In the tropics, warmest August in the satellite temperature record
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade
August temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.28 C (about 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.25 C (about 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.31 C (about 0.56 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
Tropics: +0.52 C (about 0.94 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.
July temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.18 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.03 C below 30-year average
Tropics: +0.48 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Sept. 8, 2015:
Driven by a growing El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, temperatures around the globe continued to rise through August, setting a new August record in the tropics for the satellite record, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Temperatures in the tropics averaged 0.52 C (about 0.94° F) warmer than seasonal norms in August, surpassing the previous record of +0.46 C set in August 1998.
Globally it was the third warmest August in the satellite record, trailing only August 1998 and 2010. It was also the third warmest August in the Southern Hemisphere, behind August 1998 and August 2002.
Compared to global temperature anomalies from all months, August 2015 tied as the 32nd warmest month since the satellite record began in December 1978. It was tied with five other months, all since October 2005. In the tropics, August 2015 tied with September 2009 as the 17th warmest month, when compared to seasonal norms for all months.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in August was in eastern Russia, near the town of Aldan. The August temperature there averaged 3.01 C (about 5.42 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in August was in East Antarctica Concordia Station, where the average August 2015 temperature was 3.35 C (about 6.03 degrees F) cooler than normal.
The complete version 6 beta lower troposphere dataset is available here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Simon(?), you accept that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer.
Mad Cow Disease, Ebola, Alzheimer, Vogelgrippe, Parkinson, SARS –
Lick Your wounds, Simon nests.
An instrument, a device, used to measure a physical property, e.g. pressure, flow, temperature, will be calibrated over a range, zero & span. The instrument will also have some inaccuracy, tolerance, uncertainty, e.g. +/- 1%, +/- 0.5%, +/- 0.25%, +/- 0.1%. Also specified will be whether that accuracy is over the range or of the reading.
For instance, a temperature instrument might be calibrated from 0 C to 100 C, ice bath to boiling. In the case of a mercury in glass thermometer it might be possible to read the scale to 0.1 C. In the case of a T/C or RTD the electronics might display to 0.1 C or 0.01C.
Atmospheric temperatures range from -60 C to +60 C, a span of 120 C. A span calibration error of +/- 1% equals +/- 1.2 C, of +/- .5% equals +/- 0.6 C, of +/- 0.1% equals +/- 0.12 C. I’ll believe +/- 0.1% in a laboratory setting, but a satellite orbiting the globe inferring the sea surface or atmosphere based on S-B or similar radiation laws through 15 km of gasses imho will be lucky to deliver +/- 1%, i.e. +/- 1.2 C.
Anomalies of 0.6 C and 0.5 C are the results of statistical manipulations not real measurements and data with significant figures of yy.xxx C are indefensible.
Put in honest error bands on these graphs and the scary trends become invisible.
I’ve found a great real world example of how CO2 doesn’t effectively trap heat.
Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2.Mars’ atmosphere is 1/100 as dense as the Earth’s. The Earth has 4/10,000 parts CO2. That means Mars’ atmosphere is the equivalent of CO2 being 0.95/100 or about 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere, or 23.75x more CO2 than he Earth’s atmosphere already has.
http://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html
The daytime temperature of Mars can reach 20°C, but at night can fall to -70°C. I don’t think you can find a better case study to prove CO2 doesn’t trap diddly. This should be put into a lesson plan and taught in every class room in the nation. Mars disproves the AGW theory on an epic scale.
All you have proven is that CO2 is not capable of trapping 100% of the heat.
As has been shown, the amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is close to the saturation point. So it’s logical that 100 times more CO2 would capture little more energy than what we have now.
What would the temperature of Mars be if it had no atmosphere? If it’s even a smidgen above that point, then CO2 captures some energy.
At best Co2 can slow heat escaping, and the temperature record conclusively shows no such trapping in both the 24 hour and 365 day periods.
The GMT graphs just show the made up data from their processing, not what is measured at the individual stations.
But Simon, I do.
The point is the temperature differential. Temperatures fall from 20 to -70°C when only CO2 is present. We experience similar differentials in the dry deserts. When H20 is added to the atmosphere you don’t get anywhere near that differential. H20, not CO2 is the GHG that traps all the heat. Mars doesn’t have H20, but plenty of CO2, and the temperature differential is huge.
How could CO2, which is 400 ppm in both Hemisphere cause a temperature differential? It can’t. If Climate “Science” was a real science they would look for what is different between the N and S Hemisphere.
?itok=TVgMhYuS
Here is a clue: Looks to me like more H20 in the N Hemisphere can explain the temperature differential, as well as the fact that more land mass is in the N Hemi.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/NVAP_pwv.jpg
The SH has much greater ocean surface than the NH, so there is actually a lot more water there. Usually the NH warms more than the SH because the oceans have been warming considerably less. In fact the long term trends from both satellite data sets show this.
If CO2 was causing any noticeable warming then the Antarctic should be the first place it affected, being the coldest and driest place on Earth. With it not warming this is the biggest failures in the AGW theory on the planet’s surface.
” If CO2 was causing any noticeable warming then the Antarctic should be the first place it affected, being the coldest and driest place on Earth. With it not warming this is the biggest failures in the AGW theory on the planet’s surface.”
It’s a failure, in the nonsense about arctic amplification. At that cold of temperatures , a couple watts increases temps far more that it would at room temp. But the big mistake is that at that temp there so little IR ,there’s next to nothing to slow down from its escape to space.
Yep, same phenomenon can be found in our deserts. Where only CO2 is present the temperature differentials between day and night are huge. Rain forests are the opposite. Mars have a CO2 concentration 23x what earth has, and no H20, and its temperatures range from 20°C during the day to -70°C at night.
Simon: “The best option at this point is it is primarily (but perhaps not all) caused by the increase in greenhouse gases. Come up with a better reason and you will be famous.” No. You’ll be the opposite of famous. You’ll be kept out of the mainstream media as much as possible. How naive!
Land temperatures in the New Zealand and southern Australian region during August have been colder than normal. Snow to the Queensland border, snow to sea level in the Chatham Islands (twice) never happened before in living memory, more snow in New Zealand than has been seen for decades, southern NZ farmers referring to the winter as “brutal”. I wonder how South Africa Argentina and Chile fared
The interior of South Africa – the Highveld – had unusually benign winter weather, with only one noticeable cold snap. The number of air frosts at a typical rural location was down to 15 from a more typical 50
This comes from a NASA Website:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short¬wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010).
The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling.
Looks positively negative to me.
The huge variation due to clouds and water vapor dwarf the 1W/M^2 due to the doubling of atmospheric CO2. CO2’s input is only 1/80th of the variation due to clouds, ie immaterial.
The warming is happening where no one lives.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/everywhere-elsewhere-climate-claims/
Ron Clutz
Great analysis
Global warming is not ” global warming” at all . The last two years of extra warming was due to the blob and the El Nino in the Pacific and should be rightly called TEMPORARY PACIFIC WARMING only. The alarmists blew it way out of proportion but they have done this for decades.
‘
The entire period from the 40’s on is regional warming, and cooling, and collectively average indistinguishable from 0.0F +/-0.1 F
Roy Spencer
Great information .
How difficult would it be to give monthly figures by the 7 continents? or at least North America , Europe and Asia . I notice that NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE provide this now . It would be good to compare the figures . The climate in North America is so different from ASIA and Europe as we saw in 2014 and a Northern Hemisphere figure is too large an area to relate to.
So what is really happening to global temperatures?
• According to NOAA data, Annual temperature anomalies since 2005 or last 10 years for combined all GLOBAL LAND areas ( 149 million sq. km) have slight decline or flat trend at – 0.02 C/decade
.
• The pause is still real for global land with both land and satellite based measurements.
o It is clear that GLOBAL as in ‘GLOBAL WARMING” is meaningless as the warming is not global wide.
o The trend of North American annual land temperature anomalies has been steadily cooling whether you go back to 1998,2000 or 2005 at -0.20 C /decade, -0.05 C /decade and -0.41 C /decade respectively according to NOAA
o The trend of Northern Hemisphere annual land temperature anomalies has been slightly cooling or flat since 2005 at -0.05 C./decade
o The trend of Southern Hemisphere annual land temperature anomalies has been slightly warming or really flat at + 0.06 C /decade. Africa is also slightly warming or flat at -0.07 C/decade.
• Global average temperatures as measured by our satellites have not risen for some 18 years( i.e. there has been no global warming for 18 years )
• Annual, fall and winter temperature anomalies for Contiguous United States have been declining for 17- 18 years or since 1998( see below)
CONTIGUOUS US
• WINTER (-1.44 F/DECADE) COOLING
• FALL (-0.50 F/DECADE) COOLING
• SPRING (+0.11 F/DECADE) WARMING (FLAT)
• SUMMER (+0.23 F/DECADE) WARMING
• ANNUAL (-0.48 F/DECADE) COOLING
This debate seems limited to what I will refer to as secondary or tertiary evidence, such as increasing global temperatures, changes in ocean circulation patterns and shrinking ice sheets. What is the naysayers response to direct evidence of anthropogenic impact on the physical characteristics of earth’s atmosphere. For example, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere topping 400 ppm, satellite measurements of less heat escaping the atmosphere and contraction of the upper layer of the atmosphere. Can one actually hypothesize that there will be no impact on climate if significantly greater amounts of heat are being trapped? What models exist to show that these inarguable, well-documented physical changes could result in no change in climate?
What models exist to show that these inarguable, well-documented physical changes could result in no change in climate?
Forget the models. There has been no global warming to speak of for almost 20 years now. The models were wrong.
The variability of clouds is 5-20 times the forcing from human Co2.
Before someone jumps on my grammar, it should be “is being trapped?”
You were right the first time.
“Amounts… are being trapped”
“Amount… is being trapped”
GISS came out with 0.81 for August 2015. The record August was August 2014 at 0.82. However all of the first 6 months were adjusted from last month. Since last month, five months went up by 0.01 or 0.02 and one went down by 0.01. So who knows if August 2015 may yet prove to be a record for August?
All quite interesting, beside the point, and so what. The points that matter:
1) IPCC AR5 has no idea how much of the CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 is due to industrialized man because the contributions of the natural sources and sinks are a massive WAG. Hard to say whether the sudden appearance of 2.6 trillion trees helps or hinders.
2) The 2 W/m^2 RF that IPCC AR5 attributes to that CO2 increase between 1750 & 2011 and that “unbalances” the global heat balance” is lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties of the major factors in the global heat balance, i.e. ToA (340 W/m^2 +/- 10 W/m^2), clouds (-20 W/m^2 +/-?), reflection, absorption, +/-, etc. CO2’s a third or fourth decimal point bee fart in a hurricane. Are they as far off with the heat balance as with the trees?
3) IPCC AR5 admits in text box 9.2 that their GCM’s cannot explain the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis probably because their climate sensitivity is incorrect, as acknowledged in TS.6, and their GCMs & RCPs 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 are consequentially useless. The oceans didn’t eat the heat, it was the water absorbed by 2.6 trillion trees.
Nicholas Schroeder,
Good analysis. The IPCC is just engaging in its ‘Say Anything’ routine. They don’t know what’s happening or why. Their unstated remit is to generate alarm so that carbon taxes can be implemented. That would give governments an immense new revenue source. But it would be at the expense of the citizens, who would have to pay the taxes.
What we are observing is simply nature at work. Human CO2 emissions are such a minor part of it that their effect is unmeasurable. On net balance, more CO2 is a good thing. But they’ve dug themselves into such a deep hole that there’s no getting out of it now.
Your extensive knowledge of the IPCC report is impressive. I need to improve my understanding of the specifics therein. I wonder if you read it objectively or were just looking for evidence to support your presupposed conclusion that climate change is a fabrication? This is shown by research to be a serious human weakness and the scientifically minded are not immune, in fact they are worse because they believe themselves to be objective; my bias is toward it being a reality. The lack of change in hurricane activity that was predicted is concerning to me though. I am currently, legitimately trying to understand both arguments in a more comprehensive way. The IPCC is not the only study on the subject though. What about ice core samples that show higher levels of CO2 that correlate with the Industrial Revolution? Also, computer models that demonstrate that introducing these levels into the atmosphere will impact climate. I am honestly asking people to point me toward research done to show that the irrefutable addition of greenhouse gases by humans could occur and have no impact on climate given the absence of other changes in conditions. No science is without flaws or holes in its explanations, HELL, we still don’t fully understand gravity as a universal force. Maybe we don’t have time to wait for the Law of Anthropogenic Impact on Climate to be established!
Climate Watch says:
… your presupposed conclusion that climate change is a fabrication…
What does that even mean? The climate has always changed.
Maybe that sentence means something to you. Please explain what you’re trying to say.
You also say that CO2 correlates with the Industrial Revolution. No argument there. But there’s a problem with the IPCC’s contention that changes in CO2 cause changes in global temperature. There is no evidence for that.
There is plenty of evidence showing that ∆T causes subsequent changes in ∆CO2. There is lots of data showing that happens, on time scales from months, to hundreds of thousands of years. But I cannot find any data showing that ∆T is caused by ∆CO2 (other than a very rare one-off coincidence).
The IPCC’s basic premise was wrong, so no wonder its conclusions are wrong, and that’s why it cannot make consistent, correct predictions.
Next, you write:
I am honestly asking people to point me toward research done to show that the irrefutable addition of greenhouse gases by humans could occur and have no impact on climate…
That is asking folks to prove a negative. The best I can do is point you to the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. It states that if no measurable changes occur, then the alternate hypothesis (in this case, the conjecture that CO2 causes dangerous global warming) is falsified.
You also say that computer models demonstrate that introducing higher CO2 levels into the atmosphere will impact climate. But it hasn’t. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening; everything we observe now has happened in the past, and to a greater degree. Furthermore, CO2 levels have been more than 15X higher in the past, without ever triggering runaway global warming — or really, any global warming. That’s because almost all of the warming effect from CO2 takes place within the first few dozen ppm. At current concentrations of ≈400 ppm, any warming is too minuscule to measure.
Not one alarming climate prediction has happened. If someone was trying to convince you of something and used numerous predictions to make their case, and those predictions turned out to be wrong, wouldn’t you begin to doubt what they were telling you?
That’s just what’s happening. Even a few years ago, when there was an article in the major media about AGW, reader comments under the article contained many posts that expressed concern.
But no more. Now, most comments ridicule the man-made global warming scare. It’s because the IPCC and their side of the debate have cried “WOLF!!” for too long, and too often. The public is starting to reject their false alarm. And once they lose the public, they will never get them back.
The “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is based primarily on measurement-free assertions, and on peer reviewed papers, which the Climategate email leak showed are tightly controlled by a small clique of gate-keepers, and most of all, it is being propped up by the immense piles of money supporting the climate alarmist narrative — more than $100 billion to date, and that’s just in the U.S.
The goal is ‘carbon’ taxes, not science. If CO2 emissions can be taxed, that would generate a huge flow of money to the government, since just about every industrial process emits CO2.
But the downside is that we citizens will be forced to pay for those carbon taxes, in the form of much higher prices for all goods and services. In the words of one community organizer, prices will “necessarily skyrocket”.
Those in charge of the developed nations are salivating at the prospect of every government’s wet dream from time immemorial: taxing the air we breathe! And the underdeveloped countries are being shamelessly bribed outright for their votes — with money confiscated from already hard-bitten taxpayers.
The whole ‘catastrophic AGW’ narrative has become a giant hoax. A scam. It may have started with good intentions and a concern that maybe Arrhenius was right. But it has morphed into a corrupt racket. And we are the marks.
The last thing our economy needs is more taxes. We already have too much to pay for:
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2525/9035/original.jpg