Global Temperature Report: October 2015: Warmest October in the satellite temperature record

From University of Alabama, Huntsville:

OCTOBER_2015

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade

October temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.43 C (about 0.77 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.64 C (about 1.15 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (about 0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.

Tropics: +0.53 C (about 0.95 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for October.

September temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.25 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.34 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C above 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 Nov. 3, 2015:

Powered by an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, temperatures in October set records globally, in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropics, while temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere pushed toward the upper end of the dataset, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. October 2015 was the warmest October in the 36-year satellite temperature record, pushing past October 1998 during what was then called the El Niño of the Century.

Warmest Octobers, Global

Date       Warmer than seasonal norms

2015    +0.43 C

1998    +0.40 C

2003    +0.29 C

2005    +0.28 C

2014    +0.26 C

Warmest Octobers, Northern Hemisphere

Date       Warmer than seasonal norms

2015    +0.64 C

1998    +0.48 C

2003    +0.46 C

2005    +0.35 C

2013    +0.33 C

Warmest Octobers, Tropics

Date       Warmer than seasonal norms

2015    +0.53 C

1987    +0.40 C

1998    +0.37 C

2009    +0.34 C

2003    +0.33 C

102015_tlt_update_bar

In the Northern Hemisphere, October 2015 registered the third largest deviation from seasonal norms in the 443 month satellite temperature record, making it the third “warmest” month in the Northern Hemisphere since December 1978. October 2015 trailed only April 1998 (+0.85 C) and February 1998 (0.69 C) as the “warmest” month in the Northern Hemisphere.

“We thought this El Niño had the potential to be a record setter for some of the quantities we track, and it isn’t disappointing,” Christy said. “Not only is this a strong El Niño, but the transient warming we see from it is superimposed on top of the slowly rising global base temperature. The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years. Put a strong El Niño on top of that and we shouldn’t be surprised at what we saw in October.”

Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in October was over east Antarctica in Queen Maud Land. The October temperature there averaged 3.97 C (about 7.15 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest average temperature on Earth in October was southwest of New Zealand on the edge of the southern ocean, where the average October 2015 temperature was 3.33 C (about 5.99 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:

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

 

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 —

Advertisements

226 thoughts on “Global Temperature Report: October 2015: Warmest October in the satellite temperature record

    • You are missing the unprecedented stuff that happens year after year because WUWT uses an odd way of showing the climate change, WUWT uses the climate definition (average of the last 30 years) to show the climate change, which basically means that the actual climate change is cancelled out in the graph. If you go to the source of the data in the diagram (NOAA) you will see the real climate change

  1. No surprise, really : we are in the warmest couple of decades in the last 1000 years so naturally we will break records regularly. And in the coming decades we are likely to break even more records (much to the delight of the alarmists).

    • Well, I’m looking forward to warm winter since that last one was brutal over here in Boston. Nevertheless, they can cry that the sky is falling all they want but it’ll end eventually.

      • Here in the UK, on Sunday, when trimming back our overgrown ivy (on the front of the house) there were wasps, ladybirds and tiny fruit flies. It’s November! It was also very foggy and extremely still. Not enough wind for the 3,500 or so on-shore worse-than-useless turbines to spin and the heavily blotted-out sun meant that any wealthy tree-huggers who have foolishly nailed 16 x solar panels to their roofs were regretting their £18,000 investment.
        Most of the UK’s energy over the last thee-days has been from Gas & Coal with about 30% of total demand coming from either imported French nuclear, Dutch gas-fired power or Irish coal-fired power stations. If it carries on like this, the lights will definitely go out and our electricity bills will rocket to balance the import costs and green subsidies. Historically, warmer Autumns in the UK usually mean FOG, MIST and an IDLE WIND. No amount of renewable energy will solve our British weather!

      • You must not have paying attention to John Kerry. The warmer it gets the more severe the cold will be. Remember nothing says warming like cooling. Lol.

    • Well at least the warmists have got the sign (if not the magnitude) of the temperature trend right. There are many regular posters on WUWT, e.g. David Archibald, who have got it completely wrong.

      • How is anyone supposed to know what the trends are, given that all the data has been tortured into submission and beaten beyond recognition?

      • I agree Jeff, and with RSS shows that the sign of the current trend is…wait for ti…no sign. Neutral. Sideways. Flat. To down.
        It will not take much real cooling to form the past 19 years into a downtrend which is longer than the whole 1980-1997 warming which gave birth to this whole raft of nonsense.

      • BTW, I was not referring to satellite data in the above comment. Warmest since 1980 is not saying much.
        If we had satellites back in the 1930s and 1940s, I strongly suspect we would have a far different view of the current situation.
        What had been the warmest period of time, historically speaking, has been fraudulently erased by all of the so-called adjustments.
        That is what I was saying…just to be clear.
        No one should forget for a second how clearly the historical surface data has been tampered with… made cooler prior to 1960, and warmer after that.

    • “And in the coming decades we are likely to break even more records (much to the delight of the alarmists).”
      If it is such bad news…how come it makes them so happy?
      Everything bad they predict that never comes true should have made them the most happy optimists the world has ever known.

      • Menicholas, that’s always been my thoughts too. The doom-and-gloomers get so upset when there is no calamity upon us and so thrilled when a disaster hits – anybody, anywhere. They want the end of the world more than anything else – or maybe just to be proven right – either way, though, for money or righteousness or any other reason, I swear they would be dancing in the street if they ever got their way.
        How sick is that!

      • Andy, what I really meant was that any normal person with any normal belief that had been so thoroughly demonstrated wrong would be an optimist by now, now matter how gloomy and pessimistic they started out.
        It is hard to even remember all of the failed predictions and projections and imminent crises that never materialized…going all the way back to the 1980s.
        It defies comprehension how anyone still believes it!

      • “…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
        Cheers, Phil ”
        (…Jones, of course)

      • “In Science, when we understand a system, we can predict its behavior. If not, we do not understand the system.”- John Christy
        It is important to stress that even with this being a record high temperature for October, it is still far below the calculated predictions of the 102 climate models that are based upon the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming. All of the models are wrong.
        NONE of these climate models have demonstrated any predictive ability.
        Yet we are to use these same models to make sweeping, expensive, harmful and ineffective policy decisions?
        Barking Mad. What a species.

      • The problem is that the warmists are chronically unhappy and miserable, and delight in nothing more than sharing their misery and unhappiness with others. Doombaya, Lord, Doombaya…

    • For every heat record, there’s a cold record set somewhere else. Records are made to be broken, and they are every day – somewhere – both hot and cold. Since my hometown’s hottest day on record (115 f) was set in 1961, that must prove we are experiencing dramatic cooling since.

    • Its only relative to the satellite era anyhow. There is so little data to make any sort of ‘unprecedented’ claim as to be close to ridiculous, we cant even compare to temperatures in the early to mid 20th century with any real reference to global averages or global sea surface temperatures.
      It is so tedious and boring to be repeatedly faced with misleading statements and interpretations. I would say at least another 100 years of satellite data will be needed before any accurate assessment of what goes on can be made and even that is unlikely as the cyclical nature of variability in the climate runs into many hundreds/thousands of years.

  2. Well, I expect the warmistas will get maximum mileage out of this one.
    We may never hear the end of it.
    Of course, that it is correlated only to an el nino event will matter naught to them,.

    • Warmest October, and yet there’s been hail the size of golf balls in Saudi Arabia, and 90% of the world’s glaciers are growing.

      • Can you provide a reference for the astounding claim that 90% of the world’s glaciers are growing? The World Glacier Monitoring Service reports preliminary result sfor 2014/15:
        “The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.84 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2014. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades…”
        http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

      • Reference noaa report on Antarctica and the fact that is where 90% of the glaciers are. Plus we know glaciers are growing in the Scotland highlands. Greenland is near record increase in ice there since September. That number could be closer to 95%

  3. Since we live on California’s Central Coast, we have been experiencing El Niño first hand in Oct. El Niño brought us warmer nights and more humidity than is typical on this part of the coast. The map clearly shows the El Niño effected area.
    We are all hoping that this El Niño does not fizzle like the last one. We would like plenty of storms like the one yesterday which delivered a good soaking rain.
    It’s interesting that after all the El Niño hype that we heard through the summer months, there has been some acknowledgement that this one might fail, since “we” really do not understand how El Niños work. Imagine that! The same people who claim with certainty that they can tell us what the global temperature will be in 2100, can’t say with confidence that this year’s El Niño will be as strong as they told us just a couple of months ago.

  4. Does ANYBODY Believe this shit??
    I don’t .. every week we are bombarded with some alleged record, superstorm, wild fire, drought, flood.. all supposedly unprecedented until one performs a .001s search on Google..
    Climate History reveals all this shit has happened before.. been far worse..

    • UAHv6 is one of the better temperature records. I tend to belive this one. The recent “Largest cyclone in history (in the east pacific), well not sure I believed that one…

      • +1 Jeff in Calgary. I don’t understand the negative comments. Measure it and wait. Depends on perspective. Some ski resorts in the Canadian Rockies are opening later this week. A fraction of a degree globally isn’t a big deal. Regional climates may vary. (I read something similar to that on a label somewhere – “Actual results may vary”).
        Folks – look at the graphic from 1978 to 2015, and in particular the 1998 El Nino bump. Now shift the post 1998 “zero” line up to 0.3 degrees and look at the pattern. Look familiar? -0.4 to +0.4 in general but really following the same pattern. Does that scare anyone? Certainly doesn’t bother me.
        Well, gotta go put the winter tires on. Have a pleasant day.

      • all supposedly unprecedented until one performs a .001s search on Google..

        Maxima when on a slightly rising trend are ubiquitous. So there’s no surprise here at all. It’s statistically highly probable to have lots of maxima. So any statements about it are statistically meaningless and unsurprising.
        Peter

      • @ Wayne, if you live in BC you would have to have those tires on by Oct 1 big fines if not, the first snow this year that was down to 1000 meters was today Nov 1 , they’ll get us coming and going.

      • Asybot – actually the rule is “winter tires or carry chains”. ( I may be wrong, but it may only apply to posted. ). I carry chains all year round in both my truck and SUV ’cause it can snow in the mountains all year round plus chains sometimes needed in the mud off pavement. Fact is I have used chains more often in the summer than the winter. I travel regularly in BC and normally would have winter tires on by now. But although the first snow where I live was September 3rd this year, it melted in a few days. We’ve had several snowfalls but the roads are still bare but they won’t be soon.
        The BC rule is a good rule. Too many people don’t understand the incredible difference between so called all season and winter tires. Legislation takes the guesswork out and makes uneducated drivers get the message.
        I have been using winter tires all 7 decades of my life. The only variation is weather and when to put them on.
        In Quebec, you have no choice about when to install them. It’s the law and a good law. Significantly reduced accident rates since introduction of the law.
        Now if we had that kind of correlation/causation for Global Warming it would be fantastic for our grandchildren.

  5. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest average temperature anomaly on Earth in October was over east Antarctica in Queen Maud Land. The October temperature there averaged 3.97 C (about 7.15 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms.
    Still didn’t get above freezing point though! (Guess this is why Antarctica is gaining ice mass.)

  6. A clever slip from the neutral point of view: “We thought this El Niño had the potential to be a record setter for some of the quantities we track, and it isn’t disappointing
    On order for CoP but how long will it last? BoM said last week:

    All NINO indices have now been above +1 °C for 11 consecutive weeks, equalling the previous record. Recent bursts of westerly winds in the tropics means some further warming remains possible. All models indicate that the strong El Niño is likely to persist until the end of the year, before a marked decline during the first quarter of 2016.

    Also note some maturity in the debate indicated by CSIRO now distinguishing between natural and manmade climate change in their vox pop…and 40% Ozzie punters going for nature.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940

    • I think the former prime minister Abbotts government didn’t cut the funding deep enough if the CSIRO can waste money on self serving polls!
      I think the “trick” here is in the question they asked.
      The “gotcha” question, do you believe in climate change, is a no brainer and only a fool would answer no.
      But ask the question like a statement from the alarmists like,
      “do you believe in catostrophic anthropological global armegedon that will see us and the planet reduced to an unlivable cinder by the end of the century unless we spend billions to save the children and the blue breasted bottled nose goat and the……(insert your own ideolygy driven senseless cause)?”
      That’d give their deceptive poll a bit of “respectability”.

  7. A record for one month is pretty meaningless.
    For instance, April 1998 hit 0.74c anomaly, way above last month.
    March 2010 also reached 0.50c.
    Indeed the whole of 1998 averaged higher than last month’s “record”.
    The bottom line is that this year will be nowhere near as hot as 1998 or 2010
    __

    • The bottom line is that this year will be nowhere near as hot as 1998 or 2010

      That is for sure! To break the 1998 record requires an average of 1.66 for the next two months, and to break 2010 requires 0.834 for the next two months.
      Also worth noting is that the tropics were 0.53 C this October. While this is the warmest October, the first four months in 1998 were all over 1.0 in the tropics.

      • Depending on who you talk to, I would say it definitely will be, it definitely will not be, and it may possibly be…we shall have to see.

      • Eek. Scientists suggest next year might be nearly as warm as couple of other years during the last two decades.
        And this is so horrible, so horrible. We might see new butterflies, and could, gasp, need to ditch some Belgian beers. In the mean time, don’t forget your woolly socks. The night is gonna be cold.

    • One consequence of this increased anomaly, is that, if it persists for another 2 months, the “Pause” will disappear, from UAH, at least.
      The trends in RSS are slightly different, and that Pause will hang on for another 6 months.

  8. Well, as I tell the warmists: of course its warming. We’re coming out of an ice age, what SHOULD it be doing.
    Usually, but not always, shuts them up. For a few seconds until they can get another snappy comeback from a warmist blog or two.

    • Well, as I tell the warmists: of course its warming. We’re coming out of an ice age, what SHOULD it be doing.

      Actually it should be cooling. The peak warming following the LGM occurred around 8,000 years ago.
      Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling trend.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

      • Are you of the opinion that the Milankovich cycles are 100% the cause of all historical variations?
        If so. that is a particularly bone-headed opinion, contrary to a veritable mountain of data.
        Lets have a look see at a former warmista darling…the ice core records…shall we?
        http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
        Anyway, my trollish friend…you were saying?

      • OK, but I think he meant that we are in the climate recovery after the “LITTLE ice age” since about 1850…

      • Are you of the opinion that the Milankovich cycles are 100% the cause of all historical variations?

        No – but they appear to explain the global scale variations, i.e. the glacial/interglacial periods.

        Anyway, my trollish friend…you were saying?

        You appear to have posted a graphic depicting Greenland historical temperatures. That would be an example of a regional variation – almost certainly caused by internal variability. That is not the same as change in the energy balance caused by solar (e.g. milankovitch forcing) or ghg forcing.
        Incidentally, I’m far from being an alarmist. I fully expect the world to warm over the next century or so but I don’t expect the warming to be a problem.

      • The Milankovich cycles was a one time favorite of mine, and seem to have some influence, but they are far from explaining everything.
        For one thing, the cycles vary smoothly over time, but the ice ages begin suddenly and end suddenly.
        And the Younger-Dryas period is completely unexplained by Milankovich cycles.
        Anyone wanting to know the whole story would have to be very unsatisfied with using the four parameters to try and explain everything.
        They clearly do not.
        And as for your stipulation that the ice cores represent only regional variations, that is much disputed as well.
        Before we get into a pointless back and forth over a possibly split hair, do you also believe that the LIA and MWP were “regional” events, with no correlation to worldwide trends?

      • “Incidentally, I’m far from being an alarmist. I fully expect the world to warm over the next century or so but I don’t expect the warming to be a problem.”
        Unlike you John, I do not know what future holds, and to not pretend to have any idea that my guess is worth more than a flipped coin anyway.
        You expect warming, and those who think they know what will happen are subject to confirmation bias, rejecting data which does not support their preconceived notions.
        This is a well known psychological mechanism…it takes a lot of will power to expect something will happen but acknowledge it when you are wrong.
        Why do you “fully expect the world to warm”, over any particular interval?
        I personally go where the data lead, and reject the opinions of people who claim the ability to read the future.
        But that is just me, and is likely due to many years of being trained in the scientific method.

      • There are some who say that low solar activity leads to increased volcanism and even earthquakes.
        I think we will know more in 15 years…long enough to provisionally validate or falsify some of these ideas.

      • John Finn – Yes, you are right. The earth IS cooling overall; if only you pick the right initial starting point : My idea is to start at the climatic maximum ca. 8000 years ago as you suggest.. But in between, if you look at the graphs with temperatures, you can make any amount of ups or downs in the line if you cherry-pick among the various ages. That is why, of course, the alarmists choose to see only the last few hundred years when temps. have indeed risen – and are probably still rising slowly (in spite of “the pause”.

      • Angular momentum sum of 9 planets and Sun.
        http://semi.gurroa.cz/Orbital/AngMoment_Sum3j_0100-2200_406jm.png
        “The high peaks are during times, when the Sun approaches the solar-system barycenter. At these times, the space curvature arround the Sun center plays significant role in calculating distances and the angular momentum, but I could not find a propper equation for a space curvature to cancel these, so I instead just clip the chart vertically…
        Without the space curvature, these events would disrupt the conservation of angular momentum significantly…
        The first derivation of angular momentum sum only little matches the sun-spot cycle, but the high-peak at 1990 could be correlated with a drop of solar-flare activity at the middle of preceeding sun-spot cycle 22. …
        The “wave” of approximate period of 854 years, which could be anti-correlated with Sun spin rate, seems to match the climatologic events of Medieval optimum and Global warming, and also the Little Ice age of Maunder minimum, and similar periods in earlier ages…
        If this is the case, now the Solar activity could drop a little, but will approach a larger maximum arround year 2050, not disturbed by the peak anomally, and then drop to a next little-ice-age arround 2400 AD.
        The time-lag between the spin rate change and activity change is still uncertain…”
        http://semi.gurroa.cz/Orbital/AngMoment.html

      • The divergence is partly an artifact of smoothing in EXCEL (it ignores blanks so the last point is really the average of the last 3 points instead of 5. Also, temporary divergence is not uncommon. What really bothers me is NASA and others possibly ‘cooking the books’ to corroborate an agenda.

      • Divergence doesn’t bother Michael Mann…aside from trying to hide it.
        Divergence doesn’t bother the warmists who’ve seen their models drifting further from reality.

    • Yes, a lot of very warm surface water is releasing it’s heat, which is then transported in a general pole-wards and space-wards direction.
      Once the winds reverse, the atmosphere will be left even cooler than the amount by which it warmed warmed during the warm phase.

      • Yes, a lot of very warm surface water is releasing it’s heat,

        If this comment is intended for me then I think you ought to take a look at the link in Dan Pangburn’s post. It shows a reconstruction of global temperature using the “integral” of the sunspot number (though it probably uses obsolete data). The thing to note is that there is a very tight relationship with the observed temperature record throughout the period 1600-2008. However, the relationship looks to be falling apart after about 2009. In fact, in another couple of years I doubt the predicted temperature will be within 2 SD of the observed temperature – which must be a record time for a failure in climate prediction circles.

        Once the winds reverse, the atmosphere will be left even cooler than the amount by which it warmed warmed during the warm phase.

        How much would you be prepared to bet on this? Obviously there will be some cooling following the peak of the current El Nino but the long term (decadal) trend will almost certainly be positive. To be honest these nonsensical pseudo-scientific pronouncements We’ve had cooling predictions for at least 20 years and all we appear to have had is a pause due to ocean circulation similar to that which reversed the 1915-45 warning.

      • No, your comment had not posted on my feed when I replied to Dan. If I replied to you my comment would be nested inside the margin of yours.
        So, observing that la ninas are often cooler than the preceding el nino year is now pseudo scientific?
        Really?
        And what of your WAG that the decadal trend “will almost certainly be positive”?
        Project much?

      • John – you said “though it probably uses obsolete data” It’s a challenge to keep up with the changes. There are even different assessments of SSN. The coefficients (A, B, C, D,) change a bit but the method is robust. I have used several different data sets (more than 7) and they all get a 97% or so match.

  9. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
    Hold on…does this mean Christie and Spencer are also in on this tax-funder bankrolled scam?! Is there no one left to trust?!?!

    • Oh, heavens no///it is not the warmth and lunch vegetation that will do us in…it is the loss of a small fraction of our life sustaining polar wastelands.
      How are humans supposed to live through the catastrophe of some melting ice, thousands of miles away, and far from where any one actually lives?

  10. A whole 1/2 a degree……and no one knows if it’s natural or not
    Frankly….I don’t care…..it’s all looking very silly

    • Frankly….I don’t care…..

      Really? Is that why you’ve posted hundreds of comments on this subject over the years.

      • No John, even a horse’s patoot should know the number is well up into the thousands.
        And not believing it is a disaster has always been one of the principle distinctions between warmistas and sane people.

  11. The problem now, after #NOAAgate is that I wouldn’t believe any temperature produced by any of these organisations unless it doesn’t show what they desperately want it to show.

    • The problem now, after #NOAAgate is that I wouldn’t believe any temperature produced by any of these organisations unless it doesn’t show what they desperately want it to show.

      Keep in mind that UAH6.0 and RSS are now very similar, yet the main people involved are on opposite sides of the fence. So I believe you can trust both satellite data sets.

      • Their results may be very similar but they refer to different regions of the atmosphere, the UAH product includes more of the lower stratosphere.

      • All the more reason to believe that the numbers are accurate, no?
        One would expect that various layers would move in concert, being that they are…oh, I do not know…right adjacent to each other!

    • So satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature, free from all station siting bias and urban heat island effects are showing a new peak, and many here don’t believe it?
      Boy, Dr Spencer just can’t catch a break. He received more than his fair share of abuse and attempts at discrediting his work from the warmist side when the numbers weren’t going their way, and now when they aren’t going the way sceptics think they should, they turn on him too?
      “the(y) get to the satellites too”,
      “all the data has been tortured into submission”,
      “I wouldn’t believe any temperature produced by any of these organisations unless it doesn’t show what they desperately want it to show.”
      Did anyone here think “Oh? That’s not what I though would happen. Maybe…..” ?

      • Agree. Respect the data. It is warm, just don’t jump to conclusions. This is El Nino, not Gavin’s Karlized LOTI.

      • Dermot. read Paul Homewood’s comment for some sane perspective on this “peak”.
        And hey, while I have your attention, could you look at this thing I have on my shoulder?
        Does it look like an ‘oma?

      • Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have my utmost respect as scientists of high integrity. They follow the data where it leads them instead of herding the data into the chiropractor’s office to be adjusted.
        I will repeat what I said up thread:
        “In Science, when we understand a system, we can predict its behavior. If not, we do not understand the system.”- John Christy
        It is important to stress that even with this being a record high temperature for October, it is still far below the calculated predictions of the 102 climate models that are based upon the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming. All of the models have been wrong.
        NONE of these climate models have demonstrated any predictive ability.
        Yet we are to use these same models to make sweeping, expensive, harmful and ineffective policy decisions?
        I for one am a global warming advocate. I hope it warms. Previous warm periods are referred to as ‘climatic optimums’. Will it warm? I can not predict that. Will it change? Undoubtedly, if the past is any indicator of the future.
        A world with more CO2 will be a more prolific and abundant biologic world. That is a scientific prediction that holds up under rigorous experimental testing.
        More CO2 = More plant growth.

    • I really think that UAHv6.0 is about as good as it gets. But please don’t try to scare me with less than 1/2°C of warming. That is like a flee sneez.

      • I think UAH and RSS are VERY good from a data perspective. And if they show warming, then whatever they are measuring is probably warming.
        But THE QUESTION is WHY?
        No one can answer that. There are dozens of proposals including GHG’s and in particular CO2 since it can be measured and taxed. Next we can tax children as they cause UHI, more CO2 and need more energy, and use up resources. So instead of a Child Tax Benefit, we just remove the benefit part. That should work, shouldn’t it?
        Dang. Now I really do have to go put my winter tires on. With the return to Standard Mountain Time, I only have a little over an hour of daylight left.

  12. …and 2016 will be the hottest year ever. Depending on who wins in 2016 (and who they appoint to run NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc), 2017 might be the hottest ever. In fact, if the media had their way, every year would be the hottest ever, even when ice sheets are advancing on Canadian cities.

  13. Morlock
    That sure must have been a hot day there for all that heat and moisture to have been swept up in such quantities to high altitude and precipitated back to Earth as hail and rain.

  14. The whole issue of hottest ever would quickly fade if the reporting agencies were required to also report the dates when the record was adjusted. 2015 the warmest ever according to and after the adjustments of 2015, 2001, … 1998… on down.

  15. Okay, so we have a higher reference peak from which the turn down of ENSO, AMO, solar, and others swing the other way. At least the heat content required to stay warm will be good for carbon tax revenues. That should be good for a few more $43 million alternative gas stations in Afghanistan.

  16. Paris Translation: Waiter, we need five more bottles of champagne at our table. And bring the private reserve red wines too.

  17. With this unusual (to a mere human) widespread efflux of warmth like a modoki El Nino plus PDO Nor-east Pacific reversal to warmth, interesting questions arise. I suppose time and observation will answer them.
    How much warm water is left under the North Pacific?
    What is the reaction of the salmon fishery, a bellwether? And the Peruvian?
    Did winds cause the currents which piled warmth against coastal Norwest America, and if so, what were the synoptics of that weather system?
    I imagine Bob Tisdale would have the sort of data needed……. Various changes (cool blobs, SOI neutrality?} seem to be in train too. Any observations?
    That coolness off New Zealand is noticeable to me still, water temps down a degree or two, snow falling down south nowl. Glad we don’t have the ‘warmth’ of Maude Land though. Both might be connected with Nino’s raised gradient and intensity of southern storms connecting ice to temperate zones, really pumping nonstop.

  18. Too bad some of that warming didn’t reach eastern Canada. We’ve just experienced one of the coolest Octobers in recent years with a very early snowfall (which often does not occur until late November or December) and many frosty nights.

    • spock, i also live in eastern Canada; lower New Brunswick. We had the mildest October I remember in many years.

    • Froze a lot here too in upstate NY. Finally, this week, we have a normal Indian Summer something we didn’t have for several years.

  19. Are they saying that this October was even warmer than October 2008, which was the warmest October ever?
    Oops, my bad.
    That was when Russia mistakenly sent in a repeat of the September temperatures.

  20. RSS just came out for October at 0.440. This is only 0.067 above its September value of 0.373. That contrasts with an increase of 0.18 for UAH. October 1998 beat the 0.440 at 0.461, so for RSS, this is the second warmest October.
    RSS has a 10 month average of 0.33, tying it for third with 2005. There is also no way it will get above third place in 2015. As for 2016? Who knows?

    • You know it Werner……they are all trying to split hairs…..claiming measurements no sane person would believe….and not putting right beside their “margin of error”

  21. Why so concerned with single years’ ups and downs? Wait, say, 30-40 years, and then check the trend.

    • climatologist says “Wait, say, 30-40 years, and then check the trend.”
      So we have 36 years, and it has risen 0.39 up in the troposphere, and more on the surface.
      Case closed.

      • Yes. Well within the parameters of natural climate variability.
        Nothing unusual or unprecedented has happened for 36+ years.
        Case closed (although in science it’s never ‘case closed’).
        More like: climate alarmism debunked. Again.

      • “…we have 36 years, and it has risen 0.39 up in the troposphere…”
        In your mind, should that be zero change? It’s been my experience that integrators don’t hang at zero very long.

    • trafamadore:
      Your post says in total

      climatologist says “Wait, say, 30-40 years, and then check the trend.”
      So we have 36 years, and it has risen 0.39 up in the troposphere, and more on the surface.
      Case closed.

      You don’t say which faux climatologist says “Wait, say, 30-40 years, and then check the trend.” Please say because there is no reason to wait and your quotation provides no reason.
      Importantly, your data does close the case because it is definitive evidence that the warming is NOT a result of increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air. Any such GHG warming would cause MORE – n.b. more and not less – temperature rise in the troposphere than at the surface.
      Richard

  22. Although no one knows what will happen, it appears this El Nino may be peaking right now. This is 3+ months earlier than the 1997-98 El Nino and very likely the reason October is setting a record. If this view is correct then we will not see anything close to the temperatures next winter that we saw in 1998 and we are likely to see an early start to La Nina (which would be bad for CA).
    This may also be why the SH is not seeing higher anomaly figures. Whatever happens the difference between this El Nino and some of the recent ones is quite entertaining. This will likely carry on to the La Nina which will be happening as we approach solar minimum. This could reduce the recharge energy that normally fuels the next El Nino.

  23. @Menicholas November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    >> Dermot. read Paul Homewood’s comment for some sane perspective on this “peak”.
    Yes – he puts it into perspective very well. However, such perspective on the significance of the data was not the target of my comment.
    Back to the subject of my original comment, then. Your comment might be better directed at those who say the data is all compromised and isn’t to be believed. Maybe they’ll take comfort that it actually isn’t as bad as they feared, and so perversely might be more trustworthy.
    >> And hey, while I have your attention, could you look at this thing I have on my shoulder?
    >> Does it look like an ‘oma?
    I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

    • Well, you see, your name implies that you may be a dermatologist, and…nevermind.
      It is only funny if you get it with no explanation.
      And I have no idea at this point what you are trying to say, or what your point of view is, either.
      So i guess we are even.
      I thought you were implying that a one month peak during at el nino is some grave omen.
      I suspect it is not.
      And I do not know of anyone who believe “all” the data is compromised.
      Many, including me, find that all of the chicanery with the adjustments of the historical surface data have rendered it worthless, but have no such view of these satellite readings.
      Warmistas, on the other hand, seem to discount satellite data…will not even discuss it, or claim it is not relevant because no one lives in the troposphere…and instead place great faith in the altered surface records and in the GCMs.

    • Hold on to your wallets, I can’t wait for the endless barrage from the mainstream media. Of course they will ignore the fact the NASA has finally admitted that Antarctica is gaining ice mice causing the oceans to drop.

  24. 2015 +0.43 C
    1998 +0.40 C
    2003 +0.29 C
    2005 +0.28 C
    2014 +0.26 C

    a difference of 0.03degC is statistically meaningless from both measurement accuracy and background noise basis.
    a difference of .14degC is statistically meaningless from both measurement accuracy and background noise basis.
    a difference of 0.17degc is mostly statistically meaningless from a measurement accuracy basis and still completely meaningless from a background noise basis.
    saying we’ve “reached a new maximum” without showing the confidence interval on maxima is a meaningless and misleading statement.
    Saying “we’re still bumbling along a slightly upslope plateau of temperatures” would be an accurate statement.
    Peter

      • If the savings account at my bank only promised that much interest,

        not sure you’ve checked lately, but that’s about the interest you are getting these days. Funny world with zero inflation and zero interest rates. Keynes being falsified like crazy…
        Peter

      • Peter
        Zero inflation???!!!
        And yet my health insurance premium just increased 275%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@#$$$%
        That is as absurd as calling the increase in home values an increase in equity instead of inflation.

      • Peter is talking at ZERO degrees rises. Inflation will always be that, inflation. Making things seem more expensive or move valuable, when in fact all we are doing is simply devaluing currency. Until the plastic “figure” bursts!

  25. i was waiting to see this peak in the satellite records. I’m very curious to see how it will behave and if it would make a new “step”.
    i think we will see some records seen the “baseline” this el nino is starting from i wouldn’t doubt that 2016 may break a record in both satellite records.
    i find that they do a very good job in interpreting and placing their measurements in a correct and a very scientific context.

  26. Good to see the trend over the past 36 years is clearly stated in the report. 0.11degC/decade doesn’t really fill me with shock and awe, and suggests we’ll struggle even to reach the fabled 2degC let alone exceed it.
    Perhaps the satellite record needs “correcting” to bring it into line with what we *know* from the other datasets, much as sea level rise measured by satellites is zero but has been adjusted based on outlier terrestrial gauges. If someone could do this before Paris the politicians of the world will be grateful.

  27. Looks like it is now snowing all over the Pacific Northwest and California and probably this winter, it will snow in Arizona, too. Been through such winters in Tucson when growing up in the 1960’s.

    • Looks like it is now snowing all over the Pacific Northwest and California and probably this winter, it will snow in Arizona, too

      Learned a new term today: “Ecological Fallacy”. Been looking at statistics+geography lectures and texts lately.
      In this case, it’s an Ecological Fallacy to assume that some group statistic has any meaning on what’s happening in a particular location.
      Peter

  28. Let’s not forget that the next La Nina will also be “superimposed on top of the slowly rising global base temperature”.
    Right now, it’s a field day for the heat (per Joe Bastardi).

    • Glad you do not used the long form of that URL!
      I was late for dinner it took me so long to scroll over to the end of it.
      🙂
      That is a long link.
      I think you could label each atom in the universe with a smaller number of possibilities than all those characters represent.

  29. Anecdote: On the 4th and 5th of Nov the local weather service predicts temps in the low 70s. It was 68°F today. This is unusual for Northern Illinois this time of year (I live in Rockford). Normal is more like 50s for the high temp.

    • It has been incredibly warm this fall in SW Florida…but as we all know, that only means somewhere else must be really cold.
      Even this warmest evah anomaly is only a fraction of a degree averaged out over the whole Earth.

      • Yes, you better hope that in the short term things average out or we are in deep sh*t no matter which way it goes… The longer term is just climate anyway.

    • Wonderful weather. But here in 61108 we had frost earlier.
      Acquaintances agreed we need this all winter. And that -20F will come.
      Here in Rockford we have had +112F and -27F. Simon and I are weather happy dudes these early November days.
      I came up from Carmi, Illinois and have often wondered why. Well, I wanted a job NOT mining coal.

  30. Why don’t they take the warming trend back to the end of the last warming period in 1940 instead of the end of the cooling period in 1976.

    • Because the satellites hadn’t been launched yet in 1940? Because they can only take the trend as far as their data goes?

      • This is why it was imperative that they altered the historical records.
        if they did not cool the past, there would be nothing to this whole meme.
        In 1997 (or was it ’98?) Hansen is on record as saying that there was nothing unusual about the global temps. Of course not, since at that time the 1930s to early 1094s were clearly shown to be warmer in all the data sets.
        Recall that at that time…in these days…no one was claiming it had never been warmer…they were saying the rate of change exceeded anything ever seen before.
        But that was shown to be untrue, as the el nino gave way to the la nina and pause that followed.
        This was when they really got to work on the alterations.

  31. BTW good to see WUWT post both pro and anti warmist news LOL see we skeptics admit and publish not like the warmist crowd! haha

  32. So, what causes El Nino (and its cousin, El Nina)?
    So, what caused all those previous periods of warm climate (all well before the industrial revolution)?
    So, what caused all those ice ages that earth has experienced?
    How is it possible that CO2 levels during at least one ice age were HIGHER than today’s levels?
    Are not today’s CO2 levels at historically low levels ?

  33. Oh, goody…
    Now we get to hear Leftists crow about “The warmest October eva” in perfect timing for the Paris COP21 Left-fest hitting the world stage in a couple of weeks…
    Too bad this October spike was due to a strong El Nino cycle and NOT CO2, but hey, it makes for excellent propaganda, you know, the whole Machiavelli thing…..
    Given the lag between strong El Nino cycles and UAH/RSS TLT temps, we’ll probably have new records broken for the next 4~6 months, until the ENSO cycle makes it shift to La Lina early/mid 2016…
    I can’t wait…

  34. Agrees with NCEP real time. However major La Nina lurking ( see weatherbell.com public video) and SCRIPPS now seeing it. Temps should plummet after this enso like 06/07 09/10. Lots of propaganda tho coming before that. ITS A FIELD DAY FOR THE HEAT global temp wise but will hit a lower point on NCEP real time in 18-19 than 12.

    • Joe– You’re right. Nature seeks equilibrium, not its own destruction.
      Historic ENSO records show that following strong/long El Nino events, strong/long La Nina events follow.
      The coming La Lina event will also be enhanced by the 30-year PDO cool cycle (started in 2008), which was not in effect following the 97/98 Super El Nino.
      The coming La Lina event will also be enhanced by the weakest solar cycle since 1906, which is approaching the end of its 11~year very weak cycle.
      It’ll be interesting see what ad hoc excuses the warmunists will come up with to account for the coming La Nina cool spike downwards….

  35. The battle hymn of the warmistas:

    SAID HANRAHAN
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    In accents most forlorn,
    Outside the church, ere Mass began,
    One frosty Sunday morn.
    The congregation stood about,
    Coat-collars to the ears,
    And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
    As it had done for years.
    “It’s lookin’ crook,” said Daniel Croke;
    “Bedad, it’s cruke, me lad,
    For never since the banks went broke
    Has seasons been so bad.”
    “It’s dry, all right,” said young O’Neil,
    With which astute remark
    He squatted down upon his heel
    And chewed a piece of bark.
    And so around the chorus ran
    “It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.”
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.
    “The crops are done; ye’ll have your work
    To save one bag of grain;
    From here way out to Back-o’-Bourke
    They’re singin’ out for rain.
    “They’re singin’ out for rain,” he said,
    “And all the tanks are dry.”
    The congregation scratched its head,
    And gazed around the sky.
    “There won’t be grass, in any case,
    Enough to feed an ass;
    There’s not a blade on Casey’s place
    As I came down to Mass.”
    “If rain don’t come this month,” said Dan,
    And cleared his throat to speak–
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “If rain don’t come this week.”
    A heavy silence seemed to steal
    On all at this remark;
    And each man squatted on his heel,
    And chewed a piece of bark.
    “We want a inch of rain, we do,”
    O’Neil observed at last;
    But Croke “maintained” we wanted two
    To put the danger past.
    “If we don’t get three inches, man,
    Or four to break this drought,
    We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.”
    In God’s good time down came the rain;
    And all the afternoon
    On iron roof and window-pane
    It drummed a homely tune.
    And through the night it pattered still,
    And lightsome, gladsome elves
    On dripping spout and window-sill
    Kept talking to themselves.
    It pelted, pelted all day long,
    A-singing at its work,
    Till every heart took up the song
    Way out to Back-o’Bourke.
    And every creek a banker ran,
    And dams filled overtop;
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “If this rain doesn’t stop.”
    And stop it did, in God’s good time;
    And spring came in to fold
    A mantle o’er the hills sublime
    Of green and pink and gold.
    And days went by on dancing feet,
    With harvest-hopes immense,
    And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
    Nid-nodding o’er the fence.
    And, oh, the smiles on every face,
    As happy lad and lass
    Through grass knee-deep on Casey’s place
    Went riding down to Mass.
    While round the church in clothes genteel
    Discoursed the men of mark,
    And each man squatted on his heel,
    And chewed his piece of bark.
    “There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
    There will, without a doubt;
    We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.”
    John O’Brien

  36. Some of those who gleefully quoted the satellite record when it was an unrelenting embarrassment to “true believers” now attack the same messenger when he brings them something they don’t wish to hear. Who didn’t think the current El Nino would not spike global temperature? The ’98 record peak still stands and by that definition “the pause” continues. What has now been added to the satellite record books is “highest October temperature” in the satellite record having occurred in 2015. No one should be trying to make that reality “go away” just because is may be discomforting. That’s what “true believers” have been doing that so infuriates the rest of us. Even if the 1998 peak should be surpassed sometime later in this El Nino cycle, the satellite record of the past 18 years has already demonstrated that the AGW-based climate models are grotesquely wrong and that there really is no basis for the current global warming hysteria.

  37. Believe it or not, and as far as I can tell from the UK MetOffice website, there are 3 “30 year period” averaged datasets of weather to represent climate namely 1961-1990 (The one I am most familiar with in reports from the IPCC etc), 1971-2000 and 1981-2010. So which dataset is the correct “30 year” averaged weather dataset to determine “climate”? I guess whichever one shows more cooling in the past and warming in the present.

    • It has long been standard procedure in meteorology to use the average of the most recent three full decades (ending with a year xxx0) to represent “norms” of climate.

      • Then why does the IPCC use the 1961 – 1990 dataset (As far as I can tell that is the “baseline” dataset used in projections etc)? That to me suggests a type of “moving the goal posts” type of approach with announcements such as this. Why not use the entire 3 datasets, 90 years, after all we are trying to detect weather trends on a planet that is ~4.5 BILLION years old with one dataset of weather spanning 30 years. The idea is preposterous.

      • They represent the ‘norms’ only as far as the warmists have defined it. That was never the position when I went to school.
        Give what we know about oceanic cycles, it would appear to be unarguable that a period shorter than those cycles should be used. personally, I consider climate should be assessed upon at least a centennial scale.

      • The UK Met Office will continue to use the 30-year period 1961-1990 until the next complete non-overlapping 30-year period, which will be 1991-2020.
        The logic seems to be that quoted anomalies do not jump around when the means change by a few fractions of a degree with each new decade.

  38. Whilst I consider that it is scientifically incorrect to claim the warmest on record when the amount by which the previous record has been exceeded is less than the measurement errors inherent in the measuring system as a whole, and why I am not at all concerned by a few hundredths of a degree, I would like to know where in the Northern Hemisphere it was warm.
    What we are seeing is weather, not climate, and weather as influenced by a strong El Nino. This obviously impacts upon weather fronts and the distribution thereof. I recall reading only a week or so ago that Germany had had one of its coolest September on records. In Southern Spain, October has been cold. It may be that some parts in Eastern Europe have been warm just like some parts of the US have been cold and some parts warm.
    Whilst, I do not question this data set (apart from its short duration and continuing to make sure that it correctly accounts for orbital drift and equipment loss of sensitivity/degrading over time), personally, I would like to see more regional data so that we have a better handling on trends where people actually live.

    • Weather is natural, and CHANGEABLE. “Climate” is a human construct (The IPCC 30 year average of weather apparently) and thus we are able to predict/control it?

      • Patrick:
        You say

        “Climate” is a human construct (The IPCC 30 year average of weather apparently)

        No, that is a misunderstanding foisted by warmunists when they want to ignore inconvenient data but not otherwise. And it needs to be refuted whenever it is promulgated.
        The IPCC AR5 Glossary defines climate as being
        Climate

        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

        So,
        climate is ‘average weather’ over any “period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years” but the period needs to be stated.
        Indeed, this thread is about one datum of the climate for the month of October 2015.
        The 30 years refers to a standard period to which climate data is compared: it is NOT climate. And its length is arbitrary: it was adopted in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because it was thought that there was insufficient data for use prior to 30 years before 1958. It is an unfortunate choice because 30 years is not a multiple of the solar cycle length, ot the Hale cycle length, or any other climate cycle length.
        Richard

      • Patrick
        Not only is weather changeable, so too is climate. I consider that many misunderstand what Climate is, and they are far too ready to suggest a small change in one parameter (temperature is Climate change).
        Climate (which is regional not global) consist of many parameters, and temperature is just one of these parameters. Materially all these parameters are variable and never in stasis, and they may interrelate with one another such that a change in one parameter may cause another parameter to change as well. Change of any one or more of these parameters is not in itself Climate change, indeed since change is an inherent ongoing characteristic, it follows that mere change in and of itself, is not climate change. It is simply what Climate is and what it does.
        it is only when more than one of these parameters changes beyond the realms of natural variability and remains beyond those bounds for a protracted period of time that there may be evidence of Climate change. It is suggested that Climate is some nominal average over a 30 year period, but that is way too short a period to measure a natural phenomena on a planet that has had an atmosphere for nearly 4.5 billion years, and which is subject to glacial periods and inter-glacials. One has to look at all the natural phenomena and their cycles to get an idea as to what Climate is in any given epoch. certainly, from what we know of oceanic cycles and the like, it is clear that it needs to be measured at least over a period of a 100 years or more.
        There is even an argument that the MWP and the LIA were not fundamentally different Climates but rather they set the upper and lower bounds of natural variability for the Climate in the region under review. For example we know that in the LIA, it was not universally cold for year on year and that there was much variability within this cool period such that cold years were inter spaced with warm years. I am not saying that that is my view, but I understand that short term variability of that nature could simply be regarded as part and parcel of the extreme bounds, at either end of the spectrum, of natural variability of Climate.

  39. One should not get carried away with the warmest month ‘ever’. It means nothing at all, and carries with it no significance. Of course it will be played for all its worth in the PR game in the run up to Paris, but all genuine scientists know that this is just coincident and not the result of CO2.
    We know that temperatures, at least in short term variability, are strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina events. The previous short term warm periods in this data sets were in 2010 and 1998 driven by El Nino.
    Now unless the current 2015/16 El Nino lines up precisely on a month by month basis say with the 1997/8 Super El Nino we can expect to see some particularly warm months in the course of the next 6 months which may well exceed the previous highs for the months in question. But that has no significance and is simply an alignment issue between the impact of TWO NATURAL cycles/events.
    What is important is whether coincident with this current strong El Nino there is a long lasting step change in temperatures, as was coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/8. if there is no such step change, the following La Nina will almost certainly bring temperatures back down (probably down to the say 2001 to 2003 level), and it is then likely that the ‘pause’ will continue and still be intact going into 2019 when AR6 is being prepared.
    Thus if there is no step change in temperatures coincident upon this current strong El Nino, we can already foresee that by the time AR6 is being prepared the ‘pause’ will be more than 21 years in duration. As the ‘pause’ lengthens, Climate Sensitivity must fall. This means that we may anticipate papers discussing Climate Sensitivity published say in late 2017, 2018 and early 2019 will be showing ever decreasing figures for Climate Sensitivity. The short term euphoria of the warmists which we currently see, will by then have evaporated.

  40. Global temps are going up for another 4 to 5 months yet due to the near-Super El Nino and the lag. The Nino 3.4 index hit +2.7C last week.
    There is also a 3 month lag and temperatures have only started to respond to the El Nino conditions of three months ago. We will probably see UAH global temps go over +0.65C in February to April 2016. Tropics will be in the +0.8C range.
    http://s3.postimg.org/yly8vbfpv/UAH_RSS_Volc_adj_vs_ENSO_Oct15.png

    • I’m doubting on the tropics to respond that well due to a scattering jet, but we’ll see. Great chart btw, should be a global standard.

  41. I have compared the gridded RSS TLT anomalies of different El Nino regions for Oct 2015 with the 1997/1998 El Nino maxima:
    El Nino1+2 Max Feb 1998 2.11 °C, Oct 2015 1.01 °C
    El Nino 3 Max Feb 1998 1.58 °C, Oct 2015 0.49 °C
    El Nino 3.4 Max Apr 1998, 1.29 °C, Oct 2015 0.40 °C
    El Nino 4 Max Feb 1998, 1.50 °C, Oct 2015 0.39 °C
    My comment: the party is not over. The global record in Oct 2015 is mainly caused by the slowly rising global base temperature.

  42. Satellite information has indeed brought major insights into temperature variability both in time and space. BUT, what on earth does an average temperature represent? The atmosphere is never in thermodynamic equilibrium. How can it be given its chaotic nature ? So producing `average` figures for 12 months is meaningless. Unfortunately, this is playing into the hands of the ignorant media and politicians, and the latter will advocate policies not thought out and to their benefit only. The `average` is the curse of humanity.

    • It is meaningless.
      Richard Courtney has explained at length (on several occasions) why the GATA (global average temperature anomaly) is a contrived construction of data devoid of meaning or substance. When there was a parliamentary Inquiry into Climategate, Richard even made submissions to Parliament explaining this. Of course, the Inquiry never looked in detail at the science and turned out to be a complete whitewash 9no surprise there).
      If you really want to know some more detail, I could probably trace a link. Or next time you see Richard Courtney comment (and he is a frequent commenter), you could ask him for a link. His submissions (and appendix) are well worth a read.

  43. Question is will anyone bother to do the math and publish into the media when its the coldest November on satellite record?

  44. They received no money from the carbon fuel industry or special interest groups but “All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.” Isn’t this an oxymoron?

    • As you say, Government sure receives a lot of money from the carbon fuel industry. I wonder just how much tax does the carbon fuel industry (and its offshoots) pay in tax (including employment taxes)?

  45. Even with the new UAH V6.0 global temperature departure of 0.43°C for October I still get a negative trend line slope for the last 18 years and 6 months.

  46. Well, let me try this.
    From AD 950 to 1250 the earth experienced the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD (MWP).
    If today’s AGW charlatans lived at that time and had today’s analytical knowledge, tools and instruments, they could easily say, “the last 25 (or 50 or 75 or 100 or 125) years are the warmest on record.”
    Of course, they could not blame that very warm period on SUVs and coal fired power plants, so they most likely would have found those individuals in league with the devil and burned them at the stake.
    So, how did the MWP end ???
    That’s right, in the LITTLE ICE AGE.
    All these discussions about which time period should be serve as the basis of comparison is just plain stupid. It has ALL HAPPENED BEFORE , well before any possible human induced causes, and the climatic changes – if any – we are witnessing today are by historical (as in geologic time) standards a joke.
    FOLKS, FOLLOW THE MONEY !!
    Check out, below, what the worlds most prominent climatologists were saying not that long ago;
    https://youtu.be/1kGB5MMIAVA

    • Was the MWP or the LIA a change in climate regime, or simply an oscillation setting the upper and lower bounds of natural variation on a regional basis which lasted for perhaps a centennial basis (or thereabouts)which in the scope of an inter glacial period is not such a substantial period of time. Especially when one considers that even in the MWP there were years when it was not that warm, and in the LIA there were years when it was not that cold. Whilst these periods were generally warm, or generally cool, there was still quite large amounts of variability from one year to another.
      If one argues that the MWP and LIA are not global but regional only (eg. mid to high northern latitudes), it becomes very difficult to argue that they represented a genuine climate shift and it is more likely that they represented the extremes that any region can experience given the scope of natural variation that might impact upon the climate in the region in question.
      certainly, I do not consider that one can assess Climate over a 30 year period. To me that is patently absurd. As you say, we have seen far higher temps, and far lower temps and these were not driven by CO2 (since supposedly that did not change over the past few thousand years), so the null hypothesis that there is nothing to suggest that the present change is anything other than naturally driven remains sound and not displaced.

  47. Does anyone care about the data any longer at this place? Most people are simply following a belief, whether it is that all warming since 1950 is natural or all is man made. A lot of people are confounding science with religion or simply using science to support their beliefs.
    The data does not support a believe in dangerous global warming, nor a believe in greenhouse gases as the primary planetary temperature determinant.
    But the data does not support a believe in the climate of the Earth being what it should be in the absence of anthropogenic forcings.
    It is a fact that glaciers have retreated to a point last seen 5,200 years ago. Otherwise we would have not found Ötzi the ice-man in the Alps, the Quelccaya Glacier plant in Peru, or the South-Cascade Glacier rooted tree-trunk in Washington State, all of them buried in ice 5,200 years ago until now. While this does not mean that the planet’s climate is as warm now as it was then, it demonstrates beyond doubt that glacier dynamics determinants are abnormal, specially considering that glaciers were at their maximum extent for the past 10,000 years only 250 years ago. That greenhouse gases are having a significant effect on climate cannot be refuted unless one is willing to abandon the search for the truth in pursuit of other agendas.
    While the alarmism is unjustified, and the warming mostly beneficial, this does not mean that it is baseless. A lot of people here should review their position or abandon any pretense that their posture is supported by scientific evidence.

    • Javier:
      You assert

      It is a fact that glaciers have retreated to a point last seen 5,200 years ago. Otherwise we would have not found Ötzi the ice-man in the Alps, the Quelccaya Glacier plant in Peru, or the South-Cascade Glacier rooted tree-trunk in Washington State, all of them buried in ice 5,200 years ago until now. While this does not mean that the planet’s climate is as warm now as it was then, it demonstrates beyond doubt that glacier dynamics determinants are abnormal, specially considering that glaciers were at their maximum extent for the past 10,000 years only 250 years ago.

      NO! It absolutely does NOT demonstrate anything “abnormal” about glacier behaviour.
      On the contrary. It demonstrates beyond any possibility of doubt that glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in present glacier retreat.
      Indeed, present glacier retreat is is trivial when compared to that of transition from the last ice age only 10,000 years ago (i.e. a ‘blink of an eye’ in geological time) and the present retreat began 250 years ago which was before the industrial revolution.
      Richard

      • Richard,
        You can put all the boldface you want, it won’t make you any more right. The Holocene reached its maximal 60°N insolation about 10,500 years ago and Earth’s maximal obliquity (axial tilt) about 9,500 years ago. For the last 7,000 years the Holocene has been on a multi-millennial downward trend in temperatures. For the last 5000 years the Holocene has been so cold compared to the Holocene Climatic Optimum, that it has been termed the Neoglacial period. Current glacier retreat is not normal within a 7,000 years cooling trend in the Holocene. There is no natural reason why glaciers should go back to a stage that was left behind 5,000 years ago.
        This is an example of what I just said. All this is simple common knowledge that any person interested in climate should know since it does not require any scientific training to understand. You either chose to ignore it or don’t care enough to learn the background over which current global warming is taking place.

      • Javier:
        OK. I accept that you want to believe your illogical nonsense. However, for the benefit of others, please explain why the recent glacier retreat began BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION if it is not natural.
        As I said, the observations demonstrate beyond any possibility of doubt that glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in present glacier retreat.
        Richard

      • Richard,

        for the benefit of others, please explain why the recent glacier retreat began BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION if it is not natural.

        So you think that because it started as a natural process at the end of the LIA that makes it immune to greenhouse induced warming? On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?

        glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented in present glacier retreat.

        You are wrong on the second part. Glaciers have advanced and retreated during the holocene, but not this much in 5,000 years. This is unusual. We should not be encountering things buried in ice 5,000 years ago.
        It is so difficult to understand that there has to be some contribution from greenhouse gases to present warming? It is completely unreasonable and unscientific to defend the opposite.

      • Javier:
        You repeatedly ask

        So you think that because it started as a natural process at the end of the LIA that makes it immune to greenhouse induced warming? On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?

        You admit that the start of the glacier retreat was natural then you assume it is “enhanced” by “non-natural warming”. Why do you assume that when there is no evidence of any “non-natural warming”?
        You are making the assertion of “enhanced glacier retreat”. It is for you to justify your assertion, and there is no reason for others to accept it when you have no evidence for it.
        Furthermore, there is no evidence for any recent global warming (natural or non-natural) for more than 18 years. Lack of warming cannot “enhance” anything.
        Clearly, you are having difficulty understanding your error so I will try to to explain by comparison.
        You ask me and JohnTyler,
        “On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
        I ask you,
        “On what basis do you think Santa Claus does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
        I will answer your question when you answer mine.

        Richard

      • Richard,

        you assume it is “enhanced” by “non-natural warming”. Why do you assume that when there is no evidence of any “non-natural warming”?
        You are making the assertion of “enhanced glacier retreat”. It is for you to justify your assertion, and there is no reason for others to accept it when you have no evidence for it.

        Science has evidence for it, therefore I have it too.
        Besides the evidence already presented (Ötzi, the Quelccaya Glacier plant, and the South-Cascade Glacier rooted tree-trunk), there are direct measurements of delta-18O in Huascarán glacier ice-core that show the 5200 abrupt cooling and cooling trend until present warming:
        http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Huascaran%20glacier_zpseki9rkkg.png
        This is not a hockey stick reconstruction. It is a direct measurement in an ice core, from the following article in Science:
        http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/publications/Thompson%20et%20al%20Science%201995.pdf
        If the mounting evidence for 5,000 years unprecedented glacier melting is not enough for you, then you can take a look at a global glacier reconstruction meta-study from glacierologists Koch and Clague.
        http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Glacier%20fluctuations_zpslp2fbufk.png
        I have marked the glacier extent maximum (yellow) and minimum (black) trends so you don’t miss them. Present glacier extent minimum is way out of what should be expected, and lower than the minima during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.
        http://kochj.brandonu.ca/pages_2006.pdf
        The most likely explanation for this anomaly in glacier extent is not that our global temperatures are now higher than the past 5,000 years as some believe, but that current high CO2 levels have a disproportionate effect on glacier dynamics. This should be expected from greenhouse gas theory as its effects should be most noticeable the less water vapor in the atmosphere, and the air over glaciers is extremely dry due to its low temperatures. While our temperatures have gone back a couple of thousand years from global warming, our glaciers have gone back 5,000 years due to high GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
        I am sorry if the evidence doesn’t fit your core beliefs. You can still reject the evidence to maintain your core beliefs, but you cannot continue claiming that you base your beliefs in science. You will have to accept that you base your beliefs in faith.
        There is global warming, and GHGs contribute to it. The role of GHGs is grossly exaggerated as natural factors also contribute to it. It is indefensible that all warming is man-made as it is indefensible that none of the warming is man-made. And you sir, are wrong about this issue.

      • Javier:
        There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
        Three decades of research conducted world wide at a cost of over $5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found some such evidence but that was soon seen to be an artifact of his having chosen a part of a data set (the late John Daly provided this excellent summary of the affair.
        If you think you have found some evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) then publish it because your finding would certainly result in you being awarded at least lone Nobel Prize.
        I repeat
        You ask me and JohnTyler,
        “On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
        I ask you,
        “On what basis do you think Santa Claus does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
        I will answer your question when you answer mine.
        I am still awaiting your answer to my question which is as sensible as yours.
        Richard

      • There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.

        There is not and will not be evidence that can satisfy you, because I have provided evidence and you have not been able to disprove it or provide an alternative explanation for it. Again this is proof that you are not evidence-driven, but belief-driven. Not much point in talking to you. You just repeated a belief mantra.

        If you think you have found some evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) then publish it because your finding would certainly result in you being awarded at least lone Nobel Prize.

        Don’t be silly. I haven’t done any research on climatology, just read and kept my mind more open than you. Besides the scientific journals are packed full on evidence on AGW. The candidate line for that Nobel would be huge.

        You ask me and JohnTyler,
        “On what basis do you think non-natural warming does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”
        I ask you,
        “On what basis do you think Santa Claus does not cause enhanced glacier retreat?”

        I thought it was a joke question. Amazing you are serious about it. While heat melts glaciers and there is no way to distinguish heat from different origins, Santa Claus is a folklore figure based on a person who died more than a thousand years ago and therefore there is no known way it can affect glaciers.
        I don’t find this conversation productive. You requested the evidence and I provided it. You are welcome.

      • Javier:
        I would accept any evidence for anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
        I repeat, there is no evidence for AGW; none, zilch , nada.
        You only have to cite one piece of evidence to prove me wrong.
        But you cannot prove me wrong because you admit you don’t have any evidence. That is no surprise because – as I said – anybody who found such evidence would obtain at least one Nobel Prize following much research over three decades that has failed to find any.
        You now say

        I thought it was a joke question. Amazing you are serious about it. While heat melts glaciers and there is no way to distinguish heat from different origins, Santa Claus is a folklore figure based on a person who died more than a thousand years ago and therefore there is no known way it can affect glaciers.
        I don’t find this conversation productive. You requested the evidence and I provided it. You are welcome.

        OK, you have taken your ball home. But I respond to your twaddle for the benefit of onlookers.
        My question was serious because – as you say – “While heat melts glaciers and there is no way to distinguish heat from different origins” but you were claiming any change to glacier retreat was a result of AGW. Even by your standards, that inconsistency is daft.
        There is as much evidence for AGW as there is for Santa Claus; i.e. none.
        You provided no evidence and admitted that you have no evidence but conclude by claiming you “provided” evidence.
        You now say you are leaving. Good riddance.
        Richard

    • The receding glacier that Obama visited in Alaska where he said, ” this is proof of global warming,” began receding at the time of the American Revolution; the late 1700s.
      Please tell us how this was possible given that humans had no affect on climate until, supposedly, the last 100 years.
      Further, to your point about Otzi; how did he wind up when dead, under tens of feet of ice?
      Clearly, when he died, THERE WAS NO ICE THERE !! The climate was as warm, if not warmer, than today. And if that is so, pray tell, where did all that CO2 come from that warmed the climate at that time?
      Also, there have been several (many ? ) periods in geologic time when glaciers receded.
      So, what caused these events?
      No one claims that the climate cannot be changing. But clearly, there are other dynamics at play that affect climate and are not yet understood. And if a CHAOTIC mechanism is not understood, then one cannot claim to have an explanation for what is presently transpiring. For all anyone knows, it could be factors that are totally removed from greenhouse gases (to the extent that the greenhouse gases are the CAUSE, not the RESULT of warming.).
      When climate scientists can EXPLAIN – not merely describe – the historical climate record, then one can begin to give credence to their suppositions.
      Until then, it is all politics and their striving for research grants and speaking fees.

      • John,

        Please tell us how this was possible given that humans had no affect on climate until, supposedly, the last 100 years.

        Because glacier retreat started as a natural process in the natural warming post-LIA. However glacier retreat is proceeding too much to be completely natural. We should not be reaching 5,000 years old ice if it was only a natural process.

        Clearly, when he died, THERE WAS NO ICE THERE !! The climate was as warm, if not warmer, than today. And if that is so, pray tell, where did all that CO2 come from that warmed the climate at that time?

        Ötzi died just at the onset of a severe global cooling period equivalent to the LIA that took place for natural causes 5,200 years ago. CO2 was very low at that time. The climate was warmer because the amount of insolation in the polar regions and specially in the northern hemisphere was higher. The heat was the same that melted the ice sheets after the glacial period.

        Also, there have been several (many ? ) periods in geologic time when glaciers receded.
        So, what caused these events?

        Within the Holocene in the last 7,000 years the picture is quite clear. All major variability (with one exception) has come from millennial cycles, and has all been of cooling nature. During each cooling, glaciers advanced and when the cooling ended temperatures partially recovered and glaciers retreated, but all within a general downward temperature trend.
        There are no warming events in the last 7,000 years, just cooling events followed by recovery within a progressive cooling. After the LIA we are having a recovery, but superimposed on it we have greenhouse gases-induced warming. It is not possible to quantify each contribution but it is clear that we are having more warming that what corresponds to this time of the Holocene. But we should not be alarmed. It is a positive thing, not a negative. It won’t become dangerous because it is not as much as alarmists believe and the Earth has cooling mechanisms, like higher frequency of El Niño activity.

      • Don’t forget that Hannibal about 2200 years ago (I can’t remember my history but circa a bit before 200 BC) led his army over the Pyrenees and the Alps including elephants. That journey could not be done with elephants today.
        Likewise there have been recent finds (last 20 years) as glaciers have retreated in Norway of old clothing and combs representing a settlement where the Norse were living in the period 0 to 200BC.
        And of course, all the finds in the last 30/80 years of Viking settlements in Greenland.
        So there is a lot of evidence for the natural advancement and retreat of glaciers from which there can be no doubt that Northern Europe is not as warm today as it was in Roman times, nor much of it as warm as it was in the Viking/Medieval Warm Period.
        That being the case and given that that warming was all naturally driven, the retreat of glaciers does not prove that the recent post 1950 warming must have been enhanced by some anthropogenic cause. Maybe it has, but presently there is no scientific evidence that it has.

      • Richard Verney,

        the retreat of glaciers does not prove that the recent post 1950 warming must have been enhanced by some anthropogenic cause. Maybe it has, but presently there is no scientific evidence that it has.

        There is scientific evidence that it has, and I have presented it in this comment:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/03/global-temperature-report-october-2015-warmest-october-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-2064403
        It is currently awaiting moderation (?), but should be available shortly.

  48. UAH Global temperatures.
    1997 10 0.1
    1997 11 0.09
    1997 12 0.26
    1998 1 0.49
    1998 2 0.67
    1998 3 0.48
    1998 4 0.74
    2015 6 0.33
    2015 7 0.18
    2015 8 0.28
    2015 9 0.25
    2015 10 0.43 C
    Please note the values previously were generally higher in 2015 because the El Nino is now in it’s second year. This means despite higher immediate temperatures in the lower atmosphere more energy is lost from the Tropical upper oceans. Near continuous El Ninos would eventually lead to very significant losses in ocean energy in future. That means gradually the overturning and up welling of ocean currents will become increasingly cooler.
    The current strong El Nino is around 2.5 months ahead compared with 1997/98 and this is reflected in satellite data. Hence, the strong El Nino now will likely peak this month (November) and global temperatures didn’t start to jump up in 1997 until December. This time it will likely peak around February 2016, whereas last time it peaked in April 1998. This does mean we should get 2 or 3 more months consecutively with increasingly higher temperatures than October’s 0.43 C.
    So comparing both El Nino’s at roughly same stage of ENSO leads to October still being slightly warmer than average mid point between December and January.

    • I’m feelin that sameway too, without even looking at the data just me sitting here in the tropics looking at global weather patterns, this El Nino seems in its advanced end phase. add that to a meandering northern jet stream, and looks like a cliff drop within 2 months.

  49. Why is it always the hottest month/year/decade everywhere except the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe?

  50. The sudden upward jump in global temperature anomaly is also seen in the GFS based University of Maine (UM) Climate Change Institute (CCI) and WxBell estimates.
    https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/cfsr-monthly-2014-2015.gif
    Daily UM CCI estimates showed a peak just as high back in March, but it did not sustain for a full month like the October peak. The preliminary daily estimates have slowly been trending downward going into November.
    https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/cfsr-daily-2014-2015.gif
    Glorious global weather changes.

  51. Dr Christie said it in his intro, on top of a gentle warming trend. He was being kind! Although not quite aligned with the 98 event, 0.4 should have risen to circa 0.8 if the warming trend would have been 0.2 per decade as predicted. As it is we’ve had circa 0.03 rise over 17 years. Which is hardly even a trend of even 0.015 per decade. This a factor of nearly 100 magnitude wrong in sensitivity to co2.

  52. Yup, Compared to the Little Ice Age which just ended in 1880. this is about s fearsome as wailing that August has been the warmest month since January. Congrats to those who want to perpetuate this stupid argument by getting down onto the soon to be frozen weeds with the CAGW crowd.

  53. I’m concerned. (Sarc) The Earth is 4 billion years old…I’m a whopping 56 years old…my lifespan is known as a blink of a blink of an eye…and we just saw the warmest October in about 2/3rds of my lifetime. Hhhmmm… Really? Less than my lifespan? LOL. Recall that we had an ice age…..and what followed was a period so warm that prehistoric tree stumps are found where tundra is now. Seems to me we have no impact. Nature does as it pleases…

  54. And we will probably have the coolest November, so efing what? Why is the NOAA hiding data and emails from congressional investigators, hmmmm? May be because is fudged data, and their HOAX may be exposed.

Comments are closed.