Josh writes: By the slimmest of margins, 2014 has been declared the “hottest year ever”. It’s everywhere you look – there’s dodgy numbers, vague impressions and tweets galore – yes, it’s the warmist year evah!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From AP article by the perpetually-deluded Seth Borenstein:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150116/us-sci–hottest_year-b64ea00652.html
So are the Vikings back to farming in Greenland yet?
/Mr Lynn
lol — Nice one.
… said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, who wasn’t part of either research team. “Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind.”
The human activities to which Jennifer Francis was referring were fiddling the temperature record.
+1
😎
…and wasn’t “Gone With The Wind” also fiction?
Now just for the sake of an argument…I am not sure how coorect it could be, as only an assumption actually.
Considering that the 2014 was expected to be an El Nino year, especially from the AGWers, and considering their optimism of the warmest year evah for 2014, there is a possibility that the adjustments of temps through whole year were calculated in a sceme as to be enough to keep the 2014 the warmest evah after the compensation for the warming due to the Nino warming impulse.
So the extra warming seen and claimed for 2014 is simply the ammount of warming needed to compensate for El Nino impulse compensation and keeping the 2014 as a warmest year.
Plroblem is that EL Nino did not happen.
And that is a very big problem for the temp adjusters as it means that if the 2015 is not an El Nino year and it keeps to a similar path as 2014, meaning a cooling instead of warming, actually a further cooling, …..then the ammount uf adjustment requiried to keep the 2015 as not a cooling year will be a factor of 3 stronger than for 2014.
So they are required to fudge the data far much more than during 2014, to a point that will be ridiculous to even contemplate. Or somehow they have to show that the oceans are actually boiling
If that somehow the truth, hopefully not,…. then these guys that have being “cleverly” adjusting the 2014 data should start praying (very hard and seriously when at it) for a 2015 El Nino, just as to keep the 2015 FROM BEEN SHOWN AS A COOLING YEAR..
God forbid that there be a 2015 La Nina, as that will be compleatly crazy to deal with……. 🙂
After all 2014 was declared the evah warmest year even before it really started..:-)
cheers
Under one of the “hottest year evah” articles, for fun, I posted the following:
Pop quiz for Warmatardos and Warmatardettes:
1. Which is longer, 1 year or 18 years?
a) 1 year
b) 18 years
c) deni*r
d) 97% consensus
2. The warming which climate models predicted but which hasn’t materialized is:
a) In the deep oceans, where it can’t be measured.
b) In the pipeline.
c) Being masked by aerosols from places like China, and volcanoes.
d) Never existed, because the climate models were completely wrong, and were based on wrong assumptions.
3. Historically, which has been better for mankind, warm periods like the MWP or cold periods, like the LIA?
a) Cold is better, because I don’t like to sweat, and like snow.
b) Warm periods have always been better, with expanded agricultural output, less disease and starvation, and lower infant mortality.
c) If warmer is better, go sit in an oven. See how you like it.
Answers: b,d,b.
If you [answered] all 3 correctly, congratulations! You might become a Climate Realist yet.
[For consistency, shouldn’t question 3 have a “d” option available for the answer? .mod]
GREAT quiz (with an even better point), Bruce Cobb.
#(:))
Re: .mod’s suggestion, how about this for 3. d. “All of the above.” — and you know what? That is the one, while heaving a big sigh of mental relief, they will all pick, too, lol.
Yeah, I noticed that, but couldn’t think of one at the time.
I suppose I could have just re-used the “deni*r” answer, since it’s such a favorite of theirs.
Well, Bruce Cobb you had already thought of a lot! Nice work.
Oh, yes, it’s their Default mode, lol.
How about….
d) History!? That’s bor-ring!
The only thing that makes this year a contender for the “hottest” spot are the ocean temperatures in the northwest pacific. It has been a pretty normal year everywhere else. Notice that if we didn’t have measurements of the SST in that part of the world we probably wouldn’t have noticed anything unusually warm about this year. We have only been regularly measuring the SST in the NW pacific for the last century or so. That means if the NW pacific had warmed like this in the past (in 1890 perhaps) we would have missed it and it wouldn’t have shown up in the global temperature reconstruction for that year.
ImranCan says –
“Its kind of weird the way the alarmists use the satellite data for sea level rise acceleration …. But dont mention satellites regarding global temperatures”
BBC cleverly inserts the following line – to give a false impression that satellite data was included?
16 Jan: BBC: 2014 warmest year on record, say US researchers
Today, as well as in-situ instruments recording information on the Earth’s surface, satellites closely monitor temperatures across the planet…
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30852588
CarbonBrief has a line i liked…
the article does have a lot to say, mostly negative, about the satellite data for those interested to read it:
16 Jan: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?
The basics
To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature/
Maurice Newman who is Tony Abbot’s chief adviser on climate change has been absolutely rubbished in some Australian media. However, he queried the BOM report that said that global warming caused the last three years highest temperatures in Australia. The thing is that some years are hotter than others, but it the causation factor that is wrong if they want to blame human activity. Yes we cause pollution and cities create not only air pollution but UHI’s. Of course we can stop that by removing all humans and cars. Not that I want to wish this on humanity but we need another huge volcanic eruption, see if they blame the cooling on us after it happens. LOL
The margin of error is larger than the increase.
“The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PECLhyGZ
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.
There is a 62% ‘likelihood’ that 2014 was not the warmest year since 1880. There is a 100% certainty that Gavin Schmidt and NASA did not tell 62% of the whole truth when they splashed the headline that 2014 was the ‘hottest year evah”!
Amazing!! It is not just Gavin Smith, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration came to the same conclusion, so did Japan Meteorological Agency. Most likely Hadley Center will say the same soon. European summer was the hottest, Australia had a heat wave, etc. I am surprised that such a news was transformed into a cartoon for silliness, and defended by quoting three known skeptics: Christy, Curry, and Pielke who probably will never admit there is any warming even if God himself/herself appear before them to tell that.
I should have mentioned that the World Meteorological Organization is not far away from NOAA or NASA.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/
Some made a point that there is a margin of error and with that 2014 may not be the hottest year. That is like looking for a straw – such a margin of error is associated with every year. If the errors properly act in the opposite sense, then from NASA data, 2014 may not be the hottest year. But the fact remains that even if 2014 is not the hottest year, the 10 hottest years occurred after 1998 tells us something. And clearly the ocean temperature was highest with or without the margin of error. There is no reason to deflect that. http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
Yes, it tells us you Warm-mongers are good at grasping at straws, and at the art of deflection. Good job!
Ha Ha … Bruce. I find it so amazing how skeptics can come up with a distraction. There was a margin of error in 2010 also. For the skeptics it is so convenient to take the error negative in 2014 and positive in 2010 to ignore the warming trend. But that is fine. Unlike Curry’s prediction that temp won’t change much well into 2030, future data will show the same warming trend beyond the margin of errors. Then the argument from skeptics will be, well… warming is good for earth. Just like the CO2 case…. initially they refused to acknowledge that CO2 is going up. Now since they cannot refuse it, they will say it is good for earth …. trees are growing taller close to highways.
Most winter warm records in Vancouver happened in the 40’s and 50s with consecutively higher temps than we have had for the last 60 years or so.
It was warming back then too.
Or …..that is just weather .
My 90 year old grandmother says that it was so hot in the summer that they occasionally slept outside. Don’t forget UHI was surely less significant in those days.
Then again she doesn’t have a PhD so….just weather
In the virtual world of a desastrous climate modeller that world goes kaboom by turning a radio knob.
In his next live the gamer will tune some more: ACTION!
Leave ’em, same as it ever was; addicts!
Hans
In a parallel universe, Penn State, infamous for too many reasons, is teaching the value of re-writing history (again) and toeing the line for questionable staffers (again). http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/us/ncaa-proposed-penn-state-settlement/index.html
How the hell can we learn from history if we keep changing it to suit the present? I’m left thinking academia isn’t what it used to be and never was.
In Western Europe last year the spring started in March and ended in November. Pretty static +18°C including the period we normally call summer. Under these circumstances 2014 had ‘anthropogenic global warming’ written all over it.
About 3-4°C warmer, preferably for two more months would be perfect. Fully recognizing the public attention craving alarmists’ substantial efforts to get there e.g. by increasing the atmospheric density, I’m convinced we should start rewarding them for it. Some sort of climate champion reward would be great.
Looks like big changes coming next week here in the eastern U.S. Another cold snap. Maybe a little winter precip here in the deep south. (Bama)
Well anyway it is warm here in California and we have very little snow pack. You guys can sneer at NASA, but here it is a real problem.
What do these ridiculous statements mean, “sneer at NASA”? A very small percentage of NASA employees have anything to do with climate change research so making blanket statements about the organization is incredibly misleading.