‘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
And this will be trumpeted among the Democrat Party Audiovisual Club (formerly known as “the mainstream media”) precisely not at all.
Is there any possibility of criminal prosecution involving the NOAA/NASA bureaucrats on the grounds of malfeasance in public office?
To quote Dr. Tim Ball’s recent assessment of this yetanother preposterous bogosity on the part of the climate fraudsters:
Goodness me, what would you do if you had to compare apples with apples. 1998 was an El nino year, 2014 wasn’t. How will you explain the spike when the we do get an El Nino year?
LOL … you’d better take that up with the Australian BOM … they think that 2014 was a (weak) el Nino year and have forecast a dry summer for the east coast.
Street cred, not so. I’ve just checked their site. However two points: the graph at the very top shows 2014 as the hottest year. Rather destroys the arguments written underneath. Secondly, the graph also shows how insignificant 1998 was. When next we get an El Niño as strong as that year, their will be a lot of egg on the faces of people who post here.
BoM press releases last year identified an el Nino year based upon their SOI … it was all over our news services … including the obligatory drought warnings.
Silly statement, of course a strong el Nino is going to happen at some time in the future just as it has happened in the past. Predict something for long enough with ever widening definition … global warming, climate change, climate weirding, no snow, more snow, no ice, more ice, hot, cold, etc. … time for warmies to get a real life, they’re all sounding desperate.
So their prediction was wrong. The fact was it was not an El Niño year. Even as a weak one as you suggest it is not an apple an apple comparison. My point stands – you’ll all have egg on your face when we do get an El nino like we had in 1998.
Funny that, BoM’s SOI says el Nino, ENSO indicated neutral to weak el Nino for the entire second half of 2014 … Same dog, same excuses … so obviously CO2 is not the problem anymore ? Where’s that egg ? Your point stands only in your mind. Hast la vista, baby.
[Snip. Labeling others as “deniers” is against site Policy. ~ mod.]
What??? I thought 2015 was already the hottest year on record!
/sarc off
It will be the ‘hottest’ year on the ‘record’. / NO SARC (if you know what I mean) 😉
Isis argue men to. Nobody ever said every year had to be hotter than than the previous ones. It is the trend that is the worry. (A complex idea I know)
It’s also unscientific and dishonest to continue to frame the debate in terms of “global temperature” or any variation thereof. It’s a physically meaningless concept, just a statistical exercise that has no relevance to reality.
I have followed the climate discussion for a great deal of time now. Climate/gate was a seminole moment in recent history. The next most pivotal moment in my opinion was when Gavin Schmidt refused to engage Dr. Roy Spencer. For me personally, I knew the jig was up, right there. We knew they were wrong, but now we knew THEY knew it, too. I think many of you surmised same.
NOAA Sea Level Rise data defies warming conclusions. Consider that in the time period represented by this chart, world population increases 7-fold and yet sea level rose in a straight-line increase:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
Where is the acceleration?
Where is it indeed. I keep asking that myself. Add that to the ever increasing list of failed projections. I just had a 70s friend warn me not to buy a house in Florida since it was going to be underwater soon. At our age neither of us should be worrying too far out. I didn’t challenge him since he is a good guy and my golf pigeon, but given his engineering and chemistry background his fear confounds me.
[Snip. Do not label others as “deniers.” ~ mod.]
I think everybody is a little sensitive to the possibility of loosing the precious “Hiatus”which has emboldened our hearts over the last 15+years or so . Is not the average global Temperature (what a joke that is) for 2014 weather ? Something the mean warmist climate scientists have been telling us for years.
:Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009 (Thanks Jimbo)
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
If that is is true then does not the same statement apply to an ‘upward trend ‘.
I like most of you do not think it will, but if 2015 proves to be the “Hottest Year Evaaaaar” by another 2/100 of a degree I will not be worried. My view is that the Global temperature has stopped rising 15-18 years ago and the oceans ,particularly the North Pacific are getting rid of the last of its excess heat now. More clouds are slowing this process but along with the Sun going into idle , extra clouds, extra sea ice exposed for longer and vast snow cover it must mean only one thing , Global Cooling.
Judging from Goddards and WUWT sites, I would not trust any surface temperature data from any government site. Its all fabricated to fit the AGW meme. The RSS and UAH satellite data shows nothing zilch nada no change for the short period of 30 years.recording
When one takes into account all the long series of “adjustments” to both raw data and changed “weighing” algorithms that have gone into the GISS temperature compilation and other records under discussion (excluding the satellite records), how can anyone make any claim of what year was the warmest according to those compilations seriously? When both the UAH and RSS satellite records are in general agreement that 2014 wasn’t even close to the record set in 1998, why are we even chirping over whether the 2014 “hottest” claim is (under government agency calculating methodology) 38% certain or 48% certain? The claim seems to me (under common sense methodology) to be ludicrous on its face.
Claude, Your claim is not supported by the graph at the very top of this thread.
38%?
Why not 37.998%?
Or 38.000024?
After reading Black Swan and watching failures of probabilistic projections for the last 50 years, the use of these kinds of numbers for any purpose is beyond a joke. The climate establishment needs to get over themselves. None of it passes the smell test.
Kirk: What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?
Spock: Difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say approximately seven thousand eight hundred twenty four point seven to one.
Kirk: Difficult to be precise? Seven thousand eight hundred and twenty four to one?
Spock: Seven thousand eight hundred twenty four point seven to one.
Kirk: That’s a pretty close approximation.
Spock: I endeavour to be accurate.
Kirk: You do quite well.
Ah yes….Superb stuff.
That quote is from the episode “Errand of Mercy” .
I’ve tried trawling for the clip but couldn’t find.
However, full episode on youtube…..go to 37.22 (exactly).
.
To Gavin Schmidt: no, it won’t.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/bom-withdraws-alice-springs-hottest-day-record-advice/6030090
well lookit!
As was previously mentioned , there is a percentage discrepancy between both sets of figures being 10% and 18% respectively , does this mean that several other years ,perhaps 10 or more have a 1% or more chance of being the hottest?
I think we need to see the full percentage distribution so that we can all have a good belly laugh.
BOB TISDALE
An analysis of the 2014 global temperature anomaly record shows that the record 2014 anomaly may not have been a global event at all caused by increased man made greenhouse gases but a regional SST record event in the North Pacific caused by unique ocean/ atmospheric interchange events that may happen from time to time. Perhaps new global atmospheric patterns are developing that we have not seen recently or before. There were near El Nino conditions and impacts that may have moved further north.
2014 was not a record for global land areas[4th only]
2014 was not a record for the entire land oceans for Southern Hemisphere( 2nd only)
It was a record only for Northern Hemisphere oceans SST anomalies and only the North Pacific showed extra warming mostly as shown on Bob Tisdale’s monthly reports of Ocean SST’s
The North Pacific SST has risen steadily from an anomaly of about 0.3 C in 2010 to almost 0.7 C in 2014. That is arise of almost 1C in 4years . A significant rises in the Pacific SST may have happened in the 1870’s, 1890’s and the 1930’s. Is this a periodic happening in the Pacific ? Maybe Bob Tisdale could revisit what has happened historically in the Pacific and more particularly in the North Pacific? .
Bob, are you saying that 2014 was the hottest year?
Should I put my money on Gavin Schmidt? If he says that the long term growth trend will resume in five to 10 years, then that’s a sure bet, right? With a five years’ margin? I’ve seen horse races where five years would make a big difference. I don’t have any money, and I’m not the gamblin’ sort, but if I did, and I wuz, I would. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t. His horses haven’t been finishing.
Further to the 2014 record warm year and the warming events in the North PACIFIC , here is some work that Bob Tisdale did earlier on the North pacific SST
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/about-the-unusual-warming-event-in-extratropical-north-pacific-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
One of the graphs shows EXTRATROPICAL NORTH PACIFIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES9 1981-2013 shows temperature spikes about every 10 years , 1984, 1990, 1984, 2004 and 2014 .. . So could the extra warming globally in 2014 be due to a repeating spike in North Pacific SST and nothing to do with greenhouse gases increase.?,
This graph illustrates the repeating spike in North Pacific sst
Enjoyed the article a lot and will enjoy ALL the comments later.
.
But the focus on anomaly charts of rough measurements always seems to me like meeting Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s and staring at her mole.
.
People here hopefully never jump to conclusions about the future climate, because the future is always unknown, but may forget that arguing about whether 2014 was a new record or not is almost a lost cause.
.
As long as the 1850 Modern Warming continues, because all real-time average temperature measurements have been made DURING that warming trend, there WILL be repeated record hot years UNTIL the Modern Warming ends.
.
We have no idea when the Modern Warming will end, or whether it already ended a decade ago, but ice core studies suggest several hundred years of warming, followed by several hundred years of cooling, are typical of historical climate cycles between the ice ages.
.
A 1,500-year climate cycle was discovered by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger using Greenland ice cores, and by scientist Claude Lorius working independently with Antarctic ice cores – the three men shared the 1996 Tyler Prize (“environmental Nobel Prize”).
.
The key to changing minds requires convincing people that more CO2 in the air is good news for green plant growth, and even if more CO2 causes a little warming, a little warming is good news too.
.
If we are in a long-term warming trend that will last hundreds of years more, I’m afraid debates about anomaly charts, and whether or not a year set a new record, are mental masturbation — some decades will have warming, other decades will have cooling, but record high average temperatures will occur regularly or irregularly while the Modern Warming temperature uptrend is in progress..
.
The right attitude toward climate change is:
.
“So What? Earth’s climate is always changing. Would you rather have the climate getting warmer or cooler? There’s no other option.”
Of all the years that are competing for the warmest year on record (the list given by the NOAA and NASA) 2014 is the most likely candidate. That’s what they should have said, not more not less.
What this post tells me is that NASA and NOAA overstated their case in the press as to which year is likely to be the warmest. In their minds, they need to make this case because they are still having trouble explaining “the pause,” and because they continue to insist that temperatures are on an ever upward track, rather than operating within a framework of natural variability. It is important to note that this has been their modus operandi since 1988, and they are now getting desperate to get the ear of the public as well as the government. My own interest is in trends. Even if this result is correct, statistically it is meaningless to any recent trend since 1995, as the 2014 result was only 0.02 degrees Celsius hotter. This is hardly significant and is overblown by the media, especially BBC, who we know to be climate charlatans.
If every year will be 0.02 degrees C hotter than the previous one we will end up with a 2 degrees C increase after a century, which is quite significant. Not that I think that this will happen.
One of my pet peeves is the moronic thing Brit newspapers do where they spell things like NASA as “Nasa”. One’s mind boggles at the illiteracy of whoever wrote their style manuals.
0.02 degrees Celsius warmer is an air temperature measurement and knowing the heat capacity of air I calculate the atmosphere has absorbed the heat equivalent from 1234.56 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs which is really scarey !.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
With all the fudging they do with data who knows was the temperature really was? But in any case the 2014 temperature is nowhere close to what the IPCC GCM’s say it should be!