“But will 2014 be the warmest year in other databases?
Consider Nasa Giss which essentially uses the same data as the NCDC but processes it in a different way. In Giss the year to October has an average temperature anomaly of 66 which is the same as that of 2005 and 2010. November and December 2014 must have an average of 67 to make 2014 the warmest year by just a statistically insignificant 0.01 degrees.
Since 2001 only one year, 2006, has had November and December both above 66. Of all the Novembers and Decembers since 2001 only 10 out of 26 have had temperature anomalies above 66, and the last December to achieve this was in 2006 and only twice since 2001. Because about half of Novembers since 2001 have had a temperature anomaly above 66 it is likely that the status of warmest ever year in Giss will not be decided by December not being exceptionally warm but by not being exceptionally cold. Thus at the end of the year Giss data will confirm that the global surface temperature hiatus continues.
Note that in Giss October ties for the warmest month with 2005, although this is really grubbing around in the noise for meaningless comparisons.
HadCrut4 is showing 2014 as a record year but only by 0.004 deg C which is superfluous. This will change with the inclusion of data from October, November and December. By year’s end HadCrut4 will also confirm that the temperature hiatus continues.
Satellite data tell a different story. RSS global data show that 2014 will be cooler than 2010, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002 and 1998 (2014 will be over 0.02 deg cooler than 2010). By year’s end 2014 will probably be about the sixth warmest year.
UAH data shows that currently 2014 ranks 3rd and is likely to remain so by year’s end. There is no chance whatsoever that the satellite datasets will show 2014 to be a record year.
I suspect that if 2014 does technically become the warmest year on record (in any one of the non-satellite data sets) then we will see dramatic headlines to that effect, even if the record is broken by a hundredth or a few thousandths of a degree. The real story will be that the so-called biggest puzzle in climate science – the global surface temperature standstill – then entering its 19th year”.
The most error-ridden web page about climate change? A look at the evidence
Commentary 3 May, 2011
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published a page on its website, dated 2 February 2011, and written by Dr David Whitehouse under the heading ‘The Temperature of 2010′.
The page purports to compare “the relevant data for the temperature of the Earth’s surface”, using the records of monthly and annual global temperature published by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, the UK Met Office, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. But it contains more than 90 errors and misleading statements, itemised in the following sections.
EM, review the current reference instead of a past. Apples to oranges reviews may have no pertinence. Your now dated review can be characterized below.
Most of the reviewed errors can be defined as nit picky (the referenced names of many of the dataset in the article versus their official/formal names) or comparison of dataset at different times. Yes, they do change. Frequently.
But for me the driving goal was to refute the hiatus, a frequent attempt during this period: “Finally it states that “the standstill seen in global temperatures since 2001 continues”, but neglects to mention that statistically significant trends in temperature data can rarely be found in any very short time series of just ten years.”
Since this article the hiatus has been extended to 18 Yrs 1 month.
Look, there is no point in your posting here with us googlers. We are convinced that climate change is real and it is driven by man. We are convinced that heat can be absorbed by the oceans, and it can happen below a couple of feet of water. And that is what has been happening since the “hiatus” of surface measurements.
I would suggest you spend all of your time talking with real scientists. Or maybe even the Spencers and Currys of the world. Course, even Curry has seen the light, but she cannot admit it openly as that would greatly affect her income from the Kochs of the world.
But for us googlers, linking to blog posts from non climate scientists who have posted such crap as detailed(and many others), means we think you are at least a maroon. Though I tend to think you are a heritage paid troll, especially since your posts outside of the climate.
“Since this article the hiatus has been extended to 18 Yrs 1 month.”
The so-called “hiatus” refers to surface temperature measurements. We now know that there has been no hiatus in global warming, because recent measurements show that the ocean has been absorbing more heat during this period. What matters is not whether a subset of global measurements register a “hiatus,” what matters is whether the planet has experienced a hiatus. There is no evidence for a hiatus in global warming.
EM, on this I agree: “We are convinced that climate change is real and it is driven by man. We are convinced that heat can be absorbed by the oceans, and it can happen below a couple of feet of water ” That makes your belief a religion ignoring the science.
Joel, changing the metric is like calling sea ice and ice cream the same thing. They both include ice????!!??!!!!
Now this is also not true or at least your personal misunderstanding. “…there has been no hiatus in global warming, because recent measurements show that the ocean has been absorbing more heat during this period.” There are no measurements of heat content of the oceans. There are measurements of temperature from too few buoys, that do not go deep enough to actually measure the totality of the currents, and are too new to develop climate trends which usually considered to be 30 years. Conjecture? Yes. Hypothesis? Yes.
Here’s the problem with the ocean current hypothesis. It takes ~500 to 1000 years for these currents complete cycle. So warming showing at the surface today would be from time in the. Translation, today’s ocean hot spots could easily be from the medieval warm period. If you consider that the scary next scenario is to consider the next long phase from those very same currents may be form the LIA.
“It takes ~500 to 1000 years for these currents complete cycle. ”
Who said a cycle has been completed? A complete cycle is not necessary for ocean circulation of heat to be taking place.
The so-called “hiatus” is a hypothesis based on over-reliance on surface temperature measurements. The evidence that the oceans appear to be warming apace means that there is no evidence of a hiatus in global warming.
Joel, what that heck are you trying to say? “A complete cycle is not necessary for ocean circulation of heat to be taking place.” Where are you measuring in the current? How are your measuring below 2000 meters. Its a flow so it will carry water at whatever temperature is at any specific location to the next. In that journey it will either gain or lose heat and salinity peaking and ebbing depending upon surroundings. They’re happening continuously.
The greatest scientific minds in the world are ignoring the science, while the heritage trolls, the disgraced scientists(spencer) and the non scientists who insist on either outright lies to show their case or cherry picked areas and time frames are following the science.
EM, again on this we agree: “…cherry picked areas and time frames are following the science.” I’m sure we have different interpretations of its meaning, however.
Did you know that nearly all the science and surface measurements are based upon the period fro the late 1970s to the turn of the century? As for the science during that period the planet warmed, and the ACO2 theory was emphasized. As for the measurements all of them use that period in part as their baselines for calculating anomalies. As for most of the dataset managers they use the anticipated results for the AGW hypotheses as reasoning to adjust objective temp measurements. Without the adjustments the temp calculations would be substantially different/lower.
Your constant linking to utter bs is the reason why no one pays any attention to anything you say.
“Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.
“He is simply averaging absolute temperatures,” Hausfather wrote. “Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time.”
Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.
Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.
“Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight,” Schmidt said.
In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.
Comparing apples to apples
Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.
In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface temperatures).
There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.
John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.
“It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves,” Nielsen-Gammon said. “If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.”
All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.
Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.
“Goddard’s results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data,” Serreze said.
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
“I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.”
EM, in this case Google is not your friend. Goddard’s position was that the sum of the adjustments accounted for all or nearly all the rise in AVERAGE temperatures. The crux of the complaints of Goddard’s analysis was: “He is simply averaging absolute temperatures,” Hausfather wrote. “Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time.”
Notice there was NO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE to his averaging the ABSOLUTE temperatures to compare against the AVERAGED adjusted temperatures. Their solutions was to start with a set of adjusted data?????
Goddard has been making his point for years. It was finally picked up by the MSM. The BEST analysts, Mosher and Hausfather, wrote several articles and many blog comments on how adjustment should be made and how they did it. Watts wrote that article that you found, and in it he recommended that Time of Observations should be the minimum starting point.
Please note: None of them matched Goddard’s point. In fact in the end it was most likely to have supported his point.
NCDC finally chimed in with their comment: “The algorithms work the way they were ” (paraphrased). That means what? How does that in any way refute Goddard’s point? But, that was all it took for the alarmist community. Look how hard you are working to disprove Goddard.
You of course ignore the fact that Goddard is an asshole. With no knowledge of climate science(or anything close to science).
Then again, you are rehashing things addressed by real climate scientists decades ago, and claiming no attention has been paid to those things by climate scientists.
I guess that ploy is effective if the people you are talking to are RWDWs, but not with sensible people who know you are totally full of shit.
I know your salary depends on such actions, but at this point you should be convinced that it ain’t happening here. Or anyplace where the audience has an IQ above double digits.
BTW,
Did you know that Michael Mann was the hero of the fossil fuel industry a couple of decades ago? Of course, the industry intentionally misinterpreted his work, but they loved the guy.
Strange. Science moved on. You and the other AHs did not.
Unfortunately for us human beings, evolution does not work that fast.
EM, I agree again. Goddard can at time be an AH. You on the other hand far exceed anything he has done. Why so nasty? What do you get out of it?
You also make another foolish assumption without knowledge not merit: “I know your salary depends on such actions,…” Son, I am an elderly retired man without a SALARY.
At the end of the article here: http://www.thegwpf.com/warm-ocean-warm-year/#sthash.v3p3wzm7.dpuf
“But will 2014 be the warmest year in other databases?
Consider Nasa Giss which essentially uses the same data as the NCDC but processes it in a different way. In Giss the year to October has an average temperature anomaly of 66 which is the same as that of 2005 and 2010. November and December 2014 must have an average of 67 to make 2014 the warmest year by just a statistically insignificant 0.01 degrees.
Since 2001 only one year, 2006, has had November and December both above 66. Of all the Novembers and Decembers since 2001 only 10 out of 26 have had temperature anomalies above 66, and the last December to achieve this was in 2006 and only twice since 2001. Because about half of Novembers since 2001 have had a temperature anomaly above 66 it is likely that the status of warmest ever year in Giss will not be decided by December not being exceptionally warm but by not being exceptionally cold. Thus at the end of the year Giss data will confirm that the global surface temperature hiatus continues.
Note that in Giss October ties for the warmest month with 2005, although this is really grubbing around in the noise for meaningless comparisons.
HadCrut4 is showing 2014 as a record year but only by 0.004 deg C which is superfluous. This will change with the inclusion of data from October, November and December. By year’s end HadCrut4 will also confirm that the temperature hiatus continues.
Satellite data tell a different story. RSS global data show that 2014 will be cooler than 2010, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002 and 1998 (2014 will be over 0.02 deg cooler than 2010). By year’s end 2014 will probably be about the sixth warmest year.
UAH data shows that currently 2014 ranks 3rd and is likely to remain so by year’s end. There is no chance whatsoever that the satellite datasets will show 2014 to be a record year.
I suspect that if 2014 does technically become the warmest year on record (in any one of the non-satellite data sets) then we will see dramatic headlines to that effect, even if the record is broken by a hundredth or a few thousandths of a degree. The real story will be that the so-called biggest puzzle in climate science – the global surface temperature standstill – then entering its 19th year”.
Small areas. Small time frames. Small minds.
The most error-ridden web page about climate change? A look at the evidence
Commentary 3 May, 2011
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published a page on its website, dated 2 February 2011, and written by Dr David Whitehouse under the heading ‘The Temperature of 2010′.
The page purports to compare “the relevant data for the temperature of the Earth’s surface”, using the records of monthly and annual global temperature published by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, the UK Met Office, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. But it contains more than 90 errors and misleading statements, itemised in the following sections.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-most-error-ridden-web-page-about-climate-change-a-look-at-the-evidence/
EM, review the current reference instead of a past. Apples to oranges reviews may have no pertinence. Your now dated review can be characterized below.
Most of the reviewed errors can be defined as nit picky (the referenced names of many of the dataset in the article versus their official/formal names) or comparison of dataset at different times. Yes, they do change. Frequently.
But for me the driving goal was to refute the hiatus, a frequent attempt during this period: “Finally it states that “the standstill seen in global temperatures since 2001 continues”, but neglects to mention that statistically significant trends in temperature data can rarely be found in any very short time series of just ten years.”
Since this article the hiatus has been extended to 18 Yrs 1 month.
Small areas. Small time frames.
Look, there is no point in your posting here with us googlers. We are convinced that climate change is real and it is driven by man. We are convinced that heat can be absorbed by the oceans, and it can happen below a couple of feet of water. And that is what has been happening since the “hiatus” of surface measurements.
I would suggest you spend all of your time talking with real scientists. Or maybe even the Spencers and Currys of the world. Course, even Curry has seen the light, but she cannot admit it openly as that would greatly affect her income from the Kochs of the world.
But for us googlers, linking to blog posts from non climate scientists who have posted such crap as detailed(and many others), means we think you are at least a maroon. Though I tend to think you are a heritage paid troll, especially since your posts outside of the climate.
“Since this article the hiatus has been extended to 18 Yrs 1 month.”
The so-called “hiatus” refers to surface temperature measurements. We now know that there has been no hiatus in global warming, because recent measurements show that the ocean has been absorbing more heat during this period. What matters is not whether a subset of global measurements register a “hiatus,” what matters is whether the planet has experienced a hiatus. There is no evidence for a hiatus in global warming.
EM, on this I agree: “We are convinced that climate change is real and it is driven by man. We are convinced that heat can be absorbed by the oceans, and it can happen below a couple of feet of water ” That makes your belief a religion ignoring the science.
Joel, changing the metric is like calling sea ice and ice cream the same thing. They both include ice????!!??!!!!
Now this is also not true or at least your personal misunderstanding. “…there has been no hiatus in global warming, because recent measurements show that the ocean has been absorbing more heat during this period.” There are no measurements of heat content of the oceans. There are measurements of temperature from too few buoys, that do not go deep enough to actually measure the totality of the currents, and are too new to develop climate trends which usually considered to be 30 years. Conjecture? Yes. Hypothesis? Yes.
Here’s the problem with the ocean current hypothesis. It takes ~500 to 1000 years for these currents complete cycle. So warming showing at the surface today would be from time in the. Translation, today’s ocean hot spots could easily be from the medieval warm period. If you consider that the scary next scenario is to consider the next long phase from those very same currents may be form the LIA.
“It takes ~500 to 1000 years for these currents complete cycle. ”
Who said a cycle has been completed? A complete cycle is not necessary for ocean circulation of heat to be taking place.
The so-called “hiatus” is a hypothesis based on over-reliance on surface temperature measurements. The evidence that the oceans appear to be warming apace means that there is no evidence of a hiatus in global warming.
Joel, what that heck are you trying to say? “A complete cycle is not necessary for ocean circulation of heat to be taking place.” Where are you measuring in the current? How are your measuring below 2000 meters. Its a flow so it will carry water at whatever temperature is at any specific location to the next. In that journey it will either gain or lose heat and salinity peaking and ebbing depending upon surroundings. They’re happening continuously.
What’s this have to do with what I quoted above?
Heritage troll.
The greatest scientific minds in the world are ignoring the science, while the heritage trolls, the disgraced scientists(spencer) and the non scientists who insist on either outright lies to show their case or cherry picked areas and time frames are following the science.
What a maroon.
EM, again on this we agree: “…cherry picked areas and time frames are following the science.” I’m sure we have different interpretations of its meaning, however.
Did you know that nearly all the science and surface measurements are based upon the period fro the late 1970s to the turn of the century? As for the science during that period the planet warmed, and the ACO2 theory was emphasized. As for the measurements all of them use that period in part as their baselines for calculating anomalies. As for most of the dataset managers they use the anticipated results for the AGW hypotheses as reasoning to adjust objective temp measurements. Without the adjustments the temp calculations would be substantially different/lower.
US temps: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screenhunter_77-jul-12-15-57.jpg?w=640&h=321
I show the effect on US because it is supposed to be the su0erior dataset.
Oops.
Forgot the Goddards of the world.
Sorry.
Even Watts makes fun of Goddard.
Your constant linking to utter bs is the reason why no one pays any attention to anything you say.
“Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago.
“He is simply averaging absolute temperatures,” Hausfather wrote. “Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time.”
Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.
Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.
“Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight,” Schmidt said.
In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.
Comparing apples to apples
Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.
In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface temperatures).
There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.
John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government analysis of temperature trends.
“It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves,” Nielsen-Gammon said. “If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.”
All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.
Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.
“Goddard’s results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data,” Serreze said.
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
“I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,” Watts wrote.”
EM, in this case Google is not your friend. Goddard’s position was that the sum of the adjustments accounted for all or nearly all the rise in AVERAGE temperatures. The crux of the complaints of Goddard’s analysis was: “He is simply averaging absolute temperatures,” Hausfather wrote. “Absolute temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network remains unchanged over time.”
Notice there was NO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE to his averaging the ABSOLUTE temperatures to compare against the AVERAGED adjusted temperatures. Their solutions was to start with a set of adjusted data?????
Goddard has been making his point for years. It was finally picked up by the MSM. The BEST analysts, Mosher and Hausfather, wrote several articles and many blog comments on how adjustment should be made and how they did it. Watts wrote that article that you found, and in it he recommended that Time of Observations should be the minimum starting point.
Please note: None of them matched Goddard’s point. In fact in the end it was most likely to have supported his point.
NCDC finally chimed in with their comment: “The algorithms work the way they were ” (paraphrased). That means what? How does that in any way refute Goddard’s point? But, that was all it took for the alarmist community. Look how hard you are working to disprove Goddard.
That was supposed to be: “The algorithms work the way they were designed. ” (paraphrased)
You of course ignore the fact that Goddard is an asshole. With no knowledge of climate science(or anything close to science).
Then again, you are rehashing things addressed by real climate scientists decades ago, and claiming no attention has been paid to those things by climate scientists.
I guess that ploy is effective if the people you are talking to are RWDWs, but not with sensible people who know you are totally full of shit.
I know your salary depends on such actions, but at this point you should be convinced that it ain’t happening here. Or anyplace where the audience has an IQ above double digits.
BTW,
Did you know that Michael Mann was the hero of the fossil fuel industry a couple of decades ago? Of course, the industry intentionally misinterpreted his work, but they loved the guy.
Strange. Science moved on. You and the other AHs did not.
Unfortunately for us human beings, evolution does not work that fast.
EM, I agree again. Goddard can at time be an AH. You on the other hand far exceed anything he has done. Why so nasty? What do you get out of it?
You also make another foolish assumption without knowledge not merit: “I know your salary depends on such actions,…” Son, I am an elderly retired man without a SALARY.
You should take up golf, you suck at science.