GISS and NOAA to Announce 2015 “Record High” Global Temperatures Today in Joint Media Teleconference

SEE UPDATE 1 AT END OF POST: I’ve provided a link to the slides from the teleconference and updated monthly and annual graphs.

# # #

On January 15th, NOAA Communications notified the media Wednesday: NOAA, NASA to announce official analyses of 2015 global temperature, climate conditions.

WHAT: NOAA, NASA media teleconference call announcing 2015 global climate analyses – brief summary remarks – questions and answers
WHEN: Wednesday, January 20, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (U.S.)
WHO: Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, N.C. and chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Global Change Research Program

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y.

See the NOAA webpage for links to the live audio, etc.

We already know NOAA and GISS will tell us that their much-adjusted surface temperature data showed record highs in 2015. We discussed and illustrated this in the recent post Meteorological Year (December to November) Global Temperature Product Comparison through 2015. There may be some minor differences, but the calendar year results won’t be noticeably different than the meteorological year data shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - LOST Comparison

Figure 1

I suspect Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt won’t bother to tell the public that lower troposphere temperature data were far from record highs in 2015, as we presented in the post Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015. See Figure 2.

Figure 2 - TLT Annual

Figure 2

And just in case you missed it, because GISS and NOAA both use NOAA’s ERSST.v4 “pause buster” sea surface temperature data, today I also published The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts.

I’ll update this post today as GISS and NOAA release their data and slides. So stop back regularly.

UPDATE 1:

The GISS LOTI data rose 0.07 deg C in December, 2015.

Figure 3 - Monthly GISS LOTI

Figure 3

Not to be outdone, the NOAA NCEI data jumped a whopping 0.15 deg C last month.

Figure 4 - Monthly NCEI L+O

Figure 4

Figure 5 is a comparison of the annual GISS LOTI and NCEI data, referenced to the base years of 1981-2010. The upticks in 2015 are listed on the illustration.

Figure 5 - Annual GISS and NCEI Comparison

Figure 5

The NOAA/NASA Annual Global Analysis for 2015 is here in .pdf form.

I’ll provide a full update for December, 2015 in a few days

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Global Temperature Update. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to GISS and NOAA to Announce 2015 “Record High” Global Temperatures Today in Joint Media Teleconference

  1. Nate says:

    Bob,

    You have to agree that the ‘much adjusted’ characterization applies even more so to the satellite based LT temperature records? Recently the calculated UAH trends were adjusted drastically, especially in the arctic, and Australia, etc.

    Also is some of the data that you often show for SST based on satellite measurements of the sea surface?? These show very clear record temperatures in 2015.

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Nate, are you designated troll today? Of course, Reynolds OI.v2 satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data are showing record highs. Which parts of The Blob and the 2015/16 El Nino have eluded you? Or are you someone who thinks warming is bad regardless of whether it is caused naturally or anthropogenically?

  3. Thanks, Bob. This was expected, together with not mentioning the ongoing strong and 100% natural El Niño.

  4. Nate says:

    Not sure why you feel the need to resort to personal insults, simply when a different point of view is offered.

  5. Donald says:

    Bob, you made mention of this again – that 2015 is not a record warm year in either the UAH or RSS products – but based on your own previous statements (that the lower troposphere temperature anomalies lag the El Niño peak) why would anyone expect this pre-El Niño year to be anywhere near a record?

    That this pre-El Niño is warmer than all but 2 post-El Niño years in the lower troposphere products is actually something that Karl and Schmidt might actually bring up in support of their hypothesis, no?

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Donald says: “That this pre-El Niño is warmer than all but 2 post-El Niño years in the lower troposphere products is actually something that Karl and Schmidt might actually bring up in support of their hypothesis, no?”

    Are you discussing El Niño evolution and decay years with “pre-El Niño” and “post-El Niño”? If so, is your point that global warming appears in the lower troposphere temperature record?

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Nate, you didn’t answer any of my questions.

  8. Donald says:

    Bob, my question wasn’t about warming, but rather about your claim that Karl and Schmidt would avoid mentioning the lower troposphere annual rating/comparison: given that, as you have pointed out previously, lower tropospheric temperature increases tend to lag the El Niño peak, and since this past year (2015) saw the El Niño peak in the December time frame, one wouldn’t expect this past year to have been especially warm in the RSS and UAH products as a result of the existing El Niño conditions.

    I assume Karl and Schmidt would know this as well, so I don’t understand why you would expect them to avoid such an observation. Especially since, at 3rd warmest, that would mean that 2015, a non-El Niño affected year, was actually warmer than al post-El Niño years save two. My guess is they would claim that as evidence of their hypothesis.

    And in fact, GISS and NOAA’s announcement did call out the RSS and UAH products both rated 2015 as 3rd warmest:

    “The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015 record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third highest on record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 1981–2010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).”

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Donald, we’ll my suspicions (not claim) were wrong.

    Cheers.

  10. Donald says:

    Bob – that’s fine, every body makes guesses, and everybody gets it wrong from time to time. More on topic, however, is why would you expect that 2015 not breaking records set in post-El Niño years reflects poorly on Schmidt or Karl? You mentioned this lack of LT record setting a couple of times recently, so you must think it relevant.

  11. Bob Tisdale says:

    Donald, you have a nasty habit of misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what I’ve written. I have written nothing that suggests or implies that “2015 not breaking records set in post-El Niño years reflects poorly on Schmidt or Karl”.

    I don’t have the time to waste playing your games.

    Please take your nonsense elsewhere. That was a very strong suggestion.

    Adios.

  12. Nate says:

    Bob,

    The 2015 record in, now ALL, the surface data sets is well outside the error on the measurements.

    I agree that the blob and El Nino (and PDO) are natural fluctuations. We also had a cold ‘blob’ in the Atlantic. Surprisingly the pacific blob did not show up clearly in LT measurements.

    Clearly if one steps back and looks at the big picture: we see that both the current peak years (14-16) and prior plateau years look like ordinary fluctuations around the 40 year upward trend.

    Luckily there is a physics-based theory which has predicted just such a trend.

    BTW you didnt address my comment about satellite LT measurements being also highly ‘adjusted’.

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    Hi Nate.

    You wrote, “The 2015 record in, now ALL, the surface data sets is well outside the error on the measurements.”

    One would expect that during El Niño evolution years for surface temperature datasets, especially with The Blob.

    You wrote, “I agree that the blob and El Nino (and PDO) are natural fluctuations. We also had a cold ‘blob’ in the Atlantic. Surprisingly the pacific blob did not show up clearly in LT measurements.”

    In reality, The Blob does/did appear quite clearly in the lower troposphere temperature data.

    From the post here:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/north-pacific-update-the-blobs-strengthening-suggests-its-not-ready-to-depart/
    It just did not have a noticeable impact on the global TLT time-series due to the major variations we normally see that are caused by ENSO.

    The Cold Blob in the high-latitudes of the North Atlantic doesn’t make its presence known in the sea surface temperature data for the North Atlantic basin:

    Graph is from the most recent SST update:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/december-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    You wrote, “Clearly if one steps back and looks at the big picture: we see that both the current peak years (14-16) and prior plateau years look like ordinary fluctuations around the 40 year upward trend.”

    But the sea surface temperature data during the satellite era for more than 50% of the surface of the global oceans indicate the warming occurred in steps in response to strong El Niño events.

    Graph is from the most recent SST update:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/december-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    And if you understood the naturally occurring, sunlight fueled, recharge-discharge processes behind strong El Niños, that is precisely how you would expect the surfaces of the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans to respond.

    While prior to The Blob, the East Pacific ocean (pole to pole), which represents about 33% of the surface of the global oceans, hadn’t warmed in 3 decades.

    From the July 2013 SST update:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/july-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    Now, with The Blob…and the weak 2014/15 El Niño conditions…and the strong 2015/16 El Niño event, the East Pacific is showing a relatively minor warming trend.

    Graph is also from the most recent SST update:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/december-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

    Nate, you wrote: “Luckily there is a physics-based theory which has predicted just such a trend.”

    The climate science community still doesn’t know if the feedback from water vapor and clouds is positive or negative. So that hypothesis still has some great big holes.

    I hope you realize that the “physics-based theory” is supported by climate models that are NOT simulating climate as it has ever existed in the past on Earth, as it exists now, or as it might exist in the future. Climate modelers understand that…do you?

    You wrote, “BTW you didnt address my comment about satellite LT measurements being also highly ‘adjusted’.”

    It’s old news, Nate. Many times in the past, I’ve acknowledged that lower troposphere temperature data are also adjusted regularly. I wrote a post about the recent (April, 2015) changes to the UAH TLT data here:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/

    I also wrote a post discussing the differences between the NOAA and UAH updates here:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/07/20/fundamental-differences-between-the-noaa-and-uah-global-temperature-updates/

    And I just wrote a post about all of the problems with NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data here:
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/summary-of-the-oddities-in-noaas-new-pause-buster-sea-surface-temperature-product/

    Nate, I’ve been inspecting data and climate model outputs for many years. Any argument you can come up with, I can counter. Save yourself (and me) some time, please.

    Ciao.

  14. Donald says:

    Bob,
    I see how you could have misinterpreted my last post, and the fault is mine: I left out a very important word that would have made my observation clearer… [SNIP]

    Thanks, Donald. Your attempted spin made me laugh. Try to understand this: I have no need to explain myself to you.

    I believe you’ve set a new record here for a blogger being sent to the spam filter.

    Good-bye. I am no longer allowing you to waste my time.

    Bob

  15. Nate says:

    Bob,

    The accumulation of heat in the oceans, with 2.5×10^23 J since 1980, https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ is strong evidence for positive feedback. .

    How that heat distributes into the various ocean reservoirs, and the troposphere, ice, land, still needs to be better understood. BTW the troposphere stores a very tiny fraction of this heat so I don’t understand why its temperature record should be emphasized.

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Nate: Nice try with OHC data. As I warned you, I’ve been examining data and climate models for many years. You’re wasting your time and mine.

    Once you break the NODC OHC (0-700m) data down into logical subsets, something else appears, and it’s called natural variability.

    If you’re not aware of this, the NODC’s ocean heat content for the extratropical North Pacific shows cooling from 1955 to 1988, followed by an upward shift, which is a response to a shift in the wind patterns (and sea level pressures) there. Without that upward shift, there is no long-term warming in the extratropical Pacific.

    Let’s go to the tropical Pacific. It only shows long-term warming because of responses to multi-year La Niña events…and the freakish 1995/96 La Niña. And those are exactly the responses you would expect from the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific if you understood the sunlight-fueled, recharge aspect of La Niñas.

    Now the North Atlantic: For that we turn to Lozier et al. (2008):
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/800.abstract?rss=1

    In the paper, Lozier et al (2008) note (NAO = North Atlantic Oscillation):
    “A comparison of the zonally integrated heat-content changes as a function of latitude (Fig. 4B) confirms that the NAO difference can largely account for the observed gyre specific heat-content changes over the past 50 years, although there are some notable differences in the latitudinal band from 35° to 45°N. Thus, we suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes in wind and buoyancy forcing associated with the NAO is primarily responsible for the ocean heat-content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years.”

    Lozier et al. (2008) are not saying that part of the warming of the North Atlantic to 700 meters was caused naturally…they’re saying all of it occurred naturally. And that’s quite remarkable, because the ocean heat uptake for the North Atlantic is significantly greater than that of the rest of the oceans. Even though the North Atlantic represents 11.5% of the surface of the global oceans, it accounts for about 35% of the ocean heat uptake since 1955…and that ocean heat uptake can be explained by changing wind patterns.

    Those graphs are from my recent ebook. It’s free, Nate:
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/tisdale-on-global-warming-and-the-illusion-of-control-part-1.pdf

    For more detail on those OHC discussions, see it.

    As I wrote before, it’s likely that I can counter any argument you can come up with. Please read my book and try to understand it. If you do, it’s possible you’ll change your mind on human-induced global warming.

    See you in a couple of months.

  17. Nate says:

    Bob,

    I appreciate your feedback, and your expertise. It is certainly interesting to explore and try to understand the mechanisms by which heat is moved around naturally between different reservoirs in the system (Earth) and the different regional fluctuations.

    But I’d ask you to consider the following. If a small amount of heat is added to the system, how would it be distributed into these various reservoirs? I assume that it would be by the same mechanisms and on the same time-scales that heat is exchanged naturally, as long as not too much heat is added to disrupt the usual patterns. Do you agree or disagree?

    If so, than the extra heat is only a small perturbation on the normal, regional exchanges of heat that you were discussing and may be hardly noticeable on top of the normal variation. Only when integrated over all the ocean is it noticeable that extra heat is being stored, as was measured in the OHC rise.

  18. Bob Tisdale says:

    Nate, there SHOULD BE an anthropogenic component to the increase in global ocean heat uptake…likely very small, considering that natural variability can account for all of it.

    To look at the global data without understanding and taking into account the regional ocean mechanisms that cause the ocean heat uptake naturally is foolish at worst, misleading at best…and that’s what we get from the climate science community: foolishness and misinformation.

    Cheers.

    PS: Sorry about the delay in moderating and responding to your comment. Off doing family stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s