SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that 2014 was record HOTTEST year? NO

Written by www.theregister.co.uk

So the results are in. No significant warming, since at least 2005. The main US global-temperature scorekeepers – NASA and the NOAA – say that last year was definitely the hottest year on record. ice advance But they’ve been contradicted by a highly authoritative scientific team, one actually set up to try an establish objective facts in this area.

On the face of it, there’s no dispute. The NASA and NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) statement says:

The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

Open and shut, right?

But in fact, detecting a global average temperature rise – of less than a degree since the 1880s, as all sides agree – among thousands upon thousands of thermometer readings from all over the world and spanning more than a century is no simple matter. The temperature at any given location is surging up and down by many degrees each day and even more wildly across a year. It can be done, across a timescale of decades, but trying to say that one year is hotter or colder than the next is to push the limits of statistics and the available data. This sort of thing is why the battle over global temperatures tends to be so hotly debated.

A few years ago, a new dataset was established called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. It was intended to address various issues raised by climate sceptics: but in fact it has plumped down firmly on the warmist side of the debate, saying that in fact there are no undue biases in the temperature records, changes in the Sun do not have any major climate effects, and so on.

Now, however, the BEST boffins have broken ranks with the NASA/NOAA/UK Met Office climate establishment and bluntly contradicted the idea that one can simply say “2014 was the hottest year on record”. According to BEST’s analysis (pdf):

Our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.

That may seem like not such a big deal, but it is really. At the moment the big debate in this area is about the “hiatus” – has global warming been stalled for the last fifteen-years-plus, or not?

If you think it hasn’t, and you’re seeking to convince ordinary folk without advanced knowledge in the area, it is a very powerful thing to be able to say “last year was the warmest on record”.

If on the other hand you contend that global warming has been on hold for over a decade, saying “last year was almost exactly as hot as 2005 and 2010” fits exactly with the story you are trying to tell.

It matters, because colossal amounts of CO2 have been emitted during the hiatus period – on the order of a third of all that has ever been emitted by humanity since the Industrial Revolution, in fact. Nobody says that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, but it could well be that it isn’t nearly as serious a problem as had been suggested.

You takes your choice of who you listens to on this, of course: NASA/NOAA/UKMetO or BEST, warmists or sceptics.

But it might be worth remembering that the former are arguing for massive government and economic action, action which people would not take voluntarily – that is action which will make people poorer, then. In other words the warmists want to take away your money and your standard of living (for your own good, they would say). And standard of living is not just consumer goods, it’s health care, it’sregular showers and clean clothes, it’s space programmes and education for your kids and many many other things that you will have less of in the green future advocated by warmists – it’s your whole life.

Whereas the sceptics, certainly the more reasonable among them, are merely saying “look here wait a minute”. Which is always a good idea before taking massive governmental and economic action, some would say, especially as rather a lot has been done in that line already.

And one thing’s for sure – given NASA/NOAA/UKMet’s attitude this year (“hottest on record”) compared to 2013 (“one more year of numbers isn’t significant“), the idea that they aren’t actively pushing a warmist agenda – the idea that they are in some way unbiased and objective about all this – is quite plainly rubbish. ®

Comments (32)

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Mack, I suggest you recall the R.W.Wood experiment. An additional glass plate lowered the temperature by 10°C, because it blocked the incoming IR from the Sun. Secondly, use the Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator (http://calculator.tutorvista.com/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator.html) to find out what difference in temperature the above proposed 1W/m² would make. In the future be not so fast to accept what Internet trolls teach you.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Greg House”]Mack, I suggest you recall the R.W.Wood experiment. An additional glass plate lowered the temperature by 10°C, because it blocked the incoming IR from the Sun. Secondly, use the Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator (http://calculator.tutorvista.com/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator.html) to find out what difference in temperature the above proposed 1W/m² would make. In the future be not so fast to accept what Internet trolls teach you.[/quote]

      Greg,
      Please show that you have understanding of the relationship between EMR flux and temperature, if any?

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      I don’t need a calculator to know that 1 w/sq.m difference is not going to make a blime bit of difference to the temp Greg. 🙂 What I’m interested in is this difference in IR irradience up in the atmosphere? of 1, and that 0.25w/sq.m (MAXIMUM!)IR irradience at the Earth’s surface. Both of these are negligable and not worth a spit in the bucket, but the DIFFERENCE means that the atmosphere is warmed by IR from the TOP DOWN ..doesn’t it?

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        contd.
        doesn’t it? Well, yes it does. It says IR irradience is generated from the sun downwards thru the atmosphere. It’s the sun, stupid. (again) We should start up a list of It’s the sun, stupid. and send it round to John Cook at Skeptical Science. I might even get a bumper sticker.

  • Avatar

    davepen

    |

    There are no global average temperatures.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    “bleating” ..as in sheeple bleating.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Mack
    I put a stack of black wires in a vacuum.
    And I apply SB law for radiation between the surface and between the grids of black wires.
    Do you agree that I can use the SB law, which generations of engineers do?
    FEM (finite element method) is just an elegant way to generate equations
    and to solve them.At least you should believe me that I am doing that correctly in a modern way. FEM is used to build bridges, airplanes, nuclear reactors etc
    I start to give as density distribution of the grids a homogeneous one.
    We are now at figure 5 and 6 of the paper.
    No Sun, just vacuum above a surface at 288 K.
    Do you follow me up to this point?
    Just answer yes to point1

    Next I start to concentrate the density nearer the surface, in a heuristic way.
    Fluxes do hardly change for such stacks in vacuum, temperatures do.
    Do you agree with figures 7 and 8.
    Just say yes to point2

    Instead of in a vacuum I put next the stack in an atmosphere of nearly 100% O2 and N2, with a measured temperature distribution which can be approximated very well with the environmental lapse rate.
    Do you agree with the measured lapse rate?
    No heat transfer yet between 99% O2 and N2 and the stack of black wires.
    Say yes to point 3.

    I now let the heat transfer between the stack and 99% O2 and N2 work.
    Do you agree that those 99% O2 and N2 keep the stack warm to the atmospheric temperature, despite the emission of heat to higher levels and to outer space?
    Say yes or no to point4
    If no, read the paper again and try to understand why I say that the stack is kept at the temperature of the bulk of 99% O2 and N2.

    Playing around with the variation of the density of the stack, I find for a value of m=9 a correspondence with IPCC authors K&T, as well as with Ferenc Miskolczi:both use the tw0-stream Schwarzchild procedure of around 1900, en vogue in astronmy.
    Like NASA. not those just outside the Beltway at Goddard but those in Virginia, I subtract the back-radiation from the Prevost LW surface flux (=sigma*Tsurface^4)and forget about the huge absorption of the atmosphere.
    That is all.
    Yes indeed, I take the boundary conditions of K&T (72 and now 67 W/m^2 SW absorption)in the atmosphere or Ference Miskolczi (60 W/m^2 of SW absorption in the atmosphere).
    CONCLUSION: the stack put in 99% O2 en N2 gives a mismatch between a low absorption and a higher emission, that difference can only be of mechanisms other than LW radiation:convection of sensitive and latent heat, vertical by thermals and horizontal by wind.

    Next you can play with the model which seems to describe the heat evacuation from the planet far better than IPCC.
    And I come up with a number of 0.03 K for doubling CO2 from 0.04% to
    o0.08 percent.
    That is all I claim.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      I find your surface radiation a factor of 2-3 two high 20-30 W/m^2 max. No 8-14 window in fog or clouds. There are no black Lambertian surfaces in this universe!

      • Avatar

        JWR

        |

        When I will use 235 W/m^2 instead of 240W/m^2 the surface flux will be a bit lower.
        To change it a factor 2 to 3, I should change the parameter m , such that the window becomes smaller.
        We see that K&T have 40 for the window and not 53.
        On the other hand we see Ferenc Miskolczi with a window of 60 but no LW into the atmosphere because of the very discussed statement of FM that ED=AA, which, strange enough, FM defends by means of Kirchhoff!

        Why do you claim that the 59 number from the stack model should be a factor 2 to3 lower, that is between 30 and 20?

        I do not have any experimental data. In fact my scope is only to show that back-radiation and thereby huge absorption does not exist.

        But I will think about your suggestion.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          “Why do you claim that the 59 number from the stack model should be a factor 2 to3 lower, that is between 30 and 20?”

          It is all what clouds do and don’t. Visibly they cover 2/3 but may be larger at 8-14 microns. NASA will have that data! How much of the surface radiance is not in that very band? The rest is cloud tops. At the same time isolated clouds with only cross-sectional area can radiate into twice the solid angle as a surface. Old rule for 8-14, if you cannot see it (space) in the daylight, you aint gonna see it with anything made yet.

          The same clouds involve Kirchhoff also. FM assumes the atmosphere is at or above radiative equilibrium temperature because of the rapid rethermalization, clouds may not do that. With the variable atmospheric WV (no, IR) ever need emit from the surface.

          Other point:
          Since you seem comfortable finite modelling look a both Poynting’s 4 and Maxwell’s 22 equations done via quarternions, then explain the vector symbolic terms in a language made for mortals.

          • Avatar

            JWR

            |

            The dynamics of the kinematics of mechanisms involve the vectorproducts and indeed quarternions are used there.(robotics)
            It has not been my speciality, and I am afraid not to have time for it.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Thank you,
            Please ask for opinion of the electromagnetic.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      JWR, Thankyou for that long defence of your theory,
      “I put a stack of black wires in a vacuum. etc,etc .. Just answer yes to point 1” “yes to point 2, yes to point 3”
      Yes, I’ll say yes to those points JWR
      The only thing I’m going to say no to is, no JWR, the Earth’s atmosphere has never been, at any stage, “a stack of black wires in a vacuum.”
      I’ve got to say, as a layman, I respect yours and Pat’s intelligence, calculations and efforts to understand the dynamics and physics of this perverse “greenhouse” issue, but the fact remains that you cannot just take a stack of black wires in a vacuum, and then transform that into a “climate” of reality (pun) or the reality of climate.
      Efforts such as yours to model the Earth and it’s atmosphere will either always fall short or wind up with something as idiotic as the “greenhouse” effect.
      That diagram…I referred to back there..http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/formation_ionosphere_big.jpg. Why does this diagram exist?
      The source seems reliable (I think it was NASA)..but there it is. It shows a band of IR arriving directly from the Sun. What’s the difference between this IR and all this IR reflected off the Earth’s surface that the AGW folk keep bleeting about?
      This is the central premise of the “greenhouse” theory. The very first thing of essence they say, is that the “greenhouse” gas is transparent to certain incoming wavelengths and opaque to IR radiation bouncing around all of us here on the ground. Sorry mateys, according to the diagram there’s a whole tap full of IR continuously pouring down from the SUN.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Quoting Mack:

        JWR, Thankyou for that long defence of your theory,
        “I put a stack of black wires in a vacuum. etc,etc .. Just answer yes to point 1” “yes to point 2, yes to point 3”
        Yes, I’ll say yes to those points JWR
        The only thing I’m going to say no to is, no JWR, the Earth’s atmosphere has never been, at any stage, “a stack of black wires in a vacuum.”

        Mack,
        Neither Jef or I are trying to sell what this atmosphere is or how it works. We do not know,
        No one knows! Some claim to know. They are the Climate Clowns that claim to know We both only offer a different POV for your coniseration.

        Quote:

        I’ve got to say, as a layman, I respect yours and Pat’s intelligence, calculations and efforts to understand the dynamics and physics of this perverse “greenhouse” issue, but the fact remains that you cannot just take a stack of black wires in a vacuum, and then transform that into a “climate” of reality (pun) or the reality of climate.

        Indeed, No one can! We offer only to think, and present an alternate way of thinking of what may be! Please help and ask incisive questions to us and the Clowns and evaluate for yourself, hmmm maybe from folk that insist they know and others like you are trying decide and learn. If you have some sKill like a stool, bucket, and cow over yonder, and can indeed get half a bucket of milk. You now can demonstrated competence. The clowns have demonstrated incompetence for 30 years, that ‘you’ get to pay for.
        There would be no question of “climate of reality or the reality of climate” if all had the skill to milk a cow

        Quote:

        Efforts such as yours to model the Earth and it’s atmosphere will either always fall short or wind up with something as idiotic as the “greenhouse” effect. There is only an attempt to understand

        Interesting You bitch of the of the warmest
        fake politics for profit, then bitch at any that try to bring clarity to your issues.

        No more troll, ask anything that has an answer.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        Guess What,That diagram…I referred to back there..http://www.windows2univ erse.org/earth/Atmosphere/imag es/formation_ionosphere_big.jp g. Why does this diagram exist?

        That diagram exists to indicate “measurement” unrelated to your incessant spouting of your particular nonsense.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          OK Pat Obar, You give me your “measurement” of the IR component of the incoming solar radiation. I don’t just want a percentage, I want an actual number in watts per sq.m. I want it derived from an incoming TOA radiation of 1360w/sq.m ….Mind you, I think you could come up with any number your obtuse, perverse little mind could conjure up but it would be meaningless because nobody has ever made such a measurement. Anyway.. all the readers would be interested in what numbers you come up with I’m sure.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”Mack”]OK Pat Obar, You give me your “measurement” of the IR component of the incoming solar radiation. I don’t just want a percentage, I want an actual number in watts per sq.m. I want it derived from an incoming TOA radiation of 1360w/sq.m ….Mind you, I think you could come up with any number your obtuse, perverse little mind could conjure up but it would be meaningless because nobody has ever made such a measurement. Anyway.. all the readers would be interested in what numbers you come up with I’m sure.[/quote]

            It is interesting that “thing” Mack deems itself spokething for “all the readers”.

            At one AU, the average irradiance of the Sun in the waveband from 0.4 microns to 200 microns is measured at the SS as 1366 W/m^2. Of that total, less than 1 W/m2 is at wavelengths greater than 3 Microns, (IR), is measured.
            At earth surface level that IR irradiance measurement is between zero and a peak of 0.25 W/m^2 depending on cloud cover.
            Since you appear to be a Climate Clown. You cannot distinguish between irradiance and incoming solar radiation, this irradiance measurements must suffice, and your claim of “there’s a whole tap full of IR continuously pouring down from the SUN.” remains meaningless drivel!!
            Please, for the readers, indicate something that you “may” mean by your term “radiation”. Have a nice day

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            OK fair enough Pat Obar..I had a suspicion the tap full of IR continuously pouring down from the SUN was, to a certain extent, “meaningless drivel”. It was designed to provoke a response such as yours to ascertain what
            this diagram was all about. So as a curious layman, am I to understand that IR irradiance sort of starts off as a little less than 1 w/sq.m. up near the TOA and by the time it gets down to the surface it only gets up to 0.25w/sq.m. tops?
            Well that’s interesting, but what it does mean is that the IR irradiance is higher in the upper atmosphere and is curtailed by the time it reaches the surface. It, in a way, mimics the totals (of watts/sq.m.), indicating an absorption of IR, progressively, by the atmosphere, from the upper atmosphere down to the surface. Is this true O Learned One?
            “Please, for the readers,”..
            Pat deems himself spokething, “for the readers”

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Quoting Mack:

            OK fair enough Pat Obar..I had a suspicion the tap full of IR continuously pouring down from the SUN was, to a certain extent, “meaningless drivel”. It was designed to provoke a response such as yours to ascertain what
            this diagram was all about. So as a curious layman, am I to understand that IR irradiance sort of starts off as a little less than 1 w/sq.m. up near the TOA and by the time it gets down to the surface it only gets up to 0.25w/sq.m. tops?
            Well that’s interesting, but what it does mean is that the IR irradiance is higher in the upper atmosphere and is curtailed by the time it reaches the surface. It, in a way, mimics the totals (of watts/sq.m.), indicating an absorption of IR, progressively, by the atmosphere, from the upper atmosphere down to the surface.

            Curious layman your ass, troll. You failed to “indicate something that you “may” mean by your term “radiation”.”

            Now you can also indicate your understanding
            Of whatever radiation may be by describing the properties and differences and relationship of the radiative terms:
            1, Radiative flux
            2. Irradiance
            3. Radiance
            4. Radiative intensity
            5. Per solid angle.

            All are covered on wiki. Irradiance has been corrupted by Wm Connolley,
            Have a nice day

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Is this true O Learned One? “Please, for the readers,”..Pat deems himself spokething, “for the readers”
            Indeed I are “the” readers. You claim spokething of “all” the readers. What unadulterated arrogance.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            It wasn’t arrogance I don’t think. I was appealing to “all the readers” to come and give me a hand because I knew you, Pat Obar, really know your physics,and so I realised I’m up against the best. This whole thing was triggered by you saying that I’m incessantly spouting of my “particular nonsense”. Well I don’t think I incessantly spout nonsense, so took some umbrage at that.
            I think I might have gone overboard a bit with “obtuse, perverse little mind” and for that I’m genuinely sorry.
            Meanwhile, You and I are on the same side, and what I’m trying to do here is find some crack in this bit about the transparancy to “sunlight” vis a vis the “absorption” of IR. by “greenhouse” gases.
            The whole central tenet of this “greenhouse” thing is feed to us over and over and I’m getting sick of it.
            So those 2 figures you gave me were real genuine IR irradiance measurements?
            We should work together and discuss this.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            From the Judith Curry site Posted on March 20, 2012|

            At the end:

            “The concern that I have that insufficient attention is given to developing climate models and conducting climate model experiments to explore the other hypotheses, particularly solar variability and natural internal variability.”

            “However, this concern only implies that climate change science is far from complete in terms of being able to understand and predict climate change on decadal to century time scales. It does not imply in any way that climate science is pseudoscience.”

            Yes indeed Dr. Curry. What would it take to determine that “climate science” is indeed proven to be “pseudoscience.”? How much longer Dr. Judith?

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”JWR”]One should not use anymore the term.
      Speak about IR-active gases, those with molecules with 3 or more atoms.
      And speak about the atmospheric effect.
      I do that consistently in:
      http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-REYNEN_vacuum.pdf%5B/quote%5D

      Jef-Joseph,
      I agree but offer for your consideration.

      The geometry of the 3 or more is more important than the number.

      Aside From April 2013

      Back-radiation of heat does not exist

      1.) Heat is never radiated only EM flux.
      2.) You have an equation (2)
      q2-3 = sigma(T(2)^4-T(3)^4) and
      q3-2 = 0
      This is correct but in a vacuum between 2-3 cannot be distinguished from the Climate Clown two stream version even with fluxmeters at both ends. Nor does your FEM disallow some two stream, but is also correct. The split of the S-B equation is a mathematical falsification, as the rasing of the asymptote 0 Kelvin to the power of 4 even in four space.
      To disallow A EMR two stream you must use Maxwell’s equations! Easiest to understand is John Poyntings conversion to vector geometry, and his differentiation between Poynting vectors and his Poynting flux,the vector sum of all field vectors at any point and frequency.

      • Avatar

        JWR

        |

        Thank you, as always you make constructive critics.
        And to be honest. I never heart of “Poyting’s” conversion towards poynting vectorsi.e. I heart about it but ignored that poynting vectors was not a misspelling of pointing vectors.
        I will study it.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”JWR”]And speak about the atmospheric effect.[/quote]Let me guess, JWR, your atmospheric effect makes the surface of the Earth warmer than the Sun can possibly do, right? Please, do not explain the whole paper, just answer the question.

      • Avatar

        Pat Obar

        |

        [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”JWR”]And speak about the atmospheric effect.[/quote]Let me guess, JWR, your atmospheric effect makes the surface of the Earth warmer than the Sun can possibly do, right? Please, do not explain the whole paper, just answer the question.[/quote]

        Greg,
        Why not just read the damn thing?
        Dr. Reynen Has a much better idea of how the atmosphere works than Claes Johnson! And a very ardent supporter of no back radiation.
        If you understand you can perhaps clue Joseph Postma on how to handle the atmosphere with measurements rather than abstract symbols that are mathematically incorrect.

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        Yes Greg, I had a look at JWR’s paper, and sure enough there’s all this nonsense about “forcing” at the end of the article. Here’s another boo boo which literally encapsulates the huge “greenhouse” piece of propaganda which says that these so called “IR -active” gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation but absorb only radiation reflected from the surface.
        He says…”It means that the IR-active gases are kept warm by the atmosphere,..” No,no no my french friend, it’s incoming solar radiation from the SUN which keeps the gases warm……unless of course this diagram showing IR radiation from the sun penetrating all the way down to the Earth’s surface is horribly wrong..
        What say you..
        http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/formation_ionosphere_big.jpg

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          Apologies JWR, It wasn’t “forcings” nonsense at the conclusion of your piece.. it was “sensitivities” for “doubling of CO2” and the “temp. increases” as a result of..nonsense.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          What percentage of Solar flux is at wavelengths greater than 4 microns?

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    From the article: “Nobody says that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas…”

    John A Marshall says: “Nor do I believe in that fairy story that is the GHE.”

    Well, John, you just proved the statement from the article WRONG. Many of us think the way you do.

    It will probably take a generation, or more, for this term “greenhouse gas” to fade away. It is a false concept, now largely disproved. Just as Marshall mentions, a REAL greenhouse must have a roof, to prevent convection. Our atmosphere has no such “roof”. So, if someone claims our atmosphere “acts” like a greenhouse, that just indicates they are confused.

    Also, the article did not mention the growing controversy of “adjustments” and “in-filling” in the historical data which, of course, effect any attempted comparisons to current temperatures. (I have noticed that both NASA and NOAA, after the first announcement of “warmest year on record”, have now snuck in their “uncertainty” which they say is less than 50%. My thought is that it is much less than that!)

  • Avatar

    John A Marshall

    |

    ”nobody says thsat CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”

    Well that depends on the definitions of a GHG.
    Yes, CO2 adsorbs IR radiation but it is also a very good emitter of IR. All this means is that CO2 removes heat from a surface efficiently. So CO2 cools.

    Because it emits so readily it cannot store heat.

    It also must not violate the 2nd law so a warm parcel of CO2 cannot increase the temperature of a warmer surface. Remember atmpspheric temperatures are ALWAYS cooler than the surface.

    There are two gasses in the atmosphere that can store heat, nitrogen and oxygen, because they are very poor adsorbers and emitters of IR.

    To truly act like a greenhouse convection must be stopped, no gas can do this only an enclosure like a true greenhouse.

    So I for one do NOT believe that CO2 acts like a greenhouse in any way possible. Nor do I believe in that fairy story that is the GHE.

Comments are closed