2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record

‘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

GISS_2014_error_bars

Source: Paul Homewood, updated from original posting.

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jack morrow

Wait until tonight’s speech to get the real truth about warming.
sarc

pokerguy

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.

Duster

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.

Evan Jones

A Big Lie? No, no, I’m sure he honestly and sincerely believes it.

Duster

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.

ColA

Hey get real, he IS A POLITICIAN, if his lips are moving he is tell BS!! 🙂

Frank K.

I won’t be watching the speech tonight. I already know what it’ll be – tax the rich, global warming, …

policycritic

I hope he says the US is broke, which I heard him say the other day, so that my scorn can begin.

chemman

Most of the Taxes he is going to talk about will tax the middle class not the rich.

F. Ross

Nor I.
Aaah! the remote control; one of the truly great inventions.

Evan Jones

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.

Catcracking

There is a pause in honesty and integrity in the White House which will last at least 8 years

Sweet Old Bob

Not a pause . It’s in decline.

Mac the Knife

2 years to go….. Will we see real ‘climate change’ then, re: honesty and integrity?
One can hope….

Evan Jones

Dubya never lied. He was wrong, sometimes, and admitted it, but he was the most honest president since Ford. (Two — hugely — unappreciated presidents.)

Resourceguy

You mean the new and improved SOTU Gruber sesson?

george e. smith

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’.

RockyRoad

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.”

Joel Snider

I have this strange feeling he’s going to mention the ‘hottest year ever’ thing.

KevinM

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.

Flyover Bob

Just remember, in science, when the data doesn’t fit the model, fix the data.

Evan Jones

About one time in ten, if done scrupulously, that actually works. But not in this case.

Olaf Koenders

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.

Jimbo

Now what’s this?

NPR – 21 January 2015
Was 2014 The Hottest Year On Record — Or Not?
….The problem is that the NASA news release didn’t include the error bars in the data. And, as we know, every scientific measurement is subject to a margin of error. For example, if you claim you weigh 170 lbs. on a scale with half a pound gradation, the measurement has an error of a quarter of a pound, half of the smallest gradation…….

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.

Jimbo

I bet next year we will get more of the same: “hottest year in recorded history.”

Dr. Roy Spencer
2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/

Robert Wykoff

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.

Catcracking

“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.”
Noam Chomsky

And its dog: the Australian media.

Gentle Tramp

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…

Gentle Tramp

@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) … 😉

Patrick

Exactly!

Jimbo

Here is the most telling sentence in the Daily Mail article. Gavin Schmidt hard at work for the NASA budget.

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.”

He appears to then have responded in Twitter in which we find this.comment image
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/

Jonas N

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.

Streetcred

Enough with the hyperventilating, Nick, you’re causing a CO2 spike.

Jimbo

Nick Stokes
January 20, 2015 at 2:57 pm
“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.

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:

“David Rose ‏@DavidRoseUK Jan 17
@ClimateOfGavin But because this wasn’t in the press release, outlets as impotrant as the BBC and the Guardian didn’t mention it.”

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.

tom s

Yep….maddening.

jsuther2013

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.

Greg Woods

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?

Tom O

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.

dccowboy

So who gets to live in ‘The Capital’ and who lives in District 12?

Oliver James

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???

Paul

“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.

Ian W

Those who want to be Eloi rather then Morlock obviously didn’t read the whole story.

exSSNcrew

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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.

Steve Offutt

@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.

Alan Robertson

Far more people saw and heard the original claim of “warmest year…” than will ever hear any rebuttal.

rooter

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.

mpainter

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

rooter

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.

Bart

“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.

rooter

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?

Pat Kelly

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.

David Socrates

Pat Kelly

Satellites don’t do very well at high latitudes. Worse yet, the ice screws their readings up pretty bad.

ferd berple

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.

Bart

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?

Bart

Exactly, Ferd.

mpainter

High latitudes is where a very great deal of infilling takes place. And what reference have they.. satellites?

mpainter

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.

rooter

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.

rooter

mpainters high latitudes seems to be a problem.
Is that a reason for choosing the hemispheric mean for infilling?

mpainter

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?

mpainter

Why fabricate data, rooter?Did no one ever explain to you about fabrication?

rooter

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.

rooter

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.

rooter

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.

Bart

rooter @ 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.

Ged

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.

rooter

Use Cowtan & Way if you do not like to have 2014 as most likely the warmest year.
Including the natural variability.

mpainter

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.

rooter

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.

mpainter

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?

mpainter

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.

rooter

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

mpainter

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.

rooter

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?

mpainter

you fool none but yourself, rooter. But don’t swell, that’s too easy.

mpainter

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?

Stacey

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.”

Gary Pearse

2-3 degrees warmer!!!! You must mean globally. 2-3C warmer in Norfolk would still freeze the pips off of a hippo!

Jack

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.

GogogoStopSTOP

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

Latitude

[consider] their error bars anywhere from the top to the bottom…comment image

Sal Minella

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

Paul Westhaver

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?

Chris

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?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

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?

davideisenstadt

the silence of the troll.

Paul

“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.

Patrick

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/

Grant

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.

Jim G

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.

Jimbo

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

Les Johnson

On Twitter, Gavin says there was not enough room on the press release for these 15 characters:
Probability 38%

mpainter

Gavin Schmidt before the world; what a reprobate.

Will Watson

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.

Bart

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.

Alx

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.

Robert B

Chris, this might make it more obvious who is being dishonest. The above images together.comment image?w=720comment image?w=930
Did you notice that one makes it obvious that 2014 is only certainly warmer than 3 other years.

SAMURAI

It’s turtles, all the way sideways…

pochas

76 Trombones led the big parade…..

Tom in Denver

“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.

dccowboy

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!

Bart

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, ……………”

Kenny

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?

Peter

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.

John Finn

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.

Richard M

Thanks for pointing out that cold is much worse than warm. Now, a few degrees in the other direction is pretty insignificant.

François

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.

Doug S

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?

D. Cohen

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.

csanborn

It’s the Ouroboros Alimentary Canal diet. Think about it for a sec…

Yes, progressives are coprophagic…

Mac the Knife

csanborn,
OACD – a peculiarly progressive disease. I LIKE it!
dbstealey,
Yes, progressives are coprophagic…
Perfect!

mark

It must be the diet. Because their diet advise is also completely backwards.
*eats his 6th egg of the day*

Political Junkie

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.

Steve Reddish

Perhaps the temps were plotted at maximum of possible range for maximum possible alarm?
SR

Jbird

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.

MikeB

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….

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@psu.edu
Subject: Re: Out in latest J. Climate
Date: Thu Aug 4 09:49:54 2005
Mike,
Gabi was supposed to be there but wasn’t either. I think Gabi isn’t
being objective as she might because of Tom C. I recall Keith
telling me that her recent paper has been rejected, not sure if outright or not.
Gabi sees the issue from a D&A perspective, not whether any curve
is nearer the truth, but just what the envelope of the range might be.
There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error
bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether
they are right or how they are used.
Changing timescales make this
simple use impractical.
We have a new version of HadCRUT just submitted, so soon
the’ll be HadCRUT3v and CRUTEM3v. The land doesn’t change much.
This has errors associated with each point, but the paper doesn’t yet
discuss how to use them.
I’ll attach this paper. Only just been submitted to JGR – not
in this format though. This format lays it out better.
Thanks for reminding Scott.
Cheers
Phil

François

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..

Political Junkie

MikeB;
“They’re sleazier than we think!”

Steve Oregon

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? 🙂

sagi

The temperature scales on the right and left sides of the graphic do not match. Is one of them for error bars, or is it just a misprint? It’s confusing as it is.

herkimer

Looks like the media is catching on about the initial hyped and bad press release
NBC REPORTS
Not So Hot: 2014 Was Only 34th Warmest Year on Record for U.S.
collapse story
Turns out America’s weather in 2014 wasn’t really that bad. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday that the U.S. average temperature last year was half a degree warmer than normal and weather was less disastrous and drought-struck than previous years. While 2014 was warmer than 2013 in the lower 48 states, it was still only the 34th warmest on record. That contrasts with the experience of the world as a whole. Globally, it will likely go down as the warmest year on record. Japan’s meteorological agency has already calculated 2014 as the warmest year worldwide. NOAA and NASA will announce global 2014 figures next week, but data through November point toward a new record.
The U.S. is only 2 percent of the world’s surface; eastern North America was about the only exception to the hot global rule last year and even that chill was outweighed nationally by record western heat, said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch. It was the 18th straight year the U.S. was warmer than the 20th-century average “This fits within the context of a long-term warming trend both here and around the globe,” Crouch said. California, Nevada and Arizona had the hottest year in 120 years of record-keeping, while Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and New Mexico had one of their five warmest years on record. Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Michigan had one of their 10 coldest years on record.
The statement,
“This fits within the context of a long-term warming trend both here and around the globe,” Crouch said is still misleading or plain wrong as the trend of US and Canadian annual temperatures has been declining for nearly two decades(17 years) or since 1998, North America which is cooling, not warming represents 16 % of global land areas

As other commenters have mentioned, the error bars in your graph seem… odd at best.
Perhaps this might be more useful, as it has error bars for each year correctly plotted:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/ScreenShot2015-01-20at73936AM_zps5dc52258.png

Steve Oregon

Why does the Berkeley graph show 2014 to be roughly 1/2 degree warmer that 1934?

Because globally 2014 is roughly 1/2 degree warmer than 1934? 1934 was a particularly warm year in the U.S., but not for the globe:comment image

Political Junkie

Zeke, the topic is obviously a hot one!
Would it be easy to ‘blow up’ the last few results so we can all play with the rankings of the last 20 or so years, with error bars.

Note that using a method similar to the one outlined in this paper will serve you much better than “eyeballing”: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/abstract

beng1

Come on, Zeke. Have you looked at Anth*ny’s surface station classification? Certainly sea-surface measurements are similar or worse.
The “error bars” you show aren’t nearly large enough — they’re fiction.

Tom in Florida

Please note the anomaly base period!

Zeke,
Thanx for that chart. I noticed that the last 10 – 15 years is flat.
How do you explain that global warming has stopped? Does that not make you question your ‘man-made global warming’ premise?
Or will you invent some ‘reason’ why that particular data should be disregarded?
Also, BEST is not above cherry-picking:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg

rooter

Good point dbstealey. For land temperatures 2014 is not the warmest year. Must because og all all those manipulated station data.

Short term trends in long term noisy data are not immensely meaningful. I’d argue that recent years are pretty consistent with the prior trend:
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0115_ZH_Fig4.png
As far as Berkeley data goes, the top chart shows annual averages and the bottom one shows monthly anomalies (albeit quite dated now). What exactly is being cherry-picked?

Zeke axs:
What exactly is being cherry-picked?
It is not blindingly obvious to you?? The bottom chart is a continuation of the upper chart. They deliberately deleted the last decade of data because it shows that global warming has stopped.

dbstealy,
Its “blindingly obvious” that the top chart shows annual values and the bottom monthly; both cover the same time scale (save for the few months into 2010 shown in the bottom, which can’t be turned into an annual value yet).

Sun Spot

@Zeke “Because globally 2014 is roughly 1/2 degree warmer than 1934?” I highly doubt the accuracy of Global temperature estimates of the 30’s . The temperature measurement technology of that era would at BEST give you error bars of 2 degrees F. I imagine the infilling algorithm to cover global areas and sea surface temperatures for the 30’s is a miracle to behold.

Oddly enough, temperatures in the 1930s were measured quite similar to the way they are still measured in many places today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six%27s_thermometer
The oceans are a bit more problematic, since you have the while buckets to intake transition, but I’m less familiar with that area so I’d suggest reading some of Kennedy’s work to see how estimated errors are calculated.

Sun Spot

@Zeke “Oddly enough, temperatures in the 1930s were measured quite similar to the way they are still measured in many places today”
Globally I don’t thinks so !!

Sleepalot

Oooh, that’s a pretty graph. Is it a work of fiction?
How many thermometers were used for each year, and where were they?
And if it’s a different number of thermometers, and if the thermometers are in different places, why would you imagine the annual averages are comparable?

Check this graph:
All curves are parallel up to 2000
Satellite and sea temperature are nearly parallel after 2001
Why is GISSTEMP going up, whereas sea and satellite data are going down? Why has 1998 with the big El Nino shrunken to a dwarf?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/rss/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend/plot/none
You just need to put all the data into a computer using the right parameters. That is what they do and even confess on their website.
Otherwise 1998 would have been the hottest year evah.

Steve Case

Here are the changes GISS made just since 2009
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2r38h9v.jpg

rooter

Interesting. Lowering the most recent adjustments compared to the previous decade. Result of that is lower trend the latest decade.

Bart

GISS is very clearly an outlier. HADCRUT also shows declining temps.

Bart

GISS. No contest.

rooter

Oh really. Trends close. Thanks for showing that.
Sometime perhaps Bart will discover base periods.

rooter,
Johannes H posted a chart showing the GISS divergence.
You keep arguing ‘divergence’, but they all diverge from each other; GISS most of all.
You need to find a different argument. “Divergence” doesn’t work.

rooter

dbstealey:
Try the other surface indexes. Then compare. Of course the lower troposphere will have greater differences during ninjas and ninjos than surface indexes.
And why is it necessary to have updated gistemp and not updated sea surface?
I know. Hide the incline.
And why ignore UAH?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/rss/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2001/trend
I know. Hide the outlier. Can dbstealey pick the outlier?

rooter says:
Try the other surface indexes.
No, thanks, rooter. All you are doing is cherry-picking.
GISS does not agree with the other databases. But you are trying to argue that it doesn’t matter — that the only thing that does matter is what you cherry-pick.
That doesn’t work here. Maybe Hotwhopper would be interested.

rooter

Any particular reason for not including ocean temperatures for 2014?
Hide the incline?

mpainter

Any particular reason to ignore satellite data in determining temperature status for 2014? Hide the decline?

mpainter

Rooter:
SST is determined by insolation. CO2 has nothing to do with SST. I’ve explained that to you several times already.

mpainter

Rooter:
SST is determined by insolation, not by CO2. Water is opaque to IR rooter.

mpainter

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?

RockyRoad

If I did that (infilling) as a mining engineer, I’d be fired.
On second thought, I’d quit a company before they had a chance to fire me for suggesting such an approach.
It’s that bad.

maccassar

So far I have looked at 3 press releases of warmest year on record for 2014 and the three data set had the record set by .02, .04 and .08 C. Hardly anyone in the MSM bothers with this part of it. Hundredths of degrees dont boost viewership or sell newspapers. Expect these omissions any time records are broken in the future.

herkimer

Here is what CBC reported about 2014 in CANADA
HOTTEST YEAR ON GLOBAL RECORD WAS CANADA’S COOLEST YEAR IN 18 YEARS.
Last year broke another global heat record, becoming the hottest since 1880. But did it feel that way to you? Probably not, since it was Canada’s coolest in 18 years.
NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced today that last year broke the global temperature record for the third time in a decade.
■ 2014 was the hottest year in modern record
Dave Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, acknowledges. Some of us might be surprised.
“I think most Canadians are going to say, ‘Huh?’ We weren’t that warm!”
NOAA reported many corners of the Earth experienced record heat last year, including most of Europe, the western U.S., part of interior South America and swaths of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans.
But in Canada, it was our coolest year since 1996, Phillips said.

tadchem

“38% sure” means they polled the guys at work and only 3 of the 8 said ‘Yeah” while the other 5 said “No way.”

Bart

Sadly, that is probably not a joke.

So if not 2014, what is the warmest year in the record?

John Peter

Well, looking at the error bars and the results of homogenization there is not an answer to the question. That is further confirmed by the two satellite records. There is a “pause” though and it would appear to have lasted for at least 15 years. It is anyone’s guess what will happen in the future.
Anyone predicting temperatures say 10 years ahead with influence on policy should be required to deposit $100,000 of their own money to be forfeited if the actual results are outside the error bars of the prediction. Members of teams collating official graphs should be banned from having a view on AGW or CAGW to ensure neutrality when collating and publishing information. Individuals such as Hansen and Now Gavin Schmidt should have no influence on temperature records, with them having pronounced clear beliefs on AGW/CAGW.

Jimbo

John Peter
January 20, 2015 at 8:33 am
………….
Anyone predicting temperatures say 10 years ahead with influence on policy should be required to deposit $100,000 of their own money to be forfeited if the actual results are outside the error bars of the prediction….

Gavin Schmidt now says that the pause that never existed will be over within 10 years.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/pause-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html

RockyRoad

They forget the hotter it is, the quicker it cools down.

M Courtney

Who knows?
62% chance it could be anything.
That’s the real news story.
That and that both NASA and NOAA over-stated the limits of their knowledge.

mpainter

1998, according to the more reliable satellite data. And why is it more reliable? There are several reasons:
1. No UHE to distort the data.
2. No data tampering by biased AGW types.
3. No data fabrication, aka infilling, by AGW bias.

rooter

One might wonder why the most reliable data sets are the ones that diverges most.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.10/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/to:1997/offset:-0.1/trend/plot/uah/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/offset:-0.1/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
Some special kind of reliability. No wonder Mears of RSS says:
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”
The lower tropospheric temperature sets are the ones that get the most adjustments too.

mpainter

Mears, of course, goes out of his way to chant the party mantra, using such terms as “denialist” to keep in good stead with the brethren . His RSS is lower than the UAH. Strange that he does not ” adjust” his data to an instrument data set. Wonder what he really thinks.
Christie and Spencer have different ideas about the value of Satellite data.
Why don’t you quote them?

rooter
mpainter

Either, rooter, see above. Your cohorts in the global warming business have made a foul stench of data (invented, adjusted, or otherwise tampered with) from surface instruments. Your avocation is to foist that on the gullible.But you have come to tthe wrong place.Take it to the dupes at SKS.

mpainter

And the real question is why do the warmers at NOAA and NASA ignore satellite data? If that data were taken into account, no AGW hype. The public is entitled to better than what we are getting, but we are fed a bunch of kawrap.
Rooter sees no problems here.

rooter

mpainter thinks satellite data is ignored. mpainter might some day learn that the lower atmosphere is not the same as the surface. But take comfort mpainter. There are also satellite data used for surface temperatures as well. One is a favourite of your friend Bob Tisdale; Oiv2 ocean temperature.
Guess which year is warmest in that series mpainter.

mpainter

And the answer, of course, is that the satellite data can’t be ” fixed” for AGW propaganda hype.
That is why I like satellite data and rooter hates it.

TRM

Holocene optimum followed by Minoan warm period then Roman warm period. Thousands of years warmer than today in our little inter-glacial. If you look at the last 5-6k years you’ll see we are cooling, not warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

rooter

Uptick at the end means cooling?

2014 could be anywhere between 1st and 14th warmest.
That’s as close you are going to get, even assuming there is such a thing as an “global temperature”

Anything is possible

“So if not 2014, what is the warmest year in the record?”
=====================================
AD 50
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0317-3

1sky1

Nick Stokes:
Satellite data–which alone has truly global coverage with uniform measurement methods and is immune to UHI–shows the highest annual anomalies since 1979 occurred in 1998 and 2010 All of the other indices are more products of ad hoc manufacture with various built-in biases than of reliable measurement.

Manufacture? Here is Roy Spencer describing part of what goes into a satellite measure:

They all stem from the fact that there is not a single satellite which has been operating continuously, in a stable orbit, measuring a constant layer of the atmosphere, at the same local time every day, with no instrumental calibration drifts.
Instead, what we have is multiple satellites (we use 14 of them for the UAH processing) with relatively short lifetimes (2 to 16+ years), most of which have decaying orbits which causes the local time of measurement to slowly change over the years, slightly different layers sampled by the earlier (pre-1998) MSU instruments compared to the later (post-1998) AMSU instruments, and some evidence of small calibration drifts in a few of the instruments.
An additional complication is that subsequent satellites are launched into alternating sun-synchronous orbit times, nominally 1:30 a.m. and p.m., then 7:30 a.m. and p.m., then back to 1:30 a.m. and p.m., etc. Furthermore, as the instruments scan across the Earth, the altitude in the atmosphere that is sampled changes as the Earth incidence angle of view changes.
All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them. For example, RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made (the so-called diurnal drift problem), while we use an empirical approach. This correction is particularly difficult because it varies with geographic location, time of year, terrain altitude, etc. RSS does not use exactly the same satellites as we do, nor do they use the same formula for computing a lower tropospheric (“LT”) layer temperature from the different view angles of AMSU channel 5.

1sky1

Nick Stokes:
Accounting for the response characteristics and precise positioning of instrumentation is part and parcel of all proper in situ measurement programs. In no way is this comparable to the manufacture of data where no measurements have been taken or the substitution of one measured variable (daily mean land air temperature) with another (instantaneous SST observations) whose sampling method varies, is exceedingly uneven geographically, and no credible, alias-free time-series can be obtained. Mere number-crunching ability does not sound science make.

1sky1

Moderator:
Where did my response to Nick Stokes disappear?

1sky1

Moderator:
Why did it take 20 minutes for my comment to post?
[Life happens. It takes a while to read every comment. Yours was not at the top of the list. .mod]

tim in Florida

At 1/100th of a degree with error bars of over 1 to 2 degrees who cares.
Only the grifters

David A

Nick Stokes asks, “So if not 2014, what is the warmest year in the record?”
==========================================================
Overall atmospheric T of the planet. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/us-government-agencies-just-cant-stop-lying/
Above average global sea ice, near record NH snow coverage, very cool US, ten year high in Arctic Sea Ice
all support the linked RSS charts.
Almost 1/2 of the worlds land data in-filled, often from warm oceans is a gross distortion. Record infilling of data makes the warmest claim useless.

David A

Here is why infilling from the oceans is so bad…comment image?w=640

Nick

NASA states that the average global surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 is 14°C, “with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree”,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
This is a bit vague. Several might be anywhere between three and nine. Fortunately NASA also clears thing up a bit, when it tells us that, “For the global mean*, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F”.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
*This is the global mean from 1951 to 1980, as confirmed by email from NASA. We now have a handle on the meaning of “several”.
Correct to 1dp.
58°F = 14.4°C
56°F = 13.3°C
(14.4+13.3)/2 = 13.9, which is “roughly” 14.
(14.4-13.3)/2 = 0.6
That is to say, on the basis of NASA’s own figures, the global mean for 1951 to 1980 is 13.9(+/-0.6)°C. The cash value of this is, that all of NASA’s estimates of annual mean global surface temperatures come with an uncertainty of +/-(not less than 0.6)°C. NASA publishes its estimates of mean global surface temperatures in the form of anomalies, such that if +X°C is the annual global surface temperature anomaly for year Y, then the mean global surface surface temperature for Y is X°C above the 1951 to 1980 mean global surface temperature of (13.9(+/-0.6))°C. On the basis of the January 2014 edition of NASA’s Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index:-
http://global-land-ocean-temperature-index.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-january-2015-edition-of-gloti.html
the year 1909 alone has the lowest annual global surface temperature anomaly of -0.47°C, and the year 2014 alone has the highest annual global surface temperature anomaly of +0.68°C. Hence on a niggardly small amount of uncertainty of +/-0.6°C, the annual mean global surface temperature for 1909 could be as high as 14.03°C, the annual mean global surface temperature for 2014 could as low as 13.98°C, and all the others years between 1880 could have a mean global surface temperature of somewhere in between 14.03°C and 13.98°C. On this basis, the global warming pause could have lasted all the way from 1880 to 2014. But that’s not the end of the story. According to the May 2008 edition of NASA’s Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index:-
http://global-land-ocean-temperature-index.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-may-2008-edition-of-gloti.html
the annual global surface temperature anomaly for 1909 is -0.35°C. You might very well wonder how it is possible for the mean global surface temperature of the earth in the year 1909 to decline 0.12°C between May 2008 and January 2014. What is the cash value of this? That the annual global surface temperature anomaly for any year from 1880 to the present is such an elusive item, that nobody knows what it is in reality.

“That is to say, on the basis of NASA’s own figures, the global mean for 1951 to 1980 is 13.9(+/-0.6)°C.”
They aren’t NASA’s own figures. They say clearly that they are model results.
They also say very clearly in your link why you shouldn’t do this:

“In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”

They work out the anomaly. If you want to pick a climatology to add, you’re on your own.

Nick Stokes says:
They say clearly that they are model results.
Stop. There’s your problem, right there…

“There’s your problem, right there”
It’s not my problem. These are the numbers Nick R are attributing to NASA and trying to find a discrepancy.

Old Man of the Forest

Putting satellites up there was an expensive endeavour especially if you favour infilled ground temps over the lovely new tech.
What does RSS and UAH say?

herkimer

Items of note about the 2014 record temperature that I have noted from various comments. .
Satellite records show 2014 temperature is not a record but only the 3rd
Temperature analysis is subject to a margin of error which is greater than the warming , Hence we cannot be certain it is a record at all.
According to NASA, 2014 Annual temperature has only 38% probability of being the warmest year
. According to NOAA , the probability is only 48%
Increase is only few hundreds of a degree, very minor. No statistical difference from previous years
Northern hemisphere temperature was far from being record year. Temperatures were actually cooling
Canadian temperatures declining for 17 years including annual, winter and spring
US temperatures are declining for 17 years including annual, winter, spring and fall
Southern hemisphere oceans are not warming
Global winters are cooling since 1998
Northern hemisphere winters are cooling 1995
Northern Atlantic AMO is declining since 2003 indicating a cooling is taking place in North Atlantic
Southern oceans are cooling
2014 Warming maybe due to near NINO conditions in equatorial Pacific and North West Pacific, No proof that manmade greenhouse gas had anything to do with this warming. Could be just an ocean cycle ?
I see little justification for the NOAA/NASA initial hyped press release without a more balanced and complete report .

Reg Nelson

Where is the the warming occurring? My guess it is in places where there are few thermometers and lots of infilling. Anyone know?

Alf

Rooter; why the desperation over.02 degrees higher then last year??

rooter

Don’t know. Baffles me. “2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record.”

Steve Oregon

Zeke,
If Berkeley is right and 2014 is roughly 1/2 degree warmer than 1934 what happened to the dispute between 1998 and 1934 being the hottest year?
Did warming since 1998 make the dispute vanish? If that’s the case there’s been no pause or hiatus.

John Finn

For crying out loud, the 1934 v 1998 dispute was about US Temperatures ONLY. I know you like to think that the USA is the centre of the universe but it only actually covers ~2% of the earth’s surface.

M Courtney

Yes, but the debate should still be remembered as it is relevant.
The same organisation who over-stated their knowledge of the global temperature this year “adjusted” the 1930s US temperature too.
It seems reasonable to suspect that the reason behind both curiosities is the same.

Reg Nelson

The 2% is a meaningless number, because two thirds of the globe is covered by oceans, of which there weren’t temperature records (of any meaning) in 1934. The relevant number would the the amount of area covered by US stations vs. the amount of global temperature data coverage at the time.
Of course the data has all been adjusted, several times in fact, so were not talking about real numbers anyway.

Alan Robertson

But John, the US is the center of the universe.
(According to some ideas in astrophysics, so is any other point in the universe.)

Udar

Don’t know. If single tree in Siberia can reflect global temperatures of the world for hundreds of years, why can’t temperature of whole continent not have same effect?
/sarc

John Finn

I ought to have added that Zeke’s already explained about 1934/1998 issue.

mpainter

The real issue is the unreliability of the surface data sets and the spurious temperatures that result from data tampering. The 2014 “record” high is phoney but serves the CAGW propaganda mill very well and of course, that was the purpose of the data tampering. See Nick Stokes and others pretend that there was no data tampering.

Two things: first, the effect of adjustments for station moves, instrument changes, etc. is relatively small in the global temperature record. Second, independent groups like Berkeley who start with raw data and have their own completely different way of detecting breakpoints and inhomogeneities get nearly identical results. See this post at Judith’s blog for details: http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

mpainter

One thing:
The data sets are in the hands of the global warmers, a much discredited bunch of pseudo-scientists. Their data manipulations are well documented. See Steve Goddard and elsewhere, including this blog.
Satellite temperature data is more reliable, thank you.

Zeke,
Just the fact that people are arguing about a couple of tenths or hundreths of a degree shows that the alarmist clique is trying to sell the world a bill of goods.
If global warming was a problem, there wouldn’t be any arguing about it. The arguments would be about what should be done.
Instead, the alarmist cult is counting angels on a pinhead. Nobody believes their narrative any more. You shouldn’t, either. You only argue MMGW because it pays the bills.

David A

Who is Zeke. Before political motivation the NH T looked like this…comment image?w=640
But with massive lowering of the past, and warming of the present vs raw, everything changed . Thus I do believe in Mann made climate change.
Here is the mean of RSS and UAH vs the climate models…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb.png?w=605&h=277

Bruce Cobb

They need to ramp up, and double down on the dishonesty, in order to prepare for the big UNFCC Liars’ Talk-Fest in Paris this November. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

As I have said the only data that is reliable is satellite data . Their data is meaningless.
As I have also said once solar parameters approach my low value averages I expect global temperature averages will turn down 6 months after those low value solar averages are reached due to primary and secondary solar effects.
Thus far solar activity continues much above the values I think are required to accomplish this. Example solar flux has been running around 150 much above the sub 90 level I call for.
That said sub solar activity in general has been occurring for a good 10 years and this time around when solar parameters decline toward my low solar value averages they should be able to exert an influence on the climate through primary/secondary means.
It could begin this year as I expect the maximum of solar cycle 24 to FINALLY end.
Then I will know how correct or wrong I might be because my theory unlike others has SPECIFIC solar parameters which if reached will cause the climate to move in an x direction.
Easily verified or falsified and direct and to the point.

Salvatore Del Prete
As I have also said once solar parameters approach my low value averages I expect global temperature averages will turn down 6 months after those low value solar averages are reached due to primary and secondary solar effects.
Thus far solar activity continues much above the values I think are required to accomplish this. Example solar flux has been running around 150 much above the sub 90 level I call for.
That said sub solar activity in general has been occurring for a good 10 years and this time around when solar parameters decline toward my low solar value averages they should be able to exert an influence on the climate through primary/secondary means.
It could begin this year as I expect the maximum of solar cycle 24 to FINALLY end.
Then I will know how correct or wrong I might be because my theory unlike others has SPECIFIC solar parameters which if reached will cause the climate to move in an x direction.

Please clarify a few things:
What solar parameters do you consider the primary and what do you consider secondary influence (I assume on temperature) and why do you expect a 6 month delay in the secondary temperature influence?
What do you consider an “x direction” for climate?
Which specific solar parameters are you following that, if reached, will cause that movement (a lowering a global average temperatures, right)?

herkimer

The 2014 record global annual temperature is mostly a NORTH PACIFIC record SST event .
2014 was not a record year for global land area annual temperatures . it was 4th only

Thanks, Anthony. Good article.
We live and are part of nature, our global effects on it are very difficult to observe. We should concentrate on mitigating our local effects, when detrimental.
There are no good reasons to make public policy based on predicted anthropogenic warming,
I look at the past, as recorded, to find a warming off some 1°C since 1910.
I’m thankful for it.

Are the unadjusted temperature data available? Surely someone has plotted these data.

rooter
mpainter

See UAH and RSS, both unadjusted.

rooter

mpainter: So you think UAH and RSS are unadjusted.
That must be a joke. RSS even uses a climate model to adjust for diurnal drift.
mpainter, why don’t you ask for the “raw unadjusted” data the receive from the satellites? Coul be fun.

David Socrates

Don’t tell mpainter that the satellites are not measuring surface temps. They are measuring the microwave “brightness” of the first 3 km of air.

Patrick

Either way, they are much more reliable than any ground based system(s).

mpainter

Don’t tell Socrats that thermometers are not measuring surface temperatures; they measure the height of a column of mercury (or alcohol).

mpainter

Don’t have any reason to suspect the integrity of those who provide the satellite data.
However, there are plenty of reasons to suspect the honesty of persons like Schmidt, the NOAA crew, the CRU crooks, et all.
So rooter, some deal in trustworthy science, some turn out crap and crank it through a propaganda mill and then shrug their shoulders when it catches up with them. Your heroes, rooter.

David Socrates

Mr Mpainter
At least the thermometers on the ground measure the surface temperature, and not a 3 km thick column of air
..
PS, you’d better have some suspicion over satellite data……the neither of them agree with the other, Especially since both use mostly the same raw data.

lee

David S, and with global brightening satellites should be reading ‘too hot’?

mpainter

Sockrats:
See above

Both rooter and scooter seem to think that UAH and RSS are the only temperature data bases that do not agree exactly.
But in fact, every database is unique. They are all different from one another.
And GISS is the outliar of the whole bunch.

Isn’t ‘Socksrates’ cute? Always cherry-picking his factoids to deflect the conversation to where he would like it to go.
Face it: Planet Earth says you’re wrong.
Who should we believe? You? Or the planet?
Because one of you is flat wrong.

David Socrates

Planet earth is on my side. Lots of meteorological agencies are on our side too.

What have you got?

My, my. Look at all those ^assertions^.

mpainter

Honest scientists. Makes a big difference, but I suppose that you don’t know that.

David Socrates

Come on dbstealey, don’t you have a chart in your enormous collection that shows GISS is an outlier?

Guess you better find one if you don’t have one.

David Socrates

PS….
..
“And GISS is the outliar of the whole bunch.”
..
Qualifies as an “assertion”

Sox sez:
…don’t you have a chart in your enormous collection that shows GISS is an outlier?
How many times do you have to be debunked before you go away?
Sockrates lost the debate a LONG time ago. Now he’s just backing and filling. But his endless tap-dancing is wasted here, because we know better.

Now, before socks goes into his endless “But what about…” routine, I would like to point out that contrary to his beliefs, I posted a chart directly refuting him. Therefore, he lost this particular argument.
Next, socks says:
Planet earth is on my side.
What a dope. The planet doesn’t tkae sides, only people do that. Planet Earth is simply not corroborrating the alarmist Narrative, and as hard as he tries, sockrates fails again. The planet is simply not doing what was incessantly predicted by socks’s alarmist clique.
The alarmist cult was flat wrong, therefore socksrates has lost the argument and the debate. Now all he’s doing is his usual climbdown; tap-dancing around the fact that thew planet itself is busy debunking his True Belief.
And rooter, give it up. You’re fighting a losing battle here.

TRM

– These 2 by statements by Gavin Schmidt just defy reality. Wishful thinking on his part.
“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.
“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”
A question I like to ask everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and 18+ years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
So Dr Schmidt, how long? You say temps will resume in 5-10 years. That would make the RSS data show 23-28 years of cooling. Will you then admit that the idea of CO2 controlling the climate is wrong? Or will you push it out further and further.
Will it take a full blown resumption of advancing glaciers to convince you that you are wrong?

lee

CO2 has risen over 30% if you use the 1700 base, in that period.

Bruce Cobb

Of course, the real dishonesty behind the “hottest year evah” meme lies in the fact that it is a political statement, not a scientific one. It is a red herring, meant to distract, not inform. They need to distract from the ever-lenthening Halt in warming, which basically blows all their precious GCMs out of the water.

Physics Major

I notice that the reported temperatures are mostly near the top of the error bar, making the most probable temperature lower than the reported value.

Paul Westhaver

Why would the reported value influence the probability of the true or actual error? That makes no sense. Since you are splitting hairs, I will split your split so to speak.

Now sorted.
Thanks

Jim

Open Dishonesty!! It’s all mental trick. NASA has a 38% belief in it being the hottest year on record also means NASA has a 62% belief in it not being the hottest year on record. It depend on what you are selling.

John Finn

How should the GISS/NOAA annual temperatures and probabilities be interpreted?
How about this?
Let’s imagine that it has become possible to determine the mean global SURFACE temperature for each year EXACTLY. Now let’s also imagine that some bookie has decided to open a book so that punters can have a bet on which year will turn out to be the warmest. The bookie is glad of all the publicity so isn’t bothered about the profit margin on this particular event so his odds reflect the true likelihood that any particular year will win.
So what prices would the bookie quote? That would depend on which temperature record he trusted most.
If he went for GISS the odds would be (roughly)
2014 6/4 Fav
2010 7/2
2005 5/1
1998 24/1
If he went for NOAA
2014 EVENS Fav
2010 4/1
2005 13/2
1998 19/1
So, while 2014 is not a certainty, it would still be be a clear (I won’t say ‘hot’) favourite. I’m not sure I’d bet against it.

RWturner

That makes no sense. If GISS were able to determine exactly what the average global temperature was for any calendar year then you would not need statistical odds and probabilities because there would be no error.

John Finn

That makes no sense. If GISS were able to determine exactly what the average global ….

Oh, FFS.
I’ve given the relative odds for each year being the warmest. 2014 is the favourite.
Is that clear enough for you.