Warmest year on record? NASA admits they are only 38% certain of their claim

The left-wing have been clamouring that 2014 was the warmest year on record.

Never mind about the record sea ice in the warmest yeardodgy numbers and inane tweets from scientists that have no basis in fact and are actually just more spin.

Now it appears that the media who all clamoured that last year was the warmest on record and the useful idiots on the left who have hyped the NASA report haven’t actually read the report…which says that they are only 38 per cent sure this was true.

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.

More bullshit and bluster from the global warming industry.

NASAs reputation and trustworthiness is in tatters. These chumps can’t even get their lies straight.

I wonder if the NZ Herald and Fairfax will now correct all their doomsaying articles since the report was released?

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

In other words the pause continues, and their claims are statistically irrelevant. Perhaps a retraction might be in order?

No wonder the public have stopped listening to these chicken littles…they just manipulate statistics to justify their continued large government grants to make up even more numbers.

How are all those models going huh?

The whingers and moaners like Martyn Martin Bradbury and the folks at The Standard who are calling for “deniers” to be ignored should all pull their heads in.

No wonder it is easy to manipulate the media and the left-wing if they fall for spin like this.


– The Daily Mail


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • sandalwood789

    Nasa also forgot to mention the faked figures at a lot of weather stations.

    • colin herbertson

      yep, the practice of moving weather stations into urban areas is paying off

      • I.M Bach

        Many moons ago I took a keen interest in the shift to unleaded petrol and all the propaganda that went with it regarding lead poisoning etc. One thing that stood out for me was the positioning of the recording instruments; some were placed at Auckland’s busiest intersections and when the data was gathered they could stand there and say; “told you so.” Same thing, different day.

  • sheppy

    Waiting for TVNZ to correct the inaccuracy in yesterday’s article….
    Still waiting…..
    Waiting some more…..

    • I.M Bach

      TVNZ = Teleft Vision New Zealand. You’ll be waiting a long time sheppy.

  • Isherman

    No, no no. Russel says its official, the science is in he proclaims. But then he doesnt really do caveats, qualifiers or critical analysis does he.

  • conwaycaptain

    I saw a headline on this and it said “Since records started in 1880”
    Well the world has been here for 13.5 billion years and 135 years is not even a blink of an eye in relation to this time span.
    It was warmer in the Roman era and colder in the time of Elizabeth 1 and the Stuart monarchs

    • Isherman

      Yes, perhaps Russel could explain how in Roman times, when the global population was much smaller, how Roman age mankind managed to emit enough carbon for it to be warm enough to grow grapes in Britain, which they did quite successfully.

      • I.M Bach

        Even as tough as they were in those times with taxation the Medieval Warm Period didn’t see taxes perform an upward spiral because it was sunny.

    • Lynn Bardin

      Universe maybe? Earth is 4.5 billion years young…..

      • Damon Mudgway

        10,000 years actually, dinosaurs and carbon dating are a conspiracy by Pagonists and Lodge members.

      • conwaycaptain

        Whats 9 billion between Whale Oilers

  • Gaynor

    I haven’t seen tar on the road melting like it used to when I was a kid back in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Our family used to go on holiday for 4 weeks over January and it was hot everyday.

    • kehua

      Probably more to do with the piss poor quality of roading material being used today, seems to me like most roads that get resealed around our area frequently get redone or patched quite soon after the initial job is done . One road in particular (5km) was resealed 3 times in 10 years.

      • Rodger T

        I suspect somewhere some pencilneck pinheaded bureaucrat decided they had to take the tar out or tar because it gave the spotted toi toi eating grasshopper hiccups or something.

        • Damon Mudgway

          Funniest comment of the day for me RT.

      • rustyjohn58

        you are correct, if the tar melts it is because the mix was not correct.

  • Bazza63

    To make modern time warmer they modified the historical temperature records to correct for reading & recording errors, or so they say, which makes the past look colder.

  • Damon Mudgway

    It’s actually truly disturbing the amount of corruption and fabrication that so called scientists are feeding the masses at the bequest of their benefactors.

    Climate scientists are doing irreparable damage to the credibility of their profession. Science has always been about the search for truth via research and peer review.

    Fudging numbers to keep your pay packet is prostitution at best, and self serving at worst.

  • JustanObserver

    Yesterday was hot, but today might be hotter I think …
    No argument from me, It’s Global Warming … Er, Climate Change, or Sumpthin …

    • Salacious Crumb


  • Andy

    Well, the press release is out and the media perform what is known as “copraphagia”, (sorry if it’s a bit early in the day for that image). Apparently The Pope used that term too, in reference to the media

  • cows4me

    What a two bob outfit, weren’t these clowns telling us years ago the science was settled? As far as I’m concerned they can pump out as much as this rubbish as they like. What gets me are our hopeless politicians that lap up this crap, claim it’s all gospel and run around screaming the sky is falling. In their hearts they know it’s a stinking pile of crap but it’s a good excuse to rob people blind.

  • Ratchette

    ‘The NASA climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a record for global warmth admitted they were only 38% sure this was true’

    So …… 62% not true ?

  • Doc45

    Science generally has been hugely discredited by the global warming nonsense. We once respected scientists as people with integrity, trained, independent and reliable. There methods were open and transparent, carefully and robustly reviewed and organisations prided themselves on only publishing high calibre material. Now, sadly anything goes and deliberate misleading tactics are common. Look at what the Bureau of Metrology has done in Australia- http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/
    There is now no knowing whether 2014 was the hottest year or not, whether temperatures are increasing, whether temperature is linked to CO2 increases, whether ocean temperatures are increasing and sea levels are rising or falling.
    What we do know is that gradually the information collated by the IPCC has been used by pressure groups to force governments into “taking action”. Later this year we will see a huge shift of power from individual governments to the UN and the developing countries get shafted on development. Money will be thrown around and end up in the bank accounts of dictators, socialist regimes, bureaucrats etc. What a travesty – all done on the back of bogus science and power hungry socialists.

  • Justsayn

    Settle down people. Whatever you think about climate change, the math is not that complicated.

    They used a large number of measurements (3,000 measuring stations) to “guess” what the figure was for the world as a whole. You have to guess because you cannot measure everywhere. It is a bit like an opinion poll. That approximation process (guess) brings with it a margin for error. That doesn’t mean that the result is worthless.

    Think of the recent elections. If they did a last minute poll for the national party and got a result of 47.8%, how certain do you think they could say they were that that will be the actual result as opposed to 47.9, or any other number? I’m picking 5% certain. The larger the pool the more certain they might be, but yo be over 50% sure that it was exactly 47.8 you’d need to poll a hell of a lot of people. The climate thing is like a much larger version of that.

    • Damon Mudgway

      Ah, so Climate Science is at best a stab in the dark? Like closing your eyes and putting a pin in a map? Like putting on a blindfold and using a ball to try and dunk your math teacher? Like closing your eyes, opening a phone book and putting your finger indiscriminately on a name? Like trying to predict order out of chaos?

      Like having an hypothesis but never actually having a result?

  • Bob D

    Since 1979 we have been able to measure the temperature of the atmosphere using satellites. This is by far the most accurate method to use, since they run 24/365 and measure almost all of the planet, including of course the vast areas of ocean.

    Here is the graph, from NASA’s MSU satellite data, showing the length of time there has been no warming (ie: since 1997). Note that 2014 was nothing special.

    • Mythrandir

      Sorry to burst your bubble but Satellites don’t measure surface temperature, and are by far the least reliable temperature data set. The RSS dataset has had to (embarrassingly) be revised up in recent years and there is currently a divergence between UAH and RSS satellite data.

      • Bob D

        Global Warming is supposed to affect the lower troposphere. The troposphere extends from ground level to the tropopause, about 8km up.

        Satellites measure the temperature at various heights. The data shown in the graph are TLT – Temperature Lower Troposphere.
        This means air temperatures from the ground up to several km.

        It is exactly the correct metric to use when determining the warming effect of CO2.

        The surface data sets are very poor indicators in comparison – they are scattered randomly throughout the continents, often poorly monitored and, of course, tell us nothing about 70% of our planet, viz: the oceans.

        • Mythrandir

          “It is exactly the correct metric to use when determining the warming effect of CO2.”

          Nope. RSS and UAH are not trusted at all. Satellites don’t measure temperature. They measure column brightness at a specific wavelength of light at different observing angles and then use a deconvolution model to attempt to determine what the temperature is at varying heights in the atmosphere.

          If the satellites were designed for long period climate observation they would be trusted. But they were designed for short term stability for weather monitoring and hence suffer from a large number of stability and data gathering issues.

          Some of the temperatures being use to construct a satellite record only record two temperatures per day from any given position along the stripe of land it passes over, twice per day.

          There simply has been no stable global climate monitoring system via satellite.

          Sorry to burst your bubble about all this.

          • Bob D

            My bubble is fine, thanks. You and other alarmists may not like the satellite data, but that’s only because it’s more accurate and the results don’t suit your narrative. I am certain that if the satellites showed greater warming, we would hear about how good they are.

            Some of the temperature measurements may only record twice a day from the same spot. Others record more often, but the main point is the spatial coverage, and of course 70% of the planet – the oceans.

          • So let’s fully accept your data Mythy .

            Even though NASA say they aren’t really sure , you seem to be


            That now tells us the earth has warmed way way less than all the models used by you Alarmists to predict AGW .


            At the end of the day – temperatures are either not rising or rising less than predicted , the ice caps are doing just fine , polar bears are doing better than fine , crops are growing better than ever , there are less hurricanes , tornados, droughts , floods , recently than in the near past .
            Global temperatures are increasing ( Thank God ) from the Little Ice age and Co2 is at a dangerously low level unfortunately but hopefully is rising .

        • TreeCrusher

          And affected by the urban heat island effect

          • Mythrandir

            Heat island effects are removed from the analysis by either
            omitting unfavorable sites, or through direct temperature adjustment.

          • you mean by “Homegenising ” the data .

            Amazing how this only goes one way – up ? .

            Also amazing how wrong the adjustments prove to be when someone without an agenda looks at them .

            Look at how fraudulent NIWA was .


          • TreeCrusher

            I look at a lot of weather data, it is part of my job. And, for the most part, the longest data sets we have are in cities. Makes sense as in the 19th century we wanted to know what the weather was doing where we lived, not out in the boondocks. So, generally speaking, the longest, observed and “accurate” temperature records we have are the ones in our cities (in Christchurch it is the weather station in the botanic gardens). To omit these results is to dramatically reduce the length of time the data set covers and call me a skeptic, or cynic, but I just don’t believe you can “directly adjust” a 200 year old temperature record accurately. And even if you did you wouldn’t have any calibration data to prove you did.

    • Mythrandir

      Bob tell me more about the pause in the warming of the UAH satellite data set administered by Dr Roy Spencer (see link).

      Since you claim satellite data “is by far the most accurate method to use”


      • Bob D

        Both UAH and RSS use the same base MSU data. The RSS group was set up to counter UAH, and in the early years RSS showed a higher trend than UAH. The alarmists all insisted on everyone using RSS of course, and so we did.

        Now that RSS is lower than UAH, suddenly they all want us to switch back to UAH.

        • Mythrandir

          I am sorry but UAH and RSS use different satellites with different deconvolution models.

          Also RSS uses diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a “climate model”, ahahaha, which UAH does not.

          • Bob D

            So you agree that RSS is better then?

          • Bob D

            I didn’t say the same satellites, I said base MSU data. In other words, they measure the same way.

            Of course, they now both use Advanced MSU, but pretty much the same thing (more layers to monitor).

  • Mythrandir

    Well well, three major climate organisations (JMA, NASA, and NOAA) have now released their official estimates on global mean surface temperature for 2014. Both JMA and NOAA conclude that 2014 was substantially higher ie outside the margin of error for previous contenders (1998, 2005, and 2010) while NASA finds 2014 to be the warmest but within the margin of error of 2005 and 2010 – a statistical tie

    So based on the collective reports, it is therefore fair to declare 2014 the warmest year on record for global mean surface temperature.

    Note: Satellite data sets do not measure global mean “surface” temperature.

    Truly a sad day for the skeptics.

    • Damon Mudgway

      Wow, the hottest year on earth since AD1880. Golly.

    • Bob D

      Read up on where those data sets come from – they all use the same base surface data from GHCN, simply analysing it slightly differently.

      The satellites are way more accurate and pertinent. Why were they not even mentioned in the press releases?

      Or by you?

    • Amanda Atkinson

      Oh here you are. Mr Science and Mr Big Words. My my, you really are a superior class of human aren’t you. How you have so much time on your hands to try to influence a few Whale Oil readers … anyway I digress …

      No. Not sad. Just more cherry picking of science to support a pre-determined outcome by you and your lot, including the lazy mainstream media. Nothing new. Boring. I might add (in your defense), that I think Cam also cherry picks his science. That still doesn’t make your view relevant though. The jury is out, and until we can find science without bias either way, the best thing is to have an open mind, and to put your sanctimony, and big words in a box and close the lid.

      • Mythrandir

        “you really are a superior class of human aren’t you.”

        Nope, I’m no superior to you or anyone else. I just enjoy discussing some Science.

        “until we can find science without bias either way”

        The original calculation of how much temperature rise could be
        expected from a doubling of CO2 was done well over 100 years ago by one of the greatest scientists of all time – Svante Arrhenius.

        Do you think he is tainted and biased?

        • Bob D

          Are you referring to his 1896 paper? How much did he predict?

    • Lynn Bardin

      Sad day too for NZ. We are just not pulling our weight. Letting the side down completely. 2014 was our 23rd warmest year since 1909. If you want to induce a permanent state of narcolepsy I recommend reading the NIWA 2014 summary…..

      • Mythrandir

        BTW speaking of us, I have no faith with the Greens and Labour on this subject either. Under the last Labour Govt our emissions increased at a greater rate than America under George W Bush. This was brilliantly pointed out by John Key in the 2008 leaders debate.

    • Baz

      Can you pehaps explain how they calculate the mean yearly temperature just for one of the thousand of stations around the world. Thanks

    • Mythrandir your post reflects you didn’t even read the press releases you are talking about .

      Secondly – the RSS satellite based measurements which are way more accurate don’t show warming .

      Thirdly – even if 2014 is 0.01 deg warmer – SO WHAT – it still means all the MODELS showing CO2 forced warming are completely wrong and the earth is continuing to warm like it has been for the last 400 years with no human influence . News should be every year it isn’t the warmest “since records began” I.e recently .

      Fourthly – “since records began” is a blink of an eye and you alarmists have still not explained why the earth was way warmer for most of it’s life including the more recent Medieval warm Period

      and finally a quick visit to Steven Goddard’s blog


      will show you just how corrupted NASA and NOAA ground based records have become .

      • Mythrandir

        ” the RSS satellite based measurements which are way more accurate”

        No it is not more accurate.

        “don’t show warming”

        I’m afraid they both RSS and UAH show warming over time spans that are statistically significant. Also UAH in fact shows a warming trend over the last 18 years (albeit not statistically significant).

        “all the MODELS showing CO2 forced warming are completely wrong”

        Nope, they are completely right. You are made to think they are wrong by they way the results are misrepresented.

        “the earth is continuing to warm like it has been for the last 400 years with no human influence.”


        ” you alarmists have still not explained why the earth was way warmer for most of it’s life”

        There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today e.g. During the Cambrian period, CO2 levels were 16 times (or more) higher than modern pre-industrial levels. Temperatures were around 22’C compared to the current 14.6’C average, or around 7’C warmer than today.

        “including the more recent Medieval warm Period”

        Nope. It was a moderate regional warming of under 0.5′C

        Here is a nice graphic of global temperatures centered on the MWP.


        “just how corrupted NASA and NOAA ground based records have become .”

        Sorry but none of these blowhard allegations have held water when put under scrutiny.

        By the way, you do realise satellites show essentially the same global warming trend in the troposphere as thermometer measurements do at the surface? Namely about 0.16’C per decade over the past 30 years for Spencers UAH Satellite data, just as it is for the NASA GISTEMP, NOAA and Hadcrut.

        So is the satellite data you claim is “way more accurate” being fudged too?

        • OMG it’s amazing how you warmists spout your religion using bogus graphs. i didn’t think the Hockey Stick variety of graphs were still available now that Mann’s tree ring fraud has been so discredited .

          anyway for the readers here’s a far more accurate graph of global temperatures


          secondly – you guys shoot yourselves in the foot . If co2 levels have been way higher in the past ( and they HAVE ) how come the world cooled when you alarmists say “CO2 causes runaway catastrophic global warming “.

          Finally – it was generally accepted Satellite measurements were the gold standard ( that’s why they spent billions setting them up -DUH ) but as soon as they show no warming for the past 18 years


          suddenly we go back in time to “Homogenised” land based data showing 0.01deg warming . Now back in 1800 how many thermometers were calibrated to one hundredth of a degree and how many of these are not surrounded by concrete . ( UHI only adjusted by 0.1 deg C whereas common observation shows UHI to be way more significant . )


    If this discussion today is representative of how scientists ‘debate’ with each other, it’s no wonder everyone is confused……

  • Damon Mudgway


    Lets get some perspective people.

    • johcar

      Bugger the perspective – pass the popcorn…

      • Damon Mudgway

        And the rise and rise of the hockey stick graph for use as propaganda by the IPCC.


        I’m still trying to ascertain what the actual agenda is for the warmists. All I can see at the moment is a way for them to keep funding overseas junckets.

        • johcar

          It’s all about the Airpoints… ;)

  • Nz front

    This is just junk science.

  • rustyjohn58

    I heard that warmer seas means bigger fish. bring it on.

  • Even more intresting is how they ignore their own satellite data to spread alarm using their “Homogenised ” ( i.e corrupted ) land based systems .