Tired of the Claims of “Warmest Ever” Month and Year? They Will Likely Continue Next Year

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Last year, we discussed in a number of posts how the claims of record high global surface temperatures were due primarily to the unusual, naturally occurring warming event in the eastern extratropical North Pacific…known as “The Blob”.  See the list of posts about The Blob and its impacts at the end of this post.

This year, in addition to The Blob (which still exists), there is an El Niño developing in the eastern tropical Pacific. This has driven global surface temperatures even higher…once again naturally. As a result, it seems that NOAA has proclaimed “theee warmest ever [insert month name here]” each time they update their monthly State of the Climate Report.

Next year, can we expect a repeat of the monthly “warmest ever” claims?

Global surface and lower troposphere temperatures will often peak during the decay year of a strong El Niño, not the evolution year. And 2015 is the evolution year of the 2015/16 El Niño. This lagged effect is not always the case, though. Sometimes, but as an exception, they can peak during the evolution year.

This on-and-off (mostly on) lagged effect is easy to see if we detrend the global surface temperature (GISS land-ocean temperature index) and lower troposphere temperature (UAH TLT, version 6) data and compare them to an (arbitrarily scaled) ENSO index.  I’m using NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies as the ENSO index.  The NINO3.4 data typically peak during the evolution year of the El Niño. The obvious exception is the multiyear 1986/87/88 El Niño, when the NINO3.4 region temperature anomalies peaked during the second year.

Update:  I forgot to mention that I’ve included lower troposphere temperature data as a reference.

Figure 1

Figure 1

And for your information, Figure 2 includes the annual GISS land ocean temperature index and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomalies, with the year-to-date (January to August) average highlighted with a red horizontal line.

Figure 2

Figure 2

The big question mark continues to be The Blob.  IF (big if) The Blob disappears after the 2015/16 El Niño, that drop in temperature in the eastern extratropical North Pacific SHOULD (big SHOULD) offset some of the typical lagged effects of the El Niño.  Personally, I wouldn’t bet on a complete departure of The Blob.


And the most recent update (August 12, 2015) on The Blob is here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 28, 2015 5:16 pm

So. Is it a hottest year? With the top plot of figure 2 it would lead me to believe that things are getting warmer. Doggone cow farts. But then I hear we’re in an 18 year hiatus. So what is it?.

Svante Callendar
Reply to  JBP
September 29, 2015 12:29 am

Figure 2 shows evidence of global warming in both the surface data set and the UAH satellite data set.
The “hiatus” statistical anomaly ended some years ago.

Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 6:23 am

Wow, the delusion is strong in this one.

Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 7:49 am

The “hiatus” statistical anomaly ended some years ago.
As soon as everyone took their eye off the ball….
Is there any proof the LIA ended in 1850? No
Love your handle BTW….

Brett Keane
Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 10:02 am

Yup, a pseudonym from not one but TWO deluded and debunked theorists. My, how very Freudian.

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 30, 2015 7:30 pm

Warming from increased CO2 is from a reduction of out going radiation at about 10 km, ( the typical CO2 escape level) which should cause warming there. This warming should later then cause warming at the surface because of reduced heat loss from the surface to the atmosphere. So why is the warming rate at the surface more than that higher in the atmosphere? It probably is not, or if so, it is likely from some other cause, not CO2.

Pete Brown
Reply to  JBP
September 29, 2015 1:30 am

I’m not going to tell you what to think. Have a look at all the main data sets, and read about how they are arrived at, and how each of them have been managed / corrected / homogenised over their lifespan and on what basis. Then arrive at your own view.
And ignore anyone who dogmatically tries to bludgeon you with vacant nonsense into believing that the matter is all settled or tries to imply that you’re an idiot for even asking the question. Those people will say things like “Figure 2 shows evidence of global warming in both the surface data set and the UAH satellite data set. The “hiatus” statistical anomaly ended some years ago.”

Reply to  JBP
September 29, 2015 6:24 am

JBP, there have been several articles over the last few days detailing how the land based measurement system has been “adjusted” over the years.
Just remember to ask for error bars, for the land based system, those error bars should be around +/- 5C.

Reply to  MarkW
September 29, 2015 7:46 pm

Thanks Mark and the previous folks responding to my questions. I am not, like many of you, educated on climate-related theory and disciplines. I am instead an engineer for several decades. Not being in the HVAC specialty, I left behind enthalpy, entropy, heat transfer and the like, now chasing stresses and strains.
What surprises me after this much time of having computer technology at hand, is that the climate modeling accuracy is still lacking. Then I have a discussion with my department’s senior FEA engineer, and hear yet again that modeling of a ‘simple’ mechanical system, such as a bolted joint, has not reached a point where they can perform the FEA and use the results with minimal simplifications, assumptions and with high fidelity. The variables in climate modeling blow away mechanical systems for static stress analysis.

Richard G
September 28, 2015 5:33 pm

All this constant talk of hottest evah sounds like a hot whopper to me.

Joe Schmoe
Reply to  Richard G
September 28, 2015 10:14 pm

Hot Whopper makes me think of something that ought to be looked up in the Urban Dictionary.

Reply to  Joe Schmoe
September 29, 2015 9:08 am

It is a hamburger cooked to a crisp. 🙂

September 28, 2015 5:45 pm

more “warmest ever” headlines are as certain as more NASA kind of finds liquid water on Mars stories!
13 April 2015: BBC: Paul Rincon: Evidence of liquid water found on Mars
Nasa’s Curiosity rover has found that water can exist as a liquid near the Martian surface.
Mars should be too cold to support liquid water at the surface, but salts in the soil lower its freezing point – allowing briny films to form.
The results lend credence to a theory that dark streaks seen on features such as crater walls could be formed by flowing water.
The results are published in the journal Nature Geoscience…
28 Sept: Wired: Chelsea Leu: NASA discovers evidence for liquid water on Mars
Ojha notes that they haven’t actually observed water flowing on Mars…
Still, the water left a distinctive chemical trace. “Whatever is flowing on Mars is hydrating the salt,” Ojha says, “and we’re seeing that hydration in the spectral signature.” After extracting spectral information from pixels of the CRISM instrument’s data, Ojha and his team determined that the salts—magnesium perchlorate, magnesium chlorate, and sodium perchlorate—had water molecules interspersed in their crystal structures. That’s pretty strong evidence that they were deposited by flowing water…
Plus, now that they know Mars has liquid water, scientists can narrow down the best places to look for life and direct their next rover, scheduled for 2020, to collect samples at those places…
is the NASA budget up for review?
MSM love it/hype it!
NASA Scientists Confirm The Presence Of Flowing Water On Mars
Forbes – ‎7 hours ago‎
Flowing water on Mars raises prospect of finding life
Sydney Morning Herald – ‎8 hours ago
Nasa ‘mystery announcement’: does water on Mars mean alien life is out there?
Telegraph.co.uk – ‎7 hours ago‎

Reply to  pat
September 28, 2015 7:54 pm

CNN – all day & all night – Alien Life Found on Mars! – Obama Considers Extending Amnesty.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
September 28, 2015 9:56 pm

Best post!

Reply to  pat
September 28, 2015 9:53 pm

The Atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is the same as 120,000 feet on Earth….
Water boils at room temperature at 45,000 feet on earth….
Salt water values are not much different…

Reply to  pat
September 29, 2015 5:25 am

Oh Pat, is 13 April 2015 the best you can do for evidence of water on Mars? 😉

Ocala Star-Banner – Jul 22, 1980
Experts Find Evidence, Water On Mars
The Daily Gazette – May 29, 2002
Spacecraft Finds Evidence Of Water On Mars

Next NASA Mars headline: ‘Positive Proof – water sample acquired – maybe’

Reply to  Jimbo
September 29, 2015 5:50 am

Next NASA Mars headline: ‘Positive Proof – water sample acquired – maybe’

I may have spoken too soon. 🙁 It’s the hottest year ever! It’s so hot it’s melting the ice on Mars! We must act now.

Quartz – 29 September 2015
If there is liquid water on Mars, no-one—not even NASA—can get anywhere near it
……even if NASA was 100% certain that there is liquid water on Mars, it could not do anything about it.
The world’s space powers are bound by rules agreed to under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that forbid anyone from sending a mission, robot or human, close to a water source in the fear of contaminating it with life from Earth……
The irony is that all these restrictions mean NASA has to stay away from the very regions where it may find water or Martian life.
NASA’s hype around the discovery of liquid water on Mars can be explained by its constant need to increase funding for its work. And that attention seems to be helping….

Bring out the begging bowl.

Brett Keane
Reply to  pat
September 29, 2015 10:08 am

As we already understood, perchlorates are used to eliminate life, not to support it.. Serious cause for 2nd thoughts re manned landings etc..

September 28, 2015 5:54 pm

Thanks Bob.
I blame the claims on ship intakes 😉

Reply to  Ossqss
September 29, 2015 4:51 am

Hey, ” Blame The Claim” rhymes much better than ” Hide The Decline”.
We may have the kernel of a sound bite there.

Reply to  Ossqss
September 29, 2015 5:34 am

Any bets that 2016 will be the hottest year evaaaaah? It’s called tweeking and tweeting after guessing probabilities. People no longer care! Put a lid on that fabricated data. It’s at the very bottom of concerns for the world’s population according to this years UN poll.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 29, 2015 6:27 am

Since the adjustments are already much greater than the signal they have claimed to have found, what’s a few more tenths of a degree, between friends.

Reply to  Ossqss
September 29, 2015 7:15 am

For the Record, I was referring to Karl et al.
“In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. “

September 28, 2015 6:17 pm

of course we will see “hottest months and years ever” if it doesn’t happen by a blob or el nino it will happen by using data adjustment tricks. they’re in such a tunnel vision that they would even claim that the earth is warming when we would have snow in the summer. that stubborn they are.
i only wonder what the impact of the next AMO switch will be paired to the new downward cycle of the Suess devries cycle of the sun….
Also “the blob seems more and more to me like a PDO signal switch as the “cold PDO pool” seems to be forming in the western part of the pacific…
but i think this is something only time will tell.

Reply to  Frederik
September 28, 2015 6:32 pm

for sure here they talk about the sudden spike in the PDO index
discover magazine blog
i wonder if this is the combined effect of the blob with the el nino: a sudden dramatic PDO switch.
Will it last? unknown, but past episodes of the PDO show that these switches can last from a few months up to 2-4 years during a negative phase. could be interesting to dig deeper as it seems to me related to the blob you are referring to.

Reply to  Frederik
September 29, 2015 11:30 am

I’ve pretty much concluded that the True Believers will continue to believe even in the midst of full-blown glaciation.

Reply to  TonyG
September 29, 2015 1:32 pm

Agreed. I used to think that’s what it would take to convince them, but I’ve since concluded that even that won’t do it. Sad, isn’t it.

September 28, 2015 6:56 pm

The Blob
“According to Bond et al (2015), a persistent ridge of high pressure in the mid-to-high latitudes of the eastern North Pacific prevented the sea surfaces there from cooling normally.”
Anyone curious enough to follow satellite images on a daily basis knows that there is no persistent ridge of high pressure, but on the contrary, a strong dynamic of multiple anticyclonic air masses coming from the Bering Strait and descending toward the tropics. Once again, we see the limitation of statistical analysis versus synoptic meteorology in determining the physical processes creating weather.

Reply to  TomRude
September 28, 2015 9:58 pm

I ahve been scratching my head about that for a few days now, the jet stream shows that as well, thanks.

Neil Jordan
September 28, 2015 6:56 pm

Perchlorates? Did someone mention perchlorates?
“The pervading carpet of perchlorate chemicals found on Mars may boost the chances that microbial life exists on the Red Planet — but perchlorates are also perilous to the health of future crews destined to explore that way-off world.”
Better send in the EPA to declare Mars to be a Superfund site, and then clean up that pervading carpet of perchlorates before the space tourists get there.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
September 29, 2015 6:28 am

After we finish sending the EPA to Mars, can we send the IRS as well?

September 28, 2015 7:28 pm

If you would have told me a few years ago, that The Blob would be discovered in the Pacific Ocean, and cause everyone from the President to the Pope to believe that all of civilization was threatened, I would have said there was a better chance of scientists finding water on Mars.
Props to H. Kurtz.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 29, 2015 6:29 am

At the end of the movie, they did drop the Blob into the Arctic.

Two Labs
September 28, 2015 7:33 pm

It doesn’t matter if the blob stays or goes. Someone will find a way to calculate the “Warmest Year Evah!” every year from this point forward, and that person will be lauded as a “Brave Climate Scientist!” for continuing the story. All this while the “pause” continues…

Werner Brozek
September 28, 2015 7:43 pm

Of course, the claims for the hottest month or year only apply to the non satellite data sets such as GISS and Hadcrut4. For the satellites, the various months and the year to date are more like third or lower and the hiatus of over 18 years still exists in both satellite data sets.

Reply to  Werner Brozek
September 29, 2015 9:19 am

… which is why the satellite records will have to be adjusted, too. The next logical step would be to wrestle control of the satellite data sets from their current owners, or failing that, to publish an alternative, properly homogenized and adjusted satellite record, so as to make the discrepancy disappear.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that happened even before Paris.

Half Tide Rock
September 28, 2015 7:45 pm

Hello, the Little Ice Age ended right when we started measuring the temperature with thermometers. The big picture is that the Minoan ,Roman , Medieval Optimums all were substantially warmer so “hottest ever” since the Little Ice Age is a stupid statement since we are comparing now to temperatures since the end of the colder Little Ice Age. It is hopefully getting warmer. Stating the obvious, warmer is a trend over time and that means one expects a series of increasingly warmer years ending in the peak temperature of the climate optimum. A fact that the temperature is going up over time is proof of nothing except cyclical climate variability which looks… well….like past cyclical climate variability. Looking at the past 18 years is like crawling around in the minutia when we should be looking at the big picture.

Reply to  Half Tide Rock
September 29, 2015 7:33 am

Half, first they picked and arbitrary time that the LIA ended….then blame any temp increase after that on man.
..truth is, no one knows when the LIA ended
You could just as easily say the LIA ended in 1990….and there’s been no temp increase since then

Bob Weber
September 28, 2015 7:48 pm

This link quit working today (hmmm), where you could see this year’s SST anomalies every few days:
Referring now to the unisys version, the blob is getting harder to see:

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Bob Weber
September 28, 2015 9:29 pm

Your link led me to today’s (28th) chart, in addition to charts for the full year.

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 28, 2015 9:29 pm

I would love to see this map animated over a few months of daily renderings.
Anyone have that ability?

Reply to  Menicholas
September 28, 2015 10:57 pm

As it happens, a pet project of mine…

Reply to  Menicholas
September 29, 2015 6:31 pm


Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 6:45 am

This is 6 months old now, and I can update it with images up to the 27th of this month, but if NOAA is playing hide and seek with their images from here on out (maybe because someone there doesn’t like how it doesn’t look so warm now out in the ocean), I’ll have to go back and use the unisys images from now on.

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 6:34 pm

Wow, Bob…that is amazingly awesome!

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 6:38 pm

I can imagine it with music. Say, attach a music file to each region, with a beat synced to the movements. Each section would get louder as you moved your cursor over it…a symphony of the terrestrial pulse!

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 6:42 pm

You can really see the PERRO chasing the GATO around the Pacific rim.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 7:33 am
September 28, 2015 8:02 pm

Babbling and blubbering about the blob on this blog is beleaguering. However the preceding map appears to show possible cooling from west to east.

September 28, 2015 10:46 pm

Since there hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 2 decades, CAGW alarmists feel the need rank years and to change the name of their silly religious cult from Global Warming to Climate Change…
Ranking years is an absolute waste of time as it provides NO information and is only done to scare small children and the aggressively ignorant…
It would be like the 38-year old village idiot claiming he’s still growing because for 20 out of the last 20 years, he’s been at his tallest height eva… Not so much… The village idiot stopped growing 20 years ago at age 18…
Why such a simple concept escapes so many people is beyond reason.
Anyway, during the current El Nino spike, CAGW zealots will scream like banshees, and when the subsequent La Nina kicks in, they’ll be as quiet as crickets…
A number of cooling events are all converging at the same time:
1) The 30-year PDO cool cycle started in 2008
2) The 30-year AMO warm cycle is about to end and switch to a 30-yr cool cycle around 2020
3) “The BLOB” is starting to disintegrate
4) “The Ridiculously Resilient Ridge” has played out
5) A La Nina will start in 2016
6) The current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906
7) The next solar cycle starting in 2022 will likely be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum started in 1645
8) Since the PDO is in its 30-year cool cycle, future El Ninos will tend to be weaker and La Ninos will tend to be cooler.
With all these cooling phenomenon in effect, global temps will tend to trend downward for at least the next 25 years, until the next 30-yr PDO warm cycle starts again…
If the sun happens to enter a Grand Solar Minimum, all bets are off and global temps could fall for the next 40~100 years…
The CAGW hypothesis is dead.

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 28, 2015 11:43 pm

“CAGW alarmists feel the need to rank” that’s why they’re blind to reality.
CAGW alarmists are Rankers

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 29, 2015 6:25 am

The CAGW hypothesis is dead but the scam lives on, like the Blob in some fifties sci-fi movie. Too many people have too much invested in the hoax to back down.

Bob Weber
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 29, 2015 9:17 am

“A number of cooling events are all converging at the same time:” – SAMARAI
That’s everything my charts and graphs are telling me too!
The CAGW hypothesis is dead – but it’s still a zombie!
The ranking is like polling or baseball/football standings. The supposed annointed winner of the contest, high up in the ranks, polls, or standings, blathers on with all kinds of smack talk about their supposed superiority and impending victory, as reality is about to roll right over them, and they don’t even know it…

Reply to  Bob Weber
September 29, 2015 10:18 pm

Bob– At least with football rankings, they’re based on a team’s empirical win/loss record.
Team CAGW has lost all its projection games with a win/loss record of 0 wins-100 losses, and yet it is ranked as the #1 global threat to humanity by Obama….
Go Team CAGW!

September 28, 2015 10:56 pm

As a retail consumer of mainstream media headlines, I have come to the following conclusions with regard to their “warmest ever” claims:
A) if there was no global observation back to 1880, there can be no “record” global anything.
B) if you can’t count the remainder from arithmetic calculations as precision down to the 1/100th of a degree, then NASA’s claim of “+.07F” for August 2015 is precisely meaningless. (Again; back to”1880″? LOL!)
C) the true margin of error for NASA’s “1880 to 2015” GISS chronicle, “land and sea”, though unreported at the retail level, has got to be large, perhaps larger than any net temp. increase they claim over the last 100 years.
I’m no expert, but this is my list of the obvious dubious from the “man on the street” perspective. Could anyone tell me where could I find the +/- margin of error for GISS products?

Reply to  mairon62
September 29, 2015 5:02 am

You do not suppose they would be stupid enough to freely disseminate that info, do you?
That would be like sending the police a YouTube video of your crimes.
Or posting it on the interwebs!
Who would be dumb enough to do that?
Well, getting back to the error bar you asked about, they are rather meaningless, since many of the adjustments done over the years have placed the adjusted values well outside their own previously noted error bars.
Once again proving that you cannot make this stuff up…but warmistas sure can!

Reply to  mairon62
September 29, 2015 5:09 am

Additionally, as detailed by Dr. Brown of Duke U., the uncertainty range claimed for the period over 100 years ago is not much greater than that claimed for the most recent years and for the present. A clearly laughable and ludicrous claim.
Sorry, on my phone, so unable to provide links to RGB’s postings on this.
Perhaps someone else can?

Reply to  menicholas
September 29, 2015 6:48 pm

To clarify, it was not RGBatDuke who made the claims, but he who brought to light (for me anyway) these ridiculous assertions by “them”.

Reply to  mairon62
September 29, 2015 6:37 am

Modern instruments measure to 1/10th of a degree. Older instruments only measured to 1C.
Throw in the fact that most of the instruments have to deal with both documented and undocumented micro site contaminations as well as varying degrees of UHI.
Throw in the fact that older instruments only measured the high and low for each day. (Anyone who thinks you can calculate a daily average from that, is probably a climate scientist.)
Throw in the fact that less than 5% of the world’s surface comes anywhere close to adequate coverage of climate stations.
The idea that we can use this system to determine the current temperature of the planet within 5C is ludicrous.
The idea that we can use the system in place 100 years ago to measure the temperature of the planet to within 10C is delusional.

tim maguire
Reply to  mairon62
September 29, 2015 1:31 pm

I’m in basically the same position–no training, I need this stuff dumbed down for me. But I’ll stack my logical abilities up against anyone’s. I often see global average temperatures (even here on WUWT) listed to the 10th of a degree all the way back to 1850. Now, in 1850, probably 95% of the planet wasn’t within 100 miles of a thermometer and roughly 0.001% of the planet was within 100 miles of a thermometer read to that accuracy. BUt still they report…
I ignore any and all claims concerning global average temperatures that goes back further than the age of weather satellites. Which means I don’t buy that we have enough data to say much of anything about global averages.

Steve C
September 29, 2015 12:10 am

While the Hot Blob in the northern Pacific seems to be getting noticeably weaker, the same can’t be said of the Cold Blob in the northern Atlantic. No “hottest evah” for us Brits, whatever they say … at least, not outside of exceptional temperatures recorded at very busy airports.

Reply to  Steve C
September 29, 2015 4:54 am

ah thank you;-)
I was about to ask
what about the cold blob I hear talk of?
how are they going to make that a warming problem I wonder?

September 29, 2015 12:10 am

They are repeating only because they are literally making up the temperature data and so it will always be the “warmest ever”.

Reply to  Mike Haseler
September 29, 2015 1:10 am

Often wondered why, if they’re just making it up, they bothered to introduce a ‘pause’ in the first place?

Reply to  DWR54
September 29, 2015 1:31 am

You say

Often wondered why, if they’re just making it up, they bothered to introduce a ‘pause’ in the first place?

Wonder no more: they had to show the ‘pause’ because the discrepancy with the satellite data was becoming untenable.
They are “just making it up” with this effect.
For an understanding of these issues read Appendix B of this item.
I hope this helps.

Reply to  DWR54
September 29, 2015 2:21 am

“….they had to show the ‘pause’ because the discrepancy with the satellite data was becoming untenable.”
Yet it’s often suggested that there is a current divergence between the satellite and surface data sets. Why has the surface data started to diverge from the satellite data most recently?
Surely the fact that all four ‘official’ global surface data sets (I include JMA, which is a WMO approved data provider) also mitigates strongly against what, your comments and links appear to infer, is some sort of orchestrated global conspiracy.

Reply to  DWR54
September 29, 2015 3:25 pm

There is no suggestion of a conspiracy except that which you say you imagine.
The data is ‘adjusted’ almost every month to get it to fit what its compilers think it should be. And there is no reason for them not to do that when there is
(a) no agreed definition of global temperature
(b) no possibility of a calibration standard for determinations of global temperature.
I often wonder why supporters of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) imagine so many conspiracies that do not exist; e.g. Big Oil pays sceptics of AGW, noble cause corruption must be a conspiracy, etc.. Perhaps you can explain why this is?

Reply to  DWR54
September 30, 2015 4:01 pm

You say that “There is no suggestion of a conspiracy except that which you say you imagine”, then immediately go on to suggest that “The data is ‘adjusted’ almost every month to get it to fit what its compilers think it should be.”
Well, if that’s the case, then that would be a ‘conspiracy’. So the conspiracy isn’t being imagined by me; it’s being explicitly stated by you.

Reply to  Mike Haseler
September 29, 2015 7:09 am

According to the climate “experts” at Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (a department of the notorious World famous University of East Anglia), the actual data is entirely inconsequential.
Here’s Prof. Chris Folland on the subject: “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
So clearly, if the data does not match the models, it is the data that must be Mannipulated.
Of course, if you aren’t a fully committed climate “scientist”, you will be entirely incapable of understanding the logic of that – even climate “scientists” have to make a living.

September 29, 2015 12:11 am

It seems that once again begins to lock above the Bering Strait.

Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 12:21 am

Up to your old tricks again I see? Cherry-picking and special pleading.
You should mention the number of “warmest on record” record broken since 2000. Or perhaps compare 2015 to the last large El Nino in 1997/98.

richard verney
Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 3:52 am

Don’t overlook that 1997/8 has been adjusted downwards a couple of times in the non satellite temperature data sets, and of course, in the satellite data set 2015 is yet to show up as something particularly special, although I am expecting it to show up more and more in the coming months but whether it will exceed or rival 1997/8 is a different matter which only time will tell.
But of course, 2015 is not the result of CO2 induced warming. It is the result of a natural event, ie., an El Nino.
I do not see how warming resulting from two natural events, ie., the Super El Nino of 1997/8, and the strong El Nino of 2015 do much to advance a hypothesis that CO2 drives global warming, and that natural variation is dominated by CO2. But no doubt you will explain.

Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 6:40 am

Don’t you know, CO2 causes El Nino’s. /sarc

Svante Callendar
Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 9:29 am

[SNIP Fake commenter, multiple identities, we are on to you. -mod]

Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 12:45 pm

Svante Callendar: “The global average surface temperature is now higher than the 1997/98 El Nino. Even during some of the La Nina events.”
No it isn’t.
Stop making stuff up.

Matt G
Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 11:32 am

Warming has only been shown in surface data sets due to human adjustments changing the sampling method.
Below shows recent temperatures are not higher now than the strong 1997/98 El Nino.
Satellite data also shows temperatures now are nowhere near the peak warmth in 1997/98.

Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 1:07 pm

catweazle666 says:
Stop making stuff up.
He’s making up his screen name, too. ‘Svante Callendar’ used to post as ‘harrytwinotter’.

Matt G
Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 2:51 pm

This year the El Nino is 2 months ahead so by comparing similar periods with 1997/98, we can see that the current El Nino is not as strong.
So far comparing these months 2015 globally is also cooler too.

Matt G
Reply to  richard verney
September 29, 2015 2:59 pm

Correction – 1997 comparing the 2 months is cooler.

Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 12:36 pm

Those of us who are aware of the gradual warming trend since the 1700’s (ie the little ice age) fully expect the climate to gradually warm and new records (since the even higher temps of the Medieval Warm Period) to be set. Some decade or century hence that warming trend will fade and a cooling trend leading to the next LIA will arrive.
Only a mindless clinging to the CO2-induced global warming theory could induce fear that something catastrophic is going on. The minimal warming of the last 20 years is in line with the long term post-LIA warming, and emphatically not in line with the climate models of the 1980’s and 1990’s that project anthropogenic disaster in the next century.
The data of the last 20 years indicate that CO2-forcing of our climate is weak, or countervailing negative feedbacks are strong, or both.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
September 29, 2015 1:06 pm

Note that in the graph above, the warming from the 1910’s to the 1940’s was just as brisk as the warming from the 1970’s to today. But CO2 was not rising substantially until the 1950’s.
Only someone who wants to be afraid, or who wants to scare others, would see something ominous in this data. A warmer CO2-rich planet is good for life on Earth.
The great fraud is that the H2O-feedbacks in the CAGW models were set in a mindless curve-fitting as “+” 3 to 4-fold resulting in the sort of positive feedback that could explode into disaster. The data of the last 20 or so years proves that was an error. CO2 is still rising; temperature trends are flattening.
Continuing to promote that error as an approximation of truth is right there with the Wizard of Oz booming to Dorothy and company, “Ignore that man behind the curtain!”.

Reply to  Svante Callendar
September 29, 2015 6:55 pm

Svante, asked for and received:comment imagecomment imagecomment image
Tony has numerous posts demonstrating that the vast majority of high temperature records were set back in the early mid 20th century. Here is one.
Tell me how many more you would like to see.

September 29, 2015 1:46 am

With respect I think it can be said that ‘the claims of record high global surface temperatures were due ‘ in no small part to the needs of Paris 2015 . It was clear for long time that this year would be ‘claimed’ has the hottest no matter what actually happened. Blobs or no blobs this year ‘had to be’ the hottest on record .
The fact the records are virtual worthless and the data of a quality often ‘better then nothing ‘ only plays a part in this story , the script for which was written after the failure of the last COP.

Jean Meeus
September 29, 2015 2:09 am

The first drawing of Figure 2 shows an amazing warming since about 1982, with no pause visible. However, the second drawing shows the pause. Of course, the alarmists might prefer to use the first drawing, while the skeptics will refer to the second drawing.
Am I missing something, and why is there such a big difference between the two drawings?

Reply to  Jean Meeus
September 29, 2015 3:19 am

There are two possibilities for the difference in trends:
– the surface temperature adjustments have increased the reported temperature measurement higher than it really is; or,
– the lapse rate is increasing, the lapse rate has increased to 6.6C per km from 6.5C per km over this period.
In the theory, the troposphere is supposed to be warming by 30% more than the surface, the lapse rate is supposed to decrease, so this is opposite to that predicted.

Reply to  Jean Meeus
September 29, 2015 3:50 am

The caption fails to say which version of the UAH tropospheric temperature is being used, if it’s version 6.0 then it includes a significant contribution from the stratosphere. Not only does the satellite data diverge from the surface data, since 2000 it’s diverged significantly from the radiosonde data.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Phil.
September 29, 2015 4:18 am

Phil. ” … since 2000 it’s diverged significantly from the radiosonde data.”
Only in the adjusted radiosonde datasets that is adjusted by the same adjusters who are adjusting the surface records.
The raw HadAT radiosonde data is essentially identical as RSS and UAH.

richard verney
Reply to  Phil.
September 29, 2015 5:47 am

There is no linear straight line trend in your plot as can clearly be seen if you present it as two separate plots: the first from say 1979 to 1997, and the second say from 2000 to date.
The data points not to a linear straight line trend, but rather to a step change in and around late 1997 through to late 1999.

Reply to  Phil.
September 30, 2015 2:38 pm

Actually Bill the RATPAC radiosonde data which I refer to is the same set that Spencer refers to in his discussion of Version 6.0, if it’s good enough for him then it’s ok for me.

September 29, 2015 2:39 am

Thanks Bob, perhaps Paris 2015 has a bit to do with the higher temperature anomalies. Very little goes the alarmist way now.

Reply to  johnmarshall
September 29, 2015 6:59 pm

If they were not such a thoroughly detestable lot, I might almost begin to feel sorry for them.
Or not.

Tom in Florida
September 29, 2015 4:27 am

Fig 1 does not show any base periods used for the anomalies. Figure 2 shows the base periods of the anomalies are different. Why?

September 29, 2015 4:54 am

I posted earlier in the comments:
13 April 2015: BBC: Paul Rincon: Evidence of liquid water found on Mars
28 Sept: NYT: Cara Buckley: Ridley Scott Learned About Water on Mars Before We Did, but Not in Time to Change ‘Martian’
Mr. Scott said in an interview with The Times on Monday that the head of NASA had shown him the photos of the water about two months ago, and that had the news come out before production of “The Martian” began, it probably would have affected key plot points in the film…
Had the discovery of water on Mars happened before filming began, Mr. Ridley said Mr. Damon’s character “would’ve gone and dug in.” …
Mr. Scott, whose credits include “Alien,” “Blade Runner” and “Thelma and Louise,” said “The Martian” had already screened twice at NASA; it also recently screened for the crew at the International Space Station…
Wikipedia: Martian: Filming began in November 2014 and lasted approximately 70 days.
29 Sept: SMH: The Martian director Ridley Scott knew about water on Mars months ago
Scott has worked closely with NASA on The Martian, with the film screened International Space Station earlier this month.
However, there have been comments across social media that the opening of the film this week has been of suspiciously fortuitous timing with the NASA announcement…
Australian MSM has been going overboard on this story – no doubt like everywhere else.

September 29, 2015 5:24 am

If this is the warmest year evah, then there should be a list of “record high temps”.
Where is the list of high temps? What is the location of those events? Anyone know????

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Glenn999
September 29, 2015 6:24 am

If one looks at most any multi-year Annual Average Temperature graph it will show an increase in the Average Temperatures for the specified time frame, …… but how does one know if said increase is due to an increase in the Average Winter Temperatures or an increase in the Average Summer Temperatures?
If the Average Winter Temperatures were steadily getting less cold (warmer) over the past 60 years …. which we know is an observational fact …… and the Average Summer Temperatures remained about the same, ……. then wouldn’t that produce an increase in Average Temperatures over said 60 year time frame? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.
And if so, wouldn’t that rule out the presumed “greenhouse” effect of atmospheric CO2? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.
If the atmospheric CO2 is increasing but the Summer temperatures are not getting hotter then atmospheric CO2 is not affecting near earth temperatures. aka: The same tide lifts all boats.
If the Average Summer Temperatures had been increasing at the same rate as the Average Winter Temperatures, which they should have been if atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, then 100+ degree F days would now be commonplace throughout the United States during the Summer months. But they are not commonplace and still only rarely happen except in the desert Southwest where they have always been commonplace.
Now, instead of saying that “the Earth is warming” it is more technically correct to say “the earth has not been cooling off as much during its cold/cool periods or seasons”.
One example of said “short term” non-cooling occcurs quite frequently and is commonly referred to as “Indian Summer”. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer
Given the above, anytime the earth’s average calculated temperature fails to decrease to the temperature recorded for the previous year(s), it will cause an INCREASE or spike in the Average Temperature Calculation results for that period ….. which is cause for many people to falsely believe “the earth is getting hotter”.

Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
September 29, 2015 12:06 pm

thanks for the reply
it helps to understand the cagw-infused madness

September 29, 2015 5:48 am

If USA, EU ect lawmakers are going to jail some of the top guys at Volkswagen for manipulating data to suit their needs/agenda, we now have tons of proof against NOAA, ect for exactly the same fraud. Lawyers get ready!

Brett Keane
Reply to  Eliza
September 29, 2015 3:59 pm

VW could have a case for counter-suit or similar. EPA etc. are dishonest in their demands. Also, don’t know what NOx levels and limits are in play, but the talk of ‘toxic’ NOx may be just the usual urban neurotic myth, for people with no comprehension of dose rates.

Pamela Gray
September 29, 2015 6:11 am

It ain’t hot everywhere here is the West. Put your coat on weather:

Jim G1
Reply to  Pamela Gray
September 29, 2015 7:15 am

41 F here this morning. About right for WY, late September.
Surface temps have been jiggered. Satellite temps still show no waming for 18+ years.
Should still be warming in any event during this 12, 000 year interglacial warming period.
Prior to this interglacial the ice was about 2 miles thick here.
Getting worried about how quickly those glaciers can return.
Might be able to walk to Siberia again soon.

Reply to  Jim G1
September 29, 2015 7:56 pm

“Might be able to walk to Siberia again soon.”
now there’s a whopper. c’mon, give us the proof for when you did it the first time…….

William Astley
September 29, 2015 7:03 am

Cold blob in the North Atlantic Ocean
The warm blob in the Pacific ocean will be replaced with a cold blob, same as is currently observed in the North Atlantic. The cold blob is due to increasing wind speed, increased low level cloud cover, increased cloud albedo, and a decrease in cirrus clouds.
There is the start of record rainfall along the west coast as the persistent coastal high abates. We are going to have a front row seat to watch the end of NGW.
What is delaying the change to NGC are persistent solar wind bursts from coronal holes. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes a current flow from high latitude regions of the planet to the equator. The current flow affects cloud properties, duration, and cloud lifetimes in both regions.
The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. Observations to support that assertion (prove that assertion) would be significant global cooling.
This is one of the first stories of unexplained NGC. Unfortunately the media interviewed the cult of CAGW so the entire story concerns zombie theories and manipulated data.
The cult of CAGW did not mention the fact that there is a cold blob that has started in the Northern Pacific and there has been a cold blob in the southern hemisphere for almost three years. There is a physical explanation (a forcing function) for all climate changes. The silly appeal to chaos or climate jumping from one state to another, or climate tipping from one state to another are Zombie theories filling the theoretical void. Solar cycle changes is the cause of all past and recent climate ‘changes’.

Why some ‘scientists’ are worried about a surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean

Greenland Ice sheet melt started two months late, last summer.
The cult of CAGW neglected to mention that Greenland Ice Sheet gained 200 GT 2014/2015.

Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2015 7:39 am

Having fun looking at a cherry-picked data point instead of long term trends?—
‘Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.’
For the data, go to http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence or to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 9:00 am

Oh, please. That link deliberately selects only the past 650K years before present. Why? Because it lets them delete important information.
Here is a much more relevant view, showing that the biosphere is currently starved of CO2 (click in chart to embiggen):
Notice that CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past — without ever causing runaway global warming.

Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 9:39 am

[Snip. This is the ‘David Socrates’ identity thief, impersonating a legitimate commenter. ~mod.]

Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 11:34 am

[Snip. Another ‘David Socrates’ puppet. -mod]

Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 11:39 am

[Snip. This is the ‘David Socrates’ identity thief again, impersonating a legitimate commenter. ~mod.]

Bill Illis
Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 11:59 am

CO2 over the last 750 million years. All 2,600 estimates made under reliable methods, which are primarily direct ice core measurements and other proxy measurements (versus any kind of modeling)..
And GeoCarb III is based on real isotope proxies.
[Reply: Recent comments by “Bubba Cow” were not legitimate. An identity thief stole the name. Those comments have been removed and saved. ~mod.]

Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 12:02 pm

that explains the farming and ranching I’ve seen lately on my last trip to greenland

Brett Keane
Reply to  warrenlb
September 29, 2015 4:09 pm

Tell us, wlb, what was Grace’s designed purpose, and its true margin of error at ice volumes? While at it, what about volumes since the PDO went negative? On its c.32yr cool cycle.

Reply to  warrenlb
September 30, 2015 5:44 pm

Here is a much more relevant view, showing that the biosphere is currently starved of CO2 (click in chart to embiggen):
Thanks to the evolution of C4 plants which are better adapted to high O2 and low CO2 the biosphere’s doing fine.

Reply to  warrenlb
September 30, 2015 6:22 pm

The biosphere is booming due directly to the rise in completely harmless, beneficial CO2.
More CO2 is better. Sorry about the CO2=CAGW scare. Didn’t happen.

Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2015 7:48 am

“NGC” ??? “NGW” ??? Care to share what they mean?

Reply to  skeohane
September 29, 2015 7:51 am


William Astley
Reply to  skeohane
September 29, 2015 8:14 am

NGW, Natural global warming. NGC, Natural global cooling.
Solar cycle direct and and indirect modulation of planetary cloud cover and changes to wind speed is the forcing function, the cause of the warming in the last 150 years. If that assertion is correct, global warming is reversible.

The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it. We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.

Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2015 8:50 am

I have to LOL at the hand-waving over “ice”. What we’re observing is entirely natural. Global ice is right at its 35 year average:
Since all the bluster is about global warming (which anyway has stopped). It is nothing but deceptive cherry-picking to select only the Arctic.

Reply to  dbstealey
September 29, 2015 10:55 am

Antarctic ozone today: Ozone depletion is now extensive and the ozone hole covers Antarctica. The ozone hole grew rapidly from mid August onwards and is near its largest at some 25 million square kilometres. This is a larger hole than the average of those over the last decade.
The polar vortex was the largest over the past decade in the upper part of the ozone layer from July to September and the area with PSCs was also larger than average during this period.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  dbstealey
September 29, 2015 5:49 pm

By “right at its average” you mean today’s total of 18.2 million sq km is “right at” the average of 20.2 million sq km, rather than 10 per cent below it?

Reply to  dbstealey
September 30, 2015 2:48 pm

Global sea ice coverage will cross the longterm average either twice or four times every year, four times this year probably. Compared with the average for the day global seaice is about 2 million km^2 below average.

Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2015 9:19 am

Observations of Solar Activity (Mg II Index) by GOME, SCIAMACHY, and GOME-2

Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2015 3:16 pm

Sorry Bill, but your link clearly says “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr”
“satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year”

Richard M
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 29, 2015 4:43 pm

I believe you are referencing an average over many years vs. the current data for 2014-15 where we saw an increase in the SMB.

Reply to  1saveenergy
September 30, 2015 4:01 am

Richard, I’m just repeating what the link states.
We could do with with a better reference to any gain.

Chris Lynch
September 29, 2015 7:12 am

Ozspeaksup is wondering how ‘they’are going to make the cold blob in the Atlantic a global warming roblem. They’ve already started Oz! I’ve seen a number of articles recently blaming the cold blob on warming melting the Greenland ice sheet and the resulting melt water disrupting the Gulf Stream and pushing it further south thereby creating the cold blob! Yes that old chestnut!!

Reply to  Chris Lynch
September 29, 2015 9:26 am
Reply to  ren
September 29, 2015 2:30 pm

hiding in the noize

Matt G
Reply to  Chris Lynch
September 29, 2015 11:41 am

Quite clearly the AMO has significant affect on global temperatures because the North Atlantic Ocean region changes the most during all phases of climate over the past few millions of years.
Removing the AMO almost changes all the warming this scare has been about to a flat trend.

October 1, 2015 10:21 am

There is one thing I have never understood. Lets say you have 100 weather stations recording temperature for 100 years. During that 100 years, each weather that station have a record 100-year high temperature right? There can only be one. Now, assuming temperatures were randomly distributed, one might expect to set a record temperature each year at least one of the weather stations. However, in a chaotic system, we might expects there to be several stations that set the record in one year, and none the next, all evening out to one record set at one station each year.
During our 100 year measurement period, there is nothing to say that the first year might be the record cold, or the record hot, right? I mean we are assuming the temperatures are random. And, it is possible, that purely randomly, there could be apparent “trends” in the data. By chance some of the highs clustered at one end of the scale, while the lows clustered at the other.
But of course the trend would be meaningless, because as I have said, the data is random.
How many stations do we have the in U.S.? My guess is hundreds, right? So each year, if weather and temperature were simply random, we would expect to set 30-50 record 100-year highs and record lows, and record precipitation, and record drought, right? So when you define climate change as being “anything out of the ordinary” and account for both flood, droughts, hot, cold, storms, no storms, then every year you are going to be able to report on 30 to 50 weather stations show this to be the hottest summer ever, or coldest winter, or stormiest July, and whatnot.
Am I missing something? This is just the math, right?

October 1, 2015 10:47 am

Okay I just put together an excel spreadsheet. I used a random number generator to create random “high” temperatures for an imaginary weather station over a period of 100 years. I used a range of 90 to 100 degrees. I then graphed the data and put a linear trend line on it.
My trend line shows that the temperature is increasing at that imaginary weather station by 2 degrees over century! Clear evidence of global warming!
Again, purely random data can show “trends”. But the trends themselves are random.

October 4, 2015 10:32 am


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights