Temperature Trends

Global Temperature Trend Update: August 2014

|

Best Thermometer
Dreamstime

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through August 2014.

Global Temperature Report: August 2014

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

August temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.24 C (about 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Tropics: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Global Temperature Trend

Temperatures in the tropics fell to nearly normal values in August, indicating a pause in the buildup to the anticipated El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event for this winter, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Go here for monthly global lower tropospheric temperature trend data since 1979.

NEXT: Michelle Obama Joins Upworthy. You'll Never–Oh Forget It.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. http://www.climatedepot.com/20…..11-months/

    The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

    Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

    Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming ? none at all ? for at least 215 months.

    This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    It should be noted that even Mann admitted in 2006 that if the “pause” extended for more than ten years, it would mean the models were wrong.

    How long before this charade finally ends? I thinking about ten more years.

    1. The charade will never end. The amount of people who should be embarrassed by this will never own up that they are wrong and the money will move to a new cause that presents an eminent danger to people everywhere and where we must act now. It’s sad how many good people these charlatans separated from their cash, who knows how much this bullshit has cost our economy.

      1. From the beginning of time there have been doomsday cults. Even Christianity is a doomsday cult. My fundy mom swears that the signs are all there. I respond by quoting Jim Morrison “The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”

        AGW is just another doomsday cult. Every hurricane, drought or flood is a sign. Civilization is original sin. I mean, human activity must be harming the planet. How could it not? So climate change must be caused by human activity! Prove it isn’t! Prove it!

        1. I respond by quoting Jim Morrison “The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”

          I guess that’s better than “Mother, I want to…”

          1. I’m not a Doors fan. Had a roommate who worshiped Morrison as a god. Ruined it for me. But I like that line. The line I quoted, not yours.

            1. I’m no Doors fan either, but there are a few good lines in ‘the Lizard King’s stuff.

      2. Peak Oil, Peak [insert precious metal], Ozone Depletion, Mass Famine, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Deforestation, Overpopulation, Acid Rain, Radiation, the hits just keep on coming.

      3. It will die. At some point it just won’t be sustainable as an argument any longer. When that happens, the people who supported it will quietly move onto something else. There will always be real deadenders who still believe but they will grow fewer and fewer in number.

        You can see this starting to happen now. A couple of years ago Bailey was a real believer. Gradually you can see him getting more and more skeptical of it. He is one of the more soft supporters and is thus one of the first to go.

        A good analogy is the Rosenbergs. For about 20 years it was an article of faith among leftists that the Rosenbergs were innocent and framed by an evil McCarthyite government. Only the idiot knuckle daggers on the right thought otherwise. Of course they were always guilty as hell and as time went on and more things got declassified, that become more and more undeniable. Gradually in the late 70s the furrowed brow “I am not really with them and you guys really have a few good points even though I don’t totally agree with you” centrists like Bailey admitted the truth and then in the 80s the regular leftists quietly dropped the topic and pretended like everyone always knew they were guilty and only a few real raving nuts held on. That is what will happen here.

        1. The premise will not die.

          The premise is that humans are a cancer on the earth, and that until we are again one with nature we are destined to destroy the planet.

          That belief has been with us forever.

          They may find something else to blame (and thus control by force), but they’ll never stop.

          1. The hatred of humans will not die anymore than communism died when they finally admitted the Rosenbergs were dead. They will just move on to another reason to hate humans, when this one is no longer sustainable.

          2. The premise is that humans are a cancer on the earth, and that until we are again one with nature we are destined to destroy the planet.

            The only way humans can become “one with nature” is to become nonsentient and live like the other creatures on earth.

        2. centrists like Bailey admitted the truth and then in the 80s the regular leftists quietly dropped the topic and pretended like everyone always knew they were guilty and only a few real raving nuts held on.

          And now, the average leftist has no idea who The Rosenbergs were.

          1. Just like the average leftist in 2050 won’t have any idea what global warming was.

    2. Science progresses one death at a time. My guess is that a bunch of guys in their 30’s will have to die off before this particular religion loses its grip on the scientific institutions.

      My guess is 20 years.

      1. So you’re saying millenials are our hope for the future? 😉

        But I agree. The fixation on CO2 will die with current scientists. Young’uns will be interested in newer and more novel explanations.

    3. It will end when Congress repeals ethanol mandates. Or in other words: never.

    4. My question is, why is Reason pushing this charade?

      I can understand why the left-wing totalitarians at the New York Times push it: because they want to control our lives. But Reason is supposed to be about truth and freedom.

      1. Because Bailey trusted the evidence he was presented?

      2. Because only knuckledragging Christfags doubt the true science. Failing to push the agenda will get you uninvited to the cocktails partiez.

    5. Ross is an economist who supposedly believes God created the earth and maintains the climate fit for human flourishing. Not saying his science is biased, but his personal motivations come from a questionable location.

      1. He is probably a Dallas Cowboy fan too. But I don’t care about that either. The numbers are what they are.

        1. Numbers are numbers, yes. And I don’t disagree the numbers haven’t been matching the alarmists models. But if we’re going to criticize the alarmists for being mystics, we should be fair and at least point out this: ‘McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[9] which states that “Earth and its ecosystems ? created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence ? are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.”‘

          1. Not at all. There is a difference between criticizing someone for being a “mystic” in general and criticizing them for a particular mystical belief.

            Mann and company wouldn’t be more right or more wrong if it was revealed they were all Catholics, since one belief has nothing to do with the other.

            Mann and company are wrong because their predictions are wrong and they refuse to adjust their views. Their metaphysical beliefs, whatever they are, have nothing to do with it.

            You are just engaging in an elaborate ad homimen fallacy.

            1. Their metaphysical beliefs, whatever they are, have nothing to do with it.

              Dude his metaphysical beliefs are directly related… read the document he signed.

              1. If were saying, God told me these numbers were wrong”, it would matter Bit that is not what he is saying. He saying their predictions were wrong because they don’t match the observed temperatures. His opinion on why the universe is here or how it came to be has nothing to do with that.

                I get it you hate theists. Good for you. But again sometimes people you hate are right about things. Life sucks like that when you let one issue dominate your thinking about everything.

                1. You’re being obtuse. I presided over a church group the past two years. I don’t hate theists at all.

                  You’d probably defend the flat earth people.

          2. Think of it this way, if McKitrick built a working fusion reactor, would refuse to acknowledge its existence because you don’t like McKitrick’s metaphysics?

            Life sucks sometimes in that sometimes people you hate and want so desperately to be wrong about everything, manage to be right about something.

            1. I don’t hate him. I don’t even think he’s wrong about the result. I think his metaphysical justification is nonsense.

              1. If he built a working fusion reactor and said the reason it works is because angels are creating energy I’d acknowledge his contribution but still bash his rationale.

                1. He is not using that rationale here. So your analogy doesn’t work. And if he built a reactor that worked, who cares if he thought God inspired him to do it? It would still work and that is all that matters.

                  1. He says God controls the climate and makes it fit for human flourishing. That’s a religious rationale for a scientific finding.

      2. We criticize the alarmist for being mystics ABOUT the climate, not for being christian AND thinking climate change is real and man made.

        1. He’s being a mystic about the climate. Read above please.

          1. Yeah, I missed that post. He’s being as mystical about it as the warmers.

    6. Which High Priest of the Church of Carbontology was it who said that if the pause lasted for 17 years, he would consider it significant? At the time he said it, of course, he was certain that the pause absolutely would not last 17 years.

      1. It was Mann and he said it in an email in 2006. That was what I was referencing. But like all things with these people, that truth had a date time group.

        1. It wasn’t Mann. it was Jones.

      2. I’ve heard that number modified several times…10, 13, 15…I’m sure there will be a 20.

        1. I remember watching a video with Milton Friedman debating a Great Society apologist in the late 1970s about how the promised land never arrived.

          The apologist said that enough time had not yet passed, and it would take at least 25 years to truly judge its efficacy.

          Apparently, 50 years wasn’t enough either, and we just have to keep waiting for those good intentions to translate into positive outcomes.

          I doubt this will ever die; it will just transmute into some new form. And if the warming ever resumes, they will redouble their efforts and the inconvenient fact that the cause is not at all understood will be discarded for the sake of preserving the narrative.

  2. Is August 2014 the third hottest month on record? It has to be.

  3. Coolest fucking August that I can remember.

    1. WRONG. Whatever month it is, it’s always the third hottest on record.

      1. Well, I would agree that August was the third hottest October that I have ever experienced.

    2. We have melting lead down here in Florida. August was brutal this year.

      1. We had one day of summer last weekend — 93 degrees and humid. Could be the only day in August over 90.

  4. Uh, you deniers just don’t get it. Absent global change, we’d be experiencing more climate fluctuations instead of prolonged periods of stasis. Climate change is causing climate stagnation. DUH.

    1. Absent global climate change

      *grumble*

    2. In other words, if the current ice age decides to fire up again and freeze our asses, then it’s AGW at work.

      1. Get this man a research grant.

      2. You’ll know we’ve come full circle when carbon sequestration becomes industrially feasible and the green crowd turns on it.

        1. You’ll know we’ve come full circle when carbon sequestration becomes industrially feasible

          The paper industry has had this down for ages. The implement literally hundreds of thousands of carbon sequestering devices each year to replace the devices that they convert into paper each year.

          Of course, the watermelons are already against it.

          1. The =They

      3. If everything that Al Gore says will happen actually comes to pass, it will be complete chickenshit compared to the consequences of the next ice age.

        1. Warming is generally great for life. We have a small percentage of the biodiversity and overall biota that existed during much warmer eras. Not so much when the Earth was a giant snowball (talking extremes, of course–that was a very long time ago).

    3. Yep. We were wrong about Climate Change, but in our studding it, we stumbled upon an even deadlier foe…Climate Stagnation.

      Climate stagnation will cause the oceans to evaporate. Hurricanes to be more intense and be able to sustain themselves over dry land. Frogs will mutate into carnivorous maneaters. Continental Drift will stop causing new volcanoes at the precise geographic coordinates of every major city in the world.

      We need to act NOW!

      1. Frogs will mutate into carnivorous maneaters.

        The rest of the world will turn into Australia?

  5. STOP CLIMATE STABILITY! Never before has there been less fluctuation in global temperature than now. Mother Gaia depends on the changing seasons to blah blah natural something blather species extinction garble fremitz.

    1. HOYVIN-GLAVIN

  6. Looks like a hockey stick to me.

    1. Sure it does, if you cut off the blade.

    2. I saw someone invert the hockey stick like this:

      /”””

      We need to hammer them over the head with it.

  7. The NYC subways have been covered with ads for some climate march on the 21st, to inspire “action” at the annual UN assembly that week. They’re all pretty derptastic, but I saw my favorite one this morning.

    It was the statue of liberty nearly submerged by the ocean. The caption was something like, “The next one won’t be biblical.”

    No doubt many of the people behind this campaign laugh at religion, or at least the religious tales of old. A storm sent by a god that flooded the entire world? What lunacy! But, uh, we really are on the verge of global flooding because of climate change. It’s science, not some crazy faith.

    1. The Statue of Liberty sits more or less at sea level. Including the pedestal, it is about 300 feet high.

      Is there some kind of special super secret model that is predicting a three hundred foot rise in sea level? That is what it would take to submerge it.

      1. Well, if a shitload of comets hit the Earth at the same time, that could do it.

        1. Just one big meteor in the Atlantic Ocean would do it. But, a giant tidal wave doesn’t really count.

          1. If they really want to worry about something, an asteroid/comet hitting the earth is a statistical certainty. Just a matter of when.

            Then there’s Yellowstone (overdue).

            1. There’s also Lake Toba, which is believed to be responsible for a massive human population die-off about 75,000 years ago.

            2. I’ll take a little more heat and a little less beach over suffocation/buried alive in ash any day of the week.

          2. I meant permanently raising the sea level. Need more water. Only so much is available here on Earth, once you free up the ice and subsurface water. So big, icy comets.

      2. Global Warming is going to cause it to rain more, so all that extra water is going to fill the oceans…

        Unless it causes it to rain less, then the oceans will dry up…

        /Firm grasp on scientific feelings; looser grasp on conservation of matter.

  8. HIDE THE DECLINE!

    1. Scroll down the second link for the climate change stuff.

  9. Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade…

    In other words, the temperature variation is within the annual average variation, and there’s no trend at all.

  10. A short 17 years ago, there was a temperature spike. Here is an estimate of the last 1000 years, including the Medieval periods of cooling and warming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..1000_years

    Alarmism is fun, but even if you were able to prove AGW is false, there are plenty of reasons to stop burning oil. I don’t need theories of warming to see that oil spills are harmful and that fracking is and will inevitably pollute scarce water supplies. And, why are we fracking, anyway? It shouldn’t be necessary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.