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes can and do cause regional warming, which, in turn, lead to the warming of ocean surfaces globally.
ONE LAST NOTE
The NOAA press release from Wednesday includes the following statements (my boldface):
NOAA and NASA independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures and trends based on historical observations over oceans and land. Consistency between the two independent analyses, as well as analyses produced by other countries, increases confidence in the accuracy of such data, the assessment of the data, and resulting conclusions.
NOAA and GISS may produce the surface temperature data independently, using different methods to infill missing data, but they rely on the same sea surface temperature data (NOAA’s ERSST.v3b) and, for the most part, on the same land surface air temperature source data (NOAA’s GHCN). Though GISS does include a few other surface temperature datasets in areas where the GHCN data are sparse, they rely primarily on the same data for both land and oceans. They cannot be independent if the suppliers rely on the same source data.
CLOSING
As illustrated and discussed, while global surface temperatures rose slightly in 2014, the minor uptick did little to overcome the growing difference between observed global surface temperature and the projections of global surface warming by the climate models used by the IPCC.
This post will serve as the annual surface temperature update for GISS and NCDC. The full monthly update will follow later in the day or tomorrow.
SOURCES
See the GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data page and the NCDC data are accessible here (can be very slow).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hyperbole is the narcotic of rhetoric.
The problem with hyperbole is that ever-increasing doses are required in order to maintain the euphoria of the state of excitement. The lethal dose hardly ever changes, however, so eventually it becomes impossible to achieve the desired ‘high’ without the use of a lethal dose.
In rhetoric, a ‘lethal dose’ is a level of hyperbole that stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.
What happens when the lethal does is 40,000X the euphoric dose? There are some drugs like that.
So there wasn’t an El Nino event this year, but sea surface temps are way up? I’m confused. Of course, I’m no expert so that explains the confusion. To the laymen that seems like talking out of both sides of your mouth.
According to the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA), there has been an El Nino on-going since June 2014, is now apparently winding down.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
NOAA’s definition of an El Nino uses a different spatial extent in the equatorial Pacific compared to JMA’s region 3. This year the El Nino didn’t play by NOAA’s formal rules for ENSO event declarations, but JMA’s criteria captured an El Nino event none the less.
Jason, linked in the post were discussions of the causes for the elevated sea surface temperatures this year. See:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/on-the-recent-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-the-wheres-and-whys/
And:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/axel-timmermann-and-kevin-trenberth-highlight-the-importance-of-natural-variability-in-global-warming/
And:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/alarmists-bizarrely-claim-just-what-agw-predicts-about-the-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures/
And:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/researchers-find-northeast-pacific-surface-warming-1900-2012-caused-by-changes-in-atmospheric-circulation-not-manmade-forcings/
Also see:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/did-enso-and-the-monster-kelvin-wave-contribute-to-the-record-high-global-surface-temperatures-in-2014/
Cheers
“Recently, we confirmed that the uptick in global sea surface temperatures was caused by the unusual weather event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific. See the post Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014. No other ocean basin had record-high sea surface temperatures in 2014.”
The ocean was warmer because one area of the ocean was warmer.
Well, aside from the strange logic (and physics), it is not correct:
http://i.imgur.com/Tm0PdFT.png?1
From here:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
Perhaps Tisdale will provide another “theory” in true anti-Popperian fashion. Something like: “The uptick in global sea surface temperatures was caused by the unusual weather event in NE Pacific, western equatorial Pacific, Mid-Atlantic, northern Atlantic, southern Atlantic, Indian ocean.”
Closer to truth. And more meaningful?
All these record SST’s will no doubt soon pop out in the atmosphere, where satellites will pick them up.
But I will not hold my breath.
rooter,
Be careful of BEST. They put their spin on the data:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg
Indeed. Be careful with BEST dbstealey. 2014 warmest.
Besides: the do not produce their own SST. The use hadsst3.
Miss and miss dbstealey.
But if you are not satisfied with that: Try NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201401-201412.gif
rooter:- Indeed. Be careful with BEST dbstealey. 2014 warmest.
BEST have made no such claim. They regard it too close to call;
The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.
…and
Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.
They also state “..that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little”
BruceC:
The numbers are in. BEST 2014 land-ocean is warmest. The certainty of that is like the other indexes. More likely that 2014 is the warmest than other years.
I personally am a bit surprised that BEST came in that high when Cowton&Way seems to come out lower. Perhaps it is because BEST includes more temperature stations.
Rooter thinks atmospheric CO2 warms oceans.
Wrong, rooter.
Ever heard of reduced heat loss mpainter?
Rooter…….mpainter doesn’t understand the concept of putting on a sweater when it gets cold.
Or closing the window when there is a draft.
Rooter chooses not to explain his weak, befuddled science. He seems to know better than to try.
Sockrats piles on with his usual non sequitur.
You two make a pair.
Seriously mpainter
…
Do you own a home?
Is it insulated?
Do you pay for heating and/or cooling?
…
Do you wear a jacket or a sweater when it’s cold outside? These are simple concepts. I think you are aware of them. Guess what? Atmospheric CO2 has a similar effect.
SST increased because of increased insolation via reduced cloud cover, starting in the mid-eighties.
Oceans cool mainly by evaporation. Incident IR only increases rate of evaporation because water is opaque to IR.
CO2 does not warm the sea. DWIR does not warm the sea.
You SKS types are suckers for junk science: rooter, sockrats, et al.
“Oceans cool mainly by evaporation”
…
The planet cools by emitting electromagnetic energy
…
I’m sure you know that….or is there another way our planet cools?
You are a hard case, sockrats. The surface of this planet cools mainly through evaporation.
CO2 has no effect on SST, black body to your heart’s desire. Where is your pal rooter, your paired SKS dupe?
or as we say in Australia…rooted!
rooter, the map from Berkeley Earth does not contradict my statement. I was very specific in what I wrote. You obviously missed that I had written, “No other ocean basin had record-high sea surface temperatures in 2014.” The key phrase in that sentence is “ocean basin”.
Feel free to present data for the individual ocean basins as I had to show that my statement is wrong.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/alarmists-bizarrely-claim-just-what-agw-predicts-about-the-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures/
rooter says: “Well, aside from the strange logic (and physics)…”
There’s nothing wrong with the logic or physics, rooter, but obviously you have trouble reading times-series graphs. We’ve already been through that exercise and I can document that my statement is correct. We can remove the extratropical North Pacific from global sea surface temperature data, and the record highs disappear:
From the post here:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/did-enso-and-the-monster-kelvin-wave-contribute-to-the-record-high-global-surface-temperatures-in-2014/
If you believe my statement is wrong, feel free to remove the North Pacific from the global SST data and present the difference to us in a time-series graph. If you can’t so that, you’re wasting your time and mine.
Adios, troll.
Tisdale tries some semantic escape. That says that the south Atlantic, the western Pacific, even the NW Pacific, the Indian ocean, the north Atlantic are not oceans basins.
By all means Tisdale. Feel free to remove those regions from global SST data and present to us a time-series graph.
Actually I know you will not do that.
Ps: In case you do not know: Also the NE Pacific is a part of the globe. Why use the same method to “explain” the temperature in 2014 by highlighting the record level temperatures in Europe?
OK, Bob went out of his way to explain, but the endless questions are… well, endless.
Endless questions are a hallmark of the alarmist clique here: no one is better than socks, but rooter is getting there. Why won’t either of you take a stand?
What I would like to know is this: What exactly, do you believe??
Endless questions indicate insecurity. Children are insecure by nature. Get it?
Still, I want to know:
Exactly what do you believe in? Be specific. Maybe we can even agree on some things.
With apologies to “roto”. I assume the name was picked with something like that in mind. It really is too bad folks can’t sit back and laugh at themselves. Last week it was 29 C below at my house. Today it hit +5. Neither was a record. And I should worry about a hundredth of a degree. Rotoroot that. Yeah, apologies, that isn’t science or politically correct, but somehow I have been making a lot of copies of humourous comments for my files from the posts today. Thanks for the science AND the humour.
dbstealey wants to know what I believe in.
Many things. Such as the Indian Ocean, the western equatorial Pacific, the south Atlantic, the North Atlantic also are parts of the global ocean.
Feel free to differ.
rooter,
What do you believe in?
Do you believe that human activity is the cause of most global warming? If so, what are the measurements you base that on?
Please send that 0.02° to Michigan.
Right on point. Winters are still winters that have direct costs to survive. Folks living around the equator aren’t paying any costs of winter. The world would more prosperous without “winter.” So bring on the heat.
So there is a discrepancy between the mean of model runs and temperature.
Ok. So what? The models are wrong then. We should all be glad if the warming will be less than projected.
But that does not mean that AGW is not happening. That does not mean than ninjos create energy out of nothing. It does not mean that increased heat loss from earth during ninjos will make the earth warmer. Quite the opposite.
The key metric is climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. Alarmists have always realized that number needs to be at or greater than 2º C. If it is less than that, alarmism doesn’t work, since adaptations and eventual negative feedbacks and carbon source exhaustion ensures vastly more beneficial effects from energy use than negative outcomes.
The current observations strongly support a sensitivity in the < 1.5 C range, and it keeps falling the longer the Pause continues. To be sure, the Pause does continue, as the IPCC model scenarios demand much higher temp anomalies than what is seen so far to date, and the temp anomalies described by NCDC and GISS in their press releases are well within the errors bars of said measurements (something they don't say).
There is good reason to believe climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is in the 0.6º – 1.2º C range (beyond the discussion here). If that is the case, then the good that comes from a warmer, more drought resilient biosphere (longer growing seasons, more CO2 fertilization, more rainfall, fewer freezings) far outweigh any local-regional warmer summers.
It is the temperature anomaly growth failure, aka The Pause, that now motivates the Watermelons to abandon the +2.0º C warming scam, and simply go straight to CO2 as the boogeyman of all things.
Why not use the observations then. Temperature increase ~ 0.8 C last century.
Is the net forcing increase 3.7 w/m2 the last century?
Btw: what pause?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/compress:12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1975/trend
Rooter:
Ahh…There’s none so blind as them that will not see – even if all they do is look at selective data. It’s so good to read your comments….’you does make us larf’.
What is selective by this Passfield?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/compress:12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1975/trend
Rooter: You should change your handle to Cassandra. You really, really, really WANT there to be AGW. And not only AGW, but the kind that is the ‘end of days’ AGW. You’re one these guys who, if it could be proven that there was a fix for AGW would want the fix to fail. You don’t get warm by it, you get moist.
But anyway, you and I agree on one thing: The world is warming (notwithstanding 18-20 years when it didn’t – really), but, “so what!! And when it cools, as inevitably it will (and you must agree on that, surely), it won’t be enough to shrug and say, ‘so what’. The world will be in a poorer place.
In any case, what the hell is GAT? It’s surely a meaningless number. Gavin Schmidt was being interviewed this evening on the BBC and explained how they had had to massage and adjust 2014’s temp records to allow for ‘gaps in measuring sites’ and other oddities. Even so, he said, 2014 was still 0.065 Deg C above any other year as far as the GAT goes. What rubbish! Simple thought experiment: What is the average temp on the moon? Is it meaningful? Would you design a space-suit to allow for MAT?
GAT is meaningless.
And the world did not warm for 18-20 years.
Why do you put such claims in sequence? Do you see a problem with that?
Good catch rooter !!
Oh boy! Rooter and Socrates are going to need to get a room!
I’m so glad you agree that GAT is meaningless, Root. But as you guys do like to use such meaningless measures we sceptics have to humour you. By ‘your’ measurements, there has been no warming for 18-20 years. But you think a few hundredths of a degree change in Oh My GAT! is enough to throw a party.
I hope you and Socrates are very happy together.
rooter says:
The models are wrong then. We should all be glad if the warming will be less than projected.
Why? Warmer is better.
You are incoherent.
Indeed he is incoherent. There has been warming after all?
Very funny, rooter.
Bob,
We are visual animal and the words are over powered by the visual impact of narrow band charts by a 1000 to 1 power factor.
Please use a broader temperature range in your charts as the extreme directional changes shown by 0.02 or 0.04 deg C differences as shown are alarming. Scary looking charts are one of THE reasons for the power the warmists have, and charts used by skeptics that are similarly scaled do not counter the impression of dramatic changes we SEE even in your charts.
I agree. In addition to that point is the colors used in temperature graphics which play with how the brain interprets differences.
Ray,
Good point. I have always thought the graphs should use a scale that encompasses the typical range of temperatures that we experience over a year’s time. The year to year variability displayed on a 50 degree C scale would be hard to get excited about.
Is there somewhere on the interweb thingy that shows us where in the world it warmed, what time of day was most impacted, and why “small volcanoes” didn’t prevent it? Given the record I’m finding it difficult to believe anything a climate scientist says. There are too many experts offering information at cross purposes. The most recent cause for the pause flies in the face of the claim of unprecedented warming.
What Bob was much too polite to say was that the “Hottest Ever year” was totally MANUFACTURED by NCDC & GISS Adjustments to the Raw Data.
ie THEY ARE NOT REAL.
So to recap, it’s been warming since the 1970s, as the graphs say. The figure #4 for example tells that the trend has been positive since the 1970s, far surpassing in trajectory the positive 40 year trend in about 1925-1965. Only time the trend has been negative was about the 5 year period in 1965-1970.
Actually, as it is presented in this article, it has been mostly warming up since the beginning of 1900. In essence, Bob Tisdale just bought a hockey stick.
Since 2002 the range in value is less than 0.2 C. This entire graph/curve/line/points are a statistical construct, nothing but noise in the data. Include the boundaries of uncertainties and statistical deviations, the min/max of the raw data to the graph. There’s nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Allowing for margins of error, 2014 is in a statistical tie with 13 other years.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/giss-hottest-year-claims-not-supported-by-the-data/
Oddly enough, James Hansen recognised this aspect in their report on 2010 temps, but Gavin forgot to mention it. Perhaps he is under new orders!
They also wheel out the latest in a series of warm years mantra. But why should anybody be surprised or alarmed that temperatures have remained stable for the last 18yrs?
People would be a lot more worried if temperatures started falling back to 1970’s levels.
They are merely gearing up for Paris. That is why we still see articles claiming unusual ice loss at the arctic and pretending that the NW passage is really open during the summer. They even did their best to resurrect their Polar bear poster boy with old data when their Emperor Penguin substitute didn’t work out. Heck now they have even enlisted the Devin to their cause with the Pope wagging his finger. Wanna bet we hear this warmest year claim in the State of the Union on Jan. 20th? Expect to find more manufactured firsts and dooms day numbers in the next few months. All working up to try and “make progress” in Paris next fall. I still bet Paris won’t “accomplish” much despite their orchestrated campaign.
The AGW scammers are getting desperate. Since the late 90’s, they have been banking on a boat load of new taxes to redistribute, green energy schemes to profiteer from, and industrial wealth to be controlled.
As the Earth’s natural cycle of temperatures is likely to head down again regardless of any Climate GHG forcings in the coming 20 years, they need to get the CO2 emission gravy train out ahead of this natural decline so they can take credit for it.
If the Earth’s temps get cooler while human CO2 emissions are demonstrably still heading upwards, the party is over for the scammers.
Do you think O will have the b_lls to actually go to Paris given current events? I don’t mean to be disrespectful as our Prime Minister just sent a lacky – Minister of Public Safety – so he lacks courage as well.
“Allowing for margins of error, 2014 is in a statistical tie with 13 other years.”
Your article goes wrong when it says:
“Although GISS do not tell us what their error bars, or as they call them estimates of uncertainty”
They are not the same thing. Error bars are the uncertainty about what was actually measured. The GISS estimate of uncertainty is whether it lies out of the expectation range of some statistical model of the variation.
It’s like asking who is the tallest kid in a class. You can get a result with the error of the ruler. That is the genuine uncertainty about who is tallest. Or you can ask whether he is outside the 95% limits of the distribution of class heights – is there something about that kid that requires explanation? That is statistical uncertainty. It doesn’t bear on who is tallest.
The GISS estimate of uncertainty relates to statistical significance. Not relevant here.
Nick Stokes:
Yes, climate science is where you make a guess with a greater degree of certainty than when measuring.
How happy for you, Stokes.
What matters to skeptics (and we should all be skeptics if we are true to the scientific method) is justifiable distrust, unspecified uncertainty and errors in the skill of the models and the agenda that ensures that lack of skill prevails. That they are the primary drivers of the current climate alarmism movement, flawed models are proof science doesn’t matter. If no models then no alarmism therefor models are essential, science not so much. Wait – you knew that.
Need more proof? The number of sites collecting data is dropping while the amount of money being spent on adjusting the existing data records, modelers, modeling, and modeling hardware is skyrocketing pretty much along the same curve as the discredited hockey stick.
Question: As I understand it, the CMIP5 models were constructed and run somewhere around 2008-2010. Is that correct? If so, it seems that a vertical line should be drawn on the various charts on that year to indicate that everything to the left is hindcasting and only to the right is forecasting. Otherwise these charts seem to imply the models have decades of accuracy rather than decades of modification to fit known data. Is that correct or am I not understanding the process?
How the hell do you measure the average global temperature and its uncertainty to hundredths of a degree?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that people take the precision in these measurements seriously.This is insanity.
All that matters to them is the Headlines. And they’re getting them.
Right on cue, hysteria from The New York Slimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html
and The Washington ComPost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-human-activity-has-pushed-earth-beyond-four-of-nine-planetary-boundaries/2015/01/15/f52b61b6-9b5e-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
Expect film of smokestacks and a red sun at 6 and 11.
/Mr Lynn
commented on NY Times article with a link to WUWT – banned
And I bet it didn’t surprise you one bit!
I don’t understand why anybody would get concerned about a small annual rise in global temperature. We have had global warming for some time (since the end of the last ice age) and on average I would expect any year to be slightly warmer than the previous one. What is clear to me, and what Bob has pointed out, is that the current rise is not exceptional and certainly cannot be used as evidence of man’s influence on global climate. The IPCC models show what we could expect if anthropogenic CO2 really had an influence on global temperatures and they have patently failed to match reality. What we have here is evidence of climate behaving as it always has with temperatures varying from year to year but with a slow upward trend and no sign of a human fingerprint. What should concern us much more is the point at which that slow upward trend is reversed.
When did the LIA end Plail?
About 18 years ago.
Are you a Little Ice Age denier?
Until scientists can explain why the RWP & MWP, followed by the LIA occurred, they cannot explain why natural forces cannot account for the rise in temperatures since the 19thC.
BTW – if you want to get clever about dates, please tell me when the LIA started.
Why don’t you tell us when the LIA ended, rooter?
My thought is if global cooling starts, the recovery from the LIA is pretty much complete. But if global warming starts up again, then the planet is still recovering from the LIA.
There is no credible evidence that the global warming since the LIA is anything other than natural, since the rate of rise is the same whether CO2 was low, or high. Even Arctic ice is confounding the alarmist narrative.
Dbstealey…..
..
What is the physical process underlying what you term ” the recovery from the LIA”
Peter Plail,
Excellent points. The IPCC was flat wrong. That is a given, and it is proven by real world evidence. The only ones who will argue are those who will believe any old nonsense.
Lord Monckton et al’s model is closer to the truth. Much closer. In science, that is all we can ask.
Since the IPCC and this paper cannot both be right, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the IPCC is still headed down the wrong path.
Next: will the IPCC change direction, and jettison their relatively worthless GCMs? Or will they continue with their remit, which is to convince the public that human emissions are the cause of global warming — whether or not reality agrees?
I predict that as long as big money is involved, the IPCC will continue to try and sell people a pig in a poke. That is what they are being paid to do. And of course, the more brainless and credulous people are, the more likely they are to believe the IPCC.
Fortunately, the general public is beginning to see through the IPCC’s shenanigans. That skepticism will only continue to grow. The public believed Chicken Little at first, too.
‘Socrates’ says:
“…the recovery from the LIA”
What else would you call it, except a recovery from the Little Ice Age? Or do you have a new George Orwell term for it?
Dbstealey…
…
I asked you what was the physical process…….
I didn’t ask you what the “label” was
..
Reading is fundamental.
What is the physical process underlying what you term ” the recovery from the LIA” ??
Moving back toward “normal”… and before you dismiss this, please define what is “normal”.
Or do think the LIA was “normal”?
PS Yes, I know I didn’t name a “physical process”. I don’t know it. But I do know that there are many, many more “physical processes” going on than the man-made CO2 obsessed have accounted for in their theoretical single process.
Gunga Din
I checked my physics book, and there is no reference to “Moving back toward “normal”
Where do you find it….”law of motion?”
Thermodynamics?
Quantum chromodynamics?
What is the physical process ????
Gunga Din,
Pay no attention to “sockrates”. He is just running interference here because he has nothing better to do. Some of these alarmists apparently attended the ‘site pest’ school of commenting.
They are like little children, always asking, “But why??”
I would be interested if they had any credible answers. But they don’t.
Dbstealey…
Gunga Din has written…..
..
“PS Yes, I know I didn’t name a “physical process”. I don’t know it.”
…
Can you tell us what physical process is responsible for the “the recovery from the LIA”
…
We are all really interested in your explanation of your statement.
You brought it up.
dbstealey, 😎 True. I’ve had kids. They ask because they want an answer to whatever is the present focus of their endless curiosity. But SockDude is [NOT] asking to get an answer.
It’s easy to argue by asking questions you don’t know the answer to yourself.
That’s why I asked him what “normal” was. He ignored that normal was in quotes. He didn’t answer the question. He presents himself as if he knows but he really hasn’t got a clue.
This is probably a waste of time, but, Sockpuppet,
You present yourself as one who does know how and why Man has caused “normal” to become “abnormal”.
Please explain.
PS If you can’t explain or define “normal”, then how can you imply anything is “abnormal”.
Gunga Din
Mr Dbstealey brought the subject up when he posted…..
” the recovery from the LIA is pretty much complete”
…
Then I asked the question…
..
“What is the physical process underlying what you term ” the recovery from the LIA””
You have not answered the question, and Mr. Dbstealey has not answered the question.
…
Can anybody reading this thread answer the question?
TYPO!!!
“dbstealey, 😎 True. I’ve had kids. They ask because they want an answer to whatever is the present focus of their endless curiosity. But SockDude is asking to get an answer.”
Should be:
<"dbstealey, 😎 True. I’ve had kids. They ask because they want an answer to whatever is the present focus of their endless curiosity. But SockDude isn’t asking to get an answer.”
Mr Gunga Din
…
I will be blunt.
…
Can you tell me what Mr Dbstealey is referring to when he says ” the recovery from the LIA”?
..
Certainly you must know the cause of the LIA, and what event started the “recovery”
..
No. We do not know WHY there is an apparent 900 year long climate cycle, nor why there is an evident 66-69 year short climate cycle.
We do NOT know why the earth warmed into the Roman Optimum.
We do NOT know why the earth cooled after the Roman Optimum.
We do NOT know why the earth warmed again into the Medieval Warming Period.
We do NOT know why the earth cooled again into the Little Ice Age.
We do NOT know why the earth warmed again into the Modern Warming Period.
All of these occurred due to UNKNOWN natural causes, because ALL of these changes occurred BEFORE man began releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. All of these changes began without man’s influence, and all of these changes ended without man’s influence.
Mr RACookPE1978
….
Thank you.
..
Could you please tell Mr Dbstealey to refrain from using the term “recovery?”
If you have no knowledge of something, I think it’s a good thing to admit it, instead of throwing around unsubstantiated terms, which not only are meanness, but even YOU admit you have no knowledge of.
…
I will admit though, that I have to laugh at you.
You say you don’t know anything, but then you say, “All of these occurred due to UNKNOWN natural causes”
…
Why do you claim they are “natural” if you don’t know what has caused them?
…
Did the Klingons cause them?
The Romulans?
…
Maybe they were caused by gemlins……or elves?
Mr RACookPE1978
…
Did you forget about the 1284 year cycle?
Did you forget about the 34902 year cycle?
How about the 490023 year cycle?
…
Or the 29398498 year cycle.
…
Darn….you’ve got all those cycles…..but you don’t know why you have them.
David Socrates
Despite your sarcasm, only two cycles matter in the next 600 years: The short 66-69 year cycle and the longer 900 year climate cycle.
We are, admittedly, extrapolating the future – though with far more accuracy than the much-hyped GCM costing many billions to produce, run, administer, worship and re-program each year, but the future is, modestly speaking, unclear. Is the Modern Warming Period reaching its maximum in 2000-2010, only to slide dangerously downhill back towards the Next Little Ice Age in 2450?
Is the Modern Warming Period only a 15-20 year “pause” in the 450 year gradual natural warming since 1650 (like the 1890’s, the 1940’s, and now the 2000-2010’s)?
Will the Modern Period Period peak some 70 years from now in 2070-2080, then go down into the Next Little Ice Age?
the Medieval Warming Period was actually a long, drawn-out series of hotter years with a few sharp dips spanning almost 300 years? Are we now only at the 1050 point – awaiting 200 years of good weather and better crops?
Tell us what: When YOU can tell us what caused the previous warming and cooling periods, when YOU can tell us what causes the PDO and AMO and SMA oscillations, then I’ll listen to your claims.
Ah ha. I’ve got it Rooter. It’s a unicycle!
Exactly. It is normal to expect record highs in the later years of any period in a warming world. We know the world is warming, we better get used to it. It will continue to warm until it stops.
And this reliance on surface temperature data really confounds me. The satellite datasets are better in every meaningful way in terms of climate. In terms of weather, we still need surface temps, but how any serious scientist can say (and they do) that the surface dataset is more important for looking at climate than the satellite…it’s not credible.
Why is it warming?
sockrates says:
Why is it warming?
Is that like, “How high is up”?
Science is designed to try and answer questions. But a basic understanding is required first…
…so once again: the WUWT archives are a great place to start. With enough reading, maybe even you can answer that question. Or both of them, who knows?
I’ve seen what WUWT has to offer…..
…
I’ve seen other points of view.
…
You didn’t answer the question.
Mr S:
Hey, if “socrates” can’t answer the question of why global warming happens, why even try? ☺
In case you haven’t noticed, that is the quetion we are all trying to answer.
Only someone who doesn’t even know the right questions to ask would ask a pointless question like that. The rest of us know that is the central question.
Sorry that not everyone understands that.
And:
I’ve seen what WUWT has to offer…..
You clearly don’t like what’s being offered here. But no one is forcing you to stick around asking your inane questions. Also, you have zero converts to your way of thinking. Maybe you should try to figure out why that is.
The Alarmists claim it has been warming because of anthropogenic CO2. The Null Hypothesis is that it warms and cools for reason we do not yet understand, which we call ‘natural’, for want of a better term.
The Alarmists have yet to offer any empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has caused any measurable warming, distinguishable from other causes. They have created computer models incorporating their hypothesis, which made predictions that have been falsified.
The Null Hypothesis remains unscathed.
/Mr Lynn
PS Memo to Governments: Please stop funding the Alarmists.
Why is it warming? asks sockrats, as if it were, poor confused fellow.
“Why is it warming”
No DS, the question you need to answer is ..
“Why is it NOT warming” (all that extra CO2 and all that !! 😉 )
David Socrates
You say to some not-named person
I assume you were talking to yourself because you have studiously avoided the very reasonable question put to you by Gunga Din; viz.
So, please state the “normal” climate you think human kind has disrupted; was it the LIA?
Everything you have posted in this thread is meaningless gobbledeygook until you provide the clarification requested of you by Gunga Din. Indeed, your meaningless twaddle about “physical processes” merely serves to obscure your inability to clearly state what you are waffling about.
Richard
I do not deny the LIA Homewood.
Do you deny LIA? When did the LIA end?
rooter, please.
Why not give your own reasons why you think the LIA has ended? Or why the LIA is continuing? Or anything else.
Make your point. If you think the LIA has ended, or not, explain why you think that is.
You have not told us what process is responsible for the “recovery” from the LIA.
..
Or for that matter, what caused the LIA in the first place.
More pointless commentary. The alarmist clique can’t even answer their own questions…
We seem to have a recovering 1d10t
Recovery from LIA:
Reasons for temp. rise prior to 1950 unknown except it is generally agreed that it was not due to AGW.
Concerning the late warming trend circa 1977-97, we know that this was due to increased insolation via reduced cloud coverage globally.
Since 1997, temp. have not trended upward (see satellite data RSS)
Going back to 1980, then, the models predicted a 20 bps increase in temps and the actual temps have risen 10bps. And we are supposed to stop the world and let half the population die based on this track record?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_2014.png
Data from Weathebell which has data far more accurate and reliable then what was presented today.
Bob this article is bogus because the data that this article is based on is in question at the very least if not just plain wrong. To give this data so much attention is not the way ,instead data that runs counter to this BS, should be given the attention in trying to expose this shame AGW.
Weatherbell data shows there is a problem here, in that their data does support what has been presented.
Look at the data.
Prete is looking at model output.
And calls it data. Does not Prete know that?
rooter says:
…model output. And calls it data.
Explain that concept to your cohort, please. Some of them don’t understand the difference.
Thanks.
Dbstealey…
…
What rooter is referring to is exactly the same thing you did when you posted a graph of model output and claimed it represented the history of CO2 going back millions of years. …
…
You even claimed it was 20x higher in the past…
Socrates’ says:
You even claimed it was 20x higher in the past…
Yes. You wouldn’t know about that, because the only factoids you are aware of are those that support your confirmation bias. CO2 being high in the past doesn’t fit your Belief, so you are not aware of it.
I can post a peer reviewed paper showing that CO2 was twenty times higher in the past. But I am not going to do it just to satisfy you, but also to satisfy me.
Now, if I can post a peer reviewed paper showing that fact, will you just go away? You don’t like this site or our host, you’ve made that clear. I cannot understand why you waste your time here, because you are convincing no one of anything that you Believe in.
So if I post the paper, will you go away — or at least quit bird-dogging my comments? I know you are fixated on me, but it is getting embarassing and cloying.
Please post your peer reviewed paper….I’m interested in reading it.
I offered a quid pro quo. It’s yours to take, or leave.
The decision is yours.
Monckton makes you look like you don’t know much
rooter,
I never mentioned Mr. del Prete. I was referring to another commentator. Also, I am having trouble following the rest of your comment.
does not I had meant in the above post my last sentence.
GISS “new Deputy Director, Gavin Schmidt” record temperatures, who’d of guessed.
Does someone have a good model of the thumb on the scales?
http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ThumbOnScales.jpg
The mean daily temperatures compiled to represent monthly and yearly graphs, to me, confuses much of the public. Just like comments “hottest year ever” tend to not tell the story even if GISS data is being used rather than RSS or UAH.
To place the story into perspective a mean graph needs to be accompanied by a Tmax and a Tmin graph. Then another graph scaled to present current mean temperatures in context with maximum interglacial temps and minimum glacial temps. It is amazing how minimal warming of the last century was and how, realistically, we are close to temps of the LIA.
this thread is getting a little hot an bothered. time out for a laugh:
14 Jan: The Onion: New Climate Change Study Just 400 Pages Of Scientists Telling Americans To Read Previous Climate Change Studies
WASHINGTON—Co-authored by several dozen of the nation’s top climatologists, a new climate change study released Wednesday by the U.S. Global Change Research Program reportedly consists of 400 pages in which scientists just tell Americans to read previous climate change studies.
“Not sure if you saw this one from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 2012 about how rising sea levels are putting billions of people in coastal cities at risk, or L.G. Thompson’s 2009 paper on the loss of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, but really, you should check them out,” read the study in part, which is titled “The Global Climate At Risk: A Broad Survey Of Climate Change Reports That We’ve Been Publishing For Decades And That You Should Actually, Seriously Read.” “Look, there are hundreds of studies on Greenland’s rapidly melting ice sheet alone.
If you could just skim the abstract of one of those—just one, that’s it—that would be great. They’re all online, and our JSTOR password is USGCRP90, so you can go and check one out right now.” The report is said to conclude with a single exasperated 28-page run-on sentence urging people to “just come on and look at these damn things, for the love of God—what more do you want from us—Jesus, this is ridiculous.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-climate-change-study-just-400-pages-of-scienti,37761/
Funny how people can interpret and summarize data so that it can be used to market their position.
So we have a new global temperature record by some measures, being referred to as “The hottest year ever”
We also know that the last decade was “The hottest decade ever”
The relevant question is not: Did it get warmer or not? Both sides agree that it should be getting warmer when you add tons of beneficial CO2(OK, so one side says it’s pollution).
The relevant question is: Was the warming dangerous? Even using the warmest measures, it was so miniscule as to be insignificant.
So here is the point:
This is much better than a cooling planet and also better than a planet warming dangerously. Increasing CO2 is irrefutably causing a booming biosphere and vegetative health as well as boosting record crops and global food production. As a operational meteorologist, I can say with confidence that extreme weather has not increased from global warming(why would it, if there hasn’t been any significant warming for so long?).
So WTF is going on here?
It would be like having an American football game(we’ll say it’s only in the 2nd quarter, since there is a lot of climate science to play out for those having open minds) and the side getting beat 21-7 is claiming the game is over, time for the other side to concede defeat because their 7, is higher than a 2 or a 1.
Might be so but when you put those 2 numbers together, like when you put climate science/weather and biology together in the real world we live in, based on the effects of CO2, the tremendous benefits are crushing the outdated, busted theories.
Sometimes it feels like we are living in the Twilight Zone (-:
Only extreme cognitive bias, hidden agenda’s, ego’s, political/governmental objectives, effective marketing schemes with the media providing widespread coverage working in tandem can explain why the team with 7 points is perceived to have won the game already in the 2nd quarter.
And the team with 21 is being called deniers for questioning the other side’s view.
Twilight Zone (-:
Because the un-scientific zealots and activist scientists have taken over the gate keeper duties on decades of carefully curated temperature databases. And they are now playing unethical games with said data for activist schemes.
History will not be kind to the Gavin Schmidt’s of climate science. Does history remember the names of the Vatican’s scientists who disputed Galileo’s claims? No. History only mocks them in caricature.
Gavin Schmidt and his ilk will be mocked one day, but not by name, but with names.
I know virtually nothing about statistics. i can figure the area of an irregular shape or a helix like a screw conveyor. I can do ratios and proportions. I can figure out the most efficient way to move a pile of stuff from point “A: to point “B” in a given time with equipment with varying load capacities and operating costs. So I’m no scientist nor analyst, nor statistician. What I have learned over the years is to determine when there is a high level of probability I’m being fed a line of Bull! And THAT is why I’m a skeptic.
The climate has been changing since this earth has had an atmosphere and it will continue to change. And I won’t deny that the human animal, the most successful species to ever inhabit this earth, has changed the environment and thus the climate some little bit. But when “scientists” start changing or eliminating data from the relatively recent past. Data that is backed up with all kinds of historical anecdotal evidence, such as the event of the MWP, then the BS detector starts pegging out. When I have to judge the veracity of data processed by a Spencer against that processed by Mann or Gavin, Spencer will win out every time.
Totally worthless adjusted, readjusted and re-readjusted “global” surface data by
agenda driven organizations. Strongly at variance with both truly global satellite data sets. Thanks for the info Bob!
Just out of curiosity, has anyone graphed the older versions of GISS versus the latest version?
Older versions can be found using TheWayBackMachine ( http://archive.org/web/web.php ).
Changes were made going back to the very first number. (January 1880, if I remember correctly.)
Did anyone else notice the very biased NOAA press release for 2014 . They conveniently ignored most of CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES and , CANADA(, or AN ENTIRE CONTINENT really ) which were freezing in 2014. HIDE THE DECLINE AGAIN ?
The 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.
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 ANOMALY for 2014 was the 11th coldest in the last 17 years . In other 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.
You simply make too much sense. Nobody can argue with your presentation of the data.
Indeed your presentation will be ignored in the media. You are telling the truth but the truth is not of “ratings” importance since everything is going very well in North America, even including some negative fluctuations in California.