Thursday, January 15, 2015

2014 Global Climate Conditions Coming

NASA and NOAA will holding a joint conference Friday, January 16 at 11 EST to announce the data on 2014 temperature and climate conditions. The announcement will live streamed. Click on this link of the announcement, including a link to listen to the announcement live.

We already know 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded. Tomorrow we'll hear just how bad it was.


  1. Is this unusual? I guess it is pretty newsworthy.

  2. 2014 is was the hottest year ever recorded. Plus, there was no bug El Nino to cause it. This was just a routine year. Is it unusual for them to have a live announcement? Not really. They do all sorts of live announcements throughout the year on various topics. A review of the state of the climate for the entire year is something a lot of news reporters would want to ask questions about. Might as well get them all together at once.

  3. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond one more time before I start blocking you. However, your comments are so inane and repetitive that I have just about come to the conclusion you are one of the WUWT crowd and are merely here to take up my time. Also, I always found people who use excessive amounts of verbosity usually don't know what they're talking about and are merely trying through enough out there they may actually hit the target.

    Let's sum up what you have claimed:

    The world leaders are working together to destroy modern-day civilization in order to impose a world dictatorship;

    climate science is made up to help this along by providing a means to scare the world populace with fears of impending doom;

    Climate scientists are willing participants in this grand scheme;

    You claim climate science is something that no one new about or cared about prior to Margaret Thatcher;

    You don't have any evidence what so ever to show even one word of this is true;

    You do not find any of this to be incredible, offensive or insulting;

    You think I am being rude and uncivil when I tell you this is from the lunatic fringe realm.

    In conclusion, .... Well, I don't think I need any conclusion after that.

  4. Really? You can't do even a simple search? You can't go to Google and search for "Does CO2 cause climate change?" I got over 22 million hits. Go to Google Scholar and try it. I got hits on over 474,000 scientific papers. See what I mean when I say you have failed to do your homework? Here is one:

  5. "'In the 1970's the environmental movement became more prominent ... "The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites.'"

    And as we all know, we haven't learned anything from the 1970's.

    Of course, there is that part later in the same article under the heading, "What do we know today about how global temperature changes?" which says, "The known influences are: irregular “El Niño” fluctuations in the upwelling of deep cold waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which cool or warm the air for a few years (purple curve in B); sulfate smog particles emitted in volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichón in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, which bring temporary cooling (blue curve); a quasi-regular cycle in the Sun’s activity that changes the radiation received at Earth (green curve); and human ("anthropogenic") changes — primarily emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels..." Emphasis on carbon dioxide.

    Interesting that you would cherry pick parts of the article that support your case and disregard the parts that don't. Was it a case of incompetence or dishonesty?

  6. This is an odd exchange . Why all the deletions ? The points that interest me are as follows.
    - Co2 lags temps.
    There is definitely a lag of C02 rise After temp rise. The cited "reaclimate" article confirmed it. I suggest you read it more thoroughly .
    Further. the Stasis/pause/hiatus has been widely confirmed. Sample;
    From Nature Climate Change ,Sept..2013 ,lead author AR4, Dr. Frye.
    Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

    John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers

    "The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from ZERO* ".
    * emphasis mine.
    This stasis/pause/hiatus has occurred despite a 61% emissions increase since 1990. Less than 2% of the climate models predicted this scenario. Less than 2% skill at forecasting the observed temps ?
    There are very clearly justifiable doubts about the effect of C02 on Surface temps. To "deny" this is.. well ,surprising, wouldn't you agree ?

  7. “The deletions were the result of how offensive the commenter became with her claims climate scientists were nothing more than part of a conspiracy to destroy the industrial nations and impose a world dictatorship. Despite repeated attempts to inform her how offensive she was, she kept insisting she was being civil and I was the offensive one for defending climate scientists. I finally decided it was enough. I don't have to tolerate hate speech.

    I am very familiar with the RealClimate article
    ( and I would suggest you go back and read it yourself. For instance, the part that says,

    "First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. "

    Or, the part that says,

    "Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2
    concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature.”

    As for the “warming pause,” I would refer you to many
    sources, but take a look at this one: RealClimate (“It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.”

    Basically, the “pause” is the result of ignoring ocean warming and focusing on surface warming (ignoring the 93% of warming). Also, it is also a result of focusing on a short time period and some variability is always expected.

    Let’s take a look at that commentary you referred to (it is not a peer-reviewed paper). The entire commentary can be read at

    You conveniently left out the part where they said, “Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993-2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ±0.06 oC per decade (95% confidence interval).”

    So, what they are clearly discussing the surface temperature and are not including ocean warming (again, the 93% of the warming). Even still, they clearly point out there has been pretty significant global warming over the last 20 years. Yes, they say there has been no discernible surface warming over the last 15 years, but see my comments above on that matter. Additionally, deniers like to say there has been no warming for “the last 17 years, or so.” In my calculation, 20 years falls within the last ‘17 years, or so’.

  8. Breaking news: Tahoe Steph is no more. Passed on and reincarnated as Woodfords Frog.