Sunday, February 15, 2015

NOAA settled science: Earth at 58.24F in 2014 was allegedly hotter than Earth at 62.45F in 1997

NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 1997
The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit
NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 2014
The average temperature for the year [2014] was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) [ie 58.24F] , beating the previous record warmth of 2010 and 2005 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
(H/T Ima Debatin')

17 comments:

Harry Dale Huffman said...

Nobody is listening to the definitive evidence I have tried to bring out for over 4 years now: My November 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison precisely--precisely-confirms the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere as the real, stable equilibrium state of our troposphere, and the Standard Atmosphere has for a century and more given the mean surface temperature as 15.0°C, or 59.0°F--which is warmer than the climate "scientists" say it is now, despite a century and more of supposed global warming. So the real point to be made is that the Venus/Earth comparison (which, by the way, disproves the "greenhouse effect" promulgated to the public, entirely) shows the supposed global mean temperature record is not to be trusted, but the Standard Atmosphere is. This whole climate science sham is due to the turning away from the well-known Standard Atmosphere in order to chase the chimera of a carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect", falsely threatening a runaway global warming instead of understanding that our atmosphere itself acts to regulate Earth's temperature closely, simply due to its huge mass and fundamentally stable, hydrostatic condition.

geran said...

Those links are a great find!

Dan Pangburn said...

Have you seen the simple proof that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate?

CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.

During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

Anonymous said...

Electromagnetic Earth SHIELDING from deadly space disasters: http://globalprovidence.blogspot.com

David Appell said...

Harry Dale Huffman's analysis account for the albedo of the Earth.

That makes his claimed agreement -- which is only approximate, and for a few wavelengths anyway -- accidental. He prefers to ignore this issue.

Also, you can't give a number for the absolute temperature of the Earth, because that's not what the data models measure. They measure differences in the temperature of their model. So this counts as a science fail.

Anonymous said...

Funny,

but of course the exact average temperature is harder to define than it is to measure a change, i.e. anomaly.

Dan,

can you say in a more elaborate way why it is impossible?

David Appell said...

The exact average temperature is easy to define; if T(x,y,z) is the temperature at a point {x,y,z}, the average temperature is

A = surface integral of T(x,y,z) dA

where A is the surface area. It's measuring this that is difficult. Hence the inherent need for a model.

David Appell said...

I should have written that Harry Dale Huffman's calculation DOESN'T take into account planetary albedo. That makes his result meaningless.

I've told him this more than once, but he refuses to acknowledge it.

This isn't the only crazy idea he has. He's way up there on the crackpot index :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Anonymous said...

Fmr. CIA Dir. Jim Woolsey warns of existential but AVERTABLE EMP (electromagnetic pulse/superstorm) threat! Since CIA has gone public on this, shouldn't we get prepared?
Shouldn't we start building a plasma shield against catastrophic Solar flares?
http://globalprovidence.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-cia-director-warns-for.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBfALe8X9C8

David Leahy said...

Early critic of your angle on your blog here (which you won't recall), you dismissed my suggestions. But you have a very sad set of posters here at this point. Embarrassing, yes? To a sentient human?

Happy to explain to any of your readers how CO2 is responsible for trapping infrared radiation. Not a controversial point, except perhaps for readers of your somewhat sad blog.

Otter said...

david leahy, you are an asshole. Not to mention very late to the game.

Anonymous said...

2nd near-miss EXTINCTION event, by a huge solar flare in a row, since July 2012... Devastating geomagnetic super-storms are AVERTABLE NOW! http://globalprovidence.blogspot.com/2015/03/close-hit.html

Anonymous said...

FEMA attacks warmist hoax deniers! PLEASE ASK THEM to take some TOLCAPONE pills, that cure egoism! https://screen.yahoo.com/kindness-drug-could-more-understanding-114743676.html

Anonymous said...

David Leahy, I understand greenhouse physics fine. Could you explain to us common folk how co2 is responsible for adjusting surface station temperatures?

David Appell said...

Anonymous, do you understand the need to correct station data for biases due to station changes?

How would you handle such changes?

PS: Did you know the net affect of the adjustments is to decrease the long-term warming trend?

Anonymous said...

That's odd, how do you adjust recent temps artificially up and historic temps artificially down, and still claim a net lowering"effect".
More junk science fitting a political agenda?

David Appell said...

Your premise is incorrect -- this is no one direction for adjustments.

"Turns out that global temperature adjustments actually reduce the long-term warming trend, mostly due to oceans."
- Zeke Hausfather, BEST Project analysist https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/564921572096348160