Failed Math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 3.83 degrees warmer than today

Steve McIntyre always told us to “watch the pea under the thimble” when it comes to climate change pronouncements, this is one of those cases. Yesterday, to much media fanfare, wailing, and gnashing of teeth NOAA pronounced that 2015 was the hottest year on record, ever! There’s only one problem with that…the Internet never forgets. Back in 1997 after the super El Nino made global temperatures soar, NOAA/NCDC produced this report:

1997-GAT-NOAA-NCDC

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713 (h/t to Tom Nelson)

Archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20150504164341/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures. Since we know the 1997 El Nino caused a record high spike in temperature, that means that for that 30 year period, there was no warmer GAT than 62.45°F up until that time.

Yet in 2015, the claim for the “warmest ever” GAT is different:

NOAA-NCDC-GAT-2015

They say:

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

( Note that they link in that quote, to an image which does not exist: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201501-201512.png )

In the 2015 Annual State of the Climate report referenced above, NOAA says that the temperature was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. That’s an important number. While they don’t reference the absolute value of the 20th century average temperature for the globe in that report, we can find it here in the November 2015 State of the Climate Report:

NOAA-NCDC-NOV-2015

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511

==========================================================================

UPDATE: WUWT commenter “brian0918” points out that in other reports, NOAA give the 20th century global average temperature as 57°F – That may be they are referring to the 20th century average for the month of November in the initial report I cited, but don’t make it clear in the language used, or it may be a typo. Even so, it is still lower than 62.45°F. I made the corrections in the title and in the body of this post.

NOAA-20th-century-average-57F

==========================================================================

So here is the math for the claims, for 2015, to get the number, we have to add the yearly variation from the 20th century average to it to get the absolute number:

GAT for 20th century = 55.2°F

GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F

GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F

In any universe, 56.82°F is lower than 62.45°F by 5.63 degrees Fahrenheit.

======================================================

UPDATE: (using the 57°F 20th century GAT mentioned in comments)

GAT for 20th century = 57°F

GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F

GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 57°F = 58.62°F

In any universe, 58.62°F is lower than 62.45°F by  3.83 degrees Fahrenheit.

======================================================

Of course, apologists and NOAA itself will run to their statistical hidey-hole and say that the 1997 value isn’t about the 20th century temperature comparison, but only compared to the “30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.”, and therefore the comparison is not a valid one. (Meanwhile NASA GISS uses a 1951 to 1980 baseline for their historical temperature claims today, which is an arbitrary choice) But, I say it doesn’t matter what they say. NOAA is charged with presenting factual evidence in the context of climatic history, and when they make claims of absolute temperature, they need to be darn sure they get it right. Otherwise, the press, supporters of the cause like Seth Borenstein at AP, and the folks at the Washington Post just blindly regurgitate what NOAA says without questioning it.

To give an example of how the media can’t even do basic fact checking anymore, I calculated the GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F Simple math, right? Yet somehow, in press reports, that number got transposed to 58.62°F. Just look:

(UPDATE: If the 57F 20th century GAT value is used referenced in updates above, then we get the 58.62 number that is cited – while my math was correct, I relied on the context from the November, SOTC report, which was not clear, I’ve made the appropriate corrections.)

It appears that the source of that 58.62 number in error was Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press, though I can’t tell if he made the error himself, or quoted NOAA. This is what he wrote in the AP story:

NOAA said 2015’s temperature was 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (14.79 degrees Celsius), passing 2014 by a record margin of 0.29 degrees. That’s 1.62 degrees above the 20th-century average. NASA, which measures differently, said 2015 was 0.23 degrees warmer than the record set in 2014 and 1.6 degrees above 20th century average.

The point to be made here is that NOAA professes to be an expert at telling the public what the temperature is, when so many contradictions and errors creep into what is presented to the public, we should all learn to take what NOAA says, and what the media says with a grain of salt.

When you look at temperature that isn’t biased by continuous adjustments, such as NOAA’s highly questionable fiddling with sea surface temperature data this year, you find that 2015 was not the hottest record at all according to the U.S> Climate Reference Network data, which is a state of the art system designed to need no “corrections” of any kind. 2015 comes in third for the USA:

2015- CONUS- USCRN

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets[]=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made. NOAA doesn’t seem to like referencing this state of the art USCRN system in their public reports, preferring instead to rely on their old, messy, error prone, and highly adjusted COOP/USHCN network which has been shown to have significant biases. They claim in their SOTC report from Jan 2016 that it was the 2nd hottest year on record for the CONUS:

In 2015, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.4°F, 2.4°F above the 20th century average. This was the second warmest year in the 121-year period of record for the CONUS.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513

As I’ve said before, NOAA can’t seem to keep historical temperatures static, and thus the claims made referencing them, accurate. They change from month to month, and when there is no firmament to the history they present, why trust them?

Dr. John Christy said it best:

“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”

Reference: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

If NOAA can’t keep a simple claim accurate, such as what the GAT was in 1997 versus 2015, why indeed should we trust them? We shouldn’t, we should question everything, always, because it seems the global temperature is not only nothing more than a statistical construct, it is as fickle as the political wind.

Meanwhile, satellite temperature data, which NOAA and NASA don’t like to use, shows the Earth as third warmest in 2015.

I’ll have more on this story via updates.

UPDATE: Dr Richard Lindzen notes:

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.

“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend.  Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.

“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations.  Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.

“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.

Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/20/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-on-hottest-year-claim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/#ixzz3xueX8Qe4

333 thoughts on “Failed Math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 3.83 degrees warmer than today

    • I’m pretty sure that the various right-wing governments of the USA, the UK, and Australia will find a way of changing that.

      (I know. Redundant to say “right-wing”. US governments wing from very right-wing – which Americans call “socialist” – to extreme right-wing. UK and Australian govs swing from centrist/moderate right to close to very right-wing. They haven’t had a left-wing government for years.)

      • “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
        — Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party).

        I never actually expected I’d live to see this happen, but it has and there’s no doubt anymore.

      • And I’d also argue you “right/left” analysis is off track; the important axis is totalitarian/libertarian. Both the right and left of the US, the UK and Europe are totalitarian, there’s no fundamental difference between them other than which things they consider more important to control and how they plan on doing it.

      • Eh? In the UK we spend over £100 billion in welfare payments, have a socialist health service (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) and a state-centralised and controlled education system. The state takes over 40% of GDP in taxes. Not left wing?

      • How’s that, again? “America hasn’t had a left-wing government for years”? Are you using a different yardstick than everyone else, or haven’t you been paying attention for the last 7 years?

      • Socialist governments are not right wing! Socialist, Communist, and Fascist are all left wing forms of government. Get a clue.

      • RoHa must consider the North Korean government to be moderate if he thinks Australia has a far right government. We did have a conservative PM but he was deposed by a leftist who believes ETS’s are a good way to control the climate.

    • are we also vitriolic about those obviously cerebrally inept buffoons who said the earth was flat? or is that all just water under the bridge now?

      Liberals believe that? I’m pretty sure liberals just recognise alternative preferences to their own. Obviously youre not liberal, but i dont see where it says “the ends justify the means” in the liberal’s handbook.

      • The battle cry of the liberal is: “the end justifies the means.” Truth, principle, or being right is not the main concern of the liberal … results are. No wonder liberals have problems among themselves . . . not all of them are that liberal.

      • Whether or not it’s in the handbook, it’s the motto by which every liberal lives.
        Just look at how they are willing to lie about anything.

      • HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie

        What’s wrong cc do you feel lonely over at the little Sceptical science ???

      • Vitriolic-“filled with bitter criticism or malice,acrimonious, rancorous, bitter, caustic, mordant, acerbic, trenchant, virulent, spiteful, savage, venomous, poisonous, malicious, splenetic”

        How on earth can you tell from Marcus’s comment whether he’s vitriolic or not? Liars are liars. Logical does not equate the stating of a fact, or the truth as one sees it, as automatically equating with vitriol, even if the statement is negative or unpleasant.

        An obviously cerebrally inept buffoon- would be mentally incompetent, so you’d have to do indepth analysis to prove whether or not something they said was simply mistaken or an intentional lie.

      • I think the term statist describes the despot mentality more broadly . Here’s my favorite relevant quote :

        We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.

        Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quoted in Max Eastman : Reflections on the Failure of Socialism

      • True liberals have no desire to change others unless there’s provable harm being done. AGW is fabricated, there’s no proof. That’s why the people promoting it should not be called liberals, they aren’t. They’re totalitarian elitists who have no respect for liberty, private property, freedom of choice, any of the liberal ideals. That they’ve successfully co-opted the term is not to their credit nor should it be tolerated. The should be called what they are and not allowed to hide behind an honorable classification once claimed by many of the great western philosophers.

      • …those obviously cerebrally inept buffoons who said the earth was flat?

        And who are they?

        “The Earth was flat” myth was generated in Victorian times for reasons not known but often surmised to be an attempt to show how superior science was to times past. Columbus knew the Earth was round (but bigger than he thought); the Vikings knew the Earth was round, as did the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians. There did (still does?) exist a Flat Earth Society, of which Spike Milligan was perhaps the most famous member, however, I doubt he truly believed it to be flat, just that the idea fitted in so well with his humour.

        Sorry to nag you like this, but you should realise that promulgating known myths as fact is not a good way to ensure others can accept your other comments as reasonable or correct.

      • “HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie”

        Is anyone who posts a contrary position a troll? It seems that catiecaitie has made some well argued points and has remained civil in the face of insults such as “YOU are a cerebrally inept buffoon” “add being a chameleon to your undesirable traits.” “ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.”
        “cc is quite the crybaby, whining ” “credulous and naive” and being accused of fabricating evidence about the Hubble telescope when the telescope was never mentioned – it was the Hubble constant.*

        More general insults of those that disgree include “totally corrupt bastards” “gullible dopes” “AGW Kultists… engaging in hysteric fraud.”

        Someone here linked to an article on Judith Curry’s blog titled “10 signs of intellectual honesty” Number 1 is :
        1) Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance. (emphasis mine)

        In the exchanges on this blog the signs of intellectual dishonesty are clear to see. Next time you wish to use insulting or derogatory language about someone you disagree with, just remember what Judith Curry pointed out.

        *As an aside- Hubble came up with his observations that apparent velocity of distant galaxies was proportional to distance. The proportionality constant relating distance with velocity is the Hubble constant refered to by CC. It was estimated to be about 500 km/s/Mpc back in the 1920’s. The first “good” estimate was 75 in 1958, and current estimates are about 67.80±0.77. The units are interesting, because km and Mpc are both distance units, so they cancel out leaving the SI unit as /s.

      • seaice1:

        I see you are uniting with the cc troll saying

        It seems that catiecaitie has made some well argued points and has remained civil in the face of insults such as “YOU are a cerebrally inept buffoon”

        Absolutely not!
        The animated responses have all been reasonable reactions to abusive behaviours of the “cerebrally inept buffoon” (I wish I had thought of that accurate description) who has not made any “well argued points”.

        As example, please see the subthread that begins here and ends with a summary by John B.

        Richard

      • “Obviously youre not liberal, but i dont see where it says “the ends justify the means” in the liberal’s handbook.”

        Hey there, can you send us a link to a copy of this handbook you are referencing?
        What edition are you reading?
        Is it a thin book, one which you know by heart, or did you have to read through it again to check on this specific issue?

        Thanks in advance.

      • Menicholas (In reply to caitiecaitie)

        “Obviously youre not liberal, but i dont see where it says “the ends justify the means” in the liberal’s handbook.”

        Hey there, can you send us a link to a copy of this handbook you are referencing?
        What edition are you reading?
        Is it a thin book, one which you know by heart, or did you have to read through it again to check on this specific issue?

        The classic Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals starts with their commandment “My ends justify my means; but your morals, your means, and your life are illegal, immoral, unethical and fattening.”
        Marx only wrote his books using that as a starting point.

      • Harry Reed several times from the podium of the Senate stated that Romney did not pay his taxes. A couple of months ago during an interview he was asked about this lie. In response he smiled and said “We won, didn’t we?’

    • Not so much ‘Liberals’ as ‘r selection’ species, its a genetics (epigentics actually), thing. These types generally are what we refer to as progressives or Leftists or Liberals, but may cross other boundaries. One commonalty, among others, is that they are prone to cheating.

    • CC, the more you comment, the more you show that YOU are a cerebrally inept buffoon, and I have a model to prove it !!

      • Yes marcus, I understand your modus operandi is simple insult and ad hom.
        That however, wont earn you publication and nor does it lend your points credence.

        You are free however, to engage in the quotemining I’ve seen here, and I suspect this will be the sum total of your “model”.

        Marcus. Could you comment on what you think is the merit of corroborating data and drawing conclusions based on the corroboration?
        Before you’ve done that, feel free to examine the same parameter in the datasets available in NASA and JMT. Get back to me when you’ve drawn your conclusion about what you thihnk NOAA SHOULD have said about 2015 high temperatures.

        Go on, I’m keen to learn how you process those data – my current understanding of how you do it is – I hope – very wrong.

      • cc,

        And as I’ve pointed out, your M.O. is to endlessly deflect.

        Your incessant deflection is done to avoid the fact that the observed warming is natural and normal. You have never produced any measurements of AGW, despite being asked repeatedly.

        In science, data is essential. Measurements are data. But you have no measurements quantifying your DAGW belief system.

        Wake me if you can find verifiable, testable, empirical measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming…

        …or, keep deflecting like you always do.

      • “Yes marcus, I understand your modus operandi is simple insult and ad hom.
        That however, wont earn you publication and nor does it lend your points credence. ”

        Upon what do you base your assumption that marcus wants to earn publication or credence with you?

      • hello dbstealey.
        Erm.. I have to do that? why? What claim do you think I’m making dbstealy?

        I’ll help you out. I’m not making one that explictly supports nor refutes AGW – why? because I dont have the means, nor motivation to examine the data. What a cop out!.

        Not really – you see dbstealy, if you examine my posts, you’ll find I’ve never once made such a claim. I’m aware of my limitations – my posts usually just focus around simple descriptions of processes. I invite people to correct me where wrong, and that’s happened a few times and that’s perfectly acceptable – it’s the SM afterall.

        What I see here dbstealy – and explicitly from you, are the kinds of asertions and claims that you yourself object to. You falsify data – the plot you genereated for me was simply faked, and at the end of the day, you assert that scientists dont agree with you because they’ve got your name on a chalkboard in some old boys room, where they coddle around and dream up ways to stiff you, one more time.

        dbstealy, along with a few other posters, you exhibit exactly what you loathe about the AGW crew. I dont need to “support” AGW, all I have to do is poke holes in your arguments, and since your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon, that aliens are held in area 51, and that there are, in face, faces on mars.

      • cc sez:

        I’m not making one that explictly supports nor refutes AGW – why? because I dont have the means, nor motivation to examine the data. What a cop out!.

        You’re arguing incessantly with everyone, so you certainly have the motivation. You’re not fooling anyone here. I can smell a climate alarmist three states away, and you aren’t arguing with every scientific skeptic around because you agree with us. So add being a chameleon to your undesirable traits.

        Next:

        I dont need to “support” AGW, all I have to do is poke holes in your arguments

        You’ve been repeatedly schooled about the scientific method, and still you deflect. Listen up: skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those who promote and believe in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. It is the skeptics of that failed conjecture who have the job of poking holes in it, and we have done a perfect job. There isn’t one CAGW argument that has withstood even mild scrutiny.

        Next:

        You falsify data – the plot you genereated for me was simply faked

        You’re going off the deep end, junior. I haven’t generated any plots. You sound wacked out. Take an aspirin, lie down, and ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.

        Finally:

        …your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon, that aliens are held in area 51, and that there are, in face, faces on mars.

        When your feet are held to the fire, that’s all you can come up with? OK then, I challenge you to support those assertions. Show us where I’ve ever mentioned Area 51, aliens, or anything else you falsely claimed. You’re getting pretty desperate there, junior. That happens sometimes when folks lose an argument. Too bad, but that’s what you get for prevaricatig and deflecting.

      • “You’re arguing incessantly with everyone”
        no, just people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion.
        But okay, you admit you made an incorrect and invalid accusation. I am not asserting what you said I was asserting. I accept your acknowledgement of that omission.

        “The onus is entirely on those who promote and believe in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare”
        That is rather inconsistent with the concept of onus probandi. I have not seen a legitimate reason to conclude climate science is anywhere near the levels of conspiracy you claim. You’re welcome to justify them at your leisure, until you do, as I said, you’re in the same basket as the area 51 crew.

        “There isn’t one CAGW argument that has withstood even mild scrutiny”
        Of course, scientific peer review is mild scrutiny – but you dont consider that, cos aliens.. no wait, conspiracy.

        “Take an aspirin, lie down, and ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.”
        I’ll ask my friends why they dont exist.. or something.. what? I’m not sure I’m as in need of a lie down as some.
        dbstealy, the plot you showed elswehere in response to my asking about which of the plots in the publication that was the subject of discussion did not come from the publication, it did not show what you said it did. It looked very much like a mere excel plot, certainly not publication quality. It did not come from the publication – if you did not contrive it, someone did and you are responsible for the misinformation.

        “Show us where I’ve ever mentioned Area 51, aliens, or anything else you falsely claimed”
        Opps. in your addiction for vitriol, you didnt read what I wrote. Let me break it down:
        “your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon”
        your final point was that it’s all about “pal review” i..e conspiracy by mates to publish mates findings.
        Now, dbstealy, there are OTHER conspiracy theorists – e.g. people who deny humans went to the moon, people who think aliens are in area 51. YOU demonstrated you’re ALSO employing a conspiracy argument. Therefore, your arguments are of the same calibre as the area 51 mob.
        I’m perfectly happy for you to refute that association if you think the area 51 guys are not employing conspiracy theory arguments. I’m honestly too lazy to show area 51 aliens is a conspiracy theorist’s playground.

      • When it’s correctly observed that he/she/it is arguing with people, cc asserts:

        no, just people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion.

        That insufferable ad hominem comment is a failed attempt to put anyone whom cc disagrees with (which is most commenters here) into a box labeled people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion

        Yet cc is quite the crybaby, whining whenever someone calls her/it to account or says anything it doesn’t like to read. See, it’s A-OK for cc to post insults like that, but it’s just so unfair if anyone else points out that she/it started it!

        Trolls could learn a lot from that insufferable know-it-all. Fortunately, the overwhelming consensus here knows what’s going on. Is it 25¢ a post these days? How much?

      • Alas……. please produce one paper that proves that the slight warming we may have had has NOT been totally due to natural climate variability.

        In it you should be able to put forward, quantify (ordered list will do) and prove all climate forcings.

        The ball is totally in your court.

        Until you can actually prove it is NOT natural climate variability, the only fools around here are those that actually believe in this farce.

      • Alastair Brickell,

        That’s the best you’ve got? AndyG55 put it well:

        Until you can actually prove it is NOT natural climate variability, the only fools around here are those that actually believe in this farce.

        The default position is natural variability. Show us that’s not what’s happening, and you will have credibility. Otherwise…

      • AndyG55 says to ‘cc’:

        …please produce one paper that proves that the slight warming we may have had has NOT been totally due to natural climate variability.

        And caitiecaitie hasn’t answered — despite dozens of other comments since then.

        Total global warming over the past century has been ≈0.7ºC. How much of that minuscule warming was caused by human CO2 emissions? CC doesn’t know.

        That is the central point in the entire debate, but cc doesn’t have the answer.

        No climate alarmist can produce an answer to that question. All of their arguments are based on their BELIEF, not on science.

        Skeptics are laughing at cc, who is all assertions, all the time.

  1. ” But, I say it doesn’t matter what they say. NOAA is charged with presenting factual evidence in the context of climatic history, and when they make claims of absolute temperature, they need to be darn sure they get it right”

    You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
    (psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)

    • I’m afraid your characterization of the problem doesn’t quite jibe with what the article is saying. Try reading it again. (Or maybe you shouldn’t bother, since you’ve basically verified Marcus’ point, [psst, a difference of 5.6 degrees is some distance away from not knowing “everything with infinite precision” And what about that 58.62 vs. 56.82? Is that acceptable in your universe? Is that error really covered by your argument that “we dont know everything with infinite precision”? Or did you just toss out the first rebuttal that came to mind regardless of how well it fit the original argument?])

      • it was more the “know everything” than “infinite precision” that might matter here.

        One of the greater strengths of the point of the scientific method is that it’s self correcting.
        Of course, if we got everything right , exactly, first go, science would not exist.

        Therefore, we have these scientific method exactly for the reason that we dont know everything, exactly, first go. That’s why it exist, and that it is self -correcting is why it works.

        This was basically the substance of my comment.

      • The 58.62 number comes from the actual 20th century annual average, which is 57.0F. The “20th century average” of 55.2F was just for the month of November.

        When you’re looking up any of those Global Analysis reports, you have to pick Annual for the month.

        In all the Annual reports, the 20th century average is reported as 57.0F:

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201213

      • “One of the greater strengths of the point of the scientific method is that it’s self correcting.”

        A great con line . . allowing totally corrupt bastards to get away with just about anything, while gullible dopes imagine vague magical forces preventing them from doing so. Notorious scientific blunders and frauds are thereby transformed into “proofs” that you can trust anyone in a lab coat, since those particular blunders and frauds were eventually found out.

        It’s like saying you can trust politicians because politics is self correcting . . and for proof saying; Just look at all the corrupt politicians that have been exposed ; )

      • ” great con line . . allowing totally corrupt bastards to get away”

        interesting.. john. do you REALLY not know about the scientific method?

      • CC, the alarmists ” scientists ” DO NOT follow the scientific method..Pal review is not the same as peer review ! Falsifiable evidence is a must for scientific integrity, unless your a climate scientist !! They don’t believe they have to show their work because someone ” might find something wrong with it ” !!

      • Marcus,

        two comments.
        your description of “pal – review” seems like you’re asserting some kind of monumental global conspiracy, where climate change scientists are actively and deliberately permeating the peer review process so they can be awarded massive research grants and have a beach front mansion. Could you confirm this is your view (or not?).

        I have another question too marcus:
        The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet, the most wealthy people in the usa. The AAGW backers have access to more money than any other group on the planet – even christians. Now, Surely if a scientists was in it just for the money, they’d jump on the most promisingly wealthy bandwagon – that is, the aspect that favours not ongoing consumption of oil, but accelerated consumption. I’m pretty sure that any insidious and scientifically dishonest crony would instantly jump on that, because it’s simply got a LOT more money behind it – yet here we have the vast majority of scientists opting for the less promising option. Not only that, it’s unpopular with the people that pay their salary anyhow (in the case of government-funded research at least).
        So marcus, the implication that AGW researchers are in it just for the money really doenst stand up to a few moments’ thought. In fact, it fails dismally pretty quickly. A dishonest scientist is not going to opt for scientific integrity when there is a possibilty of selling out, and cashing in.
        I dare say this site earns quite a bit from the ads – I’m not saying it’s the purpose for it’s existence, but I’m pretty sure it helps.

        “They don’t believe they have to show their work because someone”
        okay, fine, put your money where your mouth is – grab the corroborating datasets from JMT and NASA, and draw your own conclusion – post it here and argue your point.

        I’d contend they dont show the working because it’s a non-point.

      • cc,

        More deflection. You haven’t produced any credible evidence showing that the observed global warming is man-made.

        So I guess deflecting to the alarmist talking points of ‘big bad oil’ will have to do.

      • ” Surely if a scientists was in it just for the money, they’d jump on the most promisingly wealthy bandwagon – that is, the aspect that favours not ongoing consumption of oil, but accelerated consumption. I’m pretty sure that any insidious and scientifically dishonest crony would instantly jump on that, because it’s simply got a LOT more money behind it – yet here we have the vast majority of scientists opting for the less promising option”
        Wild thinking. The oil industry would not put up with such lying and manipulation of the data. They would be fired after their first fabricated report. Business cannot survive by manipulating data unless they have the government enabling them the way alternative fuels operate.

      • Caitiecaitie: you do seem to be generating an unusual amount of antipathy with many on this site, with some responses appearing to be rather unnecessarily aggressive; however:

        …your description of “pal – review” seems like you’re asserting some kind of monumental global conspiracy…

        The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet, the most wealthy people in the usa. The AAGW backers have access to more money than any other group on the planet – even christians. [sic]

        You ridicule others for apparently having a conspiracy theory, yet display your own belief in a conspiracy. Please show some consistency.

        As for the “pal-review”, if you peruse the infamous Climategate e-mails, you will see an open discussion on the destruction of one reviewer’s career because he cast doubt upon the paper he was reviewing; the implication here is that the writers of the paper wanted their papers to pass review without being questioned – i.e., the reviewer has to agree with what they say. If that isn’t a desire for “pal-review”, please tell me why not. Then there is the authority that peer-review gives – is it a true basis of validity? Do you recall the case of Deiderik Stapel? Over 30 “peer-reviewed” papers, ensuring him a well-remunerated position at a Dutch university for many years, for it all to come crashing down when someone (one of his students, if memory serves me right) did question his papers, to find that they had all been totally fabricated.

      • Caitiecaitie: you do seem to be generating an unusual amount of antipathy with many on this site, with some responses appearing to be rather unnecessarily aggressive; however:

        …your description of “pal – review” seems like you’re asserting some kind of monumental global conspiracy…

        The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet, the most wealthy people in the usa. The AAGW backers have access to more money than any other group on the planet – even christians. [sic]

        You ridicule others for apparently having a conspiracy theory, yet promulgate your own conspiracy theory. Please show some consistency.

        As for the “pal-review”, if you peruse the infamous Climategate e-mails, you will see an open discussion on the destruction of one reviewer’s career because he cast doubt upon the paper he was reviewing; the implication here is that the writers of the paper wanted their papers to pass review without being questioned – i.e., the reviewer has to agree with what they say. If that isn’t a desire for “pal-review”, please tell me why not. Then there is the authority that peer-review gives – is it a true basis of validity? Do you recall the case of Deiderik Stapel? Over 30 “peer-reviewed” papers, ensuring him a well-remunerated position at a Dutch university for many years, for it all to come crashing down when someone (one of his students, if memory serves me right) did question his papers, to find that they had all been totally fabricated. Lesson learned? – even peer-reviewed papers should be treated with scepticism.

      • I am pretty sure oil companies sell lots of oil and thus make lots of money (although not much these days) because they have something for sale that everyone on the planet needs and thus pay money to get their hands on some.
        Apple does the same thing, and generates far higher profits, as do many other sorts of companies.

    • Normally the data are settled and scientists constantly argue over how to interpret it.

      Only in climate “science” is the interpretation settled, while the data constantly change.

      • Actually happens in all sciences. For example, the error of Hubble red shift measurement is 40%-60% and the measurement results are jumping all over the place; however, it is settled that the red shift exists and it is caused by Doppler effect meaning that the Universe is expanding. A quick and simple explanation to why it is settled in this case is – it is exciting and sensational science!!! And we can watch Science or History channel and be super entertained, and Michio Kaku will tell us great stories…. And professors will get funding and the students will receive PhDs. What will you do with conclusion like that: “accuracy is of our measurement is insufficient to neither confirm nor deny existence of red shift”?… Boring! No funding (that’s the biggest one!), no fun programs, Michio and other bunch have to teach instead of playing celebrities (that’s second big one!), no “Big Bang Theory” show with such a funny Sheldon… That’s the picture…

      • Ah yes indeed walt. The hubble constant changed well outside the earlier estimates of the errors.

        Curiously, that fact is either uknown to, or ignored by the crew here – and actually so it should be, the scientific method is self correcting, thats the purpose.

        I’ve already put to a poster here the question: why they dont make similar noise and accusations against edwin hubble. That he was a very lowly paid telescope staff might have something do to with it, but that grates with the accusation that scientists deliberately generate inaccurate errors so they can obtain ongoing grant money to generate yet more inaccurate data. The development of findings according to the scientific method seem so foreign to so many people posting here – there is such angst and contempt – and why? because they simply dont want to learn how the SM works.
        It’s fine to object. It’s not fine to object from an uninformed standpoint.

      • cc,

        are you that credulous and naive that you believe the CAGW scare is science?

        It’s not. It’s all politics when it comes to federal grants. Read the Climategate email dump. It’s all there.

      • okay dbstealy,
        it makes perfect sense for a scientist that you claim is intellectually dishonest and preferentially perusing a more financially lucrative future to select the “side” that is by far, the less wealthy. No really , right?

        I mean, if I were to want oodles of cash, I’d probably choose one of the worst and difficult ways to get it right? Of course, I wouldnt want to side with the group that include people that are the most wealthy on the planet, and have an invested financial interest in attempting to refute AGW would I?

        Reasoning, dbstealy – meet each other, dont be shy dbstealy, though it’s the first time you’ve encountered each other.

      • “cc” writes:

        why they dont make similar noise and accusations against edwin hubble.

        I shouldn’t have to point this out to you but since I spent some time in the field of astronomy I suppose I’m good enough; the reason is Ed Hubble never tried to tax everyone on the planet, threaten the lives of millions and generally behave like a pompous arse because his constant wasn’t quite right on the first go.

    • I find it fascinating how the troll CC actually believes that since NOAA is charged with producing factual data, that therefore they do.

      It’s also fascinating the way the troll just assumes that things are only facts, when she agrees with them.

      • hi mark,
        I’ll just point out that it’s impossible to sensibly reply to anyone who employs the “it’s a conspiracy theory dammit!” argument.
        The reason for this is as follows – the argument goes thus.
        you : you’re being deceived, but you dont know it
        me: so how do you know it?
        you: cos I do!
        me ……

        Actually to be honest, your answer to the last is probably more like “just look at the data wont you?!”
        and when I look – I see no evidence for conspiracy.

        Mark, what is portrayed here as an error and a deliberate obfuscation of data is not. You’re justified in asking why – and the answer is thus:
        At the time the data were taken, corrborating data were not available -or at least, acessible. Recently it is: MET and JMT have only relatively recently made their corroborative data available.
        So – in the past, when the data could not be corroborated, the finding was legitimate.
        After later corrboration, the finding was found to be extranous – i.e. it was not corroborated.

        Now any scientist worth their salt is going to ponder about uncorroborated data, and indeed, it is MORE dishonest to pretend the uncorroborated data is valid – quite simply, it’s not, we dont talk about data in terms of the outliers.

        However EVEN if that was not the case, and the data were not actually able to be corroborated, it’s still perfectly legitimate for science to improve and modify its model and processing. Mark, this happens in science ALL THE TIME – in fact – IT’S CRITICAL for the scientific method. Absolutely fundamental.

        The only failure here is that NOAA didnt bother to address and describe WHY the uncorroborated data was not described, but to demand they do is pretty insane anyhow – data == not corroborated == suspect == leave it out.

        pretty simple isnt it?

    • caitiecaitie
      (psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)

      What? But, but, but… we were told the science was settled! You’re saying it isn’t?

      Now I’m upset.

      • This is very strange, david. really. Its completely beyond my comprehension that grown educated adults genuinely appear to not actually know how science works.

        David, can you confirm you dont know that science is a process of iteration and refinement?
        really- guys. it’s bizarre!

      • CC writes;

        “You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
        (psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)

        Grown up people naturally wonder, it seems to me; How come that lady did not mention that people can be dishonest, and that’s also part of “why the scientific method is is the way it is”? What sort of person would not want us to consider that possibility? . . What sort of person does not want others to consider the potential for human dishonesty? . . Well, I can think of one kind off hand ; )

      • hi john,

        just to be consistent, can you explicitly denounce edwin hubble for lying?
        Afterall, his inital estimate of Ho was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different to the currently measured value.

        So john, post back that edwin hubble is in insidious liar , motivated by lucrative grants to get better patches for the elbows on his aging sweaters, and then I’ll have a better idea of exactly how seriously you grasp all this.

        Your next exercise will be to examine corroborating data – and this is what NOAA do – and show me that you come to a different conclusion to NOAA. You can easily access JMT and NASA/GIS data to examine, then explore the correlation (or not), and report back your declaration of the validity of NOAA’s statements.

        Yes john, I’m giving you homwork because it’s ratther important you get on top of this particular matter.

      • The (to me occultists) implication that Mr. Hubble could be wrong but not dishonest, therefor no scientists who are wrong could be dishonest, is double-talking fantasy-land BS to me. Science is not self correcting, except when it is, like anything else.

        Virtually all professions have measures in place to prevent error and/or fraud, but obviously such measures are not completely effective . . and the honesty of most does not prevent the dishonesty of some. And, the more people treat any such measures as if guaranties of honesty (as you are clearly proposing we do), the easier it is for the dishonest to thrive in any profession.

    • KatieKatie, you AGW Kultists got caught dead to rights engaging in the usual hysteric fraud.

      Own up and bathe in the “excellence.”

      You should revel in such power as it is invariably and unerringly fleeting as people discover they were lied to.

    • NOAA’s 20th century average temperatures, as pointed out by Brian:

      “The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).”

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (/201213 – /201513) under 2nd table, right above „Regional Temperatures“.

    • Chatty Caiti – Nick was the 1st one I found to put out this problem with NCDC/NOAA reporting. I have been updating since then.

      (1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997” = 16.92°C.
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13

      (2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)= 0.69°C above
      13.9°C => 0.69°C + 13.9°C = 14.59°C
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

      (3) average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) = 0.90°C + 13.9°C = 14.80 °C
      The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F) [16.92 + (0.63-0.51)= 0.12 >> 17.04 °C ] for 1998

      16.92 or 17.04 >> 14.59 or 14.80

      Thanks to Nick at WUWT for the find. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/#comment-1856325

      Since 1997 was not even the peak year (per 2015 write-up 1998 was 0.12°C warmer, which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).

      Oh and it is not called “data” after it has been massaged.

      • I’m getting a bit tired of this. “Data” just means “things given”. The output of one analysis is data for the next. The distinction you are trying to make is not between real data and fake data but between OBSERVATIONAL data and DERIVED data. It’s an important distinction, but it helps to use accurate words.

      • The distinction you are trying to make is not between real data and fake data but between OBSERVATIONAL data and DERIVED data. It’s an important distinction, but it helps to use accurate words.

        You left out CONTRIVED data.

        Merriam-Webster

        Full Definition of contrived

        : having an unnatural or false appearance or quality : artificial, labored

      • “Oh and it is not called “data” after it has been massaged”
        why is it not data?

        do you not recognise that outliers are routinely omitted from data when doing analysis? What do you think a linear regression actually is? it’s pretending all the data exist in a single line – the scatter is thrown away. Is that a bad way to do science? Please suggest a better way. Thanks.
        or pull your head in. either is fine.

      • I agree, it really does help to use words that accurately portray your intended meaning (or to put it simply, “to use accurate words”).

        “The output of one analysis is data for the next” is also reasonable statement, but “more accurate words” could be: “The output of one analysis may potentially be used as data for the next”

        And, when “the output of one analysis is data for the PREVIOUS”, so as to make the PREVIOUS fit the intended goal, then the data is more than just “things given”, it is “things created”.

      • It is very funny to hear the troll caitie caitie explain why she keeps using the straw man argument that she repeatedly and fallaciously employs.
        ‘scuse me, the popcorn is done.
        BRB

    • CC-“You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
      (psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we don’t know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)”

      You’re going to be disappointed when you discover that we know what the scientific method is, and how it’s supposed to be used. We KNOW it’s not about infinite precision at all. What does get us riled up is when NASA or NOAA or the press makes it seem like their work is precise, infallible, or accurate.

      Doesn’t that upset you too?

      • hi aphan,

        is it their fault you are making an unwarranted assumption about the quality of scientific data, even though you claim to be fully informed of how the scientific method works?

        I’ll contend your education is not their concern. They dont need to teach you to read, or parse error bars, they dont need to teach you how to understand the significance and utility of scientific results.

        I’m using edwin hubble as an example so often here, because it’s so apt.
        You might even have been alive when it was first determined – the value was 75 km/s/Mpc.
        Shucks, hubble – what a lying and manipulative, decieving and insidious person he must have been – he reported a result he knew to have large error bars without explicitly pointing it out!
        Now of course, we know t Ho is something like 68+-0.77.
        Boy what a liar he was for pretending that value was accurate! – dont you agree?

      • CC-“is it their fault you are making an unwarranted assumption about the quality of scientific data, even though you claim to be fully informed of how the scientific method works?”

        Me-I don’t make unwarranted assumptions. In fact, I rare make assumptions at all unless I can back them up sufficiently. I have never believed that scientists are anything other than human and fallible. But other people DO think they are, and that should be corrected openly and often by scientists themselves. The fact that they do not correct it honestly and openly, it one of the reasons the public is losing faith in their failed predictions.

        CC-“I’ll contend your education is not their concern. They dont need to teach you to read, or parse error bars, they dont need to teach you how to understand the significance and utility of scientific results.”

        Me-It’s funny because just a few years back, the “scientific community” decided that for some reason, the public was failing to grasp how urgent the AGW situation is. So they decided that perhaps people needed to be educated about “science” itself. But…the social science research showed that :

        http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/03/01/dan-kahan-climate-changescience-communications/

        “And yet most climate communicators — especially advocacy communicators — cling to the science deficit model when it comes to climate change, arguing that the answer to changing hearts and minds is simply bigger, louder, simpler, scarier projections and modeling outputs. (hiroshima bomb widgets, inclining charts, comparing skeptics to moon landing deniers and everything else…guess what…IT BACKFIRED-and the public is no longer buying it in the US)

        “This habit — an insistence that the blunt force instrument of a one-size-fits-all message must work for everyone, because it so convincing to us — isn’t just a bad one. It actually backfires.” (see…told ya)

        “Kahan and his colleagues have found that, the more science-literate an “individualistic/hierarchical” person is (as opposed to “egalitarian/communitarian”), the less likely they are to believe in the urgency of acting to stop climate change.”

        “Here’s where it gets potentially frustrating, especially to those who think we needed that answer yesterday. Because what’s bracing about Kahan’s new paper is his refusal to give pat recommendations, and his insistence that science communications needs to grow up and take a “genuinely evidence-based approach” to what it does.”

        “Genuinely evidence-based science communication must be based on evidence all the way down,” says Kahan, without pity.”

        “I’m using edwin hubble as an example so often here, because it’s so apt.”

        You are such a fraud. Edwin Hubble DIED in 1953-The Hubble Telescope didn’t even launch until 1990. The freakin thing was NAMED after him, he was NOT the person who built it, and the problems with the lens were more than a few. And NASA..NASA knew there were problems, were told there were problems by the manufacturer and the main engineer of the lens over and over and over and yet still put that puppy in the sky. NASA was the home of the “lying, manipulative, deceiving, insidious people”. Now, go educate yourself about the telescope before you go demanding any more idiotic outrage towards Hubble.

        And read up on logic, reason, and cognitive biases before you talk to me again. I will see the flaws in your arguments and expose every last one of them here for all to see. Count on it.

      • Aphan “You are such a fraud. Edwin Hubble DIED in 1953-The Hubble Telescope didn’t even launch until 1990. The freakin thing was NAMED after him, he was NOT the person who built it, and the problems with the lens were more than a few.”

        CC never suggested Hubble had anything to do with the telescope. CC is talking about the Hubble Constant, nit the Hubble telescope.

        Back in the 1920’s when Hubble came up with the proportionality between distance and apparent velocity the constant was estimated to be about 500 km/s/Mpc. The first “good estimate was in 1958 at about 70. Now we estimate it at 67.80±0.77 km/s/Mpc. CC’s point is that these estimates change but there is no suggestion of fraud. Nothing to do with the telescope.

      • Show me where I’ve ever “fabricated” data.

        See, you’ve lost the argument, so you deflect into ad-hom lies that are easily disproven. I challenge you to show where I’ve ever fabricated anything. Produce evidence, or you are lying. It’s that simple.

        Bearing false witness has been frowned upon for thousands of years, and yet here you are, doing it.

      • You fabricated everything you just said about Edwin Hubble you brainiac you. LOL When my post clears (due to links) you might want to step back a few steps.

        (The Hubble Telescope was named after Hubble…he did not design it, or build it, or launch it. He was DEAD 40 years before it even launched. And NASA….well they were vile, evil, liars back then too.

        linkcanbefoundathttp://people.tamu.edu/~v-buenger/658/Hubble.pdf

    • I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?

      What’s upsetting is an organization charged with administering government research funding in the areas of oceanic and atmospheric sciences throughout the US isn’t capable of simple arithmetic. It’s impossible to believe people that can’t add two rational numbers could get anything else right. I wouldn’t trust them with my laundry.

      That’s upsetting.

    • cc,

      ” … we dont know everything with infinite precision …”

      Every once in a while someone knowledgeable can reasonable confuse the meanings & differences between accuracy and precision, but doing so does indeed show that that person is probably lacking in their ability to completely understand the interrelationship of the little pieces that contribute to big picture.

      I don’t give a shit about precision with respect to climate & weather projections (based on co2 as a driver or just a forecast/projection). Take a look at the accuracy of the projections and get back to me when you, or any those you follow, have something tangible.

      (and take the mental time to understand what you think you are talking about)

  2. As much as it would be proper to use absolute temperatures for comparing/determining the potential accuracy between the many methods used to calculate earth global temperatures, climate science has abandoned absolute temperatures in preference to trends and deltas, thereby glossing over the fact that no one can agree on what the temperature of the planet was at any point in history, including the average temperature today – which makes it impossible to compare modern temperatures with historic temperatures.

  3. Obviously they had to manipulate, I mean correct, the 20th century average, cooling it by several degrees F.

  4. caitiecaitie:

    On the ‘Gosh, a new model study …’ thread you demonstrated you know bupkis about science.

    As davidmhoffer accuratelysaid of you

    Its coming from someone who got the relative density of ice and water completely reversed, got the relative heat capacities of water versus mud and rocks completely reversed, explained CO2’s radiative properties at approximately an “I took Al Gore’s seminar” level, and simply has no clue how badly she/he/it has destroyed their own credibility.

    You need to learn much, much more before claiming an ability to inform anybody about science.

    Richard

    • hi richard, its interesting you continue to slur me.
      I’d encourage you to read what I wrote on that page, cherry picking your resource isn’t doing much for intellectual honesty.
      no, i didn’t get the heat capacities reversed at all, thats a complete untruth.

      I understand you are uncomfortable, but that doesnt justify the slurs.

      • caitiecaitie:

        No smears and no slurs from me. I merely pointed out that your comments are based on your demonstrated ignorance of science and provided some of the evidence listed by davidmhoffer.

        I am still awaiting the apologies I demanded for your untrue assertion that I had made “threats” and your unsolicited, untrue and abusive insults of me; see e.g. here.

        Richard

      • HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie

        What’s wrong cc do you feel lonely over at the little Sceptical science ???

      • Janice: I think you still think CC is a singular entity. Not so, IMO. It takes too much individually to invest the time and trouble this thing puts into threads. I suggest you parse the first two comments from it: suspect style differences. I recall that Mosher did a piece of work on Gleicke (sp?) – I would love to see what he makes of this one.

        And please, everyone, stop with the gender bias. It’s a thing, or an entity of things.

      • “Janice: I think you still think CC is a singular entity. Not so, IMO. It takes too much individually to invest the time and trouble this thing puts into threads.”

        Well, it might be Siamese twins, Catie 1 and Catie 2. (Just kidding.) I suspect it is a classful of college ecology students, plus their professor, with Catie as their co-ordinating lead author. If so, what they may be doing is conducting a study to see how abusive we skeptics are to a visiting warmist, and then to accuse us of that in a subsequent paper. So I suggest that some of should us tone it down.

      • “How du manage post replies wit same time?”

        I’m assuming you were asking “How do you manage posting replies with the same time stamp?”

        Several options-bot, evil alliance, or comments being moderated and released in a batch?

        [Note: Time stamps are applied when comments are posted. Moderation doesn’t change them. -mod]

      • D.I.-
        Aphan,
        “I was asking Catty Catty,are you Catty Catty?”

        I guessed that, but you didn’t actually address a specific person in either of your posts right here did you? But I have to ask, if you think “Catty Catty” is a “robot, ya know one of them computer story teller things” then you couldn’t possibly have expected it to confess that yes, it was a bot. Did you? There are other possibilities. Not saying you are wrong. Just pointing those out too. Calm down.

    • I think Catty Catty is a robot,ya know one of them computer story teller things just being tested out.Too many mistakes to be real.
      Hint, check the timestamps of the posts.

      • am I cattycatty?

        I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

        I’m interested in Aphan’s reasoning above, which seems to be something like:
        Ask a bot if it is a bot – if think “Catty Catty” is bot then you couldn’t possibly have expected it to confess that yes, it was a bot.

        Okay , so the inference here is that if you ask a bot if it is a bot, then if it IS a bot,you would expect a bot do deny it.

        so – if you think somone is a bot, ask them – if they dont admit to it, they are a bot.
        If they DO admit to it.. um.. i suppose they are still a bot.

        Aphan, DI. do you know how they checked if young women were witches?
        They threw them in water. If they floated, they were a witch, and they could be justifiably burned.
        If they sank and drowned, then they weren’t a witch

        (actually I dont know if that is strictly true, but I enjoyed the monty python take on it, and your post, Aphan, was similarly hilarious.)

    • Hi alphan
      The accuracy of the time stamps is one minute. It’s perfectly possible for me to write two posts in one minute.

      Of course, ockhams razor here should be dismissed when the possibilty of a conspiracy can be raised – afterall, conspiracy theories are the most sane, and in the absence of better information, it makes sense to simply make up whatever you like – preferably with an evil slant where possible. Right alphan?

      • alphan? You got it right, then wrong. And there’s only been one other poster here who used that specific spelling. I wonder if the mods remember that?

        Of course, that punk was also stupid enough to bring up monty phython reasoning and then say “I don’t know if that is strictly true…”. The only one talking about conspiracy theories here is YOU. Do you believe in them yourself or are you just projecting the belief in them onto others here?

        I believe it’s all the rage at the AGW ball these days…those skeptics are in cahoots with the evil oil industries, shills…whatever terms are used, it still ends up on the AGW side of crazy. Even Lewandowsky proved with his research that more people on the AGW side believed in conspiracies than on the skeptic side. But hey…scientists are allowed to be fabulously wrong according to you. Poor, stupid, fallible Lew. He and his little group of pals are like the poster kids for “fallibility” these days.

        “It’s perfectly possible for me to write two posts in one minute.” And ferociously incriminating as well. :)

  5. The previous 1997 report and the data it incorporates do not have the newest NOAA adjustments to the current “data”.

    Just like NOAA’s Soviet colleagues say, “The future is certain, the past is mystery and the present is determined.”

    Ha ha ;-)

  6. 2015, the Warmest*& year on record!

    * Except in our best global temperature data (UAH/RSS)
    & Except in our best surface data (USCRN)

  7. ‘While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made. NOAA doesn’t seem to like referencing this state of the art USCRN system in their public reports, preferring instead to rely on their old, messy, error prone, and highly adjusted COOP/USHCN network which has been shown to have significant biases. They claim in their SOTC report from Jan 2016 that it was the 2nd hottest year on record for the CONUS:”

    CRN is WARMER than the adjusted “bad stations”

    See the chart and the table.

    Since CRN is the WUWT GOLD STANDARD… since it is calibrated and triple redundant,
    it offers a clear picture of Bias in the other “bad stations”

    IF they match, then maybe the “science” of “site rating” is not settled.

    Do they match?

    hmm CRN is warmer by a couple of tenths.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=2000&endyear=2015&month=12

    • Those are plots of anomalies, not absolute temps. All you noticed is that the anomaly variance is greater, not the absolute temperature. That’s a really basic error! What’s your job again?

      • you do know that you get anomalies by subtracting a constant.

        But LOOK AGAIN AT THE PAGE..

        see the table?

        also read below

        Read Dr, Pielke.

        see?

        My job today is correcting you.

      • Mosher: “While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made.”

        It would help your case if you could cite like data of a GLOBAL nature since that is under consideration in this case and specifically in this thread.

      • “It would help your case if you could cite like data of a GLOBAL nature since that is under consideration in this case and specifically in this thread.”

        The USA data was included in the post. Mosher commented in response to this. It cannot possibly be irrelevant to comment on material that is actually in the post.

  8. there is a perfectly logical explanation for this. the global bull warming universe is expanding, so any temperatures peaks reporting earlier becomes red-shifted down, hence the current years are the warmest ever! this drives the big bang in funding for more bogus GW research.

    • Apologies, my first post and I forgot to add:

      I would like to know what the 1961-90 average temperature was back in 1997 and see how it compares to the 1961-1990 average as calculated now. I am sure they will be the same, but after lurking here for a while I have become somewhat cynical.

      • I can guarantee they are not the same, because UKMO switched from HadCrut4 to HadCrut 4 a few years back. HadCrut 4 runs hotter. Wrote a little about it in essay When Data Isnt. This post is another fine example.

        [HadCrut4 to HadCrut4 ? To clarify, what was the actual change? .mod]

      • even if they are not the same, the data from MET dont corroborate the NOAA findings.
        Nor do the data from JMT – and NOAA were probably fully aware of that failure to corroborate, which justifies the lack of interest in reporting uncorroborated data.

  9. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    I have no doubt that 2015 (with a very strong El Niño) is a very warm year. 2015 is also likely at the late end of a plateau in a natural warm cycle. What is troubling indeed is the moving metrics by which superlatives and comparisons are made.

    This post aptly exposes the inconsistent standards/metrics for measurement as well as the alteration of the data itself. This inconsistency (or shell game) severely undermines the credibility of NASA and NOAA.

    • It’s kind of clear what you try to say, but… Gavin Schmitt is still the Director, Dr. Mann is still the Professor, even Dr. Jagadish Shukla is still the multimillioner… So, it doesn’t look like their pants are on fire.

      • and Al Gore and John Kerry both lost to W. The Democrats and Obama are paying back those defeats in spades with dishonesty, deceit, deception, half-truths, and politicized agencies. The climate deception scam is just one campaign front of many in a multidimensional Info War for power.

        So when the Left and the US President himself characterizes climate change as the world’s biggest threat, and world leaders laugh at them behind their backs, there is no limit to the lengths they won’t go to now to maintain the deception.

        I’m just afraid of Obama will do if it becomes apparent a Republican will win the November election. Every thing psychology knows about the depravity of a true narcissist sociopath says he will attempt to employ drastic means to try to prevent that outcome.

    • +1

      Although I’d say they’ve moved from pants to “full woolen suit soaked in kerosene” on fire…

  10. The 58.62 numbers comes from the actual 20th century annual average, which is 57.0F. The “20th century average” of 55.2F was just for the month of November.

    When you’re looking up any of those Global Analysis reports, you have to pick Annual for the month.

      • ” Please look up the meaning of ironic and the meaning of climate change.”

        That was posted to me. In response to a colossal snowstorm How ironic, indeed! … It is somewhat amusing when new people arrive telling me I don’t or can’t accept the scientific method. I’ve often thought that CAGW has a memory problem. They can’t remember 2 weeks ago the research they did. They constantly contradict themselves. …

  11. The 2015 temperature will eventually be revised down once it becomes inconvenient just like the 1997 and 1998 temperatures were.

    • …and great lakes ice will set a new record in the new hottest year ever, and 30 percent arctic sea ice will set a new record for the date, and global sea ice will be above average in the new warmest year ever…

      • David A:

        “…and great lakes ice will set a new record in the new hottest year ever, and 30 percent arctic sea ice will set a new record for the date, and global sea ice will be above average in the new warmest year ever…”

        Really?

        Not according to this…

        http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/despite-the-chills-the-great-lakes-are-remarkably-ice-free/62297/

        and this…

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

        and this …..

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        Arctic ice is bumping along close to the lowest year in the satellite record (2012).

      • Toneb

        Arctic ice is bumping along close to the lowest year in the satellite record (2012).

        Not true … Arctic sea ice has remained within or right below the 2 std deviation point the past two years. That is, within the range of natural deviation – and that ONLY IF you use the 1979-1990 basis for calculating arctic sea ice anomalies! But across the ten years since 2006, arctic sea ice has certainly oscillated, but has not decreased at all.

        Last spring, arctic sea ice was the highest of any of the past 10 years for those dates near the maximum.
        Last summer (mid-July), arctic sea ice was the highest of any of the past 10 years.
        Last fall, arctic sea ice was the highest ever for any of the past ten years. Why ignore that inconvenient truth? Now, as arctic sea ice approaches it annual maximum near the end of March, there is nothing unusual at all about the increase.

      • Tony, it was a bit of a sarcastic comment about the past, referencing current 30 percent DMI ice. 2014 and 2015 was near an all time high for Great lakes ice. The southern oceans have been cooling for a long time. Arctic sea ice is flat since 2007, and maybe even on the upswing. (there is no death spiral) Global sea ice has averaged above the mean for over two years as of 2015.

        The 30 percent DMI graphic is current, more accurate with costal sections masked out, less volatile then the 15% metric, a month ahead and above ay other previous high.

  12. But, in 1999, NOAA issued the following release:

    “NOAA 99-1
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Stephanie Kenitzer or Patricia Viets
    1/11/99
    1998 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOAA ANNOUNCES
    Global temperatures in 1998 were the warmest in the past 119 years, since reliable instrument records began, the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. The previous record high surface temperature was set last 1997. The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C).”

    This indicates that GAT in 1998 was higher than 62.45o F that Mr. Watts has calculated for 1997. I was fooled into thinking that it was only 58.10o F but the base line for the 1997 announcement differs from that for the 1998 announcement.
    Hence if we are to believe the latest announcement by NOAA it has lowered the 1998 record by more than 5.63o F (3.130 C)
    If NOAA can lower Global Average Temperatures by more than 3o in only seventeen years why do they worry so much that anthropogenic CO2 might increase GATs by as much a 2o C in more than one hundred years?

  13. Don’t worry guys, in 2030 they will tell us the average temp in 2015 was not 56.82 or 58.62 but 53.34. As of right now we nailed the 2015 temperatures but in the future we will know that climate scientists in 2015 were lying and we will have to downgrade the temps. That’s all Gavin did here, he realized they lied in 1997 and had to adjust it down. In 2030 he will realize he lied in 2015 and will have to adjust it down. 2030 is the hottest year evah, 54.33

  14. The canonical GAST is 288K. That’s 15C, or 59F. Maybe astronomers use that number, I don’t know why anyone would use GAST for any practical reason.
    Most of the ocean volume below the thermocline is near 4C. Extra-tropical surface oceans may be anywhere from 10C to 20C depending on the seasons. Surface temps of the tropical oceans are almost always in the 20s, and can reach 30C. The poles are -30C (243K) or colder. The tropopause is near -50C, which is 223K. The stratosphere is actually warmer, due to sunlight heating the ozone layer. Adding more CO2 to the stratosphere would add more radiating (cooling) ability.

  15. Another thing that is kinda funny…Remember 2014 was also the hottest year evah! Now look at the USCRN graph above. 2014 was unremarkable except that it may have been reduced so that 2015 could “beat” it by a “record” margin. The whole thing is a joke because they know the “hottest evah” claim immediately gains so much traction. Now if El Niño peaks next year it may actually still be warmer than 1998, but I’ll wait to see what RSS and UAH have to say about that this time next year.

    • I realized later that comparing the hottest year evah to the USCRN US data only is an error. However one can compare the hottest claim in 2014 and 2015 to this graph.

      • CC the original hypothesis on AGW was CO2 warming footprint according to the models would be upper atmospheric warming in the tropics, that did not happen, the is some warming there but not to the extent the models predicted in science that prove the orignal hypothesis wrong so they should have came up with an different hypothesis, they did not they ignored the lack of warming and went on. Since we now know there was some warming the upper atmosphere I would propose to you and them yes that is the signature of CO2 warming but the original Hypothesis had to high of a climate sensitivity to CO than two to three degree C of warming for each doubling it probable less that 1.5 C per doubling but the AGW crowd cannot accept that because it the measurement are correct and the doubling is less than 1.5 C there is no cause for alarm, so I propose to you that it not skeptic that threw out the scientific method it the warmest that did.

      • Please note that NONE of the climate models match the data and thus by your own standards have been falsified. The facts are simple

        1) IPCC reports based on those models show projected temperatures well above those actually measured.
        2) The models all predicted that there would be a hot spot in the troposphere, the satellites don’t see it.
        3) The models project accelerating sea level rises – no such acceleration has occurred.
        4) The models project that most warming will occur in polar regions leading to massive ice loss, In reality The reduction in Arctic ice has stabilized and the total ice mass in the Antarctic as INCREASED. West Antarctica has seen some ice loss but that is due to a combination of ocean currents and geothermal heat. Average temperatures in Antarctica in fact show a slight cooling effect for the majority of stations and a slight warming at others. Even the IPCC acknowledge that there is no clear sign of the warming that is supposed to be happening in the south polar regions.

        The all time highest Antarctic Sea Ice extent happened in 2014. The El Nino event produced a limited reduction last year but as of Jan 2016 the measured area is back to its average area.

        These simple easily verifiable facts are what causes widespread scepticism of the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        I’ll leave you with some quotes from the late great Richard Feynman

        “If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”
        “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. ”
        “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      • And exactly what events/conditions, and data would result in the CAGW hypothesis being falsified? From what I’ve been seeing the answer is none! And thus CAGW is not science. But if there are ways it could be falsified then please tell us what they are.

  16. This is one reason “anomaly” is the “data” used to compare temps. Without also including average temp, and how that temp has been changed/adjusted, there is no easy way to compare between data sets. This should surprise no one.

  17. Once you know you are dealing with a liar there is no point in trying to justify the rubbish they put out.

    • dealing with a Liar… a US President who has a penchant for narcissism and serial lying, has corrupted the entire executive branch with his flying monkeys. The most troubling aspect is his weaponization of the IRS to harass political foes. That high crime is cause for impeachment and removal on its own. Mr Obama is clearly a sociopath, a pathological liar who lies rather than admit errors and incompetence within himself and his administration.

    • 1. Yes. Once you know you someone is a liar, you cannot take seriously ANY-thing he or she says. You must do independent verification of EVERY statement he or she makes.

      2. However, because NOAA has a loud megaphone, one must correct their false assertions, for many will hear them and may be fooled. That this must be done is disgraceful:

      It should never have been up to Anthony to have to do the surface station audit in the USA.

      AndyG55 (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/20-false-representations-in-one-10-minute-video/#comment-2124575 )

      NOAA (as an organization) IS A DISGRACE.

      That Anthony Watts, et. al., AND THE SCIENCE GIANTS OF WUWT! must post an article like the above to refute a government organization their tax dollars fund and THEN, on top of that, take valuable time out of their day to refute the scientific inanities and mischaracterizations of science-illiterate disinformation trolls (to prevent their fooling an uninformed reader), is a shame.

      • J. for many years around 2009, the hubble constant was thought to be something like 75 km/s/Mpc. by 2010, it was about 72±8 km/s/Mpc, and in 2013, the value was computed to be the currently used value: 67.80±0.77
        Now, J: note the error bars there – yes indeed, 75 is quite different to 67.8 and well outside the 0.77 dispersion.

        My question to you J is the following.
        Do you understand why the value was imprecise in the first place? Do you understand why it changed? Do you think that all cosmologists are a pack of lying self-serving dishonest fools attempting to deliberately attempting to mislead the public in the search for what I suppose you think are lucrative and substantial research funds?

        I know you’re unlikely to answer any of these questions – what matters to you is what you can pin on the climate scientists, even though every other scientist on the planet actually engages in the EXACT same process.

        J. Most all it’s important you refuse to answer this next question:
        Do you understand that the iterative refinment of values and quantities is exactly the purpose and function of the scientific method? I ask because you seem so keen to stress scientific illiteracy, yet you are so vehemently objecting exactly to the scientific method – I assume you’re doing it with the full knowledge you are objecting to the scientific method – i would not like to conclude you are scientifically illiterate.

      • Janice…just remind “it” to read the following link…it thinks Edwin Hubble was to blame…but he’d been dead for 40 years when it launched! hehehehe Subtract the “linkat” part from the URL
        linkathttp://people.tamu.edu/~v-buenger/658/Hubble.pdf

      • caitie,

        I would like to try to answer the question: “Do you understand why the value was imprecise in the first place? “, but I need a little more information; What do you mean when you say the initial value/estimate was imprecise? Can/will you elaborate?
        .

  18. Track and Field needs to take a lesson from NOAA. Record all winning times in reference to an average, then change the average each year.

    every year you get a whole new set of record times, no matter what the real times were.

    Baseball, basketball, football should all follow suit. Record the scores in relation to the historical average, and change the average every year. Every year can reach new heights of scoring.

    This would really help baseball, where low scoring games are seen as a problem. Make the average for baseball -110, then every baseball game will end up with scores like 113-112. Exactly what you would expect for an exciting basketball game. Think of the fan appeal!

    • “help baseball, where low scoring games are seen as a problem.”

      There’s a simple way to do that: 4-out innings (except the first), and 7-inning games. Games would be more exciting too, with runners in scoring position much more of the time. And games would be fairer, with winning being less dependent on bunching hits together in innings. Cappiche? (sp?)

  19. NASA needs to increase the temperature more as it seems that higher temperatures cause less weather related problems. From a very misleading article (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-insurance-idUSKBN0UI0XI20160104). The following was in the article which bemoans the increase in damages caused by climate change. A few lines which completely negate the whole tone of the article. If the highest temperatures ever are so dangerous, why is the damage so minimal?

    DROP IN CLAIMS, RISE IN DEATHS

    The $27 billion in insured damage last year was lower than the $31 billion registered in 2014 and also below the 10-year average of $56 billion, Munich Re said.

    Overall damage, including that not covered by insurance, was $90 billion last year, the lowest level since 2009.

    In all, 23,000 people were killed in 2015, many in the Nepal earthquake in April. The total compared with 7,700 the previous year, but was well below the 10-year average of 68,000.

    • The MSM Truth Pyramid:

      1) Headline (alarmist)
      2) Story (ignore any doubts that scientists use, i.e., downplay words like “may”, “might”, “could” and “if”)
      3) Press Release (which an unpaid intern re-wrote a bit to get #2)
      4) Appendices (getting closer to the truth, hope nobody cross-references anything)
      5) Raw Data (ignored by MSM)

  20. GAT for 20th century = 55.2°F
    GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F
    GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F
    In any universe, 56.82°F is lower than 62.45°F by 5.63 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Brian
     
    January 21, 2016 at 11:44 am
    The 58.62 numbers comes from the actual 20th century annual average, which is 57.0F. The “20th century average” of 55.2F was just for the month of November.

    As far as I can tell, Brian is correct about the 57.0 F and the 55.2.
    So for 2015, the temperature would then be 1.62 + 57.0 = 58.62.
    However 58.62 is still lower than 62.45, but by only 3.83 F and not 5.63 F.

    Am I missing something?

    • No, it simply was that the context surrounding the November report didn’t make it clear that the 20th century GAT was for the month of November, not the entire 20th century. I’ve updated the post with the 57F number, and while the difference is lower, the conclusion is unchanged.

    • I sense a “server error” or an “upgrade” or an “update” or a “routine file pruning” in 3…2…1…

      • no, just an uncorroborated datapoint.
        Compared with other agencies, the above data do not corroborate.

        Could you explain why you expect a scientific organisation to report on data that is not corroborated?

      • caitiecaitie:

        Your algorithm has generated this nonsense

        no, just an uncorroborated datapoint.
        Compared with other agencies, the above data do not corroborate.

        Could you explain why you expect a scientific organisation to report on data that is not corroborated?

        Nobody can answer your question unless and until you state
        (a) what you mean by “corroborate”
        and
        (b) how a datum for global average temperature (GAT) could be corroborated.

        Or does your program not generate scientific questions?

        Richard

      • caitiecaitie January 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm

        Please have your programmer’s twig your algorithm. A true human with a bit of history reading would know that I am implying that the archive on the noaa server will be, as John Hiatt would have it “gone, like a Nixon file, gone, gone away”…

  21. OT.. The 30% DMI sea ice graph has been brought back on line.

    Interesting result !!

    I know the Arctic sea ice will start to increase now the AMO has changed, but not so soon, surely

    15% graphs still show the level about where you would expect it to be, just below 1sd from the mean of the 1981-2000 period.

  22. Can’t wait for KatieKatie to come in and denounce our ability to reason and besmirch our scholarship.

    I’m not sciency enough I post often, but I *can* sniff out fraud.

    This is fraud, NOAA will go alter that record now.

    • I have to admit, I do find the hysteria a little.. well.. funny.
      Now, what a scientist would do is try to find out if the data are actually reliable – one way of doing that is going to an independent source – and there sure are plenty, NASA, japan etc.

      So here is what I suggest sven – first, you’ll have to dismount. I know it’s high, but you can do it.
      Next – do the science: go find the data from a different agency. I undersand that the theme on this thread is that there is a conspiracy, a “pal review” etc. etc. etc. , but put paranoid hysteria aside for a moment if you can, and just focus on the job at hand.

      Now – the next step is perhaps complex, it requires a little math – In a process like temperature that is explicitly stochastic, you’re justified in obtaining a number of measurements and doing a bit of stats. You dont have to of course, but at the very least you should corroborate your findings with independent data some way.

      Here is how the breakdown looks.
      NOAA data – shows ~higher temps for 1997
      JMA – shows lower temps for 1997
      NASA/GIS – shows lower temps for 1997

      I find this whole post identical to one of the most dire crimes that even the anti-AGW find objectionable: that of cherry picking the data to make a non-point.
      The conclusion is made after analysis of indepentent datasets – this is pretty straightforward and actually scientifically honest – you tend to not bother discussing slightly outlying datapoints in disparate datasets on the grounds they are – well, outliers.

      So sven, as I said – the breathless contempt here is symptomatic of the AAGW crew. ANYTHING – anything at all that you can latch on to and wave it around and pretend you have a point. – quotemining is a nice little example I’ve had foist upon me recently.

      Meanwhile, not a single person in this entire blog has bothered to acknowledge that not only are temperatures still increasing – i.e. the hiatus was either insignificant, or passed – but the frequency of record-breaking global temps is now on the scale of a handful of years. And yes, that is statistically significant, and yes sven, that is the point.

      I suppose what I find most amazing is the sputtering and chortling by people who simply dont get it. They simply dont understand how data are processed, they simply DONT get how and why corroboration of data actually works.

      I dont think NOAA is going to change their data at all. Why should they? It’s valid data, it certainly doesn’t put NOAA in awkward position by anyone who understands how science works and data are processed.

      Any scientists online like to comment on the usefulness of using external datasest to corroborate findings, and then the validity of conclusions made after the corroboration?

      • cc,

        Your incessant comments are coming at a fast clip, 24/7. That indicates that either you have no life to speak of, or you’re being compensated for being a site pest.

        Which?

        Your big presumption in all your comments is that the observed warming is not natural. So you are ignorant of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. And Billy Ockham would be snickering at your juvenile belief system, which is preposterous since Planet Earth has falsified it for so many years.

        As you’ve been told repeatedly: the onus is on you, to prove, or at least to provide convincing evidence, that global warming is man-made. Since neither you nor any other climate alarmist has been able to produce any such evidence, you deflect. That’s what you’re doing here, and in every other comment you make.

        The onus is on you, not on anyone skeptical of your pseudo-science. You fail. So you deflect. Simples.

      • hi dbstealy,
        It’s comforting to continue our dialogue for a second day in a row. What was it you were saying about not having a life to speak of? Anyhow, my diurnal or nocturnal habits are none of your business, nor is how I spend my time. you’re perfectly free to concoct whatever baseless conclusion you wish about all of those parameters – bearing in mind that concocting baseless conclusions is something you abhor – at least, when other people do it.

        “the onus is on you, to prove, or at least to provide convincing evidence, that global warming is man-made”
        No I dont think so. This is not the substance of my point.
        I’m unclear why you feel I have to verify a claim or viewpiont I’m not making. Could you explain why you think there is an onus on people to verify claims they dont make? I’m confused.

        Now, you go on to describe “my” science as “pseudoscience” – just quickly, is this a word you can use to describe plots you fabricate in an attempt to appear informed and that you’ve read the literature? Anyhow, I digress – again, this demand confuses me. What of “my” science do you regard as “pseudoscience”? I’ll appreciate you making a direct paste to whatever I’ve said that you’re particularly disturbed about – be careful not to quote-mine, there seems to be a penchant for doing that, of late.

      • cc,

        You continue to falsely assert that I’m “fabricating plots”.

        I challenge you to PROVE IT.

        If you can’t, you’re bearing false witness. That makes you a serial liar, no?

      • dbstealy
        “I challenge you to PROVE IT.”
        sure. Because I enjoy it, I’ll make it a fun demonstration.

        Assertion: That dbstealer faked data when asked to show a sample from a specific study?

        Result:
        You showed a plot – but was it from the study?

        Evidence:
        0. The plot did not come from the paper – moreover, the models shown in it were not those in the paper, and any other data in it also did not occur in the paper.
        1. The box at the top included the name of the authors and the date of the publication.

        Conclusion:
        Not only did the plot did not come from the paper as I asked, the plot was made to look as if it did.

        Further reading:
        That the plot was made to look as if it came from the paper, including authors name and publication, implies a deliberate and malicious attempt to deceive. The uncontestable fact is that the plot did not come from the data, nor include data discussed in the paper. The actual origin of the subterfuge is unclear, but irrelevant: either you faked it, or someone did. if someone else did, you were fully cognizant of the fact the plot did not come from the paper (beause you read it, right?).

        Final conclusion.
        You are either explicit in the generation of the fake plot, or complicit.

        QED.

      • cc writes:

        “dbstealer”. I suppose cc will claim that’s a typo. Otherwise, could cc be any more despicable? Based on previous comments, I suppose so.

        Now, about the bearing of false witness by the anonymous coward cc, who falsely asserted:

        You are either explicit in the generation of the fake plot, or complicit.

        As I said, prove it. But you haven’t, because you can’t. So lying is what you did instead. I’ll make a rational, logical case:

        First off, you’ve never identified what “plot” you’re referring to. I have posted literally thousands of charts here. Which one got you all spun up? Aside from some WoodForTrees charts, using their database (the only way to make a WFT chart), I have never once produced a chart of my own, or added anything within any chart I’ve ever posted, including any trend lines, commentary, or anything else. Therefore, cc is lying. Do you see that, cc? Everyone else does: you made an explicit accusation that you cannot support. You told a lie, hoping to win an argument.

        Every chart I’ve ever posted comes from the thousands of charts I keep in several folders. And every chart I ever posted was produced by others; by folks I don’t know, and whom I do not communicate with. When I see an interesting chart, I simply save it. Takes three clicks. Sometimes four, when the chart is in an article.

        Next, cc falsely asserts:

        Not only did the plot did not come from the paper as I asked, the plot was made to look as if it did.

        As I said, that is nothing but an “assertion”. A baseless opinion, which proves nothing. (I’m enjoying holding ‘cc’s’ feet to the fire because cc has totally failed my challenge, by being unable to prove — or even argue — that I’ve ‘fabricated plots’.) Thus, cc is lying.

        Next, cc baselessly asserts:

        The uncontestable fact is that the plot did not come from the data, nor include data discussed in the paper.

        Uncontestable?? I didn’t even read the paper. I simply posted a chart in response to a comment I read. That isn’t the issue. The issue is cc’s bearing false witness. cc continues the impotent attack:

        The actual origin of the subterfuge is unclear, but irrelevant: either you faked it, or someone did. if someone else did, you were fully cognizant of the fact the plot did not come from the paper (beause you read it, right?).

        Ah. Now cc the mind-reader isn’t sure if I even read the paper or not. As I stated, I didn’t. And now cc is wavering: either I faked it… or maybe someone else did. But my direct challenge was about cc’s explicit false accusation that I had ‘fabricated’ the ‘plot’ (and I’m still not sure which chart cc is lying about here).

        Finally, cc finishes by bearing false witness once again:

        Final conclusion.
        You are either explicit in the generation of the fake plot, or complicit.

        As everyone here can clearly see, that is nothing but a lame and baseless assertion; an opinion, completely unsupported by any facts at all. This obnoxious, pejorative site pest is labeling people as being dishonest — when it’s clearly cc’s psychological projection — imputing cc’s own faults onto others. cc is doing the lying. ‘Bearing false witness’ is what liars do in court. Compared with cc, Pinnoccio is as honest as George Washington.

        Over the past nine years I’ve made a point of being as truthful as possible. I’ve said this before cc ever even knew about this site, because I know one thing: if anyone lies here, they always get caught. Now cc has been caught bearing false witness, and the reason is obvious: cc has no credible arguments. cc is just trying to deflect, and make the provenance of a chart the issue. But it isn’t the issue, and as I’ve stated, I have never fabricated a chart of any kind, or ever changed anyone’s chart. I would not post any chart that I thought was not based on good data (unless I’m using, for example, a Mann et al chart to show how they try to scare the public). As I’ve often said, I post charts because they say a lot at a glance, where posting a lot of text makes many readers’ eyes glaze over. As long time readers here know, I like charts.

        Whatever chart cc is so spun up about doesn’t matter. cc has tried to re-frame the debate, by stating unequivocally that I have dishonestly fabricated a chart. Thus: “dbstealer”. (I doubt that cc has any real friends, which probably explains cc’s non-stop commenting here.) cc is deflecting, because cc has such a a lame argument.

        And now we see cc fumbling around, trying to justify bearing false witness: cc is lying in a failed attempt to win an argument.

        cc, you can’t win an argument by calling someone else dishonest, unless you have pretty strong proof. So I’ve posted very strong proof right here, showing that it is you who are lying. You totally failed my challenge to show that I ever ‘fabricated’ what you called a ‘plot’. All you did was emit your baseless opinion, nothing more.

        Thus, you failed the challenge. And as I’ve shown here, you are lying — while calling honest folks liars. That’s pretty despicable, cc. You can’t seem to convince a single reader here of your sciency belief system; you turn the scientific method upside down by trying, in effect, to make skeptics prove a negative; you claim you’re not in the alarmist camp, which is risible, and you argue in the most underhanded way possible online, because you can’t make a rational, convincing argument: by claiming other folks are lying.

        But’s all made clear here, cc. You’re caught being a serial liar, suffering from acute psychological projection. You have a real mental/emotional problem. But shame on you anyway.

      • I wish he was being compensated….at least in free toothpaste and mouthwash with which to get the taste of “stupid” out of his mouth after he’s chewed on people like you repeatedly.

      • CalfieCalfie-“Assertion: That dbstealer faked data when asked to show a sample from a specific study?” (are you asking yourself a question here?) “Result: You showed a plot – but was it from the study?”

        What plot and what paper are you crying about? You DO know it’s possible, legal, and a scientifically endorsed practice to plot graphs based upon the data presented in ANY paper (doesn’t have to be your own paper) as long as you credit the data to the authors of the paper and the paper it was cited in. Right?

        Its done all the time. Look at some graphs. People plot other people’s data points day in and day out, and there’s always a “source” listed for where the data comes from if that graph is produced outside of a particular paper or data set. Where have you been that you do not know, accept this?

        [Note: caitiecaitie is a previously banned commenter. -mod]

      • “Alastair Brickell”,

        You make lots of assumptions. Let me show you how silly they are:

        you are here 24×7…

        I am retired, and I can spend my free time as I like. What about you, sockpuppet?

        My wife is an invalid. I stay close by to take care of her when she needs help. In between calls, I while away the time reading this and other sites. Since I’m stuck at home, what would you suggest?

        …and do nothing but attack posters that hold an opinion that isn’t aligned with the WUWT cohort…

        In other words, you don’t have sufficiently credible arguments, and you don’t like the view of most commenters here. Your own opinion isn’t aligned with the majority here. But you can post your own opinion any time, so what’s the problem?

        Finally, not only am I not being compensated, I’ve donated here whenever asked. You could call it a negative compensation.

        Have I laid it out pretty fairly?

        [Note: ‘Alistair Brickell’ is a site pest. That’s a fake name. -mod]

  23. Of course the last year’s temperature is always the highest in a warming world. That was true in 1997 as well as in 2015. Only a true Doubting Thomas would be sleazy enough to compare the two numbers.

    • Well, I always ask warmunists: of course the earth is warming. We’re coming out of an ice age, what should it be doing?

      Crickets, I tells yah, crickets…

      • The crickets you hear is caused by the confusion you’ve thrown the other person into. Were you to ask me, I would also stare at you – in my head I would be thinking… “what? can this guy REALLY be completely uninformed of what the data show?”

        The answer is no, of course, you are informed. you just ignore it, and that is similarly confounding.

        [Note: thread-bombing violates site policy. You have made more than 170 comments in 24 hours. Try to control yourself. -mod]

      • Apparently you are “uninformed” because the data shows that the earth is warming exactly like it has during all of it’s past interglacial periods. It appears that “It” is the one who is uninformed-

        Peer reviewed studies showing climate change today is NOT occurring faster or to higher extents than in the past-

        http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151110/ncomms9890/full/ncomms9890.html
        Dansgaard et al. (1989); increasingly abrupt changes were seen on further study, Johnsen et al. (1992); Grootes et al. (1993); jumps of Greenland snow accumulation “possibly in one to three years” were reported by Alley et al. (1993), see also Mayewski (1993); five-year steps: Taylor et al. (1997); changes of 2-4°C at Greenland within a single year: Steffensen et al. (2008).

        http://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/1 Abrupt Climate Change-Inevitable Surprises
        (Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS)

        https://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

        “Swings of temperature that in the 1950s scientists had believed would take tens of thousands of years, in the 1970s thousands of years, and in the 1980s hundreds of years, were now found to take only decades.”

        Is “it” really uninformed, or is “it” ignoring what ALL the data shows? We shall see.

      • caitiecaitie January 21, 2016 at 6:36 pm

        The crickets you hear is caused by the confusion you’ve thrown the other person into.

        No kidding Sherlock. Asking a warmunist to apply a bit of logic confuses them, as you have amply indicated in every post of yours.

        Where I am sitting 15,000 years ago in Toronto, Canada was under a few kilometers of ice. That ice is not there now, nor was it there 5,000 years ago or so when the first settlers from Asia finally reached here.

        So, again, we are coming out of an ice age. Answer the questions: what should the earth be doing?

      • Caligula, No, the planet had been cooling for many thousands of years. At the end of the last ‘ice age’ the planet warmed. That is how an ice age ends, the planet warms. And then slowly cools into another ice age. Which is what the planet had been doing. So the Earth should still be cooling now, heading into the next ‘ice age’, but something has changed that.

  24. Why anyone believes that a “global average temperature” number has any useful meaning is beyond me, given the wide range of seasons and micro-environments on this planet.

    • I always ask the warmunist when this comes up: do you think Canada has an average temperature?

      When they say, “sure”, I ask, “and what use could it possibly be to anyone?. Iqualit’s mean temperature for a day averaged with Vancouver’s, averaged with Toronto’s, averaged with Halifax’s…”

      You can almost hear the gears grinding as they contemplate a) how hard it would be to actually get all those measurements, b) how useless it is.

      When I was younger, I never noticed that being average looking really helped me with girls, either.

      • And here in Australia the BoM uses just 112 stations to calculate a national average. Rediculous, meaningless and useless, unless you are in to propaganda.

      • caligula,
        I made this comment elsewhere – let me repost it.

        I want to determine the way knowledge and performance of students in a school varies over time.
        One way I can do that is to make them sit an exam – lets suppose I do that, and pass the same exam to all kids in the school – grade 1 to 6.
        Now, to be realistic, the grade 1 kids will probably perform relatively badly. the grade 6 kids much better.
        What can I gain from averaging the ensemble? They’re totally different model spaces?!

        Well, let’s repeat the test next year. GASP!, the results are different. the average value is different!
        Let’s repeat the test, each and every year – ohhhh.. something is happening, the scores are getting slowly higher – what does this mean?

        It means that, on average, the students have an increasing performance on the test – well duh! you say!
        indeed, it’s pretty obvious this is the case. The next question is – why?

        Indeed, I could compose an hypothesis from that conclusion – it might be the quality of teaching – or that the students are learnig the rote answers to the test, or pretty much anything and .. I could test it. Super!, scientific method ftw! Where does it get us? Well, if he naive interpretation is correct, it means the students are becoming more and more academically developed – that’s a useful thing to explore because perhaps I can find out why, and help imporve the academic development of kids in other schools.

        See how I took an ensemble mean of disparate populations to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, which then led to more scientific study?

  25. Worked for a long time in one of the dastardly fossil fuel industries, I am an old engineer, one of the areas I did a lot of work in was the buying and selling of properties. When you go to look at a property for sale the seller likes to show you their valuation, hoping you will anchor on that value and work toward that number. My approach and what I expected from my staff – get the raw data, evaluate that data carefully, if something seems out of line look at that information very critically, arrive at your own valuation then critically evaluate the sellers valuation, if these numbers are too far apart make an offer at your valuation and don’t worry about it further. The issue I see with the climate change people is they don’t want to share the raw data, they modify that date to suit their interpretation and refuse to either explain how or why they changed the raw data or didn’t use some of that data. In other words, I don’t care what you think here is the answer and if you don’t like it, you are obviously incompetent, stupid or a tool. Not the way I learned science! (And yeah I always showed a possible purchaser my value, that may have been aggressive, when selling a property and yes there was a lot of anchoring that occurred but I did buy and sell a lot of property)

  26. Full release from 1999.

    NOAA 99-1
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Stephanie Kenitzer or Patricia Viets
    1/11/99
    1998 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOAA ANNOUNCES
    Global temperatures in 1998 were the warmest in the past 119 years, since reliable instrument records began, the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. The previous record high surface temperature was set last 1997. The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C). This was the 20th consecutive year with an annual global mean surface temperature exceeding the long-term average.

    “The persistent 1997-1998 El Niño, which lingered into the first half of the year, and the unprecedented warmth of the Indian Ocean contributed to this record warm year,” said NOAA Administrator Dr. D. James Baker

    Both land and sea surface temperatures were above the long-term average. Sea surface temperatures were 0.92°F (0.51°C) above normal, while the land surface experienced even greater warmth at 1.84°F (1.02°C) above normal. Tropical latitudes (30°N – 30°S) established a new record by a wide margin, averaging 1.76°F (0.98°C) above the long-term mean, 0.68°F (0.38°C) above the previous record set in 1987. The Northern Hemisphere (30°N – 90°N) also set a record at 2.16°F (1.20°C) above mean. The Southern Hemisphere (30°S-90°S) did not experience record heat, although temperatures averaged 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the long-term mean.

    Regional and Seasonal Variations in Global Temperatures

    An examination of global temporal and regional temperature anomalies reveals many distinct patterns. For instance, while most of the tropical land mass and ocean surface temperatures averaged above normal, a persistent flow off the Indian Ocean brought relatively cool, cloudy weather to equatorial east Africa during the first half of the year. Many areas in Western Europe and North America experienced their warmest February in 100 years. In June, a record-breaking heat wave in central Russia resulted in huge fires. Australia recorded its highest annual mean temperature since high-quality records began in 1910. Canada reported one of its warmest years since 1948.

    A rapid reversal in the sea surface temperature anomaly pattern occurred in the eastern equatorial Pacific as warm anomalies (El Niño) transitioned to cold anomalies (La Niña) during the latter half of the year.

    Annual temperatures averaged below the 1880 – 1997 mean over northern sections of Eurasia and southern South America. The cold weather in northern Eurasia was accompanied by excessive spring and autumn snow cover. While Europe and northern Asia experienced harsh early winter conditions late in 1998, much of North America had unusually warm autumn weather. Mild conditions in eastern North America came to an abrupt end as a major arctic blast spread south during the last couple weeks of the year.

    Temperatures in the United States

    The United States average temperature in 1998 was 54.62°F (12.57°C), which placed the year in a virtual tie with1934 as the warmest year in records dating to1895. The average temperature in 1934 was 54.67°F (12.59°C) and the third warmest year on record was 1921 with an average of 54.42°F (12.46°C). Several regional and seasonal records were also set throughout the year. For example, the region from the Northeast to the Great Lakes experienced its warmest January-May. The Southern Plains experienced its warmest July-September while the Far West saw its third warmest. From the Southern Plains to the Gulf Coast, the warmest May-November was established in 1998. The protracted summer heat wave resulted in extraordinary runs of daily temperatures 90°F or hotter in several Texas and Florida cities. In contrast, California and Nevada experienced their second coolest April-June. September monthly anomalies show that nearly two-thirds of the contiguous United States was much warmer than normal.

    Global Precipitation

    The 1998 global average precipitation anomaly for the land surface was less than 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) above the 1900-1997 mean. However, considerable differences were evident in precipitation departures across latitude bands with an average surplus of precipitation in the majority of the Northern Hemisphere, and a deficit elsewhere. Land areas between 30°N and 55°N averaged 2.31 inches (58.7 mm) above normal, more than the equivalent volume of water flowing through the Mississippi River during an entire year. Precipitation also averaged above normal in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes (55°N-85°N). Conversely, the equatorial zone (10°S -10°N) averaged 7.18 inches (182.4 mm) below the long-term mean.

    The 1997-98 El Niño event was one of the two strongest this century. It was associated with extremely dry conditions and devastating fires in many areas of the world, including Indonesia, eastern Russia, Brazil, Central America and Florida. The El Niño was also associated with extensive flooding in parts of northern Argentina and coastal Peru. The rapid shift to La Niña conditions at mid-year was associated with extremely heavy rains in many parts of Asia. The Indian monsoon season started later than usual, but ended with massive flooding along the Ganges river valley. Devastating late summer flooding developed on the Yangtze River in China, causing massive damage and killing more than 3000 people. Rain in the African Sahel got off to a slow start, but rainfall was greater than normal across much of the region during the latter half of the season.

    Although many regions of South Asia received ample rains during the summer monsoon season, the watersheds along the Mekong River of Southeast Asia and the Indus River in Pakistan experienced extensive droughts. Summer heat and dryness plagued the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and southern Russia. Canada reported one of the ten driest January-November periods since records began in 1948.

    Precipitation in the United States

    The United States had the fifth wettest year on record in 1998 with a national average of 32.61 inches (828 mm) of precipitation. The wettest year was 1973 at 33.99 inches (863 mm). Considerable regional and seasonal variation in precipitation anomalies occurred throughout the year. For example, the Southeast and Great Lakes regions had their wettest January-March in 1998, and the West had its wettest January-June.

    A record dry April-June resulted in drought conditions from the Southern Plains to the Gulf Coast states. The spring and summer heat and drought led to massive wildfire outbreaks in Florida. Late summer and autumn rains from tropical systems helped abate the dry conditions in the South, while drought intensified in the eastern U.S. The region from the central Atlantic Coast to New York experienced the second driest July-November on record.

    Natural Disasters

    Numerous weather-related natural disasters occurred in 1998. A January ice storm caused widespread power outages in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. The deadliest Florida tornado outbreak on record occurred the night of February 22. A frontal system moving across the Central Plains spawned 20 tornadoes in Oklahoma on October 4, setting a national record for the most twisters ever during a single day in October. The preliminary annual count of tornadoes observed in the United States was 1239 (the average is 1186).

    El Niño contributed to the late start of the 1998 Atlantic Hurricane season which, under the influence of La Niña, ended as one of the deadliest in history with 14 named storms. Three hurricanes and four tropical storms caused billions of dollars of damage to the United States. Hurricane Georges devastated the northern Caribbean in late September. Hurricane Mitch, one of the most powerful Atlantic hurricanes on record, devastated many Central American countries in October, and resulted in a staggering loss of life. In the Pacific, October’s Supertyphoon Zeb inundated the northern Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan. Only eight days later, Supertyphoon Babs struck the Philippines, submerging parts of Manila.

    For more information, refer to…

    The Global Temperature Anomalies
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1998/anomalies/anomalies.html

    NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center is the world’s largest active archive of weather data. The preliminary temperature and precipitation rankings are available from the center by calling: 828-271-4800.

    NOAA works closely with the academic and science communities on climate-related research projects to increase the understanding of forecasting techniques. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center monitors, analyzes and predicts climate events ranging from weeks to seasons for the nation. NOAA also operates the network of data buoys and satellites that provide vital information about the ocean waters, and initiates research projects to improve future climate forecasts. The long lead climate outlooks are available on the Internet at: http://nic.fb4.noaa.gov.

    The 1998 statistics are available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1998/ann/ann98.html

  27. This article is worth commenting on. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

    It includes the attack on the UAH group

    “You can also use some sorcery to try to produce a satellite measurement more representative of the lower half of the troposphere—a technique pioneered by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) group that runs the other major satellite dataset.”

    Text would be fine without the “sorcery”. term..

    Also, Carl Mears is apologetic about the RSS work. He basically throws the UAH group under the bus. I saw such a behavior at a CCSP 1.1 Committee meeting in Chicago which I was at. The RSS group presented an error in the UAH data at the meeting without informing Roy or John beforehand. It was clearly an attempt to blindside them (which Tom Karl, the Chair, seemed to be aware of). Roy confirmed the error and showed it was small in just a short time at the meeting. In a later NRC meeting, I similarly heard Tom Karl attack the UAH work. He clearly sees it as a threat to the robustness of his surface temperature data analyses.

    Here is some text on Mears comments in the news article.

    “Ars asked Carl Mears, who works on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset Senator Cruz was pointing to, how he feels about those statements. “Well, I guess I’m annoyed because I feel that they’re misusing the data,” he said. “They’re picking a specific time period that generates the conclusions that they would like be true. If you look at a longer time period, you get a very different conclusion.”

    “With that said, both satellite records do show slightly smaller warming trends for the troposphere than our surface records show, which is unexpected. “If you include the uncertainty analysis,” Mears explained, “I think that the data aren’t really good enough to say that it either is or isn’t following what you expect.”

    The “no warming in 18 years” claims simply stem from the fact that the warm El Niño conditions around 1998 stand out very strongly in the satellite record, producing a cherry ripe for picking. “Of course if you start riding your bike from the top of a hill, you’re gonna go downhill for a while,” Mears said. By starting in 1998 rather than, say, any year previous, you can draw a flat line to the present. (Since the current El Niño is just as strong, we should see a similar hill appear in the satellite data as that warmth moves poleward from the tropics.)”

    “Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something like that, we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets, but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite datasets,” Mears said.”

    “Despite the political rhetoric championing satellite records as a challenge to the reality of human-caused climate change, they actually confirm that reality. “We’ve done numerous papers with Ben Santer from [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory], where he’s compared the patterns that we see to the patterns that the climate models predict, and we’ve shown that without including greenhouse gas changes in the climate models, you cannot get the amount of warming that we see,” Mears noted.”

    The final arbitrator of these issues will be the scientific community. however, John and Roy need to prepare a robust response to these criticisms of Mears (or publicly accept them). That Mears seems to denigrate his own analysis is remarkable. One wonders why he is even funded for that work?

    Roger A. Pielke Sr.

    • ‘We’ve done numerous papers with Ben Santer from [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory], where he’s compared the patterns that we see to the patterns that the climate models predict, and we’ve shown that without including greenhouse gas changes in the climate models, you cannot get the amount of warming that we see’

      This comment is classic propaganda, packing a 2-in-1 punch of deception:

      1. Set up a strawman: without GHGs, we cannot simulate the amount of warming. Well, so what? Of course GHGs cause warming, and if your simulation doesn’t include them you cannot get warming (or at least not as much as the temperature record says). But who would dispute this point? The question is whether, after adding GHGs, your simulation is close to the temperature record… and it isn’t. There are also numerous papers showing this, though of course not by Mears and Santer.
      2. Present something absolutely trivial as somehow remarkable. Again, that one cannot replicate warming without GHGs is just common sense. What is this supposed to prove?

      Notice also that the default warmer argument when talking about satellite/ballon data is to point out that there is so much uncertainty around these temps, so one just cannot say for sure whether the models are right or wrong. This is remarkable because after 37 years, the models are showing about 3 times as much warming as the satellites – and this is still not enough to draw conclusions?

  28. Anthony has got it wrong. He is basing his claim on deriving absolute values of the global average temperature, rather than changes over time, and he’s deriving this himself by adding up numbers from different sources many years apart which are not meaningful to compare.

    The absolute value of GAT is very uncertain because of issues such as gaps in the global coverage, but the change in GAT is better known because the errors in the absolute value are fairly systematic (ie: if there’s an underestimate in 1997 then it’s fair to assume that there’s a similar underestimate in 2015, for example – as long as you look at the difference between the two, the underestimates in both years cancel out).

    These systematic biases will have changed over the years, for example as more historical data gets included, or the techniques for estimating the global numbers from the station data change. So comparing an estimate of absolute GAT from 1997 with a value for 2015 derived using a much more recent estimate of absolute GAT is not comparing like with like.

    If you look at NOAA’s own words on this (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513) they say:

    the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

    The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both well below the 2015 temperature departure.

    However it is probably fair to say that NOAA should have explicitly given the uncertainty range for their estimate of the 20th Century average GAT. They do say that it is uncertain in their FAQs pages: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php – I found this when looking at the 1998 report (I’d wondered why Anthony didn’t quote the 1998 temperature, as it was even warmer than 1997 – I guess it must have been because NOAA didn’t give an absolute value then, just an anomaly).

    So while I’d agree that NOAA could do better in their communication, they are definitely not saying that 1997 was warmer than 2015. The headline of this post is misleading.

    • RB:

      The absolute value of GAT is very uncertain because of issues such as gaps in the global coverage, but the change in GAT is better known because the errors in the absolute value are fairly systematic (ie: if there’s an underestimate in 1997 then it’s fair to assume that there’s a similar underestimate in 2015, for example – as long as you look at the difference between the two, the underestimates in both years cancel out).

      And if the difference in the AV of GAT was not the same? And how would you know? A very curious comment, if I may say so, Richard.

      • caitiecaitie:

        You say

        Id say they’re simply not detailing data that is not corroborated. That’s not the same thing as obfuscation though, in fact, it’s the only scientifically honest thing to do.

        Of course they are “not detailing data that is not corroborated” because they are reporting data that is not corroborated.

        Perhaps you would care to “say” how any data for global average temperature (GAT) could be “corroborated”?

        Richard

    • “The absolute value of GAT is very uncertain…”

      This is extremely problematic from a modeling perspective. The radiative emission delta from using just the average temps of 62.45 and 58.62 is over 10 Watts/square meter. Of course, the average temp is a transient composite of much higher and much lower temperatures, driving that delta up further, given T^4 dependence. I would estimate the difference in thermal emission between these two “uncertain absolute values” of earth’s temperature therefore rises to around 15 W/m2. In addition, NOAA’s “new” lower average temperature shifts the peak wavelength of emission even farther away from the CO2 primary absorption band near 15 microns, meaning that while much less radiation is emitted, even a smaller fraction of the new value is absorbed in the atmosphere by CO2.

      Meanwhile Gavin Schmidt admits on RC that total solar irradiance was underestimated by ~ 3.5 W/m2. Plus, as I’ve pointed out to you, your use of a graybody emission model for deserts (and NASA and NOAA) predicts incorrect retention of energy in the atmosphere of this same order of magnitude. (Paper forthcoming, but it’s pretty objective: quartz emits much more strongly in the atmospheric window)

      This, while Kevin Trenberth is publishing estimates of radiative imbalance between 0.5 and 1.0 W/m2.

      However, we are told that the change is GAT corresponds to 0.15 C with uncertainty of ~ 0.09 C, and uncertainty of 0.13 C in the year 1853.

      Frankly, this is ridiculous. Models cannot accurately project anything, least of all radiative transport fundamental to the concept of warming due to anthro-GHGs, if the absolute temperature values are “very uncertain”. Which brings us to the uncertainty values, which are downright amusing. I doubt you would be able to accurately measure the temperature of one swimming pool over one 24 hour period to within 0.09 C with one sensor. This is coming from someone who uses high-quality thermocouples daily that vary by three times as much under identical, *static* conditions. And if you only had a single thermometer in that swimming pool to work with, you would still have a thermometer density of 2.3 Billion times that with which NOAA is working with in the oceans, if NOAA’s stations were evenly spread. Since most are on land, you are essentially telling us that you are measuring the average temperature of ~ five billion swimming pools over an entire year with a single thermometer, doing this many times over sets of (5 billion) pools that vary in temperature by over 50 C, and can tell us the accurate, average value of change to less than a tenth of a degree. And in the year 1853, with only a bit less precision. Preposterous.

      One more thing: water has huge latent heats of fusion and vaporization, as you know. Initializing models at different absolute temperatures will add or subtract an enormous amount of enthalpy in polar regions where water must absorb quite a bit before moving from 0.00 to 0.01 C. And we all know how important the model predictions are at the poles.

    • The absolute value of GAT is very uncertain because of issues such as gaps in the global coverage, but the change in GAT is better known because the errors in the absolute value are fairly systematic>

      Richard, I can’t say what you’ve written makes any sense. The average is uncertain, but better known because errors are systematic? I believe the uncertainty is either there or it isn’t. I’ve not had much experience with variable uncertainty.

      You understand temperature anomalies are essentially Z Scores. A reference average (mean) is calculated, then the individual observations are scored around it by subtracting the mean from the observed value. It’s no more complicated than that. It doesn’t change uncertainty and it doesn’t change the absolute value, which can be reconstructed by reversing the process. If you know the reference mean, addition is all that’s needed to reconstruct the original, absolute value.

      There is no “absolute” value of the mean (AGT or GAT), it’s an estimate and it has a standard error of estimate.

    • I have made this point numerous times: anomaly is useful for comparing changes overtime in disparate data sets, BUT it must also be reported along with the “average” used to derive it. THAT is the only way you can determine changes between different iterations of the data. The very nature of anomaly causes the interpreted data to be less clear. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong per se, but the inclusion of an “average” shows what internal changes have been made to produce the anomaly number. This wouldn’t be at all important, if the “data” from 50, 60, or 80 years ago weren’t STILL continuously changing. Every temperature product should be required to include and average temperature for every station it uses, for every measuring period. THAT is the only easy way to see changes made from one iteration of the data to the next. It’s easy, and doesn’t affect anomaly at all. And no one will ever do it.

    • Richard Betts wrote: “So comparing an estimate of absolute GAT from 1997 with a value for 2015 derived using a much more recent estimate of absolute GAT is not comparing like with like.”

      That is the point of the article. In 1997 GAT was an apple. In 2015, 1997 GAT had become an orange. In 10 years time 1997 GAT could have turned into a tomato. Which is the correct fruit?

  29. So here is the math for the claims, for 2015, to get the number, we have to add the yearly variation from the 20th century average to it to get the absolute number:

    GAT for 20th century = 55.2°F This is the average for the month of November not the annual value

    GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F

    GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F

    In any universe, 56.82°F is lower than 62.45°F by 5.63 degrees Fahrenheit.

    And the average for November is not the same as the annual average.

    “Also note the statement at the top of the 1997 report: Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.”

  30. In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

    But according to this source:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

    The anomaly for 1997 was 0.51 C (or 0.92 F).
    When this number gets added to 57.0 F, we get 57.92 F for 1997 versus 58.62 F for 2015.

    So the question now becomes: Were adjustments made over the last 18 years to lower the actual 1997 temperature from 62.45 then to 57.92 today? And if that is indeed the case, the error bars for the 62.45 must have been HUGE! And if their error bars are of the order of 4.5 F, how certain can we be that 2015 has indeed set a record?

    • The anomaly for 1997 was different than for 2015 because the 30-year-average baseline was different.

      • For 2015 they used the 20th century average as the baseline. For 1997, they used the 30-year average (1961-1990) as the baseline.

      • That single table does use the same baseline. What I’m saying is that in the original 1997 report, they used a different baseline average than they do today – presumable to show more warming, since the 1997 baseline was a 30-year average from 1960-1990, whereas in 2015 the baseline was the average from 1900-2000. Since the latter baseline will be lower, the calculated anomalies will appear higher now than they would’ve using the same baseline from 1997.

    • Werner, the surface record IS out side their own error bars from the 1980s.. Goddard had some posts on this.

      It is curious, Steig took a little WAIS warming, and smeared it all over Antarctica. Those in denial of satellites take a little honest questions on some aspects of the methods within the confines of realistic error bars, and attempt to smear then over the entire satellite and weather balloon data sets, when they exist within the error bars and do not change the overall record.

      Picking an anomaly relative to a certain base is , well relative and an anomaly. The question is do either UAH or RSS show any year close to as warm as 1998. The answer is no, they do not. Both show 2015 as nowhere near 1998, and both show 1998 as the “warmest year ever” to quote the CAGW phrase.

      Both UAH and RSS are ballpark .3 degrees below 1998, both show 2010 and other years as warmer then 2014 and 2015. Schmitt proclaimed a what, 34% chance that 2014 was the hottest year ever based on what.04 degrees. By that measure there is a 100 percent chance that RSS and UAH show that 2015 was not the warmest year ever.

      CAGW proponents (Steve Mosher in particular generalizes on this regularly) cannot understand that most skeptics do not object to adjustments in principle, or to modeled results in principle. We do object to the wrong (according to observations) modeled mean being used in predictions of harm, and adjustments that are clearly wrong and unexplained. Examples, they are countless. As for one example of many unexplained adjustments, see this Bill Illis comment… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/can-adjustments-right-a-wrong/#comment-1877173
      =======================
      “Here are the changes made to GISS temperatures on just one day this February. Yellow is the new temperature assumption and strikeout is the previous number. Almost every single monthly temperature record from 1880 to 1950 was adjusted down by 0.01C.

      I mean every freaking month is history suddenly got 0.01C colder. What the heck changed that made the records in 1880 0.01C colder. Did the old thermometer readers screw up that bad?
      ==========================

      These adjustment are not explained by anyone. A few posts below Bill’s comment directions are given to confirm this.

      IMV the entire surface record is FUBAR, Some of the original data is famously lost. The great dropping of thermometers, the movement of stations from rural to urban, the ever changing data and therefore base periods on which anomalies are published, the wrong UHI adjustments…
      UHI is worse going from wilderness to village to small town…. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/pop-density-vs-rate-of-ISH-station-warming.jpg
      …the refusal to adjust to known thermometer errors in early readings because the adjustments would warm the past, the ever increasing homogenization, which in conjunction with the dropping of stations allows any errors to magnify, or spread over ever larger geographical areas, the questionable TOBS bias adjustments, of course the station siting issues, the clear disputes of GISS adjustments from various regions like the Iceland meteorologists disputing those adjustments, Russian scientists disputing the adjustments to Russian data, the Australian controversy and the refusal to provide records and resistance to FOI requests in the US as well, the divergence of the surface from the satellites and from the weather balloons, and from the one US set using only pristine stations, the climate gate emails where scientist openly talk about removing the 40s blip, the decrease in the number of days over 95 F in the US and decrease in the number of stations reporting over 95 degree days in the hottest year ever, the non decline in NH snow coverage, now true for all seasons, the increasing Antarctic sea ice, the cooling southern oceans, I could go on and on, but all suggest the current surface record is F.U.B.A. R..

  31. Anthony,

    You are incorrect in your assertion; 2015 is the second warmest year for the U.S. in USCRN, after 2012. Same result for the U.S. as in the NOAA global product.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=ann&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

    December 2015 is the third warmest -month- in the record.

    Also, the difference in absolute temperatures reported back in 1997 and today are mostly due to the addition of many more high-latitude stations in GHCN version 3 (and 2 awhile back). Having more coverage in high latitude areas unsurprisingly results in a more accurate and slightly colder global average temperature. To me at least that doesn’t seem like a bad thing, and this whole issue highlights why folks tend to prefer to use anomalies which are less susceptible to bias due to differences in spatial coverage over time.

    • The contiguous US represents 1% of the Earth’s surface. That should clue you in to why it’s important to look at the global average temperature, not just the US temperature.

    • Zeke,

      Nice deflection. Now, show us how human CO2 emissions caused the warming.

      The fact is that global warming has been happening since the LIA. It is rank dishonesty to imply that human emissions are the cause.

      • db, the Industrial Revolution, hence the burning of large amounts of coal, coincides with the end of the LIA too. So, no, not ‘rank dishonesty to imply’ at all.

      • Lou Maytrees (replying to dbstealey)

        db, the Industrial Revolution, hence the burning of large amounts of coal, coincides with the end of the LIA too. So, no, not ‘rank dishonesty to imply’ at all.

        Dead wrong. Even if one (wrongly) assumes the Little Ice Age was a “single valley” of temperatures that reached a minimum in 1650, and “ended” at some mythical “perfect 0.0 global average temperature” in the year 1850, then your “CAGW CO2 induced warming” theory
        1. MUST explain WHY the earth’s global average temperature INCREASED from 1650 to 1850,
        2. MUST explain WHY the earth’s global average temperature DECREASED from the Medivial Warming Period’s long peak of 1150 – 1350 to 1650’s “valley,
        3. MUST explain WHY the earth’s global average temperature increased JUST AS FAST between 1910’s local low to 1940’s local high point (when CO2 was very low compared to today!) as it did between 1970’s local low point and 2000’s local high point (when CO2 levels were much higher than in 1650, 1700, 1750, 1800, AND 1850, 1900, 1950!),
        AND
        4. it must show WHY global average temperatures remain static (or decreased) for nearly the same period of time between 1880 and 1910, between 1945 and 1975, as they have between 1996 and 2016.

        Second. Why do you even believe we have reached the “end” of the Little Ice Age in 1850? We might have, I agree … We are almost as warm as it was in the Medieval Warming Period. We are not yet as warm as in Roman times, and definitely colder than in Minoan times. But why claim 1850 is the magical end of an inconvenient cold period?

      • RA, it was dbstealey who said “global warming has been happening since the LIA” and since the Industrial Revolution started in the mid 1700s, and the use of coal in smelting even farther back, in the late 1600s, they both tie in perfectly with your (not mine) 1650 – 1850 timeframe. In fact they are perfectly in sync with yours & db’s ‘end of the LIA’.

        So your dates answer your own first question about why the global temperature increased from 1650-1850.

        The other 3 ?s are non sequiturs that have nothing to do w the Industrial Revolution and the increased burning of coal, etc.

        And not sure why you claim the LIA magically ended in 1850 as i never did, only you. And not sure where you get your information on global temps in the MWP but most recent findings show that the MWP was between +.2*C to +.6*C above the ‘norm’, so since we are now, at +1*C, we’re well above that range. (Esper, et al 2012)

      • Something strange going on with WUWT.. I can’t type properly into the reply box.

        A script running or something?

        Looking for one of the GHCN in East Africa, the one in Addis Ababa

      • Re: excruciating, one char — per — 5 second (aarrrrgh!) data entry, it happens all the time with me — usually after (have no idea why) I’ve made several comments that day. “Long-running script” is one of the “warnings” I get. I’m guessing it is when the little ad just above the ****** rating line at bottom of main post has a video running in it. (shrug). Powering down, then, re-starting Windows seems to help, but, often, the stuttering data entry problem soon returns.

        I’ve started to keep a blank Word doc open and I type in there, lickety split, then, copy/paste into “Leave a Reply” (which seems to take on a distinctly MOCKING tone, by then, lol) box. Sometimes, I have to type: “Ctrl-V” over and over to get the paste to happen, too.

        So, now you know. You are not alone. :)

      • Janet, just switched to Firefox, seems to be ok at the moment.

        Zeke, there is also one in Jimma, Ethiopia that I can’t find, can you assist please.

      • @AndyG55, 9.033°, 38.75° would put us about here …

        Can’t say I can spot an MMTS or elevated white rabbit hutch anywhere but your luck may vary …

      • gees, no UHI effects there.. perhaps they ought to move it to the airport . ;-)

        I think there may be a couple more somewhere in the region, these get smeared over most of central Africa.

      • The real point is that the people using the data from these places should know the positioning and quality of the weather station.

        They are using data from site around the world and have ZERO idea of the quality of that data.

        And as out esteemed host has shown with his surface station project (someone had to do it and sure as heck NOAA weren’t going to), its a MESS and they really HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE.

        The whole surface data mish-mash is one massive white elephant that really needs to be just dumped in the trash where it belongs..

      • The ads tend to kill most browsers eventually. Since I started blocking them, no more high CPU hogging by the browser.

      • “AJB January 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm”

        WOW! AJB, brings back so many memories. I probably walked/drove past this building several times when I was there. The blue and white clapped out Fiat with the door slightly open is a taxi (All taxi’s are Fiats as Italy tried to colonise Ethiopia in the 30’s – They failed but not before stealing national treasures like a “steele” in Axum. It was returned in 2005 I think) and the drivers are nutters!!! I recall seeing a “taxi” once, it was more of a pickup that had a truck cab on the back. One of the front axles had snapped off, the driver had I assume, taken the failed part to get repaired. But what I found funny was that his passengers were still sitting in the cab!!! “Ï paid my fare, I am not going anywhere until you fix your taxi!”

      • “AJB

        January 21, 2016 at 6:00 pm

        Can’t say I can spot an MMTS or elevated white rabbit hutch anywhere but your luck may vary …”

        It was probably stolen, dismantled and sold. May have fed someone for a day or two.

      • Janice, and Andy, it happens to me, usually after numerous posts With some trolls posting what 150 plus comments, usually diverting from the main subject, I am guessing it does not happen to them. Janice, I have gone to your solution before as well, but it is certainly not convenient.

      • Andy, Pamela,
        I found a solution to this. I had to, because it was causing IE to shut down periodically…sometimes deleting long comments as I posted them.
        If you are using internet Explorer, open the tool bar at the top and click on ActiveX controls in the Safety tab.
        This will stop that problem with long running scripts. But it will also disable flash, so you have to turn that back on if you wish to use any site with flash players.

      • ” I’m trying to locate the one GHCN station I the whole of eastern Africa.”

        And Africa is very very big, multiplying this source of errant data for a wide area more than one might think.

      • IE is a real PITA! Chrome and Firefox are so easy to maintain in comparison (Although I am no fan of Google). I work in IT in large corporate environments (SCCM/SCOM etc etc). We have to continually adjust group policy to account for changes and requirements of IE in a controlled and secure environment. Windows 10? Most corporates are planning to move to it. But me? Nah! I am staying with Windows 7 until 2020 (Middle finger to you M$)!

      • “Janice Moore January 21, 2016 at 2:45 pm”

        There is also a spell check capability in these dialogs (I found it annoying). Now, my spelling is terrible, shocking in fact so I turn this feature off (I have forgotten how to do this BTW) as it slows everything down. You may find out how to turn this feature off but I suspect your spelling is pretty good anyway.

        Under Windows 10, if you want to watch a flash player video, you have to enable that in the browser (Windows Edge? Windows Carp more like). Soon as you do that, you lose 20-50% of your available CPU power (It did on my lappy. It ran hot, fan on almost all the time. Consumed more power than before. Could barely touch the bottom left-hand corner of the lappy unit…and then one day it spat the dummy and failed. New lappy).

    • ‘Having more coverage in high latitude areas unsurprisingly results in a more accurate and slightly colder global average temperature. To me at least that doesn’t seem like a bad thing, and this whole issue highlights why folks tend to prefer to use anomalies which are less susceptible to bias due to differences in spatial coverage over time.’

      While anomaly data definitely makes more sense know how much temperatures have increased, it’s still remarkable that all this talk about 1ºC more or less is happening without knowing what the absolute temperature is. Surely the effects of warming on Greenland melting, hurricanes, etc etc depend not on anomalies but on absolute temps.

  32. Hi Zeke – This is what Mark Albright sent me this morning re the USCRN averages. It agrees with your analysis.

    Roger Sr

    *********************Following from Mark Albright******************************

    I have not worked with the GISS data yet, but over the past 11 years NCDC and CRN69 track each other quite closely after accounting for a mean offset of 0.49 deg F:

    CRN 69 NCDC DIFF
    ————————————-
    2009 51.75 52.39 0.64
    2008 51.81 52.29 0.48
    2013 51.99 52.43 0.44
    2014 52.10 52.54 0.44
    2010 52.53 52.98 0.45
    2011 52.78 53.18 0.40
    2005 53.05 53.64 0.59
    2007 53.15 53.65 0.50
    2006 53.73 54.25 0.52
    2015 53.81 54.40 0.59
    2012 54.89 55.28 0.39

    NCDC averages +0.49 F higher than CRN69 between 2005 and 2015 inclusive. The range of annual mean temperature is about 3 deg F over the 11 years. 2015 was the 2nd warmest out of the past 11 years, but about 1 whole deg F cooler than 2012.

    -mark

    • Hi rpielke,

      In addition to a line with the heading, “Following from Mark Albright”, you can set off long quotations within a pair of blockquote and /blockquote tags. (Each within a pair of less-than and greater-than symbols, of course.)

  33. Doesn’t the disclaimer in the link for 1997 state that NOAA no longer considers the 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit value to be valid, and that it has been superseded by a new report?

    “Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.”

    I’m guessing NOAA would claim that if the 1997 average temperature were to be calculated using the 1999 Jones et al baseline value, then the value would be less than 58.62 °F.

    I’m not arguing that it was proper to adjust the baseline, I’m just saying that NOAA states right in the link you are using that the values are no longer considered valid.

    • None of it is valid. These graphs are 50% data and 50% adjustments based on assumptions made by the people creating the graphs. Especially with such minuscule vertical scales, there is simply not enough reliable historical data for anyone to claim this stuff is accurate.

      • I understand that, but you can’t really write an article that says “NOAA says the average temperature in 1997 was 62.45 F” when NOAA has a disclaimer on the page saying that they no longer consider the temperature value reported on the page to be accurate. All you can really say is that NOAA makes a lot of adjustments to their temperature data and regularly changes what they say the temperature is/was.

    • I’m not arguing that it was proper to adjust the baseline, I’m just saying that NOAA states right in the link you are using that the values are no longer considered valid.

      Baselines should only affect anomalies. For example, if I were to measure my body temperature and say it is 37.0 C, no one would think of asking what the baseline it. But if I said a bird had a fever with a temperature 2 C too high, then and only then would you need to know what the 2 C is compared to.
      So the 62.45 F should not need to be compared to anything.

      • I agree. But my guess is that the 62.45 F value was a number that was calculated by adding an anomaly to a baseline, the same way that the value of 58.26 F is calculated by adding an anomaly (1.62) to a baseline (57.0). So if the baseline changes, then when you add the anomaly to the updated baseline you get a new value for 1997.

        Again, I’m not saying any of this is right. I’m just saying that 62.45 F is what NOAA said in 1997. Now in 2016 they are no longer saying the 1997 value is 62.45, they are saying it is something else.

      • Is there a record anywhere of absolute global temperature values? I mean the report for 2015 doesn’t state an absolute temperature it only gives a baseline and an anomaly. The reader is left to calculate the absolute temperature himself.

        I’m not saying any of this is the right way to report climate data. I’m just saying that NOAA probably no longer claims that the average temperature in 1997 was 62.45 F. Now they probably say it was something else.

      • http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv

        According to this link, NOAA now says that the the absolute temperature for 1997 was 14.41 C (13.9 baseline plus 0.51 anomaly). 14.41 C = 57.94 F.

        So in 1998, NOAA said the average temperature for 1997 was 62.45 F.

        NOAA has since changed their baseline, and they now say that the average temperature in 1997 was 57.94 F.

        I’m not saying it was justified for NOAA to adjust their temperature data. but it also isn’t honest to say that NOAA has made a simple math error because the say 2015 was the warmest year and 62.45 F is 3.83 degrees warmer than 58.62 F when NOAA no longer says the temp in 1997 was 62.45 F. They now say it was 57.94 F, which is 0.68 F cooler than what they now say 2015 was.

        The only thing we can say is that NOAA now says that 1997 is 4.51 F cooler than what they said it was in 1998.

      • brownstone: I don’t believe it was a simple math error. More likely it’s a continual shift in methodology, basically rendering all past reports invalid by definition, and making individual reports incomparable with eachother. It’s similar how to the Bureau of Labor Statistics has shifted the definition of “unemployment” over the decades. We use U-3 now, but during the Great Depression it was something closer to U-6. Just as the NOAA has politicians pressuring them to show continual warming, the BLS has politicians pressuring them to show low unemployment. So they’re always tweaking the methodology.

  34. Interesting how the recent “highest temperatures ever!!!” announcement comes on the heels of a “the satellites lie!!!” propaganda video. These “scientists” behave as political operatives. Always trying to manipulate public opinion.

  35. There’s a lot of detail in this article.
    Can I just confirm that the essence of the story is that (a) in 1998 NOAA said the 1997 global average temperature was 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit, (b) in 2016 NOAA said that the 20th century global average temperature was 57 degrees Fahrenheit, and (c) in 2016 NOAA said that 2015 global average temperature was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century global average?

      • Thank you, Forrest Gardener and Werner Brozek, for the summary and the data expert’s confirmation of it. It was helpful!
        #(:))

      • If the mods will allow, a side note.
        (Janice, I hope you saw my reply on that Mann thread. I did not mean my comment as an admonishment.)

      • Hi, Gunga Din,

        I just found it. Thank you for the encouragement to keep on just being me. I’m pretty good at that!

        Your words’ plain meaning was admonishment, but! I believe you know what you meant to say FAR better than I no matter what words you used, so, I accept your correction of my reading comprehension.

        Okay! That little incident is now behind us.

        If you would be so kind, if you see THIS reply, please give a *ping*. Thanks.

        Your WUWT ally for truth,

        Janice

        P.S. And on a FUN thread, such posting as B.G.’s on the Josh cartoon thread that day, and day after day since then, is still: THREAD POLLUTION.

      • Hi Janice,
        Sorry about that. If I ever say anything that sounds like I’m telling you not to have fun on a fun post, please ignore me! 8-)

    • Excellent summary FG.
      To e complete, would you also obtain the data for the same years, from JMT and NASA. These are independent measurments and can be used to corroborate one another.

      I’ll invite you to report here on your determinations of the corroborating data, and if you regard the NOAA data sufficiently corroborated to justify a demand it be included in ongoing analysis.

      Or you could just not – because that is easier, and it leads you to the conclusion you want, if you dont.

      • caitiecaitie:

        You say to Forrest Gardener

        To e complete, would you also obtain the data for the same years, from JMT and NASA. These are independent measurments (sic) and can be used to corroborate one another.

        No, that is wrong on two counts.

        Firstly, the ‘surface data’ use the same source data so cannot be considered “independent”.

        Secondly, the different versions of global average temperature (GAT) are unique so cannot be used to indicate anything about each other. Each team that provides estimates of GAT uses its own and unique definition of GAT and, therefore, provides different weightings and different homogenisations to the source data (and, incidentally, the teams also alter their definitions most months so change their past data with this effect). Different definitions of GAT provide different values of GAT (apples and oranges are fruit but an apple is not an orange).

        Richard

      • And of course they never mention the obvious: the same global warming has been going on for centuries, naturally, and at about the same rate.

        So the implication is that the recent warming must be AGW.

        Lying by implication, no?

    • Harry Twinotter on January 21, 2016 at 3:03 pm

      – – – – – – – –

      Harry Twinotter,

      Steve McIntyre is saying the same thing as “There is a sucker born every minute.” (arguably attributed to P.T.Barnum).

      Prove it, well you don’t need science for that nor do you need science for your mother telling you as a young child “Do not take candy from strangers”. N’est ce pas?

      John

      • John Whitman.

        Are you being ironic?

        I never said anything about “prove it” so you have me there – no comment.

        What I was saying is the anti-science (I am not allowed to use the “D” word for – reasons?) people are projecting their own dishonesty onto others.

  36. My tabulation (with 1/10 rounding error)

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713 30-y avg.(1961-90) =16.50°C (61.76°F)

    Avg. 1961-90 Anomaly Absolute
    1995 16.50 °C (61.76 °F) + 0.33 °C (0.54 °F) = 16.83 °C (62.30 °F)
    1997 16.50 °C (61.76 °F) + 0.42 °C (1.20 °F) = 16.92 °C (62.45 °F)

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/ann/ann98.html
    „Long-term avg.“ Anomaly Absolute
    1998 13.8°C (56.9°F) + 0.66 °C (1.20 °F) = 14.6 °C (58.3°F)

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 Avg. 20th century = 13.9°C (56.9°F)
    Avg. 20th century Anomaly Absolute
    1997 13.9°C (56.9°F) + 0.51°C (0.92°F) = 14.4 °C (57.9°F)
    1998 13.9°C (56.9°F) + 0.63°C (1.13°F) = 14.5 °C (58.1°F)
    2014 13.9°C (56.9°F) + 0.74°C (1.33°F) = 14.6 °C (58.3°F)
    2015 13.9°C (56.9°F) + 0.90°C (1.62°F) = 14.8 °C (58.6°F)

  37. This is truly pathetic. How we can have a government that abuses like its power like this is beyond me. Somehow we need to have a watchdog in place prevent this kind of abuse of power.

    This says it best:

    “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”

    • co2 – also for you – could you check the corroborating data for the same years, from JMT and NASA/GIS?
      I’m keen to hear how you regard the extent to which those independent sets corroborate the NOAA data, sufficiently – or not – for them to be incorporated in future analysis.

      • caitiecaitie:

        You are snowing this thread with your disinformation about “corroborating data”.

        There is no possibility of a calibration standard for global average temperature (GAT) so there is no possibility of independent assessment of an estimate of GAT.

        And aboveI explain why estimates of GAT from different teams are not independent and not comparable.

        Richard

  38. NOAA’s “Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000” show the global Combined Mean Surface Temp. for last century (1901-2000) to be 57.0 F.

    Go to this URL: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

    Then click on “Mean Temperature Estimates” between “FAQ” and “Gridded Dataset” to see the average temperature figures instead of anomalies.

    Here’s NOAA’s global surface anomalies charted from 1997 through 2015.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1997-2015

  39. Hottest, schmottest. On any slowly climbing graph or trend, like the recovery from the LIA, the latest year is always most likely the highest. And the amount in this case < the margin of error!

  40. Learn how to use the website. You chose “previous 12 months” which shows monthly records. You need to pick Annual which shows yearly totals

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=12

    and 2015 is indeed second highest after 2012.

    And Climdiv gores back to 1895, though selecting USCRN shows the relevant years anyway

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=1895&endyear=2015&month=12

    It seems you are the one confused, not NOAA.

  41. I’ll put this up (again!) as it seems quite relevant here … (and it’s in C, not F!)

    Global temperature? An elusive and ever-changing figure:

    b>1988: 15.4°C
    Der Spiegel, based on data from NASA.
    http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false

    1990: 15.5°C
    James Hansen and 5 other leading scientists claimed the global mean surface temperature was 15.5°C. Also Prof. Christian Schönwiese claimed the same in his book “Klima im Wandel“, pages 73, 74 and 136. 15.5°C is also the figure given by a 1992 German government report, based on satellite data.

    1999 14.6°C
    Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies – Land and Marine Instrumental Records Jones Parker Osborn and Briffa http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

    2004: 14.5°C
    Professors Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf in their book: “Der Klimawandel”, 1st edition, 2006, p 37, based on surface station data from the Hadley Center.

    2007: 14.5°C
    The IPCC WG1 AR4 (pg 6 of bmbf.de/pub/IPCC2007.pdf

    2010: 14.5°C
    Professors Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf in their book: Der Klimawandel, 7th edition, 2012, pg 37 based on surface station data.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

    2012 14.0 °C
    Press Release No. 943 World Meteorological Society Globally-averaged temperatures in 2011 were estimated to be 0.40° Centigrade above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14°C. http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html

    2013 Wikipedia: 14.0°C
    Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/21/coming-ice-age-according-to-leading-experts-global-mean-temperature-has-dropped-1c-since-1990/

  42. “Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.”

    Comments?

    • The baseline temp is only used for calculating the anomaly, not the global temperature. Do you understand what a baseline temp or anomaly is?

  43. Once in a while i read this web site as one of the last post standing against the hypocrisy.
    But I listen to this CatieCatie and i realized it/she/he must be a sad, lonely person. Having so much time to spend in endless debates where only the personal ego is satisfied, is a clear indication that is a “misunderstood” educated individual with no use to this world. It must hurt.
    -Do you actually do something useful for this world, other than consuming energy to write back on a computer that works with the energy produced…. ?
    I bet this CC contributes in equal amount to the global warming it/she/he so effervescently blames everyone else for and she enjoys the goods and services that produce the “destruction” of the world.
    Somebody said, that since alarmists believe that is us humans that contribute to GW, they should lead by example and…
    Talk and numbers are not going to help the world. We end up just paying money that disappear like morning mist.
    -When you produce something useful or have a brilliant idea to make things better, then sent a link and I am sure everyone here will applaud and praise you.
    These are my thoughts and people like you wont change them, so dont bother replying (unless your ego wont let you sleep), because I wont read; I have a life.

    • martin,

      You have ‘cc’ pegged. More than two hundred comments in 24 hours!! ‘cc’ takes trolling to an entirely new level.

      And you’re right, cc is a very sad and pathetic person. Reminds me of the site pest ‘David Socrates’ who has posted here incessantly, using similar language.

      Which makes me wonder…

      • Yes! D.B. — so glad you mentioned D.S.! I was trying and trying to remember the troll who often began a comment with, “Hi, So and So” or “Hello, So and So” and who sounded “young” and was very ignorant of science and LOVED to talk about how the commenter he was needling was feeling, “that makes you upset” — “you’re angry” — “that bothers you” — you can almost hear the ev1l, idiotic, giggle when he (or she or they) writes that. After awhile, I wish Anthony would just give us all a break from the incessant babbling and gibberish — it has to be refuted to prevent misleading the uninformed and it is just annoying after awhile.

      • My impression of “cc” is that s/he is very bright , very opinionated and possibly a well educated student more of the history and philosophy of science than of actual physical science such as geophysics or meteorology, since most of the “cc” posts concern the methods of science rather than analyses of the actual quantitative data .
        I noticed that following a blizzard of her posts the subsequent posting from many persons ( too many to identify individually) reverted to a quantitative discussion of the actual data . This made me wonder whether “cc” is perhaps one of the “sceptics” who , disappointed that in the wake of COP21 too much attention was being given to the politics of AGW and too little to the science , (although given the media coverage of the event that was probably inevitable and excusable), decided to sharply poke the scientists on this site into returning to the mainstream activity of debating the science.

      • mikewaite:

        You suggest

        This made me wonder whether “cc” is perhaps one of the “sceptics” who , disappointed that in the wake of COP21 too much attention was being given to the politics of AGW and too little to the science , (although given the media coverage of the event that was probably inevitable and excusable), decided to sharply poke the scientists on this site into returning to the mainstream activity of debating the science.

        Absolutely not! The troll reviles the science: please read the subthread that begins here and ends with a summary by JohnB.

        Richard

      • Richard , I took your advice and looked back at the subthread you mentioned and can appreciate your annoyance at my seeming to be too kind to the lady/ gentleman aka “cc”.
        My suggestion that she is an agent provocateur/euse, intend to get posters to up their game was not intended to be taken too seriously. Her comments actually took me down memory lane ( not always the road best travelled) to the time when we graduate students would gather at coffee time to talk , largely nonsense, about the “meaning” of Heisenberg and Godel when applied to the observed world .
        Be tolerant to her/him , all too soon the real world of science will close in , dominated too often by worries about funding , jealous colleagues, bosses who won’t listen to your ideas , and the person who pips you at the post before you get your own paper in.

      • Has there been any justifiable response to the this article between the higher temps in 1997 and the claim of the warmest year ever by cc?
        To me NOAA looks like they’ve been caught in a lie. And worse they keep trying to say it by moving the sources and adjusting their data.

      • Patrick MJD — hard to connect on WUWT — just want you to know I’m still praying about the job. Hope all is well, “Auntie Patrick” (tell “Grandpa __” hello (smile)). At least you have more time to play the bass, these days! Well!! There ARE two sides to our being “between jobs,” you know!

        Janice

      • Thank you Janice. I have no idea if there was any Devine intervention however, I started a contract on the 11th with the Dept. of Corrective Services. The irony in this would have you laughing out loud, serial! Hope you find something soon too.

      • Patrick! I’m so happy for you. Even if it is not your dream job (or, lol, dream workplace), a decent job! Cool. Thanks for responding! (and for your kind wishes, too)
        #(:))

      • Govn’t agency Janice (And the irony still makes me laugh). This is my second contract with an Australian Govn’t agency, I now know why people like to work for Govn’t. It’s too easy!!! And to be frank, at my age, I like it too! No on-call. No “working from home”. No 24×7 availability. No being paid 37.5hrs/week and working 90hrs/week. None of that usual corporate dross. Stress and workload in my life now is so low I can have some life!

    • ….no such thing as a global average temperature….

      Granted. At least in that a rather meaningless, hugely error barred number it would be, if calculated.

      However, if it is possible to utilize a certain well defined data set to tell us the average temperature anomaly between one nominated date and another nominated date is x, it must
      be completely possible to actually calculate a ‘global average’ number (applicable to that data set) for each period. The data must exist.

      The great variety of answers provided over the years are primarily a fair indication of how much the data sets have changed with time. Which does little to add confidence to the notion we now have it correctly tagged, and actually know how much it has changed over time.

      It is perhaps (a slightly disturbing) coincidence, that the ‘global average temperature’ has steadily declined with estimates over time.

      • Yes, I know how to calculate an average. And one can calculate an average given a dataset of numbers…so it’s a made up number that means absolutely nothing in real terms especially with regards to temperature. Here in Australia the media weather forecasters always say X degrees measured temperature on any given days is above/below average. Meaningless!

  44. Considering that the measurements regarding Global Warming/Climate Change such as temperature, sea level and CO2 levels range from the mid Nineteenth Century to the present day, what is the accuracy if earlier readings compared to those of today?

    System error alone would render any comparison to be useless in comparison of readings, or aren’t “climate scientists” required to study measurements?

    Just a question from a guy who remembers having to calibrate a 100-ft tape every morning, before taking any measurements!

  45. Angels on the pinhead again.
    The estimated Average Global Temperature is always shown without error bars.
    The idiocy of an average global temperature is beyond parody.
    Meaningless in so many ways.
    To then trumpet “Warmest Year ever”based on a fraction of a degreeF demeans the institutions and mocks the poor taxpayers funding them.

    Even if we could estimate the average surface temperature of this globe using todays measuring systems, a doubtful proposition, what might we compare this amazing metric to?
    1850?
    1900?
    1950?
    What standard is at play?
    If, as the Team IPCC ™ keeps insisting, past weathermen were not able to accurately record temperature, what should the range of doubt be?
    2 degrees/station, 5 degrees from spatial infilling?
    They try to play this from every angle, they defend their need to adjust the past, then claim great past precision..
    Very much they act like compulsive liars, who lack the intelligence to remember what they told who.

    Could anyone point me to a site that explains the assumptions and methodology by which this fictitious metric is created?
    What is the official range of uncertainty for this icon?

  46. As for 62.45 degrees F for 1997 or 1998: This is what flunks. I think some government employee or the like made some mistake somewhere. I see low criticism of global surface temperature being generally 14-15 degree C in the post-1950 timeframe, and the great El Nino of 1997-1998 spiked it by less than 1 degree C.

  47. The global warming alarmists, including the IPCC, have a negative predictive track record. Every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.

    Unlike the warmists, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT actually has a positive track record.

    This elegantly-written 2001 comment by Lindzen is worth repeating:

    “We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future…”

    “Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty – far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…”

    Source:
    Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty
    By Richard S. Lindzen,
    Wall Street Journal
    June 11, 2001
    http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf

  48. And of course the whole GAT discussion omits two terrifying facts to the CAGW proponents. One, even accepting the FUBAR surface record it is still far below what the models predicted. Two, the satellite record is intimately defensible and, according to CAGW theory, it is suppose to warm 20 percent faster then the surface, not 100 percent less. Therefore whatever is causing the increase in the surface record, (IMV it is methodology of humans) it is not and cannot be the atmospheric increase in CO2.

    • I agree David. Any other line of defense for CAGW is political. Either way anyone looks at this, temperatures are falling. If those numbers are right, the actual temperature has fallen 1.5 C and even more if co2 behaves the way CAGW claims it does. That is a significant decline in temperature.

      In the scientific community, some organisation is going to have to go against CAGW. That would severely disrupt the freight train mentality that CAGW has going on in the press and media.

  49. Thanks, Anthony. What a shocker! ;-)
    We have been shown the pirouettes and contortions NOAA uses to bend the hiatus, we have been shown what the El Niño is doing, what it has done in the past.
    I have taken to disregard most of NOAA’s work, that I partially paid for. How sad!

  50. Trollspeak: “The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet”

    Actually, the oil industry is supported by everyone who guys gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, every product derived from these substances, and every government that collects taxes from the production, refinement, distilling, movement and use of those products.

    But nice try, Leonardo. Don’t you have to catch your private plane back to your private yacht your shell company registered off-shore leases from an oil magnate?

  51. The oil industry supports Government. In California about one dollar per gallon goes to state or federal government. Government makes about five times more from oil, then big oil.

  52. So they give the global average as 13.9C. I recall some years back, Hansen had said it was 15C and then he changed it 14C (making anomalies stick up another 1C, I guess). You know if you get too fancy with your hockey stick handling, you can score a goal on your own team.

  53. After much reading here and elsewhere, I would like to offer a different analogy. Suppose that in 1998, it was assumed that Mount Everest was 29,025 feet high. And the people knew a certain tide gauge was right at sea level in 1997. They could then say in 1998 that the sea level was 29,025 feet below Mount Everest. Now suppose that more accurate measurements in 2015 showed that Mount Everest was actually 29,029 feet high, and suppose they now said the sea level in 2015 was 29,028 feet below Mount Everest. On the surface, it looks like sea level dropped 3 feet, but it actually rose a foot due to the new Mount Everest height calculation.

    Now back to the NOAA situation. Thermometers read temperature and not anomalies. How did they know the temperature in 1997 if they did not average thousands of global thermometers in some appropriate manner? And if they compared these readings over the last 30 years or whatever, then they could say if, and by how much 1997 was above average. In hindsight, they were about 4º F off in their estimate of the 1997 temperature! And to make things worse, what was the preindustrial temperature from which we are supposedly not to go above 3.6º F?

  54. Caitiecaitie..

    If there’s no conspiracy to protect the CAGW claim why is there so much effort to suppress questions that voting populations want to ask–a shutdown on questions even by the taxpayer-funded commission in my country …Australia…a commission that was specifically set up to inform the public.to get them onside for climate action?

    How–if not to deceive—could warmist scientists have legitimately claimed decades ago that the science was ‘settled’–that CO2 caused CAGW—when most of the research had not by then been done—when clouds had hardly been researched–their feedback mechanism unknown—ocean research equally in its infancy?

    How could warmist scientists legitimately claim decades ago that the GLOBE was warming catastrophically when it only became possible to reliably measure ocean temperature—ie the T of 70% of the GLOBE— in 2005 with ARGO floats?

    Why—if not to deceive —have all of the inquiries into the climategate emails been stacked w people w personal vested interests in giving those scientists and institutions a clean bill of health despite glaring impropriety including refusal of FOI and evidence of corruption of peer review–as stated by the UK IOP before their report was mysteriously altered?

    Why did an American university find it necessary to freeze Douglas Keenan out of the inquiry into his allegations of fraud in data from China—necessary to promise to call him to testify to hose him down—keep him quiet—but then fail to do so–notifying him that his allegations had been thrown out only after the inquiry had ended.

    If warmist scientists are not trying to deceive—if they truly think there’s an urgent existential problem why do they not welcome alternative research and ideas—to maximize the chances of solving it— instead of trying to have questioning scientists charged under the mob laws—or just plain sacked and ostracized—ruined ?

    Why are our universities and research institutions closed shops for CAGW true believers–purged of sceptical scientists–often brutally so as with Salby and Spash here in Australia—and of those perceived to b e sceptics when they’re actually not like Bjorn Lomborg who was driven out of Australian universities.?

    Why so very very fragile if warmists have nothing to hide?

    Why is it compulsory—in Australia anyway—for a Minister and a Prime Minister to say they believe implicitly in CAGW because to do otherwise is to face political and professional ruin—as happened to our great realist Prime Minister Tony Abbott 4 months ago in a brutal MSM-engineered coup—at the behest many of us believe —of the international LW CAGW cabal which includes clueless Presidents, UN officials, bureaucrats, uber-rich Socialist Funds and Foundations and various supremely powerful environment organisations–and the LW MSM that enables the whole shebang.

    Many of us here and internationally forecast the political demise of Tony Abbott and Canada’s Harper at the hand of the CAGW CONSPIRACY–and it happened exactly as feared.

Comments are closed.