Met Office Confirms 2014 Continues Global Warming ‘Pause’
Guest essay by Dr David Whitehouse, via The GWPF
With the release of the 2014 HadCRUT4 data by the UK Met Office, and the previous release of global temperature data by Berkeley Earth, Nasa and Noaa, the main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the “pause” in global annual average surface temperatures continues.
The Met Office said:
“The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C) above the long-term (1961-1990) average. Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.”
![new-hadcrut4[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/new-hadcrut41.jpg?quality=83)
Looking in detail at why 2014 was a warm year shows that it was down to unusually warm temperatures for a few months in the northeast Pacific. It is also obvious that had December not been such a warm month 2014 would have been much cooler. The Met Office says in its press release:
“Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, said: 2014 was an exceptionally warm year which saw warm tropical pacific temperatures, despite not being officially regarded as an El Niño.”
Unusually warm Pacific temperatures in the region they were observed indicates that what made 2014 interesting was not down to any predicted manifestation of “global warming.”
However, the Met Office considers that the temperature attained in 2014, and therefore all of the years of the past decade or so, would not have been achieved without human influence. In a press release put out in December (when HadCRUT4 data was available to October), when it was still possible that 2014 would have set a “record” and could have been treated as a separate event, they said that new research techniques developed by them allow for rapid assessment of how human influence might have affected the chances of breaking temperature records. They said:
“This technique, known as an attribution study, uses climate models and observations to see how likely an event would be in the real world and in a world without human greenhouse gas emissions – enabling assessment of how human influence has altered the chances of an event.”
Peter Stott, Head of Climate Attribution at the Met Office, said: “Our research shows current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climate.” Such attribution research is highly speculative and should have been flagged as such in a press release whose aim was the get the media to print a story suggesting that 2014 would be a ‘record’ year, and give them an explanation for it. As it turned out November’s and December’s HadCRUT4 data whittled away the chances of 2014 being a “record.”
In general the Met Office and before them the Berkerley Earth project were reasonable about the data in pointing out that a new record was not established unequivocally because of the large error bars that encompass 2014 and many other recent years. This is in contrast to the stance taken by NASA who proclaimed without doubt, and without even quoting the temperature and any error information, that 2014 was the warmest year ever.
2014 fits in perfectly with the suggestion that for the past 18 years HadCRUT4 is best represented by a constant temperature.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.com
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/met-office-confirms-2014-continues-global-pause/#sthash.sp1Zg6FC.dpuf
Mick
You asked “Where did the extra warming of the North Pacific originate? And why was this crucial information not included in media press releases?”
One can only speculate why the original press release was poorly conceived with inadequate scientific explanations prior to its release . The fact that this information was released just before the State of the Union speech and prior to the upcoming 2015 Paris climate conference has not gone unnoticed by the public . In my opinion the best thing that NOAA/NASA should do now is to withdraw the release or modify their comments. Left in in its present form, it further confuses the public even more when considering the comments from other scientists , the contrary Met Office comments as noted above and the different satellite data.
The problem is that retracting it now does little good since Obama used the hottest year on record in the SOTU speech. CAGW continues to be a purely political effort. Another issue that has sprung to mind is that for whatever reason the temps have reminded stationary during the last 18 years. That could also look like instrument calibrations might have been set differently. The temps could have been steady world wide disregarding the run up in 1998. Laws of diminishing returns as they tweak the data to show the results they want.
“US snow: National Weather Service admits forecast error”
“Rapidly deepening winter storms are very challenging to predict,”
But what is not at all challenging to predict and totally free from error is the climate 50 to 100 years hence
Using a length of time which means the person making the claim will no longer be around to be reminded of their BS , is one of the few ‘smart things’ climate science actually does.
Smart? Cunning, deceitful and fraudulent are better words
High school students should teach these scientists how to read statistical data. From HadCrust4 dataset, from 2001-2014, warmest year = 0.563, coolest year = 0.394, difference = 0.563 – 0.394 = 0.169
Error in data = +/- 0.1
All the years from 2001-2014 are statistically equal. They are all within the error range.
Peter Stott, Head of Climate Attribution at the Met Office, said: “Our research shows current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climate.”
Then how come my random walk function can replicate the observed warming trend from 1951-2014? Without human influence, random number generators can do the job.
Wow. This is really Gay News.
A slap-fight between Hansen, Jones (whose the mummy and whose the daddy) and the children Mann and Schmidt (first son and bastard son).
Love-spat quadrangles between gays is a battleground.
I choose the parachute and bailout of the this 747 dreadnaught to hell before it crashes and burns.
Ha ha.
Who’s the mummy and who’s the daddy….
“current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climate.”
So the many times in the past where it has been exactly this global average temperature, usually higher (it has been hotter and colder than today and logically it must travel through this current temperature) even thousands of years ago and before humans came on the scene it was humans?
FAIL.
Don’t forget, when assessing, validating and verifying UKMET data. IT IS ALL MANIPULATED. IE 0.1°C UHI
Another post discussing nothing, the alarmists probably can’t sleep for laughing when they trot out distractions about “warmest ever” and every sceptic is instantly diverted like a dog chasing a stick.
Even if the likes of Phil Jones can accurately determine the average temperature of the entire globe (which I seriously doubt) It doesn’t matter whether it’s warmer or not, all that matters is whether it is unnatural.
Please stop letting the alarmists lead you by the nose into discussing their talking points and focus on the CO2 link, that’s the justification for everything they’re demanding and it is also the hole in their theory – so dig there.
Agreed entirely,jaffa68.
Pre-industrial (pre-1750) CO2 levels were 280ppm, so we’re told.
Now the figure’s 400, an increase of almost 43%. A cynic could say that 43% of not a lot doesn’t come to much anyway!
Yet the corresponding fraction of a degree changes over the centuries are being mulled over and treated as harbingers of doom – ‘hottest yet’ etc.
How did the CO2 nonsense ever get such a grip worldwide?
Anyone who has not read the NOAA GLOBAL ANALYSIS-ANNUAL 2014 report I urge you to read it . It was very cleverly written .It claims 2014 to be the hottest record year but only presented evidence of record year for 8 northern European countries out of 19 that they claim had record years . Europe only represents 6.6 % of all global land and Northern Europe perhaps only a half or a third of this. The cold 2014 temperatures of North America which represents about 16% of global land only received brief coverage . They state that most areas of the world experienced “above average annual temperatures” . “Above average “temperatures do not constitute “ record” temperatures . Total Global land temperatures were not at record level at all but only 4th . There was no record warm temperature for Northern hemisphere land areas nor Southern hemisphere both land and ocean areas were not at record temperatures
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
So excluding the statistical consideration , from a regional perspective , the record temperatures were due mostly due to North Pacific SST and to very minor degree due to record warming of Northern Europe [less than 6.6 % of global land.
North Pacific Ocean represents about 21 % of global oceans or about 77 million sq km or the equivalent of about 1/2 of all global land areas . So when this area is extra warm it will have a global impact. Yet a detail analysis of how this area got extra warm was not presented . I wonder why ? Because it warmed due to natural causes and this would undermine the AGW alarmism prior to the Paris Conference /
Temperature anomalies do not exist in a vacuum. If the annual global surface temperature anomaly for 2014 were +0.6°C relative to 1961 to 1990 averages, then if this anomaly does tell us anything, it tells us, that the mean global surface temperature of the earth during 2014 is 0.6°C above the mean global surface temperature of the earth during the thirty years from 1961 to 1990. Temperature anomalies only have meaning in relation to the temperature of the base period from which they are departures.
In January 1998 NOAA claimed that (a) the mean global surface temperature for 1907 is 0.5°C below the 1961 to 1990 global mean temperature of 16.5°C, and (b) 1907 has the lowest mean global surface temperature of all the years from 1900 to 1997.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/climate97.html
In plain English, 1907 has a mean global surface temperature of 16°C, and this is the lowest annual mean global surface temperature of all the years from 1900 to 1997.
In December 2014 NOAA claimed that (a) the mean global surface temperature for 2014 is 0.69°C above the 20th century mean global surface temperature of 13.9°C, and (b) 2014 has the highest mean global surface temperature of of all the years from 1880 to 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
In plain English, the mean global surface temperature for 2014 is 14.59°C, and this is highest annual mean global surface temperature of all the years from 1880 to 2014.
Nobody has ever measured the surface temperature of the earth with sufficient rigour to rule out the possibilities that (a) 16°C is the mean global surface temperature for 1907, and (b) 14.59°C is the mean global surface temperature for 2014.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Therefore, for all we know the mean global surface temperature for 1907 could be 16°C, and the mean global surface temperature for 2014 could be 14.59°C. If it is even possible for the year with {the lowest annual mean global surface temperature of all the years from 1900 to 1997} to have a higher annual mean global surface temperature than the year with {the highest annual mean global surface temperature of all the years from 1880 to 2014}, then nobody has the foggiest idea of which really are the “hottest” and “coldest” years on record since 1900, or before.
Right so when the MET office say that nominally it was the warmest year on record, they don’t even know if that is true.
But the average global temperature anomaly isn’t really of importance to any living thing or even drop of melting ice. The only thing of importance is local temperature and then really only the extremes and not the average.
Was 1998 the warmest year?
No. Not according to this post. It never was. Not significantly warmer than 1997. And when 2001 came along that year too was a statistical tie with 1998. And all the years after 2001.
1998 was never the warmest year. Neither was1997, nor 1995, nor 1991. Etc.
Guess that means that hadcrut4 is best represented as a constant temperature since the start of the series.
From the article:
“It is also obvious that had December not been such a warm month 2014 would have been much cooler.”
And thus December temperatures should be suspect. Worked like a charm for them though.
Oh what a wicked web they weave…
“Quoting the temperature to one hundredth of a degree and the error on that measurement to a tenth of a degree is not normal scientific practice. It is against normal scientific practice to have an error of the measurement larger than the precision of that measurement. ”
I don’t see that as true. In particle physics, for instance, it is common to report central value with much greater precision than the uncertainity. Quick example: “1.14 +0.26/-0.23” which can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0558