Temperature Trends

2016 and 1998 in Near Tie for Hottest Year in Satellite Temperature Record

Current trends suggest that 2016 could well be a record breaker.



"For the January through September average, 1998 was +0.56 and 2016 is +0.55 [degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1981-2010)]. The two years are running neck and neck," said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville in press release. The UAH researcher observed that the tropics continued a broad cooling trend from March, but this was counterbalanced by warming elsewhere, resulting in no change to the global average from August to September. Christy added, "In 1998 global temperatures fell substantially through the last three months of the year, so we will wait and see whether 2016 will follow suit or stay warm and become the warmest calendar year in the 38-year satellite temperature record." At the moment temperatures in the tropical Pacific seem to be going in an El Nino neutral direction rather than cooling toward a La Nina. That would suggest the 2016 will likely be a record breaker.


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

September temperatures (preliminary)

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

Northern Hemisphere: +0.50 C (about 0.90 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.39 C (about 0.70 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Tropics: +0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.

Go here for the monthly satellite data since 1978.

NEXT: SCOTUS Won't Hear Illinois Sheriff's Appeal of Order to Stop Threatening Credit Card Companies for Working With Backpage

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. Soo that snow in august in Colorado…just weather. Snowing now/very soon too.

      1. Keystone and A Basin have already been at it. But only the hardcore ski bums will ski that shit…just as likely to hit a rock as snow. I wont go before December…I need a 36″ base at min.

        1. Where do you ski? I just got a pass for eldora.
          My friends work or worked at copper, so ive gone there in the past.

          1. Copper is MY MOUNTAIN!

            I ride so for Front Range it is clearly the best. Eldora is kewl. Small, but kewl.

            1. Im debating the rmsp pass for copper.

    1. Leadville has snow. Copper is running snow guns.

      1. Yeah I like my nice, newly waxed and polished deck too much to go boulder boarding.

        /no eupho

        1. My JJ2.0’s float like nothing else.

    2. I’m as big a denier as anyone, but I’m always amused when the “but muh snow” argument comes out. As if precipitation is a better indicator of warming than, I dunno,.. temperature?

      1. Hey, it isn’t ME who went to the “more hurricanes, never see snow again after 2010, torrential rainfall ” arguments. I just respond to them.

  2. It’s been a while since we’ve seen one of these climate change denial articles.

    1. Amazing how threatening people with jail time will quell dissent.

  3. Current trends suggest that 2016 could well be a record breaker.

    Trends – what current trends, based on what statistically significant sample base?

    Suggest and Could – If you are going to make a prediction then do so, no weasel words. Einstein said “The star will appear in a different position than it actually is.” He didn’t say it “could”

    Record – a record in reference to what? 10 minutes ago the local climate was a record high…of the past 20 minutes.

    1. It’s Bailey’s time of the month again. This is science as Reason sees it.

      1. It’s Bailey’s time of the month again.

        Sounds like pretty miserable science.

    2. I believe a few months ago they said there is about a 47% chance that 2016 will be the hottest year on record by about .01 degrees.

    3. Given the uselesness of the surface temperature data set for long term trend calculation, I think one can only talk about surface temperatures using satellite data.

      Those data sets really only start in 1976. They are pretty useless as far as a pre-industrial baseline.

      Incidentally, the usefulness thermometer based baselines for the preindustrial era are questionable since the start of the industrial era also happens to coincide with the end of the “Little Ice Age”

      1. The satellite should be the gold standard, but it’s been very inconvenient recently as temperatures were basically flat for 15 years or so.

      2. the start of the industrial era also happens to coincide with the end of the “Little Ice Age”

        Ah-ha! So there’s your proof that CO2 emissions cause global warming.

        Denier, PWNED!

    4. For those that may have missed it, this is not science. It is religion. I do not necessarily believe there is no climate change, nor that it isn’t warming, nor that man may have an impact. What I do know though is that the people claiming such are not scientists, they are fanatics. They do not use the principles of hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, observation, and conclusion.

      And the greatest disservice to earth is, IF the globe is warming due to human activity, the damage to the credibility of this hypothesis by repeated deviations from the scientific method as well as out and out fraud. If they would have done good science then perhaps we would not only know better but maybe be talking about real potential solutions. Instead, everything out of their mouths is suspect. A shame.

      1. And Cliche nails it. This x1000.

        I recall seeing coins from Britain that were embossed with grape leaves and grapes, that history shows wine was made and consumed in great quantity in Britain prior to the 16th century. The advent of the little ice age (16th – 19th centuries) put an end to that practice and grains replaced grapes as the source for alcoholic drinks.

        There used to be a number of historical articles discussing this easily found online, but now all I find are articles that claim they have no idea why wine production ceased in Britain. They hypothesize that Henry VIII closed down monasteries and that was the cause of it.

        That the global warming scam is damaging the credibility of science is certainly true, but it is leaking over into all manner of disciplines.

        As Ron has pointed out before this is not something that is unique to, or even began with, climate science. It is a rot caused in all fields of inquiry by government grant money.

        1. Read about the controversy surrounding the Big Bang arguments. Even the term Big Bang was derisive term used by Hoyle and his backers to make fun of the other side.

          Or how about the crap surrounding the sugar vs fat debacle. Ancel Keys basically tried to destroy any research that was counter to his bogus theories/research. In fact, he did effectively silence all critics dooming an entire generation to obesity.

      2. “Maybe it could be” somehow justifies a bunch of government.

    5. Dude- they’ve got 30 fricking years of accurate records! The science is settled…

      But, would even a “young-earth creationist bleever” scientist consider that a representative sample for a planet that is over 6000 yrs old?

  4. clearly the govt should tax prosperity until we’re all burning trees again.

    1. If we just give the Powerful People more wealth and control over our lives they will keep us safe from the ravages of bad weather.

      Said every witch doctor since the dawn of human consciousness.

      1. This made me laugh.

  5. Almost a full degree above 30 year average.

    Imagine what it will be like 30 years from now. A full degree and a half. How will my air conditioner keep up?

    Oh yeah, they’ll outlaw them by then.

    1. I don’t know how much longer the planet will be able to take breaking records in food production every single year.

      1. First landfall of a hurricane in FL for what now, ten years?

        – CAGW Archbishop

        1. Thus far, we have yet to measure an increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes. But … IN THEORY … warming should cause the oceans to release more heat so… THEORETICALLY… it might be possible.

          I think 538 ran an article that claimed with some reasonably convincing math that snowstorms have gotten more severe (in terms of amount of snow/storm). That’s the only one I’ve seen so far.

          1. ACE has been down for a long time, same with severe weather events like tornadoes,

            Wonder if Bailey will mention that the ice rebound in the Arctic is happening at a near record rate? Yea, both numbers are equally useless for long term predictions but its funny how only the anecdotal data that would convince a total moron that CAGW is a problem because of a local maximum/minimum is reported by lightweights like Bailey.

        2. Yeah, I bring this up constantly. Katrina was supposed to be the metaphorical tip of the ice berg in a new era of super storms that would devastate the East Coast.

          Guess not.

          We’ll see what Matthew has got, but I already saw them pivot to a ‘less frequent, more powerful’ meme a few years ago when the ‘more frequent, more powerful’ meme was clearly bullshit. We’ll see if that resurfaces after this one makes landfall.

          1. There are big time measurement issues for hurricanes, considering the time span includes data from a couple of hundred years ago to current time. We can call a hurricane a category N based on a few minutes of data while in 1850 the methods were…uhh…different.

            1. How mamy buildings did we lose scale.

              1. Yea a little different than instantaneous pressure, wind speed readings from a hurricane hunter.

              2. mamy

                Is totally racist.

                1. This phone is racist.

          2. Remember the ‘Sandy is a harbinger because this never happens in New Jersey!’ ?

            Yeah, an acquaintance threw that at me so I sent them this:


            In typical proggie fashion their reply was to stop talking to me.

      2. When a traditionally starving populace suddenly has access to scientifically improved food, that’s cultural imperialism!

  6. Why does every commenter fucking hate science???????

    1. It is funny. A couple of years ago most people here were skeptical of the global warming scam but willing to admit that climate does change and humans probably have some impact on that (the position I hold), but the unrelenting mendacity of the AGW crowd and the increasingly weak evidence for their case, plus their doubling down on the hysteria and now what do we have?

      Almost universal condemnation, mocking, and derision. It was inevitable.

      1. This is the disservice to which I was referring.

      2. I still actually do believe the climate is changing, but that’s because it literally always has.

        I also believe that humanity can have very real impacts through pollution.

        What I don’t believe is that CO2 is a driver of the climate. That is horse shit. I would agree that it could be possible, but to date I haven’t seen anything that confirms it, and even if I did see something that confirmed it I would say so what. It isn’t worth killing a few million people and curtailing all the advances of the 20th century to slow down a change that’s already happening naturally. Especially when we know for a fact it’s survived far, far worse than we could ever hope to do. (Like a comet impact called the Gulf of Mexico, mother fucker.)

        1. /pedant
          it is called Chixalub

          And as for CO2, I agree. I recall that very famous now memory holed chart shwoing CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of warming…i.e. the warmer it gets the more CO2 is released etc.

          1. I saw possibly the same study, which frankly would make a lot of sense.

            Honestly, I always thought it was a far more interesting question where all the CO2 that used to be in the air went. Even the AGW crowd have put forward atmospheric concentrations well above 2,000 PPM yet now we’re at around 400? What happened to the excess ~1600 PPM? Why is it a bad thing that we’re returning to what would appear to be the historic average atmospheric concentration of CO2?

            All of this ignores the fact you need ~170+ PPM of CO2 for life to exist on Earth, period, by the way. I find it telling that this factoid never gets mentioned by the true believers.

            1. The best guess I’ve seen on the missing CO2, by the way, is that it’s trapped in polar ice and the ocean. *shrug* Seems possible, but hardly catastrophic to return to the average since that appears to be what these idiots want. Apparently they only want the ‘good’ averages, whatever that even means.

      3. Prefer to use CAGW when talking about the mendacious twits…instead of AGW. AGW is probably a technically correct term.

        1. For the record, I don’t really give much of a shit about the ‘correct’ terminology anymore. They’re just going to change it again in a few years, and I’ll be wrong again, so why try.

          If someone is saying the climate is primarily or significantly altered by mankind, I’ll give them the finger. Unless we suddenly start the same kind of antics we pulled over the Ho Chi Minh trail or start tossing nukes around like candy, anyway.

          What real climate fiddling looks like.

          1. I’ve been following this since ClimateAudit was stood up to refute the hockey stick. So I know what kind of crap the warmers are capable of. There is likely a small component of climate perturbation caused by various human activities (land use, emissions, etc.). When you say AGW is lunacy, I don’t think you are on solid ground. Saying CAGW is lunacy, well that is defendable.

  7. *facepalm*

    When your record encompasses less than 20 years, you’re going to break a lot of records all the time. Because you just started taking records 20 years ago and you’re measuring something that changes so slowly that mankind isn’t positive it’s had a net change during the existence of our species.

    1. Try twice that, bub. TWICE THAT.

      1. I meant the data set referenced in the article, not the entire satellite data set. My fault for not being specific.

        1. Oh. Darn.

    2. “Best movie of the year!” -on a movie released in Feb.

  8. This must be the the warm-up thread for PM links

    1. “Ron’s Theater of Impending Doom” is always an entertaining place for posts.

  9. We’re finally turning the corner.

    Uh-oh. The International Monetary Fund says the U.S. economy is losing momentum.
    The IMF said the American economy will expand by only 1.6% this year, down from 2.6% in 2015. The latest forecast is 0.6 percentage points lower than what the fund predicted just three months ago.
    The downgrade is mostly down to sluggish second quarter U.S. growth, the fund said in its latest World Economic Outlook.

    1. Just in time for a new administration to pin it on…

      1. Bush

        1. Bush IV: A New Hope

    2. Its amazing what happens when you try to fight deflation by printing hordes of money.

    3. Well, he wanted a legacy, now he has one.

  10. 1934 is the hottest year on record. Prior to the little ice age (pre-industrial) temps were warmer than they are now.

    1. Pshaw. According to the satellite data, that year didn’t even happen.

    2. Look man, if the numbers refuse to comply they will be changed. Because it might have been in the sun that day, or not, but since that station is in the shade now they gotta adjust! Of course, that’s a giant admission that surface temperatures are entirely useless as a metric, but hey lets not get bogged down in facts son. We have models to build!

      1. And no matter what happens … radical mitigation or not … this story will be with us daily for the rest of our lives.

        1. If someone in a city is saying we need to mitigate the climate, I like to point out that they live in a giant heat island that is directly caused by solar output shining on concrete. This leads to a few degrees higher temperature than the surrounding environment. It’s been known for, gosh, maybe 100 years now?

          If you suggest they should move out of the city, so that it can be knocked over to save Gaia? They’ll give you a black stare and mumble something about forcing some people to move but they like the city.

          Par. For. The. Course.

          Bonus points: This is one reason NOAA likes to shut down rural temperature measurements and average using urban values. It necessarily weights the temperature toward a higher number when they’re already using decimals to tell us it’s the ‘hottest temperature ever.’

          Mmmhmm. Sure.

          1. I never understood urbanites reluctance to plant trees. I hate a fucking parking lot with no shade. I live in louisiana. If you are from up north you have no idea what an asphalt parking lot is like down here in July/August with no shade in it.

            It isnt like we don’t have plenty of tree species that provide lots of shade without creating much of a hazard.

            1. I also live in the South, right next door in Texas, and yeah I’ve seen melted asphalt in summer more times than I could hope to count.

  11. So Texas had a super mild summer (we didn’t get our first 100 degree day until mid July). Where in the Northern Hemisphere is the extra heat coming from to offset the lower than average heat experienced in the Southern US? Or was Texas’ summer just weather?

    (Yes I know the US doesn’t comprise the entire Northern Hemisphere.)

    1. Louisiana was the same. We didn’t have the usual burned out brown and grey leaves this summer. Everything stayed lush and green, even now. It was nice. I still have grass.

      1. I still have grass.

        And its not even legal there.

    2. Virginia had our normal week of upper 90’s temperatures and otherwise pretty nice summer weather. Plenty of rain to keep everything green.

  12. So 18 years of no heating.

  13. And I just went through a very nice winter, some snow – but not too much – and a nice balanced summer where the grass FINALLY didn’t turn crispy in mid July and stay that way until September. The water tables are right where they should be, the growing season was just about perfect (a LITTLE wet recently making some harvesting delayed) and everything as green as one could desire. It’s almost as if weather and climate aren’t one big “one size fits all” thing.

  14. Some things never change: below is from 1969. Please note that, sadly, both New York and Washington are still with us.
    Wrong then, wrong now.
    Begin clip
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    end clip
    I take the position that man is actually a part of nature. Therefore, trying to affect the natural result of man’s actions demonstrates adversity towards the theory of evolution, and is an unconstitutional injection of religion into governmental process. Sort of like using an endangered species act to pick winners and losers in the evolutionary process. That seems to assume the Judeo-Christian precept where man was given control over the world and animals in Genesis.

  15. Hey, look on the bright side… If I remember right the August temp anomaly was also +0.44C, just like September now is.

    A new pause!

  16. You know, when your tagline is “Hottest year since 1998!”, you’re not making a very convincing case that AGW is much of a thing.

  17. So, Ronald, you often make note of failed predictions made by environmentalists.

    I would remind you of this:

    “… the nations of the world are supposed adopt a “protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force” in Paris to comprehensively address the problem of man-made climate change. That’s not going to happen.”

    And you said it would be a “flop.”

    Not turning out to be much of a flop so far, right?

      1. Dear Jack,

        Please point me in the direction of success that you see. I mean, your hero Stalin had a non-aggression pact with Hitler, right?

        1. Dear True,

          Not only has every nation recognized that combatting man made climate change is a necessity (see Paris Accords), but they also got it to go into effect about one year quicker than originally planned.

          Now, I know that leaves libertarians behind, but that’s your problem.

    1. Jack,
      All we have is jaw flapping, but then you knew that and hoped we wouldn’t notice.

  18. I have a pet theory about global climate change and I would like some feedback.

    The easily observed weather changes relative to the earth’s tilt while orbiting the sun happen many times within a human lifespan. Because we humans are the observers, in our arrogance, we see a shift in temperature and attribute it to our own behavior.

    Our solar system revolves around our galaxy. Any correlation between global temperature and “galactic seasons”? It seems cyclical and a more disprovable theory than AGW.

    1. Furthermore I would like to add that long term increasing temperature counters physics as we know it. Things don’t just keep getting hotter forever, eventually the fuel runs out. AGW proponents rejoice!

  19. That really doesn’t seem to jibe with what is happening in the US.

    Back in the 1930s, here in St. Louis, we had not one, but two heat waves of something like 30+ days over 100 degrees in a row (I think 1932 and 1934).

    This year, I think the highest it got was 99. Much of the summer I didn’t even need AC.

    Until what scientists claim actually seems to reflect the reality that people experience, I don’t think people will buy it. But even then, millions of people have moved to actual deserts to get away from cold weather.

  20. Since 1978 is not an honest start date. The 1970’s were a local minimum in temperatures, so starting there artificially skews the data. I realize this date is chosen because “satellite records” requires the presence of a satellite. Still, it does not change the fact that were such records available, perhaps the 1930’s would be in a similar position. Or perhaps the Norman conquest in 1066.

    We had a cold snap around 1700 and have been warming ever since. I don’t think you can argue that this is all due to burning fossil fuels – being that the amount of such consumption in the 1740’s was pretty low by even 1890’s standards.

    I don’t know what the correct answer is, but if you want to avoid tinfoil hat behavior among the climate change opposition, perhaps starting with a date other than the local minimum would be in order.

    1. “but if you want to avoid tinfoil hat behavior among the climate change opposition”

      That’s impossible! Even the slightest suggestion that warming is not unusual or that something other than human activity may be the cause of it will get you branded a denier.

      Its all about smugness-I am surrounded by these douchebags here in the DC area. My wife now wants to get a Nissan Leaf and I refuse, not because I am anti-EV, but I don’t want to be mistaken for one of them.

    2. “but if you want to avoid tinfoil hat behavior among the climate change opposition”

      That’s impossible! Even the slightest suggestion that warming is not unusual or that something other than human activity may be the cause of it will get you branded a denier.

      Its all about smugness-I am surrounded by these douchebags here in the DC area. My wife now wants to get a Nissan Leaf and I refuse, not because I am anti-EV, but I don’t want to be mistaken for one of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.