The ‘Karlization’ of Earth’s Temperature

Guest essay by Rud Istvan

WUWT readers will be familiar with the Karl et. al. pause buster paper Bob Tisdale has extensively critiqued, concerning which the NOAA administrator committed contempt of Congress by withholding related emails despite Rep. Lamar Smith’s Congressional Oversight Committee subpoena.

In 2013 Jim Hansen announced that GISS was switching to ERSST3.0. That means Gavin Schmidt would have used it for the January 2014 “warmest ever” PR, which embarrassed him when it was immedately pointed out that his own report said there was only a 32% chance this was true.

Time for some more egged faces (and fodder for the Congressional Oversight Committee), because NASA GISS would have used the Karlized ERSST4.0 for their 20 January 2016 PR proclaiming alarmingly that 2015 was the warmest ever, and by a lot!!! (It is, after all, a strong El Nino year similar to 1998.)

First, 2014 from the current NASA website, archived to save it from the memory hole. NASA posted its PR with the following chart on 16 January 2015.

clip_image002

The 2014 degrees C GISS anomaly is plainly 0.64C (not given in the PR text).

Note that 2014 GISS shows the temperature pause/hiatus also reflected in satellite and radiosonde observations. The joint NASA/NOAA 2016 press conference presentation did show them (perhaps because of Senator Cruz’ December hearing on climate ‘Data versus Dogma’). 2015 not hottest.

clip_image004

Second, from the same website, NASA’s version of the joint NOAA/NASA hottest ever (by a lot) PR, posted on 20 January 2016:

clip_image006

Plainly there was a 0.13C GISS anomaly increase over 2014.

This should mean that the alarming record 2015 anomaly is (0.64 + 0.13) 0.77C.

But not in the global warming proponent’s world.

From the joint presentation at the 20 January 2016 press conference:

clip_image008

It is worse than we thought. The official NASA GISS 2015 anomaly is 0.87C!!!

Illustrated differently, NOAA’s 2014 anomaly record from their website (archived) compared to the same chart for 2015, the one Adm.Tetley prominently featured in the Data or Dogma hearing to belittle the pause:

clip_image010

Pre Karlized: Pause Karlized: No Pause

This is alarming anthropogenic global warming. But it isn’t caused by CO2. It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records. A 0.1C jump in what the 2014 GISS anomaly supposedly is, manufactured during 2015. It is notable only because of the media ballyhoo that NOAA and NASA created, which they cannot now erase. There are many additional examples.

“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

— Marmion, canto 6 stanza 17, by Sir Walter Scott

Tom Karl at NOAA and Gavin Schmidt at NASA have woven a tangled web.

Perhaps Senator Cruz and Representative Smith can untangle it.

152 thoughts on “The ‘Karlization’ of Earth’s Temperature

    • 1
      My dog-latin is good enough to give ‘man-made’ [only one N (!)] for anthropogenic.
      Is yours good enough to give us a semi-decent translation for ‘clown-made’?
      Mine isn’t up to it by a country mile . . .
      Or anyone??

      Auto

      • Here is a guess (may not be quite proper form of words) until 1sky1 returns, Auto:

        fabricator ab fossor

        or

        fabricator ab agrestis

        (“fabricator” has the nice connotation of “artificer,” too)

        I know very little classic Latin. I just used this site: http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl?clown

        A commenter here who used to boast of his classics training was f.n.a. “milodon harlan1 (the “1” instead of an “i” in case he has been banned — he could get pretty nasty with racism, at times) who morphed into “sturg1s” and may still be around under ANOTHER name, busterbrown, perhaps??

        For once, we’d like him to show off his Latin knowledge! I say “he,” for he once signed his comment, “John.”

    • Actually, Karlization is far more akin to pasteurization than to homogenization, since it involves cooking the data. A good weekend to all!

  1. Werner Brozek gave a much more thorough account of the change here, with actual numbers for the years. And it shows what happened. The ERSST update changed the 1951-1980 anomaly base, and made a shift of about 0.06°C to current temperatures. All recent years shift up; the order of top years remains the same, until you get back to 1998 (fourth in 2014), which drops a few places.

    • So, NS, it is OK with you that the ballyhooed 2014 anomaly is raised by 0.1C in the ballyhooed 2015 presser? I think not. And that was the sole subject of this post, which you avoid.

      • “So, NS, it is OK with you that the ballyhooed 2014 anomaly is raised by 0.1C in the ballyhooed 2015 presser?”

        The anomaly wasn’t “ballyhooed”. You didn’t even remember it right (0.68°F), difference of 0.06. But what was noted widely then was that 2014 what the hottest year to date. And that is unaffected by the change, which is mainly just a shift in the 1951-80 anomaly base..

      • Nick, you claim 2014 is unaffected, but 1998 was surely affected and you conceded that fact. It’s pretty clear what they are doing, fiddling with the data to fit an agenda. All recent temps up, all past temps down. The temps could be a straight flat line over the last 100 years but with their adjustment criteria they can create scary warming. It’s amazing that you are defending this, I thought more of you.

      • The same NOAA claimed August 2014 was a record. I ask any reasonable person to look at the two satellite images Clearly in 1998 the atmosphere was warmer then in 2014 The surface record is FUBAR.

        1998,

        2014

      • Nick says, “You didn’t even remember that right” Well Nick, with the global surface record it is more like when you remembered it, for the record is ever changing, the baseline years may remain the same, but the baseline itself changes. You folk must love Emerson, “There is nothing so constant as change”

    • Two problems
      The fairness doctrine was dumped 30 years ago.
      The fairness doctrine only applied to opinions that differed from the official govt position.

    • “Plumbers” alludes to another Milhous… (other than B. Obama, coined by Mark Levin, Barack Hussein = “Milhous” for his dirty political tactics which echo Richard Milhous Nixon’s)

      Before Watergate there were the plumbers, called that because their task was to plug security leaks in any way possible.

      (Source: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Leader-of-Nixon-s-plumbers-regrets-loss-of-1089418.php )

      Milhous Obama: Karl! Get in here. Now, we seem to have a little data “misunderstanding”… .

      Thomas Karl: And?

      Milhous: PLUG THE DAMN HOLE!”**

      ** (B.O.’s 2010 insightful-as-always observation v. a v. the BP gulf oil spill).

      • Janice Moore,

        “Climate Plumbers” is an apt description of the con-artists who claim to be scientists but can’t or won’t follow the scientific method.

        However, I like to think of those ridiculous twits as people who studied cosmetology but thought it was cosmology or climatology.

        Data looking bad for the cause? Call in the climate cosmetologists and get a new hair-do! Change the color! Get some wrinkle cream on that face!

      • Lol, Mark! I love it. That is EXACTLY what happened (too bad they forgot all the great make-up techniques and hair styling advice, though…). Only had to watch this video until 2:23 and when they heard, “… a brilliant and financially rewarding career,” they were SOLD, baby!

        School of Cosmetology CLIMATOLOGY!

        (youtube)

        (from school brochure): “Some of our most successful students… Thomas Karl, Michael Mann, Steven M0sher… .”

        They learned masking…. and infilling…. and …. teasing. .. and “How to Write Great Ad Copy” …

        Preeeeh-tty interesting… the school was started around 1988.

        *******************************************************
        Please note: I am NOT denigrating what I consider to be an excellent career choice for some people, hair styling/esthetician or the like. THOSE people are doing a lovely and useful service for society!!

      • The only difference between Nixon and previous administrations was that he was caught.
        Read up on some of the stuff Johnson did while in power.

      • Dear MarkW,

        Why do you tell me to read up on Johnson? I am aware that Nixon was a far better (policy-wise and in leadership abilities) president than that statist, Johnson. I only used the plumbers aspect to the Nixon admin. to create what I thought was a fitting analogy, here. Nixon’s sins were, imo, FAR less egregious than Kennedy’s serial adultery and Johnson’s personal racism. Both Nixon and Kennedy were weak men.

        I was not trying to denigrate Nixon as a president overall by my comment. I wonder why you thought I was? The only thing I condemn Nixon for is that his underhanded tactics cost us the win in Vietnam — i.e., but for the weakening of his presidency made possible by Nixon’s minor crimes, he would have had the political clout to stay the course. We NEARLY won that war, but for a spineless, sometimes Kool-Aid drinking, Congress… . That is, while the ultimate responsibility for the loss in Vietnam is Congress, but-for-Nixon’s-corruption, Nixon could have made sure we finished the job.

        Well, we agree about Nixon, at least! #(:))

        And, Mark, THANK YOU FOR YOUR STAND FOR SCIENCE REALISM THAT ENDED UP COSTING YOU YOUR JOB AT A MAJOR U.S. LABORATORY. I shout this, for I want all the world to know that MARK W IS A HERO FOR FREEDOM!

        Your Ally (really!) for Science Truth,

        Janice

      • darn Janice I thought you used plumbers because they always have their arses hanging out for the world to see! ie.. “plumber’s crack”

        Aloha!

        Joe

      • Lol, Joe Civis…. :)

        Plumbers of that type DO get paid pretty good, though… so …

        Aloha!

        And mahalo, for the fun response.

  2. “It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records.”

    Wow. Scientists are big crooks. Good one.
    The sad thing is that you might actually believe it.

    • The sad thing is that you believe all scientists are either honest or crooks.

      Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. You’re obviously neither.

      • Because all scientists (I, too, am a scientist) are trained to as skeptics, then you must believe that all scientists are honest. That’s very good, I see progress with your thinking abilities.
        But, unfortunately, that makes your 1st comment not logical.
        Or do you have examples of un-skeptical scientists?

      • Or do you have examples of un-skeptical scientists?

        That’s a trick question, isn’t it?

        Pretty much everyone found in the Climategate emails demonstrates that they’re in it for the money, status, political power, travel, etc. Find me comments they’ve made expressing real skepticism of AGW. Yes, there are a few; but very few. They are far outnumbered by the connivers who’ve buried their scientific skepticism under piles of grant loot.

      • you cannot train someone to be a sceptic . today we have centres of advocacy in many of the earth sciences departments as opposed to centres of critical thinking. those that have passed through them in the last twenty years all appear to be cut from the same cloth,chanting the same dogmatic mantra .it is hardly surprising there are few agw sceptics from this demographic , a student would have to ignore every single thing they were being taught.

    • The rational conclusion from the evidence (both from the data’s intrinsic properties and from circumstantial evidence surrounding the creation of Ersst4.0) is that Tom Karl, et. al. are incompetent or intentionally misleading the public.

      … NOAA has created an outlier in their new sea surface temperature dataset.

      Bob Tisdale, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

      The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis {are} to the ocean temperatures since 1998. … ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. ***

      In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. …, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

      I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. ***

      … while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration/, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

      Dr. Judith Curry (quoted by Bob Tisdale, Id.)

      ************************************************

      Given their stellar track record and reputation for competent, honest, bona fide, science, I give great weight to the opinions of Bob Tisdale and Dr. Curry.

      In short:

      Karl, et. al., thus, NOAA, have proven by their bogu$ data manipulation AND by their subsequent (and ongoing) cover-up of how it all came about (remember, Watergate was not mainly about the underlying, minor, crime, but about the COVERUP) part of the Climate Hu$tle and are not to be trusted — at — all.

    • This is a stupid statement all by itself. First of all, it equates science the discipline with scientists as individuals. Different people are motivated by different pressures, and different communities of scientists are likewise motivated. Strawmen statements like ‘scientists are big crooks’ sets up an artificial – and kind of stuck-up – position for you to soapbox from. Being a ‘scientist’ does not make you anything other than the person you already were – it just means you’ve read a lot. We live in a world where priests – theoretically the bastion of morality – have been known to molest children, and yet I am apparently supposed to simply blindly trust the honesty of an entire class of people who have, as a philosophy, abandoned morality in favor of ethics.

      And herein is a presumption that needs addressing. The idea that ‘scientists’, simply by being scientists, are somehow more objective because science the discipline is, would be like saying a Catholic priest is moral because Catholicism dictates morality.

      Now, I’m not trying to pick on scientists (OR priests) in any general way, but this is a fundamental fact about anyone that pursues science in any form: If you want to study something for a living, you have to get someone to pay you for it. Most often, researchers take their degrees into the private sector and THAT is where the most innovative research is done today. There is, however, the community that essentially stays in college – forming Academia.

      These people essentially stay in school their entire lives – and likewise need someone to pay them for it – which means that your work has to be valuable to SOMEBODY. In a system where educators are often forced to scramble for funding like crack whores, you can make an extremely strong case that the interests of those funding education are as influential on an ‘academic’ researcher as it is to a professional working in industry. Or government scientists, I might add.

      I would also remind people who characterize a university environment as ‘liberal’ or ‘open-minded’ – what was college really like? Not open-minded, at best it is counter-culture’ – rigidly so – extremely clique-oriented, with people divided up into little buildings and given Greek letters that define their personality type. It’s a surreal, abstract (and often chemically-enhanced), environment of pure theory – not tested by conditions in the real world. A computer model, for example, will ALWAYS run according to program – because it exists in its own reality, not the real world. (Dan Ackroyd to Bill Murray in ‘Ghostbusters’: “You’ve never been out of college. I’ve worked in the private sector. THEY expect results.”

      SO, THAT’s the environment of the Academic.

      Now throw in the cash cow of Green i.e. Global Warming funding… which is… billions. Those who believe skeptic science is heavily funded are sadly mistaken. In fact, the money is actually all going the other way. The Oil and Power companies (including GE and BP notably) are among the largest investors in green technology and stand to benefit the most… and would not be happy if their investments turned out to be a complete donut (Robocop: I had guaranteed military sale with Ed 209 – spare parts for twenty five years – WHO CARES IF IT WORKED OR NOT?).

      The money interests invested in Global Warming are huge, encompassing nearly the entire U.S. Government (both parties), the entirety of the media, both news and entertainment, almost all the conservationist groups, and most world government. A lot of people are DEEP in.

      One of the best quotes of the Climategate e-mails: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”

      And it’s hard to fault individual scientists. You have to go where jobs are. I’ve seen this in a hundred different studies – all from people who want nothing more out of life than to study the things they love – do what you love and you never work a day in your life, right? So, if you want to study mosquitoes, or fruit bats (real cases), you get funding by attaching it to Global Warming – doing a study about bats dying in a heat wave. It’s the same everywhere – even things as seemingly removed as paleontology researchers are throwing their hats into the cash pool – with Cretaceous C02 studies – hell – remember how John Hammond got Dr. Grant into Jurassic Park? I’ll fund your dig, for the next few years. And why? Because he was trying to buy an expert opinion.

      And if your individual research doesn’t quite jibe with the doomsday scenarios that would advance the interests of those supporting your research, you can call it ‘inconclusive’, or you could ‘speculate’ – or say it ‘requires more research.’ And they are then given a statement to endorse – that the climate is changing, and humans are contributing.

      And the fact that Climate is such a wide-ranging science, with such general media support and so many hands in the pot, it’s not too hard to justify plausible deniability, citing the limited nature of your research and the complex nature of climate, and just not contradict the alarmism. Particularly, if they have no reason to question the results of other researchers. And THIS is an important point too: Often, people who have divulged into a certain discipline, can be remarkably lacking in collateral knowledge. Simply put – a scientist that specializes in fruit bats does not necessarily know how to spot-check a meteorologist.

      But every now and then, an ostensibly honest scientist, not realizing they are threatening dogma, will object to alarmist claims being based on their research by powerful politicians and interest groups – well, they are chased off campuses like witches. And have been exposed to – no other way to say it – a bizarre, almost tribal persecution. It’s something that most honest scientists – again with no particular reason to question ‘climate science’ over any other group – honestly don’t believe until it happens to them. (Judith Curry is one, although many other examples abound).

      This is the ‘Lukewarmist’. Who will cite the same facts and general predictions as Richard Lindzen, but will not openly debunk the alarmism. Not in the face of the global, world, political, and financial interests, heavily invested in green, that are now at stake.

      And no one is more under pressure to prove their case than the small clique of alarmists that sold the scare in the first place.

      • Here is a study that corroborates some of your assertions:
        Motive: Why some scientists may be prone to confirmation bias and ‘theory tenacity’,
        From the study;
        “Dunlap and Van Liere (2008) discussed the emergence of a worldview that they termed the new environmental paradigm, which has gained momentum among academics and scholars focused on the insults to the environment associated with sustained growth in human appropriation of resources. Society is, therefore, eager to consume news that confirms this worldview, providing an incentive for the media…”
        ““The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best.” Alternatively, it may be that the perception by the scientific community that top journals select for articles containing newsworthy messages drives a selective submission of articles…””
        http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/24/biosci.biu198.full

      • I know some academics who never left that world, but plenty of others who worked in the relevant industry and then came back to teach. And the “Greek letters” thing is one of those aspects of USA society which has always puzzled me; none of the universities I’ve any knowledge of elsewhere in the Anglosphere has anything like that. In this country there is very little research that is not government funded largely because a small country has few corporations big enough to do it except for some overseas companies who do the bulk of their research back home, naturally enough. I guess what I’m saying is “don’t tar everyone with the same brush.”

      • To Richard: “don’t tar everyone with the same brush.” I agree, that’s kind of the point that I was making at the beginning. But as a sociology major, I find it’s often necessary to speak in generalities. The point I was trying to illustrate is that these are the social pressures that exist (Judith Curry suggested ‘peer pressure’ probably trumps fraud in most cases, and I agree), and everyone reacts to these pressures in their own way – but of course the meaty part of the curve simply goes with the flow.

        And to Bill: “They shouldda let you join that Frat.” Heh, I’m sure it would surprise you to know that my friends in Frats, back in the day, all called me ‘GDI’ – as in ‘God D*** Independent’.

    • Interesting…you’re a Vonnegut fan who lacks the ability to retain the most basic factoids like the spelling of “Tralfamadore.” That, combined with your puerile information-free snark, puts you squarely in the “druggy young left-bent troll” category in my considerable experience. You’re not even worth the tiny effort it takes to scan your worthless posts.

  3. It is essentially every measurement in the database that is being adjusted, not just the recent ocean SSTs.

    One example which has been used before is Reykavik Iceland.

    In this chart, the top panel is the quality controlled estimates from the Icelandic Met Office which vigorously insists that no further adjustments are required. The second panel is what the NCDC reports to the whole world as the temperature history in Reykavik Iceland and the third panel is the “adjustments” made the NCDC to the quality controlled record. Blue is cooling the good data and red in increasing the good data.

    An increase since 1900 of 0.2C is turned into an increase of 2.1C.

    And then compared the 20 closest station which is what they say they are adjusting for, Reykavik is just 1.0C warmer on an absolute basis (nothing unusual and something which should make no difference in the calculations according to what they say is the algorithm – it is just 1.0C higher) but the overall trend would support an adjustment of something like +0.4C or so. Nothing like the +1.9C which is actually carried out.

    This is only one of 3,000 land stations which have received this same treatment. It is simply not justified and, if it were up to me, charges would be brought and people would spend serious time behind bard commensurate with the $billions that have been wasted because of this need to prove their stupid theory.

    • They have unevenly spaced data, sparse in many areas, often massively tainted by urban and airport effects.

      In the centre of Africa there are basically no usable sites in an area the size of the USA, and goodness knows what the quality of the Russian data is, not ‘pristine’ that is for sure. ! (In the past, villages used to push their temps down to get a larger allocation of coal)

      They then mal-adjust that data, creating trends where none existed and smear it over huge areas where it could not possibly apply to.

      They have NO idea of the quality of their temperature sites, as is proven by that fact that our esteemed host had to do all that work for them in the US… and the result was that the quality even in the US is often woeful to say the least.

      And then they have the temerity to complain about an evenly spaced, compact measuring system where the only adjustments are those that can be physically proven, and that trend matches the only sample of similar evenly spaced untampered surface data set in the world.

      Sorry, but the surface data is just one big hopeless, meaningless, white elephant and should be abandoned as a lost cause.

      But its all they have to hang their scam onto.

  4. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive;
    But oh, how we improve our style, once we have practiced for a while.

    H/t Emily Preyer.
    =====================

  5. “…contempt of Congress by withholding related emails despite Rep. Lamar Smith’s Congressional Oversight Committee subpoena.”
    If the email show something to the tune of “We have to get rid of the pause.”, I believe we should call Karlgate.

  6. This isn’t going to end well for Trofim Karl and other adherents to the government-sponsored scientific fraud movement. Encourage them all you want you mental masturbatory supporters up thread, but this still is not going to end well for these whores.

  7. DMI did an Arctic Sea Ice Extent 30% coverage of the The Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice for 11 years.
    As of the start of 2016 they have dropped this link.
    The 30% coverage had shown above normal sea ice extent for over 2 months and it was at an all time high for that time of year on the 1/8/2016.
    No reasons given.
    Anyone else able to follow this further?

    • “Anyone else able to follow this further?”

      That particular plot had coastal areas masked out. They gave plenty of warning that the plot was obsolete and was going to be withdrawn.

  8. I think Nick Stokes has already covered it – the article is wrong. I will wait for the correction.

    Ignoring the changes to the 1951-80 baseline, I get for NASA 0.68C + 0.13C = 0.81C, not 0.77C as stated in the article.

    This is one reason why the GMTs are usually expressed as anomalies, not absolutes.

    • I agree completely. I’m still baffled as to how the author came up with a value of 0.64C for 2014. The graph makes it clear that number is wrong, and there are tons of contemporary articles referring to the value as 0.68C.

      Once you account for that bizarre error and the change in baseline, the difference this post highlights vanishes completely.

    • HT,

      You’re deflecting. The question is: How much, if any, of the warming is man-made?

      (Answers require definitive proof, or at least very strong evidence)

      • dbstealey.

        Only you can call pointing out an obvious error “deflecting”.

        Now, you do know what “moving the goalposts” is, don’t you?

      • HT,

        What is it about The question is: How much, if any, of the warming is man-made? Answers require definitive proof, or at least very strong evidence that you’re trying to avoid?

        You’re just deflecting as usual.

    • You got it. Below. The conclusion stands with corrcted arithmetic. I did not spot a NASA mistake, my bad. Value of blog peer review. Fixed.
      As for changing anomaly baselines, wrong, from commenters with knicker knots. As the posted illustrations themselves make very clear. 1951-1980 anomaly base for GISS 2014 and 2015. No change other than they probably karlized the 1951-1980 temps also.

    • Use the published NCDC/NOAA site results and calculate for temperature.
      Been updating since 2/13/15

      (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) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
      Global Analysis – Annual 1998 – Does not give any “Annual Temperature” but the 2015 report does state – 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, So 1998 was 0.63°C – 0.51°C = 0.12°C warmer than 1997

      62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997″ = 16.92°C + 0.12°C = for 1998 = 17.04°C

      (3) For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F).
      0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201013

      (4) 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
      0.62°C + 13.9°C = 14.52°C
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313

      (5) 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

      (6) 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 ] for 1998

      And per the written sections –
      2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record – @ 14.52°C
      2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year @ 14.52°C but was at the same temp as 2010 & 2005 which were records.

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

      Gail says, WOW so that boils down to:
      1997 = 16.92°C.
      1998 = 17.04°C
      2003 = 14.52°C
      2005 = 14.52°C
      2010 = 14.52°C tied with 2005
      2013 = 14.52°C tied with 2003
      2014 = 14.59°C
      2015 = 14.80 °C

      Then, using 1997, their calculated ’20th century average’ was 16.92°C minus 0.51°C = 16.41 °C.
      Then they switched to “the 20th century average of 13.9°C

      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).

  9. Karl & Schmidt must be betting on a Clinton MK2 President in December. If they lose I would suggest they are doomed.

  10. This post is garbage. The post says:

    This is alarming anthropogenic global warming. But it isn’t caused by CO2. It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records. A 0.1C jump in what the 2014 GISS anomaly supposedly is, manufactured during 2015. It is notable only because of the media ballyhoo that NOAA and NASA created, which they cannot now erase. There are many additional examples.

    Based on the idea:

    The 2014 degrees C GISS anomaly is plainly 0.64C (not given in the PR text).

    Plainly there was a 0.13C GISS anomaly increase over 2014.

    This should mean that the alarming record 2015 anomaly is (0.64 + 0.13) 0.77C.

    But not in the global warming proponent’s world.

    It is worse than we thought. The official NASA GISS 2015 anomaly is 0.87C!!!

    But the graph this post shows for the 2014 temperatures is not “plainly 0.64C.” No explanation is given for where that number came from, but eyeballing the figure is enough to show it’s wrong. Even if that weren’t enough, it’s trivially easy to find contemporary articles referring to the 2014 anomaly as 0.68C, such as this one.

    That explains 0.04C of the 0.1C difference this post draws attention to as an example of people supposedly tampering with the temperature record – the author simply read the graph wrong, or something like that. The explanation for the other 0.06C difference is simple as well. Nick Stokes points it out above:

    Werner Brozek gave a much more thorough account of the change here, with actual numbers for the years. And it shows what happened. The ERSST update changed the 1951-1980 anomaly base, and made a shift of about 0.06°C to current temperatures. All recent years shift up; the order of top years remains the same, until you get back to 1998 (fourth in 2014), which drops a few places.

    Half of this 0.1C difference came from the author of this post imagining things. The other half came from the fact the baseline used shifted a bit. Neither of these indicates any real change in the data or results, much less a change justifying rhetoric like saying this proves “government ‘scientists’ [are] altering ‘official’ temperature records.”

    This post should either be deleted or edited to have a note at the beginning warning readers what it says is completely wrong..

    • “Neither of these indicates any real change in the data or results, much less a change justifying rhetoric like saying this proves “government ‘scientists’ [are] altering ‘official’ temperature records.”

      I read that in disbelief. Karl et al adjust the data and create a new data set. They are so proud of their adjustments, they hold press conferences to yell the results from the rafters. But you don’t think that ‘government scientists are altering official temperature records?’

      Religion is powerful.

      • Dave in Canmore, whether or not some other evidence, completely unrelated to what this post shows, might support the point this post wants to make does nothing to justify this post making false claims. You can dismiss people as pointing this out as people who view global warming as a religion, but you’ll just look dumb.

  11. I submitted a comment which seems to have disappeared (I guess I tripped moderation somehow?). The short version of it is Nick Stokes and Harry Twinotter are right: This post is completely wrong. The supposed difference it highlights as proof scientists are altering official data/results stems from the author of this post’s imagination and failure to notice a change in baseline values.

    • Brandon S?

      I have comments disappear all the time on this blog. It’s just their censorship.

    • Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos):

      Yes, the ‘vanish’ problem does exist and is an effect of WordPress. It happened to me repeatedly yesterday.

      It is very upsetting because one does not know if the post has gone in the ‘bin’ and will be found by the mods or not. And there is rarely an obvious reason for it.

      Please ignore the silly conspiracy theories of Harry Twinotter. When you have been here a while you will recognise that those imaginings are part of his ‘problem’.

      Richard

      [Nothing is in the queue right now. .mod]

      • I wasn’t worried the comments wouldn’t appear (though I have been censored here before). I was mostly just checking to see if any comments of mine would go through to see if maybe I could figure out what caused the problem.

        Anyway, the comments are up now. Sadly, I see I messed up a blockquote tag so the one looks ugly.

      • richardscourtney (fake scientist)

        You accuse me of “silly conspiracy theories”?

        If there ever was a good example of the pot calling the kettle black…

      • Harry Twinotter:

        Please state any “conspiracy theories” you think I have supported because I enjoy the laughs at your weird imaginings.

        Richard

        PS What is a “fake scientist”?

    • Brandon,
      The reason is simple. You mentioned the words “N… S…..”. All my comments go through moderation, and recently, have been simply disappearing, as you describe. Mostly they resurface.

      • and recently, have been simply disappearing, as you describe. Mostly they resurface.

        So, you are NOT being censored NOR are your comments simply “disappearing”. Geez, I hate imprecise language, and you being a ‘scientist’ and all …

      • _Jim,

        Thanks for some common sense. Nick Stokes says:

        Mostly they resurface.

        For someone who purports to have plenty of exact measurements, Nick is totally vague here. Which comments of his ‘disappear’? And if they don’t appear for any reason, is he incapable of re-posting? Apparently. But complaining about it seems to be preferable.

        I’ve had comments disappear, and so have many others. Who knows why? WordPress is far from perfect.

        What’s happening here is that a handful of misfits are complaining about what alarmist blogs routinely do all the time to skeptics’ comments. It’s just more gish gallop; trying to insinuate that this site is censoring their stupid comments.

        Earth to commenters: save your comments! Is that so hard to do? If your comment doesn’t appear in a reasonable amount of time (that doesn’t mean in 5 minutes, either), just re-post it. Simples.

      • My comments do often disappear. I press “publish”, and they vanish. Not always – sometimes they show as “awaiting moderation”. And in either case, they are usually published, often within the hour, sometimes with significant delay. So I’m not censored, but I can’t engage in effective dialogue. I haven’t had a comment go through without moderation for a year now. That isn’t WordPress imperfection.

      • Ah well, I should record that today, for the first time in a year, a comment of mine went through without moderation. So it might be safe to mention my name again.

    • Brandon S?-I’m not anyone special here on either side of the debate and am generally civil but I have occasionally had stuff “disappear” for a while here too–it has always eventually shown up on the thread. In my case I think it is just the net itself or maybe WP-
      BTW one reason I came to WUWT and stayed is exactly because posters like you and a few others may come here and offer differing perspectives on the topics and data that is presented, without getting your words altered by the mods (unless one’s words are really nasty of course) or deleted altogether like some other blogs I’ve visited in the past.

      • For what it’s worth, I don’t visit this site regularly at all. I never really have, but I’m still annoyed its owner decided to censor me because he didn’t want to respond to me. It was about the dumbest reason for censorship I can imagine. Most people understand if you don’t want to talk to a person, you don’t have to. You can choose not to respond to people without deleting their comments (and then using moderation notes to make sure you get the last word to make derogatory remarks).

        I would overlook that, but it seems every time I happen to come to this site, I see posts like this one which are utter dreck. I sometimes comment to point that out, but for the most part, I just ignore this site. So try not to make too much of my comments here. I fully expect that I’d be censored again if I actually spent much time here. If not, I’d certainly have the owner of the site make wildly untrue claims about me to mock and insult me, like has happened plenty of times.

  12. http://trj.blog.is/blog/trj/?offset=10

    Grimsey (blue), temperature Stykkishólmi (grey) 120-months chain mean
    Very intereting temperature curves from Traust Jonsson. Two parts of Iceland have very different temperatures and trends. One part of Iceland has never been warmer since 1878, and another part has never been colder. It is easy to see that someone cannot tolerate this, and have to destroy the data. What would you do Steve Mosher?

    • Since 97% of scientists agree that the world is warming, obviously the data that shows cooling is in error and must be adjusted so that it agrees with the good data that shows warming.

  13. Wow it’s official now! I coined the term “Karlizing” in a post at or shortly after the pause buster – My first effort was the verb “TomKarlizing”, subsequently shortened. I guess it is a natural that would have been coined anyway. I like it because it is the sort of thing that can stick to a deserving miscreant for life.

  14. in throwing this note together, I did not spot the NASA 2014 y axis labeling error. 0.7 should be 0.8. The 2014 GISS anomaly in 2014 is ~0.68C, not 0.64C, from the anomaly baseline 1951-1980. The anomaly baseline for 2015 is also 1951-1980, and the anomaly is explicitly 0.13 greater than 2014. The correct math is (0.68+0.13) 0.81C, versus karlized GISS 0.87C. The correct karlization of the 2014 anomaly is therefore (0.87 – 0.81) 0.06C, not 0.1C as in the post.
    The post’s conclusion stands uncorrected.

  15. Reminds me of an old book on astronomy I had back in the 80s regarding the rotation of Venus:.

    They used various methods in the 70s and 80s until they could actually see through the clouds with radar to confirm the actual spin. The author used a line something like “turns out there was zero accuracy in the original estimates. And the further refinement of zero accuracy is…zero”.

  16. Can someone explain what may happen to the Rep. Lamar Smith investigation? I do not understand governmental process in the US (does anyone??)

    • Dear Owen,

      Until a more informed person comes along, here is a bit of info. for you:

      After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

      Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

      December 16, 2015

      https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-responds-noaa-delivery-documents-and-communications

      I realize, Owen, that you were not asking for history, but for where this might possibly lead. Just started with the above.

      To answer your question:

      A Rough Sketch of What Might Happen to NOAA Officials and Responsible Employees

      1. a. Subpeona (above-mentioned) is not complied with: criminal charges for obstruction of justice with prison the ultimate penalty.

      b. Subpeona is complied with (meaningfully): House Science, Space, and Technology Committee (Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)) reviews produced documents and statements of any witnesses examined and decides whether to charge the NOAA officials with malfeasance or misfeasance (I would have to look up the exact crimes and I’m just not going to bother, sorry! — also See the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Sec.s 702 et. seq. ).

      c. Prosecution: I think this lies with the Justice Dept. which is highly corrupt (as demonstrated by blatantly anti-U.S. Constitution actions taken over the past 7 years). Process against the l1es of Karl will stop here until the Justice Dept. is cleaned up (hopefully, with a Republican pres. entering office in 2017).

      d. If grand jury indicts/formally charges, then, a special prosecutor (likely one would be appointed for this) begins the criminal trial — here, the defendants attorneys may recommend that the settle for admitting to a lesser crime. Prosecutor may accept or refuse the offer of settlement.

      e. If trial, if convicted of fraud or ultra-vires acts or whatever is charged, PRISON.

      Note: the shining light of publicity on the nefarious deeds done by Karl, et. al., is worth this process even if they end up “getting off.”

      Hope that was helpful!

      Janice

    • Look at these two different representations of the ENSO conditions. Are they similar looking? Note the broad brush high heat painting of a large area by NCEP , and compare that to what Weather Zone is showing. I get the impression that NCEP is showing a low resolution infilled mapping of the regions which gets them a higher value for the regions. On another note Weather Zone has shown a steady reduction in the warmth of the ENSO regions over the last 8 days in particular. The ENSO meter must be stuck. Maybe the mods could give it a tap or two….http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/

      and here…http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

  17. Just a thought…so we can’t trust NOAA or NASA’s temperature adjustments, nor the process by which they do so. I have also heard that this (“Super”) El Nino is different than other (“Super”) El Nino’s (ex. the Northwest part of the country was suppose to be warm and very dry this winter). If we can’t trust NOAA and NASA with temp data why would we trust them with El Nino data? Just sayin”.

  18. In the recent discussion about NOAA:
    (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.

    Not wanting to intermix threads, but has NOAA given any explanation for these facts?

    • Not that I’ve heard.

      In the meantime, the facts speak very loudly for themselves:

      “In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless,” …

      Dr. David Whitehouse, astrophysicist.

      (Source: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/ )

      ********************************************
      (yes, I realize NOAA the climate bully, has a loud megaphone, but, in the end, the truth will be heard — hang in there, O Warriors for Science Realism!)

      • Any word about the probability of 2015 being the hottest year? Last year the best the two (NASA or NOAA) could come up with was 38% and 48% probability respectively.

      • mptc58: I don’t know. I hope you get your question answered. You might try on a thread where people are still pretty actively posting (apologize for the interruption and explain why you are asking an off-topic Q there and you will be fine). Check the “Recent Comments” list in the right margin of this page for threads where people are “talking.”

        Best wishes!

        Janice

        P.S. Perhaps, you meant 2016? Just FYI, in case. I do that each year at this time, too.

      • Any word about the probability of 2015 being the hottest year?

        I do not know the exact number but it would be well over 90% since the difference is more than the margin of error of 0.1. For Hadcrut4, 2015 is 0.178 larger and 0.13 for GISS.

        By the same token, it is over 90% certain that 2015 is NOT above 1998 for the satellites by over 90% for the same reason.

      • Thank you, Werner Brozek! SO glad you came along. Now! I just hope mptc takes the time to look back in here.

      • Thanks (again!), Werner. Boy, are we blessed to have you (and the many other science giants) around this place.

        And this (not for you, Werner Brozek, but, I feel the need to post a best-practices scientist’s opinion in case your reporting here of NASA/GISS, et. al.’s “record” is taken by some reader as your advocating and not your mere reporting of their opinion):

        According to the Nasa global temperature database 2014 was technically a record “beating” 2010 by the small margin of 0.02 deg C. The NASA press release is highly misleading saying that 2014 is a record without giving the actual 2014 figure, or any other year, or its associated error.

        In reality of course it is no record at all as the error of the measurements is about +/- 0.1 deg C showing NasaGiss’ statement to go against the normal treatment of observational data and its errors. Talk of a record is therefore scientifically and statistically meaningless.

        Interestingly the December 2013-November 2014 NasaGiss figure was not the highest meaning that the “record” for 2014 merely depended on if December 2014 was warmer than December 2013.

        Dr. David Whitehouse, January 16, 2015, here: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c8bbc1ccfe&e=f4e33fdd1e

      • P.S. to my 7:21pm post — while that quote was re: 2014, the same thing is going on re: 2015.

        “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

        “When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

        “And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,”

        Dr. Richard Lindzen, November 19, 2015, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

        Sorry for the 2014 — 2015 mix-up!

  19. Upthread, the author of this post acknowledges he made a mistake when he claimed the temperatures for 2014 had been given as 0.64C like he claimed. Unfortunately, he then says:

    As for changing anomaly baselines, wrong, from commenters with knicker knots. As the posted illustrations themselves make very clear. 1951-1980 anomaly base for GISS 2014 and 2015. No change other than they probably karlized the 1951-1980 temps also.

    As several people have pointed out, the baseline did change between this year and last. The baseline period remains the same, but the actual baseline has shifted by ~0.06C, explaining the entire difference the author now clings to:

    in throwing this note together, I did not spot the NASA 2014 y axis labeling error. 0.7 should be 0.8. The 2014 GISS anomaly in 2014 is ~0.68C, not 0.64C, from the anomaly baseline 1951-1980. The anomaly baseline for 2015 is also 1951-1980, and the anomaly is explicitly 0.13 greater than 2014. The correct math is (0.68+0.13) 0.81C, versus karlized GISS 0.87C. The correct karlization of the 2014 anomaly is therefore (0.87 – 0.81) 0.06C, not 0.1C as in the post.
    The post’s conclusion stands uncorrected.

    If one looks at the archived temperatures from last year, they find GISS gave annual temperatures as:

    2010: 0.66
    2011: 0.55
    2012: 0.57
    2013: 0.60
    2014: 0.67

    Note, that says 0.67C, not 0.68C. That’s because the copy of the temperatures I found was from a few months after the press releases about 2014 being the hottest year were released. During that time, precise values like that of the baseline could change. That’s the same reason why now the same file now gives temperatures as:

    2010: 0.72 
    2011: 0.60
    2012: 0.63
    2013: 0.65
    2014: 0.74
    2015: 0.87

    As this shows, the average temperature value has shifted upwards by ~0.06C. This is because results are updated over time, and that can cause baselines to shift. There is nothing nefarious about this. The idea changing the baseline used when presenting results is proof scientists are altering official records to manufacture a rise in temperatures is absurd.

    So again, this post is complete and total garbage. It has done nothing but mislead readers due to its author having no idea what he’s talking about.

      • You really need to watch your confirmation bias. Adjusting the baseline doesn’t change how much warming there has been. All it does is change the 0 point. It’s basically no different than if you relabeled the axes of a graph to have different numbers, all a bit higher (or lower) than before. The numbers you see might be different, but the series itself is going to remain exactly the same.

        Take any chart you have, and subtract 10 from every value on it. Odds are that won’t change anything. It certainly won’t change how much warming the charts show.

      • Adjusting the baseline doesn’t change how much warming there has been. All it does is change the 0 point.

        But that is not all that happened. For example, 2014 went up 0.06, 2013 went up 0.05, but 1998 only went up by 0.02. Guess what this does to the slope from 1998 to 2015.

        Here are the top 10 anomalies for GISS for last year and this year:

        Last year:
        1    2014  68
        2    2010  66
        3    2005  65
        4    2007  62
        5    1998  61
        6    2002  60
        7    2013  60
        8    2003  59
        9    2009  59
        10   2006  59
        This year
        1   2015  87
        2   2014  74
        3   2010  72
        4   2005  69
        5   2007  66
        6   2013  65
        7   2009  64
        8   1998  63
        9   2002  63
        10  2003  62
      • “Adjust the baseline”, no more nefarious than moving a goalpost? In any event, an adjustment of .06 suggests (per many others in the thread above) an old error bar of at least ……… .06? Which has now been entirely resolved how? And the remaining error bar is? Ah, well, if you’re happy.

      • My comment was directed at Brandon S and his Soros-assigned tag-line-of-the-week, but W. Brozek plucked this pigeon better.

      • Werner Brozek, this site has discussed the fact past estimates of temperatures change by small amounts as the calculations are rerun with different amounts of data. It’s also discussed how updating the dataset used can change the results. Issues like those could well cause small fluctuations. That’d be true even if there was a change in baseline.

        But when one looks at the data overall, it is clear there was a shift in baseline. That there may have also been other changes, which this post didn’t mention or even hint at, doesn’t change that fact. It’s just a way of changing the subject to avoid admitting the obvious mistakes this post makes.

    • It’s interesting to see me criticized for not pointing out estimates of temperatures can change by small amounts over time due to calculations being rerun with different amounts of data. Given that’s something which has been discussed at this site god knows how many times, I wouldn’t have thought it needed to be pointed out again.

      I suspect if it had been convenient for people to remember this topic on their own, it would have been pointed out instead of forgotten. Maybe not by the same person, because individuals may not be that hypocritical, but certainly by the crowd which is.

  20. GISS LOTI global temperature (degree F above 1951-1980 average)

    Jun 2015 source:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20150623133414/http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp
    (last datum there is for April 2015)

    Jan 2016 source:
    http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp
    (last datum there is for December 2015)

    As of As of
    Jun 2015 Jan 2016

    1/2014 0.69 0.73
    2/2014 0.44 0.5
    3/2014 0.71 0.77
    4/2014 0.72 0.78
    5/2014 0.79 0.86
    6/2014 0.61 0.66
    7/2014 0.5 0.58
    8/2014 0.74 0.82
    9/2014 0.82 0.9
    10/2014 0.78 0.85
    11/2014 0.63 0.68
    12/2014 0.73 0.78

    year 2014 0.68 0.74

  21. Regarding the “Looking at the Atmosphere” set of graphs:

    Predicted by theory and models, one of the only some things that the models got right: The stratosphere cools from increase of greenhouse gases while the surface and lower troposphere warm. The stratosphere-adjacent part of the troposphere gets little or no warming.

    The uppermost troposphere had warming a little more negative than predicted, but the models got somewhat close there for global average. Where the models failed most for the atmosphere well aloft was their prediction for a hotspot of warming in the middle-upper troposphere well within the tropics.

    Meanwhile, reality somewhat agrees with the models that the middle troposphere and higher has less warming than the lower troposphere and the surface.

    Another thing to note: The satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have some contamination from sensing the upper troposphere, and the middle troposphere measurements are to some extent sensing as low as the lower troposphere and as high as the lower stratosphere.

    One more thing: Radiosondes have lower coverage of the world than surface and satellite measurements. One thing that radiosonde data is used for is factchecking satellite measurements of the atmosphere in the parts of the world that have radiosonde coverage.

  22. Take any chart you have, and subtract 10 from every value on it. Odds are that won’t change anything. It certainly won’t change how much warming the charts show.

    Oh come on Brandon, the whole exercise only exist because of baseline changes! And that is being very kind! It is incredibly insulting to tell anybody that the temperature has set a new record and at the same time tell them that the record is constantly changing!! For fuck sake what has happened to brain power of late!!!!

  23. I just tried looking in web.archive.org for:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    This comes up “access denied” for all dates when the latest datum is later than November 2014 and earlier than April 2015.

    Meanwhile, if the December 2014 figure is unchanged from when it was first released to when the April 2015 figure was released, then the year 2014 would have been first reported at .67 degree C above the 1951-1980 average. This looks to me as fairly likely, since from the time the November 2014 figure was released to the time the April 2015 figure was released, the average of the changes for the October and November figures is zero and the average change of all 11 months of 2014 where I saw data is +.01 degree.

  24. geez–not too long ago “setting a record” was a meaningful term in most endeavors

    since the “97%” have never bothered to identify an optimum global temperature for global well-being, I can’t see a valid point to all this “100ths of a degree” hot nonsense from GISS or NOAA (or whomever) any way I look at it.

    But thanks anyway Rud, for taking the time and effort to post this.
    Kudos for doing it on your own dime and not mine.

  25. Regarding the graph showing NASA reporting the year 2014 as having been .64 degree C above the 1951-1980 average:

    This looks like http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083

    web.archive.org shows this in their 2015 archives from 1/20 through 9/5; the 1/21/15 one is at:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20150121074859/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083

    There are no archives since 9/5/2015 as of now.

    Meanwhile, this page – the one about 2014 – currently looks a little different, with a temperature anomaly for 2014 reported and being .68 degree C rather than .64.

    I suspect a bug – perhaps along the lines of the graph in all of the 2015 archives being the oldest version found by the Wayback Machine, a preliminary version with the 2014 temperature anomaly not stated and incorrectly graphed as .64 rather than .68 degree C. I suspect possibly all of the 2015 archives show the graph incorrectly because it was updated without a change of its date later in the day it was first archived.

Comments are closed.