‘Warmest Year On Record’ Claims Falling Apart Under Scrutiny
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. 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. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015
Last week, according to our crackerjack mainstream media, NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year, like, ever. No, really. The New York Times began its report with: “Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history.” Well, not really. As we’re about to see, this is a claim that dissolves on contact with actual science. But that didn’t stop the press from running with it. –Robert Tracinsk, The Federalist, 19 January 2015
Despite fears that global warming is harming the Arctic region faster than the rest of the world, Greenland is defying climate scientists and currently growing at its fastest rate in four years. The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Greenland’s ice sheet has seen more growth so far this year than in the last four years. Greenland’s growth in 2015 is also higher than the mean growth for 1990 to 2011. –Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 14 January 2015
What remains of the original description of this ‘warmest year on record’ news? Nothing but bluff, spin, and the uncritical press-release journalism that dominates mainstream reporting on the climate. It may or may not be the hottest year ever, but this is definitely in the running for the most dishonest year on record. –Robert Tracinsk, The Federalist, 19 January 2015
Regardless of which side of the man-made climate change debate you are on, one thing is clear: The claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record is shaky at best. —Inquisitr, 19 January 2015
If anybody is still in any doubt that it is UNSCIENTIFIC to make claims about hottest years, without taking into account error bars, I would advise what the World Meteorological Organisation had to say on the issue in their report on global temperatures for 2006: “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.” –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot of People Know That, 17 January 2015
Global temperatures will resume their long term growth trend within five to 10 years ending the so called pause in global warming, a leading climate scientist has predicted. The pause – which on some measures has gone on since the mid-1990s – continued into 2014 on the basis of global temperature data released last week by US space agency NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US. However, the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will grow sufficiently to overcome the combined impact of various natural climate cooling factors, journalists on a telephone news conference were told last week by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. —Reporting Climate Science, 19 January 2015
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wait until tonight’s speech to get the real truth about warming.
sarc
Right. I think it was two SOTU’s ago that he made the astonishing claim that the earth was warming much faster over the past decade than had been predicted. An out and out lie. I know I’m naïve, but it continues to amaze me how in this so called information age the president of the U.S. can essentially say what he wants without any regard at all for the truth.
The big O has been a disappointment but probably less disappointing than one might think. There’s tendency to regard presidents in the US something like the last of the governing monarchs. UK monarchs have little to except support charities and wave out of windows. In reality you should probably regard US presidents as mushrooms. They generally are kept in the dark and fed on post bovine mulch. O’s science advisor seems to have found politics an easier grift than aerospace and physics.
A Big Lie? No, no, I’m sure he honestly and sincerely believes it.
So do I. And George Bush the younger believed the WMD issue too. That’s what presidents are good for. The fellows and gals behind them set agendas and push policies for reasons that are rarely transparent, and presidents have to stand up and be brave little targets for ridicule and embarassment.
Hey get real, he IS A POLITICIAN, if his lips are moving he is tell BS!! 🙂
I won’t be watching the speech tonight. I already know what it’ll be – tax the rich, global warming, …
I hope he says the US is broke, which I heard him say the other day, so that my scorn can begin.
Most of the Taxes he is going to talk about will tax the middle class not the rich.
Nor I.
Aaah! the remote control; one of the truly great inventions.
Most of the Taxes he is going to talk about will tax the middle class not the rich.
Only way to (temporarily) get more revenue. The rich can (and will) vote with their feet. Of course the gain will be temporary, followed by permanent loss, but that’s remedial economics .001, and the president is not quite up to that.
There is a pause in honesty and integrity in the White House which will last at least 8 years
Not a pause . It’s in decline.
2 years to go….. Will we see real ‘climate change’ then, re: honesty and integrity?
One can hope….
Dubya never lied. He was wrong, sometimes, and admitted it, but he was the most honest president since Ford. (Two — hugely — unappreciated presidents.)
You mean the new and improved SOTU Gruber sesson?
That’s 62% sure it is NOT true.
That is normally considered a “landslide.”
George, you asked me a question about error bars on a thread about a week ago. I’m not sure if I fully understood the question, so also not sure if I answered it accurately. In any event, and for the record, the above figure is what I was talking about. Looks like the answer I received to my initial question is the same too – about 0.1 Degrees C.
Actually, in politics a spread of more than 5% is considered a landslide. As in: Candidate A won by 55% – 45%.
The dishonesty referred to here concerns the fact that there was only a only 38% probability, which means ‘probably not’.
Claud Cockburn, a noted British journalist once said:
“Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.”
The corollary is also true of this administration:
“Never believe anything that has been officially stated.”
I have this strange feeling he’s going to mention the ‘hottest year ever’ thing.
Again the media has been armed with charts starting in 1910 that edit down the 1930’s to accompany the announcement. Also they’re wittling away at 1998-2001 every time I look. Grrr.
Just remember, in science, when the data doesn’t fit the model, fix the data.
About one time in ten, if done scrupulously, that actually works. But not in this case.
They can’t keep it up forever. Their “adjustments” will eventually look far too ridiculous and hard questions will be asked, especially when their temp charts go vertical, to something like 60C in the shade.
Similarly, when everyone realises the ice caps still exist and are bigger than normal after years of obvious lies, the whole house of cards will collapse. Hopefully, the liars will get jail time and made to repay their ill-gotten gains.
Now what’s this?
I spent a lot of time Sunday post the link to David Rose’s article in my subset of the web.
One journalist in all of the MSM to think of asking about error bars….
Oh, I should check in to see if Dellers has had a chance to play with this. A few more days and Josh ought be able to come up with a cartoon we should turn into a postcard and mail to all the newspapers that have forgotten to check their information.
I bet next year we will get more of the same: “hottest year in recorded history.”
Don’t matter how untrue, nor how many holes you find in the data. They got their media headlines, and warmest year ever is being repeated ad nauseum everywhere in the world.
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.”
Noam Chomsky
And its dog: the Australian media.
Alas! This is even more true for the MSM in Europe…
Without this disgusting and totalitarian media bias, the CAGW climatism madness would be a thing of the past now.
On the other side: The percentage of people who don’t trust the MSM any longer is growing. So there is some hope for the future…
@The Pompous Git
Every time I hear the current claim in the self-promotion of the Australian ABC News radio channel, it makes me really to die laughing!
It actually says – believe or not – “without bias or agenda” … 🙂
Well, that’s at least so unintentionally funny as the title of the leading newspaper of the old Soviet Union which was – surprise, surprise – “Pravda” (= Truth) … 😉
Exactly!
Here is the most telling sentence in the Daily Mail article. Gavin Schmidt hard at work for the NASA budget.
He appears to then have responded in Twitter in which we find this.
Which lead to this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/19/giss-ncdc-need-to-be-more-open-with-the-public-when-making-proclamations-about-global-warming-records/
Amazing!
According to both these ‘data’-sets, there is a decent chance of about 10 to 18%, that neither of those four years was ‘the warmest on record’ …
And that’s according to their numbers and methods!
“Here is the most telling sentence in the Daily Mail article.”
But what does it tell? Untruth. The plot you have shown is Slide 5 in the NOAA/NASA Joint statement. Not something that turned up on Twitter.
Enough with the hyperventilating, Nick, you’re causing a CO2 spike.
I know it was on the slides in the joint statement. However, it was Tweeted by Gavin in response to a David Rose Tweet. David Rose said:
As you can see it did turn up on Twitter. The image was Tweeted here by Gavin.
Next time you want to respond to me please take your time as I don’t want to waste my time having to rebut your statements. I have better things to do. Thank you for the consideration.
Yep….maddening.
Thank you, Anthony. I am glad to see that this is slowly being walked back. Taking the data from selected weather stations, while ignoring others, does wonderful things.
I have yet to see any weather forecast which uses even one decimal place in its rapidly changing numbers. They know they would be laughed off the planet, yet they seem to think that two decimal places has merit in climate hindsight and predictions.
This is not about numbers, or science, it is about an ideology turned religion. Like all other religions, believers will believe, no matter what evidence can be presented. After all, Climate Changes. Who can dispute that?
This isn’t about a religion, Greg, it’s about an agenda. That “green” agenda is to take the human race as a whole, back 500 years in progress and in population. Never mind that there will be a “core” of the species that will live in the 21st Century and beyond, using all of today’s and tomorrow’s technology. Those supplying the raw materials and food will live in the 16th century in support of “homo sapiens superior” living and moving towards the future.
So who gets to live in ‘The Capital’ and who lives in District 12?
Tom O, Whether that is a conscious desire of the ( Greens, Liberal Progressives or “Environmentalists”) all of whom are patently idealist, and idealism can very easily lead to fascism, I Wholeheartedly agree with you that the consequences of fulfilling [their] desires and aspirations will lead to an inequality of living standards, not only never seen before,even under the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, but may become a cause of species differentiation for Homo sapiens, with The Blessed enlightened ones controlling Everything.
I am possibly very naive, but i have a suspicion that ( Lenin, Stalin,Mao Tse Tung, Ho chi Minh and Pol Pot) All truly believed that they were working for the betterment of Humanity, A little Education goes a long way to corrupting the mind.
We are at a crossroads, we can either give in to Muslim Fundamentalism and reject Science and progress completely,or acquiesce in the domination of the righteous fascists called “Environmentalists” and become there slaves, Or What???
“So who gets to live in ‘The Capital’ and who lives in District 12?”
Don’t be silly, those with with the money, and those without.
Buy insulation, buy ammo, this could get ugly.
Those who want to be Eloi rather then Morlock obviously didn’t read the whole story.
A population reduced to the level of 500 years ago could not sustain a 21st century life-style for anyone, even the well-connected. The specialization and expertise available from 7 billion creates considerable additional resources that simply would not be available from a much smaller population. Life for even the most dedicated environmentalist would be short, brutish and un-medicated.
That’s my conclusion as well exSSNcrew. Roads could not be maintained, planes couldn’t afford to run regular trips (back to once a week), disaster relief would be non-existent, disease and pest control would be a thing of the past.
They really don’t know how the economy works.
There is an error in the figure above. The error bars are plotted on a different scale. It should be easy to fix.
@Unfrozencaveman Hmm. You’re right. I can’t think of a reason why error bars would ever be presented on a different scale. That is strange.
The autoscale “feature” chose a scale of 0-0.8 for the central value, but 0-0.9 for the error bars, because the positive error of 2014 crossed some threshold for going to the next tic mark. You can see it at the right margin. Autocorrect messes with your words. Autoscale messes with your graphs.
Yes, my fault!
I’ve sorted it now.
Far more people saw and heard the original claim of “warmest year…” than will ever hear any rebuttal.
Why all this desperation just because 2014 is the most likely warmest year for the indexes from BEST, JMA, NOAA and Gistemp? Why is that dishonest? Now it is even a dishonest year…
Take comfort. Cowtan & Way will set the record straight. It seems unlikely that C&W will have 2014 as the most likely candidate for the warmest year. Captures better lower anomalies in the Arctic where C&W has the best methodology for infilling.
Stick to that.
The Alarmist’s desperation is evident. When the science and the observational data do not support your belief, it is not unusual for one to cling desparately to anything that even remotely implies your belief has substance.
There is no such thing as “the best methodology for infilling”. Infilling is infilling, and it matters not how you do it, it is still fabrication. If you say one method yields better results, how do you confirm such an assertion? By fabricating some standard of reference?
But this kind of viewpoint is like Greek to you, is it not, rooter?
Give rooter his due; he is very amusing 🙂
κατασκεύασμα
You can test what kind of infilling that will produce the best result. What infilling or interpolation method that gives the best estimate of temperature in a area where there are measurements to check the result. Cowtan & Way did that. Validation tests.
And in case you do not know: All the surface records use some kind of infilling. Gridding is infilling a grid with measurements from that grid. The JMA and Hadcrut method of not interpolating between grids is infillilng with the hemispheric mean. If you prefer that kind of fabrication you too have to show why that fabrication is the best method.
Why don’t you protest when Bob Tisdale use interpolated sea surface indexes? Even prefers Hadisst and not hadsst3. Hadisst is infilled/interpolated. Hadsst3 is gridded.
“You can test what kind of infilling that will produce the best result. What infilling or interpolation method that gives the best estimate of temperature in a area where there are measurements to check the result. Cowtan & Way did that. Validation tests.”
While necessary, that is not sufficient. There is no assurance that, just because a method works reasonably well in known areas, it will work equally well in unknown ones. Especially when the unknown ones are located at the poles, where the atmospheric dynamics are markedly different than in other areas.
Bart:
This is really simple. A method with a better match with observations than another method is the best.
An appeal to uncertainty will not change that.
Why this reluctance to use a method that does not result in 2014 as the warmest year? After all, the temperature anomaly in the Arctic was lower, the Arctic sea ice was somewhat higher than 2010. And the sea ice in the Antarctic hit record hights.
Why ignore that?
Rather than infilling, why not just use the satellite measurements? This avoids all of that messy data manipulation that leads to people thinking that a 0.02C result is significant.
There is no assurance that
========
spot on. two points on each side of a mountain cannot predict the temperature at the peak. however, if you did your test on the praries you would assume they could.
Pat Kelly
…
Satellites don’t do very well at high latitudes. Worse yet, the ice screws their readings up pretty bad.
rooter – you mean simplistic. This is like debating what is the best way of predicting the end of a drought – goat entrails or tea leaves?
Exactly, Ferd.
High latitudes is where a very great deal of infilling takes place. And what reference have they.. satellites?
Rooter says to hell with Greek, he has infilling. And besides “all surface records use” infilling, therefore it’s okay. And Bob Tisdale uses infilled data. So it must be okay, if he uses it, right?
Rooter brand of science.
ferd berple:
So you cannot predict the temperature on the mountain with two measurements at the base?
Very wrong. Actually you will need only one measurement at the base. Keyword for you there is lapse rate. And that is not necessary when dealing with anomalies.
mpainters high latitudes seems to be a problem.
Is that a reason for choosing the hemispheric mean for infilling?
And do you compute the lapse rate from the north side or the south side of the mountain?
Oh boy, more of that wonderful infilling! Don’t need thermometers, don’t need all of that. See what a good scientist I be?
Why fabricate data, rooter?Did no one ever explain to you about fabrication?
mpainter wonders if the lapse rate is computed from the north side or the south side of the mountain.
So do I. That is, how does mpainter compute lapse rate horizontally. Perhaps that explains why he does not need thermometers.
mpainter wonders why fabricate data.
My choice would be to fabricate the data with the best validation. To use the hemispheric mean temperature is not the best fabrication of data for infilling areas sith missing measurements.
What is mpainter choice of fabricated data?
The way the verify your infill method would be to take rich a dataset, and calculate your function on them, then depopulate the dataset randomly, perform your infill algorithm and recalculate your function on the resultant dataset product. Repeated enough, the comparison of the results of the original data result to the infilled data should tell you how much confidence the infilled data product deserves. My suspicion is if Climatologists actually did this, the results would be quite embarrassing to them.
Paul Jackson.
That was what Cowtan & Way did. The result was not embarassing. And much better than to infilling with hemispheric mean. As the gistemp-method. And the NCDC method. And the BEST method.
rooter @ur momisugly January 21, 2015 at 1:15 am
“Keyword for you there is lapse rate.”
Yeah, the lapse rate will get you accuracy to tenths of a degree. Sure thing.
Maybe +/- 10 deg, if you’re lucky. If the air is still, and the mountain and surrounding region is bare and dry, and a hundred other considerations…
Nice try.
38% is not “most likely” , but completely “unlikely”. That’s 62% chance it isn’t the warmest for the thermometer record, and that is a vey suspect record in recent times due to compounding positive adjustments.
rooter says:
…2014 is the most likely warmest year…
Less than 50% probability deconstructs that statement, rooter.
2014 was just another year of natural climate variability. Nothing special.
“Stick to that,” as you say.
Use Cowtan & Way if you do not like to have 2014 as most likely the warmest year.
Including the natural variability.
What’s wrong with UAH or RSS?
No questions about integrity here. Those NOAA types are disreputable. So is G S at giss. Jones and his crew at CRU infamously so.
mpainter asks what is wrong with UAH or RSS.
Apart from the lower troposphere is not the same as the surface there is a divergence problem.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1999/offset:-0.35/compress:12/plot/rss/from:1999/offset:-0.10/compress:12/plot/uah/from:1999/compress:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/offset:-0.35/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/offset:-0.10/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend
I guess that makes Spencer & Christy even more disreputable. Higher trend than gistemp.
Rooter:
Why does NOAA and NASA ignore the temperature data of UAH?
Include that data and the 38% likely hood that 2014 was a record year becomes a 98% likelyhood that it was NOT a record year.
Kinda cuts the legs off of the hype, eh rooter?
Gavin Schmidt’s disrepute has more to do with his public hype than his dubious products at giss. See archives at Climate Audit
But giss is bad enough. Why does Schmidt ignore UAH data? After all, these are NASA satellites, launched and maintained by NASA. So why does Schmidt not include UAH data in his giss product (NASA)?
rooter:
C&W were pretty thoroughly discredited here. Use the search box; find out why, then find a better ‘authority’.
And, what “divergence problem”?
They all diverge from each other; GISS most of all. Now what’s your excuse with satellite data? It is still the most accurate.
Finally, a few tenths of a degrees difference is immaterial. What is of primary importance is the trend — and there is no trend!
Global warming has stopped, so naturally there is no trend, either up or down.
mpainter thinks NASA and NOOA ignores temperature data from UAH.
Ignored it surely is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/2014/12
And the upper air continues to be the same as the surface for mpainter. Perhaps mpainter would like to include this as well?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
Of course, UAH yields perfectly reliable temperatures for the lower troposphere. And it has the advantage of providing a dataset that is inviolable and unadulterable.
But for rooter, and his kidney, such inviolability is a drawback. That is why rooter tries his best to discredit UAH, and why Gavin Schmidt and his kind ignore this unadulterable data set…because, you see, neither does it allow infilling. See rooter have a fit.
mpainter likes UAH.
Well why not. But that makes med wonder why he does not like gistemp.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend
Identical trends after 2000. So if UAH is right and all that. What is gistemp?
you fool none but yourself, rooter. But don’t swell, that’s too easy.
And rooter, fabricated data is your bag, not mine. That is why I prefer the satellites.
Um, did Gavin Schmidt join the ranks of those proclaiming a “pause” in GW since the late 1990’s?
Warmest Year On Record so What! Hippo’s and Elephants used to roam Britain So it aint the Warmest Year Evah?
So how can it be the warmest year on record if you have records such as below that it was much warmer in the past DOH
Extracts below from link
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2004/july/news_5293.html
“The fossil bones of hippos, hyena, fish and rodents are providing a rare glimpse of the landscape of East Anglia 500,000-780,000 years ago. The fossil remains point towards a unique find of animals living in Britian during a warmer climate, never previously recorded.”
“The hippos and other animals would have lived in the early Middle Pleistocene where exotic species, now found only in African savanna, would have roamed the landscape.
The ancient hippopotamus (Hippopotamus sp.) weighed about six to seven tonnes, much heavier than today’s modern hippos weighing up to four tonnes. The ancient hippos had prominent eyes that acted as periscopes when under water. It is likely the hippos discovered died through natural causes and their bones show evidence of having being gnawed by hyenas.
The site is approximately 15 kilometres from Norfolk’s present-day coast and insect fossils indicate the summer temperature at that time was 2-3°c warmer than today.”
2-3 degrees warmer!!!! You must mean globally. 2-3C warmer in Norfolk would still freeze the pips off of a hippo!
The media who like to [think] they are sceptical, in fact swallow this hook line and sinker. In fact they accept it in full, while they do expose stories on dodgy builders. The big story is facing them and they refuse to see it.
Could someone please plot the GISS Global Temperature Anomalies with Error Bars graph with the actual temperature? Use the scale of a home thermostat, that will demonstrate, to any sane viewer, just how small the difference are each year. (I can’t do it at the moment.) Thanks
[consider] their error bars anywhere from the top to the bottom…
Nice bar chart, however, it does raise a couple of questions:
1) What does each bar represent? I assume “Yearly Global Average Temperature” but the label doesn’t specifically say that so, I might be wrong.
2) Where are the error bars? I assume that the error back in the 1880s would be much greater than today. It would be interesting to see.
Do you have an original link for this?
It amuses The Git that BOM/CSIRO describes a 20% increase in Australia’s rainfall over the last 114 years as “slight” and push the temperature change over the last 104 years (so well illustrated in Latitude’s graph) as “extreme”.
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/SOC14/State%20of%20the%20Climate%202014.pdf
I like this plot.
Latitude, YOU’VE DONE IT! Yes, this is what I’ve argued for 2 years. When we Skeptics use anomalies, we play in their arena. When we show this graph to a [high] schooler, [their] reply is… “What warming!?”
WELL DONE! from the remarks below, do more of it, PLEASE. And tell your friends!
Concerning your error bar remarks? Are the error bars proportional to the absolute temperature, directly from the error bars from the anomaly?
Actually, it is this article that is dishonest, starting from the first quote. Due to other values within recent years that are within the margin of error, 38% is the statistical probability of 2014 being the hottest year on record, which is higher than the probability for any other year. This blog is exploiting scientific ignorance by pretending that “only” 38% somehow makes the conclusions of every major scientific organization invalid.
I didn’t read the rest of the quotes; the first one is a lie, so.
Uh, if it is a 38% probability of being the hottest year on record, wouldn’t that make it a 62% probability that it is not?
Yes, less than 50-50. What were the unadjusted/fixed temperatures from the 1930’s and how do they compare? Have they been sufficiently homogenized to take them out of contention?
the silence of the troll.
“This blog is exploiting scientific ignorance by pretending that “only” 38% somehow makes the conclusions of every major scientific organization invalid. ”
I think it was NASA themselves that applied the statistical probability 38%? And I don’t think “every” major scientific organization came to the same conclusion, so how can they all be invalid?
As a courtesy, It might be wise to read the whole article before you call someone a liar, just my $0.02.
Chris, you might want to read his thread, pay particular attention to the graphic produced by NOAA and NASA. Enjoy!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/19/giss-ncdc-need-to-be-more-open-with-the-public-when-making-proclamations-about-global-warming-records/
The point of the article is that at least a few people are not regurgitating a press release meant to alarm the public. The 38% probability means it very well may not have been the hottest year on record regardless of it having the highest probability.
People on this site understand very well that the 2014 temp report is not alarming and that temperatures are still remaining flat despite a large increase in green house gasses over that period.
Since you’ve settled the science, give us your predictions for the next five years, then come back and check in.
Actually, temperatures have been pretty flat for a long, long time. Temperature Anomalies are what have changed and not by much, and even they have been flat for about 18 years. We are in an interglacial warm period and thank God for that. And I don’t buy the 38% probability either. Do the error bars include consideration of all of the “adjustments” which have been made to obtain the growth of the anomaly trend? I don’t think so. Global warming is a tool of the left to gain $$, votes and control and they are masters of the lie. Say it loudly over and over again and it becomes truth.
Chris, stay off the drugs. You talk of lies, but have you ever heard of lies by omission?
Daily Mail – 18 January 2015
“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.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record/#comment-1840266
On Twitter, Gavin says there was not enough room on the press release for these 15 characters:
Probability 38%
Gavin Schmidt before the world; what a reprobate.
Yup! But is it any different from most of those on here? The general purpose of the website is to dissemble, prevaricate and distort, as far as I can tell.
Classical projection to rationalize one’s own malfeasance. Whether a valid criticism or not, have you ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
So why did the WMO say after 2006?
All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.”
http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/bulletin_en/archive/56_3_en/56_3_gcs_en.html
This statement covered every year from 1998 to 2006, and the only year that they could definitely say was cooler was 1999.
Using the same logic, 2014 could be anywhere between the 1st and 14th warmest year.
Where to start.
First putting your hands over your ears and going lalala at the first sight of something that does not fit your view is not getting you an award for critical thinking.
Second you didn’t make a case for the first quote being a lie. How sure is NASA of 2014 being the highest year ever? Not very sure, but more sure than other years. And this is satisfying to you as what exactly? Clever obfuscation, clever statistics, maybe noble lying?
Third 38% probability is just that. 38%. Whether other years have a lower probability is moot. I would no more cross a bridge with a 38% probability of not collapsing as a bridge with a 25% probability. You are missing the point of the article and therefore seem to support the need to deceive the public by not mentioning (until forced to) the probability and more importantly the uncertainty of the claim.
If the media had a modicum of intelligence, they would ask, “You mean you can’t even sort out the past with a reasonable degree of certainty and you want us to believe your future predictions?”
BTW it is not every scientific organization with invalid conclusions, it is climate science that consistently makes invalid and/or deceptive claims.
Chris, this might make it more obvious who is being dishonest. The above images together.
?w=720
?w=930
Did you notice that one makes it obvious that 2014 is only certainly warmer than 3 other years.
It’s turtles, all the way sideways…
76 Trombones led the big parade…..
“Global temperatures will resume their long term growth trend within five to 10 years ending the so called pause in global warming, a leading climate scientist has predicted.”
What ‘Leading Climate Scientist’ said this? No one in the climate industry predicted this pause. So what skill do they have to predict that the pause will last for 5 to 10 more years and then continue warming?
Sounds to me like they’re just guessing.
so the ‘pause’ will be over 25 years in length possibly? Interesting
The Git predicts that “The Pause” began ~10,000 years ago and will continue until the next major glaciation.
And the AMO has not even turned cold yet!
They’ve been saying that for, oh, 20 years now. Typical of doomsday cults. The Day of Reckoning passes, and a revised schedule is issued, but this time, they really mean it. At some point, the dupes realize they have been had, and the cult dissipates.
To answer your, question Gavin said it.
I admit that the sentence is poorly constructed, but after the part you quoted we get quite a bit of other junk, which I have replaced with dots and then “…………….journalists on a telephone news conference were told last week by Gavin Schmidt, ……………”
Is there a chance that a La Nina event could happen this year? And if so….would this drive down any temp rise that occurred last year?
My Dad, a retired engineer, saw a few graphs on the news and became alarmed. I rescaled the y-axis to our typical change in Nova Scotia, Canada i.e. from -30C to +30C which turned it into a flat line, and he said “all that is about this? This is nothing”. Exactly right.
Plot the global temperatures since the LGM on the same scaled graph and you still won’t see anything too alarming. However, a drop in temperature of a few degrees worldwide can have pretty dramatic consequences.
Thanks for pointing out that cold is much worse than warm. Now, a few degrees in the other direction is pretty insignificant.
The problem remains : the error bars are plotted on a different scale, and not shown as they usually are (i.e. half above, half below the reported figure).
Sorted now thanks.
What is it that causes “progressives” here in America to lie so frequently and so effortlessly.
Hottest year on record
You can keep your doctor
You can keep your plan
A video caused the attack
There is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS
Maybe it’s something in the diet?
For several decades they’ve been trying to “spin” facts into headlines that favor their point of view. This contempt for reality has over time developed into a taste for stronger stuff: outright lies.
It’s the Ouroboros Alimentary Canal diet. Think about it for a sec…
Yes, progressives are coprophagic…
csanborn,
OACD – a peculiarly progressive disease. I LIKE it!
dbstealey,
Yes, progressives are coprophagic…
Perfect!
It must be the diet. Because their diet advise is also completely backwards.
*eats his 6th egg of the day*
François, agreed. If plotted properly one should be able to extract more information.
There may be a reason for the error bars not being ‘centered’ on the nominal figure – if so, it deserves an explanation.
Perhaps the temps were plotted at maximum of possible range for maximum possible alarm?
SR
Let’s see. There’s a 38 percent chance that a measurement of 2/100s of one degree of warming is an accurate measurement, making 2014 the hottest year on record. Sure. The more ridiculous these claims become, the more desperate the alarmists appear. I’ve talked to quite a few people who don’t even follow this issue who recognize how absurd it all is. The alarmists are losing to Mother Nature and time.
I’m not sure that ‘error bars’ on these graphs are going to add much ‘honesty’. From the one of ‘climategate’ emails comes a warning….
Sorry, MikeB, your comment is irrelevant. If one wants errors bars, one should at least have them centered properly, and not play with the scale..
MikeB;
“They’re sleazier than we think!”
2014 was the most dishonest decade on record and the previous ten years was the most dishonest decade on record. And so it goes with the biggest fraud in human history.
However, Mendacity Central, (ClimateCentral.org) seems to have found reality?
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-downgrades-climate-impact-of-fossil-fuel-burning-18553
Or not? 🙂