Temperature Trends

Global Temperature Trend Update: September 2015 Hottest Temperature In Tropics In Satellite Record

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

|

BestTemperatureGraphic
Dreamstime:Meryll

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer publish the latest global temperature trend data obtained from NOAA satellites. For the month of September 2015 they report:

Global Temperature Report: September 2015

In the tropics, warmest September in the satellite temperature record

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

September temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.25 C (about 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Tropics: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

TempSept2015
Roy Spencer

Notes on data released:

An El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event continues to heat the tropics, although there is significant heat that has yet to be transferred from the ocean into the atmosphere, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Temperatures in the tropics averaged 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms in September, a new record for tropical Septembers surpassing the previous record of +0.52 C set in September 2009.

Globally it was the fifth warmest September in the satellite record. It was also the fourth warmest September in the Northern Hemisphere.

While it is too early in the year to make any meaningful forecast or prediction about where 2015 will finish in the rankings of warm and cold years, it is reasonable to expect the heat from the El Niño to continue to spread across more of the globe during the next three months. Through the first nine months of the year, comparing January through September throughout the satellite temperature record starting in 1979, the first nine months of 2015 ranked fourth overall, with an average global temperature that was 0.22 C warmer than seasonal norms. The first nine months of 1998 were warmest at 0.56 C, followed by 2010 at 0.41 C and 2002 at 0.24 C warmer than seasonal norms.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Pentagon Can't Even Efficiently Waste Money on Blimps

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. although there is significant heat that has yet to be transferred from the ocean into the atmosphere

    So the Global Warming is still hiding the briny deep, eh?

    1. I think the ocean is still visible, although I haven’t checked lately.

      1. The ocean might be, but they cannot find that wily heat just yet.

        1. It’s way down deep, being hoarded by the giant squid.

          1. Hey, when you are epoch upon epochs old, you’ll want a nice, hot corner to curl into.

            /Cthulhu.

          2. Heat hoarding should be punished to the fullest extent of the next useless law!

  2. Maybe El Ni?o will bring some drought relief to California.

    1. We’ve already had a little bit of rain, and the humidity this summer has been hellish (for California). I’m optimistic.

    2. That’s what South Carolina said…

  3. While it is too early in the year to make any meaningful forecast or prediction about where 2015 will finish in the rankings of warm and cold years…

    So, 75% of the way through the year and prediction for the year end is unreliable. Logically, then, as we are just 14.75% of the way through the century all temperature predictions should be considered more unreliable, right?

    1. Look, just because none of the scientific evidence actually backs up the apocalyptic fear-mongering of global warming fanatics doesn’t mean that we don’t need to do SOMETHING DRASTIC RIGHT NOW.

      1. Preferably something astronomically expensive that will have the exact opposite effects than intended..

        1. And make some connected people oodles of money?

          1. I remember a few years back like 10 large companies came out for climate change legislation and the media made a big deal out of it. They were like see, even these evil corporations are on board now. Took me about three minutes on google to find out all 10 heavily invested in green tech. Gore is as well of course.

        2. Or at least throw oodles of money at the researchers.

        3. So long as it restricts liberty and gives TOP MEN more control over our lives.

          1. I’m on board with giving more control of my worthless life to proggies !

      2. Preferably something astronomically expensive that will have the exact opposite effects than intended..

      3. I agree that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.

  4. How many hot peppers rating does this climate change dish have?

    1. “10?! That is ‘Hot Enough to Kill a Thai Person’ Hot!”

      1. But it’s a dry heat!

        1. Shut up, Hudson!

    2. 4 1/2 hockey sticks, I think.

  5. It was the second most scrumptious September on record. That’s a fact.

  6. Quick, tax the rich! It’s the only way to stop this!

    /every prog ever

  7. We had joy we had fun
    We had seasons in the sun
    But we’re all going to die
    Cause the facts are just a lie.

    1. You can say that again…

  8. We had joy we had fun
    We had seasons in the sun
    But we’re all going to die
    Cause the facts are just a lie.

  9. Bow you don’t squirrel me

  10. Bow you don’t squirrel me

  11. And now you do

  12. And now you dont

  13. So if I click on the right arrow on the submit button it squirrels

  14. not that time

  15. “Altough there is significant heat yet to be transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere…” Not measured yet. At least not by satellites.

    And of course, measuring both land and ocean heat shows nothing but an increase.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist…..Fig.A2.gif

    But the pause! We hardly knew ye.

    1. You invented a time machine, went back to 1880, and all you did was measure the temperature? What the hell is wrong with you?

      1. Shoulda done the Hitler thing, eh?

        1. Or write yourself a letter to be delivered several days before you left with that days winning lotto numbers.

          1. Indeed.

    2. Land heat? Precisely how much of the crust is included in this land heat?

      Now if you’re talking about atmospheric temps over ocean and land, then I’ll take satellite virtually global MEASURED data over BOSS’s homogenized, in-filled, and monotonically ‘corrected’ ‘data.’

      18 years 8 months and counting.

      1. Let’s to go to an expert and hear from Sierra Club president, as Ted Cruz asks about said pause.

      2. BOSS=GISS

      3. Right, right, right skippy.

        Read your own guy again…that ocean heat hasn’t been transferred yet, so it’s not in the satellite measurements. Look at the graph again that does measurement. Reading…try it.

        Hold on to that “pause” thing…it’s cute and quaint.

        1. Is there any evidence that the earth’s climate gaining a couple of degrees on average over the next couple of centuries is anything to be concerned about? Last I heard most climate scientists think not . . .

          1. Not true. 2 degrees alone, which now is the goal, will cause problems. We are headed right now to 3, maybe more. Here is a good, sober article if interested.

            http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo…..al-warming

            1. And, obviously, we must do something.

              You know, like these guys did. Very watermelony.

            2. That’s not a “sober article,” it’s propaganda. Note how consistently they avoid talking about temperature changes *over time*, which is what is actually important.

              We’re looking at 2-3 degrees over the next century *if warming accelerates*. All of the people being quoted in this article *assume*, contrary to all available evidence, that global warming is going to accelerate.

              Note how they speak as if the temperature of the Earth never changed prior to the Industrial Revolution, which is poppycock. The world was encased in ice not so long ago, relatively speaking, and has been much hotter in the past as well, without causing these vaunted catastrophes we’re being asked to believe are about to start happening.

              I know you’re a good-hearted leftist, so allow me to suggest that the fact that so many of these studies are presented by international engineering firms like Bechtel and Lockheed Martin who are set to literally make billions off of it over the next ten years that I would suggest you dust off some of that left wing skepticism toward international corporate profiteering and apply it to what you see in front of you.

              Just sayin’.

              1. And also note that global warming alarmists always *start* with the “97% consensus” that humanity is contributing to global warming and then jump straight to the most exaggerated alarmist predictions, which are far from having anything remotely resembling a consensus behind them.

                Again, the consensus among *climate scientists* – and this is acknowledged by the IPCC – is that global warming will *not* be catastrophic. This is just not a consensus you hear about much, because it doesn’t serve the interests of the people making the case.

                Another little piece I find telling: the focus quickly went from methane to CO2 around 2000 as the political powers-that-be started jumping on this gravy train, as controlling the energy supply is much more politically useful than encouraging people to go vegetarian, which doesn’t serve any economic interest other than maybe the soybean lobby.

                However, the *biggest* culprit in CO2 emissions, far bigger than fossil fuels, is the cement industry.

                I happen to work in public works construction, and oddly there is absolutely *no* drive *whatsoever* to curtail the use of cement in construction.

                Why do you suppose that is?

                1. And this: 97% of what?

              2. Hey, enjoy your weekend! Let’s go Mets!

              3. That’s not a “sober article,” it’s propaganda.

                Not to mention it is based on climate model projections which have failed miserably.

        2. ZOMG! Thermageddon!!!

          Poor Jackie, still haven’t figured out that geography and spatial weighting, have we? Still don’t understand what a subsequent la Nina means.

          Keep trying to play scientist but beware, my one year old is about to pass you by.

        3. Read your own guy again…that ocean heat hasn’t been transferred yet …

          The ocean heat doesn’t exist you moron.

          Look at the graph again that does measurement.

          Sorry sparky … Extrapolating ocean temperatures from land temperatures is not a measurement.

          1. Oh boy.

            1. Oh boy.

              Yea … Oh boy.

              http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist…..ft0803.pdf

              Thus we estimate SAT changes in sea ice regions by extrapolating actual SAT measurements on nearby land or islands; if there are no stations within 1200 km we leave the temperature change undefined.

              SAT = Surface Air Temperature

              http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea…..1_gistemp/

              The group at NASA interpolates even more aggressively?areas with gaps are interpolated from the nearest station up to 1,200 kilometers away

              Estimates of temperatures do not constitute measurements. Estimates 1,200 km away is idiotic.

              1. “Q. What is L-OTI, the Land-Ocean Temperature Index?
                A. Weather stations reporting surface air temperatures (SATs) are positioned on land which covers only one third of the planet; the rest is covered by oceans where SAT reports are rare. However, water temperatures (SSTs, sea surface temperatures) are available from ship and buoy reports and more recently there are also SST estimates derived from satellite data. Whereas SATs and SSTs may be very different (since air warms and cools much faster than water), their anomalies are very similar (if the water temperature is 5 degrees above normal, the air right above the water is also likely to be about 5 degrees warmer than normal). This is not true in the presence of sea ice, since in that case water temperature will stay at the freezing level. This allows us to use SST anomalies as proxies for SAT anomalies in regions without sea ice. L-OTI maps show SAT anomalies over land and sea ice, and and show SST anomalies over (ice-free) water.”

                http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

                Idiot.

                1. By the way, I might add that you say the ocean heat doesn’t exist. Skeptic Spencer clearly says it does.

                  Take it up with him…conspiracy theorists boor me. Particularly when the Mets play.

                  1. By the way, I might add that you say the ocean heat doesn’t exist. Skeptic Spencer clearly says it does.

                    The heat that exists is a natural effect from the El Ni?o and La Ni?a oscillation. The East Pacific Ocean (roughly 33% of the oceans) show little if any long term warming. Ditto for the West Pacific, South Atlantic, and Indian (more than 50% of the ocean surface area). One would think if the ocean warming were a result of CO2 we would see a more evenly distributed warming, which we don’t. You only see what you want to see otherwise you would have noticed Dr. Spencer qualified the warming.

                    An El Ni?o Pacific Ocean warming event continues to heat the tropics…

                    Your an idiot because when someone points out your error you ignore it. Further, it you did any reading of published papers you would notice that almost nobody uses the GISS surface data set. The surface record most used is the HadCRUT and CRU data sets.

                2. Weather stations reporting surface air temperatures (SATs) are positioned on land which covers only one third of the planet

                  The earth land surface is about 148,300,000 square km. GISS uses about 6000 surface stations in their data set. If the stations were spaced evenly apart, which they are not, each station would have to cover about 25,000 square km (roughly 9,500 square miles). The poles and central Africa have almost no coverage. Antarctica alone constitutes almost 10% of the land surface.

                  However, water temperatures (SSTs, sea surface temperatures) are available from ship and buoy reports and more recently there are also SST estimates derived from satellite data.

                  The ship measurements are from buckets, and later in time, from engine intake. Those measurements have more than a few problems. The ship measurements are not only of dubious accuracy but also limited to shipping lanes. Needless to say the coverage from ships makes the land based measurements look dense by comparison. The SST satellites only measure the skin temperature. The buoys (ARGO) actually measure the ocean temperatures down to 2000 feet. With only 3000 buoys the coverage is quite sparse.

                  1. Oh, and here you thought it was ALL estimated.

                    Idiot.

                    1. Oh, and here you thought it was ALL estimated.

                      I never said “ALL” but I guess intellectual honesty is not one of your strong points. When it comes right down to a large portion of the station measurements are just estimates.

                      Of course your ignorant of the fact that the majority of the raw data contains high and low temperatures for each day or readings taken at a certain time of the day. For those measurements they have to estimate the average temperature and/or adjust for time of day the measurement was taken. You see, back not to long ago the temperature readings actually involved a person going out and reading a thermometer. Some of the raw data is readings taken at a specific time of day, others had hi/low recording thermometers that simply recorded the hi and low temperatures for the day.

                      Idiot.

                      You certainly are.

                  2. But again, everyone knows the ocean temperatures are rising…the coral knows, shellfish know, even Spencer knows. You don’t. Take it up with him.

                    1. But again, everyone knows the ocean temperatures are rising…the coral knows, shellfish know, even Spencer knows. You don’t. Take it up with him.

                      There is a difference between knowing and believing. You believe. It’s your religion. You also misrepresent what Dr. Spencer said. You don’t get it because your an idiot.

    3. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist…..Fig.A2.gif

      O!M!F!G!

      Wh… why hasn’t the consensus shown us this graph before! It shows more than a one degree warming since 1900 and strongly indicates that we’ll probably hit the next degree well before 2100! How… how could they have let a catastrophe like the last century pass us by without warning us we would experience more of the same in the next century?

    4. And of course, measuring both land and ocean heat shows nothing but an increase.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist…..Fig.A2.gif

      But the pause! We hardly knew ye.

      Ah … the GISS temperature set … the temperature set that extrapolates temperatures up to 1200 km away when there isn’t any actual measurements. Jackand Ace your an idiot.

      1. A common error, but he prefers the term moran.

    5. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Seems like you show no curiosity about the sudden 0.4 degrees rise in temps between 1935 and 1945. That is a huge (and highly suspicious) spike.

      1. Seems like you show no curiosity about the sudden 0.4 degrees rise in temps between 1935 and 1945.

        Especially with that whole “Dust Bowl” thing in the mid 30’s, and that half of Ohio’s summer temperature extremes are still from between 1934-1937… but, “climate change”!

  16. So no write up on Shukla and the RICO20 or did I miss it?

    1. Nope…. I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere either; Too many porkers are getting fat off the trough of government funded research to allow it to go further. It’s like contracting during the occupation of Iraq – as long as there is a shoddy workproduct that looks superficially OK, the money is deemed well spent.

      1. Of course it won’t go anywhere. It just seems like a topic the just might be of interest to Reason.

        Nah.

  17. Spencer’s data set is a very good one – but unfortunately it measures the “wrong” thing, because the bit of atmosphere that the satellites can “see” is not the surface but several tens of thousands of feet up. So while the satellites aren’t actually collecting surface temperatures, they are very systematic, with the same instruments repeating the same observations time after time after time over most of the Earth’s surface.

    Of course, what matters to we humans is the surface temperature. That quantity is poorly sampled – detectors of often unknown quantity – with different methods of taking samples – with often undocumented changes etc. And the statistical methods for correcting errors just modify observations to more closely track neighbors, which will just as surely corrupt good data with bad, as corrupt bad data with good.

    And the real area to watch is not the tropics but the temperate zone. The tropics won’t get much hotter; the water cycle is a very efficient system of transporting heat off the surface there. Where the CO2 induced warming should show up is in much warmer temperatures in the temperate zone. Its absence is the #1 reason for rejecting the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change aka manbearpig.

    1. No. The microwave soundings are taken for any altitude you want. The trposphere readings he publicizes are the direct comparison to the failed models.

    2. And the absence of a tropical tropospheric hot spot is one of the key failures of the models.

  18. Global warming once bit my sister. No realli!

  19. Global Temperature Trend Update: September 2015 Hottest Temperature In Tropics In Satellite Record

    No, in September, the hottest temperature was inside my pizza oven.

    1. But is it a *tropical* pizza oven?

      Gotcha.

  20. Maybe it’s just me but spending billions on anti-climate change measures that come from extrapolation, interpolation, and consensus of a subset of scientists is nonsensical.

  21. I cannot wait for 2030 to come.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..092955.htm

    When we are freezing our balls off, we’ll be able to comfort ourselves knowing we’ve handled all of that CO2. The funny thing will be to see how the climate scientologists handle that. Will they immediately jump on the “ice age” bandwagon, blame it on humanity, and push for ever-increasing regulation? Or will they claim (as they do now) that the heat is “hiding” somewhere else? Instead of the bottom of the ocean, maybe the heat is simply on vacation – like it went to Mars, but it will be back IN FULL FORCE!!!1!!1

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.