The 2014 Temperature Record No One Is Talking About

Depending on what temperature data set you look at **, or on your trust in various manual adjustments in these data sets ***, 2014 may have beaten the previous world temperature record by 0.02C.  Interestingly, the 0.02C rise over the prior record set four years ago would imply (using only these two data points which warmists seem to want to focus on) a temperature increase of 0.5C per century, a few tenths below my prediction but an order of magnitude below the alarmists' predictions for future trends.

Anyway, whether there was an absolute record or not, there was almost certainly a different temperature record set -- the highest divergence to date in the modern measured temperatures from what the computer models predicted.  The temperature increase for the past 5 years was a full 0.17C less than predicted, the largest gap yet for the models in forward-prediction mode (as opposed to when they are used to backcast history).

 

** There are four or five or more data sets, depending on how you count them.   There are 2 major satellite data sets and 2-3 ground based data sets.  The GISS ground data set generally gives the largest warming trends, while the satellite data sets give the least, but all show some warming over the last 30 or so years (though most of this warming was before 1999).

*** The data sets are all full of manual adjustments of various sorts.  All of these are necessary.  For surface stations, the measurement points move and change technology.  For the satellites, orbits and instruments shift over time.  The worrisome feature of all these adjustments is that they are large as compared to the underlying warming signal being measured, so small changes in the adjustments can lead to large changes in the apparent trend.  Skeptics often charge that the proprietors of land data sets are aggressive about including adjustments that increase the apparent trend but reluctant to add similar adjustments (eg for urban heat islands) that might reduce the trend.  As a result, most of the manual adjustments increase the trend.  There is actually little warming trend in the raw data, and it only shows up after the adjustments.  It may be total coincidence, but the database run by the most ardent warmist is the GISS and it has the highest trend.   The database run by the most skeptical is the UAH satellite database and it shows the smallest trend.  Hmm.

  • kidmugsy

    "manual adjustments of various sorts. All of these are necessary" No. That some manual adjustments are necessary seems to me to be true; that the ones actually effected are necessary isn't. Unless they've improved their "adjustment" methods since I did some reading about them nearly a decade ago. Many of these guys are crooks, of course, but many of them seemed to start off as woeful incompetents. By the standards of physical scientists they just weren't very bright.

  • http://benfrommo.wordpress.com/ BenfromMO

    Observer bias is a real thing after all. The problem that scientists (I use that term loosely since we are talking climate science) are having is that they only have eyes for what they believe; namely that CO2 is the driver of the climate and any data that second guesses that is wrong, and any data that confirms that is right. Its probably not a conspiracy after all, but just human nature that rears its ugly head and shows that scientists just like any human are likely to be biased and need someone working with them whose job is to just second guess them.

    But than again, in climate science that is not allowed, because second guessing anyone on the team is grounds for being fired, and ran to the curb as a "denier" or any other sort of lame insult they have today.

    But you can take this to the bank, despite all the rhetoric and all the claims of "2014 being the warmest ever" we have NOAA in the small print telling the world they are less than 50% sure that it was the warmest year ever while at the same time telling us it was the warmest year ever. Doublespeak from a over-sized Government Bureacracy? Say it ain't so huh? Politics trumps the scientific method and makes any claims of following it lies.

    As with most things, this scare will go the same way as the dodo bird and "the dangers of magnetic fields" and the dangers of "New York City being covered with 12 feet of horse manure." People as a rule are not qualified to extrapolate and predict the future. And this is why climate science was and still is so worthless. These people were claiming to know the future and to understand the Earth's climate, but in reality they understood our climate as well as a dog understand quantum physics and were just pretending for political points and/or funding.

    How the arrogant and the mighty will fall or just be forgotten. The thing is that being wrong means no one will remember you and you will be at best an example of the scientific method gone wrong. I just don't see how people can live their lives without that understanding?

  • mesocyclone

    A very nice angle, Coyote... throw those two data points back at the alarmists.

  • TruthisaPeskyThing

    The desire and rationale to make adjustments to the temperature record are understandable. But that does not mean that the quality of the record is improved with the adjustment. There are key differences in adjusting the land record vs. adjusting the satellite record. The satellite record is adjusted for phenomenon that are well documented and the phenomenon be verified. The procedure for adjusting the land record for a long time was shrouded in mystery and the rationale is often virtually impossible to verify as being valid. Sometimes the land record is adjusted because the trend is not what we expected -- so "there had to be a station move." But there have been cases where we know those station moves did not happen. Or we are going to make adjustment for TOB -- even though there is no proof that recorders systematically goofed in the recording of max temperatures -- and further analysis of 1930 temperature readings undermine the TOB adjustment. Or we believe LiG thermometers read .5 degree higher than MMTS so we need to adjust historical numbers down. However, some studies show that MMTS actually reads .93 degrees higher! Furthermore, during the switch to MMTS, many thermometers were brought closer to the building (less wire), exposing the thermometer to more waste from building in general and often times closer to the waste heat of HVAC.
    Over the past 20 years or so, the lowest increase in temperature has been recorded by RSS, not UAH. RSS personnel are definitely in the "warmist" camp, and they have expressed dismay that their record is being used by skeptics.

  • marque2

    One of the more worrisome thing about the "necessary adjustments" is then tend to almost always adjust up, when you would think there is a 50% chance of the temps being too high and 50% that they are too low. Heck even 25% - 75% would be an improvement in the homogenization.

  • skhpcola

    The claimed warming was 0.02 of a degree, as you state. The MOE for the statistic is 0.1 of a degree. When the margin of error is 50x the stat that shady climate "scientists" are using to flog their failed agenda, we should acknowledge that the glowball worming frauds are desperate.

  • Anonymous

    There's another very important data point. In the philosophy of science, we have the null hypothesis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

    Climate cranks, like flying saucer cranks and "intelligent design" cranks, have already decided on the conclusion and wish to torture the evidence until it confesses. The null hypothesis is good enough for chemists, metallurgists, biologists, but not good enough for them. They hate the null hypothesis bitterly, and when you mention it, they start spitting out those strings of pre-arranged phrases stuck together with gummed paper that Orwell told us were a clear indicator of willful lies.