Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
SEE UPDATE 1 AT END OF POST: I’ve provided a link to the slides from the teleconference and updated monthly and annual graphs.
# # #
On January 15th, NOAA Communications notified the media Wednesday: NOAA, NASA to announce official analyses of 2015 global temperature, climate conditions.
| WHAT: | NOAA, NASA media teleconference call announcing 2015 global climate analyses – brief summary remarks – questions and answers |
| WHEN: | Wednesday, January 20, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (U.S.) |
| WHO: | Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, N.C. and chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Global Change Research Program
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. |
See the NOAA webpage for links to the live audio, etc.
We already know NOAA and GISS will tell us that their much-adjusted surface temperature data showed record highs in 2015. We discussed and illustrated this in the recent post Meteorological Year (December to November) Global Temperature Product Comparison through 2015. There may be some minor differences, but the calendar year results won’t be noticeably different than the meteorological year data shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
And just in case you missed it, because GISS and NOAA both use NOAA’s ERSST.v4 “pause buster” sea surface temperature data, today I also published The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts.
I’ll update this post today as GISS and NOAA release their data and slides. So stop back regularly.
UPDATE 1:
The GISS LOTI data rose 0.07 deg C in December, 2015.
Figure 3
Not to be outdone, the NOAA NCEI data jumped a whopping 0.15 deg C last month.
Figure 4
Figure 5 is a comparison of the annual GISS LOTI and NCEI data, referenced to the base years of 1981-2010. The upticks in 2015 are listed on the illustration.
Figure 5
The NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2015 is here in .pdf form.
I’ll provide a full update for December, 2015 in a few days
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well its filtered into the mainstream media here today.
A chap (apparently a “””scientist”””) was saying recent record temps put to death climate change denial….
I paused and counted to five.
Seems skepticism is no longer a requirement of the scientific method. At least in New Zealand.
Amazing how this consensus propagates around the world, its almost like,…I don’t know, an organised policy or something.
Creepy … feels like you need to shower ?
Check out Dr Curry’s link to a recent perspective on what Paris did accomplish.
http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/20/the-trojan-horse-of-the-paris-climate-agreement/#more-20951
Did you see the uncertainty on the Ocean data?
Ocean +0.74 ± 0.00
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Such certainty. Karl et al did a marvellous job.
Wow! It makes you wonder how carefully everything was proofread.
They missed the 3..
should be Ocean +0.74 ± 3.00
Potentially off point but worth looking at. POTUS spoke to the people of Flint and they roared with support when he assured them that funds are coming to fix their drinking water problems. Detroit and Flint are classic microcosms of poor management. Push out the productive, enslave the remainders. Rush in to save them from the mismanagement that you supported. Bizarre and true.
I say it’s worth paying attention to because it alerts to a template for how the federal government might step in once energy rates go thru the roof and da peoples start complaining about “basic services”.
Likewise, it’s been bantered about that a failed Obamacare leads to a federal takeover.
Essentially, they win by lying about CAGW, they win if it turns out we can’t afford the fix they ascribe to, they win if gets colder and we aren’t prepared with reliable energy sources because we dismantled them. I’m not ready to do the snoppy dance if the GOP wins the next POTUS because the congressional GOP extended alternative energy rebates for another 5 years in the most recent budget.
There aren’t too many profiles in courage out there.
I probably need to go fishing again.
See mirages of mermaids running towards me.
Relax.
The skeptics are telling the truth about CAGW, yet I don’t see what victory looks like.
i go fishing a lot these days. 1 hour of bbc propaganda requires at least 6 hours fishing to recover from. a nasa/noaa press release usually 2 days.
Just compare in the PDF page 8 with page 9. In page 8 they have 10 monthly records, in page 9 only 4 records. Congratulations NOOA!!!
looks like page 9 is in error. 10 months in 2015 equalled or tied the previous record for the month
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/13/supplemental/page-2
I think not only page 9, but the whole document is in error, such as NOAA.
2015 was Warmest ever! *&
* Except in our best global temperature data (RSS/UAH)
& Except in our best surface data (USCRN)
Bob Tisdale had at least six months to prepare for this and this was the best he could do? Is he planning his exit strategy or otherwise distracted?
Has anyone found the ” Probability of warmest years charts ” in this years proclamation ? Last year NASA had the probability at 38% for 2014 being the hottest year ever .
Kelly, I was looking for that ” probability chart ” also, could not find it, perhaps it was too inconvenient for NASA / NOAA ….
Thanks , now I do not feel so bad .
This was asked in the question-and-answer part of the call. Gavin said that the probability in the NASA GISS data set was 90-something percent (94%?); I forget the exact number. Karl said it was over 99% in the NOAA data set. Or maybe it was the other way around; I forget who said which, but the point was that it was above to way above 90% in both.
So, no, I don’t think it was at all inconvenient for NASA / NOAA. It’s more of a softball-question. 2015 blew the other years out of the water.
No, that NASA / NOAA made the decision to include, at least, a tabular presentation of probabilities in 2014 and then dropped it for 2015 is right in line with yearly presentations that are ” reformatted ” at whim, rather than standardized. IF it was important enough for the presentation in 2014, with forethought, it should have been carried forward to this year and subsequent years in the same location ( link ) and with the same layout for this year and all future years. Do you suppose these ” scientists ” could start to just show their math steps ? OR, does the agenda trump all ?
Well, it was important in 2014 because the record value was small enough over the previous years that the probability that it definitely exceeded those previous years was quite a bit lower.
I am having a hard time understanding what you think their “agenda” is, since showing the probabilities last year but not this year actually tends to undercut the message of alarm. So, perhaps their agenda is to downplay global warming? It is kind of amusing to see you attributing something they did that is in the AGW-skeptics favor as still somehow being nefarious.
There are statistics and damnable lies…….
You decide…:-)
This chart shows that over the past 8000 years, temperatures changed by 0.8°C, with very little variation of the actual temperature.
?w=720
This chart shows temperatures increasing almost 0.8°C over the past 30 years. Something clearly must be wrong with either the consensus or the proxies.
joelshore,
You want ‘nefarious’? This is nefarious:
…(7) “Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot!
Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell is supposed to happen here?
Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’,
I can make it up.
So I have :-)”
The Harry_read_me file. Verbatim. He fabricated 13 years of temperature data.
Satellites are the gold standard.