Temperature Trends

2015 Warmest Year in Instrumental Record, Says NOAA, NASA, and the U.K.'s Met Office

2015 third warmest year since 1979 according to UAH satellite temperature data

|

BestThermometer
Dreamstime: Meryll

The data are in: 2015 is the warmest year in the instrumental record. The El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean on top of the higher average global temperatures that characterize the past decade significantly boosted temperatures in 2015. From the NOAA/NASA press release:

Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.

The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. Because weather station locations and measurements change over time, there is some uncertainty in the individual values in the GISTEMP index. Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty. 

NASATempMap2015
NASA

"Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA's vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. "Today's announcement not only underscores how critical NASA's Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice—now is the time to act on climate."

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

From the UK Met Office:

Provisional full-year figures for global average temperatures reveal that 2015 was the warmest year in a record dating back to 1850

Scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit produce the HadCRUT4 dataset, which is used to estimate global temperature. The global temperature series shows that 2015 was 0.75 ±0.1 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average, a record since at least 1850.  When compared with the pre-industrial period, the 2015 average global temperature was around 1 °C above the long-term average from 1850 to 1900.

UKMetTemp2015
UK Met Office

Peter Stott is head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre. He said: "2015 was a record-breaking year for our climate. Global mean temperatures reached 1 °C above pre-industrial levels* for the first time and the year's average global temperature was the highest ever recorded."

On the other hand, the researchers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who use satellite data report that 2015 is the third warmest year in that record which extends back to 1979. From the UAH press release:

2015 finished with an average temperature that was 0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees F) warmer than the 30—year norm. The warmest year on record is 1998, when the annual average temperature was 0.48 C (about 0.86 degrees F) warmer than normal. The five warmest years in the satellite temperature record are:

1998 +0.48 C

2010 +0.34 C

2015 +0.27 C

2002 +0.21 C

2005 +0.20 C

Still looking for the 2015 data from Remote Sensing Systems, the other group that uses satellite measurements.

Advertisement

NEXT: Detroit Teachers Hold Mass 'Sick Out,' Abandon 46,000 Kids

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. The Greenland Vikings disagree.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..mate-myth/

    1. But they missed the kick. WTF good are they?

  2. “Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice – now is the time to act on climate.”

    It’s statements like this that make some wonder whether the data drives the advocacy or the advocacy drives the data.

      1. Neither. The money drives the advocacy and the data. Your data says whatever gets you continued funding. You advocate for whatever gets you continued funding.

    1. Why do we need the NASA Earth Observation Program, I thought the science was settled?

      1. NSA needs a new cover.

    2. It says it right in his title.
      Administrator.

    3. …according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP)

      That name is kind of a feint on its own; using the name “NASA Goddard” leads to general cultural association with Goddard Spaceflight Center, a nationally esteemed lab with obviously quite a history.

      But the “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” is just an office promoting Warmer agitprop and hosts their server farm video game-oracle thing, based in New York City next to their lefty pals at Columbia University.

      When James Hansen retied from NASA for instance, his next gig was across the street and essentially his old gig from a different perch. Their whole operation has nothing to do with ‘NASA Goddard’ in the mainstream sense of the term at all.

      1. I didn’t even have to check to know that “hottest year ever” claim came from them using GISTEMP. They can’t be taken seriously.

        1. “Did we say actual satellite data?”

  3. “it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice – now is the time to act on climate.”

    How many times is this going to be said? What do they even propose here? What is acting on the climate anyway?

    1. What is acting on the climate anyway?

      Enacting world wide Socialism, duh!

      1. Pretty much. The only way to limit the use of fossil fuels is to limit human activity, since basically all human activity directly or indirectly uses energy produced by fossil fuels. So governments must control all human activity through energy taxes, nationalization of industry, rationing, or some other method of coercion. No one may do anything without asking permission or obeying orders. It’s a statist’s dream come true.

        1. I wonder why no one proposes nuking ISIS and Gaza, which would freeze climate change- literally- in its tracks.

          1. I wonder why no one proposes nuking ISIS and Gaia

    2. “now is the time to act on climate”

      Because, I mean, no one has done ANY acting on climate yet.

  4. Do ‘experts’ believe their own predictions?

    To recommend government “action,” of course, is to recommend that government spend mostly other people’s money, or that it restrict mostly other people’s options, in pursuit of the proposed “solution” to a problem (be that problem true or trumped up). Yet, the ability of experts to stake mostly other people’s property and lives on a proposed “solution” encourages those experts to be careless when recommending policies. After all, none of these experts is personally bearing the brunt of the costs of the recommendations.

    So to probe the seriousness of these economic experts’ stated beliefs about the impending consequences of climate change, it’s fair to ask if they personally put their own money where their mouths are. How many of these economists are, for example:

    1. ? Buying land in the upper Midwest and inland Canada (the price of which will rise significantly if global temperatures make much of the South, as well as coastal areas, quite unpleasant places to live)?

      ? Investing in pharmaceutical companies that own patents that extend beyond 2025 on medicines to treat illnesses that are especially prevalent in the tropics and subtropics?

      ? Shorting shares of companies that specialize in attracting tourists to subtropical and tropical destinations, especially those on or near seacoasts?

      If I were truly convinced that global temperatures will continue to rise and will bring about the misfortunes that mainstream environmentalists predict, then I would do more than merely preach to public policymakers. I would also put my money where my mouth is by investing in ways that will increase my personal wealth when my predictions come true.

    2. Furthermore, being an expert economist I’d understand that my investing in these ways would bring benefits not only to me personally but also to all of humankind.

      It’s possible that most of the 339 economists who advocate government action to combat global warming are investing in these ways. But I’d make sure that they are so investing before even considering taking their policy advice.

      1. Oh, c’mon. Relying on revealed preferences rather than stated preferences sounds like the sort of nonsense a libertarian would come up with. It’s like those people who suggest there’s something to be learned from observing the same people who claim to be in a panic over the destructive use of heavy aircraft themselves seem to have no qualms about flitting about the globe on their own heavy aircraft. Just because Al Gore does the same things he insists we must all stop doing before we all perish in no way suggests that Al Gore must not really believe what he’s saying is true.

      2. I didn’t need to click the link to know that this was Don Boudreaux. I’ve heard people call these “cash on the table” arguments. If such-and-such a view is true, then why aren’t people taking advantage of it to make tons of money?

      3. Actually, what they are doing is investing in alternative energy industries that will be subsidized by the government.

    3. How many of these economists are, for example:

      – Buying up oil by the billions of barrels and burying it?

      – Out-bidding oil companies for land/mineral/drilling rights?

      – Out-bidding oil companies for equipment/parts/labor specifically oriented to oil drilling/production?

      – Seeking to invest/own Saudi Arabia if/when it corporatizes?

      – Destabilizing/devaluing oil markets with increased investment in futures/speculation?

      Clearly, it’s not the oil that they hate or the climate they want to preserve, it’s the capitalism they want to destroy.

      1. None of them have the capital to do any of that, though…

  5. Ancient climates, fossils and evolution do not exist?

  6. Will science finally agree a CO2 HELL is as real as they already smoking causes cancer before it’s too late to say it?
    Or are they also only “99% certain” the planet isn’t flat?
    Smog Warning Days have been rare for decades in the U.S. and Canada and now fracking’s fossil fuel abundance is ending the oil wars with possible world peace with reliable energy for generations to come.
    And we are living longer than at any time as a species.

  7. Nuclear. Energy. Only reliable and constant form of energy capable of producing enough power. Also one of the safest and the least environmentally damaging. Goddamn environmentalist Luddites.

    1. Fukushima; therefore, we have to shut down all nuclear plants and build more wind farms.

      1. Exactly! Think of all those people who died of radiation exposure.

        1. But it reached California! CALIFORNIA!! The area around Chernobyl is one of the most pristine and thriving wilderness preserves in Europe. Bikini Atoll had 23 nuclear bombs dropped on it and it is back to being a thriving coral reef. Nuclear accidents are actually beneficial to nature, because they keep humans away and the animals don’t give a shit that they have a .3% higher chance of getting cancer.

          1. I was told, but haven’t looked it up, that whatever substance they used to help contain the radioactive leakage had flooded into the ecosystem and was beginning to poison fish stock. My sister was pretty breathless about it when I mentioned how overblown the nuclear threat had been.

            1. I’m dead right now. It was awful, but I’ve found a new respect for environmentalism.

          2. But, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Diaries
            I saw it–all those zombies…

            1. I’m pretty sure that movie was the worst thing to come out of the Chernobyl disaster.

            2. I’m pretty sure that movie was the worst thing to come out of the Chernobyl disaster.

          3. It reached California!

            Sure, the additional radioactivity was like six orders of magnitude [IIRC from doing the math] less than the natural radioactivity of seawater, but … FUKUSHIMA!!

    2. Only reliable and constant form of energy capable of producing enough power. Also one of the safest and the least environmentally damaging.

      Do you even listen to yourself? We don’t want people to produce loads of clean energy, loads of clean energy lead to more prosperous people, more prosperous people lead to a higher demand for material wealth, material wealth can only be obtained by raping Mother Earth and stealing her precious natural resources. A safer and less environmentally damaging source of power inexorably leads to even more dangerous environmental destruction than a more dangerous and environmentally damaging source of power. The only solution, the “final solution” if you will – people just need to go ahead and die already and cure the planet of this cancer known as humanity. Geez, do I gotta explain everything around here?

    3. I have no idea if this is true, but I have a friend who was involved in the No Nukes Protests back in the 70s (he has since reformed) and he tells me the entire movement was created because the Vietnam war ended and the people who had been protesting the war needed something to do. He says at least, that the entire thing was a made up cause and the people who started it knew that.

      1. It’s probably true. I have a friend who has a bumper sticker from the 70s that says “More people died at Chappaquidick than at 3 Mile Island”. There’s no comparison for safety. Especially seeing how ridiculously overblown fallout and radiation exposure warnings were based on our now long-term data. You’re more likely to get cancer from the radiation in fly ash from a coal plant.

        1. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament started in 1957 in England.
          “It opposes military action that may result in the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and the building of nuclear power stations in the UK.”
          WikiP

        2. “It’s probably true.”
          This is the standard of evidence that the Hot Potato advocates want everyone to accept.

  8. Ron, Ron, Ron.

    The massaged and “adjusted” data are in: 2015 is the warmest year in the instrumental record.

    Here, fixed that for you.

    1. ^^^ As I said yesterday, the records going back to 1880 only go back to 2015.

      1. I saw this yesterday as well, but it went over my head. Can you elaborate?

        1. I think what he’s getting at is that (many of?) the datasets have been “revised”. This, the records that purport to be of temperatures in 1880, are actually records of revisions done in 2015, so the records only go back to 2015.

          Oddly, the revisions nearly all seem to be to reduce older temperature readings, thus producing that upward slope in temperatures that the climate hysterics desperately need.

          1. Well, to be fair, they also increase newer temperature readings.

    2. Ron did list the Satellite data, which once again, paints a much different picture. I wonder how long before the Alabama boys get replaced (or more likely, the research center gets moved), and all of the Satellite data is “adjusted” to fit the surface data. Of course, the Satellite data matches up with the balloon data too, so that will have to go.

  9. I’m not sure what the solution is global warming, but I think we should ban assault weapons just to be safe.

    1. I’ve heard that decomposing corpses give off heat. Also, I’ve heard that cremation requires using energy.

      I propose that to save the planet, we ban corpses.

      1. When corpses are banned, only the criminals will have corpses.

  10. “2015 Warmest Year in Instrumental Record ”

    That’s just a bunch of Liberal Bla Bla Bla!!!

    Pay no mind to it.

    God will keep us safe.

    1. “2015 Warmest Year in Instrumental Record “

      I remember Warszawa and Speed of Life but I don’t recall 2015 Warmest Year.

  11. Ron, I’ve got your instrumental record right here.

  12. The El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean on top of the higher average global temperatures that characterize the past decade significantly boosted temperatures in 2015.

    I keep hearing that this is the strongest El Nino in either 18 years (since 1997 – 98) or possible ever, I’m wondering if it wouldn’t have been the warmest year EVAR regardless.

  13. But this was not in a peer reviewed journal.

  14. But this was not in a peer reviewed journal.

  15. Now, enjoy your two feet of snow over the weekend, and please forget that 10-15 years ago, liberals were claiming that snow would disappear forever.

  16. Ron,

    Is it still true that atmospheric temperatures haven’t risen for 18 years? Statistics isn’t my bag, but you denier types have been crowing about it since 1998. Let me know if that analysis holds up given the new data.

    1. What does atmospheric temperature have to do with anything when we deny there is any such thing as climate? That’s what us climate deniers do, right? Deny there is a climate?

      Express some skepticism that Chicken Little must be anointed God-King of the planet because he’s the one screaming the loudest about the sky falling and next thing you know, you’re denying chickens exist. Well, chickens do exist, therefore the sky is falling, QED.

    2. Is it still true that atmospheric temperatures haven’t risen for 18 years?

      They have pretty much flatlined since the last big El Nino. The data is pretty noisy, so its hard to pull any kind of definitive trend out of short time periods.

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/01…..record-glo

      If the chart of temperatures going back to 1979 shows any pattern, to me its around the El Nino spikes. They are a big temperature increase, followed by a sort of snap-back cool period, and then a gradual recovery to what may be roughly equal to or maybe a little higher than the previous pre-El Nino period.

  17. … it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice – now is the time to act on climate.

    Are any of them black?

    1. Are any of them black. Well now we know who’s a homophobe. You obviously don’t care enough to ask how many self-identify as women, but I’m a misogynist and transphobic, too, so I’ll let that one slide.

  18. Hottest year on record?

    Who says where “the record” starts is the proper beginning period to consider?

    I’m pretty sure that the hottest year ever was back when the earth was in a molten state about 4.5 billion years ago.

    1. Here’s the truth: “the record” doesn’t even truly exist anymore, at least not one that can be believed. Because the NOAA and their fellows in the UK erased all the original data to cover their tracks when they got fudging the numbers and “hiding the decline”. Anything that they put out regarding the past now is scientifically a complete sham.

      1. That to me is the biggest scientific scandal of the 20th Century. Whatever your opinion of AGW, those base numbers were by any measure some of the most significant scientific data in existence. And those assholes destroyed them and said “just trust us”. Trust you my ass.

        1. To me the scandal isn’t the loss of records – although that is really, really bad.

          To me the scandal has been the campaign to frustrate efforts to improve the quality of data and to hide methods. To me the scandal ahs been the knowing promotion of junk science alongside good science and the absolute unwillingness of the climate science community to police itself.

          The fact that Michael Mann has not been publicly condemned by the scientific community (in fact many still fete him) despite a private consensus that he has behaved disgracefully and does bad science . The fact that Judith Curry and Lennart Bengtsson are shunned, disparaged and excorciated for insisting that Climate Science adhere to the scientific method are to me the biggest scandal.

          1. That and their complete unwillingness to allow experts outside of the field review their work. When you think about it, all people like Mann are doing is statistical modeling. it doesn’t matter whether you are modeling financial markets or mating habits of matinees or the climate, the basic math and code skills are the same. And yet, those clowns have repeatedly refused the assistance of professional coders and statisticians and physicists outside of the field and tried to discredit anyone who looked on their work with any skepticism.

            And if you read the climategate emails, the most noticeable thing is how incompetent they seem to be at writing code and compiling numbers.

            1. statistical modeling. it doesn’t matter whether you are modeling financial markets or mating habits of matinees or the climate, the basic math and code skills are the same.

              This is very true and gets to the heart of the matter.

              It’s farcically demonstrated by Steven McIntryre’s frustrating efforts to get a paper criticizing the stats on a Mann paper published. The climate press refused to touch it – claiming among other things it belonged in a stats journal. The stats journals didn’t want to publish it because the critique was so pedestrian – the equivalent of trying to publish a paper describing the photoelectic effect in modern times in Deadalus – that it was taught in stats courses already and wasn’t teaching their readers anything new. He eventually got it published, and naturally the climate science community ignored its central recommendation: that they partner with experienced statisticians whevener they are doing something requiring stats.

              1. Imagine if all of the math in Einstein’s original paper on general relativity had been terribly flawed and the physics community refused to listen to any mathematicians who tried to point that out.

                That literally is what is occurring with climate science. The mistakes are so bad and so obvious that you can’t get a paper pointing them out published in a statistics journal because the statisticians consider the mistakes to be so basic that they are unworthy of scholarly consideration. Wow. Just Wow.

          2. The scientific method is like old and stuff. Weren’t the people who invented it white slave-owners or something? Nobody cares about old stuff like that anymore. Now we just have experts take a vote! Consensus is the new science! It’s awesome because it’s like democracy and stuff! And those experts are like really smart and stuff!

            1. “Show our work? Peer review? Sorry, I’m afraid we can’t do that.”

              Could you even imagine a real scientist saying this face to face in a room full of peers? They wouldn’t even have the fucking balls to do it, because they’d be laughed at and howled right out the door.

              1. Climate scientists don’t need to show their work because they are the only ones smart enough to understand it! They’re like experts and stuff! Only fellow climate scientists (which by definition excludes deniers) can understand it, and they all say the world is going to end if we don’t DO SOMETHING!

            2. And who could possibly be against democracy?

      2. the original data to cover their tracks when they got fudging the numbers and “hiding the decline”.

        This is really, really incorrect.

        1) The raw data isn’t lost. It’s hard to get at because it’s in inconvenient formats, like the original papers that the numbers were written in.

        2) Some of the aggregations of this hard to get at data was lost, most notably at the University of East Anglia because they didn’t have enough magnetic tape/hard drive space.

        3) “Hide the decline” had nothing to do with temperature data. The “decline” in question was a drop in a proxy temperature – ie. a function that took numerous historical tree ring thicknesses as inputs and spat out a global average temperature as a result, that tended to track observed temperature until 1965 or so, stopped tracking it and in fact dove downward while actual global temperatures climbed. To hide it, Michael Mann simply replaced the inconvenient function outputs with actual temperatures thus hiding the fact that his function wasn’t very reliable at spitting out temperatures.

        Now, the reason why one cannot really trust past observations has nothing to do with misfeasance and everything to do with the fact that we know use different instruments, and there are wide variations between observation times and geographical coverage of measurements from year to year, making comparisons with the distant past almost impossible if one wants to compare apples to apples instead of oranges.

        1. No Tarran,

          Didn’t it come out in the climate gate emails that they errased the original temperature sets because they “needed the memory space”?

          1. It depends on how you define “original”. 🙂

            If you mean original records, no. Those paper records are, for the most part, stored in the archives of the meteorological bureaus that compiled them.

            The original records were transferred to magnetic tapes. Those, I believe, are largely intact.

            The intentional destruction happened in the next stage. The guys curating the HADCRUT data set had to pick and choose which records would be included in constructing the data set. In some cases they decided to adjust those records to compensate for systematic changes. It’s pretty clear that the records of which stations they chose, and how they were adjusted, went down the memory hole.

            My thinking is that they initially were very sloppy. Then when they realized it looked bad, they tried to cover up what they had done. And that cover up led to attempts to penetrate it by scientists wanting access to those records filing FOIA requests. Those requests triggered attempts to destroy records of the cover up. And a very apalled tech at the university of east anglia who was witnessing this effort decided to leak everything, giving us Climategate.

            1. BTW,

              On the AM links thread I had some thoughts for you about Islam. I think our problem is not Islam but Sunni Arab Islam. All of our issues with Islam and Muslims seem to go back to Sunni Arabs or their influence.

              We worry about Iran, but no one is shooting people in California or flying planes into buildings because they were inspired by the Iranian Mullahs. That seems to only occur when people are influenced by Arab Sunni clerics.

              1. I just read it, and I agree with most of what you wrote there.

                I don’t have the time to pen a full response right now, so I’ll just stick with this: I agree with your diagnosis of Wahabbism, and arab culture in general. I think I have had less direct exposure to it than you have, both in the Navy and in my private life, but what I have experienced largely comports with your description.

                I agree wholeheartedly that the savagery and barbarism that permeates Gulf Arab culture is becoming a big problem impacting those of us in the west. I think our culture is superior, and that given time, if we defend it appropriately, we will prevail and the savages will lose the cachet they’ve had as of late. And when I mean defend I mean both an ideological defense (that has been sadly lacking from politicians) and also through force.

                I’ll have more later; my boss, being a private sector sort of guy is actually expecting results from me today. 🙂

        2. The raw data isn’t lost. It’s hard to get at because it’s in inconvenient formats, like the original papers that the numbers were written in.

          Bullshit. I was born on a Wednesday, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

          1. They don’t have the funds to digitize it. They spent all their funds on trips to Paris, Copenhagen, Bali, Brazil, etc.

  19. of course un-basterdized records from 1934 show that that was hotter. Mathmatical and scientific note if the measuring devices in the past could not read tenths let alone hundredths of a degree, which I doubt they could even read the tenths, then you have to drop any numbers beyond the least decimal point available in other words they have to beat any past temperature by a hole degree not this hundredth BS.

  20. numbers are only meaningful in relation to their context. So this being the “warmest year on record” is only meaningful to the extent the record is meaningful. And time and again temperature records have proven to be unreliable or in some cases outright falsehoods.

  21. I think this whole thing is a conspiracy by Canada to ruin the economy while simultaneously making their tundra inhabitable. Canadians! I’m watching you! Enjoy your oil recession!

    1. Oh it’s worse than that. We have a Pop Tart for a PM:

      “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources,” he said. “I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.” Justin Trudeau at World Economic Summit, 2016.

      And he delivered it in a manner I interpret as a guy who is trying too hard to be statesmanlike but comes off as an amateur and in a soft tone reminiscent of Doug Henning.

  22. “Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and NASA’s vital work on this important issue affects every person on Earth,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today’s announcement not only underscores how critical NASA’s Earth observation program is, it is a key data point that should make policy makers stand up and take notice – now is the time to act on climate.”

    Not one mention of El Nino in that quote.

    Peter Stott is head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre. He said: “2015 was a record-breaking year for our climate.

    [emphasis mine]

    Why, when we have a hot year, even when attributable to a well known weather phenomena, it’s climate and when we have a cold year it’s weather?

    I may not be educated enough to follow (read debunk) the “science”, but I damn sure know when I’m being led around by the nose.

    1. Record braking year sounds so serious until you ask just exactly what the “record” is that was broken. The whole thing is so vile and dishonest.

  23. WE’RE ALL GONNA BURN!

    /just walking in from solo shinny in -15 conditions.

  24. Not just NOAA, NASA, and MET…2015 was said to be the hottest year according to Berkeley Earth. And BE of course receives no government funding, and once was funded by the Koch brothers.

    “Now, however, it is clear that 2015 is the hottest year on record by a significant margin.”

    “Including 2015 in the plot of temperature over time also seems to erase the much talked about “pause” in recent warming. Richard Muller, Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth says, “This new high temperature record confirms our previous interpretation that the pause was temporary and that global warming has not slowed.” Lead scientist Robert Rohde adds, “The decades-long rise due to greenhouse gas emission is now clearly continuing.”

    “At the recent rate of warming may begin to cross that threshold in about 50 years.”

    1. Full quote on last one:

      “The international community has set a goal of limiting warming to no more than 2 C above pre-industrial levels; the Earth is now approximately half way to that limit. Robert Rohde said “At the recent rate of warming may begin to cross that threshold in about 50 years.”

      1. “”At the recent rate of warming may begin to cross that threshold in about 50 years.”

        “may” and “at the recent rate.”

        If I keep my foot on the gas, my car may be achieve escape velocity, too.

        China’s population starts shrinking in 2020, IIRC. Their emissions will decrease then.

        1. Don’t expect Joe the dishonest little shit to understand logic.

    2. Oh, and Judith Curry has said she trusts Berkeley Earth and their analyses.

    3. How was 2015 the hottest year on record?

      Global Average Temp for 2015: 58.62?F
      Global Average Temp for 1997: 62.45?F

      1997 was hotter by 3.83?F.

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

  25. Assume AGW is happening. There are two scenarios:

    1) Non-catastrophic
    2) Catastrophic

    If its non-catastrophic, we don’t need to do much of anything. Humans can simply adapt.

    Only if its catastrophic should we be “doing something.”

    CO2 emissions effect on temperature is logarithmic, which means each doubling of CO2 affects the temperature, which in turn means that the initial extra CO2 is what causes the temperature increase, and the later CO2 has less effect. This is why limiting emissions won’t do much. All the really bad emissions were done in the past.

    OK, now let’s assume we want to actually reduce emissions seriously, and its not just watermelonism. What could we do?

    You’d first want to make all cars electric and use nuclear power to run those cars.

    So, for example, if you believed in AGW, and had a $800 billion in stimulus money, you’d have fully funded Yucca Mountain and also found ways to push nuclear power. That of course was not done, despite Yucca Mountain being in a state hardest hit by the recession, and basically being Keyne’s proverbial “dig holes in the ground and fill them back up” project. To me this suggests that political supporters of AGW are not serious and don’t believe the threat. Its like people warning about Hitler in 1940, but swearing off building new tank divisions, and instead relying on victory gardens alone to provide victory.

    1. “”make all cars electric and use nuclear power to run those cars.””

      And of course, compel the entire planet – esp the developing world – to do the same, regardless of the cost

      which natch would probably mean World War IIIIIIIII at some point

  26. Oh, and climate is measured in units of 30 years. Which makes sense, but should give one pause because if its measured in 30 year units, how many data points do we have?*

    So, why all the discussion about “hottest year ever?” Scare the public into actions. Never let a crisis go to waste.

    *by the same token, the 18 year pause doesn’t look so impressive is the unit of measure is 30 years.

  27. How was 2015 the hottest year on record?

    Global Average Temp for 2015: 58.62?F
    Global Average Temp for 1997: 62.45?F

    1997 was hotter by 3.83?F.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

    1. Those were the “unadjusted” numbers. You simply don’t understand the science.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.