Temperature Trends

August and Year-to-Date Are Second Hottest in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

|

It's the heat AND the humidity!|||Meryll/Dreamstime

Through the first eight months of the year, 2016 seems to be racing toward what might be its place in history — as the second warmest year in the satellite temperature record. But just by a little bit, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in a press release. "While global average temperatures peaked higher this year than they did in 1998, temperatures fell faster this spring and summer to levels that are cooler than they were at this same time of year in 1998. We had three months this year that were warmer than their 1998 counterparts, and five that were cooler. There is really no reliable way of predicting what the next four months will do, compared to those same months in 1998."

With temperatures that were 0.55 C (about 0.99° F) warmer than seasonal norms, August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record. August 1998 was second warmest at 0.49 C warmer than normal. August 2016 was the second warmest August in the tropics, trailing August 2015 0.52 to 0.50 C. It was the third warmest in the Southern Hemisphere, where the August 2016 average was 0.32 C warmer than normal. August 1998's Southern Hemisphere average was hottest at 0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms.

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

August temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.44 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C (about 0.99 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

Tropics: +0.59 C (about 0.90 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for August.

GlobalTempAugust2016
UAH

According to the latest (July) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data global temperature was the hottest ever since the late 19th century:

For the 15th consecutive month, the global land and ocean temperature departure from average was the highest since global temperature records began in 1880. This marks the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The July 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous July record set in 2015 by 0.06°C (0.11°F). July 2016 marks the 40th consecutive July with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last time July global land and ocean temperatures were below average was in 1976 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F). Although continuing a record streak, July 2016 was also the lowest monthly temperature departure from average since August 2015 and tied with August 2015 as the 15th highest monthly temperature departure among all months (1,639) on record. However, since July is climatologically the globe's warmest month of the year, the July 2016 global land and ocean temperature (16.67°C / 62.01°F) was the highest temperature for any month on record, surpassing the previous record set in July 2015. July 2016 was the 379th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The last month with temperatures below the 20th century average was December 1984 (-0.09°C / -0.16°F).

Go here for UAH's monthly temperature data.

NEXT: Friday A/V Club: A Vintage Anti-Hippie Film Strip

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. You sir, are correct.

    2. No, this is the End of Doom.

      1. Doom Hath Been Ended By Us All Dying!

        1. You can’t end doom by boring it to death

          1. But you’re willing to try?

            1. I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

              1. And you’re just the man to do it!

              2. SLOOP! Is the boycott over? Did I miss an Reason apology article? You missed me right? The tertiary commenters union rejoices with your return.

                1. I’m gonna try to stay away from anything Trump- or Hilbot-related for as long as possible or until I have a heart attack.

                  I know that limits me to commenting on less than half of the articles, but I’m starting to get DTs from staying away, so I guess the cosmos win and I’m back to some degree.

                  1. Woot!

                    Yeah, I’m cutting back on my Douche v Turd commenting, too.

                  2. They seem to have cut back on the Trump stuff a bit. Or maybe I just don’t even see it anymore.

                  3. What we need is a feature in Reasonable that blocks Trump articles.

              3. Yay Sloopy is back!

      2. I was sad about the end of doom metal as well, but it was a genre that has run its course.

        1. It ran its course about halfway through the first album.

  1. Is this the same NOAA that was caught fiddling with thier historic data in ways designed to show their preferred trends?

    1. With temperatures that were 0.55 C (about 0.99? F) warmer than seasonal norms, August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record

      Oh, yes, the satellite record, which began at a low point in the sinusoidal temperature pattern of the 20th century.

      1. especially after the data was “adjusted”?

        1. Before. They softened the peak in the 30s significantly

        2. You know who else keeps adjusting data?

          1. Geordi?

            1. You win. No further submissions necessary.

              1. Yeah, that sort of wrapped that one up early, didn’t it?

            2. +1 press my buttons

            3. Alright, now “I’m gonna adjust some data” is now euphemism. Well played.

            4. Congrats. That’s how this game is done. I award Sparky one Hilter medal.

      2. This has been one of the coolest Augusts in Iowa that I can remember. So my anecdote trumps the satellite data right?

        1. Second hottest August in NYC history. NYC trumps Iowa.

          1. But enough about the primaries…

        2. Well, don’t leave us hanging, kinnath. What are some of the cool things you have done in Iowa (if such a thing is even possible)?

          1. Where the corn grows as high as an elephant’s eye,
            And you can’t see what Trump is doing to the caucus

        3. Well, don’t leave us hanging, kinnath. What are some of the cool things you have done in Iowa (if such a thing is even possible)?

          1. Goddamn meerkats.

  2. Is the earth hotter than it was 4.5 billion years ago when it was still in a molten state?

    I think not.

    If you take that entire history into consideration, we are in a LONG term cooling trend!

    1. That heat was the result of time-travelling humans! All global warming is the fault of white men!

      1. I mean, thats… actually possible…

  3. It’s a conspiracy by big Celsius!

  4. Gaia has a fever. And the only thing that will cure it is more cowbell!

    1. Cowbell obviously being a metaphor for the tolling of humanity’s death knell.

  5. With temperatures that were 0.55 C (about 0.99? F) warmer than seasonal norms, August 2016 was the warmest August in the Northern Hemisphere in the satellite temperature record. August 1998 was second warmest at 0.49 C warmer than normal. August 2016 was the second warmest August in the tropics, trailing August 2015 0.52 to 0.50 C. It was the third warmest in the Southern Hemisphere, where the August 2016 average was 0.32 C warmer than normal. August 1998’s Southern Hemisphere average was hottest at 0.54 C warmer than seasonal norms.

    I suppose we can accept norm as a synonym for average and assume you are not trying to skew the message. But “normal” is not fucking acceptable.

    You have a short term data set that has some mean, median, and mode. But this says not one fucking thing about what is “normal” for weather.

    I trust Ron less and less with each new post.

    1. Well spotted. I’m not aware that “norm” is a term that is used in connection with statistical analysis. Much less “normal”.

      1. I’m not aware that “norm” is a term that is used in connection with statistical analysis.

        Used all the time WRT lab results and discussing/determining a particular test, and especially useful if I happen to have a fairly comprehensive, if not outright complete, medical HX. Such as, “Your liver panel results were within norms and limits (WNL – which used to stand for “Within Normal Limits”). Indicating both a statistical data point to compare against a known medical HX, and further documenting the health profile of said patient and compared against the health profile of other patients of various and sundry demographies.

        So yeah, that one is a legit statistical term since it relies on quantification, and kinnath notes, Ron is misusing the term suggesting that the temps are *supposed* to be a certain temp, OR DOOOOOOOOM! DEATH! DESTRUCTION!!!!!! GAH!

        Much less “normal”.

        “Normal” should NEVER be used at any time for any type qualification or quantification. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. The only time Ronal’d Bejli should use the term “normal” is describing his own state of being, being a totally and completely subjective term.

        Ron knows better than this, and the mask slips more.

        1. Is there a vodka panel for Eastern Europeans? I think my numbers are a little low.

          1. Is there a vodka panel for Eastern Europeans?

            Dr. ZG swears by ??????. She feels ??????? is way overpriced, and doesn’t like the end product. Whatever keeps her panel happy, I’m all for it.)

            1. As long as it isn’t ????? with currants…I did my damned diplomatic duty and finished the first glass but after that I’ll have some water please.

              1. As long as it isn’t ????? with currants..

                That’s instant one week of couch duty, at a minimum, and quite possibly grounds for divorce, if that stuff enters our house; ?????, she likes, but I won’t touch again. Ever.

                1. Whew, I was expecting some Groovus Medical high horse (see what I did there) about the health benefits of kumis (or kefir, which my wife loves too). Thank god you haven’t been brainwashed yet.

            2. Nemiroff HA!
              My top three are:
              Yuri Dolgoruki
              Tsarskaya
              and Turi (Estonian i know but hey, sue me)

              1. What’s wrong with Everclear?

                1. What’s wrong with Everclear?

                  As a tank fuel, an accelerant, or pre-surgical rinse? Nothing.

              2. Estonian? Not for long.

                /Putin

        2. Isn’t “norm” in a medical sense used to describe a range, Whereas “norm” in a climate-sense is used to define a specific temperature down to a tenth of a degree over a timeframe that spans decades or even centuries?

          The absurdity of it being used here is startling. A doctor will use a range within a sample set of one person to determine normal whereas a climateer will use a temp down to a tenth of a degree to determine normal for the whole fucking northern hemisphere for over half a century.

          1. Isn’t “norm” in a medical sense used to describe a range

            Correct. Mathematically, that range is a solution set. For example, the WNL range for Na+ is 135 to 145 mEq/L: either skew to the high or low, or go past those limits, then I can conclude either acute hypo or hypernatremia, chronic if I have consistent lab results confirming such over a longer period of time.

          2. Isn’t “norm” in a medical sense used to describe a range, Whereas “norm” in a climate-sense is used to define a specific temperature down to a tenth of a degree over a timeframe that spans decades or even centuries?

            Yeah, it’s funny that Groovus chose the liver panel as some of those values are ‘normed’ as multiples or even orders of magnitude relative to the population mean. Whether your ALT is 3 or 30, you’re normal. When it gets to 300-3000, we can be pretty sure your liver is damaged/failing.

            1. it’s funny that Groovus chose the liver panel

              It’s not coincidental, since, like the Earth, the liver is remarkably resilient. As the vast majority of The Commentariant here amply demonstrates.)

              You win a Kewpie Doll!)

        3. Ron Bailey wears hats, not masks, and one of those hats happens to be reporting on abstruse and highly technical fields in which the sort of nuances a professional practitioner like yourself might understand, the rest of us overlook. In this case “norm” and “normal” merely means “not worrying out of the ordinary.” No, they’re not precise or even meaningful terms. But I think Bailey reports in good faith.

          1. He’s repeating that the “normal” temperature for the entire northern hemisphere for several decades is accurate to a tenth of a degree. The only way that can be done is if he’s an idiot with zero scientific knowledge or he’s a stooge.

            You decide.

            1. EMBRACE THE HEALING POWER OF “AND”

              1. In all cases where an AND is true, an OR is also true. We’re not talking XOR here.

          2. Overall, yes, I believe he does report in good faith as well. I also believe, from following his own posts on these very numbers over the years, he has a demonstrable blind spot on this particular issue. More often than not, he is very much like a hammer in search of a nail.

            Point is, language matters, *especially* when interpreting, and more importantly, editorialising, data results.

            1. I think he rightly worries about the sort of professional harm that comes of being anything but consummately centrist when discussing climate change. The problem is that centrist in this case means cleaving to precisely and exactly the sentiments of climate change activists, and using their own data points to demonstrate the uncertainty of the science. Because expressing doubt in the overall validity of climate science is much the same as coming out as a pedophile to these people: it would get him written off like Judith Curry as a nutter, whatever his qualifications or the soundness of his arguments. I really don’t blame him for refusing to make that sacrifice, any more than I do Robby for sometimes throwing sops to the campus progressives. Bailey isn’t responsible for the insane political climate he reports on.

            2. Savonarola acted in good faith as well. The problem was his faith.

        4. Used all the time WRT lab results and discussing/determining a particular test,

          Interesting. I don’t look at stats from research; mine is more performance and compensation oriented. Noted.

          1. Clicked too soon:

            So, is norm a technical term with an accepted definition(“less than one standard deviation” or some such)?

            1. Yeppers, derived from a reliable body of established limits and represents a matrix of results for mathematically describing the narrow, functional limits of a given homeostatic mechanism, tissue, or organ, i.e. a solution set.

            2. To clarify, each test has a peculiar range (solution set), since, of course, each test is measuring a discrete, dissimilar mechanism or element. Going outside of that range is clinically remarkable, and may warrant further investigation.

              We *KNOW* certain things that are outside norms and limits can be detrimental, even lethal, medically speaking.

              We don’t know this is so with all this climate data, and as BYODB astutely notes below, “The Satellite record I trust, but it hasn’t been measured long enough to be statistically relevant.”

              1. Does normal in the medical sense assume a “normal distribution”?

      2. Normal means perpendicular to the object.

    2. I trust Ron to report on what scientists are saying, but that doesn’t mean I trust the scientists. Especially the one’s who work for NOAA, since they are mendacious little pricks. I understand the idea behind adjusting temperatures to account for variations, but the idea that I should trust them on what the temperature ‘should’ have been is ridiculous. Basing policy off of those records is even more ludicrous.

      The fact NOAA likes to close down rural stations and weight urban centers bothers me. A lot. Heat islands shouldn’t even be counted, yet they are. Go figure. The Satellite record I trust, but it hasn’t been measured long enough to be statistically relevant.

      1. the idea that I should trust them on what the temperature ‘should’ have been is ridiculous

        ^ This.

        Per the above discussion on what’s “normal,” if you look at the whole history of Earth, it’s not “normal” for Earth to have any permanent ice whatsoever, not at the poles, not on mountaintops, not anywhere.

        We are still well below the earth’s “normal” temperature and CO2/biomass levels, and have been for about a million years.

        The concerning thing is that for those last million years or so, once we reach a GMT a few degrees above where we are now, some sort of feedback process we don’t yet actually understand triggers a rapid cool-down and glaciation. Anthropogenic global warming may be the only thing staving that off at the moment.

    3. As frequently as he wades into the comments, it does seem odd when these things are pointed out and he’s absent.

    4. I think “normal” is a perfectly appropriate term, really. Normal is, well, normative. It’s not something that can never change and it has no value attached to it. And there is no reason to assume that deviations from the norm are necessarily unprecedented or scary. It just means relative to what people are used to. And by that standard, recent years have been warmer than normal in a lot of places.

    5. I liked Norm on Cheers. The world needs moar Norms.

  6. Strangest segue you’ll read all week:

    India Coleman received $56,000 worth of free dental care through a contest sponsored by a Renton oral-surgery practice. She’s delighted and grateful, but experts say the lack of access for others is troubling.

    1. Everybody deserves a trophy, Paul.

    2. Well, then, experts need to do a whiparound to help some of those who lack access afford some treatment.

      1. “And whiparound, I mean I had them roundly whipped until they got you this…”

  7. Just like the computer models pretending doom, the Lightworker will pretend to ratify a treaty with his fellow communists.

    1. Arrgh. Squirrels. http://www.politico.com/story/…..g20-227600

    2. I don’t recall any article in the Constitution that empowers the President to unilaterally ratify treaties.

      1. Pen and phone, bitch! Ponder that with the Sound of Blackness as Shrill Bot will be using that very pen and phone at this same time next year….

      2. What, that old thing?

        Its of interest only to hobbyists and historians. Certainly not to the ruling class.

      3. That’s why he’s pretending. No one is going to follow it anyway.

  8. What happened to that chart that showed no statistically significant warming for the past 18 years?

    Did it get disappeared?

    1. Prolly sitting around with all the predictions that haven’t come to fruition.

  9. Hey Ron, Mt. Evans, Long’s Peak, and Pikes Peak have all had snow on them for two weeks now.

    As in Mt. Evans Rd. is closed…It was closed in the middle of AUGUST!

    Having lived here for more than 20 years I can’t tell you the last time it snowed in August, much less enough to cap the peaks.

    1. That’s just weather, but a hurricane! That’s climate change.

    2. Shut up, you Cis-climate shitlord.

    1. Not your mother?…

      1. That goes without saying, but keep your paws off, lizard-pervert.

        1. Come to think of it, I’ve been thinking of getting her a nice new purse for Christmas.

    2. Four centuries four ways.

  10. This has been one of the coolest Augusts in Iowa that I can remember.

    Cool weather is not climate!

    1. Correct! Hot weather is climate.

      1. Storms are climate!

        Things that seem weird are climate!

        Ne’er seen this b’fore is climate.

        Farmin’ ain’t whut it used t’be is climate!

  11. libertarians trust agenda-driven government data. who knew?

  12. Joe from Lowell should be in,with Tony, to corpsefuck this thread later.

    1. Thanks for the reminder. *starts to actually work and not click on this article again.

    2. Nice call, took 41 minutes.

  13. [Insert day, week, month or year] Hottest in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

    Yawn.

  14. 2016 is heading toward its place in history as the hottest year recorded…according to surface temperatures, where we reside.

    As Gavin Scmidt, Director of NASAs Goodard Institute, said:

    “In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory…it’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”

    By the way Ronald, some time back you touted a study of adjustments made to surface temperatures, conducted by Global Warming Policy Foundation. They were suggesting I think some foul play. It’s been over a year now…results coming? Begs the question that if they found no issues, would they release the study, since it didn’t provide the answer they wanted?

    1. As a consumer of all the things that feeds global warming- how ’bout you put your money where your mouth is, and turn off your internet connection? Or does that run entirely on wind?

      1. Hamsters.

    2. Re: Jackass Ass,

      “In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory…it’s unprecedented in 1,000 years.

      Jackass, you have this peculiar ability of citing words that are so absurd and incredible that one is left to conclude, without wanting to believe that you have a mental impediment, that you’re intentionally spewing propaganda.

      That manyou quote is clearly full of shit. How can he possibly know what happened 1,000 years plus, with NO comparable data, to conclude that the last 30 years are “unprecedented”?

      And please don’t tell me “tree rings” because he’s comparing very accurate thermometer data with…. what?

      Again, I don’t want to think you’re a complete moron and a gullible imbecile. I prefer to believe that you’re a fucking liar. So, which is it?

      1. A guy who couldn’t care less what you think?

        1. Re: Jackass Ass,

          A guy who couldn’t care less what you think?

          So a liar, then?

          Called it.

      2. Don’t they do this using ice cores? Ice cores go back like 400,000 years or something. I don’t really understand the technicality of the science behind it, but I think that’s what they use.

        1. Re: Mr. Flanders,

          Don’t they do this using ice cores? Ice cores go back like 400,000 years or something.

          They use ice cores, tree rings, all sorts of things which must be interpreted. You can read a thermometer and write down the number; you can’t do that with ice cores so you must create a system to interpret the information provided by the ice cores. You have to question the resolution such information provides. You can’t even expect to have accurate measurements from 100-year-old thermometer data, at least not up to the standards of today, yet this guy has the gall to say the trend is “unprecedented”?

      3. In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory…it’s unprecedented in 1,000 years.

        A fourteen year warming trend, followed by a plateau of 16 years, may be unprecedented (although I doubt it), but is it anything to worry about?

  15. Hurricane Hermine is the first to make landfall in Florida in 11 years. I seem to recall that climate change was going to cause ever increasing number and intensity of storms.

    1. More storms here, fewer storms there.

      You clearly need more learnin’ on how to properly Globally Warm.

      1. forming, storming, norming, performing

    2. Yes. Katrina was supposed to be the “new normal”.

  16. Ya know I picked up a Farmers Almanac just for giggles and since it is 225 years old not. Did you know their weather model, from the beginning, has been based on sunspots? I didn’t know that.

    1. Sunspots have a remarkable correlation to weather. There have been some question if there is a causal link, but the screeching from the cabon cult has drowned it out.

    2. One argument says that while most scientists agree that sunspot activity has a minimal impact on climate, it doesn’t matter anyway, because until we shut down our carbon emissions (remove it as a variable), we just can’t know.

      Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.

      http://www.scientificamerican……te-change/

      Which is kind of a fascinating argument when you think about it. For instance, consider the reverse possibility: CO2 could be the major driver in climate change, but the only way find out, we have to turn off the sunspots.

      1. Look, you don’t go running tests in production. Go five a development planet to work on, then verify it in QA. Once you can show it’s worthwhile, we’ll review it for implementation in prod.

      2. I personally believe that the Sun is the OVERWHELMING factor in our climate variances. My comment was to point out that the Almanac has been using sunspots to predict weather for 225 years. I didn’t realize they did that. I always thought it was chicken entrails and peyote sweat lodges.

        1. I didn’t realize they did that. I always thought it was chicken entrails and peyote sweat lodges.

          No, you’re thinking of the AGW crowd.

        2. Its a mildly variable star. Positing that changes in the primary, almost the sole, source of energy input to our climate system wouldn’t be a major driver of the climate changes strikes me as implausible.

  17. .it’s unprecedented in 1,000 years.

    [citation data needed]

    1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo…..2003b.html

      Check the listed links.

      Goes back to year 200. Knock yourself out…make sure you let Gavin know how he got it all wrong.

      1. I like how stable things look until the dark ages. At least they say “Mann and Jones with uncertanties”. That’s probably an understatement. I’m also guessing that to get surface temperature data from the year 200, there’s a lot of averaging of averages in there, hence the UNCERTANTIES’.

        Point being, things get pretty wild (read: all over the place) starting in 800. I think it would be reasonable to show that the trends largely agree, but one also suspects that as we race up against modern times, the measurements get more accurate and as a result come closer to reality. Which of course may not even be a warming trend, but a closer-to-reality trend. You spend most of history using Proxy measurements and then suddenly industrialization and technology show up in the last 15 minutes on the cosmic calendar and you’re no longer using proxy measurements– it’s not surprising there’s a sudden deviation on the stopwatch during the last lap– because now you actually HAVE a stopwatch.

  18. ABSTRACT:
    We present reconstructions of Northern and Southern Hemisphere mean surface temperature over the past two millennia based on high-resolution ‘proxy’ temperature data which retain millennial-scale variability.

    “Here are some numbers we made up. They totally confirm our hypothesis.”

    You slay me.

  19. Reconstructions based on proxy data. That’s some quality sciencing, there.

    1. Well, you did know it wasn’t based on satellites or thermometers, didn’t you.

      You asked for the data. Can’t handle it when you get, eh?

      1. “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE DATA”
        – Colonel Picard, ST:TNGS05E12, A Few Good ‘Men’

    2. It’s at least as good as slaughtering a goat and reading the entrails.

  20. You asked for the data.

    Still waiting for data. You provided guesses.

    1. Hold up, now ‘data’ means a direct measurement of a quantity? Way to reconstruct the distance to the goalposts, jerk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.