Temperature Trends

Hottest October in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

Man-made warming plus El Nino makes for a hot time

|

BestThermometer
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 October 2015 they report:

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."

TempTrendsOct2015
Spencer

Global Temperature Report: October 2015

Warmest October in the satellite temperature record

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.

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

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

Go here to see their complete set of monthly data since 1978.

NEXT: Obamacare Struggles to Survive Its Second Act

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. If you look at the spike from the 1998 El Nino, you can see that this is going to be a long 6 months of doomsaying. It will be interesting to see if the spike goes as high as the 1998 record.

    1. And remember it is spring, summer, and fall, somewhere on earth at all times. So comparing particular months to each other is really stupid. From a global perspective, there is nothing special about October versus any other month. So it being “the hottest October on record” is completely meaningless.

      What is relevant is that we are in an El Nino period. And October was not even close to being the hottest El Nino month on record.

      1. It’s noteworthy that October 2015 trailed 2 months from 1998. This looks a lot like a 17 year long pause (or at least low increase) warming period.

      2. it is spring, summer, and fall, somewhere on earth at all times

        Not really. But probably close enough.

      3. “And remember it is spring, summer, and fall, somewhere on earth at all times.”

        Uh, no. When it is winter in the northern hemisphere it is summer in the southern hemisphere. And vice versa. Nowhere will it be spring or fall.

        When it is fall in the northern hemisphere it is spring in the southern hemisphere. And vice versa. Nowhere will it be summer or winter.

  2. I have a request. How about you expand the scale of that map to put the increase or decrease in a bit of perspective? Instead of having the left column scaled to tenths of a degree C, how about you scale it to degrees C? What is so sacred about tenths of a degree other than making the changes look artificially large?

    1. It’s sacred because it looks more alarming. The more alarming it looks the greater the emotional response the chart will elicit. The greater the emotional response the more press the Climate Doomsayers get, the more funding they get, and the more leverage they get over those that like to do real science, the kind based on logic, reason, facts, and testable hypothesis with predictable results.

      1. Hottest October on record? Seriously, never once has Bailey ever explained why every October is comparable. Maybe they are but I can’t see how. It is always summer, winter, fall and spring somewhere on earth. October in the northern hemisphere is just April in the South. So it being hotter this October than last, from a global perspective at least, means nothing. Yet, these things are always presented as “the hottest (insert last month here) ever!!” like that means anything.

        1. It’s comparable because it’s the same time of the year and the Earth is in the same tilt as in the other Octobers. I don’t know why I have to explain this.

          People, we aren’t going to effectively fight the warmists if our ‘points’ are even dopier and dumber than theirs. Smarten up. Discipline.

          1. I don’t know why you think the earth’s tilt is relevant. The earth is getting the same amount of sunlight no matter how it is tilted. Different parts of the earth get different amounts, thus the seasons, but overall it is the same. Yes, the earth is slightly closer to the sun during the northern hemisphere winters, but I have never heard of that having nay signficant effect.

            Maybe you missed this but when it is winter in Canada, it is summer in South Africa.

            There is nothing self evident about October being different from a global temperature perspective than any other month.,

            1. There’s this thing called ‘oceans’ that are important in the context of absorbing warmth. See also, ‘snow cover’. Do you get off to your own ignorance? Do you ever consider the gaps in your knowledge before opening your yap?

              1. There’s this thing called ‘oceans’ that are important in the context of absorbing warmth.

                Sure, and for the earth’s tilt to be relevant, those factors would have to be significantly different in the North and South Hemispheres. Again, hardly self evident. There is less land in the South but more snow pack in the North.

                Just admit it, you have no idea why one month is different from the next and are just pulling shit out of your ass.

              2. You really do manage to be more aggressively stupid every day. No shit oceans effect the climate. That however says nothing about why it being winter in the Southern Hemisphere as opposed to Summer makes any difference.

                Again, perhaps it does but it is hardly self evident. And if it does, you clearly have no idea why but are convinced it is because the smell of your own ass and things that come out of it apparently resembles roses in your mind.

                1. Being a moron, you haven’t considered the possibility that the northern and southern hemispheres are different in terms of ocean composition and how much ice they have on them. Of course I’m the stupid one. So how’s your raging mental illness going?

                2. It is only comparing October in the Northern Hemisphere to other Octobers in the Northern Hemisphere.

      2. This^.

        May some hot chick give you a kiss, and engage with you in some bedroom bliss, but at the end you better miss, because if you don’t you’ll be changing diapers full of shit and piss.

        1. That was to Restoras. Damn John, move bitch get out the way……….cause I’ll trip you into a pile of hay, let my friend who is gay have their way, and make you speak with a funny voice, while giving a wave and saying HEYYYY!

          1. He was just agreeing with me. Can’t I have a hot chick too? Or maybe a kind of hot one?

            1. Vamp will set you up with current-day Kirstie Alley, or someone else in your…..waistband love zone.

              1. About every two years Kristie gets on coke again and gets skinny.

                1. But every two years, she ain’t getting younger.

                  1. True. But she likely has self esteem issues and is probably pretty freaky in bed. So there is that.

                    1. How freaky can a Scient*****gist really get in bed

                    2. I don’t know Physics Guy. Are Scientologists not freaky? I have never heard one way or another.

                    3. Tom Cruise is pretty fuckin freaky, but maybe not in the way you mean.

                    4. Oh he’s freaky in that way too.

        2. That’s nice of you Vampire, thanks! I’d say I’m the kind of guy that would engage in bedroom bliss and then bid a fond adieu but alas, I probably would stick around for the loaded diapers…

      3. And you ain’t gonna get no grants granted for saying “Relax, it’s just a natural cycle.”

      4. Spencer and Christy are the least alarmist climate scientists out there, pretty much considered discredited by mainstream science because of a career of errors, and picked for this publication for those very reasons.

        1. Oh look, a religious cultist has shown up to wave his bones at us and tell us how the angry goddess is going to cook us because we don’t believe in his superstitions.

          I was wondering how long that would take.

          1. The greenhouse effect is not a superstition.

            1. Do you know the difference between CO2 and water vapor with respect to the greenhouse effect?

        2. “Wah stop showing me data I don’t like!”

        3. I don’t get it. Aren’t they agreeing with you?

          1. They aren’t.

            They’re publishing actual data – numbers generated by sensors – that falsify the models that Tony’s co-religionists hold so dear.

            Note that Tony doesn’t criticize the satellites, nor the simple process by which the satellite senors traces are converted to a time-space coordinate and observational value (ie. a point on the Earth’s surface along with a time stamp), or the statistical process by which all those location/timestamp/observation values are aggregated to produce several columns of monthly averages.

            Nope, he attacks the guys publishing the results, because the superstitious don’t comprehend how science works.

            1. I’m saying even the cherry-picked discredited least-alarmist researchers Bailey relies on to the exclusion of all others disagree with your claims of a global conspiracy to enrich Al Gore or whatever.

              1. But you just told me they were discredited, right?

                1. I recommend learning how both science and google work.

                  1. I recommend learning how both science and google work.

                    You writing this right after you demonstrate an incredible ignorance of statistics and outliers is one of the funniest aspects of this thread. Not quite as funny as Alice crediting fallout from nuclear bombs to the free market rather than the federal government, but pretty funny nonetheless.

                    1. Oh god not another numbers geek lecturing me about how his spreadsheets disprove climate research.

                    2. Nope Tony.

                      I’m just informing you, yet again, that climate research says there ain’t going to be catastrophic global warming.

                      It’s not my fault that scientific research has discredited your religion.

                    3. LEt’s see. The IPCC (see table 12.4)

                      Of course, if you want to not wade through the morass, read here.

                      This prompted me to put a question to him… I said to Matt:

                      “What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood(sic) and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn’t reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn’t climate scientists’ time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?”

                      Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:

                      “Not my responsibility”.

                    4. Then we turn to the runaway temperature proclamations. Also falsified.

                      The evidence from AR5 best estimates of forcing, combined with that in solid observational studies cited in AR5, points to a best (median) estimate for TCR of 1.3?C if the AR5 aerosol forcing best estimate is scaled to match the satellite-observation-derived best estimate thereof, or 1.4?C if not (giving a somewhat less observationally-based TCR estimate). We can compare this with model TCRs. The distribution of CMIP5 model TCRs is shown in Figure 3 below, with a maximally observationally-based TCR estimate of 1.3?C for comparison.

                      So, according to observations doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to minor warming and the positive feedbacks of increased methane and water vapor amplifying CO2 induced warming are utterly falsified.

                    5. So Tony, you can rejoice!

                      The science is saying we aren’t going to fry!!!!!

                    6. You’re talking about worst-case scenarios as if those are the only scenarios. In fact I just read that the disastrous 4.5+ degree warming may be already avoided–based on steps already taken by polluting countries. I believe the precautionary principle requires us to consider worst-case scenarios and not completely dismiss them, as the measurements have more often than not exceeded models. Optimism serves no purpose. Even if we avoid the worst-case scenarios we’re talking about major upheavals to human life.

                      But, and I’d like to emphasize this, you really don’t give a flying fuck if Miami is submerged in 50 years or isn’t, because far more important to you is circle jerking with your tiny tribe of so-called skeptics. You actually don’t care about the environment of the future of the human species. You will be dead by then. You only care about desperately seeming right on an issue that you are simply wrong about based on the available evidence. And you can’t argue with that kind of self-absorption and delusion.

                      Which brings me to Steve McIntyre, a nonscientist with a blog you linked me to, the only purpose for which I can fathom is to demonstrate your willful lack of seriousness in approaching this issue, as I have described.

                    7. Miami will not be submerged any time in the foreseeable future. The latest numbers I’ve seen say that the oceans are rising at about 1/4 inch per century. Coastal cities could build seawalls and raise them 0.23 millimeters per year and be fine. You just don’t understand numbers and scale.

                      Emotion is all you really know. And emotion tells you to panic. If, however, you employed some reason and math skills you’d realize that much of the panic is stupid.

                    8. “I just read that the disastrous 4.5+ degree warming may be already avoided–based on steps already taken by polluting countries.”

                      You mean like when China allowed private power producers in to start transforming their power industry from gross polluters to power plants with the latest in environmental controls, turbine, and USC? Markets have done way more to improve emissions. Like ISOGO.

                    9. “Markets have done way more to improve emissions”

                      Who cares, as long as they are drawn down? What concerns us where the climate is concerned is CO2e concentrations, nothing more or less.

                2. And learning a little introspection for Christ’s sake. Spencer and Christie’s work has been so riddled with errors over their careers that if they were on the alarmist side of the spectrum you’d have absolutely no problem dismissing them and probably calling them a bunch of names like a baby.

                  You don’t have any right to be listened to about anything if you refuse to believe in science. If you don’t like the implications of what science says, then that is your problem and not science’s.

                  1. You don’t have any right to be listened to about anything if you refuse to believe in science.

                    Get that folks? If you lack faith, you shouldn’t be listened to.

                    The basic premise of the scientific method is nullius in verba, and Tony thinks that anyone who follows that principle is “unscientific”.

                    1. Do you think people who don’t believe in evolution deserve a fair hearing on the subject of economics? Or ought we not waste our time and instead go find someone who’s not insane?

                    2. Pot. Kettle. Black.

                      And as usual all I see are ad hominems and zero data. Stop fisting kittens. They don’t like it.

    2. John, if you click on the link, you get a table with the raw data which is pretty interesting, with the caveat that it stops in September of 2015 (I guess the October data didn’t get it’s own row, hmmm?).

      You could build the chart you are asking for in excel in about 10 minutes.

      1. dude – that’s, like, WORK and stuff

        1. It’s also messy; there are lots of columns slicing and dicing the data in different ways.

      2. A journalist won’t do this because readers would see the re-scaled graph, conclude that nothing significant is happening, stop reading and go do something else.

        1. You can plot the UAH series on-line with a couple of clinks.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl…..h/last:480

          The R-squared value computed in Excel is 0.3194, which is actually pretty significant for a physical model and a small sample of real-world data. Anything above 0.25 is typically interpreted as excellent confirmation.

      3. “I guess the October data didn’t get it’s own row, hmmm?”

        I’ve been following this data set for several years and they do this every month. October will be in the table when the November figure turns up. I wouldn’t crow too hard about it, as the two clowns that maintain the series are about the only scientists left in the field who deny anthropogenic warming, so any cheating you can prove will not redound to your favour.

        You might, while we are on the subject, like to ponder the fact that the link to the data used to be right under the graph. They stopped showing it about a year ago. I suspect that they don’t want it to be too easy to just sort the table and see how the months rank now that the red line is permanently above the x-axis.

  3. blah blah blah blah so what you gonna do about it?

    Nothing. So shut the fuck up, and let’s hope we don’t enter another “Little Ice Age” and have a bunch of people die off. Cause it’s ice ages that kill fucking people, not “global warming.”

    Fucking fucktards, anyway.

    1. Or that big crack up in Wyoming isn’t a sign the big one under Yellowstone isn’t about to blow. There are so many no shit catastrophic things that could happen and indeed will happen at some point though likely in the far future. Sitting around worrying about this horseshit is just beyond stupid.

      1. That’s the funny thing to me. The climate is far more susceptible to Black Swan events like Yellowstone blowing than it is to these idiotic rounding errors.

      2. YellowStone is no longer inflating it is deflating.

        According to SNS, an engineer came to take a look, and found that water from a nearby spring was lubricating the cap rock. A spring running east-to-west may have made the ground slide north, he said.

        SNS says the USGS assured them no seismic activity had been detected in the area, so the crack wasn’t caused by an earthquake.
        http://www.businessinsider.com…..ng-2015-11

        Mexico also had a crack in it. They are less than they appear.

        1. That is not the point. If not Yellowstone, then another big volcano or a asteroid or God knows what.

        2. While your link explains how the crack isn’t related. It says nothing about Yellowstone deflating. That second part I’d really like to see evidence on, as that baby going off would spell disaster for everyone in America.

          1. I apologize I am having a lot of difficulty finding the original source Google is surprisingly unhelpful. I am sure that I read that the inflation had subsided and reversed a couple years ago.

            The closest to what I want that I can find is this: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/status.php#yvo

            It says GPS isn’t moving.

        3. SMOD will save us – in its very special way.

        4. So…

          The crack in Wyoming is self-lubricating?

    2. No shit! Lets grant the assumptions that the Earth’s “average” temperature is rising, and it is primarily anthropegenic, why have NONE of their predictions come to pass? Extreme weather? Not by a long shot. Rising sea levels? Why are the Maldives not under water yet? Why is Antarctic ice at a high?

      It isn’t enough to even make valid assumptions about initial and boundary conditions. The entire model has to be valid. It is hard enough to solve well understood 2nd order partial differential equations for non-trivial cases, much less accurately model something as complex as the climate of an entire world.

      1. cool story, bro 🙂

      2. Yeah, the climate ain’t second-order. I’m betting the Lyapunov exponents on that baby aren’t pretty.

      3. “why have NONE of their predictions come to pass?”

        Polar amplification. Rising sea levels. Poleward and uphill movements of species ranges. Greater storm frequency and energy. Thermocline gaining in depth. Permafrost degradation. And so on and so forth. Perhaps you should be more concerned with predictions that have already been exceeded, such as sea-ice reduction being about 70 years ahead of schedule.

        “Rising sea levels?”

        Rising, as the term implies. Don’t you watch any news?

        “The entire model has to be valid.”

        Yes, everyone knows that no-one even put a plane in the air before the Navier-Stokes equations were solved for turbulent flow and digital modelling was available.

        Imbecile.

    3. and have a bunch of people die off.

      Hey, as long as its the right people…

      /Malthusian Dreams

      1. Hey, as long as its the right people…

        This is already reality. See the post on middle-aged white people dying.

      2. What I find most amusing about that is that if half of the world did die off, or whatever ideal amount they want, real shortages and poverty would result.

  4. How long does it take these bureaucrats to write the readings down?

  5. How many times can it be “the third hottest” whatever on record? Not that many times. There was only ever one “third hottest” angel from Charlie’s Angels, I can tell you that much.

    1. Yeah, but she was the “smart” one, so…..

        1. Yeah, she was my favorite. Fawcett was hot, but not really all that.

      1. There was only ever one “third hottest” angel from Charlie’s Angels, I can tell you that much.

        False.

        Although Kate Jackson remained 3rd hottest when Farrah left…
        Shelley Hack became 3rd hottest when Kate Jackson left.
        ..and Cheryl Ladd replaced Shelley Hack as 3rd hottest when Tanya Roberts joined.

        1. I always thought Kate was hot. Jacqueline Smith was the best but Farrah was a bimbo. Give me Kate any day.

  6. This provides satellite readings from 1978 through current(37 years), so the world began in 1978?

    Do we panic now?

    1. 1978 was when they started measuring with satellites.

      1. Yes, John. I got that. My point being that 37 years of climate data is meaningless in the timeframe of the Earth’s existence.

        1. It’s not meaningless.

          However, it does not justify the chicken little response of the green cult.

          1. It is meaningless, when we can see from really long term evidence that the major climate cycles take ceturies to process thru. 37 yrs is just noise.

        2. “Yes, John. I got that. My point being that 37 years of climate data is meaningless in the timeframe of the Earth’s existence.”

          To be fair to John, a lot of people don’t get that. Either that the satellite record is only 37 years old (and the older data isn’t as precise as the newer data) and that the time span of accurate human measurements is relatively brief.

          Also, few people realize that accurate, well spread ocean temperature data is only 15 years old. The first Argo buoys were deployed in 2000.

    2. Can we hug while we panic?

  7. The Truth:

    1) Human activity, probably CO2 but maybe nitrates and CFCs, are definitely warming the climate.

    2) The warming caused by man is wholly insufficient to cause a catastrophe. It requires a positive feedback from water vapor, and even then it’s iffy.

    3) The positive feedback loop does not appear to be happening.

    4) We already have a way to reduce CO2 emissions: fracking, and the oodles of nat gas it produces. That’s it that’s all we need. Can’t wait for nat gas cars. Hopefully someday nuclear doesn’t suck and is commercially viable (IMSR).

    1. There already are natural gas cars. There is just no reason to have them, outside of replacing things like diesel engines in buses, which are dirty for reasons other than CO2, unless you believe in the Flying Climate Monster.

      1. Is Natgas not cheaper than gas?

        1. Not when you consider the cost of building an infrastructure to supply it. We already have gas stations. It would cost billions to build or covert them into CNG stations. CNG makes sense for fleet vehicles like buses that have one center point of distribution and fueling. But they don’t make sense for cars in general.

          1. We’ll see. I have every reason to believe that it can start with trains and fleeties and expand.

            1. Maybe. But gas if very cheap and an incredible amount of energy in a small package. You also have the safety issues associated with CNG. You really don’t want to be in an accident with a big CNG tank.

              Again, it makes no sense unless you believe in the flying climate monster.

              1. “Again, it makes no sense unless you believe in the flying climate monster.”

                That’s not quite true. Gasoline/diesel prices are highly volatile and are often well above the equivalent btu price of natural gas. So, it’s significantly cheaper to run a trucking fleet off of natural gas during those time periods.

                It might well make sense to run part of your fleet off of natural gas all of the time, so that your average price of fuel is less volatile than the underlying price of oil.

                There’s already an existing set of natural gas stations crossing the country and if you run a large enough fleet it would be pretty easy to have some dedicated trucks for those runs.

                http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fue…..tions.html

          2. The feds have already shown their generous hand in building gas stations in Afghanistan.

    2. 2) Wouldn’t that cause more cloud cover and therefore less heat?

      1. That is the rub! I am not sure but I don’t think The Experts have a convincing answer as to whether that vapor stays in solution or becomes cloud.

      2. Short answer?: “No.” It causes more water vapour and therefore MORE heat, all other things being equal, as water vapour is a stronger GHG than CO2. As the effect on cloud cover could go either way, we can’t say whether it would mitigate the feedback or not. The real-world data – see above the line – seems to be showing escalating warming. So the long answer is, “No, but.”

        Either way, we are only ever talking about more or less warming. There’s no way this can be twisted to predict cooling.

    3. Plus solar forcing, don’t forget solar forcing. It’s always the red headed elephant in the room.

      1. Did solar get affirmative consent?

    4. I agree that human activity changes climate, but not the activities you mention. Deforestation and the building of urban areas have a stronger effect, but even those are localized.

      I am just not buying the CO2 crap. It is real simple. If you have a theory that can’t make accurate predictions, it isnt a theory.

      1. It’s simultaneously too complex a science to expect consistent results, and too sophisticated a subject to ignore entirely. Either way they’re allowed to appeal to authority.

      2. The long term trend is pretty clear that CO2 is causing some warming.

        If a hypothesis can’t predict results, then it can be scrapped or modified. “Anthro CO2 causes warming but _____”. It is increasingly clear that everything after ‘but’ should be ‘climate sensitivity to CO2 is way less than we earlier thought/wanted others to think”.

        1. I am not certain that rising CO2 causes warming or if warming causes rising CO2, and the and our historical record isnt clear enough to make a decision on it.

          Some of the highest CO2 we have on record occurred in cold periods…so…there is that.

          Call me on the fence on that, but with regards to the current AGW crap it is clearly a scam. On that I am certain.

          1. There is a great deal of confusion about what the fuck happens with CO2 in nature. People assume (with some justification) that the CO2 increase we are currently witnessing is primarily anthopogenic.

            In the past CO2 has lagged temperature, implying that atmospheric CO2 isn’t the thermostat but the product of processes that are more productive in warmer periods.

            In the past few years a satellite was launched by NASA that actually monitors atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously worldwide, IIRC the first data dump from it came this summer and it showed high CO2 concentrations in unexpected places. I can’t wait to see what we learn from 10 years of monitoring.

            1. “People assume (with some justification) that the CO2 increase we are currently witnessing is primarily anthopogenic.”

              The isotopic signature of atmospheric carbon is direct evidence that it is of fossil origin. If you can think of another way to get fossil carbon into the atmosphere besides burning fuels and producing cement, and this way explains the quantity of new carbon matching the amount of fuel and cement we are getting through while also explaining what happens to the carbon from fuel and cement that should be in the atmosphere, I’m all ears.

              1. All the isotope content is telling us is that carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere is coming from sources that haven’t been in contact with the Earth’s atmosphere for a long time.

                It could be entirely the product of human emissions, or it could be the product of some unknown process transferring CO2 back into the atmosphere from deep underground.

                My sense is that the Carbon Cycle is poorly quantified, for example the guesses as to what is the product of vulcanism strike me as very er guessy.

                Hence my excitement that we finally have data in the form of a satellite in polar orbit collecting data on CO2 concentrations. Actually seeing the spatial and temporal distribution of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, particularly where and when it’s being added will I think be very useful in nailing down exactly what is anthropogenic and what is not. Raw data of an actual parameter is much more useful than inferences based on a number of assumptions and very little data.

    5. WTF is Imsr? Too lazy to bold on a phone so just lookt at the caps.

      1. Integral Molten Salt Reactor: basically, a small (100-300 MW) modular, safer nuclear reactor.

  8. Warmest October in the satellite temperature record

    That’s just a bunch of liberal Crap. Industry has nothing to do with polluting water, air, or climate change.
    Bunch of Tree hugging Communist that have no proof and hire a bunch of liberal professors.

    The free market will maintain a living atmosphere in America for Millenniums.

    1. You know, all jokes aside, back during the cold war, a friend of mine got huffy about the environment and told me that if I wanted to see what unchecked capitalism did to the environment, he’d take me to Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union so I could see the damage.

      I stared at him for a really long time waiting for him to point and say, “Aaaaaah, I got ya!”. He never did.

      1. If not for imperial capitalism, the USSR wouldn’t have needed to undertake the drastic measures it did.

      2. I have heard the same kind of crap. Someone once showed me a photo of a river that was covered with foam and in the background the landscape was a garbage strewn wasteland. Supposed proof of the excesses and destruction of capitalism.

        I discovered that the photo was taken in Volgograd.

        I realized then that was no point in talking to that person.

        Also, later, while visiting a mutual friend that guy showed up. When he saw me (he knew I was a chem major) he stormed out and said over his shoulder “Science is for fools!”.

        Alright then.

    2. You know who the biggest polluter in the country is? The federal government followed closely by the collective state governments.

      The idea that “industry” is the only or even the prime polluter in the world is one of the more funny myths people like you tell yourselves. Governments have either directly caused or played a significant role in every man made natural disaster in history.

      1. Next you’ll be saying that Love Canal was government’s fault!!!!! 😉

      2. Citation?

        That is unless when you refer to the “Federal Government” you mean the Federal Government of Russia or China in which the Government own the Factories.

        If you are in fact referring to the US Government (and not that I’m a big defender), please offer the citation that the US Government pollutes more than private industry.

        1. Do yourself a favor and google “Rocky Mountain Flats” and start educating yourself. The citations are too long to even begin to list. And you are too ignorant of the subject to educate in this forum.

          I will give you credit Alice, you sometimes do learn. If you don’t want to take my word for it, go educate yourself on the endless list of environmental degradation that has occurred as a result of government actions.

          1. It’s an apples to industrial mining wastewater comparison, but I wonder how much degradation the EPA spill in Colorado will do relative to the Deepwater Horizon. And I don’t just mean damages paid out.

            1. My understanding is that the Navajo lost their entire drinking water supply thanks to the EPA’s little fuckup.

              The best part is the Great White Father in Washington DC shipped drinking water in tankers to make them whole. Upon arrival it was discovered the water had been rendered impotable because the tankers had previously been used to transport oily water and the oily residue had never been cleaned out of them.

              1. The EPA as I understand it, plugged up a small leak in a mine and never bothered to consider where that water was going to go. They basically let the water build up and hose out all of the pollution in the mine and then let it run into the river.

                Did you read the letter to the editor warning of what was going to happen? Everyone associated with the disaster should be sitting in jail right now. It is just unbelievable.

                1. Yeah. I loved the timing of that letter too: one week before the spill!

                  If I wrote a novel with incorporating that as a plot device, people would be rolling their eyes at the cliche.

          2. I’m sure the Government has done some nasty things John. I’m not a big fan.
            I don’t believe that Industry is controlled by Government. I believe industry straight-up owns the politicians and use Government to make laws/policies that benefit them.

            That said, I don’t see the evidence existing that Government itself had a bigger impact than industry.

            This doesn’t mean that I believe that the American Federal Government should own all means of production. In fact, I don’t believe the government should run anything other than policy making, Pensions (SSI), Universal Health Insurance, and police/military/courts/prisons. At this point, you can even get rid of the US Postal Service.

            1. I believe industry straight-up owns the politicians and use Government to make laws/policies that benefit them.

              Ever so fond of the unfalsifiable hypothesis I see.

            2. That said, I don’t see the evidence existing that Government itself had a bigger impact than industry.

              Your willful blindness and denial of reality is noted.

              1. “Your willful blindness and denial of reality is noted.”

                Since you can apparently see this evidence, why not just post it?

            3. I believe industry straight-up owns the politicians and use Government to make laws/policies that benefit them.

              Here’s a thought, Alice: Possibly, it’s not a binary choice. Maybe government co-ops industry and industry co-ops government. It’s called crony capitalism or corporatism. Look into it.

              1. Yes, I agree and am familiar with these terms. It’s definitely not ALL Government and ALL Industry.

                I throughout my life owned a Medical Billing Business, a Real Estate Business, and a small Computer consulting body shop for most of the 90s. I was incorporated and I had no influence in Government. I was just a victim of it. But that’s because I was so so small.

                1. Sorry Alice, but everything you think the gov’t should run, and does run manages to wind up in crisis, or chaos, and where the gov’t doesn’t tread, these phenomena do not occur.

                  The gov’t runs a single payer system called the VA. It is horrible. So you think this time around, if they control everyone else’s healthcare, things will be magically efficient?

                  Why don’t you sacrifice your own house, and assets to fund a healthcare system based upon a single payer / VA model? You probably wouldn’t get a single investor providing you capital, and even if they did, you all can risk your money together without screwing up everyone else’s lives.

          3. I never heard of “Rocky Mountain Flats”. Very interesting.

        2. On the nuclear front, the worse pollution is by govt:

          Hanford was secretly dumping radioactive waste into the Columbia river (and free from EPA oversight because of national security concerns).

          The contamination of some of the sites in that giant Federal complex in Idaho is still a state secret, but was the stuff of legend in my nuke days.

          In the meantime, afraid of lawsuits, the private neclear industry is much better about keeping contamination contained.

          Not to mention the radioactive contamination caused by atom bomb testing – which alone dumped far more radioactive contamination on inhabited areas than all the nuclear medicine waste or private nuclear power plants combined.

          1. That was the free market. No Bomb or reactor has ever been manufactured by an entity owned by the US Government. That’s the beauty of American Free Market Capitalism. Unlike Russian/China, we have free-market contractors that bid for work.

            1. “That was the free market. ”

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            2. That was the free market.

              HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

              You are such a moron! I bet you don’t even know how to tie shoes and all your shoes have velcro instead of laces.

              1. Why am I a moron? The bombs/reactors/tanks/planes/computers/etc/etc/etc outside of NASA are pretty much Private/Public Companies that bid for work.

                It is definitely sponsored by the US Government. But the means of production are not owned by the US Government.

                1. AND WHO PAYS FOR IT? WHO DETONATED THOSE BOMBS?

                  1. Government is just a name we give to the bombs we detonate together.

                2. Hanford is not the free market. How do you manage to feed yourself?

            3. Alice Bowie|11.3.15 @ 3:52PM|#
              “That was the free market.”

              Yep. GE’s board met and decided there was a market for nukes and just started making ’em, started advertising ’em and couldn’t keep up with them demand!
              Free market all the way!
              What a fucking ignoramus…

              1. So Sevo, the manufacturing of this stuff is by Free Market.
                The tax payer is the sponsor. The US Government is the Management.

                Those are the stakeholders.

                1. Alice Bowie|11.3.15 @ 4:27PM|#
                  “So Sevo, the manufacturing of this stuff is by Free Market.”

                  Repeating a lie does not change it into anything other than a lie.
                  YOU may be stupid enough to believe that, but no one else here is.
                  You are a fucking ignoramus.

                2. A ‘free market’ directed and controlled by government largesse ie NOT A FREE MARKET

                  1. No Toxic. The Free Market Exists.

                    For example Boeing is both a Consumer and Government supplier.

                    1. Market != Free Market

            4. “Hanford was secretly dumping radioactive waste into the Columbia river ”

              “That was the free market. No Bomb or reactor has ever been manufactured by an entity owned by the US Government. ”

              What does it matter who built the plant? The US government ordered it build, supervised it’s construction and ran it. That is a pretty stupid attempt at a rebuttal.

              1. I am guessing so and so won’t be taking credit for the government for things like R&D then!

          1. I include them as government.

            1. Yeah, but who builds all the tanks, humvees, planes and ships? That’s right, private companies! Therefore it’s all Free Market!!!!

      3. I remember a poster in the hall of the Science building when I was at university. It had a pie chart showing the biggest polluters. It contained different industries, government etc. By far the largest slice (~45%?) was marked ‘Other’.

        One day I couldn’t stand it anymore so I took a marker and scratched out ‘other’ and wrote ‘YOU’ on it.

        The poster was gone the next day.

        1. *Claps*

        2. THE HALL OF SCIENCE

          (I think you have to put that in all caps)

          1. You need some kind of indicator for a verbal echo after the phrase:

            “THE HALL OF SCIENCE …Science…science…”

    3. Re: Alice Bowie,

      That’s just a bunch of liberal Crap. Industry has nothing to do with polluting water, air, or climate change.

      That’s a big jump from a few of those things to climate change, Alice. It is not like people don’t exhale CO2.

      The free market will maintain a living atmosphere in America for Millenniums.

      I sure HOPE SO, because Socialism really sucks at it. BIG TIME.

  9. Speaking of weather – looks like Montana is gonna be the place to ski, as always. I just wish it wasn’t so hard to get there.

    1. West is finally getting some snow this hottest October on Record. Crystal, Snoqualmie and Baker all got hit.

      The Paul. is dusting the cobwebs off his snowboard.

      1. Just hope it doesn’t get too warm from the El Nino.

      2. Copper (where we’re headed in Feb) has some up top – they’re expecting a bit more tonight and tomorrow. Montana and eastern ID are getting hammered.

        1. If you ever head out to the Northwest coast, hit a brother up, I’ve got a “new” job where there are a bunch of skiers/snowboarders and we’re talking about a big trip.

  10. All I know is where I live winters have been milder and summers cooler. In the last ten years, other than two rather wet late springs, the weather has been fucking dreamy compared to when I was a kid. So, eat shit everyone else.

  11. All I know is where I live winters have been milder and summers cooler. In the last ten years, other than two rather wet late springs, the weather has been fucking dreamy compared to when I was a kid. So, eat shit everyone else.

    1. First time I’ve been squirreled.

  12. I love reading all the climate change ranting that happens in here. I personally think that climate change is probably being caused or at least heavily influenced by humans – however maybe not to the extent claimed by some of the more extreme alarmists. But I think its pretty silly to deny that its happening.

    I also think that technological growth and advancement is the key to solving the problem. We should go pedal to the metal on capitalism in order to fix this problem as fast as possible. Especially since we know from the data that compulsory government conservation usually leads to deterioration of the conserved environment.

    1. That’s the part that gets me. I find it … curious … that all the proposed solutions to climate change just happen to be exactly the same items on the socialist/communist wish list. Totally coincidental, I’m sure.

      1. Libertarians are all transvestites.

        See I can make shit up out of nowhere too.

        1. So, Tony, care to give us some examples of a market based, non-coercive example of climate change solutions?

          1. If I couldn’t, would that mean the science is wrong? Just take me through that logic.

            1. Aww, is Tony pretending to know what science is again?

              1. No need to pretend. Just look at the article above the line. Claiming that Spencer, a “scientist” now only able to get published in “Christian Science Agony Letters”, is making up a rising trend in temperatures because he’s a communist doesn’t really seem to hold much water. Not least because he is no longer taken seriously due to decades of claiming that the rising trend would not emerge and that the people who thought it would were communists.

                1. Why are rising temperatures necessarily a bad thing?

                  1. They are not “necessarily” a bad thing. They are a bad thing because their consequences are projected to be overwhelmingly deleterious for human affairs. For fish they could actually turn out quite well. You too, if you float well.

                  2. There are parts of the Gulf coast where there are no permanent human habitations at all, as the wet-bulb temperature reaches levels where humans cannot survive outdoors: The high temperature and humidity literally kills you. That’s not NECESSARILY a bad thing, but I would call it bad on balance. For a start it hinders the functioning of markets if everyone is dead.

                    Rising temperatures will cause there to be more such areas, and indeed India and a few other places have already had episodes of mass fatality due to heat stress. France lost 48,000 people a few years ago due to such an episode, and beyond a certain threshold these are no longer just those on the pointy end of the demographic curve but ordinary and young people. This is projected to occur more frequently, and indeed already is.

                    There is a phenomenon known as the “convection threshold”. The lower atmosphere has an air-conditioning mechanism based on the uptake of water vapour. Water vapour is lighter than air, so the lower air becomes unstable and begins to convect when the air becomes more humid. The temperature at which this starts to happen is known as the convection threshold. Warm the ENTIRE atmosphere and all the air becomes lighter, so the point at which it begins to convect has to be warmer in compensation. This consideration is what currently keeps most of the globe within non-fatal temperature ranges. And it’s going to stop working.

          2. Yes, stop subsidising the fossil-fuel and road-transport industries.

            1. What subsidies are the fossil fuel receiving? How much are they? What would this solve exactly?

              What is a road-transport industry?

              1. Glad you asked. Bunch of resources here: https://www.iisd.org/gsi/ fossil-fuel-subsidies/ fossil-fuel-resources (Added spaces)

                The IMF estimates fossil fuel subsidies at $10M per minute: http://www.imf.org/external/ pubs/cat/longres.aspx? sk=42940.0 (Added spaces)

                A “road-transport industry” is an industry which specialises in transporting goods and persons by road. Besides the subsidies to the fuel used by most vehicles on roads, the roads and vehicle manufacturers themselves are in most cases either financed or protected by public funds.

                What it would solve, of course, is to make whatever subsequently occurs conform better to your faith in the “free market”, which incidentally ought to be reason enough to applaud it. Interesting that you would question an effort to reduce government interference as soon as it conflicts with an entrenched theme.

                At the same time it would eliminate the artificially-sustained advantage of fossil fuel sources over sustainable ones faster than this will occur on its own. Sustainable energy will at current rates of installation soon eclipse fossil fuels anyway for many purposes, but the problem is that we only have about 15 years left in which to decouple the economy from carbon emissions. The faster the better, therefore.

    2. I also think that technological growth and advancement is the key to solving the problem.

      No, cooking on open fires is the solution.

    3. But I think its pretty silly to deny that its happening.

      A lot of people are skeptical about the claims made by “scientists” and seek to have more accurate information available. Those of us who aren’t wedded to political agendas recognize that it will be really bad if the “scientists” cry wolf too many times and then have no credibility with the public when they honestly discover something alarming, or even worse that they foster a general climate of anti-intellectualism in which the liars and charlatans get conflated with honest empiricists.

      The modern day “scientific” establishment is just the old church mentality dressed up in new clothes. We have the dogma, it justifies our worldview, and anyone who acts against it is a heretic.

      1. “A lot of people are skeptical about the claims made by “scientists” and seek to have more accurate information available.”

        Which is a contradiction.

        1. What is contradicting about it? Has the information that has been provided accurate?

          1. The concept of more accurate information than that generated by scientists is a contradiction. Information provided collectively by scientists is BY DEFINITION the state of knowledge about a subject.

    4. For a moment, let’s agree with the earth is heating.

      Now let’s ask – How do we know the Earth shouldn’t be hotter? Humans have been here a short time, in the scale of things. How do we know that the temperature we like is just right?

      Personally, I think because CO2 lags temperature, I think it has to do more with the solar cycle.

      Silly to deny it’s happening? Like the last 15 years it has happened?

      I would like to see one prediction be accurate..besides Tony saying government is the answer

      1. This is it essentially it. They have no idea what earth’s climate is supposed to be

        1. I’d settle with a range that we can live in.

  13. “. The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years.”

    But the pause! The pause! Even measurements of the troposphere, as opposed to the surface (where we reside), don’t show a pause. Even Christy understands that.

    1. Re: Jackass Ass,

      The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years

      Even measurements of the troposphere, as opposed to the surface (where we reside), don’t show a pause.

      0.36?C on average in 36 YEARS is nothing to write home about, Jackass. And the pause was real enough the “scientists” at the propaganda ministry (which people call East Anglia for kicks) were pulling their hair trying to hide it.

      1. The pause!

      2. “0.36?C on average in 36 YEARS is nothing to write home about, Jackass.”

        What stronger conclusion could be drawm based on a data set whose full length is 36 years? What would be expected when comparing this data set to others covering longer periods, and what result of making such a comparison would falsify the statement that such a trend is real? Why do all the other data sets actually yield a result consistent with the statement that such a trend is real?

      3. “0.36?C on average in 36 YEARS is nothing to write home about, Jackass. And the pause was real enough”

        The 18-YEAR “pause”, yes. The one that doesn’t show up one any but one series, and is suddenly over. Care to explain why that is suddenly something to write home about?

      4. If “the science is settled” to where folks are advocating others be imprisoned…..why the need to alter the data in their favor?

        Oh, they get to wreck the economy anyway cause they’re doing something……..based on bullshit.

        1. As the Stern Report indicates, it is doing nothing that will actually wreck the economy. And government interference on the scale of fossil-fuel subsidies is never a good idea.

          “why the need to alter the data in their favor?”

          You just made that up.

            1. His scholarship is shoddy and full of serious factual errors.

              Basically, he overestimates anthropogenic warming, overestimates the harm of warming, underestimates the time preference for money, underestimates the cost of using renewable unreliable energy sources, and having placed on thumbs pushing in opposite directions on both ends of the balance scales, serenely pronounces that his adopting his desired policies is cheaper than not adopting them.

              And, most risibly, when the implications of his policies are more widely broadcast, he lies – in a risibly incompetent manner, to be sure, but baldly nonetheless..

    2. 10ppb of polonium will put you in the ground; 10ppb of arsenic won’t even tickle your funny bone

      Numbers without context are meaningless.

      1. “Numbers without context are meaningless.”

        At an annualised growth-rate of 2%, half of all the anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere has been added in the last 35 years. How’s that for context?

        1. Did you know that the CO2 becomes less effective at trapping heat as more is added? There is diminishing returns.

          1. Yes. Did you know that the water-vapour feedback alone more than outweighs this consideration, as we have not yet even doubled CO2 concentrations?

  14. Oh, the pause! Wherefore art thou, oh pause?

    1. Taking some time off?

      1. Just having a bit of fun at the expense of the conspiracy theorists.

  15. I think that is gonna make a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.CompletePrivacy.tk

  16. It’s interesting that so many deniers are dismissing a 36-year trend – basically the entire data set for this temperature series – when until recently they were swinging back and forth from their tree and hurling triumphant salvoes of bananas over an imaginary “pause” of less than half that period. There are another three main temperature series compiled from other sources, one of them going back to the 19th Century, and you can bet they won’t say anything substantially different to this one. There are also proxy series going back 800,000 years, all of which basically agree. In addition to that, this one is itself compiled by deniers and therefore above any claim of bias. (Which didn’t stop claims of bias, but there you have it.) However, it would be interesting to know if there is any particular reason for this double standard in the matter of sample period, or perhaps for expecting more than 36 years of data from satellites that have been in orbit for only 36 years.

    Or rather, any justification. We know the reason.

    1. Who is denying specifically and what? What is the magnitude of the problem? How did you determine this? What are your proposed solutions and can you show how it abates said problem?

      1. Many of you seem to be denying anything that leads to action on global warming, including REDUCING government interference and in many cases even what you yourselves said a few days earlier. Like for instance that 18 years of data is just fine for drawing spurious conclusions from.

        So do you have a justification for this double standard, or were you hoping that it would just get forgotten by attempting a few changes of subject?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.