From UAH via press release:
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade
September temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.25 C (about 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Tropics: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
August temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.28 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.25 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C below 30-year average
Tropics: +0.52 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 Oct. 7, 2015:
An El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event continues to heat the tropics, although there is significant heat that has yet to be transferred from the ocean into the atmosphere, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Temperatures in the tropics averaged 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms in September, a new record for tropical Septembers surpassing the previous record of +0.52 C set in September 2009.
Globally it was the fifth warmest September in the satellite record. It was also the fourth warmest September in the Northern Hemisphere.
While it is too early in the year to make any meaningful forecast or prediction about where 2015 will finish in the rankings of warm and cold years, it is reasonable to expect the heat from the El Niño to continue to spread across more of the globe during the next three months.
Through the first nine months of the year, comparing January through September throughout the satellite temperature record starting in 1979, the first nine months of 2015 ranked fourth overall, with an average global temperature that was 0.22 C warmer than seasonal norms. The first nine months of 1998 were warmest at 0.56 C, followed by 2010 at 0.41 C and 2002 at 0.24 C warmer than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in September was over the Black Sea, near the city of Odessa. The September temperature there averaged 3.57 C (about 6.43 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in September was in East Antarctica, southwest of McMurdo Station along the Transarctic Mountains, where the average September 2015 temperature was 3.95 C (about 7.11 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 —
Note: shortly after publication, the top line citing a UAH press release was added.
Warmists are probably considering this monster El Niño a godsend.
Pretty much what Joe Bastardi predicted earlier this year.
This El Niño does not appear to be so monstrous. Looking at the UAH dataset, it’s been quite moderate so far. No sharp peak like in 1998 and 2010.
Its not quite as warm but the overall SST globally are warmer. This is a huge event. Its whats coming after, the flip to colder, that is a big deal too, assuming it happens
Satellite indices don’t respond early. In Sept 1997, UAH was at 0.05°C, reaching 0.74 in April 1998. In Sept 2009, UAH stood at 0.29.
Joe B: “This is a huge event.”
Given that sat data is from “up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level” there is a lag of 6 months (?) until the heat gets there.
It will be telling regards the look of the sat spike (and the event) compared to 1998 when it comes.
Could the Version 6.0 UAH ‘adjustments’ to their computer models (Aka – we’ve copied RSS’s homework) have squeezed out any residual sensitivity to warming there was in their calculations??
Village idiots are prone to babbling…
An El Niño even does not add heat to the ocean-atmosphere system. Hot water that was piled up in a deep warm pool in the western Pacific sloshes back to the east, thereby exposing a lot of warm surface water to the atmosphere. This results in the oceans cooling and the atmosphere heating but without a change in the total heat content of the ocean/atmosphere system.
The fact that an El Niño can cause significant heating of the atmosphere, without adding any heat to the system, makes one wonder about the usefulness of a global temperature series. There are other teleconections that operate on longer time scales (e.g. the AMO), and there may be still others that we don’t yet know about. El Niño warming is not a result of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 so climate alarmists cannot logically get any traction from El Niño warming—not that that will stop them from trying.
Nearly all the warming in the UAH record occurred in the northern extra-tropics so it’s not global at all and not likely to be related to a well mixed greenhouse gas. The warming of the past three or four decades is more likely to be related to the AMO because the Atlantic communicates with the Arctic through the wide channel of the Norwegian Sea and Greenland Sea while the Pacific has only a small channel at the through which no major currents flow.
The AMO is currently peaking and should begin to decline soon. There is a strong correlation between northern hemisphere warming and the AMO, although the record is short and it may turn out to be a coincidence.
We need to jeep in mind this is really a 2nd calendar year with El Nino conditions. September 2014 was already at .30 and we’ve had a full year of mostly El Nino conditions without any warming at all. There usually is a lag but it does not seem to be providing as much warming as we’ve seen in the past.
The good news is…we will not have to listen to the folks who set up a huge city in the western desert, who prefer to flush their fresh water into the sea unused, wail, moan and gnash their teeth over how thirsty they all are for much longer.
Time for my comment that tropics temperatures lag behind the ENSO by 2 to 3 months and global temperatures lag behind the ENSO by 3 to 4 months. In addition, the typical period for an ENSO event to peak in the Nino 3.4 region is mid-December although this one looks to be peaking in November.
Temperatures are going up for at least 5 to 7 more months IN A ROW before they peak 0.3C higher globally and 0.7C higher in the tropics than they were in the spring.
http://s2.postimg.org/k964jq7dl/UAH_RSS_Global_Tropics_ENSO_Sept_15.png
Warmists are probably considering this monster El Niño a godsend
If one were a cynical bastard then one might think that the entire Paris conference were timed to best estimates of the 2015 El Niño. Then find some stooge that will rid the ‘conference’ of doubts about the ‘pause’. Find another willing to discover the ‘Tropospheric hot spot’. Both using crap that wouldn’t pass a high school exam.
“Warmest year eva”. Yes by ‘playing’ with the data and, even then, only managing some 1000ths of a degree. Lying liars lying for a living. Where’s my ‘Shukla’ in all this? I demand my taxpayer funded five star holiday in Paris!
Science – always something new to earn
3×2 = +1 !
” five star holiday in Paris!”
If you sleep on a park bench you can have a 1,000 star holiday in Paris ****
“Find another willing to discover the ‘Tropospheric hot spot’.”
Already done – earlier in the year!
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot
Dear “Village Idiot”,
Considering the source UNSW, the same outfit that sent the “ship of fools” to Antarctica, you can take that PR with a grain of salt, perhaps a whole shaker full.
That’s pretty rich coming from the crew that see the 1998 El Nino as the only reference point that matters.
I’m sure they’ll carefully remind everyone that anthro GHGs do not cause El Niños.
I have been monitoring the global average of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data (near-surface temperature). There has been a big spike in early October. It is a volatile index.
I don’t believe it.
talk to Joe Bastardi. Its his life
After it was ” adjusted ” ????
I have been monitoring the global average of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data
Yep, Chuck it through a model and you get whatever you expected out the other end.
My Dog has the same problem with Mustard. It goes in as Mustard…
“It goes in as Mustard…”
Some of us never had a dog.
So please, do finish the story…i am on the edge of my seat!
4th warmest NCEP real time temps, some greatest months on the way
This is the beginning of the end for the warmth. I have been calling for a decrease in global temperatures before this decade ends since year 2009 and stand by this 100%.
Solar will lead the way and this trend to colder has been taken place since the Holocene Optimum ended around 6000 BC.
Check list for cooler rather then warmer going forward the players.
Milankovitch Cycles
Solar Activity -primary and secondary effects.
Geo Magnetic Field
AMO/PDO -enso
I have a comprehensive original theory which I think is among the best out there which I have put forth from time to time over this web-site.
If temps go up or stay the same – WILL YOU SHUT UP?
What goes up must come down (eventually), & he may be correct for right or wrong reasons. Such a complex chaotic system, so who really knows…..
I have a comprehensive theory with reasons as to why/how the climate might change.
What do you have? Probably nothing, if I am wrong show us.
3×2 =0 what if the temp. go down ? What do you suggest? lol
Along with cooler global temperatures look for a more meridional atmospheric circulation which will influence the temperature distribution of the oceans while weaker solar will cause a general decrease in ocean heat content ,and sea surface temperatures as we move forward in time..
Anthony, Joe. Roy and John plus reality with no more excuses. Blimey this warming lark is depressing. The AGW’s will be saying ‘1+1 really does = 2.
The RSS Global TLT data for 2015 are as follows
2015 1 0.3646
2015 2 0.3264
2015 3 0.2550
2015 4 0.1723
2015 5 0.3086
2015 6 0.3912
2015 7 0.2881
2015 8 0.3888
2015 9 0.3824
2015 10 -99.9000
2015 11 -99.9000
2015 12 -99.9000
The temperature peak for this year to date was in June. The temperature spike expected for the current strong El Nino has so far not materialized – maybe it never will – we will see. The 2003 peak in the warming trend likely corresponds to a peak in the natural millennial temperature cycle. and corresponds to the solar activity peak at about 1991.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gH99A8_0c6k/VexLL1zC7AI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/T50D6jG3sdw/s1600/trendrss815.png
The green trend line should be flat from 1979 through to1996/early 1997, just like the blue trend line is flat between 2004 to date. In fact, if you correct the green trend line so it runs flat to late 1996/early 1997, the blue trend line would run flat from about 1999 to date.
The satellite temperature data set contains not just 1 ‘pause’, the current ‘pause’ but in fact contains 2 ‘pauses’, the first ‘pause’ running from the satellite launch in 1979 through to the run up to the 1998 Super El Nino (which as Nick points out started in 1997 but does not show up significantly in the satellite data set until 1998). the second ‘pause’is of course the current one which the warmests are having difficulty in explaining (last I heard there were over 50 different explanations for the recent ‘pause’).
It is important to note that there are 2 ‘pause’ not just 1 ‘pause’ in the satellite data set and both of these ‘pauses’ are more than 15 years long in duration (in fact about 17 years).
This is important since Santer accepted that one single pause of 15 later 17 years duration would suggest that there was a problem with the AGW theory, and we do not see just one such ‘pause’ but 2 such ‘pauses’ The problem is thus compounded.
It has subsequently been suggested that it is not inconsistent with model predictions/projections to see a ‘pause’ of about 15 years duration, but warmists have never claimed that 2 pauses of about 15 to 17 years duration is what could be expected with the model predictions/projections. What is the chance that there can be two such pauses, if as a matter of basic physics an increase in CO2 must always lead to warming (the properties of CO2 are a constant, it cannot sometimes lead to warming and at other times not lead to warming unless the effect of CO2 is fully saturated)?.
The fact that there is not one but two ‘pauses’ in the satellite data set, is clearly an extremely large problem for the theory of AGW.
It is clear from the satellite data set that there is no first order correlation between rising CO2 and temperatures, and that there is simply a one off and isolated warming event, which resulted in a step change in the temperature coincident with the Super El Nino of 1998.
As others have noted so called GHGs (which should properly be referred to as radiative gases, not GHGs since we do not yet know whether they possess that particularly effect) do not cause El Ninos. It is not one of the basic and simple physics of CO2 that CO2 causes El Ninos. There has never been a laboratory experiment in which CO2 caused an El Nino.
I would suggest that you reconsider your plot.
Richard why do you assume that the green line “should ” be anything.? You are looking at too short an interval to understand what is going on.
My green line is chosen to illustrate the concept that we are right at ( just past ) the peak of the millennial cycle. To see this more clearly you don’t have to draw any lines at all – just look at the general shape of the NH temperature curve for the last 1000 years.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4nY2wr6L-WY/U81v9OzFkfI/AAAAAAAAATM/NA6lV86_Mx4/s1600/fig5.jpg
For a complete discussion see Figs 5 – 17 and end note at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
You maybe should brush up on your R code Richard. The mind tries to see patterns in everything. Temperature time series are pretty complex and a simple linear least squares correlation is not appropriate. It is pretty clear that CO2 and the satellite measurements aren’t extremely well-correlated. Certainly not useful until we have a plausible mechanism for cause and effect figure out.
I am just looking at the satellite data which is the subject of the plot. The plot does not cover the “millennial temperature cycle”, indeed it does not start in the year 1015!!! So there is no data put forward on the “millennial temperature cycle” So looking at the period covered (1980 to date), what is the data set showing? This can be answered by considering the following:
Is there any significant warming between 1979 and late 1996/early 1977?. Yes or No?
We then have a Super El Nino in late 1997/through 1998. Coincident on the happening of that event, is a step change in the temperature. A step change of about 0.25 degC (just eyeballing).
Is there any significant warming post that even to date? Yes or No?
The answer to both those questions is no. There was no statistical warm as from launch through to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998, and there is no statistical warming post that event to date. There is simply an isolated step change in temperature coincident upon the Super El Nino. That is what the satellite data is telling us.
Whether there are issues with that data, why was the Super El Nino so strong, or why did temperatures not fall following the Super El Nino are different matters, and merely looking at the satellite data set in isolation cannot answer those questions.
Perhaps I should have additionally referred to Lief’s post the other day on the article “Recent lunar eclipse reveals a sign of global cooling in the atmosphere” and Dr Richard Keen’s conclusions based upon his study of the opaqueness of the atmosphere, and the recent lunar eclipse.
” lsvalgaard October 6, 2015 at 7:24 am
It is also of interest to go to the link in the story: monitoring lunar eclipses http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annual_meetings/2015/posters/P-48.pdf
Here is his [Dr Keen’s] conclusions
The Globe warmed +0.25 C during 1979 – 2014.
////////////////////////
According to the satellite data that is what happened, but the warming of 0.25deg C was not gradual nor steady nor linear progressing throughout the entirety of the 1979 – 2014 period. The manifestation of the warming was very different. The 0.25deg C warming occurred in one single step coincident upon the 1998 Super El Nino.
As I mentioned, there are two ‘pauses’ (ie., periods when there is no statistically significant warming) in the satellite data set.
Richard I assume you are interested in forecasting climate trends. This simply cannot be done by model building. You must look at the natural cycles over a suitable time frame. In this case the suitable time scale is, in the first instance ,multi millennial .Even Mann understood that this was the approach to take. He simply got it wrong and produced the hockey stick- which Gore latched on to and the establishment scientists went hopelessly astray in their rush to grab grants ,jobs, publications etc.
You are looking at a tiny bit of a millennial cycle and are not seeing the wood for the trees.
Richard: Yes that one giant step for mankind in 1998 accounts for the quarter degree warming we’ve seen since 1979. Just an interested amateur here but I have a question.
If leaving out the 1997/8 el-nino spike (or stopping before it) gives a flat line how would we adjust for the volcanic cooling that occurred in the same 1979-1996 timeframe? It would seem odd to me to leave out one and include the others.
TRM October 7, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Obviously, there is a lot of short term year to year variability in the data set, so for the purposes of assessing trends, one should ignore this variability since it cancels out over the medium terms, eg., on a decadal timescale.
we do not have a good handle on volcanos and their full effect and long term significance. There have been many posts on WUWT showing that it is not possible to simply look at the temperature data set and pick out the dates of major eruptions since the immediate effect of such is swamped by the yearly variability of temperatures in the data sets.
Thee have been many analysis that suggest that volcanos have no long term impact and depending upon the size of the eruption, the composition of the eruption, the altitude to which the eruption was ejected into the upper atmosphere, the latitude of the volcano, the effects of an eruption depress temperatures for between 18 months and 4 years. After 4 years temperatures have fully recovered and run as if the volcano eruption never took place. That being the case when looking at matters on a decadal or longer timeframe, volcanos have no lasting impact and can be ignored.
Of course, there have been few volcanos in the 1979 to 1996 time frame. The only large scale volcano eruptions are Mount St Helens (1990), El Chrichon (1982), Mount Pinatubo (1991), and Mount Hudson (1991)
If one looks at the satellite data for the period 1980 to 1996, you will see one will see 4 peaks. The first is just under 0.3C, the next just under0.4 c, and the other 2 peaking at about 0.3C. There are 5 troughs, of – 0.3C, – 0.45C, –0.3c, – 0.4C and – 0..1C.
Given the saw cycle can one actually see any of the volcano eruptions in the period 1980 to 1886? When considering this, look at the saw cycle post the 1998 Super El Nino. Everything is being lost in the variability. That said, few claim that St Helens had much of an impact this is because it is claimed that the eruption was not ejected to high altitude. Whatever, there was not deep cooling over the next 18 months and by 1983 temperatures had risen and peaked and this was notwithstanding the El Chrinchon eruption of 19982. That eruption did not reverse the upward see saw! That leaves us just with the two 1991 eruptions. There was a short fall between late 1991 and 1993, indeed this is the biggest trough at- 0.4C, but it was short lived since there was the usual and immediate see saw that sees temperatures rising to the late 1995 peak of + 0.3C.
There is nothing unusual in the see saw pattern. El Chrinchon and Mount Hudson might be responsible for the low trough being – 0.4C rather than somewhere between – 0.25 and 0.3 C, but there was no long term impact.
I see to recall a couple of days ago dr Brown posted a comment on volcano cooling which is worth a read so too a commentator who attached his paper that was posted on Climate etc. Unfortunately, I am pressed for time, or I would cross reference it, but have a look at the post on the lunar eclipse, and I am fairly certain that that is where you will find it.
In summary, volcanos have only a short term impact. This may be different if eruptions are not islolated and there are numerous and almost annual major eruptions extending over lengthy periods 30 or more years, but that has not happened in the 20th century.
Thank you Richard.
Dr. Page
This is interesting stuff. Do you have the Christianssen(?) reference or a link to the original paper for your graph (“Fig.5”) shown below at 2:20pm. Thanks.
Alastair see Fig 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
and specific link below
“A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that, at this time, the most useful reconstruction for identifying N H temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle may be that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5) Fig 9 here: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf ”
See also
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html
and
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
(also a guest post on WUWT)
Dr. Page
Perfect…many thanks.
Dr Page
We do not necessarily sing from different hymn sheets. I am one of those persons (and frequently comment to that effect) who do not consider that we are seeing any climate change, and I consider that those who argue that we are, or even those who argue climate is constantly changing are misconceived since they fail to properly ascertain what climate is.
Climate is not global. On a global perspective, there are only three states, the globe is either in an ice age, an inter glacial, or essentially ice free, but these are epoch events and are impacted upon by plate tectonics so that they may not follow the same route, and have no bearing on the hysteria that surrounds what has happened since the industrial revolution.
Climate is regional, it is made up of a number of parameters (temperature being just one of many) which parameters are never static and each of which parameter is constantly changing within bounds appropriate for each region. Since these variables are constantly changing, change of any one or even more than one parameter is not climate change, indeed change of and in itself is not even evidence of climate change. That is simply the natural order of events. I accept that there has been some warming since the LIA, I even accept that there has been some 20th century warming, but that is not climate change. Nothing outside the bounds of natural variability has occurred.
The problem in this debate is that people look at climate over far too short a period. I constantly suggest that it must be viewed over a a multi-centennial period, at the minimum. I can accept that perhaps one should even look at a longer period when assessing climate. I certainly do consider that for the purposes of context one has to look at the inter glacial as a whole, so if we look at the Holocene, we see that it is variable with peaks and troughs, but each peak following the Optimum is lower than the one before. Thus we see the Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period which is slightly cooler, the Roman Warm Period which is slightly cooler than the Minoan, then the Medieval Warm Period which is slightly cooler than the Roman, and now the late 20th Century Warming which is presently slightly cooler than the Medieval.
There is nothing unusual about the late 20th century warming when you look at the Holocene. Has the late 20th century warming peaked? I do not know, time will tell, If it has peaked then that will continue the trends of each successive warm period within the Holocene being slightly cooler than the one before which in turn is consistent with a trend that the inter glacial is cooling long term, and that there will eventually be a return to glacification. Even if the 20th century warming is not over, and even if it turns out to extend to a peak higher than the Medieval or for that matter even the Roman Warm Period I would not necessary say that anything untowards was being observed. There are only a few peaks in the Holocene so data is scant, but I would accept that if warming continues to beyond the peak of the Roman, then that would be consistent with the conjecture that man is influencing the climate (but not incontrovertible proof of such), .
Personally, I am not particularly interested in making forecasts since I consider that climate is extremely complex and we lack sufficient knowledge and understanding to make a forecast. That said, anyone who proposes a theory should make a prediction (not a projection) that flows from the mooted theory.
So I do like to see someone set out theory accompanied by what their theory predicts so that the theory can be tested and falsified if empirical observation does not accord with theory prediction. However, in my comment to your first post, your first post only set out the satellite data not data on a millennium timescale, so it is no surprise that my initial comment was simply addressing the satellite data.
Let there be no doubt. Worldwide, this is the coldest, hottest, wettest and dryist october 7, 2015 on record. Given that there will not be another one, the records are unlikely to be broken either.
Satellites still do not relate to what humans actually experience on the surface.
I find it very hard to accept that the Northern hemisphere had a 0.5 degree warmer September than average.
The Arctic was colder, Iceland colder, Greenland colder, Northern Europe colder, so where in the Northern Hemisphere is this extra warmth other than the Pacific blob?
Or is the warmth shown in the lower trop the heat escaping to space from those cold areas?
We certainly had a cool summer in the NE US. I don’t think we broke 100 F this year, and only around a dozen days over 90. We’re catching winter flounder off the cost of NJ in July. Hottest ever?
It was definitely colder in N.Z.
Any farmer will tell you, and the asparagus never lies.
My swimming pool was slightly above normal.
Oh, until the whole week of cloudy weather at the end of the month.
You cannot see the swimming pool for the oceans.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/
From the link:
“Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments.”
Adjustments.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/07/scientist-who-urged-government-to-sue-climate-skeptics-gets-millions-from/?cmpid=NL_SciTech
“Temperatures in the tropics averaged 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms in September, a new record for tropical Septembers surpassing the previous record of +0.52 C set in September 2009.”
So, you’re telling me that the margin of error on this measurement is less than 0.03 C? Please Dr. Christy, I want to retain some respect for your scientific abilities.
Presumably, those two numbers (0.55 and 0.52 deg. C) are what the algorithms calculated from what the instruments said the data was.
So the two different calculations at two different times gave two different answers.
Ho hum !
Yes I am sure there is some experimental uncertainty, for various reasons, and presumably that affects both numbers.
So what.
According to the party line, the earth has warmed maybe one deg. F (0.6 deg. C) since 1850.
That’s about 3.64 mdeg. C per year. (trends are always linear in climate science papers).
UAH’s results show a warming trend of 50mdeg.C since2009.
That’s an astronomical increase in warming rate.
What’s the big deal ??
d
PS Yes the experiments that gave the data that said we have warmed 0.6 deg. C in 165 years also likely have some uncertainty associated with them . Well today we can measure a bit better than way back then.
Comparing the trend of a 165 yr record to a 6 year record is a tad silly. I’m not sure why you think that UAHs results show a “per year trend of 50mdeg” since 2009. 6 years x 50 mdeg C = 300 mdeg C = 0.3 deg C! I think you (incorrectly) meant to subtract 0.52 deg C (Sept 2009) from 0.55 deg C (Sept 2015) to get 0.03 deg, not 0.3 deg C. Of course, that’s going point-to-point and not an actual trend…
Someone ran experiments on the temperature of the earth? Hadn’t heard of that before. Sources please.
A prospective double blind experiment on earth temperatures doesn’t seem possible to me but if you have references I’d surely read them and then I might change my mind.
Peter
That’s a per year trend of 50mdeg.
Slightly off topic – but the BBC weather forecast for the UK (provided by the Met Office) has tonight stated for the south of england that overnight temperatures in London and surrounding connurbation will be 8 – 9 deg C….. BUT expect temperatures of just 4 – 5 deg C in the rural areas.
If even the met office are now recognising that Urban Heat Islands are regularly 4 deg C above rural temperatures it makes a mockery of claims that UHI accounts for ~1 deg C of ‘global warming’.
The difference only used to be 2 deg C some years ago.
Interesting to see that ‘the Blob’ continued shifting Westward last month, so that Seattle was under its 30-year average.
Anyone have info on those southern-hemispheric warm spots? They seem curiously distributed and shaped.
How could it be otherwise with this El Nino setup?
It’s a relief to see that the planet continues to struggle out from the depths of the LIA, about as cold as this interglacial has been:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/GISP2_Ljung_HadCRUT_10kya.png
For the sake of future generations let’s hoped that the trend continues.
Lol. Yeah. If the Holocene ever gets back to the Holocene Optimum, I, for one, will be happy.
For the “warmunistas”: Cold bad. Warm good. CO2 good. More green good. Simples?
It’s bloody cold in Eastern Australia right now!
Really? Vic endures unprecedented spring heat.
Really!? Never befoah!?
haven’t you been paying attention Nicky?
Jennifer Marorasy has a write up about the interesting adjustment abuse at >a href=http://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/rutherglen/>Rutherglen in Victoria.
“interesting adjustment abuse”
The bushfires aren’t adjusted.
Nor are the temperatures. BoM posts them every half hour, straight from the sensor.
And I can tell you, it was hot. I was there. With the fan on.
“With the fan on.”
What, no AC? Must not have been too bad.
Nick,
When someone says “it’s cold now, they don’t mean “a few days ago”.
The warm winds that swept in from the arid interior a few days ago certainly brought temperatures that were above average for this time of the year. However,
i) We just had the 26th coldest winter on the adjusted records. Perhaps that’s why I didn’t hear anyone in miserable Melbourne complaining about the brief spell of unusually warm weather…except you.
ii) 9 of 12 months of the year have now passed. Most of the year has been cold, wet and windy,(despite the ongoing hype about a super El Nino setting the nation on fire, reflecting the kind of pattern that we’ve been stuck with since the “permanent” global warming drought came to an end in 2010.
iv) when floods falsified the permanent drought prophesy, members of your climate cult immediately blamed the latest weather pattern on global warming. Did you register an objection?
v) temperatures in eastern Australia right now are cool to average, not “hot”:
http://www.bom.gov.au
“When someone says “it’s cold now, they don’t mean “a few days ago”.”
Well, he actually said
“It’s bloody cold in Eastern Australia right now!”
That doesn’t seem to refer to last winter, which was about average. Literally, I suppose it is true, because it was written very early morning.
And yes, we did get a cool change late Tuesday. Can’t remember ever hanging out for a cool change in early October.
The BoM does not alter temperature records?
http://joannenova.com.au/tag/australian-temperatures
@Nick, Controlled burns caused by AGW/Climate Change?
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-bushfires-2015-burnoff-anger-as-lancefield-fire-rages-out-of-control-20151007-gk33yi.html
“Controlled burns caused by AGW/Climate Change?”
No, hot weather. Controlled burns are essential here to control fire damage, and early October or April is a peak time, because the weather is cool enough to control them. Well, it used to be.
Out of control controlled burns ? ?
Authorities should cast their eyes west…..it’s easy to see the weather coming
You don’t need computer models…..hot northerlies in South Australia will be in Victoria the next day
Well, the burn was actually started Wed 30 Sept. But none of this helps establish the original claim that it is cold in E Australia. Perhaps the heat should have been anticipated, but it certainly happened.
“Nick Stokes
Controlled burns are essential here to control fire damage, and early October or April is a peak time, because the weather is cool enough to control them. Well, it used to be.”
Again, Nick demonstrates he hasn’t a clue. The “increase” in fires and fire severity is directly related to policy changes. As any firefighter knows this. Policy changes that allows fire fuel to build up on land that was once regularly cleared either by fire or beasts. This step change in policy happened in the mid-1990’s and has proven to be a disaster.
“The “increase” in fires and fire severity is directly related to policy changes.”
Huh? Where did I say anything about an increase in fires and fire severity? I simply said they use controlled burns to diminish fire damage. And have done long before 1990. Fact. And fires get out of control in hot weather.
“Nick Stokes
Controlled burns are essential here to control fire damage, and early October or April is a peak time, because the **weather is cool enough to control them. Well, it used to be.**”
Weather *used to be* cool enough to control the fires implies weather is warmer now and fires burn out of control because of it, or do you mean something else? Fact remains Nick, the algorithm (Developed in Australia in the 70’s if memory serves, and used around the world) used to calculate fire severity used many assumptions, and didn’t include any real data before the mid 1990’s. The fact still remains fuel load burn off (Or control via access to beasts) was restricted in the mid-1990s due to ridiculous “green” policies.
The largest uncontrolled burn in recent times was started by accident on Military land. I know military land is mostly left fallow, so was a disaster just waiting to happen and nothing to do with “warm weather”.
As any Firey will tell you it is not so much the heat; but changes in wind speed and direction.
“do you mean something else? “
I just mean that they traditionally burnt in Sep/Oct and April, when burning was possible and the fire could be controlled. “It used to be” – well, it didn’t work this time.
Controlled burning wasn’t reduced because of green policies (Kennett?). It was for the same reason that they will probably be cut back further now. When a fire can’t be controlled, and property gets damaged, Heads should roll. Who needs that?
“Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C below 30-year average”
I hate nit-pickers, but I was a little confused. Did you mean ‘above’ average? As always a joy to read, even if it is above my pay grade.
If Dr. Roy is reading …
Is there a version with error estimates?
This isn’t a criticism of the Satellite information, just me wondering what you and others involved see as a reasonable estimate. For sure, I have never seen (nor would I ever expect to see) an error estimate tagged onto land based indices.
I’m curious what the Temp. trend would be if we were to remove everything below 32F. Are we really getting hotter, or we just not getting as cold?
For me the continuation of post LIA warming comes as little surprise. I ended up here whilst on a quest to try and figure out how much of that warming might be caused by humans and what other effects this warming might have.
And let us never forget that were we currently in a period with a slight cooling trend, then there would be an Anthropogenic Global Cooling scare, and policies and public spending would be organized to prevent the terrible man-made cooling. And extreme weather events would be publicized as evidence of the effects of man made global cooling on our climate.
And we would all be here on a skeptical blog, trying to point out that the cooling was just an observed trend and that no evidence supported the idea that the trend was caused only or mostly by our activities, and that there was no evidence that the cooling was responsible for fluctuations in the incidence of extreme events etc.
In fact, until the mid-1970’s climate alarmism was promoting both scares and theories.
Finally, evidence for a warming trend won out, based on the fact that there appears to be a slight warming trend.
And here it is the slight warming trend that we have already discovered.
Also, sea level has a slight rising trend.
If sea level was currently falling, then doubtlessly there would be alarmist fears about that.
Imagine coastal cities stranded miles from the shore.
Imagine how devastating that would be for the world’s poorest.
This is not a debate between warmists and coolists. It’s should ideally be a debate between alarmists and scientists.
But, apparently the debate is over and the science got settled somehow, and we must act now, to end the current warming trend and the sea level rise and weather events of all kinds.
What else should we act now, to end? How about we end aging. And poverty and terrorism (a.k.a other people trying to resist our plans).
Sorry those were bad examples, apparently we actually ARE at war with those things too.
We seem to be at war with the whole of reality.
But never forget, that it didn’t matter what trend we had discovered once we averaged the global temps – the alarmist mentality would have attached itself to that trend and blamed humans for it, and all bad things on it.
Anthony
Your headline , while technically accurate, leaves a misleading impression of what is going on.
The RSS global TLT data shows the following September rankings
1 .5000 2010
2 .4938 1998
3 .4611 2009
4 .4015 2005
5 .3824 2015
RSS covers less of both poles, so the likely difference.
So both RSS and UAH agree here. Let us see what the others say later.
“The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.” The above is at the end of the UAH post…. Do they average the column of air measured to come up with global average? Why the divergence with thermometer readings?
Why indeed?
See two previous posts here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/01/is-there-evidence-of-frantic-researchers-adjusting-unsuitable-data-now-includes-july-data/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
yes, great comment Frog! Temperature HAS to go in some direction. Either way, Experts would consider it a disaster….We have spent too many decades seeking some form of entertainment. We are not busy enough when we have to worry about things that are out of our control.
London to a brick, tomorrow’s temperature will be:
above average
below average
average.
The 2016/2017 La Nina will be the event to watch. ENSO, as Bob Tisdale always points out, is a naturally occurring, sunlight fueled process. I think the rate at which the atmosphere radiates the released energy to space, whilst the Pacific is ‘recharging’ will give a good indication of whether the next couple of decades are going to see cooling in line with the ~ 64 year oscillation, or not…
Interesting thought. Did the fact the 1998-2000 La Nina events occurred close to solar max lead to the step rise in temperature that Tisdale has often pointed to? Will this next La Nina occurring close to the next minimum mean we will see lower temperatures? So many possibilities …. for a settled science.
Not surprising to say the least that tropics are the warmest for a while with a record September. The tropics is really feeling the energy release now and it won’t be long now until the continents show a sudden rise too. My prediction for especially the satellite and balloons data sets are for during November/December 2015 to show a big increase in temperatures. Although this will be reduced somewhat with the likely recent spike in SAOT. (not updated yet)
“Hottest September Evah”
Oh well.
*sigh*
Pass the tanning butter!
A wonderful above average daily maximum in the tropical WA coastal town of Broome for September, was offset by a well below average minimum nighttime temperature. BoM’s forecast guesses were often 3 or more degrees out. So far their forecasting hasn’t got any better for October.
Warmer often gives us a better wet season. Bring it on!
I need my green or red coloured glasses to see the hockey stick shaped trend and maybe I am just dense, but where is the correlation with CO2 levels?
I see it differently. While there isn’t much of a record to show this, the shape of that graph certainly looks like a long sinewave. It suggests to me the amount of heat that is pumping out of the oceans (after it got in there in the first place) is slowly dying out, like embers after a hot fire. And with all those clouds due to evaporation spread across the equatorial belt, the Sun is hardly able to put back in what is being taken out.
Enjoy the warmth while it slowly dies out.
i agree pamela ,and the nice thing is we will not have to wait decades to find out one way or another.
Wouldn’t it be more useful to report anomaly relative to trend rather than against a 30 year average?
I’d like to keep seeing the “recent warming” (after adjustments, even) compared to the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warming periods, along with, of course, the Holocene Optimum.
Aw, heck. Let’s graph up some Eemian temperatures in there too. Along with, what is on average for the NH, the deep glaciations. Yes, please, and thankyou.
> Along with, what is on average for the NH, the deep glaciations.
Buffalo, New York daily ground temperature readings of -43° for 45 thousand years running would be pretty boring.
myNym,
Here you go. The Holocene:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And the Eemian was warmer than the Holocene:
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2013/01/vostok_back_to_eemian.jpg
Boring would be warm. Cold, like that, that’s scary.
Lol. thanks db.
This puts it all in perspective:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hos_8.png
[click in charts to embiggen]
Awesome. Love it. And, when was CO2 at 8000ppm again? When was the Arctic Ocean a swamp? Why didn’t we have “glow-bull runaway warming” then? 🙂
CO2 at 8,000 ppm:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
[click in chart to embiggen]
The biosphere is starved of CO2. A doubling would be entirely beneficial.
Thank you dbstealy.
To answer my other question, “When was the Arctic Ocean a swamp?”, I found this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm
Quotes from link:
“The team concluded the average temperatures of the warmest month on Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene were from 66 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit (19-20 degrees C), while the coldest month temperature was about 32 to 38 degrees F (0-3.5 degrees C). “Our data gathered from multiple organisms indicate it probably did not get below freezing on Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene, which has some interesting implications,” she said.”
And:
“During the Eocene, Ellesmere Island — which is adjacent to Greenland — probably was similar to swampy cypress forests in the southeastern United States today, said Eberle. Eocene fossil evidence collected there in recent decades by various teams indicate the lush landscape hosted giant tortoises, aquatic turtles, large snakes, alligators, flying lemurs, tapirs, and hippo-like and rhino-like mammals.”
John Christy says “An El Nino Pacific warming event continues to heat the tropics” .NOAA says in their explanation of the El Nino phenomenon “In normal El Nino conditions the trade winds blow towards the West across the tropical Pacific. These winds pile up warmer surface water in the West Pacific,so that the sea surface is about half a meter higher at Indonesia than at Ecuador.During El Nino,trade winds relax in the central and west Pacific” and my understanding is that as a consequence the warm water drifts back from Indonesia towards Ecuador(Presumably eliminating the half meter level difference). I have never found an explanation for why the trade winds weaken.I suspect no-one knows. There is then more warm water near Ecuador and less warm water near Indonesia.So, I hesitate to question John Christy but surely it is not correct to say that the El Nino situation “heats the tropics”.There is merely more warm water near Ecuador and less near Indonesia.I dont see how this is supposed to cause a rise in the average world temperature,as suggested by some. If one stood on a beach in Ecuador with a thermometer it might record a rise in temperature at that site,to the detriment of the anchovies , but the heat balance of the planet as a whole is surely unaffected.Maybe the wider distribution of the already present heat in the Pacific ocean permits more heat to escape into the atmosphere where it may be distributed differently to effect weather changes,but even so, the total heat balance of the planet is unchanged.The heat has merely shifted its location. If I am wrong can someone explain simply why.
Lack and change of direction of tropical winds during El Nino suppresses upwelling in the east Pacific and reduces its usual cooling effect. The lowering temps of the west Pacific isn’t as much as the warming of the east Pacific. So on the whole, the tropical Pacific warms up.
That is an easy one to reply to. Heat that is held in a column of water, when then spread out, is released into the atmosphere across the Pacific. Otherwise only the top of the column, when held to the Western Pacific, heats the air.
Reminds me of good coffee cups versus bad ones. The huge soup bowls laughably called coffee mugs these days, release heat so fast it is impossible to drink an entire cup of hot coffee. But reduce the opening to a diameter smaller than the body of the cup, and you can enjoy hot coffee much longer.
This rare 3-yr El Nino event has turned out to be one of the largest and longest since the 1960s.
The last time a strong 3-yr El Nino event occurred, there was very long and cool La Nina that followed.
I expect the UAH temps to peak early 2016 and then fall precipitously thereafter, with Nino 3.4 hitting -2.0 by early 2017:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-5-pg.gif
By early 2017, UAH/RSS will show NO global warming trend for 20+ years, which will make for interesting news headlines and generate much consternation among CAGW alarmists.
Moreover, the PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, the AMO 30-yr cool cycles starts around 2020, the current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906 and the next solar cycle is expected to be the weakest since the Maunder Minimum started in 1645….
To put a cherry on top, Arctic Ice Extents have been recovering since 2007, and will recover even faster the closer the AMO 30-yr cool cycle approaches…
The next 5 years should be VERY interesting as CAGW alarmists try to explain why their projections are 3+ SDs off from reality… Even the most aggressively ignorant person won’t fall for the old “Global Warming is causing Global Cooling” meme…
With the RSS September anomaly of 0.382, the length of the pause on RSS remains at 18 years and 8 months. However instead of going from January 1997 to August 2015, it now goes from February 1997 to September 2015.
With an average of 0.320, 2015 is tied for 4th place so far for RSS.
UAH is in third place after 9 months with an average of 0.226. It would take a huge spike over the next three months to reach second place however. The average needs to be 0.698 so the September value of 0.25 really needs to go up fast which I think is extremely unlikely.
Ricrard Verney
” Climate is not global” I agree with you and the sooner we start showing regional or continental temperatures separate , the sooner we will understand climate better None of us can relate to global temperatures or hemispheric temperatures but we can relate to regional and continental temperatures to some degree
The trend of annual global land temperature anomalies since 2005 or the last 10 years has been flat or in a pause, but regionally there is cooling in Asia and North America and warming in Europe .All other regions are flat with. In summary here is what is happening regionally.
Global -0.02 C/decade (flat)
Northern Hemisphere -0.05 C/decade (flat)
Southern Hemisphere +0.06 C/decade (flat)
North America -0.41 C/decade (cooling)
Asia -0.31 C/decade (cooling)
Europe + 0.39 C /decade (warming)
Africa + 0.08 C/decade (flat)
Oceania + 0.07 C /decade (flat)
As can be seen from the attached graphs generated from NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE web page data, Global and Northern Hemisphere annual or year –to-date land temperature anomalies for the last 10 years or since 2005 all show a flat trend ( no warming) North America and United States land areas show a cooling trend already for 18 years or since 1997 and 1998 ( no warming)
Asia shows a cooling trend since 2005 or the last 10 years (no warming)
Only Europe land area shows a warming trend mostly due to 2014 only. Yet even for Europe, the temperatures were flat for 9 of 10 years prior to 2014(2005-2013).
So it will be interesting to see what spin Paris will put on this
If we look back at climate history not on a “global” basis but on a continental basis we see a different picture. South America, Africa and Oceania show a slow gradual rise as they have done for a century. Southern Hemisphere thus shows a slow gradual rise also and the last global temperature trough that happened between 1940-1980 is almost non apparent in its record. The same is happening currently.
The continents with more significant temperature fluctuations ( both warm and cool ) are North America and Asia and to a lesser degree Europe where the temperatures have s been much more constant than North America.
Added to this is the regular fluctuations( currently in warm mode) of the Ocean’s SST most notably North Atlantic and North and Central Pacific and the temperature pattern along the north east coast of the Pacific ocean (PDO)
So what we have today is not global warming but a steady slight warming of the southern continents , cooling of the major parts of the Northern Continents and extra warming of the North Pacific due to a temporary blob and the temporary presence of an El Nino in the central Pacific
This not global warming induced by man at all but a mixture of warm and cold regions which just happen to net out warmer than normal due to the temporary events in the Pacific
This also tells me that the most probable cooling will show up in North America and Asia first and this is exactly what has already started .
Interesting. You might think about writing that up with graphs and post it here.
From what I’ve noticed comparing 98 to this event is that this event is much more broken up and spotty in its distribution. Combine that with Rossby wave jet that spanning around the globe in shift cycle. And I call for temps to be spread evenly and without measurable notice. Moisture much the same.. broken and spotty. Or less concentrated event across the boards than 98. Of course its gonna get cooler faster for those same reasons.
Pamela Gray
Thanks for your comments.
I think I do enough blogging on this topic. Perhaps others can take the idea and develop it further., but I will add these comments .
All the data can be found on Bob Tisdale, NOAA Climate at A Glance and Berkeley Earth web pages. I have always had a problem with using the meaningless term “global temperature” because it can cover up details that are vital and should be discussed . We should also use regional or continental temperatures and the data should not be derived at by one data collection agency. According to NOAA, we have today where all land areas taken together show no warming for at least the last 10 years or since 2005 . Some land areas like North America show no warming since 1998 or 18 years Even within this total land area , North America and Asia which together represent about half of all land areas globally ( or 46%) are actually cooling the last 10 years . Another 48 % of the land areas including Africa, South America and Oceania are basically flat with minor change only. Only Europe which represents just 6 % of all land area shows warming and mostly due to 2014. From 2005 to 2013 it was basically flat. Winters are cooling globally.
Added to this is the regular fluctuations( currently in warm mode) of the Ocean’s SST most notably North Atlantic and North and Central Pacific plus the temperature pattern along the north east coast of the Pacific ocean (PDO).
There is also extra warming of the North Pacific due to a temporary blob and the temporary presence of an El Nino in the central Pacific. As per Bob Tisdale’s monthly reporting of global sea surface temperatures global sea surface temperatures have risen at 0.09 C/decade since 1981 . This is only up slightly from the 0.08 C/decade or 0.8 C rise in overall global temperatures per century
So where is this imminent threat that warrants an overhaul of all global energy strategy costing the world trillions of extra dollars with no benefits nor does it solve any global warming threat because it does not exist? Instead of wasting money to fight a non existing global warming threat we should help the refugees fleeing from political threats , not global warming threats.