Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 1 AT END OF POST: I’ve provided a link to the slides from the teleconference and updated monthly and annual graphs.
# # #
On January 15th, NOAA Communications notified the media Wednesday: NOAA, NASA to announce official analyses of 2015 global temperature, climate conditions.
| WHAT: | NOAA, NASA media teleconference call announcing 2015 global climate analyses – brief summary remarks – questions and answers |
| WHEN: | Wednesday, January 20, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (U.S.) |
| WHO: | Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, N.C. and chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Global Change Research Program
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. |
See the NOAA webpage for links to the live audio, etc.
We already know NOAA and GISS will tell us that their much-adjusted surface temperature data showed record highs in 2015. We discussed and illustrated this in the recent post Meteorological Year (December to November) Global Temperature Product Comparison through 2015. There may be some minor differences, but the calendar year results won’t be noticeably different than the meteorological year data shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
And just in case you missed it, because GISS and NOAA both use NOAA’s ERSST.v4 “pause buster” sea surface temperature data, today I also published The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts.
I’ll update this post today as GISS and NOAA release their data and slides. So stop back regularly.
UPDATE 1:
The GISS LOTI data rose 0.07 deg C in December, 2015.
Figure 3
Not to be outdone, the NOAA NCEI data jumped a whopping 0.15 deg C last month.
Figure 4
Figure 5 is a comparison of the annual GISS LOTI and NCEI data, referenced to the base years of 1981-2010. The upticks in 2015 are listed on the illustration.
Figure 5
The NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2015 is here in .pdf form.
I’ll provide a full update for December, 2015 in a few days
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So what results did BEST get? Mosher is forever banging on about their methodology being “better”. So, what did the “better” method produce?
BEST is also showing 2015 as the hottest year on record.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_combined1.png
Martin Lott January 20, 2016 at 12:45 pm
BEST is also showing 2015 as the hottest year on record.
Not the point. Going 1980 to 2015, Best is a bit less than 0.6 dregrees. The others… a bit less than 0.6 degrees. Eyeball error admitted. BEST = Same?
95% CI of ±0.1°C pre 1900.
Data for all of Aus is supposed to be too poor before 1910 to take the ridiculously hot temperatures experienced seriously but good enough for some twits to think it helps to get the global temperature anomaly in the 19th C with better precision than satellites in the 21st.
Here is how BEST describe the dataset that they have graphed here:
“Land + Ocean (1850 – Recent)
Berkeley Earth combines our land data with a modified version of the HadSST ocean temperature data set. The result is a global average temperature data set.”
So, 2/3rds of the planet is effectively borrowed and added in.
And it’s the most potentially problematic 2/3rds.
Amazing to see that they have given the pre-1940’s temperature a confidence interval of approximately +/-0.05degree when the temperature shown was mostly derived from the handwritten records of sailors with buckets at sparse locations on shipping lanes.
Such astonishing global coverage and precision acheived using men, thermometers and buckets on ropes.
Amazing really.
Maybe the BEST team should go out into the real world and all have a go at taking an SST using a wooden bucket and then compare the results that they get for the same location.
That may increase the area of grey on their graph.
They won’t do this of course. Because they have fallen in love with the deceptive image of precision that is offered up by their own data tinkering activities.
Martin Lott,
B.E.S.T. is not reliable:
What is tragic is what if the earths ecology was changing to make it more hostile to humanity, instead of focusing on ways to adapt to a changing environment we wave our arms at windmills made of CO2.
What is more tragic is that people like Gavin Schmidt still have a job based on his questionable ethical lapses.
The tension in the elastic that connects reality with fantasy appears to lie well outside the tensile strength of institutional propaganda. The result, growing irrelevance before the shattering disconnect.
Taipei City experiences coldest January in 40 years. It was also the ninth coldest January in Taiwan’s capital since the CWB set up a weather station there more than 110 years ago. Jia Hsin-hsing, head of the center’s Long-Range Forecast Section, said the cold periods during January this year were relatively long.
“The chilly weather was not confined to Taipei City, with 21 of the bureau’s 25 weather stations around Taiwan registering average temperatures ranking in the top 10 coldest since records have been kept,” Jia said.
http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=148598&ctNode=413
The UAH and RSS graphs look quite different to the GISS,NCEI and HADCRUT graphs.
According to the GISS,NCEI and HADCRUT graphs temperatures have risen about 0.65C since 1980 and according to the UAH and RSS graphs about 0.35. 0.3 more in the GISS,NCEI and HADCRUT graphs.That’s 87% more.
Also there looks like there is no pause in the GISS,NCEI and HADCRUT graphs.
Which one is correct?
It might be better to think of it more as “which is least incorrect.”
At best our ability to measure temperature over large areas is sub optimal.
At worst, you might as well blindfold yourself and throw darts over your shoulder at a dartboard that might not be there.
Mr Tisdale the correct view of above is this
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
To be exact it is this https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/no-pause-in-nasa-climate-science-corruption/
Thanks for the links, Eliza. I always enjoy reading Tony’s post.
You know, the way NASA keep fiddling with data and stuff – it kinda makes me think the moonlanding deniers may have a point? After all the manipulation going on with the climate data, jiggling, juggling, etc – you’d think that filming in some studio/desert with 1960’s cctv technology and fooling average folk would be a doddle?
That said I’m looking forward to 2016 also being the warmest EVAH!
Where did the enormous hot-spot in northern Russia come from?
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/156B3/production/_87813778_anoms_ytd_col_pct_no_crosses-01-2copy.jpg
From Google Earth I figure this hotspot is Katangsky District, Irkutsk Oblast, Russia.
According to Berkely Earth, its cooling at 3°C/century since 1990. Not exactly blasting the pause out of the water.
Then there are the issues with Russian data. .
Should have left the reference for the chart in my previous comment
Seems my comments to the CBC article are being held in moderation and not posted by the CBC. I have used wed links to WUWT, maybe that’s what they don’t like. CBC can’t handle any opposition to their warming mantra. My handle on CBC comments is BillyChapel. Lots of warmer comments posted
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/2015-record-heat-1.3411797
If the NASA&NOAA “global” temperature records correspond to “global” anthropogenic activity (not the politically mandated fudging) then does global economic activity account for the increase and do the plots show “hot spots” corresponding to human population/economic activity centers?
Another anthropogenic fail of Biblical proportions on NASA&NOAA.
Ha ha
I’ll be more interested in these fine distinctions when we have results from a Global SurfaceStations project.
What fraction of the land surface temperature stations would get ratings of CRN 4 (error >2°) or CRN5 (>5°)? I suspect the answer is “a lot”.
If we complain to leaders of poor nations about the low quality of their met stations, they’d probably laugh at us. If we care so much about this data, then we should pay for it.
We have high quality data for all those regions plus the oceans since 1979. If one wants to go further back, there is no high quality data for many places, nor for the oceans. There are exactly 163 GHCN stations worldwide meeting the following criteria:
Raw and adjusted data
At least 100 years
Less than 4 succesive missing monthly values
Percentage of missing years not more than 10%
Ends later than 1990.
Of those, 3 are in Africa and 5 in South America. 44 are in Europe, 54 in North America. No surprise there.
Even if all these were audited, it would still be challenging to put together a representative land record. And that would not solve the undersampled, trade route biased, ship bucket challenges of the oceans. Sometimes, you just have to recognize the data you would like does not exist, and stop pretending it does.
Ristvan,
“We have high quality data for all those regions plus the oceans since 1979.”
Surface temperatures from poor nations? From where?
Satellites record lower temperature temp. Nor do balloons measure surface temps.
No. Lower/middle troposphere from satellites. Where all the warming action is supposed to happen according to the climate models.
As far as I know, the only well sited station in Africa would be at the Katumani agricultural research station in Kenya sw of Nairobi. It only goes back a few decades. Is the main place where CIMMYT does most of its African crop adaptation work. So accurate weather records are an important adjunct. CIMMYT = Norman Borlaug starting in the 1940’s. Big deal. Very reputable. Most recently they devised a partial fix to UG99 wheat rust in just ~10 years, with cultivars ready for commercial seed production by ~2012 . Was thought would take 20, if ever even possible. Merged 5 genetic traits to substitute Borlaug’s 1, which UG99 had evolved around, emerging in Uganda in 1999. Decimated wheat crops in Northern Africa, Middle East, and Iran.
They keep saying “highest on record” but no one asks how far back does that record goes? This really is kind of important. No one asks and they won’t say.
The mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 but it is doubtful there were reliable, world-wide temperature records until quite recently – a few decades at the very most.
Of course, “highest on record” sounds so much more extreme than the factual “highest in the last few decades when we have records”.
That’s well known info. You ought to try google sometime.
Nice non-answer.
It is well-known. The GISS and NOAA indices go back to 1880.
I’m curious. If I “try google” will that make AGW alarmists stop misrepresenting the facts?
No, but you’ll learn answers to questions you haven’t even thought of yet.
Nick always seems to forget that a lot of weather stations are in large cities or at airports. Saying a record goes back to 1880 is rediculous. How many large cities and airports were there in 1880?
If you’re talking about a record that is fit for purpose and doesn’t require massive fiddling, then that only goes back to 2005 with the uscrn. All other surface data, including data collected in the last year, has been fiddled with post hoc adjustments.
LOL, UAH just had massive ‘fiddling’ to version 6
Just as people were waking up in Sydney and enjoying the warm Summer weather, the usual announcement from GISS and NOAA that 2015 was the warmest year EvvvvvA, came blaring out from the ABC, but was soon overtaken by the important announcement that Australia had won the fourth 50/50 cricket game in Canberra against India.
After that everyone relaxed and went back to sleep.
I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global
############
Don’t go into the prediction business.
Good advice for anyone.
Actually, they did. On chart 10 of the 11 in their presentation.
NOAA goes into all kinds of predictions and claims concerning what the climate is doing.
There has been an explosion of public relations hires in government during this administration.
Steak dinner says they write such drivel and a select few scientists get to review or sign off.
It doesn’t take much to control the flow of information in large organizations.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability
“NOAA goes into all kinds of predictions and claims concerning what the climate is doing.”
The conference was primarily about measured results, not predictions and claims. There were questions from the press about predictions, but that was not the main purpose of the event.
I suppose we can argue about how much global temperatures have increased and why, but can we agree that the ‘pause’ has now finished and we are back on track?
Depends on the data set used. Using weather balloons and satellite data, no end to the pause. Use a set of data which has been homogenized and adjusted for propaganda, perhaps.
More like tortured data !!
No, Radiosonde data has never shown a “pause”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-sfc-radiosonde-temp/201001-201012.gif
BTW: That sonde dataset (Ratpac) is used to calibrate RSS…… err, what happened ~2000
Would that be a new Sat (noaa-15) carrying the new AMSU sensor?
Drifted a bit it seems.
I would say “no”, primarily because, in my opinion, it will take a few years of either a cooling trend or a warming trend before one could call the “pause” over.
Then, if warming continues, it would have been a pause but if cooling begins then plateau would be more appropriate, I would say.
Whether the warming trend is over is a different question from whether “the pause” is ove. “The Pause” is clearly defined is not a matter of opinion. It could disappear if temperatures rise. To see a change in trend is only possible retrospectively, but that is not the case with “the pause”.
I know that this site tries to promote good scientific arguments and to point out errors and implicit assumptions in published articles.
However, I am getting the impression that the people who publish these articles do not care.
There is probably no reason to take any government sponsored climate research (that is agenda driven) any more seriously than unemployment statistics that have very little do with how many people who have jobs, or cost of living indices that have little to do with what it cost to buy groceries or pay rent..
In the end, as the government keeps on telling lies, most people get to the point that they no longer believe a word they say.
eventually the scofflaw effect kicks in
When I saw the photo of those too, especially Trofim Karl trying to look all serious, I was thinking it’s getting to the point of being sad for them (yes, government-sponsored scientific fraud has been sad for all of science for years, decades even now), but this is almost like child prostitute trafficking, only for older white guys.
NASA & NOAA are going into full alarmist mode as they know their funding will dry up when either Trump or Cruz becomes president, and congress is controlled by the Republicans. Their only option is to try to rally the warmest troops with BS record warming hand waving in the desperate hope it will make a difference. They’ll also try to minimize any La Ninas that follow the current El Nino.
Their competitors for the funding are their enemies, hence their desperate little propaganda video trying to invalidate the more accurate satellite records. GISS & NOAA can kiss bye bye to their future funding, and rightly so – C’est la vie guys, last throw of the dice.
Personally, I won’t be happy until they are rotting in jail for crimes against Humanity !!!
Amen to that brother, although I think fraud might be the appropriate charge.
Marcus is right – crimes against humanity. People are dying because of this criminal behaviour. Other people are planning how they can rid the Earth of even more. There is hatred behind it all and that hatred is for humans.
CAGW “theory” says the troposphere should warm faster than the ground. The new results show the ground warming faster than the troposphere. “Theory” disproved. What’s the problem?
Thanks Ron
I didn’t know that.
Would you mind linking me to a decent cite on the matter ?
There are many articles here on WUWT about it. One I wrote on my own site is
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/global-warming-science-simple
The basic point is this: The theory says CO2 causes more water vapour to be emitted into the troposphere. Since H2O is the most active greenhouse gas, it magnifies the CO2 warming many times over. Well if so, the warming must start where the water vapour is, namely in the atmosphere over the oceans. If the land warms faster than the oceans, then it can NOT be caused by the ocean emissions of H2O. It’s impossible.
Thank Ron
A rubbish announcement with made up data. All over the alarmist media here in Australia. They also state that he temperatures are “scorching” here in Sydney. Well, no, they are usual for SUMMER FFS!
5th hottest summer in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/record-hot-end-to-2015-for-australia-as-giant-el-nino-dominates-20160105-gm02c7.html
The SMH, Peter Hannam and the BoM, really? IT IS SUMMER!!!! And not “scorching”…wet and humid more than hot and dry! And we know, as demonstrated here at WUWT, the Australian land based measurements are rubbish!
Interesting, if BoM is not to be trusted, then what data do you suggest for Australia?
why is any data needed ? who cares what the temperature is doing .wake up in the morning and dress appropriately if you are going outside.
“Chris says: January 21, 2016 at 8:14 am”
The BoM is on record for having “fiddled” with temperature data. Nuff said!
If the politics around CO2 emissions weren’t so charged this announcement could be seen as good news, who wants to live in another Little Ice Age?
I would like to know, if the govt really believes in the AGW theory , why do the they keep funding the scientists to keep proving it, it is either true or it is not,why do we need study after study, if they believe the AGW theory just stop the increased production of CO2. They should just say thanks to the warmists we believe your BS but now it is proven we do not need to fund you anymore.
Not a single paper of theirs has proven anything yet. Nevertheless they want a gazillion papers to form their “consensus” and to whack as many non-believers over the head as they can. We’re not bowing deeply enough, we’re not groveling before our mighty masters. We’re not handing over our wealth quick enough, nor rioting in the streets to bring down civilization, etc., etc.
Has anyone done the global temps minus the fill in stations and minus the adjustments?
Should be interesting.
Yes. The unadjusted data used by NOAA were shown at the NASA/NOAA presentation. They show more or less exactly the same trend results as the adjusted data.
Gerald, ignore DWR54, he’s delusional !! NASA and NOAA only present ADJUSTED ( tortured ) data…
“I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015”
_____________
In fact they made this explicitly clear and also presented a screen showing as much at the presentation.
NOAA Global Analysis – Annual – Land & Ocean
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Understanding & Interpreting Uncertainty Ranges
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php
Much of the stated record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans. Ocean temperatures for the year started with the first three months each third warmest for their respective months, followed by record high monthly temperatures for the remainder of the year as one of the stongest El Niños in the historical record evolved.
C F
2015 – Land and Ocean + 0.90 ± 0.08 + 1.62 ± 0.14
2014 – Land and Ocean + 0.69 ± 0.09 + 1.24 ± 0.16
2013 – Land and Ocean + 0.62 ± 0.09 + 1.12 ± 0.16
2012 – Land and Ocean + 0.57 ± 0.08 + 1.03 ± 0.14
2011 – Land and Ocean + 0.51 ± 0.08 + 0.92 ± 0.14
2010 – Land and Ocean + 0.62 ± 0.07 + 1.12 ± 0.13
2009 – Land and Ocean + 0.56 °C (+ 1.01 °F)
2008 – Land and ocean + 0.49°C (+ 0.88 °F)
2007 – Land and Ocean + 0.55°C (+ 0.99 °F)
2006 – Land and Ocean + 0.54°C (+ 0.97 °F)
2005 – Land and Ocean + 0.62°C (1.12°F) ** Improved Data, Smith & Reynolds
2004 – Land and Ocean + 0.54°C (0.97°F) **
2003 – Land and Ocean + 0.56°C (1.01°F)
2002 – Land and Ocean + 0.56°C (1.01°F)
2001 – Land and Ocean + 0.51°C (0.92°F)
2000 – Land and Ocean no annual data
1999 – Land and Ocean + 0.41 C (0.74F)
** The 1880 – 2003 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F)