NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record

[cyptomcat]

With the hope that this thread stays more on topic and goes better than the previous one.

NOAA release:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

NASA release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

Several other charts here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4

 

[Animal02]

Oops

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

And people want to trust "scientists" like this.

 

[Animal02]

Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Tech's school of earth and atmospheric sciences, said that "with 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year," the implication is "that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade."

"This 'almost' record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations," she added.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Does anyone have the link for average ocean level? I like that measurement the best since it sort of does the world wide temperature integration.

And yes, sea level is rising from the last data I saw which was for 4 years ago or so.

 

[cyptomcat]

Oops

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

And people want to trust "scientists" like this.

There is an inherent limit on accuracy when you are trying to construct a global variable. We can only observe so many geographical points with so many limited time instances using land-based, sea-based and satellite-based platforms with their own inaccuracies.


It's very telling that three recent years in 2005, 2020 and 2014 are contending for the warmest year on record. Good evidence that we have had global warming in the last 50-100 years.


It's like saying we are not 100% sure if CPJ's 2009, 2011 or 2014 offense is the best ever GT had. It says something about CPJ's offenses.

 

[cyptomcat]

Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Tech's school of earth and atmospheric sciences, said that "with 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year," the implication is "that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade."

"This 'almost' record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations," she added.

It's great to see that you trust a scientist (Judith Curry) after taking a shot at other scientists for inherent randomness they can't avoid.

I am curious if your trust in Judith Curry goes beyond what you have quoted.

Curry published a very significant work last year. It's called "Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century." It basically predicts that the temperatures will remain stable until 2030s (pause will continue), but then global warming will resume. So, she agrees that we have gone through global warming in recent history, and we will continue in the future.

Do you trust her on those points too?

 

[AE 87]

IMO, it's helpful to distinguish between facts and interpretation of facts in these sorts of discussions.

2014 as warmest year on record is a claim of fact. However, it obfuscates the actual fact in two ways.

First, the expression "on record" without definition leaves the reader to make some tacit assumption of its meaning, or more likely, ignore it, reading the title as simply "warmest year." This absolute reading becomes more likely within the context of the highly publicized predictions of human-originating global warming.

Second, the expression "on record" with a graph of 20th century temperatures obfuscates because the record of global temperatures has not been measured and kept in the same way throughout those years. Therefore, it relies on some model, interpretation, to translate some particular data into global data. Such a model may be reliable; however, recent climate models have been demonstrably unreliable, leading many to believe that the desired answer drove the modeling rather than the data. Google "Hockey Stick fraud" for evidence of this conclusion.

However, my problem with this thread is that it arose as simply linking of thread about the global temperature reading of one year with the desire to start a conversation on human-originated global warming. However, @cyptomcat did not state his position on that topic or how this link informs his position. In his recent post, he said there's evidence for global warming over the last 50-100 years, but he still did not state a position on the human contribution. The issue is not whether we're in a period of warming but how to explain it and to what extent the gas which mammals breathe out, and vegetation absorbs, contributes to it. Warming is a statement of fact. Human contribution to an environment threatening warming is an interpretation.

Finally, this distinction could help @cyptomcat understand the point that I think @Animal02 was making by reference to Curry. He cited her as an authority on certain facts, not for her interpretation of facts. The only interpretation is there in the quote and can be judged by the reader rather than hidden behind modelling.

I would like to know how @cyptomcat concludes human contribution is a driver on global warming.

 

[cyptomcat]

However, my problem with this thread is that it arose as simply linking of thread about the global temperature reading of one year with the desire to start a conversation on human-originated global warming.

If I wanted to mean Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I would have said so. I have seen many posters over the years contest that we had Global Warming, so I think it's a good starting point. I think that one reason for the failure of the other thread was that it jumped from sea ice to liberals to evolution etc. etc. Based on your post, I now understand that @Animal02 may not contest that we have had global warming over the last 50-100 years.

 

[AE 87]

If I wanted to mean Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I would have said so. I said Global Warming, because I meant Global Warming. I have seen many posters over the years contest that we had Global Warming, so I think it's a good starting point. I think that one reason for the failure of the other thread was that it jumped from sea ice to liberals to evolution etc. etc. Based on your post, I now understand that @Animal02 may not contest that we have had global warming over the last 50-100 years.

Fair enough. You made reference to the "previous one" which was about AGW and was connected with the politics of science from the beginning. If you're only point is that this decade is the warmest for the globe of the last 15, than why do you care?

Also, could you explain the data? How have global temperatures been measured over the last 150 years. How do they correlate the sophisticated measurements of today with less sophisticated measurements of 100 years ago? More to the point, given NASA's participation in fraudulent reporting in the past, why do you trust this data now?

I ask because, NASA has been shown to make mistakes on a related issue: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4
It seems that the data may still support the claims of 1999 that the US has not been getting warmer while the globe has been: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

So, NASA admitted adjusting US data when caught; however, one of the guys who caught them has also argued that they've been doing it with other data as well: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaa-and-nasa-data-alterations-are-global/ I admit that I don't

Here's a Judith Curry piece from last year: http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/

So, I guess my question comes down to wondering your basis for trusting this data in light of these accusations? If you want to talk about that data set, could you explain your confidence in it?

 

[Animal02]

I point is about trusting the NASA "scientist" is the that they rushed out an doom and gloom announcement and hide the reliability of their claim.

Not to mention that surface records are quite unreliable........but that has not stopped the political advancement of the claims.

 

[AE 87]

Does anyone have the link for average ocean level? I like that measurement the best since it sort of does the world wide temperature integration.

And yes, sea level is rising from the last data I saw which was for 4 years ago or so.

I happened on this but haven't read it. It may give you further links.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...el-rise-adjusts-the-data-to-match-the-models/

 

[cyptomcat]

@AE 87, see, discussion got much better after focused

I'll have a look at your links, but, in the mean time, is it explained in your links how exactly NASA was fraudulent and how this was proven? If not, please explain.

In a simple sense, they can correlate different kinds of measurements because they have access to common measurements (years in which we can use measurements from less sophisticated instruments along with more sophisticated instruments.) We can use this to adjust for error bias and error variance of less reliable instruments when necessary. Similar to football analytics where a common opponent "Team C" can be used to adjust the ratings of "Team A" and "Team B" if we have games Team A vs Team C and Team B vs Team C. Of course it's all science/engineering, and there are continually improvements in how all of this is done whether it's through new understanding of the phenomena or discovery of past errors in software or hardware.

I point is about trusting the NASA "scientist" is the that they rushed out an doom and gloom announcement and hide the reliability of their claim.

Not to mention that surface records are quite unreliable........but that has not stopped the political advancement of the claims.

Sure, that's a fair point on this announcement. Unfortunately the data-flow is extremely slow in this field. We have to literally wait decades to test models and ideas, so every new year of measurement is a new headline, even though maybe it shouldn't be.

What do you think about global warming itself? Do you contest that global temperatures increased in the last 50-100 years?

 

[AE 87]

@AE 87, see, discussion got much better after focused

I'll have a look at your links, but, in the mean time, is it explained in your links how exactly NASA was fraudulent and how this was proven? If not, please explain.

In a simple sense, they can correlate different kinds of measurements because they have access to common measurements (years in which we can use measurements from less sophisticated instruments along with more sophisticated instruments.) We can use this to adjust for error bias and error variance of less reliable instruments when necessary. Similar to football analytics where a common opponent "Team C" can be used to adjust the ratings of "Team A" and "Team B" if we have games Team A vs Team C and Team B vs Team C. Of course it's all science/engineering, and there are continually improvements in how all of this is done whether it's through new understanding of the phenomena or discovery of past errors in software or hardware.

Sure, that's a fair point on this announcement. Unfortunately the data-flow is extremely slow in this field. We have to literally wait decades to test models and ideas, so every new year of measurement is a new headline, even though maybe it shouldn't be.

What do you think about global warming itself? Do you contest that global temperatures increased in the last 50-100 years?

Yes, the links discuss the fraud. They made older data cooler and newer data warmer. You didn't answer my question, though. If it's not about AGW, why do you care if people agree that the globe is warmer today than 50-100 years ago, if it could still be cooler than it was before that? I'm not saying it is cooler, I'm just saying that you seemed to want people to agree it's warming over the 20th century which seems trivial if not attached to the bigger claim of AGW. So, why do you care?

 

[TechnicalPossum]

The other thing that usually gets left out...

Why is the average temperature / ocean level assumed to be the optimum?

 

[Animal02]

Sure, that's a fair point on this announcement. Unfortunately the data-flow is extremely slow in this field. We have to literally wait decades to test models and ideas, so every new year of measurement is a new headline, even though maybe it shouldn't be.

What do you think about global warming itself? Do you contest that global temperatures increased in the last 50-100 years?

If temps have increased in the last 100 years......so what? It is only a pimple on a gnats *** WRT to earths climate history.

 

[cyptomcat]

Yes, the links discuss the fraud. They made older data cooler and newer data warmer. You didn't answer my question, though. If it's not about AGW, why do you care if people agree that the globe is warmer today than 50-100 years ago, if it could still be cooler than it was before that? I'm not saying it is cooler, I'm just saying that you seemed to want people to agree it's warming over the 20th century which seems trivial if not attached to the bigger claim of AGW. So, why do you care?

I don't see a point in discussing why earth got warmer if we can't even agree that the instruments we are using are telling us that earth indeed got warmer. The AGW models depend on and are tested using the instrumental data what is the key in the GW discussion.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yes, the links discuss the fraud. They made older data cooler and newer data warmer. You didn't answer my question, though. If it's not about AGW, why do you care if people agree that the globe is warmer today than 50-100 years ago, if it could still be cooler than it was before that? I'm not saying it is cooler, I'm just saying that you seemed to want people to agree it's warming over the 20th century which seems trivial if not attached to the bigger claim of AGW. So, why do you care?

I can only speak for myself at this point but I care because there has been so much pure hokum spread in popular discussions denying that global warming even exists. This is clearly a more sophisticated forum but it still helps to establish a starting point.

For instance, this is the first time I had heard that you accept global warming.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

I can only speak for myself at this point but I care because there has been so much pure hokum spread in popular discussions denying that global warming even exists. This is clearly a more sophisticated forum but it still helps to establish a starting point.

For instance, this is the first time I had heard that you accept global warming.

I would say, in general, that the primary argument is the cause and extent instead of the existence.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I would say, in general, that the primary argument is the cause and extent instead of the existence.

Refreshing.

 

[AE 87]

I don't see a point in discussing why earth got warmer if we can't even agree that the instruments we are using are telling us that earth indeed got warmer. The AGW models depend on and are tested using the instrumental data what is the key in the GW discussion.

Okay. Mark me down as ambivalent on whether the globe is warmer now than 50-100-150 years ago. I don't see evidence that it's significant or noteworthy.

I do agree with you that we typically need to agree on the facts before we discuss the interpretation of the facts. On this issue, however, I think it's significant, as the Curry quote from @Animal02 makes clear, that the new data doesn't match the expectation of the AGW models even if you accept them as facts. If you're ultimate goal is to discuss AGW, than it seems that you could start a conversation about that where you begin with the assumption that the data is correct, just for the sake of discussion.

Now, if you're goal is to use that particular press-release to discuss whether the global temperature has increased, then you need to be able to discuss that particular data set more than in just the generalities you used in your previous posts. You see, for me, there's just been so much bad science and dishonest reporting to give me confidence in some of the reported facts. As @Animal02 was saying (iiuc), when NASA and NOAA put out a press release saying that they found 2014 to be the warmest year when they really found that it was more likely not the warmest year, it suggests that they're not serious about science reporting. A more honest report of their own data would have been that Global Temperatures for 2014 remain at basically unchanged over the last 17 years. What's the difference between that honest title and the dishonest title they used?

Here's a Forbes article which discusses the two "climategate" scandals where e-mails reveal that scientists admit that politics affected how they reported data.