Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
It should come as no surprise that surface temperature products are showing record highs for the meteorological year of December 2014 to November 2015 and that lower troposphere temperature products are not.
This post illustrates the meteorological year (December to November) temperature anomalies for the lower troposphere from RSS and UAH and the land-ocean surface temperature products from NASA GISS, NOAA NCEI and UKMO HADCRUT4. Temperature anomalies are referenced to the base years of 1981-2010.
I have not discussed the specifics of each product in this post. If you’re new to the global temperature products presented here, see the dataset descriptions in the November 2015 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly & Model-Data Difference Update.
LOWER TROPOSPHERE
We illustrated the annual (January to December) lower troposphere temperature data in the recent post here. The meteorological-year (December to November) lower troposphere temperature anomalies from RSS (data here) and UAH (data here) are shown in Figure 1. Like the annual data, they too show that the 2015 values came in a remote 3rd warmest for both products.
Figure 1
Then again, lower troposphere temperature anomalies are expected to rise sharply in 2016 in a lagged response to the 2015/16 El Niño. See the post Evolutions of Global Surface and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies in Responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niños.
LAND AIR + SEA SURFACE
Figure 2 includes the meteorological-year (December to November) land air plus sea surface temperature anomaly data from GISS (data here), NCEI (data here) and UKMO (data here). All three are showing record warm years in response to the 2015/16 El Niño.
Figure 2
NOTES: We discussed the primary reason for the 2014 record high (or near record high) surface temperatures numerous times. See the series of posts about The Blob. The cause of The Blob and its impacts on global surface temperatures were also discussed in the chapter titled General Discussion 2 – On the Claims of Record-High Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 in my (free) ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1 (25MB). Also in the book, see the chapter General Discussion 3 – On the Reported Record High Global Surface Temperatures in 2015 – And Will Those Claims Continue in 2016?, which is an expansion of the September 2015 post Tired of the Claims of “Warmest Ever” Month and Year? They Will Likely Continue Next Year.
LOWER TROPOSPHERE VERSUS SURFACE TEMPERATURE PRODUCTS
Figure 3 compares the lower troposphere and surface temperature products, including all five datasets. I’ve averaged the lower troposphere temperature datasets and the surface temperature products in Figure 4.
Figure 3
# # #
Figure 4
I don’t recall ever presenting lower troposphere and surface temperature comparisons where the data are smoothed with 5-year running-mean filters. See Figure 5. Global temperature data suppliers often use 5-year running-mean filters to reduce the annual wiggles associated with El Niño and La Niña events and with explosive volcanic eruptions (like El Chichon in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991).
Figure 5
The divergence between the two metrics stands out over the past decade. I’ll let you speculate about that graph.
NOTE: Gavin Schmidt, Director GISS, recently acknowledged that lower troposphere temperatures are supposed to be warming at a faster rate than surface temperatures. See the WattsUpWithThat post here.
CLOSING
As soon as the surface temperature data suppliers furnish their December 2015 updates, I’ll provide a post similar to this.
NOAA is showing here that they will be releasing the December 2015 (and l likely annual) data on January 20, 2016. I suspect we’ll see combined NOAA/GISS online press conference like last year, with all sorts of alarmist hoopla being generated by the mainstream media about surface temperatures…while overlooking the lower troposphere temperatures.





Up thread comments were made about how GISS has been changed. Here’s a couple of examples.
(I hope it post correctly.)
Jan 4 2012
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2010 69 75 85 76 65 56 49 53 54 63 72 43 63 65 68 76 53 63 2010
Jan 2015
2010 73 79 92 87 75 64 61 65 62 71 79 49 72 73 72 85 63 71 2010
1/4/12
1936 -20 -28 -14 -11 -9 -7 11 1 -2 5 6 10 -5 -7 -20 -12 2 3 1936
Jan 2015
1936 -28 -39 -24 -20 -15 -18 -5 -11 -5 -2 -4 -2 -14 -16 -29 -20 -11 -3 1936
The “Jan 2015” numbers are from Bob’s link.
The “Jan 4 2012” numbers are from copying Bob’s link into the “Browse” part of TheWayBackMachine.
( http://archive.org/web/web.php )
Many here know that such changes (adjustments) have happened. But for those who don’t, have a look and see the fiddling for yourselves.
PS 2012 is AFTER Hansen started playing with the “official” GISS numbers. Who knows what they were before then.
Something besides the internet might need to be consulted. (I believe they are called “books”.)
Harry Twinotter says: “You are basically arguing that it is warmer because it is warmer. I think most climate scientists will agree with you on that one.”
Harry, you’ve been hanging out at Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper for too long (or maybe you’re Miriam O’Brien, a.k.a. Sou) because the nonsensical “warmer because it is warmer” argument is one promoted by Miriam. Because you appear to have trouble comprehending my arguments, let me set the record straight for you. My arguments have been and continue to be that natural variability plays a very large role in global warming and that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between natural and anthropogenic warming.
Harry Twinotter says: “You want to claim that the satellite record is superior and the surface record should be ignored…”
Wow, Harry, you just make up crap as you go along. Please advise where I wrote or implied that “…the satellite record is superior and the surface record should be ignored…”. I stated in the post regarding Figure 5:
The divergence between the two metrics stands out over the past decade. I’ll let you speculate about that graph.
NOTE: Gavin Schmidt, Director GISS, recently acknowledged that lower troposphere temperatures are supposed to be warming at a faster rate than surface temperatures. See the WattsUpWithThat post here.
Harry Twinotter says: “Meanwhile ignore what Dr Roy Spencer says, and Carl Meares [sic] says. The scientists actually collecting the satellite data know nothing, don’t they?”
Even more make-believe from you, Harry. Please link where Roy Spencer and Carl Mears have stated that they know nothing.
And now for the most nonsensical portions of your reply:
Harry Twinotter says: “Look, I know who you are and what your agenda is. You are what is know [sic] as a ‘fake expert’.”
Obviously, if the only way you can define me is as a “fake expert”, Harry, then you have no idea who I am or what my agenda is. And, if you believe I’m a fake expert, then you should stop reading my posts, Harry. Based on your comments to me on this thread, you clearly do not understand what I’ve written or presented, and you clearly cannot comprehend my “agenda”.
Harry Twinotter says: “No, you are are [sic] spinning from the very first paragraph. You poorly present some data, and then pad it out with speculations.”
My opening paragraph reads: It should come as no surprise that surface temperature products are showing record highs for the meteorological year of December 2014 to November 2015 and that lower troposphere temperature products are not.
There’s no spin in that. Recall that you, Harry, had to ask “OK please tell – why is it not a ‘surprise’?” If you don’t understand what I’d written, then common sense dictates that you, Harry, can’t claim it’s spin. Then again, common sense is something that eludes you, Harry.
Please illustrate and discuss, Harry, how I “poorly present” the RSS, UAH, GISS, NCEI and UKMO meteorological year data. And please quote what you believe to be speculation on my part that I have already not replied to.
Goodbye, Harry. If you haven’t figured it out yet, you’re wasting your time here. If I can make a suggestion, go back to Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper and falsely claim victory here at WUWT. They’ll love you for it. Here at WUWT, you, Harry, simply make me laugh. Thanks.
Adios.
Thanks, Bob, for the data view. As always, refreshing. I’m looking forward to your next report.
We are learning about the effects of ENSO, during the onset and the decay.
We are learning about the influence of oceans in local climates around the world.
Instead of endless arguments about the flaky atmospheric and surface temperature measurement data can’t we get a serious discussion of the ARGO ocean energy measurements. I regard the 0.42 watt/m2 power level as much more reliable since the spread in ocean temperature measurements has orders of magnitude less wild gyrations than the atmosphereic temperatures and besides the ocean represents 93% of all global warming power rather than highly vulnerable to noise response of the 7% of energy represented in the surface and atmosphere.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/what-else-does-el-nino-have-for-us-1.3393850
It is so funny to watch this weather girl argue about El Nino with a graphic showing winter should have been dry and warm in the west, the perfect opposite of what happened!
No shame!
And she even dares to claim the 2015 El nino is bigger than the 1998.
With information like this in Canada’s public broadcaster…. who needs agitprop?
It looks like the remnant of the warm blob is sitting off the NW US coast, in the middle of the “split flow” of winds off the Pacific trough. The GODAS animation shows the blob dissipating during the offshore storms in December. Are we actually seeing the blob warming again, or is it just not continuing to chill (increasing anomaly)?
Why don’t we see a more pronounced spike in lower troposphere temperature in 1983?