Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
We discussed the 2014 global surface temperature announcements by NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC in the posts On the Biases Caused by Omissions in the 2014 NOAA State of the Climate Report and Does the Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality?
GISS expresses no doubt that global surface temperatures in 2014 were the highest on record in their news release dated January 16, 2015…same thing with their YouTube video NASA | 2014 Warmest Year On Record. And as we noted in the “Biases of Omissions” post, a reader must scroll down well beyond the Global Highlights to find the uncertainties in the NOAA 2014 State of the Climate report…and click on a link to find out what those uncertainties mean. The mainstream media had a field day, summing up the GISS and NCDC announcements with alarmist sound-bites.
Yet, around the blogosphere and social media, more and more people are realizing that NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC weren’t very open with the public when making their very-certain statements that 2014 was the warmest year on record. A couple of examples follow. That lack of openness can only hurt the credibility of NASA and NOAA.
Luboš Motl addresses two questions in his post NOAA, NASA: 2014 was probably not the warmest year on our record:
- how much do the error margins of the NOAA, NASA temperature records matter?
- And if they change the answer to the question whether 2014 was the warmest one, did they know about this fact when they loudly announced that “2014 was the warmest year” or did they overlook that detail?
The title of David Rose’s article at the DailyMail is Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right. It begins with 3 bullet points:
- Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
- But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
- Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all
The article by David Rose appears to be based on his Twitter exchange with Gavin Schmidt of GISS.
What’s all the hubbub about? Page 5 of the NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2014 briefing.
On the thread of the WattsUpWithThat cross post of the “Biases of Omission” post, blogger “Jimbo” linked a tweet from GISS Director Gavin Schmidt that included it. See Jimbo’s comment here. Page 5 of the briefing is reproduced below.
Page 5 of the NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2014 briefing
It clearly shows the probability that 2014 was the warmest on record was slightly less than 50% with the NCDC global surface temperature data and well less than 50% for the GISS data. That was one of the points I made in the “Biases of Omission” post. See the discussion under the heading of BIAS OF OMISSION 1.
The other thing hurting the NOAA and GISS proclamations comes from the newsletter The Average Temperature of 2014 Results from Berkeley Earth. Berkeley Earth is another supplier of global surface temperature data, and they rely on most of the same source data as the NOAA and GISS products.
The first key finding of the Berkeley Earth newsletter was:
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.
Right from the get-go, Berkeley Earth is open about the uncertainties in the data.
NASA and NOAA need to be more realistic, more open, in their presentations to the media. It could be argued that NOAA and GISS were trying to be open by presenting the probabilities on page 5 of their combined briefing. But you don’t find those uncertainties in the news stories. The media could be partly to blame. Some reporters may have seen the probabilities and ignored them; others may have found sources elsewhere in which the uncertainties weren’t mentioned or were hard to find. To that end, as discussed, GISS expresses no doubt that 2014 was the warmest year on record in their press release and in their YouTube videos…so why should the mainstream media report differently? With NCDC, you have to search for the uncertainties and click on links to see what they mean…and, apparently, few reporters searched for them or bothered to click on links.
Right now, without the up-front qualifiers in every document and presentation by GISS and NCDC about the uncertainties inherent in data—and in climate models—the public is being misled about human-induced global warming and climate change.
# # #
UPDATE: Jo Nova has also posted on this topic. See Jo’s Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year.
There is an aspect of modern temperature recording that I wonder about.
Response time of the sensing device.
The calibrated electronic sensor has a response time of seconds?Milliseconds?
The mercury thermometer with magnetic reset Hi/Low indicators had a response of minutes?
So if the local temperature at a weather station spikes high for a couple of minutes, the modern device would record at peak that previously would have gone unremarked.
Another concern is instrument calibration, especially at remote sites with large variation between winter and summer, who checks the calibration of this equipment?
TO THE MODERATORS AT WATTS UP WITH THAT.
In connection with the following reply which I made to Nick Stokes (a long way below), you made the following comments:-
[Check your results: You appear to be quoting NASA press releases in 1997 that claim a higher Global Average temperature for 1997 than is claimed for 2014. Correct? If so, your quotes are very important. .mod]
I am most certainly NOT quoting from any press releases. I am quoting directly from NOAA’s state of the climate reports for 1997 and 2014, as you could have verified for yourselves, if you had taken the trouble to follow the kinks which I provided. However, I shall restate it all again with links.
(1) NOAA’s state of the climate report for 1997 states quite explicitly that the mean global surface temperature for the year 1997 is 62.45°F (16.9°C).
Link:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
NOAA repeats the same point in a lengthier document entitled “The climate of 1997.”
Link:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/climate97.html
(2) NOAA’s state of the climate report for 2014 states quite explicitly that the mean global surface temperature for 2014 is 14.59°C.
Link:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
(3) As per NASA’s “The elusive absolute surface air temperature”
Link:- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
nobody can ever measure the the global surface temperature of the earth with sufficient precision to rule out the the possibilities that:-
(a) The mean global surface temperature for 1997 is 16.9°C
(b) The mean global surface temperature for 2014 is 14.59°C.
Therefore, for all we know, the mean global surface for 1997 is indeed 16.9°C and the mean global surface temperature for 2014 is indeed 14.6°C, in which case it is not all certain, that 2014 has the highest mean global surface temperature of all the calendar years since 1880, or before. For all we know, the mean global surface temperature for 1907 is 16°C, as per NOAA’s document, “The climate of 1997”.
Link:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/climate97.html
which provides a complete list of annual global surface temperature anomalies from 1900 to 1997 relative to the 1961 to 1990 mean global surface of 16.5°C.
Moderators at Watts Up With That, why do you suddenly seem to think, that I have discovered something important? I have drawn all these things to your attention several times in replies to posts here at Watts Up With That, and to the attention of Anthony Watts himself in person at least once, and none of you thought it worthy of comment or reply. But what does that matter now? You can check out all the links for yourselves, and you can verify for yourselves, that what I have written is true.
There is another point which I have also made several times before, but I’ll state it again.
Nobody seems to understand that “The elusive absolute surface air temperature” is absolute dynamite. It is one of the most subversive documents in the field of climatology. The authors of this document demonstrate conclusively, that it “an obvious practical impossibility” to measure “absolute” global surface temperatures. For just the same reasons, it is “an obvious practical impossibility” to measure global surface temperature “anomalies”. If we must not conduct analyses of global surface temperatures on the basis of “absolute” global surface temperatures, because they are immeasurable, then we must not analyze global surface temperatures on the basis of global surface temperature anomalies, because global surface temperature anomalies are just as immeasurable as “absolute” global surface temperatures.
The arguments by which the authors of “The absolute surface air temperature” demonstrate that surface air temperatures are too elusive to measured apply equally well to water temperatures, the temperature of the earth’s mantle and core, and to any very large object which has billions of hot and cold spots, such that the temperature of these hot and cold spots never stands still, but is always in flux. “The elusive absolute surface air temperature” is a truly remarkable document. And it is written in clear and straightforward terms which makes a change.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Boyce.
Reply to Nick Stokes:-
Which “was indeed the warmest year on record”?
According to NOAA’s 1997 state of the climate report:-
“The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
According to NOAA’s 2014 state of the climate report:-
“The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
It does not take a mathematical wizard to work out, that, according to NOAA, 16.9°C is the mean global surface temperature for 1997, and 14.59°C is the mean global surface temperature for 2014. Therefore, if we were to take NOAA’s figures at face value, the mean global surface temperature for 1997 is a whopping 2.3°C higher than the mean global surface temperature for 2014. As per NASA’s excellent publication, “The elusive absolute surface air temperature”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
nobody has ever measured the global surface temperature of the earth with sufficient precision to rule out the possibilities that (i) 16.9°C is the mean global surface temperature for 1997, and (ii) 14.59°C is the mean global surface temperature for 2014. Hence, it is quite possible that 16.9°C is the mean global surface temperature for 1997, and 14.59°C is the mean global surface temperature for 2014, in which case it is not all certain, that 2014 really has the highest mean global surface temperature of all the years since 1880. However, I do not expect any of this to be taken on board by all those who want 2014 to be “indeed the warmest year on record”. They want 2014 to be “indeed the warmest year on record”, and they shall assiduously turn a blind eye to everything that undermines what they want to believe.
[Check your results: You appear to be quoting NASA press releases in 1997 that claim a higher Global Average temperature for 1997 than is claimed for 2014. Correct? If so, your quotes are very important. .mod]
To Mr Anthony Watts, anybody else who may be interested.
In my opinion you should download and save in your own files NOAA’s “The climate of 1997”:-
Document:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/climate97.html
“Data”:- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/globet3.txt
The reason for saving this document in your own files is, that according “The climate of 1997”, every year from 1900 to 1997 has a mean global surface temperature of somewhere in between 16°C (in 1907) and 16.9°C (in 1997), whereas according to NOAA subsequently to 2006, every calendar from 1880 to 2014 has a mean global surface of less than 15°C. I can foresee a time, when NOAA shall remove “The climate of 1997” from public view.
“Global temperatures will resume their long term growth trend within five to 10 years, ending the so called pause in global warming”
– predicted by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/pause-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html
It is time for a bet. I bet one dollar (and many human lives) on the following hypo:
Gavin is half-right and dead wrong – the “pause” will end in five to ten years, but will be followed by global cooling, not global warming.
Gavin’s error is that he believes climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is high and it is not, it is very low, and is overwhelmed by natural climate variation, which appears to be heading into a cooler period based on very low solar activity.
As usual, I hope to be wrong…
Best, Allan
I propose with more certainty than 38% probability, actually with more certainty than an evangelist proclaiming the perils of Hell that currently no one knows what the Global absolute or anomaly temperatures were, are and ever shall be.
I also propose with more certainty than an evangelist proclaiming the perils of Hell that no one knows what came first the chicken or the egg, because most likely they evolved simultaneously, as is the case with climate change and global temperature.
I am rather puzzled by all these probability arguments. Compare the probabilities given for NOAA data to the probabilities of winning a horse race by various horses. It is perfectly reasonable to bet for a horse with 48 % chance of winning, compared to all other horses that has far lower probability of winning (even the combined probability of any horse other than the horse with 48 % chance willing this race is 52%, only 4% more). In this context, 48 % is an excellent bet. I am not where this > 90 % rule and all coming from.
[Rather, what the NOAA/GISS/Oboma administration’s news media ARE promoting is “We have a winner! 2014 IS THE WARMEST EVER! ” In your comparison: “The race is over and we are 38% sure that a horse won!” .mod]
Well… Moderator, I am not a supporter of the Obama administration, actually – I did not vote for him. But I am sure there will be a hotter year in the future, so the race is not over. I am being particular about the scientific aspects. Whatever the causes are, it is pretty clear that earth is warming. But that is where I stop – I am not advocating to freeze the use of oil. But of course for various reasons, we must find alternate energy sources soon, and certainly not the way we tried with Solyndra.
Rob G said:
“Whatever the causes are, it is pretty clear that earth is warming.”
Rob your statement is false – there has been no net global warming for almost 20 years. Please see the satellite data referred to in my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/18/december-2014-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-model-data-difference-update/#comment-1839588
Hello Allan. Thank you for the link. You are absolutely correct that 1998 was the warmest year for lower troposphere. But that is not exactly the same as surface temperature. They say 2014 was the warmest on record mainly because of the rise in ocean surface temperature. So it seems both are correct. But from satellite data, lower troposphere temperature is also going up as a trend (Fig 5 in http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature ), although the lower and middle stratosphere has been cooling steadily. I am not objecting to any of these observations, other than to say that they are not really measuring temperatures in the same region. Also, satellite based temperature data collection may have (certainly had) several problems (since it is an indirect measurement), maybe more problems than direct surface temperature measurements as we learned from the early history of satellite sensing (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/ThorneEtAl.WIREs2010.pdf ). But irrespective of all that, what you are stating is a credible and scientifically valid objection. What I disagreed was with the original post here, that essentially says since the probability for 2014 to have the highest surface temperature is only 38 % , it may not be. In that case, the question would be which year had the highest surface temp? 2010 with 23 % or 2005 with 17 %, etc. One of them has to be the year with the highest surface temperature. So if 2014 is not the one, which is the correct year? That was my issue. Thank you.
Hi Rob,
With respect, I regard much of the Surface Temperature data as severely flawed with a strong warming bias, and so I rely on the LT satellite data for any valid conclusions on the subject of global temperature.
You may want to refer to Anthony’s Surface Stations Project
http://surfacestations.org/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/
Regards, Allan
Hello Allan,
Sure, I understand your position.
I did read their paper from 2011 long ago. Sure there are problems with the surface stations, and we need better controlled stations. But their paper or their answers did not really strike me as showing a major problem (“The minimum temperature rise appears to have been overestimated, but the maximum temperature rise appears to have been underestimated. In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.”). In any case, these issues account for a part of the error bar. Satellites also need corrections, and as we know, sometimes minor corrections can change the trend substantially.
I hope the truth will become more evident in time. I come here to WUWT once in three or four years to see what kind of discussion goes on. The nature of the discussion hasn’t changed in the past five years. So I think it will take a while before the truth becomes more evident. But eventually the truth, whatever it is, become more and more evident. So I will come back in another three years to check. Take care!
Regards,
Rob
You should check out Sou’s attempt to convert the probability to “odds” over at HW. Now that is the epitome of stupid.