EnviroLink Forum

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/12


Global Highlights

The December 2014 average combined global land and ocean surface temperature was record high in the 135-year period of record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F).


The December 2014 globally-averaged land surface temperature was the third highest on record, at 1.36°C (2.45°F) above average. The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature was also third highest for December on record, at 0.55°C (0.99°F) above average.


The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–December 2014 was the highest on record among all years in the 135-year period of record, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average.

GISS saw the second warmest December ever on record, and the warmest year ever on record as well. December 2014 came in at +0.72. 2014 came in at +0.68. Warmest year on record without a strong +ENSO event and with low solar activity. Extremely impressive. How warm do you think we would have gotten Wayne if we saw higher solar activity/a strong +ENSO event on top of the anthropogenic warming trend?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

Also of note, I didn't do too badly "predicting" the GISS temperature anomaly. Median "prediction" was +0.76. Came in as +0.72.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24787

I suspect that when solar activity picks up again that we will wish for cool years like 2014 .... which is scary enough as it is, but it does not appear to be addressed in any real fashion by the governments.

I suspect that when solar activity picks up again that we will wish for cool years like 2014 .... which is scary enough as it is, but it does not appear to be addressed in any real fashion by the governments.

I know Lean and Rind show the solar variability contribution to be something on the order of 0.1 Degrees C from minimum to peak (Figure 1). ENSO impacts it by 0.1 to 0.2 Degrees C. So if those two come together alongside the secular trend, we could be seeing some very high numbers on GISS/NCDC soon.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038932.pdf

Yes, and I can only imagine the longer term trend.

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie.

2) NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but a different baseline period. They also employ their own methods to estimate global temperatures.

This refers to the NCDC dataset. What is interesting is their reference to “estimating global temperatures”. This is a clear admission that measuring global temperatures is not the exact art sometimes inferred, but largely guesswork.



3) This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades

This has, of course, been the get out clause since the pause started. But why should we be surprised that temperatures have remained stable for the last decade or so?

It simply shows that the Earth has found a new equilibrium. I would suggest that there really would be concern if global temperatures started to tumble back to 1970 levels.


As has been said elsewhere, with satellite temperatures indicating that 2014 was nowhere near a record, the divergence between actual temperatures and those scary models becomes ever greater and important.

That is why the likes of Gavin Schmidt has to resort to misrepresenting the data.

2008 wasn't the hottest year. 2010 wasn't the hottest year. Are you beginning to see a pattern develop here?

So, as usual climate science has to find a way to misrepresent the data. Claim a splash of a conclusion (that is really within the margin of error) to get a big headline. Pathetic fail as usual. But you guys go on patting each other on the back so you can appear concerned.

2008 wasn't the hottest year. 2010 wasn't the hottest year. Are you beginning to see a pattern develop here?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre ... -the-data/





So, as usual climate science has to find a way to misrepresent the data. Claim a splash of a conclusion (that is really within the margin of error) to get a big headline. Pathetic fail as usual. But you guys go on patting each other on the back so you can appear concerned.

James Hansena, Makiko Satoa,b, Reto Ruedyc, Gavin A. Schmidtb, Ken Loc

Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2014 was +0.68°C (~1.2°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period in the GISTEMP analysis, making 2014 the warmest year in the period of instrumental data, but the difference from the prior warmest year (2010), less than 0.02°C, is within uncertainty of measurement. The eastern two-thirds of the contiguous United States was persistently cool in 2014, cooler than the 1951-1980 average in all seasons.

Okay, lets use your guys.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/ ... re2014.pdf



Within the margin of error. This study PROVES nothing.

Global? Except for the eastern United States and only a warming (according to this one study) and only .02. Yes, lets go off half cocked over that. Complete desperation is unbecoming.

Global? Except for the eastern United States and only a warming (according to this one study) and only .02. Yes, lets go off half cocked over that. Complete desperation is unbecoming.

Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.

They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.