August 2014 Is No Longer The Hottest On Record

ScreenHunter_238 Sep. 15 16.55

Yesterday, Gavin told the Huffington Post that August was the hottest on record globally. He seems to have changed his mind since then, because today his map shows August was cooler than 2011 by 0.02 degrees.

nmaps (7)

2014 0.68 anomaly : Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

nmaps (10)

2011 0.70 anomaly : Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

RSS shows that August was seventh coolest and below average since 1997. So how did Gavin create his since reversed scientific flustercluck?

There were three stations in Antarctica on the right side of the 250 km map below which he marked as very hot. Those three stations averaged about -20C. This map has 250km extrapolation, and gives a feel for where the stations are located, and where there is no data.

nmaps (8)

He extrapolated those three -20C Antarctic stations across a huge area of below normal  temperatures on both the lower right and lower left side of the map, and massively skewed his global average anomaly using a large area of fake +6C anomaly, which he declared hot at -20C.  This map shows Gavin’s 1200 km extrapolations to smear the earth with non-existent warm data.

nmaps (7)

But it is much worse than it seems. None of those three stations actually have any temperature data during the 1951-1980 baseline period, so his since recanted (disproven by his own data) claim is a complete fraud. How can he know what the anomaly is, if there was no temperature data during the baseline period? These are the three stations in the region which he has August 2014 temperature data for.

  ScreenHunter_2849 Sep. 16 15.05 ScreenHunter_2848 Sep. 16 15.05 ScreenHunter_2847 Sep. 16 15.05

There are all kinds of other things he did wrong, including filling in Africa and South America with fake warm data, when RSS showed them cold. Problems with Australia too, which RSS showed cold.

Now lets look at Gavin’s abuse of the Arctic. DMI showed the area north of 80N as first or second coldest on record. Gavin had no data north of 80N, but filled it in with hot data,

GISSAugust2014

In summary, the claim of record heat has since been disproven by his own data, and was based largely on fake, cold data at the poles – which he declared to be hot.

How could Antarctica have been hot? They have record sea ice extent, indicating the winds are blowing away from the pole, towards the coast.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to August 2014 Is No Longer The Hottest On Record

  1. “How can he know what the anomaly is, if there was no temperature data during the baseline period?”

    Sounds like an excellent question for Moser, Zeke, or McIntyre. Gentlemen? We’re all ears.

    Gentlemen??

  2. pinroot says:

    I notice that not too far (relatively speaking) from the “very hot” area on the right of Antarctica there is an area that has an anomoly of about -4C (the scale varies from map to map). Why doesn’t this anomoly get smeared out to cover a large area, the way the warm anomolies get smeared? Never mind, I think I know…

    • Lazlo says:

      As David Karoly has made perfectly clear for the benefit of amateurs, you will need to publish in a peer reviewed journal before anyone can credibly believe there is anything wrong with what NASA has done. The publication will need to critically analyse and rebut the homogenisation methods used. These methods can be found published at.. ah, umm.., just shut up!

  3. tom0mason says:

    Excellent work Steven – now to get the word out there.

  4. Steve would the infilling not still be consistent with the prior years?

  5. norilsk says:

    Dr. Schmidt’s arrogance is leading to his downfall. He couldn’t bring himself to be in the same room with Dr. Spencer in this video I saw the other day. He says he’s not interested.

    • mjc says:

      Wow…if I could convert Gavin’s first 30 seconds in that clip to fertilizer, I’d be set for the next 10 yrs. Never seen such a concentrated amount of BS in such a short period of time.

    • Actually I thought Gavin admitted to a lot of things… the causes for past Climate Change… where we disagree is how much Mankind’s CO2 & Methane, etc.. is affecting Current Climate and if it even matters…

      It was quite interesting how such a well educated man was Sooooo unwilling to even acknowledge Roy Spencer… Lame… he is asking that we spend all this money… yet is unwilling to acknowledge any dissent…

      • Gail Combs says:

        Signs he knows he is lying and does not want to get caught at it.

        Someone who has the facts and is confident in his hypothesis is willing to debate all comers and if needed to modify his hypothesis.

        Gavin shows none of these hallmarks of a true scientist.

  6. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Good work thanks for saving us from melting — the “believers” will do just anything to make us believe their lies!

  7. Keith says:

    Outstanding post

  8. Edmonton Al says:

    Great work Steven.
    You are one of the few that can debunk the “global” temperature fraudsters.

  9. Gail Combs says:

    I wonder if the quick ‘readjustment’ to Gavin’s map (note the USA is now cool) had anything to do with outraged comments at Huff ‘n Puff and at places like this website.

    Seems to me the Huff ‘n Puff piece was a trial balloon to see how BIG a LIE they could tell and still get away with it.

    A big thanks is owed to Tony Heller and all the rest of the watch dogs.

    • policycritic says:

      Seems to me the Huff ‘n Puff piece was a trial balloon to see how BIG a LIE they could tell and still get away with it.

      Agree.

  10. policycritic says:

    Steve, where’s the link to “today his map shows August was cooler than 2011 by 0.02 degrees?” Thanks.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    I think that although skeptic comments at the propaganda lap dog sites like the Groiniad and the BBC and the LA times are not published they ARE NOTED. How else can they tell if the Big Lie is working? Preaching to the choir doesn’t work on those sitting on the fence.

    • The impact has already hit… Huff Po and other places post this big headline “Hottest August ever”… and that’s what people see… our follow up rarely gets seen…

      So the “Seagull” or “Drive-by” Media just moves on .. leaves its pile of crap… Skeptics need to find ways to get ahead of this curve …

  12. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Must be tough being a government scientist.

    1. Obama needs some global warming panic to distract from his disasters in domestic and foreign policy.
    2. NASA/GISS gets their marching orders.
    3. Presto Magico . . Gav “adjusts” the data to produce what is required.

    Probably thought folks wouldn’t notice the super hot Antarctic region also was setting records for ice levels. Who says Gaia doesn’t have a sense of humor. Or Irony.

  13. Frank K. says:

    It’s one thing to try to determine the land-based temperatures with any degree of accuracy, especially when it comes to comparing modern data with historical records prior to 1950. (1950 is an arbitrary date, but represents a time period before modern communication infrastructure would have made data widely accessible). But let me ask everyone – do you think we REALLY know the temperature of the OCEAN surface with ANY degree of accuracy prior to 1950? There would have been any number of El Ninos and other events that could have led to warmer than average temperatures in the past. And all we have are ship records (and ships aren’t stationary) with bucket measurements of ocean water!

    My personal view is that any pronouncement of “records” for Earth’s averaged temperature is speculative at best, and that we don’t have enough data to know one way or the other.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh, I think the ESTIMATE might be good to +/- 5 °C
      {:>D

      • Shazaam says:

        Erm…..

        You neglected to mention that such “estimates” are always “rounded-off” to the nearest 2 decimal places 😉

    • What can be done is stitch together all the Historical data we have and compare it to what readings are today… location, time, etc… a point in the past can be compared to current info…

      Problem is all the “infilling” and data manipulation… “Aw, 1934 couldn’t have been that hot, with soooo many 100 degree days and people dying from the heat… ” when in reality it WAS… we can compare those data points with current info… location, date, time… and see if 1980 – 2014 even came close.. which it doesn’t… Alarmists got rid of the blip and don’t care to acknowledge it..

  14. Bob Greene says:

    Climate scientists are truly marvelous and bright folks. They can take a measuring system that resolves at 0.1° with an accuracy of 0.3°F, adjust the readings, estimate temperatures for missing stations and areas without stations and come up with hottest/coolest comparisons at 0.02°C or better. No estimation of variance and no testing of means to see if they are statistically different. And they can do this world wide.
    It seems that folks that smart would hardly need data at all, they surely would just know.

    • Lazlo says:

      Correct, they don’t need data..

      cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
      date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
      from: “David Jones”
      subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
      to: “Phil Jones”

      Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
      Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
      easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
      station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
      Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
      Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
      meteorological data to see it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bob, best take a look at the surface station project again.

      64.4% – Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

      So the USA surface stations, the BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, has an error of 2 °C or greater for 70% of the thermometers.

      Since each site is unique, each thermometer is unique and each point in time is unique, the sample size is ONE, not hundreds of repeated tests at the same time and place. This means you can not use the statistics of large numbers and some how squeeze out another decimal point. The error of the entire calculation is the same as the WORST data or error >= 5C.

      The entire Global Temperature as measured by surface thermometers is a completely bogus/political number.

      …looking at the raw NOAA data as shown in the following JPEG captured image of the NOAA 1880 to 2010 raw data map (Figure 2). Figure 2 – NOAA 1880 to 2010 raw data slopes (Colour key in Figure 1)

      Note that the so-called ‘global warming’ (the slope fitted to all available raw data between 1880 to 2010 for a station) for all stations is certainly not ‘uniform’ throughout the planet. [this is what allows so much game playing with the numbers and why the station dropout was so important] Indeed it indicates that there are certain regions e.g. the US that show warming in certain parts of the country e.g. the North West US compared with cooling in other parts e.g. the South East US. Note these are warming/cooling trends for all available raw data fro the period from 1880 to 2010. Only a few stations are ‘long lived’ i.e have raw data that spans this whole centennial long period. In fact most stations are only ‘short lived’ having raw data that only spans the period from 1950 to 1990. So when you see a ‘dot’ on the following map please bare in mind that the trend for many of the stations may only represent the trend in the raw data from 1950 to 1990 and not the whole 1880 to 2010 period.
      http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/mapping-global-warming/

      • Gail Combs says:

        Bare in mind that in the Soviet Union the amount of coal alloted for heating to a village or city was based on the temperature so there was a real incentive to ‘cool’ the thermometer readings between 1920 and 1980. Also the Russians accused CRU of messing with the data by selectively dropping stations that showed cooling. Russia affected by Climategate (about 2/3 of the way down the page)

        • David says:

          Gail, that bit about the Soviet Union’s allocation of coal is fascinating, and something that never even occurred to me. Do you know where I could learn more about it?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Björn was the first to explain correctly the instant +1C leap.
          Under reporting your local temperatures increased your coal allowance off the state.

          From a comment at WUWT

          Björn = Bjørn Lomborg?

        • David says:

          Very cool. Thank you!

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Gail! You say: “Since each site is unique, each thermometer is unique and each point in time is unique, the sample size is ONE, not hundreds of repeated tests at the same time and place. This means you can not use the statistics of large numbers and some how squeeze out another decimal point. The error of the entire calculation is the same as the WORST data or error >= 5C.”

        I thought I understood that concept, but perhaps I am getting slower with old age, because now I am confused again. Consider this: Suppose I have a data set of 100 unique stations. Suppose 99 of them have zero error. (Perhaps an angel appeared with the readings on a piece of paper and gave them to me! 🙂 ) The one remaining station has an error of one degree. If I just added them up, obviously the sum would be plus or minus one degree — but if I am looking at the average, how can the error for the average still be one degree? Wouldn’t it be 1/100th of a degree?

        I don’t expect anyone to do a long essay to answer me, but if you or anyone can link me to an understandable explanation, it would be appreciated. (And of course this says nothing at all about the wisdom of using something so nebulous as a global average of temperatures which tells us very little about overall changes in climate.)

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jason there are mathematical equations for adding up error that can be used. PROPAGATION OF ERRORS

          However given 70% of the US stations have error >= 5C and that the USA is considered to have the best data, you can be pretty sure the error is in the vicinity of >= 5C… Then add in 70% of the earth is oceans with temperatures measured by random sailors using buckets in all types of weather…

          I do not need to use math to see the error is going to be a heck of a lot larger than the 0.1 °C or so the warmists get into a lather about.
          …..
          And people wonder why I do not make short posts and I do a lot of links. {:>D

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail! You say: “I do not need to use math to see the error is going to be a heck of a lot larger than the 0.1 °C or so the warmists get into a lather about.”

          Yes, that we can agree on! It looks to me like the error of an average should be equal to the average of the errors involved. As you say, the errors do not reduce the way the Law of Large Numbers would indicate. Instead, I think that for averages, you just add up all the various error ranges of all the data input and do a weighted average of the errors. As far as surface temps go, even if you pick the really best long term sites, you probably still have an error somewhere in the range of one degree — and if you include the many bad sites, probably several degrees error. As for ocean temperatures (especially down to 2000 meters) the closest error size I could even guess would be just “VERY BIG”!

          The hubris of the CAGW crowd is stunning…

      • Bob Greene says:

        Gail, I was just citing what I recalled of the coop weather station thermistors, which aren’t much better than the Oregon Scientific indoor-outdoor unit I have. Add the siting and other problems in your post plus Jason Calley’s comments and I find it a bit difficult believe hundreths of a degree temperature differentiation other than by divination.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Even with great thermometers in triplicate, the temperature in my pasture (at the top of the ridge) is not going to be the same as the temperature 3000 feet away on the river flood plain even if you do an adjustment for the ~ 50 to 100 ft in altitude change.

          That is the other reason the error the Climastrologists claim is laughable.

          Right now looking at two sites near me, 7 miles apart I see: 78.3 °F to 85.7 °F yet the Climastrologists smear data over 100 kilometers or more!

        • Bob Greene says:

          Gail, they can use readings up to 1200 km away. that’s about the distance between my last two residences. The climate in central VA and SW Michigan are a bit different.

        • philjourdan says:

          Really? I thought we always got -20 degree temps in Central Va in the winter. 😉

        • Bob Greene says:

          And two feet of ice on the all the lakes.

          I

        • philjourdan says:

          Yes, Virginian’s are known for their prowess on ice skates.

  15. SMS says:

    This is something that had to come back and bite Hansen/Schmidt sooner or later. They have repeatedly used the lack of temperature stations in the Arctic and Antarctic to generate fake heat to keep the CAGW argument going. For years now we’ve seen the Arctic shown as flaming red with no justification other than statistical hand waving. Some of us can remember the outrage when Hansen did the flaming red thingy to the Arctic in 2011. It’s hard to justify showing both poles hotter than hell when there is record ice extent. Hansen feels he is justified in doing the red flaming thingy because it fits his theory of accelerated warming at the poles, not because there is proof.

    They have only been able to keep up with the charade of a warming planet by adjusting the surface station thermometer records upwards. And like the flaming red thingy, this too will come back to haunt them. In a few years even the most ignorant acolyte will have to question why there has to be such huge adjustments to the temperature record.

    This is the reason that RSS and UAH should be used rather than GISS, NOAA, Hadley or Berkley. RSS and UAH may not gather information above 80 degrees, but you don’t need it as long as you continue to compare apples to apples.

  16. Anto says:

    If you are a conservative, your prize is and IRS audit and jail for speaking out.
    If you’re a progressive, your prize is promotion and $m grants.

    The tide had well and truly turned many years ago, when progressives managed to claim the title of “liberal” in an epitomy of double-speak, from the libertarians and conservatives.

    Once that happened, they gained the upper hand and it was inevitable that things would need to move to their usual, historical conclusion before the tide turned back. History is an interesting subject. From the time of the ancient Greeks, you will see a battle between conservative/practical forces and progressive/fanciful ones.

    What we are living through now is nothing new – while humanity is incredibly gifted at generational learning from technological mistakes, it is monumentally dumb in its societal learning.

    All I can put it down to, is that science advances by individual or small-group efforts, whereas society stagnates because we are a group of millions. Individually, humans can be brilliant. As a mob, we are quite obtuse.

    • Anto says:

      All of which is rather disturbing, because it points towards implications which are anathema to me.

    • Gail Combs says:

      it also shows that because Sociopaths have no conscience, no feelings toward their fellow humans they often rise to high positions if they are intelligent. Therefore many leaders are the worst that society has to offer in terms of what is best for society as a whole.

      This has not changed since some idiot with charisma and an Iron Fist convinced a bunch of his fellow thugs and thieves it was easier to steal or better yet to have slaves do all the work. The really successful thugs we call kings and princes.

  17. Anything is possible says:

    “None of those three stations actually have any temperature data during the 1951-1980 baseline period,”

    ===================================

    Which begs the question why are they still using the 1951-80 baseline, in breech of the WMO guidelines which recommend using the most recently available 30-year period which would be 1981-2010.

  18. Thomas Englert says:

    I am reading the anomaly graphs as indicating anomalies of ~ -25 to -20 C.

    I expected the anomalies to be positive if the adjustments were made to warm the Antarctic above the baseline period.

    Am I misunderstanding the graphs?
    Thanks!
    Tom

  19. Bill Taylor says:

    to me why they use the 1951 -80 baseline is obvious i was born in 1951 so that should be the baseline for ALL things moving foreward…..lol…..actually they use that period because it is a COOLER period and CREATES an anomaly of warming out of any return to the temperatures of the 30’s deacade

  20. philjourdan says:

    I have been saying for awhile that eventually we will be freezing to death in record warmth. Gavin just proved me correct.

  21. Don says:

    As I have said more than once, they will never give up. They are far too hooked on taxpayers money to give up, and Obama basically told them that they give him what he wants or their funding goes away.

  22. Robert Austin says:

    The three Antarctic station August temperature graphs are labeled as temperature anomalies but appear to display actual average temperature readings.
    Great work Steven in ferreting out Gavin’s temperature prestidigitation.

  23. catweazle666 says:

    More good work Steve.

    Curiously, I see no sign of the ‘usual suspects’ trying to make out that “the data is accurate – no, really!” – or perhaps “I know Gavin personally and he wouldn’t do a thing like that, honest”!

    Trouble is, all the usual crackpot alarmist propaganda blogs and publications have already spread the lie, so it will take a lot of countering.

    • mjc says:

      Not so sure about that…there were way too many areas that experienced a rather cool summer, especially August, that it’s going to take some convincing to have that turning on the furnace was just a figment of imagination. So, the alarmist blogs are opening themselves up for massive mocking…or just plain old fashioned ignoring.

      • Gail Combs says:

        For the last two (cool) summers, I have been asking people (strangers) “How do you like your global warming” The usual response is a nice long raspberry.

        My small business is entertainment at birthday parties and church fairs so I see a lot of new people.

        • mjc says:

          Are you sure they aren’t responding that way because they think you are a supporter of the ‘Team’?

          Either that or the ‘hillbillies’ up here in WV really are saner than the rest of this country. (No, those idiots on that short-lived, so-called ‘reality’ show don’t count.)

        • Gail Combs says:

          mjc, the raspberry is usually followed by a remark indicating they think CAGW is a scam.

          Maybe the city folk who never see the light of day still believe the scam but the people in suburbia and rural NC sure don’t.

  24. Bob says:

    Threaten them with fraud if they print a retraction!

  25. Cheshirered says:

    They must love you at NASA. Gavin’s discovering what it’s like having a Rottweiler locked onto his leg.

  26. soulsurfer says:

    How can Holland have an anomaly of -0.2 to 0.2 for August 2014, when the knmi (Dutch meteorological institute) finds that August in Holland was 1.4C below the long term average http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/maand_en_seizoensoverzichten/maand/aug14.html. (In Dutch, just see numbers first paragraph…) that just doesn’t make sense.

    • Hans says:

      The map shows the anomalies of 1951-1980 when the average August temperatue in the Netherlans (De Bilt) was 16.4. The average August temperature from 1981-2010 was 17.4 degrees. August 2014 had an average temperature of 16.1. So 0.3 below the long time average shown in the map, so nothing wrong there.

  27. here in Monroe County, Wisconsin, August was cooler than normal by an average of.3871 degrees + September is even much colder

  28. omnologos says:

    If Antarctica warms by 15C and rest of the world cools by 1C it’ll be a darned colder planet but they’ll be able to claim a strong global warming

  29. Paul says:

    Actually, NASA explains why their graphs sometimes do not match the raw data…

    ——————————————–
    Q.Why is the number in the right hand corner of the global maps sometimes different from the corresponding value from the GISTEMP data files (tables and graphs)?
    A.This is related to the way we deal with missing data in constructing the global means:
    In the GISTEMP index, the tables of zonal, global, hemispheric means are computed by combining the 100 subbox series for each box of the equal area grid, then combining those to get 8 zonal mean series, finally from those we get the Northern (23.6-90ºN), Southern and tropical means, always using the same method. Hemispheric and global means are area-weighted means of the following 4 regions: Northern mid-to-high latitudes, Southern mid-to-high latitudes, and the Northern and Southern half of the tropics.

    For the global maps, we subdivide the data into the 4 regions 90-24ºS, 24-0ºS, 0-24ºN,24-90ºN and fill any gaps in one of those 4 regions by the mean over the available data in that region, and then get a global mean.

    For data-sets with full coverage, this should make no difference, but where there is some missing data, there can be a small offset. In such cases the number in the index files should be considered definitive, because in that method the full time series is involved in dealing with the data gaps, whereas for individual maps only the data on that particular map are used to estimate the global mean.
    ——————————————-

    The raw data from GISS does show August to be the warmest August on record.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

  30. I tend not to leave a leave a response, however after reading a few of the responses here August 2014 Is No Longer The Hottest On Record | Real Science.
    I actually do have some questions for you if it’s allright.
    Could it be only me or do some of the remarks come across like they are written by brain dead people?
    😛 And, if you are writing on other social sites, I’d like to follow everything new you have to
    post. Could you list of the complete urls of all your social pages like your Facebook page,
    twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s