‘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
quote from the article:
“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. ”
really? i expect maybe a small up – small down – flat till 2050 (it all depends how fast the AMO will go negative and how fast the PDO will turn positive but most likely flat
this of course with the assumption that the sun will stay “stable”. we all know that every solar cycle varies so best is to see what cycle 25 will do that will also determine what the next years will bring
Is the leading climate scientist Schmidt? He seems to have mathematics, specialising in modelling; but I don’t see any science.
If we’re talking dishonesty, then WUWT and their followers need to confess to the dishonesty they have been perpetrating about the pause in global temperature increases. Despite the misinformation on this and other sites, global temperatures have continued to increase over the last 16 years.
Cowtan & Way (2013) evaluated global surface warming across the globe using a statistical method known as ‘kriging’ and using satellite data to fill in the gaps where there are no temperature stations. Their study shows that the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximately 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
So, NASA.NOAA, GISS and RSS etc can measure GLOBAL surface temperature trends to an accuracy of 0.01C to 0.02C per year? Really?
Luke,
I also think that the ‘angels standing on the head of a pin’ discussion about the magnitude or duration of the ‘pause’ is non-productive.
What everyone should be focusing on is the much larger real deviation between IPCC forecasts and reality. This topic would be less clouded by minor deviations between datasets and the magnitude of uncertainties.
Right?
1200km smoothed grids for regions not measured and 13 instances of the words model or modelled? GIOG!
Luke,
Since this blog page began, I have consistently criticized all plot makers because they rarely divulge the certainty of their numbers via error bars. The AGW advocates are the first and worst abusers. Now even when the use the error bars they misuse their meaning. Better one not pick out the splinter in a neighbors finger whilst he suffers a plank in his own eye… or something like that.
Sounds like a very convoluted waste of time when all you really need is the satellite data. If it’s good enough for infilling, then it’s good enough for the lot.
There are many problems with using satellite data to estimate air temperatures over land.
Here are a few:
1. Satellite temperature data have come from a succession of 12 different satellites, requiring a site adjustment for the entire Earth at once for each transition. Further, the orbits of satellites decay over time, requiring a continuous “site move” adjustments for the entire data set. Finally, satellites do not pass over a given point on the Earth at the same time each day (let alone punctually at the time of minimum and maximum temperatures), thereby requiring a continuous Time of Observation adjustment every day. The fact that these adjustments need to be made for the entire record at the same time, rather than for individual instruments as with the surface record, means there are no nearby stations without the adjustments which allow comparisons to check for biases introduced by the adjustment. Consequently, the story of the satellite record is a history of major errors corrected after some time in successive versions. There is currently a peer reviewed paper pointing out a purported additional error that has not been publicly accepted by the authors of the UAH temperature set. They have, however, given notice that a new version is forthcoming which will make a significant difference.
2. As noted by Jim Eager, satellites do not measure surface temperature. In fact, they do not even measure the same portion of the atmosphere over different locations of the globe. About 50% of the signal comes from the first 3000 meters of the atmosphere (including the surface), and 50% from above. Because each altitude band above (approx) 2400 meters contributes less and less, that means the mean altitude of the temperature measurement in the TLT channel is close to, but above 3000 meters.
3. Actual attempts to measure the actual surface temperature using satellites have been made, with the current benchmark for accuracy being +/- 1 K. For comparison, surface instruments read by eye have an accuracy of +/- 0.25 K for mercury thermometers, and 0.05 K for electronic thermometers. UAH can report greater accuracy than that, but only by not actually reporting surface temperatures and not specifying too closely what part of the Earth/atmosphere system they are reporting the temperature of (as it varies by time, season, and geographical location).
Luke, go read Jimbo concerning dishonesty.
I have no problem with satellite data. You invent problems from routines.
Even when satellites go astray and data require recalculations, this is done in an established manner. In fact, such is being done right now, and UAH will be presenting a new version.
I do have a problem with adjusted, fabricated and adulterated data sets of surface temps.. A big problem, honestly. Seems to be no problem for you, though.
So today the hiatus is not real? I’m still confused on when it is real and isn’t real in the warmist’s minds. Is it not real on even days, or does in vary hour by hour? What is it? It’s so confusing when there are dozens of peer-reviewed papers discussing what you deny even exists.
Luke, you talk of dishonesty. Please spread your accusation of dishonesty wider to the scientists below. Please note that according to the Oxford English Dictionary ‘hiatus’ and ‘pause’ mean the same thing.
The following list starts from 2005, when climate scientists first became aware of a lack of surface warming up to January 2015. The last 3 references come with links. Now please take me up on my challenge. Spread your accusation of dishonesty wider to the scientists below. Next time do your research before hitting the send button. Sheesh!
Luke, if you prefer the word pause then here you go. So if sceptics are dishonest then so are a whole tonne of climate scientists mostly on your side who use the words ‘pause’ and ‘hiatus’.
What I see from all these quotes is climate scientists honestly expressing their views about the slow down in warming and considering hypotheses to explain it- which is how science progresses. There have been a number of scientific papers that have examined this question and suggest that when known sources of natural variability are taken into account, the warming trend is very clear. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to remove the effects of solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998 (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, vs. 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Ahhh Luke is back.
Some of those ‘views’ were published in the peer reviewed literature.
Oh deary me. In what way does that negate the statement that there has been no global surface warming for 15 years or more? I have read an untold number of reasons to try and explain the standstill, but that is not the issue. You accused some of us of dishonesty in stating OBSERVATIONS about the temperature hiatus. That is what you did. I am aware that there are well over 30 reasons given for the pause. It is not dishonesty to say what is observed. I see “natural variability” being taken into account. I vaguely recall that co2 was being trumpeted as NOW being the main climate driver. I have references for that.
I did not concern myself with the reasons for the pause, I merely make the observation and gave your quotes. We are now being given reasons for the pause but how many of the GCMs predicted 15+ year pause?
The following (which I provided earlier) also give some reasons for the pause,
Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
Climate signals in the mid to high latitude North Atlantic from altimeter observations
“…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00670.1
__________________
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062596
__________________
Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
__________________
Dr. Hervé Douville et al – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062775
CLARIFICATION
…I did not concern myself with the reasons for the pause, I merely make the observation and gave you quotes….
Hello Luke. Where are you? We can disagree whether there has been a pause or not, but your accusation of dishonesty needs to be spread wider. Will you do this from now on? At least post a new comment and call out the dishonest scientists on my list. The choice is yours. Can you actually do this today????? I am waiting. You didn’t hesitate to throw out the word dishonesty on WUWT. Why so shy now?
I hope you have learned a valuable lesson today.
Dishonest? You’ve just listed a whole lot of scientists saying there was a pause, slowdown or whatever, over some period of time. Which quotes are supposed to be dishonest?
Nick Stokes, I was referring to Luke who said:
He accused WUWT and sceptical commenters of dishonesty AND said there was no pause. I gave him a long list of climate scientists who said there has been a pause / hiatus. Soooooooo if we are dishonest for claiming there has been a surface temperature pause then he should be prepared to do the same for those on the list who also claim a surface temperature pause. Fair enough I think, don’t you? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Jimbo, I think that Nick knew that. Nick has his own dishonest methods.
Jimbo,
He can’t respond at the moment due to the severe brainspazfart (a uniquely German condition) you induced…
Bloody good work….
Now publish and make moolah out of it..I know one person at least who will buy.
Andy
Get with the Game, Nick … stop the hyperventilating already !
The problem with people like Luke is that they assume sceptics are being dishonest. Little do they realise that some of us do our research and stand on solid ground, though we don’t always advertise that ground. He felt confident enough to make an accusation of dishonesty about our claim of a global surface temperature pause / hiatus. Had he seen my list before commenting I doubt he would have made that accusation.
We can disagree whether there is a pause or not, but we should not claim other’s dishonesty without first dealing with your own side who also claim a pause / hiatus. You cannot have your cake and eat it Luke. Because of you I will be updating my list for the rest of 2015, just in case you decide to come back with accusations of dishonesty over the pause.
Let us take the mean of RSS and UAH and see if they look like a pause, and how they look compared to 1998, and to the model projections…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb.png?w=605&h=277
Which pretty much make the hype of 2014 supporting the failed theory of CAGW look like pathetic political hype only.
David A, the bottom line is that irrespective of the 15+ year pause or its causes the pause continues.
PS: Luke should know that since over 30 reasons (some say 50) have been given for the pause how can it be dishonest to state there is a pause and leave it at that? The onus is on those who formulated AGW and made their projections / predictions. Sceptics don’t have to give a reason for the pause, sceptics never produced the IPCC’s central surface temperature projections which have failed for previous reports.
Here is an example. If I put forward an idea, and based on that idea I predicted that the US honey bee population would go down by half in 10 years time. Then in 10 years time it is observed that the honey bee population is stable. Then 10 reasons are given for the stable population. Sceptics point out that my theory has failed. I then turn around and accuse those sceptics of dishonesty. This is what Luke is saying.
CORRECTION:
“David A, the bottom line is that irrespective of the CAUSES OF 15+ year pause or its causes the pause continues……..”
Regarding some comments about 2014 not being a record in the satellite data. I’ve just checked the GISS data using 1981-2010 baseline (i.e. same as UAH). The respective mean annual anomalies are
GISS +0.28 deg
UAH +0.27 deg
So the anomalies for the two are almost exactly the same.
The reason UAH is not a record or not close to a record is because of the magnitude of the LT response to the 1998 and 2010 El Nino events. There was a much bigger spike in the satellite temperatures than at the surface. It’s ‘harder’, therefore, for the satellite record to be broken.
What you are saying then, John, is that the past was cooled.
They do not look the same to me.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb.png?w=605&h=277
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Secondary effects on temperature as a result of prolonged solar activity I think will be the following:
A meridional atmospheric circulation due to less UV Light lower ozone in Lower Stratosphere.
Increase in low clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays.
Greater snow-ice /cover associated with a meridional atmospheric circulation.
Increase in volcanic activity – Since 1600ad data shows 85 % of al major volcanic eruptions associated with prolonged solar minimum conditions. Space and Science Dr. Casey has the data.
Decrease in ocean heat content/sea surface temp due to a decline in visible light near UV light.
That is my take from the studies I have done over the years correct or not.
Good grief!
I just remembered an old kiddy- cartoon image of a cuckoo clock going wild and breaking it’s mainspring.
I’ll say no more…
The reason UAH is not a record or not close to a record is because of the magnitude of the LT response to the 1998 and 2010 El Nino events. There was a much bigger spike in the satellite temperatures than at the surface. It’s ‘harder’, therefore, for the satellite record to be broken.
My reply – that argument does not hold water , because one can also say satellite data responded down to the volcanic activity in the early 1980’s and early 1990’s to a greater degree.
Uh! How does the response to volcanic activity invalidate my assertion that the El Nino events produced a steeper spike in the UAH record.
Where is the study linking El Nino to CO2?
in other words the atmosphere was warmer
Of course temperatures in the troposphere is influenced by volcanic aerosols in the troposphere and stratosphere. In particular for volcanoes in the tropics.
But not since Pinatubo. The claim by Santer et al that volcanic aerosols have had an effect on the temperature of the past decade and half is false.
How do know there has been no volcanic aerosols mpainter?
Your own measurements?
Other measurements. One failure of the Santer study was the lack of comparison with data of the previous years. This made his conclusion no more than a bald assertion, wholly unverified and typical warmer pseudo science.
My standards are higher than that.
You rooter may be satisfied with that, however.
Excellent mpainter. Where are your better standard measurements?
And of course, had he made such a comparison by presenting the data from previous years, it would have refuted and so prevented his conclusions, that volcanic aerosols suppressed the warming.
So, rooter, hero or dubious scientist?
Looks like the volcanoes excuse is a load of hooey … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again/
Still no other data from mpainter.
I had high hopes.
rooter once again demonstrates that his wit is inversely proportional to his sarcasm.
For a data link, use streecred’s link immediately above your comment.
All the proof you need rooter to show that Santer, et all falls on its face.
Have a nice day.
Here’s a germ of an idea that might be worth developing:
In the last few days I have seen Gavin Scmidt quoted about when the pause will stop and Michael Mann saying that it doesn’t exist – I’m confused. Here’s a suggestion:
I would like to see Anthony, the Bishop, Judith and Lucia (plus anyone else they would like to include) forward a joint request to Revkin, asking him to contact Mann and Schmidt to together issue a mutually agreed to public one page clarification of the matter in language understandable to lay people. A joint request would have more ‘gravitas’ than a solo act.
Why Revkin? He would be difficult to ignore and should be interested in the answer. Having the response appear in the New York Times would also be fun. If he refuses to play, the request for clarification should still be sent and we’ll have learned a little more about Revkin!
If Schmidt and Mann refuse to ‘help,’ they should be asked why.
Sounds like fun! Any downside to this?
Great idea if you can train a mutt to act against his own self interest. He is a politician/activist and will vet the answer before he asks the question.
Did you happen to read what Mr. Revkin has already said (NYT) about the new “record”?
Read Revkin on the ‘record.’. That’s not the point here – it’s the conflicting ‘pause’ stories between our most respected and esteemed climate scientists!
Notice the volcanic response in the early 1990’s and that satellite data is lower then giss data in general.
Bit not during the EL Nino years it’s not. UAH is higher in 2010 and higher in 1998.
LOOK AT YOUR OWN GRAPH.
This supports what I said the UAH warmest records are harder to break because there is a steeper spike in the ‘record’ years. Basically, the Lower Trop is more responsive to ENSO events.
Error Bars.
Error bars or bands are conspicuously absent from 99.9% of all published public charts concerning temperature trends. I am guilty of being a bit of a nag on this issue.
Interesting to me is the willful inclusion of the error bars in this particular instance. I believe that the science abusers out there come in 2 categories 1) Those who don’t know what error bars mean, and 2) Those who do and choose not to use them because it minimizes their hype of AGW.
In this case the error bars are of some use to the the AGW liars so of course they will include them! According to them, error only ADDS to the anomaly, it doesn’t identify the limits to precision and accuracy and computational dispersion.
I consider this lie a bit of “inside baseball” for disciplined scientists. The oozing mass of the self-interested general public don’t have a clue…. as usual.
I thought the entire error range for NCDC global surface temps was 0.09C +\- 0.045C. (NASA GISS is +\- 0.05C.) But the error bars on the graph in this post show +\- 0.09C which is 0.18C overall range.
Can someone clear that up for me. I want to post a comment about Mann’s reference to the error bars but I want to get my facts right first. (Already searched NCDC site. It’s a warren as usual. If you can give a link with their values, all the better- but it has to be for the global surface temps database, not regional or local). Thanks!
+- 0.09C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1
Thanks Lee. I hadn’t yet found it. In the meantime I did my comment re Michael Mann at Bob Tiddale’s site under his latest post about honesty in presenting the figures. I did that because I knew he would know the error bars anyway and go with it as a story if he thought it worthwhile. He replied but clearly thought Mann’s Facebook post as the usual alarmist fayre.
I may delete your reply on my blog comments feed. No offence. It’s because it was info for me only and it may confuse my readers as regards to what it could possibly have to do with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko stretching.
Of course, you are always welcome to stop by!
Scute
But to be honest I am surprised to see how close GISS and UAH are when the same baseline is used. Much closer then I thought .
Yes – I have been making this point for a long, long time.
Yes, the main difference is that UAH/RSS respond much more strongly to ENSO. Which is why they won’t set a record in a non-Nino year.
They now say it was an ENSO year, some sources, anyway. So BS button on that. High SST in N Pacific.
mpainter’s some sources says that 2014 was a ninjo year.
Well, why is it not the jump in tropospheric temperatures like other ninjo-years?
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/mean:12
After all. Ninjo does not equal high ocean temperatures scattered around the globe. It must include an atmospheric component.
Rooter, Go to the ENSO declarers with your inquiries.
Why does NOAA and NASA ignore the UAH temperature data?
Can you answer that question, rooter?
“Warm?st” Is that with an “I” or an “E”?
I think we’re missing the main point here. NOAA, NCDC, and GISS are government funded SCIENTIFIC organizations and as such they are obligated to adhere to the highest possible level of scientific standards.
The claim that 2014 is the hottest year on record is profoundly unscientific.
NOAA/NCDC knew this but they hid the truth in a link that they fraudulently called “Supplemental Information”—information that disproves your premise is not supplementary! This was not only unscientific, it was deceitful.
NOAA’s claim that 2014 is the hottest year is government sponsored PROPAGANDA. It should not be tolerated.
This isn’t a example of liberal media spin, it’s an example of government-funded scientific agencies intentionally lying about scientific results to push an agenda that will have profound consequences. Congress should investigate and those responsible should be fired or disciplined. We need to send a strong message that we will not tolerate government scientists telling lies or espousing opinions that are not clearly designated as mere opinions with no basis in scientific fact.
I emailed NOAA and demanded an explanation or a formal retraction. I strongly encourage others to do the same.
Someone needs to make sure that the appropriate committee chairs are aware of all of these types of subterfuges.
Another view
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/the-2014-temperature-record-no-one-is-talking-about.html
The anointment of 2014 as the ‘warmest ever’ year since 1880 is invalid because the NASA-GISS temperature scale they used is falsified. It is one of three ground-based temperature sources that collaborated to produce a falsely increased global temperature. The other two are NCDC from NOAA and HadCRUT from the Met Office. Their collabration left computer footprints on their publicly available temperatuire curves that consist of sharp upward spikes at the beginnings of most years. Their collaboration is proven by the fact that the computer footprints are in exactly the same locations in all three temperature curves. Comparing them to satellite temperature curves from UAH and RSS we find that satellites are free of these spikes. Comparison with satellite temperatures shows that their temperature goes up starting in the eighties and nineties, and continues to go up during the twenty-first century. It is so bad that the 2010 El Nino is shown higher than the super El Nino of 1998 is, which is impossible according to satellites. Now that babble about 2010 and 2014 being almost neck and neck for the honor of being warmest becomes irrelevant. Without a doubt, the warmest year since 1880 is 1998, the year of the super El Nino, and the other three contestants, namely 2005, 2010, and 2014, are not even close. I became aware of this temperature racket when I wrote my book “What Warming?” four years ago. I was intensely interested in the El Nino phenomenon and noticed a wave train of five El Ninos in a row in the eighties and nineties. They took up the space between the beginning of the satellite era in 1979 and the beginning of the buildup to the super El Nino in 1997. The valleys between the El Nino peaks are La Ninas and if you want to know the global mean temperature you draw a straight line from the tip of an El Nino peak to the bottom of the neighboring La Nina valley. Put a dot in the middle of that line and this is your global mean at that time. I did that with all five El Nino peaks and the dots lined up in a horizintal straight line. That told me that there had not been any warming during the eighties and nineties. This no-warming stretch was 18 years long, the same as the current hiatus is now. Its existence proves that such no-warming periods have existed before the current hiatus and may even be the prevalent mode of global temperature behavior. But then I discovered that HadCRUT3 was showing warming for the duration of this no-warrming period. This could not be real. Close observation showed how they had tortured their data. I had to put a warming about it into the preface of the book when it went to print. Checking further I discovered that NASA and NOAA were doing the same thing but both UAH and RSS satellites showed no warming there. These two satellite groups had been rivals and RSS was specifically established to make sure that UAH did not invent cooling. But by the time I got that far their differences had been resolved and their data had become extremely close to one another. This is why I consider satellite data accurate and the ground-based data a fabrication. There is no excuse for it and it has to be considered a scientific fraud. An independent organization should be set up to determine the extent of the damage this has done to our knowledge of the true global temperature record. Any and all conclusions based upon the use of these fabricated data should be withdrawn. To start with, the claim that 2014 is the warmest year since 1880 is invalid and should be formally withdrawn by NASA-GISS. An explanation of how this fake temperature got into circulation, who authorized it, and who did it should also be made public. If the responsible people can be identified they should be fired. And if you think this has never been done think again. In 1970 president Richard Nixon decided to cancel the last three moon shots. Grumman, the prime contractor for the Lunar Lander module, was forced to lay off ten thousand people in only one month. How do I know this? Very simple. I was one of those ten thousand.
(Note: This comment was too long for its intended original destination)
At 12:06 PM on 20 January, Arno Arrak had recounted:
Hm. Is the validity of this evaluation method confirmed by other investigators, and are the findings similar with regard to the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation during the more recent “hiatus” decades?
This is a bit of a figurative crotch-kicking for the catastrophist charlatans.
Blaming human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere for having ANYTHING to do with the temperature is like blaming the Hindenburg disaster on a child chewing with their mouth open.
So the median of the error bars for 2014 is less than 0.1 degree K greater than for 1998? What will happen to that 0.1 degree when or if GISS goes back and fixes the breakpoints for the 600 or so SNOTEL sites which transitioned between those two years? And if the ocean surface temps can’t contribute a healthy positive delta to the land temps, where will GISS make up the difference next year?
Hold on to that “old” data!
CAGW spinner Holthaus is at it again:
20 Jan: Slate: Future Tense: Eric Holthaus: 2014 Wasn’t the Hottest Year Ever On Land. That’s Terrifying.
(Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University.)
There was big news on Friday: Earth’s temperature reached new heights last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Averaged over the entire planet, that means 2014 was likely the hottest year in the history of human civilization.
But on land, where everyone lives, there wasn’t a new record. Global land temperatures ranked only fourth hottest, next to 2005, 2010, and 2007. Instead, 2014’s extreme heat was almost entirely on the backs of the global oceans, which beat 2003 and 1998 by a relatively wide margin. The fact that the oceans—and not the land—were so warm last year should deeply worry us…
There’s evidence the Earth’s oceans are undergoing never-before-seen change…
When you couple 2014’s record-setting oceans with our ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions, it portends an ominous surge of heat globally—on both land and in the oceans—for years to come.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/20/_2014_wasn_t_the_hottest_year_ever_on_land_that_s_terrifying.html
remember the MSM has been headlining the “hottest year” meme since at least as far back as september:
Sept 2014: Wired: Eric Holthaus: 2014 Is About to Become the Hottest Year on Record
with Holthaus also getting this headline published by the Australian media back in June 2014:
June: Sydney Morning Herald: Eric Holthaus: May 2014 was world’s hottest May in recorded history
of course, Holthaus’s biggest spin of 2014 was undoubtedly:
Nov 2014: Slate: Future Tense: Eric Holthaus: Global Warming Is Probably Boosting Lake-Effect Snows
In the aftermath of a massive lake-effect snowfall event in western New York state on Tuesday, it’s worth asking: Is climate change playing a role here? Because, I mean, come on. Seventy—seven zero—inches, people. And another huge round is forecast for Thursday, by the way. Buffalo deserves answers.
The short answer is: yes. Global warming is probably juicing lake-effect snows, and we’ve had the data to prove it for quite some time…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/19/lake_effect_snow_in_buffalo_climate_change_is_making_snowstorms_more_extreme.html
NCDC’s global temperature 1880-2014 dataset has 122 changes from their most recent 1880-2013 dataset it replaced. One of those changes was an increase in 2013 temperature and another was a decrease in 2011.
What would have been a decadal trend over 4 years of about +0.14°C is now +0.51°C, higher that the IPCCs most dire projections.
Presto, change-o! Obama is no longer a liar.
Eureka! http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/yesterday-most-depressing-day-of-year-say-scientists-disgusted-at-what-theyve-become-2015012094599
The N.Y. Times proclaims that “2014 was the hottest year in Earth’s recorded history”. Why did we not see the headline that “2014 had the most ice in Antarctic in Earth’s recorded history”?
Without adjustments to the temperature record, 2014 probably would not have even cracked the top 10 since 1900. Looking at the error bars in the graph at the top of this post, you could even say that 2014 might have only been the 14th hottest in the last 17 years.
The newspaper headlines also missed this.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
Quibbling over 100ths of degrees is moot. Temperatures are flat, and much lower than was projected. AGW is dead.
Until about 2012, NOAA had charts show global temperature anomalies with error bars all [the] way back to 1880. The error bars have now been removed. Looking at those charts you could say that 2014 may have been only 0.5°C hotter than 1945. But who do they think their kidding with their silly error bars. Does NOAA really know the average temperature of the entire plant +/- 5/100°C in 1880? Of course not. Even +/- 2°C seems unlikely. And the media calls 2014 “extreme” but in reality it was extremely mild. The satellite record shows that no month of 2014 was as hot as many other months in the previous decade. Only by averaging it do we find that it might be, but probably was not, the hottest year of the record. The media also pretend that all the warming was during heat waves but a few degrees of warming during super cold arctic winter nights would also raise the average. They should report average high and average low … but they probably lost the data.
“according to our crackerjack mainstream media”!!! Yet the media quoted here are far less reliable and known to exist for advocacy purposes.
If ocean temperatures are the culprit for the rise in global temperature and thus 2014 as the highest why 1999 & 2000 showed 0.4 oC while it is more than 0.69 for 2014. Which caused the 1999 & 2000 temperature fall??? Is it a manipulation of ocean temperature???
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
THOMAS
You said” I emailed NOAA and demanded an explanation or a formal retraction. I strongly encourage others to do the same.”
Unfortunately NOAA/NASA had and to some extent still have political boss(es) who maybe also global warming alarmists . So any positive change would be difficult to achieve .If more bloggers were to write to the new Majority house leaders, the impact could be more profound.