Thursday, January 22, 2015

That didn't last long, either

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently announced that 2014 was the hottest year since records began in 1880 or so.

Oh, yeah, they left out a couple things -- like the words "maybe" or "actually probably not:"
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Yeah, they neglected to mention that the "increase" over the last "hottest year ever" was negligible, and that the margin of error made it quite possible that 2014 was not even close to the hottest year ever. NASA's level of confidence -- 38 percent, seriously? -- makes it more likely that 2014 was just another year. Gavin Schmidt is famous for this kind of puffery, so it's not really surprising. It has a lot of folks criticizing NASA's honesty.

Even before Schnmidt admitted NASA was trumpeting something that was quite likely untrue based on NASA's own numbers, many climate scientists were slamming NASA for going on about a statistically insignifcant "increase" that is contradicted by other, more reliable data. Marc Morano, who heads the Climate Depot website, said:
“There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’
Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)
Even the numbers put forward by the climate alarmists show an 18-year pause in warming that the alarmists are at a loss to explain. Further, given the fundamentals of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the satellite measurements are the ones that matter. If you don't understand why that statement is true, perhaps you should either do some homework or else stop swallowing whole every alarmist statement about climate change, global warming or whatever the alarmists decide to call it next.

No comments: