Global Warming

2014 Hottest Year on Record, Says NOAA: Climate Models Still Wrong on Trend

|

Temperature
dreamstime

USA Today is reporting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reporting that 2014 is the hottest year since 1880. From USA Today:

The global temperature from 2014 broke the previous record warmest years of 2005 and 2010 since record-keeping began in 1880.

The average temperature for 2014 was 58.24 degrees globally, 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average, NOAA said.

USA Today publishes a nice graph from NOAA showing the global sea and land temperature trends. Interestingly, the graph notes that if the temperature trend from 1998 to 2014 were sustained for a century that global average temperature would increase by just over 1 degree Fahrenheit. See below:

NOAA Temperature Trend
NOAA

So global average temperature is not increasing at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius (0.54 degree Fahrenheit) per decade that is the average of the climate models relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Regarding the 17 year slow-down in global temperature increases, the IPCC's Synthesis Report just released in November notes:

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The rate of warming of the observed global mean surface temperature over the period from 1998 to 2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over the period from 1951 to 2012. …

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations…. The difference between models and observations may also contain contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (the latter dominated by the effects of aerosols).

Shorter: The climate models could be wrong for all sorts of reasons.

Last week, I reported that the satellite data shows that 2014 was the third warmest year in that record. University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologist John Christy noted:

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.

In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.

NEXT: Eric Holder Orders End to DOJ Program that Shares Seized Assets with Police

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. Yeah, this year was sweltering.

    1. 2014 wasn’t even a warm year.

      1. It was a rather cool year in the NE US, for sure.

        I know it’s hard to believe, but North America isn’t the world.

        1. Yeah, remember that when you want to claim Sandy was due to CAGW.

        2. So the minus ten deg F on my outside thermometer RIGHT NOW isn’t real?

      2. We have these things called thermometers that prove otherwise.

        1. That’s why they have to be adjusted upward.

    2. Burning hot! I had to strategically place ice cubes all over the house so I wouldn’t die from the heat.

  2. In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.

    LIES! AS LONG AS ONE KOCH BROTHER WALKS THE EARTH, WE ARE DYING A FIERY HELLSTORM OF HEAT!!!!! SOON!!!11!1!11

    /Warmenist

    1. “While the Koch brothers admit to not being experts on the matter, these billionaire oil tycoons are certainly experts at contributing to climate change. That’s what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this. Not a cause, one of the main causes.” — Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, May 7, 2014

      1. Fuck Harry Reid with a defective treadmill.

  3. which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence)

    NASA already shot that one down.

  4. “Shorter: The climate models could be wrong for all sorts of reasons.”

    could their measurements be wrong as well? I mean, how accurate was “global temperature” recording in 1880? I’m seriously ignorant to this- and when we’re talking about 10th and 100ths of degrees I would think that would be important…

    1. “could their measurements be wrong as well?”

      Yes

    2. The fact is the measurements they use for 1880 (tree rings, ice cores, etc) are not the same measurements they use for any of this ‘warming period’. Ice core data was cut off in the 50’s because ‘we can use the more accurate data, going forward’.

      So apples and oranges.

      1. Yeah, I never got how they justified that. You shouldn’t be able to claim multiple sources without explicitly showing that in all your graphs, and also showing that your sources are equally accurate (or that you are using the margin of error for the least accurate source).

      2. The temperatures going back to about 1800 are from ground based thermometers. These are not well distributed around the world – they are only on the land, and not in very many places on the land. The ‘global temperature’ is obtained by doing a weighted average of these temperature measurements.

        There are lots of factors that can influence these surface temperatures including local effects of cities, pavement, agriculture, etc. So these are not as reliable as the satellite readings that have been obtained since about 1978.

        The satellite readings are from all over the world so they are a representative sampling. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the readings is only about +/- 0.2 degree F. So differences in the averages that are much less than this are not easily differentiated from the noise.

        Ice cores, tree rings, and various other measuring schemes are used to estimate temps going back many thousands of years. These are all less accurate, but still useful. Unfortunately most of these are secondary effects that need to be interpreted – ie what does it mean for temperature that a tree ring was larger or smaller? and does that represent a local phenomenon or a global trend?

        This uncertainty means that any conclusions need to be understood in context. The models have failed to accurately model the pre-1900 and most recent 18 years. Given the uncertainty of the data and the poor fit of the models to the data, the models are not reliable predictors of future climate.

        1. That is an awesome post. So awesome that I’ve stolen your IP and made a copy of your post for future use. /slinks away into the night.

        2. Surface temps.

          This is like estimating the cumulative energy in a 30,000 gallon pool buy testing the temperature of the first 1/8 inch of water on the surface in less than 5 places. Then comparing that to 50 years of such measurements and declaring that the cumulative temp of the pool water has increased by around the equivalent of 1.2 degrees F.

          It’s all bullshit and YET, there are those who swear people who question AGW are CRAZY!

      3. so it’s like playing football on a field where, somewhere along the way, they guy marking the yard lines switched form a yard stick to a meter stick, and didn’t bother to convert?

    3. In some analysis circles it’s seen as legit in others it’s frowned upon but; you just grant less weight to data you have less confidence in and/or underfit the model to that data. I think we both know how the AGW modelling community approaches this but, I have no specific knowledge as to their practice.

      However, Box’s axiom still stands; “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

      Better fit *generally* produces better understanding and better prediction but better fit is not itself the goal, better prediction is.

      1. If a model can’t fit the current data, how can it predict the future?

        1. The current data just needs to be adjusted until it is right.

          1. Your incorrect thinking just needs to be adjusted until it is right. FTFY

        2. If a model can’t fit the current data, how can it predict the future?

          This isn’t exactly what was asked and, depending on the application, the goal isn’t to predict the future perfectly, just usefully enough.

          I have a model for compound interest. It doesn’t apply to all of my personal finances, but there are places where it predicts perfectly, others where it predicts well enough, and some where it predicts horribly. I never once though to fit it to current data.

          1. NB: I don’t endorse AGW or the math behind it in any way. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. I think they’re making all kinds of horrible assumptions from the basic math and physics, through chemistry, all the way up to the sociology and that it is scientism of the highest order.

            1. I agree but what is the difference between scientism and pseudoscience?

              1. IMO, they are somewhat of an inversion of one-another.

                Anyone can do pseudoscience; 90% of all people know that, just ask anyone in the street. Scientism can only be done by Ph.D.s when they judge, scientifically, whether paying for a prositute, smoking weed, or driving an SUV is morally correct.

                Possibly one is a square the other is a quadrangle. Certainly lots of semantics involved in the difference.

      2. Past returns aren’t indicitive of future rewards, they’re just there to encourage you to invest capital with us.

        When someone says to me they have a model to predict future climate, I ask them why they haven’t applied that to the stock market. Same darn thing: a giant multivariate equation with an absurd amount of fluid mechanics thrown in to make it interesting.

        It’s all snake oil at the end of the day.

        1. I’m a AGW denier, but I don’t like your analogy.

          AGW isn’t like the stock market. It’s like the stock market with TARP.

          The stock market increasing is then attributed an unhealthy palor, and govt intervention is then considered as cause.

          AGW and anti-interventionism are the same but AGW and the stock market are not. AGW’s villain (petrol) is to weather what cronyism is to the economy.

          1. Don’t read too far into the politics, because there aren’t any.

            It’s all about mathematical predictions. For incredibly complex systems–the stock market and climate–models don’t work. They never will. There are too many data points–both within and external to the systems–that need to be taken into account as well as the complexity of the equations themselves, hence the reference to fluid mechanics.

            Climatologists pimping their models are the equivalent of hedge fund managers selling ponzi schemes. It’s not possible to predict the future in such a complex system. Not now, not in our lifetimes. The math and our inability to do it with the financial systems proves that.

            1. No, the stock market is fundamentally different from climate.

              You make money in the stock market through arbitrage: buying low, selling high.

              That only happens because two groups with a common interest haven’t communicated. But engaging in arbitrage facilitates that communication and makes that disparity go away.

              So the first guys who jump on board will profit, while the last ones will lose out.

              The first guys are getting rewarded, though, because they did the legwork and took on the risk. If you’re getting screwed on the stock market, it’s because you didn’t want to take on that risk; the moral of the story is don’t expect to get paid for doing nothing.

              1. Fail.

    4. “Shorter: The climate models could be wrong for all sorts of reasons.”

      Even shorter: The climate models are wrong. Sorta makes one wonder what else the geniuses got wrong, doesn’t it?

  5. I mean, how accurate was “global temperature” recording in 1880?

    Its truthy, dammit. And that’s what matters.

    Let’s see a graph overlaying atmospheric CO2 concentrations and industrial CO2 emissions on temperatures. How well would those trends lines fit with each other?

    1. “Truthy… The standard for all Government Science!”

    2. I mean, how accurate was “global temperature” recording in 1880?

      Temperature recording technology today is certainly more accurate. However, I would also expect that temperature recording today would be more dishonest since there is more government involvement.

    3. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/ 2014/09/clip_image0041.jpg [remove the space between/ and 2014]

      I got it from Anthony Watts, who is like Ron bailey’s bff&f, so your libertarian eyes won’t bleed. You can watch him dither in the remaining post about how it’s more accurate to focus on the years 1998-2014 than on the whole trend. That’s why he gets paid the big bucks.

      1. “I got it from Anthony Watts . . . . That’s why he gets paid the big bucks.”

        He isn’t getting anything, and he never did. The claim that he did, maintained by Sourcewatch, derives from a writer who relied on the fraudulent and debunked “strategy” document supposedly from Heartland–but actually, most likely, from Gleick and/or accomplices.

      2. Explain the near identical warming from 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. There were no significant CO2 concentrations in that former period according to the IPCC –the modern carbon era that we supposedly have created doesn’t begin until 1950 according to the IPCC.

        And it is convenient that they like to only plot the trend starting in 1880 as the planet was finally shaking off the Little Ice Age.

        1. “Pumpkin sales have plummeted!” (Current sales chart begins November 1)

      3. It’s not more accurate. There is a flattening of temps that the models don’t predict in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising linearly.

        The Models are horribly wrong, have not predicted any climate consequence with any bit of accuracy.

        Also Gavin Schmidt is deputy at GISS, he is not a unbiased actor.

        1. That flattening has a beginning…hence a starting point in time.

  6. The climate models could be wrong for all sorts of reasons.

    The models are just fine. The problem is that the planet isn’t cooperating.

    1. It’s not important whether Gaia was or was not actually raped by the white priviledged Patriarchy. It the story that the models tell that is important.

      1. Gaia was asking for it.

      2. Rolling Stone did a story about this. A fraternity was involved.

        1. And even if the story was wrong, the fraternity has agreed to the ensuing restrictions. Which in the long run, matters far more than any particular set of facts.

  7. Bailey, some advice:

    Don’t quote either USA Today or the NOAA.
    You’re just going to end up looking stupid, gullible even.
    I promise. I am super serial.

  8. In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.

    As I recall my An Inconvenient Truth, average global temperatures were not only supposed to increase, but increase at a faster rate.

    Teh Hokey Schtick.

    1. Tipping point!

      1. isn’t that where you are supposed to apply pressure to the sleeping cow?

        1. It’s the part of the AGW doomsday prophesy that first set off my bullshit detector.

          If there is some tipping point from which there is no return and the planet is plunged into eternal fire, how the fuck did the planet recover from past warming periods?

          1. Well, sarc, those past warming periods weren’t being orchestrated by the Koch-Industrial Complex, which somehow sees mass death and the collapse of the ecosystem as a profit opportunity.

          2. The climate has negative stability. Divergent systems abound on earth. Don’t let the last billion years fool you.

          3. The other thing that people like to ignore is that we are still in an ice age.

      1. Is that what you do on your breaks?

        1. *splutters, chokes on coffee…. coughs, then rises to begin thunderous applause*

    2. Heavens to Mergatroid.
      Logarithmic even.
      Exit, stage left.

    3. An Inconvenient Truth

      They made us watch this shit in earth science in middle school. (Yea, I’m only in my 20s. Sue me.)

      1. My lawyers shall contact you shortly.

        1. If only I didn’t have an exclusivity agreement with my Swiss masters….this would be an easy case!

          SS: As to your age, sir, are you in your twenties?

          RS: Yes

          SS: Nothing further your Honor. Move for directed verdict!

    4. Wasn’t this a scene from that film?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

  9. Is there any reason I would trust the NOAA data over the satellite data’s gloriously unbiased global coverage?

    1. Good question. The two sets of data do not agree. Doesn’t that mean one or both of them is necessarily wrong?

      1. Depends on whether they are measuring the same thing. I suspect they aren’t. It’s tricky to compare data that were collected in very different ways.

        1. True, but still there are two different trends.

    2. Satellites are more accurate in the sense that they don’t have to rely on large drop outs in the grid. All of the ground station temp producers have to have an algorithm for filling in the missing grid points.

      THOSE algorithms are very suspect.

  10. “Hottest.” Tell me, is the 2014 “record” greater than the next year by more than the margin for error in the recording instruments? If the answer is no, then “hottest” isn’t science at all. It’s politics.

  11. As long as humans are around and doin’ stuff, every year will be the “hottest year on record”.

    The average temperature for 2014 was 58.24 degrees globally, 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average, NOAA said.

    Also, I still think that “global average temperature” does not have a reliable definition or any meaningful context given that there are numerous factors at work on the temps in any one spot, many (most?) of which we do not understand.

    1. In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.

      We should freak out anyway because fossil fuels, or something.

      1. Fossil fuels must be harming the environment because they’re icky.

        The climate is changing.

        Therefore, fossil fuels must be the cause.

        Circular logic for the win!

        1. So naive!

          Fossil fuels have been deep in the earth for 100’s of millions of years. Then, in a switch from earth surface firewood, fossil fuels were brought to the surface and burned to carbon dioxide and water. Get it so far?

          Carbon dioxide was found to be a ‘greenhose’ gas before the contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere began. As increasing amounts of fossil fuels have been utalized, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing and the surface of the earth has been steadily warming. Doesn’t this make sense? Is there an argument which can negate this explanation?

          Straightforward, so no circular logic here.

          1. Carbon dioxide was found to be a ‘greenhose’ (sic) gas before the contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere began.

            CO2 has been going into and out of the atmosphere from many sources since the earth formed. Man’s contribution has been increasing from very low levels a few hundred years ago to larger amounts. Man’s contribution is still a very small fraction of the CO2 emitted each year.

            CO2 concentrations have been increasing each and every year for the past 160 years over which we have good data. The temperature has been increasing some of those years, but has also fallen or remained constant for long stretches (1940-1970, 1998-2014 for example). The correlation is not very good and the models that use CO2 as the key variable have very poor predictive power and provide very poor fits when extrapolated back in time a thousand years.

          2. So?

          3. So?

      2. We should freak out anyway because ManBearPig!

    2. As long as humans are around and doin’ stuff

      I believe they are working on a solution to that problem.

    3. If you collect data in the same way in the same places consistently, I think it tells you something meaningful. I don’t know if that something can accurately be called the average global temperature, though.
      I’d think that the way to find the average global temperature would be to figure out the black body temperature of the planet based on the spectrum it radiates.

      1. One thing about temperature that one should keep in mind is that temperatures are always averages. If it makes sense to ask what temperature your body is, it makes sense to ask what temperature the earth is.

  12. Its because I wore muscle shirts all summer isn’t it.

    1. Seeing as the US average temperature was only the 34th highest, I think you’re onto something.

      1. So this year he should go shirtless and send us into a new ice age.

        1. Whoa don’t get ahead of yourself there. He might have gone shirtless in 2013. You don’t want to the trend backwards for heaven’s sake.

  13. Tell me, is the 2014 “record” greater than the next year by more than the margin for error in the recording instruments?

    Listen, Goldstein, when the Ministry of Plenty announces an increase in the chocolate ration, you don’t weigh it on your scale. You eat it, and be goddam thankful.

  14. So what do we notice about that little trend line at the top of the graph, the one that now shows temperatures did not stabilize like so many here thought? Holding out 2014, what were the three highest points on the graph since 1998? That would be years 1998, 2004 and 2010. And what occurred in each of those years? An El Nino…an event that drives up temperatures. In fact, 1998 was the El Nino of the century, the year that so many here think starts a temperature stabilization trend.

    And how is 2014 different? No El Nino…no supporting event to drive up temperatures. And still…the warmest year on record, surpassing even El Nino years. Hmmm.

    But the concluding sentence says it all: “In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.”

    We’ve backed off the “no temperature increase for the past 15 years,” and now settle for “temperatures are increasing, but at a slower rate for short term trends than the rate for the long term trend.” Guess its speeded up since last year. We’re making improvement in recognition, however slowly.

    1. And how is 2014 different? No El Nino…no supporting event to drive up temperatures. And still…the warmest year on record,

      No according to the satellite data it isn’t. That data says that two other years were warmer. Why is it wrong and the surface data right? Moreover, even if the surface data is correct, the models are still wrong. So all we are left with is the fact that 2014 was a warm year. Warm years happen. Since the models didn’t predict how warm it actually would be, there still isn’t any evidence the models are correct. You gloat over the surface data because you beg the question and assume that CO2 must be the cause of any warming. That is whole question. And since models didn’t predict what happened, there still isn’t any evidence that CO2 is responsible.

      “In other words, as hot as 2014 is, there is still no sign of a speed up in the rate of global average temperature increase.”

      This despite ever increasing concentrations of CO2. Clearly whatever the relationship between CO2 and climate, it is not linear. Moreover, since the models uniformly were wrong, we still don’t understand that relationship or if there even is one.

      You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig. You have convinced yourself that this nonsense justifies your failed ideology. That, however, doesn’t make the correlation any stronger or the models any less inaccurate.

      1. Well, John, I’m not sure how to answer why one is better than the other. Even among the groups who measure at the surface there are some differences in results. Back in 1990 when Spencer et. al. started to use satellite data, it showed no increase. Several groups analyzed it and it turns out they made errors and they admitted that and made changes. I do note that recently they said that they are coming up with a new paradigm, so I guess more changes are coming, so we will see.

        I do note that there are 4 major agencies that track temperature (NOAA, NASA, Met Office, and Japan Meteorological Agency), and it seems that all 4 will be saying that 2014 is the hottest on record.

        You are right, the relationship between CO2 and temperatures is not linear…not in a straight line. It never has been, as even the graph above will tell you. Back in 1940 we were adding ever more CO2 and temperatures did not increase for 20 years. That does not mean there is not a correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.

        I have to laugh when the comments here turn to “ideology.” It shows where you come from, not me. Its all about science and data. Period.

        1. Well, John, I’m not sure how to answer why one is better than the other.

          That is a real problem. The two sets of data do not agree. One or both of them is necessarily therefore wrong. Until there is some evidence showing why it is the surface data that is correct, there is no reason to believe it is.

          and it seems that all 4 will be saying that 2014 is the hottest on record.

          No they are not. The satellite data says otherwise.

          That does not mean there is not a correlation between CO2 and temperature increase.

          Of course it doesn’t. But the reverse is true as well. The bottom line is until someone produces a climate model that accurately predicts the temperature in some future year, this theory remains unproven. If climate models start accurately predicting global temperatures, I will start believing them and start giving credence to their theories about how climate works and the effects of CO2. Until that time, there is no reason to give it any credence or base any decision on their findings.

          As far as ideology, the only reason you make choose to believe this is because you can use it to further your politics. It is not ideology as much as just old fashioned confirmation bias. You want it to be true, so you assume it is.

          1. The 4 I mentioned are not satellite driven but surface. And they will be saying 2014 is the hottest year on record.

            Well, I guess I could say the same to you…until you prove that the 4 agencies that elect to use surface measurements are wrong, then I will stay with that over the one using satellites. Whatever…follow which one you want. But know this…All 5 of them say the earth is warming, including satellite driven data, since the industrial revolution. All of them.

            1. The 4 I mentioned are not satellite driven but surface. And they will be saying 2014 is the hottest year on record.

              But still don’t match the warming predicted by the models. Even if it was a warm year, the models were still wrong.

              Well, I guess I could say the same to you…until you prove that the 4 agencies that elect to use surface measurements are wrong, then I will stay with that over the one using satellites

              Sure you could. But I am not demanding that people change their way of lives or we spend trillions of dollars based on my assertion. You are the one who is doing that and thus bear the burden of proving your assertion.

              1. No I don’t have that burden. To be honest, I doubt you will ever be convinced. If you won’t listen to what American Geophysical Union, and others, are telling you, you won’t listen to me.

                But if those on my side feel there is a burden, its in convincing the general public. And I do think we are making some headway. Enough? Maybe not. But we keep trying.

                1. You don’t personally bear that burden but your side does. And you are making no headway. People believe this less and less every year.

            2. All four agencies gain more power, notoriety, and funding when their data supports increases in temperature.

          2. By the way, in case you are interested, CarbonBrief, a real good and professional website, always puts out an article about why and how we measure global temperatures like we do, including satellites. In case you are interested.

            http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo…..mperature/

            1. Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

              East Anglia deliberately destroyed all of the original source data for their global temperature calculations.

              http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..u_missing/

              Their excuse was “they didn’t have the storage space”. Maybe their past data is correct. But the fact remains they destroyed the raw data so that their assertions about past temperatures can never be checked. Given east Anglia’s sorry record of honesty in the past, I see no reason to believe any of their assertions about past data.

              All of the people in this field have a tremendous incentive and are under tremendous pressure to validate this theory. If tomorrow Jesus were to return to earth and inform us that this theory is wrong, climatology would be wrecked as a field, most people in it would lose their jobs and grants, and the entire thing would go back to being the scientific backwater it was 40 years ago. Given that fact, there is no reason to ever give them the benefit of the doubt on anything.

              1. And so you have spoken. Each of us has done our best. Enjoy your weekend, John! I bet both of us will still enjoy some football, regardless of climate.

        2. Do you have any clue about what you are posting? Do you think those data sets are all independent?

    2. And still…the warmest year on record,

      Depends on what you mean by “on record”.

      The satellite temperature record? No.

      Surface temperature record (as best as we can determine) for the last couple of millennia? Nope.

      A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

      A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..te_change/

      1. C’mon, RC. The whole question is not millennial. Its about humans adding carbon to the atmosphere, CO2 levels rising to the highest levels for thousands of years, and temperatures increasing accordingly. And science, whether you like it or not, is telling you that we are increasing global temperatures because natural variation can’t account for the increase we have seen. And, they are saying, that this might cause catastrophic problems.

        That’s it…you can reject what most climate scientists are saying if you want, but it doesn’t negate that is what climate scientist are telling you.

        The tree ring study…an old one (2012) that even one of the authors cautioned was a local view in Scandinavia and not to be extrapolated further (of course WUWT tried to).

        1. Even if that were true, without a viable plan to reduce CO2 emissions, it is still a giant so what? The AGW debate was lost when the Greens decided that central planning and renewable energy was the only solution. There is no way the world as a whole is going to stop emitting CO2 or even even decrease the rate of increase in any significant way.

          Basically you are asking the US to harm itself and standard of living to make a pointless gesture that will do nothing to solve a problem that we are unsure even exists. This is why AGW is a loser political issue and always will be. People understand that none of the proposed solutions will do anything but make them poorer and their lives worse while having no effect on the problem it is supposed to solve.

          Go figure out a way to reduce CO2 emissions in a way that is politically palatable and effective and come back. Until then, the whole thing is nothing but a charade.

          1. Its not a charade, its a valid discussion and debate. The growth in renewables has proven that there is a possible way out of this problem. Science doesn’t need to come up with the best way forward…that will be for policy and individuals to decide. Even if there is no viable solution on the horizon (and I think we are getting there), the science remains the same.

            1. Renewables have proven no such thing unless you consider unreliable and expensive energy to be a solution. If you absolutely must do your carbon penance to appease your goddess Gaia, then your only solution today is to start building lots of fission plants.

          2. That is really all that needs to be said. Even if there is a disaster on the horizon, there is nothing practical that can be done about it. People just aren’t going to stop emitting CO2 no matter how much anyone wishes it would be true. None of what is currently being seriously proposed will do jack shit. Cap and trade is a joke. And even if all the rich countries did manage to cut emissions way back, the rest of the world still wants to catch up with us.
            And that doesn’t even get into weighing the costs and benefits of any plan to cut emissions.

            1. I hope your pessimism is misplaced.

              1. I see it more as realism. As individuals humans are very clever. As a whole, humanity is just another animal trying to survive.

                I think people will adapt pretty well to whatever comes. We are a warm weather animal who has managed to survive everywhere it is remotely possible for us to.
                If the worst predictions come true, things will undoubtedly suck for a bunch of people for a while, I won’t deny that. But I really think that is that is what is going to happen, then there isn’t much to be done.

                1. Got a good song for you, just to enter into the weekend, and it sums it up from what you said. You might get a kick out of it, from an American jazz great, Mose Allison:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM_5yfuQbF4

      2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u…..67338.html

        From Robert Wilson, one of the authors,

        “Of course the Mail has gone too far. Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct.”

      3. Sorry Dean, but no. Temperatures were NOT hotter during Roman or medieval times. Contrary to what that article you linked to claims, the study it cites studied tree rings only in Norway.

    3. You’re an idiot. 2014 had a mild El Nino, so there goes you whole thesis. ‘We’ haven’t backed off anything. the fact remains that the temperature increase over the last decade and a half is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    4. Nobody has backed of the no temp increase for 18 years.

      The difference between this year and last was within error bounds.

      UAH’s miscalculation does not effect the robustness of their data which generally matches RSS. Fact is the satellites do a better job cause they don’t have to fill in for non reporting or non existent stations in the grid. The ground temps have always had dubious “adjustments”.

      Fact is the warmers haven’t accurately predicted anything…at all.

  15. The satellite data says that it is the third warmest year since 1979. The surface data says it is the warmest year since 1880.

    Is there any reason to believe the satellite data is wrong? It would seem to me that it is much more likely to be correct. Indeed, unless it can be shown why the surface data is better than the satellite data, it seems to me that the satellite data is pretty good evidence that the surface data is wrong.

    1. That’s tea-bagger logic.

    2. Is there any reason to believe the satellite data is wrong?

      Sure there is. Which do you think will be more accurate – the thermometer right outside my window or a satellite several thousand miles up in the sky telling me what the temperature is right outside my window?

      “Satellite temperature data” sounds an awful lot like “macroeconomics”. Mildly useful, but the wrong tool to base policy on.

      1. You forgot to shake your cane and tell John to get off your lawn.

        1. No, I forgot to add that “global temperature” sounds as useful as macroeconomics.

          1. Is it supposed to be useful? An awful lot of science is pretty useless (at the moment, at least).
            If the field of climate science would get it’s shit together, it would certainly be useful in that context.

            1. Point taken about “useless” science, but “global temperature” as a concept is pure foolishness. There isn’t even a “North American temperature” for example.

              Besides, what use would “global temperature” have anyway? We’re more likely to adjust to climate change naturally than bureaucratically. And that is going to be more regional than global.

              Mind, I’m not even poo-pooing the scientific effort. If one could prove that burning coal in China is having an adverse affect on, say, salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest, it is very useful to know that from a personal standpoint. And if we were funding the science from a personal curiosity or economic standpoint I’d say we’re doing mankind a favor. But we’re pursuing it from a political/bureaucratic standpoint, which can only mean at this stage of civilization that we are only after the knowledge as an excuse to plunder others.

      2. For measuring an overall area (ie, CLIMATE)? The satellite, for sure.

      3. Which do you think will be more accurate – the thermometer right outside my window or a satellite several thousand miles up in the sky telling me what the temperature is right outside my window?

        Please tell me you are being sarcastic. There are a thousand reasons why your thermometer outside your window could be wrong. Moreover, there is no reason to necessarily believe the satellite is not accurate. Why couldn’t it be? Indeed, since the surface temps rely on thousands of different readings made by thousands of different people, each of which is a single point of failure and the satellite data relies on a single process run by machines in space, I am inclined to thing the satellites are more accurate.

        1. The satellites may not accurately measure the temp outside my window, but that’s not what it was designed to do. The satellites measure the same thing in teh same way consistently. It doesn’t really matter that is doesn’t agree with Finger’s thermometer as long as it gives you truly comparable data to compare.

          1. The satellites measure the same thing in teh same way consistently.

            If it were true, I’d agree with you.

            But the fact is satellites DON’T measure the same thing consistently. Have there been no advancements in satellite temperature measuring technology, capabilities, and volume in 40 years?

            The best one can honestly say is the satellite temperature data from 2014 is less incomplete than from 1979.

            1. Educate yourself and then come back. Why is satellite data ‘less complete’ today than 35 years ago? Do you think the satellites sit in a geostationary orbit and we’ve just been adding to the constellation? Try again. Satellites give the same coverage today that they gave in 1979 because that coverage is determined by their orbits and we haven’t invented any new orbits for many decades if not centuries.

              Calibrations are slightly different because different satellites used today have replaced retired satellites from the past, but that process includes years of coincident measurements to ensure consistency.

              On the other hand your precious thermometers keep getting recalibrated up even when they’re the same damn instrument from only a handful of years ago. And hot spots are lovingly created by infilling data.

              Yes, satellite is MUCH better.

  16. Will somebody please ask the hedline writer what part of “up” he doesn’t understand?

    Here’s what the phyicist who provided one of the annual estimates has to say

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp…..ee-is.html

    1. Could you please do yourself and everyone around a favor and figure out which part of “the models were wrong” and “correlation does not equal causation” you can’t understand?

      1. The favor I’d ask for is a working link.

        1. No, you don’t. It’s Russell Seitz, abject moron.

      2. I have a longer comment below, but your and the author’s comments about “the models were wrong” is just expressing a lack of understanding of what the models are and do, and how to test them.
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..e2310.html

        That you think “correlation does not equal causation” is further indication that you’re not very familiar with the mainstream science here or how the case has been built over the past couple of hundred years.

        1. Writing too fast… should read “That you think “correlation does not equal causation” is a useful observation is further indication that…”

          Global warming theory is not based on observations of correlation. It’s based on physics, validated by paleoclimate.

          Summary of evidence from NAS and U.K. Royal Society:
          http://dels.nas.edu/resources/…..e-full.pdf

          1. Lol, what horseshit.

            1. Not the most articulate anti-science troll on the internet. 🙂

        2. “the author’s comments about “the models were wrong” is just expressing a lack of understanding of what the models are and do”

          The IPCC models from 2001 are clearly wrong. The models published a few years later are nearing their confidence intervals and will, barring a sharp increase in global temperatures, be considered statistically wrong within a few years.

  17. Ronald, I’ve come to realize that you are an outlier with most of your opinions. Your focus is often on some miscuale or narrow aspect of an issue which you extropolate beyond the broad stream of knowledge as if you know everything better.

    Having followed you somewhat since “Liberation Biology,” I see your posturing as ‘devil’s advocate’ a shortcoming you need to review. In speaking of review, although I probably won’t be around in 20 years, you may be, so I suggest you revisit the rate of increase in global temperature. If climate models have been wrong on the trend, then congratulations.

    1. Reason should really fire him and get that Watts guy to write a weekly article.

      I mean, literally no one here agrees with or even respects Bailey. So why is he employed?

      1. And sack the Chicago School economists and get some better ones from Liberty University that beleve inflation is driven by cosmic rays and the iron sun

    2. Ronald Bailey is the Bill Cosby of climate change. He invites the data up to his room for a drink, renders it powerless, then has his way with it.
      By the way, we’re still “staying tuned” to the Mann lawsuit even if you aren’t.

  18. Look at the data from 1940 to 1970. The trend is downward. Scientists in those days said we were heading toward another ice age. Also, during this period, while the average temperature was falling, man-made CO2 emissions were rising. An explanation is needed for this period before we accept an explanation for what has happened after 1980.

    1. Even more critical is that the warming period from 1910-1940 has a slope that is indistinguishable from the ‘super’ warming of 1970-2000. That warming occurred before CO2 concentrations could have had any significant impact according to the IPCC, so clearly natural variability can produce events that they so confidently claim it can’t.

      Truly cargo cult science.

      1. The mainstream and IPCC view is that nearly all of the warming experienced in the past 50 years is driven by antrhopogenic enhanced greenhouse. The best that can be said about your comments here is that they are misinformed.

        1. So, again, how do you explain that rapid increase from 1910 to 1940? Or do you just ignore the inconvenient data?

          1. There are tons of papers on all this. The anthropogenic forcing was starting and solar was on an upswing (TSI increase) in that period. Flattened out a bit around 1945 because of the surge in sulfate aerosols after the Depression (reflecting solar). Greenhouse effect built up enough to dominate again and it started taking off around 1979.

            The modern understanding of climate does not remotely claim that CO2 is the only factor that affects the climate. It’s just that there are only so many *major* factors that involve enough energy to affect something on the scale of earth’s climate (like the sun) and those factors can be observed and measured, so they are not unknowns, and models can look at how they stack up against each other in terms of energy balance. (Measurement of aerosols really the weakest link.)

    2. No, scientists in those days did NOT say we were heading toward another ice age. Not for another 10-20 thousand years that is. Scientists in those days were already warning about the danger of catastrophic man-made global warming.

      1. LOL! Horseshit.

        1. Well here’s the NAS report from the period. Care to highlight the section that predicts an imminent ice age?
          http://bit.ly/1BJAhzg

          No?

  19. HIDE THE DECLINE, BABY! And maybe you can win 2 million dollars from the Government! That’s how it works.

    1. “Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…” Guess Who???

  20. my roomate’s aunt makes $83 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her check was $20229 just working on the computer for a few hours. read more……….
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. 1998 was a giant El Nino year, so measuring trends from 1998 is only appropriate if you are trying to bias your trend to make it seem like there is less warming. I realize this is a popular cherry pick, but truly, from introductory statistics, selection of endpoints when looking at short term trends pretty much overwhelms any reasoning you’re trying to do about the trend you are looking at. This is a “science correspondent”?

    Just looking at 20 years back to 1993 gives a per-decade trend closer to 2.9 deg C (napkin math on NASA GISS), just to give a flavor of how sensitive to endpoint selection this sort of game is.

    The climate models do not attempt to predict El Nino, as it is essentially a large-scale weather phenomenon. So to say models failed because they didn’t predict a La Nina period is to express a misunderstanding of what the models are. If you want to test the accuracy of the models, you would look at how the runs that match up to observed ENSO patterns performed (they’re fine):
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..e2310.html

    The models do not claim the kind of short-term precision the author claims to be testing. Objectively, the headline is not “models are off”, it is that the planet continues to warm within projected ranges. But presumably the objective perspective is not sufficiently compatible with the desired perspective of the author. It’s a shame that there can’t be more objective discussions of the real issues though.

    1. (meant to write 0.29 deg C per-decade, not 2.9, of course.)

    2. All of the models are wrong. (see figure on p 6 of Christy’s testimony)

      Not only are they all wrong, they are all wrong by more than two standard deviations, and they are all wrong in the same direction. If this were ‘noise’ they would be wrong in both directions, not all in the same direction. Thus they are all over-estimating the temperature increase and they can all be ignored as incorrectly fitting (predicting) the temperature over the entire satellite era since 1978.

      Extrapolating these models back in time provides even a worse fit. These models are rubbish.

      1. There’s a reason why Christy’s analysis of models isn’t published in a reputable paper, like the link I provide, right? He is a fairly infamous character here, with a long history of being wrong and corrected by the rest of the science world.

        http://www.skepticalscience.co…..pancy.html

        There are *lots* of ways to cherry pick and rig your comparison to claim “models all failed”. This is a cottage industry on the internet. In general the schemes are apple-to-orange comparisons and ignoring the ranges made by model predictions.

        Surely, part of you realizes that Christy is saying things completely at odds with the rest of the scientific world. Right? But you believe there is a vast conspiracy which is why all the models could be off by the degrees he claims and yet the scientific world endorses them. Or what other explanation is there?

        I find there is frequently this hesitance to just candidly admit that you are advancing a conspiracy theory. But if that is what you believe we should talk about it openly so that we can objectively assess the evidence for whether this conspiracy exists or not.

    3. wacksliberty:

      the planet continues to warm within projected ranges.

      Completely wrong. The data are more than 2 sigma away from the projections, NOT within projected ranges.

      1. Not what every national academy of science in the world says, right?

        1. You might try to address the point instead of going with a direct appeal to authority.

          1. I already rebutted above. To test the models for accuracy, you can’t do apple to orange comparisons as he is doing. Apple to apple comparisons look like this, no “two sigma” gap:
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..e2310.html

            Even if you arbitrarily and erroneously assert that the models have to be able to predict ENSO before you will believe scientists understand the physics of climate, then you look at projection *ensembles* and still you don’t end up 2 sigmas away, although you get closer to the claim. Models bounce up near top of projected ranges during El Nino (like during the 90s) and toward the bottom during La Nina periods.

            My point is that the mainstream view doesn’t agree with his assessment of the data. Therefore we can’t use it as a basis for discussion. I provided published articles on the subject, he linked to blogs. You just don’t follow the discussion, naturally enough…

  23. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  24. Do not fear, Reasonoids Dear? The Human Carbon Sink (AKA, Yers Truly) is here!!!
    Did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his / her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”? Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY-MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them that thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink? I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

  25. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $61 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her payment was $13483 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here…………
    ????? http://www.jobs-sites.com

  26. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $61 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her payment was $13483 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here…………
    ????? http://www.jobs-sites.com

  27. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  28. Don’t know if this was discussed yet.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..mailonline

    Even if 2014 set a record, it was only by something like .69 celsius.

    We’re fast approaching 2020-2030, when all of New York and Hong Kong would be underwater if nothing was done about global warming at 1980. It’s just not gonna happen.

    If people want to reduce CO2 omission, they’ll have to come up with something better than their green energy and “make driving cars difficult” scheme, which aren’t popular. One of these the market will invent cars that use a non polluting source.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.