Temperature Trends

Was 2014 the Third Warmest or the Warmest Year On Record?: Global Temperature Update

|

BestThermometer
dreamstime

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer publish the latest global temperature trend data obtained from NOAA satellites. This month Christy reports that the 2014 was third warmest year in the satellite record. However, the folks who run the surface thermometer networks claim that 2014 is the warmest year on record (see below).

First, from Christy: 2014 was third warmest, but barely

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate."

The 2014 average temperature anomaly also is in keeping with temperatures since late 2001, when the global average temperature rose to a level that is generally warmer than the 30-year baseline average. The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.

December2014Temps
Spencer

Global Temperature Trend Update: December, 2014

December temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

Tropics: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.

With a global average temperature that was 0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, December 2014 trailed only December 2003, which averaged 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, among the warmest Decembers in the satellite temperature record. While December 2014 ranked second warmest for both the globe and the Northern Hemisphere, it was only the sixth warmest December in the tropics despite an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event that seems to be forming there.

On the other hand, Scientific American is reporting that according to the temperature data compiled by the researchers at the Japan Meteorological Agency 2014 is the warmest year since 1891. From SciAm:

The upward march of the world's average temperature since 1891 is a trademark of human-influenced global warming with 2014 being the latest stop on the climb. All 10 of the hottest years have come since 1998.

The average temperature was 1.1°F above the 20th century average according to JMA's data. That edges 1998, the previous warmest year, by about 0.1°F.

One big difference between 2014 and 1998 is that the latter was on the tail end of a super El Niño, which has the tendency to spike temperatures. In comparison, 2014 was the year of the almost El Niño.

Instead, record warmth in other parts of the Pacific as well as the hottest year on record in Europe were some of the main drivers in fueling the heat.

Climatologists basically agree that last few years have been warmer than the 20th century average, but the temperature trend since 1998 has been essentially flat.

NEXT: NO, Settlements Over Police Brutality DON'T Bring Accountability to Cops or Prevent Future Police Brutality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Climatologists basically agree that last few years have been warmer than the 20th century average, but the temperature trend since 1998 has been essentially flat

    There’s a guy who posts on the NYT site all of the time who swears as a fact that 99% of scientists agree that 2014 was the warmest year on record and if anyone disagrees he calls them stupid uneducated cons and teabaggers.

    OT:

    This is an interesting article and the comments are interesting also. Seems that some people are holding out faith that the left can/will be dislodged from their iron grip on academia. I’m not so hopeful, as someone who often works around academics, it seems hopeless that the group think can in any way be broken. I always find a way to make comments that I know annoys them and that typically leads to a sort of rolling the eyes dismissal and change of topic.

    Can the left lose control of academia?

    1. Well, Hyperion, eye-rolling is clearly a micro-aggression.

      #StopEyeRollAggression

      1. #OphthalmologyLivesMatter

        1. Stop microaggressing the differently oculared.

          1. Wow, “other” much?

    2. “There’s a guy who posts on the NYT site all of the time “

      and what were YOU doing there?

      … havent’ we told you to stop *doing that*? You’re going to damage your brain with that stuff.

      1. It’s like a bad car wreck, you just can’t look away…

      2. Never read comments anywhere but here. Ever. It will drain you of IQ points and cause despair about the intellectual capacity of your fellow humans.

        This really is the only place I ever find comments that are clever, intelligent, humorous, and creative. It might only be 10% or so of the comments, but that’s a couple of orders of magnitude greater than what one generally finds.

        1. There are good comments all around the web, scattered among the usual cut and paste group think of the week.

        2. Popehat’s comment section has yielded many interesting things for me in the past. Haven’t been there in quite a while, though.

        3. You know, I’m glad you reminded me of this. Over the last 4-5 years I’ve started taking this place for granted.

          I remember finding H&R and telling people about the higher level of discussion that happens here compared to the places I had been frequenting. This place really is an order of magnitude above when it comes to the intelligence and integrity of the commenters (with a few exceptions).

          1. Hacker News is exceptional in this regard even if some of their posters politics is fubar. Especially if you want to talk to the people who actually invented/work for/do something. Paul Grahm, the entire W3C committee, etc. all comment on there.

            crazy when you think about it.

            1. Fubar politics is fine as long as it’s coherent, original, and interesting. I don’t require affirmation, just intelligence and honesty. That’s just nearly impossible to find anywhere in Comments sections. Hyperion’s term “scattered” is exactly right, IMO.

    3. That seems to be a pretty optimistic extrapolation from a single study on one field of academia.

    4. Getting out of Academia is like trying to get out of Shawshank. You go through a mile of shit, come out filthy and dead broke and finally wind up hanging yourself with your name etched in the rafter after realizing how you’re unable to handle the real world.

      1. I think you need that watch the movie again. Andy went to Mexico to sell heroin I think.

        1. I was talking about Brooks, not Andy.

          1. But Brooks didn’t crawl through a mile of shit.

            /pedant

          2. oops. Time to put the beer down.

            1. *supplicates himself for garbled analogy*

            2. oops. Time to put the beer down.

              I wouldn’t to do anything rash over a small mistake.

              1. Don’t you start on me, too!
                *Chucks bottle at Pabst mirror and starts lecturing bum on stool next to him about fiat currency*

    5. The left could lose control of academia when all the epistemically closed tenured cunts currently on faculties die. But until then, probably not.

      1. Maybe, but unfortunately, the cunts you mention control who gets tenure in the first place.

        1. The students are like a herd of sheep. Seriously, I was overhearing the conversation between a few of them on global warming one day and one of them says ‘Well, I guess I’ll have to agree with the scientists’. This brought about silenced awe from the rest of the group while the guy who said it basked in the glory of his own brilliance. This is what passes for critical thought these day on university campuses.

    6. “I always find a way to make comments that I know annoys them and that typically leads to a sort of rolling the eyes dismissal and change of topic.”

      You should document these jibes.

  2. As always:

    (1) Why isn’t the 2010 El Nino spike labeled as such?

    (2) To me, this looks like a punctuated equilibrium type of deal, with the “punctuation” being the 1998 El Nino. Any climate models or theories that actually try to explain why this chart looks the way it does?

    1. (1) Because we need to pretend that any warming is due to CO2.

      (2) No, because the goal is not to explain reality, the goal is to advance a political agenda.

      1. (2) No, because the goal is not to explain reality, the goal is to advance a political agenda.

        Even when the goal truly is to explain reality, it’s only to explain it in a manner most easily consumable in the current political climate. At least, any time that more than two or three people scientificate. At least in modern times anyway.

      2. Those studies do not fund themselves. You have to agree with what someone wealthy or powerful says and find a way to prove it’s true, or you ain’t getting those grants, amigo.

  3. I dont understand any of this.

    Just tell me what to think!

    1. Tony will be along to relay the goodthink shortly.

      1. Praise Gaia!

      2. He will scream “deniers!” and tell us the lack of warming since 1998 has been “debunked”. Because the AGW crowd are all smarter than we are, so we should just believe whatever they say.

        1. It has been debunked. The heat is hiding in the ocean. It was apparently teleported there by aliens in preparation for the big invasion.

          1. AGW is so powerful it defies the laws of physics by sinking to the bottom of the sea!

            1. They folded seawater using the Spice Melange.

            2. The deep ocean can get warmer than it is without being warmer than the upper layers. It’s not a contradiction.
              Of course, I don’t think there is any actual evidence of it either.

              1. So if CO2 in the atmosphere caused the increase in thermal energy, how does the heat get to the bottom of the ocean WITHOUT warming the atmosphere?

                1. Damned if I know. I’m just saying that the idea of heat being sunk into the deep ocean doesn’t contradict the laws of thermodynamics.

                  1. You know what’s hilarious about you using that link?

                    This part right at the end: “The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3?C per decade, see Fig. 4 here), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be.”

                    (emphasis mine)

          2. What, do you think that the Elder Gods enjoy cold showers all the time?

  4. Just tell me what to think!

    Plants need CO2. More CO2 for plants is better than less CO2. If you want to reduce the CO2 in the air, you hate plants. Why do you hate plants?

    /just being silly

    1. I hate plants because they’re not made of meat.

      1. But some of them can be used to add some exquisite flavor to meat.

      2. As I have had occasion to point out:

        “Vegetables aren’t food. Vegetables are what food eats.”

        1. You’ve clearly never eaten at our house.

      3. Who was it that became a vegetarian not because he loved animals but because he hated plants?

        1. A friend of mine from college liked to say that.

    2. More CO2 for plants is better than less CO2.

      To a point. We’re nowhere near that point, but at certain very high levels there are diminishing returns.

      1. And not all plants are desirable or useful.

  5. I continue to ask:

    1) What’s the “right” temperature?
    2) With all the different climate regions (sub-tropical to tundra), what’s an OK temp for each of those places? What’s not OK?
    3) Do all these “scientists” not know that basically the evolution of humans occurred during a relatively-brief, relatively warm spell in the erf’s history? Given that, why would human’s want ANY cooling to occur? Suicide pact? Death cult? Something else?
    4) Are people really so fucking stupid they think they can do anything about the very temperature of the erf itself? Hubris much?
    5) What’s the difference between a grape.

    This (global climate warming cooling change anthopomorphic derp) is the dumbest ongoing argument of my lifetime, and I cannot wait for the inevitable change in nature that completely turns the issue upside down so now SOMETHING ELSE! is the worry of the day. I’m going to guess it will be pH.

    We shall see.

    1. Do all these “scientists” not know that basically the evolution of humans occurred during a relatively-brief, relatively warm spell in the erf’s history? Given that, why would human’s want ANY cooling to occur? Suicide pact? Death cult? Something else?

      Look, all these folks want is control over 1) your money, and 2) your life. Is that really so much to ask?

    2. Humans are strengthening the Erf’s magnetic field with all their cell phones and stuff. This will inhibit more solar radiation from reaching the surface and will lead to Snowball Erf II.

      There is a consensus!

      1. Even if there is snowball earth 2, it will still be the warmest year on record, ever, because we say so!

        /high priests of the warmist cult

    3. 6) Where are the models* that have, given known recent historical conditions, accurately predicted climate conditions?

      (e.g. models that were fed say from data 2000-2010 and accurately output data that replicated the known data for 2011)

    4. Given that there are vastly different climate regions, is it really reasonable to determine an “average global temperature”?

      1. Of course it is. Temperatures are always averages.

        Or do you mean “practical”? I don’t know about that. You could figure the black body temperature of the planet from space.

    5. Do all these “scientists” not know that basically the evolution of humans occurred during a relatively-brief, relatively warm spell in the erf’s history?

      Is that true? I don’t think so. Hasn’t human evolution happened during an ice age (in the sense that we are still in an ice age since there are permanent continental ice sheets)?

      In any case, we evolved mostly in tropical Africa, and managed to live everywhere it is remotely possible for us to live, so I think we can adapt to whatever happens pretty well.

  6. I do note that Spencer et. al. are in the process of reviewing and changing (?) their dataset. He says this most recently:

    “In just the last month, we have had what amounts to a paradigm shift on how to analyze the data. We are very hopeful that the resulting dataset will be demonstrably better than our current version. Only time will tell.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Time will tell indeed.

    1. In other words they have found a new way to make data say what we want it to say.

      1. I thought “paradigm” was an interesting choice of words. They are creating a new model? I think that is fine…they should make every effort to get it right. It will be interesting if it changes any of their conclusions, like the one quoted above.

    2. Much will turn on how transparent they are with how they want to monkey with the data.

      If they publish a completely open and verifiable account of the changes they made, then I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      1. I think they will.

      2. Keep in mind that Spencer has been a pretty consistent critic of the alarmist-AGW camp. The last time I read his stuff (for lay people), he was continuing to insist that climate is too complicated to be modeled accurately. In particular, he argues that none of the models allows for water vapor/cloud formation which makes it almost impossible to do anything accurately.

        He is not held in high esteem by the alarmist side of things and I don’t have the scientific wherewithal to know if he’s right or not. BUT, my main point is that Spencer is not in the “we’re all doomed” camp.

        1. I tend to agree, the amount of granularity needed to accurately measure and predict long term climate and weather is, in my lay but informed opinion, beyond current computing capacity.

      3. Much will turn on how transparent they are with how they want to monkey with the data.

        Aw come on! That’s denier talk! They’re experts! They’re really smart! What would you do with the data anyway? Are you an expert? You’re certainly not as smart as them because they’re like really smart and stuff! Besides, who needs data when you have CONSENSUS!

  7. Ready for your record-breaking Arctic blast cold temperatures over the next couple of days, midwest? Be sure to bundle up: at these temps that are coming, frostbite and hypothermia can set in quickly!

    1. I just had three hundred dollars worth of heating oil delivered to the house. Fucking global warming.

      1. Where do you live? My company might be able to offer you cheap, clean, reliable natural gas.

        1. I live in a small town in Maine, far away from any pipelines.

          1. If you’re near the Kennebec Valley or Augusta, we’re actually building infrastructure to service those areas. Yarmouth, Cumberland, and a few other towns. We’ll be expanding into other areas in a couple more years.

            1. My plumber told me about that (UPWI, maybe you’ve had lunch with him). He’s the guy who services my furnace. He’s been working in the Augusta and Winthrop area installing natgas. Unfortunately for me that’s like forty miles away.

              1. If that’s United, they’re one of our conversion vendors, and I wish they had 100 more trucks. If you’re within 40 miles of Augusta, we are either getting to you or you’ll be in the next phase of construction. Give us 3 or 4 years. Maybe 6. Unfortunately, underground construction in Maine has been…slower than we expected.

                Here’s a map of what we’ve got done or close to done so far.

                http://summitnaturalgasmaine.com/service-areas/

                1. I’ll check that map when I get home. The site is blocked here at work.

                  1. Blocked? Tell your company to stop being a bunch of fascists! This is a random internet commenter’s livelihood they’re fucking with!

                    1. It’s classified as web mail, whatever that means. And no, I’m not going to email the admin. Don’t want to draw attention to myself. Sorry.

                2. I’m sure Mike will keep me posted. He really wants to install a natgas on-demand water heater in my basement.

                  1. Yes. Go all NG! Come to the clear, odorless side!

                    1. Come to the clear, odorless side!

                      First you’ll have to cure me of my lactose intolerance.

            2. Ah, so you’re an evil puppet of the big oil and Kochtopus? I see…

              1. I’m more of a neutral chaotic at the moment, but I’m available as an evil puppet if the money’s right.

          2. A small town in Maine. The one with ghosts, vampires, or crazy people?

            1. Big Foot. It was in the news a day or two ago.

              1. That’s bullshit. Bigfoot was sighted in Tampa a few days after Christmas. No way DHS lets Bigfoot fly, so how could he possibly be in Maine?

                1. Steve Smith knows how to sail Pro Liberate.

                  1. What, sail to Maine in the winter? Are you mad? The Sasquatch is a migratory beast.

                    1. All of the senior citizens in Maine go to Florida for the winter. Perhaps the smell of aspercreme drives him back and forth.

                    2. I don’t understand why you send them here. The Atlantic is a matrix of life-suspending coolness even in the summer. Why not immerse them in its waters and, thus, extend their lives for the lukewarm summer months?

                  2. STEVE SMITH GO BY ‘SKUNK APE’ WHEN HIM IN F-L-A.

  8. Would someone *kindly* explain exactly how one calculates the average temperature for a year over the entire planet?

    1. It’s complicated. You wouldn’t understand. Just trust the models and stop resisting.

      1. Yeah. They’re experts. They’re really smart. Anyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is stoopid. Simply believing in AGW raises your IQ by ten points. Also, really smart people watch The Daily Show. So if you watch The Daily Show you will raise your IQ by another ten points. That’s how Tony got his IQ up to 100. By watching The Daily Show and believing in AGW. See? Now he’s really smart.

    2. Well, you take the entire planet’s temperature every day (by sticking a giant thermometer in a handy geologic orifice like a volcano, I believe), then you add them up and divide by 365.

      Duh.

      1. What’s nice is you no longer have to stick the thermometer inside the volcano; you can just swipe it across the rim now.

      2. This has a 25% failure rate!

    3. Anyway you like so long as it validates your preconceived notions regarding the “correct” answer.

    4. Take a bunch of daily high and low temperatures from all over the globe and average them mostly. That is an “average” but what does that mean?

      The implication is that a higher average means the earth is retaining more heat due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That is all well and good except that air temperature is not heat. It is a function of heat and humidity. Moreover, heat in the air is not all of the heat that is on the planet. Some heat is in the ground or the ocean. So the total heat in the air is not necessarily reflective of the total heat on the earth’s surface. So things like concrete in cities, because they absorb heat all day and release it at night, serve to raise the average temperature but have nothing to do with the total amount of heat retained in the atmosphere. Ocean currents like El Nino can bring warm or cool water to the surface causing huge effects on surface temperatures that have nothing to do with the total heat retained by the atmosphere.

      But hey, why let that get in the way of believing mother earth is punishing us for our sinful ways.

      1. That is an “average” but what does that mean?

        The implication is that a higher average means the earth is retaining more heat due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

        I thought this post was going in a very different direction; not to cast stones, but there are many, many, many more implications than this.

        1. Sure there are. But that is the implication that matters when it comes to AGW. If increased average temperature is not the result of the atmosphere retaining more heat due to higher CO2 content, then the higher average temperatures are not evidence for the theory.

          1. But that is the implication that matters when it comes to AGW.

            I think we’re differing in opinion of the collective implications by large groups of people who have trouble collectively thinking past their own noses.

            Their bad implications are boundless I say!

    5. I’m pretty sure it’s just the sum of the all the measurements divided by the number of measurements.

      1. Well, okay, maybe you can understand it.

        You’re smart. You must be a scientist.

        1. You must be a scientist.

          You can be too! You just have to get in arguments about n vs. n-1!

          Unless your degree is in economics, then it doesn’t count.

          1. If being a scientist means having Tony follow me, I’ll stick to being an architect/engineer.

    6. No explanation is needed. Meryl Streep assures us that polar bear and her cubs won’t be able to find seals to kill and eat unless “we” (not including Ms. Streep) stop using fossil fuels.

      1. Because the seals will starve without ice to eat.

        1. Polar bears are drowning right now, and it’ your fault.

        2. Okay that is really funny.

    7. Especially with sparse, poorly maintained, haphazardly-placed land stations, ship intakes water at various depths and mostly in shipping lanes.

      One of the funniest effects I ever saw was the sudden winter temperature rise across northern Asia when the USSR fell and there was no longer fuel assistance to be had from Moscow.

      1. And don’t forget Mann and company mysteriously “lost” all of the raw temperature data going back decades. Apparently, they just didn’t have the space to keep the information, because you know memory is just so dreadfully expensive.

  9. This struck me as odd:

    “The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

    He seems very concerned that we accept that 2014 was the third warmest, but not in any way that matters, and the implication seems to be that we should regard it as being no different than years that were hotter than 2014.

    Would he write the same disclaimer for a year that actually was the warmest by .01 C?:

    1. He seems very concerned that we accept that 2014 was the third warmest, but not in any way that matters, and the implication seems to be that we should regard it as being no different than years that were hotter than 2014.

      I blame it on Fisher. The invention of a null hypothesis has scientists strangling data for any implication that the collected data for a reason. Not that the null hypothesis is a bad thing but it led to a lot of innovative ways to say that collected data shows ‘not nothing’.

  10. I got Lancia after having made $8688 this month and more than ten-k last-month . this is really the easiest work I’ve ever had . I started this 3 months ago and right away earned more than $84 per/hour .
    Go to this website ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  11. 2014 was third warmest year in the satellite record.

    good.

    1. 2014 was the third warmest year since 1979.

      When put that way, it doesn’t sound quite so dramatic does it? I wish they would dispense with this “on record” crap. Ron should say what that means.

      1. It means that you should pay more for energy, durrr!

      2. Global temperature is higher than at any time in at least 4,000 years, and if not already, it will soon be hotter than at any time the human species has existed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is greater than it has been in at least 800,000 years.

        1. How long until it’s too late this time, Einstein?

          1. Hyperion|1.7.15 @ 12:16PM|#
            “How long until it’s too late this time, Einstein?”

            In 20 years, NYC won’t be habitable. Wait, I meant 30 years!
            Uh, well, see, it was *qualified*. It was 30 years if, uh, the trees didn’t bloom one year.
            That’s what I meant!

        2. Global temperature is higher than at any time in at least 4,000 years

          Tony that is just completely untrue. Not even the worst alarmists claim that. No one claims that. If you are going to get on here and spew talking points, try getting them from somewhere besides Democratic Underground.

          Beyond that, the current global temperature is lower than three years since 1979. We don’t even have to go back 20 years to find when it was warmer than now.

          Tony, like I say below, move on. Its over. Your side lost. No one but idiot Progs and scientists looking for grant money believes this shit anymore. They just don’t. And they are not going to anytime soon.

          1. Oh yeah! Well… you’re stoopid and 110% of climate scientists agree with me!

            /Tony

            1. Oh yeah! Well… you’re stoopid and 110% of climate scientists agree with me!

              You mean the people in a club that requires belief in AGW as a condition for membership all believe in AGW? That’s… crazy!

          2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03…..html?_r=1&

            Stop embarrassing yourself.

            1. Yes Tony the NYT parroted a single study as Gospel so it must be true.

              http://junksciencecom.files.wo…..e2809d.pdf

              You are just pathetic Tony. You really are. Shreek is angry and deranged. But you are just sad. Your entire sense of self worth is based on believing whatever the hive tells you. God you live a sad existence.

              1. Your entire sense of self worth is based on believing whatever the hive tells you. God you live a sad existence.

                Oh yeah? Well the cool kids like him because he parrots whatever they say! What about you? Do the cool kids like you? I didn’t think so! But the cool kids like him! That means he’s cool and popular! And you’re not! Neener neener neee-ner!

              2. That one had to leave a mark.

                1. That’s a freaking denier website. And is that paper written in Comic Sans on anyone else’s monitor?

                  1. But I do stand corrected on one thing: John is not too much of a pussy to admit that his ideas come from bullshit right-wing blogs.

    2. Of course we have non satelite records going back almost one hundred years and 2014 doesn’t even break the top 5 (I think). But let’s not let that get in the way of DOOM@!!!!

  12. Christy and Spencer are pretty much the last climate scientists anyone should be paying attention to. Their claim to fame in this world is a career of being wrong and attempting to cover up their mistakes. The only reason Bailey could be relying on their data is because he has an agenda to downplay the facts of climate change. This is egregious for an alleged science reporter, but far worse of course is the painful willful ignorance of the commenters, who seem completely oblivious to the absurdity of their implicit claim that they, who don’t demonstrate even an elementary understanding of this subject, are by default more expert about it than the actual experts (who mostly think Christy and Spencer are long-discredited hacks).

    1. Yes Tony, anyone who doesn’t tell you what you want to hear should be ignored.

      You need to understand that no one outside the hive believes this shit anymore. If it makes you feel good to believe this nonsense, have fun. But you need to wake up and realize it is no longer an effective tool to push progressive policies anymore. The large majority of the country and indeed the world, doesn’t believe in this shit and even if they do they don’t see any solution or think that it is a problem that deserves any priority.

      Its over Tony. You are going to have to come up with another excuse for taking people’s wealth and controlling their lives because this one isn’t going to work anymore.

      1. Tony used to have a really super important job analyzing data about global warming. Then came the Kulaks and wreckers. Now we’re all doomed to burn up at any moment because Tony has been stopped from saving us.

      2. You need to understand that no one outside the hive believes this shit anymore.

        I don’t even know how to deal with this. You’re clearly medically delusional. I have said little more than “trust what the science says on this subject over what the science doesn’t say.” You can’t possibly have a issue with this.

        So the problem is clearly that you are ignorant of what the science says. I can only suggest that you educate yourself. I’ll not hold my breath.

        1. Tony,

          The polls say what they say. The voters and the general public have stopped listening to this shit. They just don’t care anymore. All your commitment to this nonsense is doing is causing people to tune your side out. That is actually a good thing and I should probably be encouraging you. But it has gotten so tiresome that I really feel sorry for you.

          The country wants it oil, its cheap gas, its power to work and its standard of living. They don’t give a fuck what nitwits like you think is going to end the world. They just don’t.

          1. The American people are idiots. I didn’t realize we were on that subject. Why, it’s almost like you changed it hoping nobody would notice that you’ve been lying in every post on this thread.

            1. The American people are idiots.

              Well, they did elect Obama.

            2. Sure they are idiots Tony. Everyone but you and the enlightened few are just dumb. It couldn’t be that you are utterly wrong and making a completely unconvincing case. No. It couldn’t be that. And what happened to all of that “majority rules” crap you are always yapping about?

              If I were a less nice person, I would find you amusing rather than just sad.

              1. If I wanted to know what the facts were about a complicated natural phenomenon, I would not take a poll of the American public. Apparently that’s how you prefer to do science though?

                1. Know why the American public doesn’t care about AGW anymore? Because after decades of predictions of imminent doom, nothing has happened. It has been recognized and dismissed for the doomsday cult that it is.

                  1. Nothing has happened except the ocean acidifying, polar ice and glaciers around the world melting, species dying off, and extreme weather all over the world. But I guess you stepped outside and felt a chill and decided that’s all the data you need?

                    1. Except those glaciers that have grown. And the super hurricanes that never materialized. But yeah, horrible catastrophe around every corner!

                    2. It is fascinating how a few grunts of a bullshit talking point are enough to convince you that the entire global scientific community is trying to hoodwink us.

                      Of course, there is a link for that bullshit too. (There’s a link for all of it, because it’s all tired bullshit.)

                    3. the entire global scientific community is trying to hoodwink us.

                      Haaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah, I suppose if you define “the entire global scientific community” as “scientists who depend on politically motivated funding for their livelihood, and as such must support AGW or else they must find another way to feed their families” then yes. Yes, they are.

                    4. Yes, that is the ridiculous conspiracy theory to which I was referring.

                      Of course there isn’t any possible motive for the massive amounts of cash spent on denier propaganda by oil companies. They’re just in it for the facts.

                    5. Of course there isn’t any possible power motive for the massive amounts of cash spent on denier AGW propaganda by oil companies governments. They’re just in it for the facts.

                    6. Oh, look, it’s Tony!

                    7. If the weather is bad, then proof of climate change, if the weather is not bad, that is just weather.

                      polar ice and glaciers around the world melting (except where they’re getting bigger).

                      Put down the paint can and the paper bag, you’ve already got a ‘mettalic silver’ halo around your mouth and nose.

    2. Their claim to fame in this world is a career of being wrong and attempting to cover up their mistakes.

      You mean like the climate models?

      Christ, you are a fucking moronic shill.

      1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

        1. Yes Tony, he does. `The “climate models” have been making predictions for over thirty years now. And they have all been wrong. The polar ice cap was supposed to be melted by now. The Seychelles were supposed to be under water. Snow was supposed to be unheard of in most of Western Europe and America by 2010. None of that of course has happened because the models are wrong and the theory is nonsense. And everyone other than you and the rest of your ilk understands that.

          Again Tony, give it up. AGW is no longer something you can use to justify your idiotic ideology.

          1. You also don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, which would be fine if you had any intention on correcting the falsehoods you believe and are regurgitating, but you don’t, so you deserve never to be listened to about anything.

            1. Tony,

              Just because you stick the facts down the memory hole, doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Give it up Tony. We all remember the 1990s. We all know what the UN and Mann and company and our former Vice President was saying in his famous movie. All of those predictions were made and you know it. None of them are true and you just pretend they never happened instead of dealing with the truth. The longer you cling to these delusions of yours, the worst things will be for you.

              1. The only thing stuck in the 90s are your bullshit lame-ass talking points that aren’t true.

                1. Tony’s ‘argument’ – Stamps feet and screams “Not true! Not true!”

        2. Explain it.

        3. JUST LOOK AT THE FUCKING CHART AT THE TOP OF THE FUCKING PAGE!

          NONE! Not one, of the models predicted no temperature change for 17 years. THEY ARE NOT RIGHT!

          But…science…

          You don’t even grasp the the most basic tenets of the word.

          1. There hasn’t been “no temperature change for 17 years.” This is a lie. A persistent one, but a lie. You are capable of correcting your delusions, but you have no intention to, because you are a worthless dogmatist. That’s bad enough when it comes to fuzzy areas like economics, but on hard science it makes you an enemy of sanity and civilization.

            1. Yes, Tony, Global Warming is happening.

              Unless, of course, you look at average global temperatures and compare them to the model predictions.

              But…but…science…lies…science…

            2. If the data and observations disagree with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.(Richard Feynman) The data and observations over the past 17 years disagree with the AGW CO2 warming hypothesis and the models based on the hypothesis have failed. But I guess ‘Tony’ thinks he is smarter than Richard Feynman.

              1. No they don’t. Not even according the Christy/Spencer graph on this very article. Not according to any actual science on the subject. How is it even possible to be this deliberately uneducated about a subject you’re talking about?

      2. Come on Fransisco, just because the climate models have never made an accurate prediction at any time ever about anything, doesn’t mean they are not correct. It just means the measurements are wrong. The models can’t be wrong.

        1. The climate models are like communism, they’re going to work next time!

        2. the climate models have never made an accurate prediction at any time ever about anything

          Lie.

          1. We eagerly await your citation of one prediction they’ve gotten right.

            1. Tony would provide you with that right now, but there’s no use. Only super duper smart rocket surgeons and climate scientists like Tony can understand that the predictions actually did come true in a parallel universe.

            2. How about the person who made the first claim put up a citation first.

              1. Do you even understand that you’re asking him to prove a negative? Come on, one instance of the models being correct. Surely you can find that, right?

                1. “The models have never been accurate” is a positive claim. Cite it, then I’ll cite something, I promise.

                  1. “The models have never been accurate” is a negative claim. If you’re asking him to cite one inaccuracy, that’s a different claim.

              2. Or are you too much of a pussy to admit that your source is some semi-literate rightwing blog?

                1. Tony’s freaking out.

                  1. Yes. It is because we are just ridiculing him. There is no point in debating him. He doesn’t care about facts or argument, so it has no effect on him. What does, however is ridicule. At some deep level Tony knows he is wrong and this causes him to want to be taken seriously more than anything else as a way to compensate. This makes ridicule like kryptonite to people like Tony.

                2. You claim the models are correct. It is incumbent upon you to provide an example, or admit you are talking out your ass like the idiot we know you are.

                  1. Here. Now your source for the positive claim that the models have all been wrong? Thrill me with your sourcing.

                    1. That proof seems to consist of ‘the data we used to build the models can be accurately predicted’.

                      That’s like picking yesterdays lottery winners after being given the winning lottery numbers first.

                      At least switch to a different paint color.

          2. Ok, I agree with Tony, they’re not going to work. Funny how easy it is to get a moron to admit that their fake science doesn’t work.

  13. Christy and Spencer are pretty much the last climate scientists anyone should be paying attention to.

    Translated: They’re the guys who I don’t agree with.

    Tony is a rocket surgeon, he knows everything, just ask him!

    1. Nope, consult the scientific community. And if you have a problem with that, if say you prefer to only consult fringe quacks or a handful of scientists who present rosier scenarios than the community as a whole, then you have no business lecturing anyone about how science works.

      1. The closest you’ve ever been to science is an episode of Bill Nye on your mommies TV.

        1. An average chimp has less of a confirmation bias and willful ignorance problem than you idiots.

          1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

          2. Tony|1.7.15 @ 12:23PM|#
            “An average chimp has less of a confirmation bias and willful ignorance problem than you idiots.”

            Social climber….

          3. Somebody taught Tony some new sciencey words.

          4. Double major in physics and comp-sci, and a minor in math. 29 years of experience in engineering safety critical systems. An expert in the verification and validation of complex systems. 27 patents and counting.

            I am a member of the scientific community you fucking moron.

            I have spent a lot of time looking into the data collection, data archiving, data modelling, and software development practices of the global temperature monitoring crowd. Only the satellite guys seem to have any idea what they are doing. And they only have 35 years worth of data.

            You really should just shut the fuck up and go away.

            1. Sorry, but you’re not a member of the scientific community, you’re an engineer. And definitely not a climate expert. And even these guys, who in the scientific community are considered outliers who got things wrong for decades, are hardly showing what everyone here is claiming.

              1. And you have no fucking clue what engineers actually do.

                1. And you have no fucking clue what engineers actually do.

                  Engineers do stupid shit like measurements and math and stuff.

                  Climate scientists have consensus.

                  What do you expect Tony to believe? Stupid measurements and math and stuff, or consensus?

                2. Have a bizarre tendency to be creationists and climate change deniers? I have no problem with engineers, and I couldn’t be one if I tried, but I’ve always found this a bit odd, as if there was something lacking in their basic science education.

                  1. and I couldn’t be one if I tried

                    At least you admit that you are too stupid to understand the math and science that goes into being an engineer. That’s a start.

                    but I’ve always found this a bit odd, as if there was something lacking in their basic science education.

                    Um, yeah. You find it odd that people who rely on measurements, math, science, and computer models would recognize climate science for the bullshit that it is. Because when engineers fuck up, people can die. If engineers relied on consensus instead of science, bridges would collapse and airplanes would fall from the sky.

                    So when climate “scientists” give predictions that fail and have models that fail, engineering types rightly dismiss them as bullshit artists.

                    Yeah, I can see how you would find that to be strange.

                    1. So all the creationist engineers must be right about how evolution is false too, since they’re apparently experts about everything, even fields they never studied.

                    2. I don’t talk religion in polite company, so I have no idea what any of the engineers I work with think about creationism. And it doesn’t really matter to me either, since I don’t see anyone pushing policies that are detrimental to liberty and freedom in the name of creationism, unlike you and your AGW doomsday cult ilk.

                    3. Do you have a problem with the science (in which case you need to be an expert) or with the policies proposed to respond to it?

                      Because if you’re refusing to believe in facts because you don’t like their implications, doesn’t that reflect more on your preconceptions rather than the state of the natural world? If policies addressing climate change are worse than climate change, just say so (but, again, you’d need to be an expert to have an opinion worth anything).

                    4. but, again, you’d need to be an expert to have an opinion worth anything

                      So you’re saying you’re a hypocrite?

                    5. I’m referring you all to the experts. You’re all claiming to be smarter than all the experts.

                    6. You’re all claiming to be smarter than all the experts.

                      No, I am claiming to be smarter than you. Being that you’ve admitted that you’re too stupid to be an engineer, then I guess that’s no longer a claim but an established fact.

                    7. Do you have a problem with the science (in which case you need to be an expert) or with the policies proposed to respond to it?

                      No, you don’t need to be an expert to recognize bullshit. You just need to understand how science works. I will try to explain it to you in small words, since you already admitted that the stuff is too complicated for you to understand.

                      You see, science is an open process of discovery that tries just as hard to disprove as it does to prove. Einstein said something to the effect that no amount of experimentation could prove him right, but one experiment could prove him wrong. That’s science.

                      AGW is a closed process that is trying to give credence to a political agenda, with no room for dissent or anything that may show it to be false. That’s not science.

                    8. I love when you morons think you’re giving me a lecture about science when you’re really just admitting that your understanding of science doesn’t go beyond 5th grade textbook crap.

                      You are explicitly saying that you think you know better than the world’s experts on this subject. That’s what it means when you hold beliefs directly contradictory to their findings. And it goes without saying that you are almost certainly wrong about that.

                    9. I love when you morons think you’re giving me a lecture about science when you’re really just admitting that your understanding of science doesn’t go beyond 5th grade textbook crap.

                      From what I’ve seen a majority of the people here have college degrees in some science or another. The concepts transfer from discipline to discipline. Only the specifics change.

                      Clearly you’re the one with only a 5th grade understanding of science (or anything else for that matter).

                      And then, because you don’t think for yourself and rely on “experts” (people who share your politics), you assume that those of us who are actually trained in science do the same thing.

                      Whatever.

                      You bore me.

                    10. Show of hands for all the hard scientists here? Engineers don’t count. Computer people don’t count. (Not that those aren’t noble professions.)

                      As a nonscientist the most rational stance for me to take is to trust the consensus of scientists. What alternative are you proposing? Because it sure sounds like it’s “whatever I pulled from my ass and sounds good and fits my politics, damn the literature.”

                    11. Show of hands for all the hard scientists here? Engineers don’t count. Computer people don’t count. (Not that those aren’t noble professions.)

                      Oh, that’s funny. “Hey, I need a show of hands of scientists here! Sorry, but people who actually use applied science don’t count! C’mon! Where are all the scientists?” What a fucking idiot you are.

                    12. I don’t talk religion in polite company, so I have no idea what any of the engineers I work with think about creationism.

                      Of the thousands of engineers I’ve worked and/or studied with, 0 have identified themselves as creationists (assuming he means the 6000 year old variety) to me. Not sure where Tony is making up that idea from.

                    13. You don’t need to know anything about the base principles behind a system to make a model that works. You just need good data, math, and an opportunity to get more data from another independent set for validation.

                    14. People here are denying basic physics.

                    15. People here are denying basic physics.

                      People here understand that the climate is an extremely complex system, of which the greenhouse effect is just one of many different variables. People here, especially those with engineering training, understand that you can’t rely on only one variable to predict a complex system. Especially if you exclude everything else.

                      Being that you’ve admitted that you’re too stupid to be an engineer, I can see how that concept would be beyond your comprehension.

                    16. So is your claim that we aren’t emitting greenhouse gases or that our understanding of the greenhouse effect is flawed?

                    17. So is your claim that we aren’t emitting greenhouse gases or that our understanding of the greenhouse effect is flawed?

                      Yep. I was right. It’s beyond your comprehension.

                    18. Our understanding of how climate works is flawed by definition. It is an exceedingly complex chaotic system where we do not understand what all the variables are, much less how they interact with each other. Perfect understanding of such a system is impossible.

                    19. pots and kettles, Tony, that applies to the vaunted “consensus”.

              2. And, from that, I see that you should agree then that ‘member[s] of the scientific community’ are not experts on data analysis, or computer modeling. I have a double masters in operations research, which deals with computer modeling, statistical analysis and forecasting. Computer models only do what you tell them to do, and should not be used to forecast the future. They are best used for getting general movements and effects of changing a single factor in a closed system. Climate models are an over-complicated joke.

                1. Computer models only do what you tell them to do… Climate models are an over-complicated joke.

                  Yep. Anyone who deals in software or engineering knows this. Which is precisely why Tony dismisses engineers and software people.

            2. I am a member of the scientific community you fucking moron.

              Nuh uh! The scientific community believes in AGW! If you don’t, then you can’t be a member! Neener neener neee-ner!

              1. sarc nails ‘Tony’s’ entire ‘argument’.

    2. How dare you question the Consensus! To the chamber with you, heretic.

  14. My aunt makes $73 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her income was $19059 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    visit the website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  15. Reason seems to be trying to deny there is warming, but the graphs they have so clearly show it. From 79 forward and from 99 forward. They try to play a game with the numbers by using the very hot, 1998, year as a starting point, but that is not how smart folks do statistical analysis.

    1. They use 1998 as a starting point because that’s when NOAA launched the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units, which give the most accurate readings of atmospheric temperature.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..nding_Unit

    2. They use it because it shows there has been no statistical increase in 17 years, thus smashing every climate model presented to date.

      Oh, and Ron is not even remotely a “denier”.

      1. They use it because it was an extreme el nino year and thus perfect to cherry pick if you want to claim there has been no warming on average since then. It’s clearly dishonest to start there anyway, but beyond that these things are best measured in longer timespans (30 years or so). As the graph clearly shows, there has been persistent warming over the multiple decades it lists.

        1. The 79 forward data is a pretty convienient starting point for ‘AGW paint huffers’. At that point “climate scientists” were convinced we were entering a new ice age because of a short term cooling trend (40s-70s). Since then, we’ve entered a short term warming trend, that appears to have peaked more than 10 years ago.

  16. Would someone *kindly* explain exactly how one calculates the average temperature for a year over the entire planet?

    This has been my concern since I first learned of the existence of the concept of “global average temperature”. I may be wrong. But it seems like it is something that is incalculable, given that it is impossible to control factors of how/when/where temp. readings are taken. They have not been taken in the same way, at the same time, and in the same locations for any geologically significant time frame. Additionally, topographic features are in a state of constant flux, and this (among other things) affects local temperatures (surface and at varying altitudes).

    Also, everything ‘Almanian!’ said @ |1.7.15 @ 11:28AM|#

  17. Man, it must be killing Tony to realize that his cult is losing its grip, denying the little fascist the chance to line us up against the wall and execute us.

    1. If only the Supremes would hold up the 1A and strike down AGW inspired legislation as being religious in nature.

  18. Trolling internet arguments is at least 20 years old now, yet Hit and Run commenters are still taking the bait, hook line and sinker.

  19. Tony|1.7.15 @ 2:24PM|#
    You are explicitly saying that you think you know better than the world’s experts on this subject. That’s what it means when you hold beliefs directly contradictory to their findings. And it goes without saying that you are almost certainly wrong about that.

    Should we trust polar bear experts? They’ve been far more wrong, more slippery, and more tribal than climatologists. Their motives for being wrong are the same as climatologists’: green-mindedness. That’s because both fields are composed of self-selected greenies who’ve been through a long educational and social molding process that reinforces their belief in their righteousness. They’ve never been called to account by the scientific community. Their papers keep on coming through peer review.

    Because we can’t trust polar bear researchers, that rightly undermines the confidence we should have in other branches of science, like climatology, where many strong environmentalists have accumulated and where there is evidence of similar traits to PBRs.

  20. 2014 seemed pretty damn cold in the northeastern US, so I’d like to know what regions of the globe made up the difference.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.