What NOAA NCEI isn’t telling you in their 2014 State of the Climate Report released today

Yesterday I made mention of the fact that there would be a report today from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, now NCEI. Today, they have released their 2014 report, and unfortunately it appears they are telling porkies right out of the gate.

First, they claim in slide four:

“Four major independent datasets show 2014 was the warmest year since records began in 1880”.

While I’m not going to dispute what their data shows, I will tell you that the word “independent” is a flat out lie.

SOTC-2014-page4

As many readers know, NOAA/NCDC (NCEI) is the SOLE SOURCE of data the global surface temperature dataset. They are the source for GHCN surface temperature record, and for the ERSST v4 sea surface temperature dataset. Both are highly adjusted, the adjustments are in one direction, a warmer trend, and both datasets are entirely under the control of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. The other agencies and their “independent” datasets use the source GHCN and ERSST data from NOAA/NCDC to make their own datasets, applying their own set of adjustments.

This is why those supposedly “independent” datasets agree on the graph they plot – they start with the same source data!

NOAA knows they are the sole source of surface data, so it baffles me as to why they’d tell this porky to the press in a briefing. The only thing I can say is that that are trying to control the narrative with the press by making this false claim.

 


 

[added] Paul Matthews of the UK points out on Twitter how the Met Office said this in January:

met-office-2014-warmestFull story here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature

Climate scientist Dr. Roger Kennedy of the UK Met office recently expounded on this issue at WUWT in ” A Return to the Question “Was 2014 the warmest year?


 

Another thing they claim in slide 5 is:

Upper Atmosphere Temperatures Followed Long-Term Trends

SOTC-2014-page5Well, that’s only true up to a point, and what they won’t show you is their incorrectly claimed “independent” data compared to the the satellite data, such as Bob Tisdale has done.

08  Comparison 2001 Start
Note the divergence in trends between the “independent” surface temperature data and the UAH/RSS satellite data. Also note the note about the CMIP5  Model mean trend. None of the datasets even approach the rate of warming of the models.

Dr. Roy Spencer says:

Even if it has warmed in the last 15 years, the rate of surface warming (and deep-ocean warming) we have seen in the last 50 years still implies low climate sensitivity.

He has a blog post on the issue: New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset Implies Only 1.5 C Climate Sensitivity

The rest of the SOTC 2014 report is available here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201507.pdf

UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. provides this comment:

Hi Anthony – Excellent [point]. You are correct on their erroneous claim that the

“Four major independent datasets” are independent.

In our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

we wrote

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90 – 95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication,2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise. Indeed, this overlapping of raw data between different analyses of multidecadal surface temperature trends is an issue which has not received adequate scrutiny with respect to the value added of more than one analysis.”

Here are my weblog posts that include a discussion of this issue of lack of honestly presenting the actual interdependence of the surface temperature data [which also includes the BEST data]

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/comment-on-the-article-in-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/erroneous-information-in-the-report-procedural-review-of-epas-greenhouse-gases-endangerment-finding-data-quality-processes/

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/do-the-cru-e-mails-change-the-ipcc-conclusions-on-the-late-19th-20th-and-early-21st-century-surface-temperature-trends-does-the-cru-data-and-thus-the-ipcc-overstate-the-magnitude-of-global-warming/

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/further-comment-on-the-dot-earth-post-on-climate-data-trends-and-peer-review/

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/

In the later post, I wrote

In the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1” on page 32 it is written

“The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally, e.g., through CLIMAT reports and the WMO publication Monthly Climatic Data for the World. Commercial and other considerations prevent a fuller exchange, though the United States may be better represented than many other areas. In this report, we present three global surface climate records, created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit [CRU]of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v).”

These three analyses are led by Tom Karl (NCDC), Jim Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).

The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that

“The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.”

On page 50 it is written

“Currently, there are three main groups creating global analyses of surface temperature (see Table 3.1), differing in the choice of available data that are utilized as well as the manner in which these data are synthesized.”

and

“Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.”

The chapter then states on page 51 that

“While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results (Vose et al., 2005a). The small differences in deductions about climate change derived from the surface data sets are likely to be due mostly to differences in construction methodology and global averaging procedures.”

and thus, to no surprise, it is concluded that

“Examination of the three global surface temperature anomaly time series (TS) from 1958 to the present shown in Figure 3.1 reveals that the three time series have a very high level of agreement.”

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/comment-on-the-blackboard-post-a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/

More of my posts on this can be viewed at https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=the+raw+data+in+each+of+the+analyses+is+the+same

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “What NOAA NCEI isn’t telling you in their 2014 State of the Climate Report released today

  1. The reality is they are not even close to being the sole source of surface data, and this is why they are being called on their manipulations.

    NOAA is doing this to keep the soon to be obsolete AGW theory alive as long as is possible while having hope that perhaps the pause will end and temperatures will start to climb once again as they did prior to 1998.

    Well it is not going to happen and it is extremely likely the rend in temperatures going forward from here is going to be down.

    NOAA knows they are the sole source of surface data, so it baffles me as to why they’d tell this porky to the press in a briefing. The only thing I can say is that that are trying to control the narrative with the press by making this false claim

    • We’re actually starting to experience a strong El Nino and temperatures will no doubt go up as sea surface temperatures are climbing. This in no way validates their CO2 theory but they’ll claim it does.

      I’ve always marvelled at the record hottest claims. Often they’re lies, and when they’re correct it’s a Deerrrrrp moment. Of course it’s one of the hottest years, you climb a mountain and reach the plateau, any point along the plateau is ‘the highest point’. Alarmists are not known for their logic.

      • Their data now shows barely a ripple from the 1998 el nino, so why do you assume this year will show a increase for that reason?

      • Menicholas, that’s because1998 is slowly drifting off into the cold past. This is what crimatologists call Mann-made cooling.

    • @Salvatore: I appreciate the comment, but you have contradicted yourself. Which is it? “…they are not even close to being the sole source of surface data” or “NOAA knows they are (sic) the sole source of surface data”?

      • I think he changed the sentence halfway through writing. The first sentence should be “They are not even close to being independent”.

    • Which just underscores there inability for rational thought. Paris in December stinks, it’s damp, the days are short, and most of the really great restaurants will tell you that a good table won’t be available until January. Now Paris in late April or September is a different story.

  2. The anecdotal evidence that their is a concerted effort to alter the surface temperature record seems quite strong.
    In the run up to Paris 2015, the alarmists seem to want to insure theyve enough “recent evidence” to gin up the MSM and international support for their agenda. This will be accompanied by the big media scare that is likely to occur.
    Does anyone “out there” in the blogosphere have any idea when the GWPF may release their reports (which will hopefully) – put an end to the scam?
    The evidence of course must be there and clearly show how recent temperatures have been forced up, while earlier records have been forced down.

    There is just one case after another that seems to make this collusion, one giant (I hate to use this word), conspiracy…..

    Anyone with an update out there?

    • Or an update on last years find?
      Monthly temperatures which are marked with an “E” are “estimated” rather than measured. More than half of the current data for 2015 is fake.

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/

      NCDC needs to step up and fix this along with other problems that have been identified. And they are, I expect some sort of a statement, and possibly a correction next week. In the meantime, let’s let them do their work and go through their methodology. It will not be helpful to ANYONE if we start beating up the people at NCDC ahead of such a statement and/or correction.

      I will be among the first, if not the first to know what they are doing to fix the issues, and as soon as I know, so will all of you. Patience and restraint is what we need at the moment. I believe they are making a good faith effort, but as you all know the government moves slowly, they have to get policy wonks to review documents and all that. So, we’ll likely hear something early next week.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

      Any word on this year old problem and did anyone see the fix / correction / statement?

  3. I thought the 2014 hottest year had been laid to rest when Gav had to confess that the likelihood was about 36%.

    What’s the latest confidence? The headlines suggest it is a dead certainty.

    • It should be pretty high. They got the new result by upping the temperatures in their data sets. That should put their certainty at 100%. As for the rest of us …

  4. It will be cold in Europe. North Atlantic very cold. AO still negative. Solar activity falls and autumn jetstream will go far to the south.

  5. “NOAA knows they are the sole source of surface data, so it baffles me as to why they’d tell this porky to the press in a briefing. The only thing I can say is that that are trying to control the narrative with the press by making this false claim.”
    Baffles?
    Mr. Watts – your knowledge and work is impressive, but you are a softy and allow how you live, act, and think (a sincere compliment) to cross over to others. I will inform you that the gov’t, its agencies, and any NGO funded by gov’t will toe the line with the gov’t agenda. It is pure propaganda in motion. As the saying goes, ‘whoever gets the lie out first, wins’.

    • I use have been using NOAA/NWS products daily for over 30 years. I noticed a change in the 3-7 day technical discussion(I think it started earlier this year) recently.
      The last paragraph is now dedicated to weather that does not fall into the climatological average……………emphasizing anomalies(or lack of them). At any point in time, there will always be parts of the country with below or above average temps/precip.

      This seems like a format change that took place one day and remains, with few exceptions. I’ve been reading their twice daily updates for decades and had noted many discussions in the past went into details with analysis of extremes which always seemed appropriate……………when there were extremes to analyze.

      Now, the last paragraph is usually dedicated to it………even when there are no extremes. Maybe there is just more emphasis on this than before but I have always enjoyed and benefited from them sharing their experienced insight at this link and did notice this somewhat subtle change.

      http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=pmdepd

  6. World is overheating, Apocalypse Soon!
    Four independent global temperature sets, by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse that are not mentioned in the Bible in chapter six of the Book of Revelation: NOAA, GISS, CruTemp, Japan Met.

    • NOAA and CRUtemp are the driver and “shotgun”. The other two horseman are Aussie BOM and the Kiwi’s who say – whatever they say…..

  7. Does anyone think or claim that it hasn’t been getting warmer since 1880? I mean, isn’t this like saying the grand canyon is getting deeper?

    • I agree. So what, if 2014 were the hottest year. We are in the warmest period for the last 1000 years or so. So just like the hottest days of a year will centre around late January (for us down under), so the hottest years will of course be now. And it likely will get warmer still – 800 years ago there were villages with about 400 farms in south Greenland. They had cattle and sheep, grew veges and strawberries, fished in ice-free waters etc. If history is any guide the present warm period could easily last another couple of hundred years.

      • Andy
        “If history is any guide the present warm period could easily last another couple of hundred years.”
        Could – I agree.
        But – might not; I point out.
        I prefer warmer to colder.
        But I don’t know what will happen in five/twenty/seventy years from now.
        I hope it doesn’t get colder – a ‘Little Ice Age’ with seven or eight billion population (going into said LIA) could be a bit nasty, although the CO2 – 400 ppm [4 parts per ten thousand] and rising, maybe – should defer the time we can’t feed ourselves, a bit..

        Auto

  8. Can someone tell me why nothing is being said about LOWER stratosphere? I’ve mentioned it on here at least twice, and also on other forums. According to ‘CO2=warming’ theory, the lower stratosphere should cool. It DID, but it hasn’t cooled any more since 1995! And no one seems to be saying anything about it. Surely, this alone shows the theory is wrong, but I seem to be alone in drawing peoples’ attention to it. If you eyeball it since 1995, it has actually increased slightly. Now, this is not supposed to happen. When I mentioned it on a pro-warming forum, all I got was that it had cooled, as the theory predicts. But the replying poster ignored the data after 1995. No one else relied – and I have had the same on WUWT. Someone put me out of my misery – the lack of stratosphere cooling is a big deal, isn’t it?

    • Good point Jim, supported by the graphs in Anthony’s article above.

      This is potentially an important issue, and hopefully it will be explored/ exploited by contributors to WUWT that have the scientific ability to do so. Unfortunately I’m not in that category.

      • If only that were true, Old’un. But as you can see, yet again, no one seems able to shed any light on it! It nevers gets picked up by anyone every time I post it! It’s bizarre. I’m positive that a LACK of continued cooling in the lower stratosphere means the CO2 theory is shot. I’m also pretty sure that it proves RSS and UAH correct – as the troposphere has to warm for the lower stratosphere to cool (I think). So if the lower stratosphere isn’t cooling, then that means the troposphere cannot be warming. But no one is pointing to it except me! Seriously, please, someone?

    • It might indicate that any warming is due to another source than greenhouse gases, but I don’t find it significant enough a change to be decisive.


    • “August 1898 Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
      – Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

      Further background on this quote is provided by Stephen Goranson who writes on the Mark Twain Forum in a post dated 31 July 2002:

      Twain’s Autobiography attribution of a remark about lies and statistics to Disraeli is generally not accepted. Evidence is now available to conclude that the phrase originally appeared in 1895 in an article by Leonard H. Courtney. So Disraeli is not the source, nor any pre-1895 person; merely Courtney. The 1895 article is now available online at: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm Courtney may have read Carlyle on statistics (also quoted at this site); certainly, misuse of statistics was complained about before 1895.

      http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html

    • The “warm blob” looks desperate to get across North America and heat up the North Atlantic. Sure hope it doesn’t dive down and start messing with the Cascadia subduction zone.

      • Wow, might this explain how Wrangellia, according to its paleomagnetism, zoomed thousands of kilometers south, perhaps even south of the equator, and back again to roughly its present latitude? Yeah, definitely the blob.

  9. Honest question: where is the HadCRUT data coming from? Do they have a separate network of surface stations?

  10. Next Step: Target the red states with extra upward adjustments. A few special days on the calendar are also worthy of upward adjustment, like Earth Day and Al Gore’s Birthday.

  11. Show me an activist who claims to be a scientist, and I’ll show you a lying activist.

  12. I wonder why so little is said to about winter temperatures in Australia? Whether warming is only in the summer?

    • Ren / others … is the uptick seen on this years ice extent and other years about this time of year the adjustment in the measurement to account for water pools forming on the ice surface? It sure looks like an adjustment instead of some naturally occurring phenomena.

  13. Hi Anthony – Excellent [point]. You are correct on their erroneous claim that the

    “Four major independent datasets” are independent.

    In our paper

    Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-321.pdf

    we wrote

    “The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90 – 95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication,
    2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise. Indeed, this overlapping of raw data between different analyses of multidecadal surface temperature trends is an issue which has not received adequate scrutiny with respect to the value added of morethan one analysis.”

    Here are my weblog posts that include a discussion of this issue of lack of honestly presenting the actual interdependence of the surface temperature data [which also includes the BEST data]

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/comment-on-the-article-in-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/erroneous-information-in-the-report-procedural-review-of-epas-greenhouse-gases-endangerment-finding-data-quality-processes/

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/do-the-cru-e-mails-change-the-ipcc-conclusions-on-the-late-19th-20th-and-early-21st-century-surface-temperature-trends-does-the-cru-data-and-thus-the-ipcc-overstate-the-magnitude-of-global-warming/

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/further-comment-on-the-dot-earth-post-on-climate-data-trends-and-peer-review/

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/

    In the later post, I wrote

    In the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1” on page 32 it is written

    “The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally, e.g., through CLIMAT reports and the WMO publication Monthly Climatic Data for the World. Commercial and other considerations prevent a fuller exchange, though the United States may be better represented than many other areas. In this report, we present three global surface climate records, created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit [CRU]of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v).”

    These three analyses are led by Tom Karl (NCDC), Jim Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).

    The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that

    “The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.”

    On page 50 it is written

    “Currently, there are three main groups creating global analyses of surface temperature (see Table 3.1), differing in the choice of available data that are utilized as well as the manner in which these data are synthesized.”

    and

    “Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.”

    The chapter then states on page 51 that

    “While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results (Vose et al., 2005a). The small differences in deductions about climate change derived from the surface data sets are likely to be due mostly to differences in construction methodology and global averaging procedures.”

    and thus, to no surprise, it is concluded that

    “Examination of the three global surface temperature anomaly time series (TS) from 1958 to the present shown in Figure 3.1 reveals that the three time series have a very high level of agreement.”

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/comment-on-the-blackboard-post-a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/

    More of my posts on this can be viewed at https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=the+raw+data+in+each+of+the+analyses+is+the+same

    Roger Sr.

  14. I wish the posters and commenters here would stop referring to “adjusted” temperature records as “data sets”, thus giving undeserved credibility to those “adjusted” temperature records.

    • From your link: “Uncertainties arise from incomplete global coverage, particularly a lack of observations from the Polar Regions and limitations of the measurements used to produce the data sets.”
      A fairly recent posting on WUWT said that a part of the Arctic region they extended the land temp over the sea, to obtain the sea temp. (think I’m fairly close by my memory. )
      Seems like colder polar data may not be included – by using ‘may’, I am eligible for a grant to study something.

  15. definitely putting up extra fire wood …. it was so cold last night here 100 miles north NYC that I had to get out the winter quilts… NOAA and company are on full damage control spin at this point relying on their authority to press the press to acquiesce to the hallowed CAGW religion/meme/destroy capitalism/save the earth/punish the humans agenda …. sheeeesh

  16. No other science field, even social sciences, could get away with claiming “Independent” verification in this manner of shared underlying datasets. The real “indepedent verification” that they tried use, the satellite and balloon data, in the most recent 15 years actually does not support the 2014 warmest claim.

    This ” independent” claim simply is further verification that today’s government-run climate science isn’t science.

  17. A robust hypothesis is made robust by working with sensor data in different ways and by observing temperature in different ways. Robustness must also show that there is only one possible causation. To add to the above report I would want to see that global warming based on the anthropogenic premise is occurring in all areas of the globe. If some areas have cooled while others have warmed, you are dealing with something else. So I want error bars. Descriptive statistics could also be used (mean, mode, and median anomaly) to show or not, that robustness is a feature of the AGW premise. If the mean and median values are off kilter with each other, or the mode is skewed, you could be dealing with something other than AGW. Finally, broadly and geographically scattered treemometers with error bars and other yearly proxies used to reconstruct past temperatures, should be running along side our temperature sensor yearly averages. If proxy error bars are wide while sensor error bars are narrow, you could be dealing, again, with a non-AGW variable, including an artifact in the sensor data. The last piece is to look at drivers. If an oceanic/atmospheric process was in place that is known to drive global temperatures then you have only two choices: It is a natural process that substantially explains the temperature series, and especially, in spite of that natural process, AGW overwhelmed/reversed it. Why? If AGW is THE driver, it must be able to overwhelm natural variation when natural variation is in opposition to AGW temperature direction. If it cannot overwhelm opposing natural variation, it can not be said to be THE driver when natural variation is in concert. Why? Because the AGW theory is not robust.

  18. I’m amazed US tax revenues are wasted on roughly estimating the average temperature of our planet when there are no real time data for the past 4.5 billion years for useful comparisons.

    “Record high” just means its a little warmer today than in 1880, if we can trust the measurements (I don’t).

    But even if we had no average temperature measurements, and taxpayer dollars were not wasted on gathering these worthless data, everyone would know, with high confidence, that 2014 was either a little warmer, or a little cooler, than 1880. Or maybe exactly the same, by coincidence.

    The average temperature charts grossly exaggerate the importance of tiny 0.1 degree changes, by making them look like huge mountains and valleys on the chart — that’s done at this web site too, and is a huge communication mistake if the goal of any of these posts is to teach climate science.

    The stupidity of the average person comes into play when they are shown a chart of rising average temperature since1880 … and told the “bull market” rise will continue until life on Earth ends as we know it … which would be equivalent to showing an investor a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since March 2009 and claiming the bull market that started that month will last forever.

    It’s sad how easily a typical person is frightened by a tiny amount of warming they can’t see, feel, or hear … yet most people like to vacation in warm climates — often much warmer than where they live!

    So, it seems a lot of warming you can really feel, is good, if you’re away from home on vacation … but a little warming at home, that you wouldn’t even know about, without the climate change nuts constantly bellowing about it, is the worst thing that ever happened to our planet !

    It’s obvious very few American “warmists” know the 48 contiguous US states were cooler in 2015 than in 2005, because I hear or read them blaming recent unusual US climate events on warming … when there has been no warming for a decade based on the NASA surface data they love (and also based on the satellite data they’ve never even heard of).

    Climate blog for the average guy:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

  19. “NOAA knows they are the sole source of surface data, so it baffles me as to why they’d tell this porky to the press in a briefing.”

    Well, if there are other sources, we can cut off their funding and save all that money.
    … and see what they say when their pork is threatened.

  20. Could someone please explain to this non-scientist why the satellite data is not used (other than it doesn’t support CAGW)? Are there technical drawbacks that make it unusable or unreliable? What is their explanation for not using it?

    It seems to me that even if satellite readings aren’t “perfectly accurate”, at least they would be biased in the same direction, so that you could at least compare trends.

    Finally, if data points continually have to be “adjusted”, doesn’t that call into question the validity of the entire measurement system?

    • Well duh! The government pays them (with your money) to show that the world is getting warmer. Where is the problem here?

    • There are two major reasons:

      1) The satellite data only goes back to 1979 or so, so the record is a lot shorter.

      2) The data is for the “lower troposphere”, which is about 14,000 feet so it’s not all that low. OTOH, I often consider that a feature as it “rises above” the vagaries of ground temperature, e.g. radiational cooling induced inversions, urban heat island effects, etc.

  21. I just referenced this piece in a brief BTL comment on the Guardian’s “comment is free” follwing their rehash of the press release. After attracting several furious fact-free ripostes full of specualtion ad-homs and smears, the post was pulled by CiF mods. I’ve left another comment asking a certain pathologising ‘contributor’ if it was they who dun the deed. In this comment I repeated that the ‘four’ datasets are from one set of primary data. It’s still there 15mins later and I’m not yet back on the Graun’s naughty step… I’ve kept a snip of the latter and a copy of the former. :-)

  22. I suspect that if world temperatures cool, NOAA will continue to adjust their data set up slightly until it becomes obvious to everyone that the climate is cooling. Then they will let their temperature data take a sudden nose dive and claim that somehow human activity is rapidly driving us into a new ice age to our awaiting doom. Only by curbing said human activity and raising taxes can we be saved. The end goal is what matters. The means to that end don’t.

  23. Once again, with an eye toward Paris, be aware of the stakes and be aware that from now until then the pressure on every “scientist” to earn their wages will be enormous.

    Consider the Iran deal just cut. It will take a 2/3 majority of both houses to stop the executive order. The moment it is in force the money will flow almost overnight and the damage will be done. It will be hard to put that baby back.

    Fast forward to Paris. The blueprint will have been created and tested via the Iran agreement. An executive deal will be made, money will start to flow like water and the damage will be done long before another administration can do a thing.

    Karl, et al and its offspring such as this report are just small bricks in the building of the temple. Call it an evil conspiracy or a confederacy of dunces, it makes no difference. The time to do the hard work in scientific and political communities is now…. January will be too late.

  24. Two comments. Firstly the claim

    the adjustments are in one direction

    is a flat out lie. Without the adjustments the warming rate would be higher.

    Secondly it is close to contradictory to first claim the data sets are “highly adjusted” and next to be unsurprised they give the same results because they use the same raw data. Of course the point is valid that the word independent is misplaced because they start with the same raw data set. However, since this raw data set is for a large part (the 90-95% mentioned) the historical data that has been combined from many sources there is no other way of doing it. We can’t go back in time and redo the measurements can we? Therefore the fact that all four are in close agreement results from all four having independently adjusted and analysed the data and came to the same conclusions.

    If the adjustments were small it would be right to be unsurprised that all four agree. But since you claim the data sets are “highly adjusted” this can only mean that all 4 have independently decided these adjustments are valid.

    • Aran

      Two comments. Firstly the claim

      the adjustments are in one direction

      is a flat out lie. Without the adjustments the warming rate would be higher.

      Name the GISS/NOAA/Hansen adjustments (net effect) that have either (1) increased past temperatures (1880 – 1979 timeframes) or (2) reduced present (recent) temperatures (1979 – 2015 time frame. Of the several dozen adjustments, I know of only 1 that was even moderately neutral. The rest ALL cooled down the past measurements or heated up the recent measurements.

    • Wow, that there is some right fine sophistry, Mr. Aran.
      Right fine indeed.
      Now find anyone who is not already a warmista who will believe a single syllable of it.

    • I am curious how something can be “close to contradictory”?
      Either it is, or it is not.
      Interestingly, the pretzel logic train that follows this statement is completely contradictory since you first admitted that calling the four sets “independent” is a lie, but then go one to say they are independent, and valid.

    • Aran, you said, “…this can only mean that all 4 have independently decided these adjustments are valid.” Yes. I am sure they didn’t email each other or in any other way, discuss this issue encouragingly over coffee.

    • They did not independently decided these adjustments are valid. They came out with version after version of their data observing the “other guys” data all the time. What are we up to now, HADCRAT 4? It started out HADCRAT1. Do you really think that they independently made version after version never looking at the other guys data? If so, I’ve got some swamp land for sale for you in Florida!

  25. Even with all the smoke and mirrors, it still doesn’t look like a hockey stick!
    I still can’t find any reason for alarm, based on the cooked statistics.
    That’s why they need to theorize scary scenarios and look for any enigmatic weather event to “prove” the existence of the phantom greenhouse heat.
    History tells them nothing – we are in uncharted space, Mr Sulu.

  26. As the whole concept of a warming world due to rising greenhouse gasses is a lie from the get go, is it surprising that they lie about observations when the real world stops playing along?

  27. And does anyone seriously expect the complicit media to check facts or do the slightest bit of research? They will just parrot the same rubbish like the press release copying idiots they really are. No wonder people don’t trust them any more and are leaving mainstream media channels in the millions

  28. “As many readers know, NOAA/NCDC (NCEI) is the SOLE SOURCE of data the global surface temperature dataset.”

    I don’t think that statement is true. Global surface temperature data comes in from all over. So if you think otherwise, please show the source of the station data, and that NOAA controls it.

    I think the data sets are independent, at least at the end of 2014.

    Do they share raw data from the same weather stations? Probably (how else would it work). Do some of the data sets share the SST data, yes I think they do.

    Do they process the unadjusted data differently, yes I think they do.

    So the data sets are independent.

    Personally I cannot see a problem, unless a Conspiracy Theory is being implied. If a conspiracy is being implied, then that implies UAH and RSS have a conspiracy too as they use similiar MSU data from satellites which are under the control of NASA and NOAA.

  29. Unfortunately increasingly less stations are used worldwide over recent years and more of them replaced with estimates, These estimates use climate model temperatures they think it will be. The data series is increasing becoming half model/observation data. There are free to change it more than ever before, so now we are especially seeing the results of this dishonest behavior.

    Am I the only one that thinks we may have suddenly switched to the next negative AMO period? If so expect Europe to cool and Arctic ice to recover over the years. Wonder what excuse will be lined up for this? The North Atlantic looks it coolest for decades.

Comments are closed.