Hottest year ever was 2015

But only in Ethiopia, Vietnam, Brazil …

Here’s a place to keep all this together. It’s an important issue tissue of lies, since the warmists are making a great deal of it and I’m sure a lot of otherwise well-informed people have gained quite the wrong impression from the lies put about by scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Mike Mann that the temperature has been rising for years.

Richard C (hi, Richard!) has contributed a whole lot of comments to this discussion and, because even if I can’t recall all his points just now, they deserve sensible archiving.

Shortly I’ll move the relevant comments from the Paris Climate Party post.

Leave a Reply

117 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)

Take a look at the JMA and BEST anomalies for 2015 (note the different baselines):

JMA gets the prize so far (Peter Hannam’s fav at the SMH – natch). Meanwhile NIWA has announced that 2015 was “the 27th-warmest year since 1909”:

New Zealand Climate Summary: 2015 (Page 8):

“The nation-wide average temperature for 2015 was 12.7°C (0.1°C above the 1981–2010 annual average), using NIWA’s seven-station temperature series which begins in 1909. 2015 was the 27th-warmest year since 1909, based on this seven-station series.”

2010 13.10
2011 12.80
2012 12.50
2013 13.40
2014 12.80
2015 12.70

NIWA must be gutted NZ didn’t join the party.

Richard C (NZ)

>”NIWA must be gutted NZ didn’t join the party.”

UK Met Office too. CET didn’t either:


“The highest annual mean CET ever recorded was 10.95, which is 1.44 higher than normal”

That was 2014. 2015 looks about 0.75.1779 was warmer than that.

Richard C (NZ)

NOAA gutted too:

2015 “2nd warmest year for Contiguous US”

“The 2015 annual average U.S. temperature was 54.4°F, 2.4°F above the 20th century average, the second warmest year on record. Only 2012 was warmer for the U.S. with an average temperature of 55.3°F.”

Missed by 0.9°F (0.5°C).

Richard C (NZ)

BOM gutted:

“2015 was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record”

# # #

I’m starting to wonder where on earth was “warmest ever” in 2015.

New Zealand, Australia, Central England, contiguous USA, not even close.


Richard C (NZ)

Canada doesn’t have a 2015 report yet but here’s 2014 meantime:

“The national average temperature for the year 2014 was 0.5°C above the baseline average (defined as the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period), based on preliminary data, which is the 25th warmest observed since nationwide recording began in 1948. The warmest year occurred in 2010, when the national average temperature was 3.0°C above the baseline average”

Richard C (NZ)

UK was nowhere near warmest ever in 2015. That accolade went to 2014:

UK Mean temperature – Annual

# # #

So where in the world was 2015 warmest ever?

Richard C (NZ)

Heh, Grant Foster (Tamino) is raving about BEST at Open Mind:

‘Hottest Year on Record’ [BEST 2015]

Except there’s just one glaring problem with that as upthread. No national meteorological agency is actually reporting 2015 to be hottest ever as listed below:

New Zealand: “2015 was the 27th-warmest year since 1909” – NIWA

Australia: “2015 was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record” – BOM

United Kingdom: 2015 was nowhere near warmest ever, 2014 was – UKMO data.

Central England: 2015 was nowhere near warmest ever, 1779 was warmer than 2015 – UKMO data.

United States: 2015 was “2nd warmest year for Contiguous US” – NOAA/NCDC.

Canada: Yet to report but highly unlikely given 2014 was “the 25th warmest ….since …. 1948” – ECCC

# # #

No explanation for this from Grant Foster (of course).

Richard C (NZ)

Berkeley Earth press release: “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record” The warming was not uniform, 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.” In total, Berkeley Earth estimates that 16.9% of Earth’s surface and 16.4% of its land surface set record high annual averages in 2015. There were record highs in much of South America and the Middle East, and parts of the US, Europe, and Asia. Too bad NIWA, BOM, UKMO, NOAA, and presumably ECCC didn’t get the memo. Mixed messages. Apparently 16.9% of Earth’s surface defines “global” warming. And note the “Record High” in the Amazon hinterland where there are no thermometers (see spacial plot). So where was 2015 warmest ever according to BEST? Internationally, Brazil (+1.38 C), Italy (+1.69 C), Finland (+2.71), Ethiopia, (+1.35 C), Ukraine (+2.19 C), Vietnam… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Mixed messages”

Robert Rohde, BEST – “The decades-long rise due to greenhouse gas emission is now clearly continuing.”

Elizabeth Muller, BEST – “The warmth in 2015 is the result of a long-term trend towards global warming combined with warm weather fluctuations such as El Niño.”

I would have thought that delivery of an internally consistent message was the objective. And what will Robert and Elizabeth be saying if/when this strong El Niño is followed by a strong La Nina as generally occurs?

I think BEST’s reports on 2016 and 2017 will make interesting reading if this effort is anything to go by..

Richard C (NZ)

>”Too bad NIWA, BOM, UKMO, NOAA, and presumably ECCC didn’t get the memo.”

Maybe they did:

“The warming was not uniform”

Richard C (NZ)

>”It would be interesting, if possible, so see if the respective national authorities corroborate Berkeley Earth.”

The Finnish Meteorological Institute does at least:

”Year 2015 was the warmest in records ‘ – 12.1.2016

According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute statistics, 2015 was a record warm year in the most parts of the country.

Lapland was the only province in which the year was not quite the warmest but in the shared second place. The mean temperature in 2015 was 4.2°C, which is about 1.9°C warmer than the long-term average i.e. the period 1981–2010. As regards the whole country, only June and July were colder than average. February and March as well as November and December were proportionally the warmest periods as the mean temperature in the whole country was 4-6°C warmer than normal.

Lapland is 29.25% of Finland land area (98,984/338,424).

Richard C (NZ)

>”It would be interesting, if possible, so see if the respective national authorities corroborate Berkeley Earth.”

Italy looks problematic. Can’t find a meteorological report but did find this albeit incomplete series of influenza activity vs temperature:

Italy Sept 2014 – May 2015 Influenza Activity vs Temperaturecomment image?mtime=1446697531

2015 does not look like eclipsing 2014 in that series. In the following comment which is the 2015 European climate bulletin there is no mention of any record for Italy.

I have my doubts about the data quality for Ethiopia and Vietnam i.e. not worth looking into.

Richard C (NZ)

‘2015 second hottest year on record for Europe’ World Meteorological Organization News 23 December 2015 The year 2015 will be the second hottest on record in Europe, with mean annual temperatures just above the 2007 average and below the record set in 2014, according to an analysis by one of the World Meteorological Organization’s regional climate centres. Much of eastern Europe was exceptionally warm, with temperatures higher than in 2014. Only in parts of Ireland were temperatures lower than the 1981-2010 long-term average, according to the Climate Indicator Bulletin [see below] from WMO’s European Regional Climate Centre node on Climate Data operated by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KMNI. ‘2015: joint [2nd] warmest year on record in Europe’ The annual temperature for 2015 ranks among the highest temperatures measured in Europe! Last year (2014) was the warmest year on record for Europe, and 2015 comes in second, just above the 2007 value. [see time series graph] A map (Figure 2) of the annual mean temperature for 2015 with respect to the 1981-2010 long-term average shows that most of Europe was warmer in 2015 than usual, with a pronounced west-east temperature contrast. Much… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”The annual temperature for 2015 ranks among the highest temperatures measured in Europe! …. [see time series graph]”

Figure 1: Graph of annual (Jan-Dec) averaged daily mean temperature averaged over Europe, with respect to the 1981-2010 climatology. Temperatures below normal are in blue, temperatures above normal are in red, with the 2015 value in green.

The change to a warmer regime only began in the late 1980s. That graph is basically the IPCC’s anthro attribution timeframe 1950/51 – 2010 (6 decades) plus up to date data but there was no change over the first 3.8 decades of it in Europe. And not much change over the last 1.8 decades of it either.

Richard C (NZ)

Just realized (duh) that if KNMI rank 2015 2nd warmest in Europe, BEST’s warmest ever records for Finland, Italy, and Ukraine are irrelevant. The rest of Europe e.g. ““persistent coldness” in Ireland, pulled down the average to 2nd rank.

That eliminates Europe, USA, United Kingdom, Canada (probably), Australia, and New Zealand. These are all good quality datasets and a major portion of the earth’s surface. Once the “warmest ever” claim is dependent on places like Ethiopia, Vietnam, and Brazil then the credibility of the claim becomes a bit stretched..

Richard C (NZ)

UKMO are reporting 2015 warmest in HadCRUT4: From the UK Meteorological Office That is a huge El Nino spike that will inevitably return to neutral and probably a La Nina over the next 2 years. UKMO differ from the others in that they provide a spacial map showing the grid cells with missing data. 2015 Global Temperature Anomalies Where BEST contrives to create “data” in these places, UKMO doesn’t. This includes some of South America and Australia, much of Africa and Greenland, and most of the Arctic and Antarctic. The 2015 global anomaly raises the same questions as BEST. What countries (or sea surface) contributed to the “warmest ever” average and do those countries actually corroborate HadCRUT4? When we eliminate the aforesaid Europe, USA, United Kingdom, Canada (probably), Australia, and New Zealand there’s not much left on the high side in the spacial anomaly chart: Eastern Russia Eastern Pacific Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere Parts of South America and Africa This 2015 spike in HadCRUT4 is NOT “global” warming in any sense and certainly not “warmest ever” globally. Phil Jones is spinning a load of tripe (from link): “While there is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”When we eliminate the aforesaid Europe…….”

Europe is as per this KNMI chart:

2015 ranks #2 according to KNMI.

Richard C (NZ)

The UKMO HadCRUT4 report does not provide a CRUTEM4 – HadSST3 breakdown i.e. a land/ocean split.

I suspect, given the HadCRUT4 anomaly map and the national reports, that the entire global metric is skewed by the Eastern NH Pacific SSTs i.e. the “blob” (yes, this is the scientific term).

We’ll find out once woodfortrees updates 2015 to end of year but up to 2015.83 (end of October) this does seem to be the case:

CRUTEM4 (land) is nowhere near warmest at end of October 2015 but HadSST3 (sea surface) is warmest. In other words, the “warmest ever” claim for 2015 is a sea surface temperature phenomenon, NOT an atmospheric air temperature phenomenon over land i.e. “human influence” cannot be a factor contrary to Phil Jones spin.

Confirming once again that Phil Jones is a phoney.

Richard C (NZ)

For the record here’s CRUTEM4 vs HadSST3 preserved up to 2015.83 (end of October):

November and December CRUTEM4 data will have to be a remarkable spike to eclipse the 2007.00 1.652 anomaly (possible but unlikely I think). More likely is that the bulk of the HadCRUT4 spike will come from HadSST3 with an additional peak from CRUTEM4 but not greater than CRUTEM4 2007.00 (but could be wrong).

I’ve just seen Renwick and Mullen on TV3 pontificating on 2015 “warmest ever” data. All their predictions have come true apparently. Here’s the video clip and part transcript (synopsis):

‘2016 on track to be hotter than 2015’
Read more:

I can imagine their balloon deflating on learning that for 10 months of 2015 at least, there was no atmospheric component in the 2015 “warmest ever” record.

Richard C (NZ)

The NOAA’s US 2015 2nd warmest rank isn’t the end of the story either:

‘2015 Was One Of The Least Hot Years On Record In The US’

Posted on January 21, 2016 by tonyheller

NOAA claims that 2015 was the second hottest year on record in the US. [see link]

In fact, it was one of the least hot years on record in the US, ranking in the bottom ten of areal coverage of hot weather. During the 1930’s ninety percent of the US reached 95 degrees. Last year only 65% of the US made it to 95 degrees. [see graph]

Last year also ranked near the bottom for frequency of hot days, which have also plummeted since the 1930’s. [see graph]

This data is not in dispute and is not subject to any NOAA adjustments. Claims that 2015 was a hot year in the US are simply fraudulent.

# # #

And an inconvenient question on Twitter addressed to Gavin Schmidt:

“Why are most [US] state high temp records – that fraudster’s can’t adjust – in the 1930s?” [see graphs]^tfw

Richard C (NZ)

Gareth Renowden appears to be completely oblivious to the problems with the “2015 was the hottest year since records began” meme as upthread:

‘Too hot (and here comes the surge)’

I’m referring to the issues upthread, not to satellites. Bryan Leyland stuffed up in the first comment at HT over this He should be following THIS blog.

Gareth cites and quotes Hansen et al:

“We can also say with confidence, because of Earth’s energy imbalance (energy absorbed from sunlight exceeding heat radiated to space), that the present decade will be warmer than last decade.”

Heh, except the observed earth’s energy imbalance is not playing along with theoretical radiative forcing and in fact falsifies the man-made climate change theory in terms of the IPCC’s own criteria.

I’m reasonably confident Gareth is oblivious to that too.

Richard C (NZ)

For the record, 2 ignorant headlines:

‘Hottest Year Ever Creates Crisis for Climate-Science Skeptics’ By Jonathan Chait

‘Rising global temperatures: when will climate change deniers throw in the towel’ By Peter Hannam


Crisis? I don’t think so.

Throw in the towel? We have already won according to the IPCC’s climate change criteria, and that’s not temperature.


The 1998 El Nino spike was “cherry picking” to create the “pause” (that doesn’t exist). This isn’t even true, but then the 2015/6 El Nino is proof that AGW is real and dangerous and that the pause that doesn’t exist has now ended, even though “climate change” is defined over 30 year periods.

It all makes complete sense to me now

Richard C (NZ)

Russel Norman equally clueless:

Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman said the results are evidence that climate change is definitely happening right now, and commented the implications for an island nation like New Zealand are “disturbing” to have to consider.

>”climate change is definitely happening right now”?

>”disturbing” to have to consider?

New Zealand in 2015 was “the 27th-warmest year since 1909” according to NIWA. What exactly is “disturbing” about that?

Neither was 2015 warmest in Australia (5th), Europe (2nd), USA (2nd), UK (not even close), Canada is unlikely to report a record given 2014 was “the 25th warmest ….since …. 1948”.

It’s just not an atmospheric phenomenon either at adult nose height above land as measured by thermometers (see CRUTEM4 Jan – Oct upthread) or in the lower troposphere as measured by satellite (see RSS, UAH). The 2015 spike starts in sea water temperature in the NH Pacific (HadSST3) and only effects the air above surface in the last 2 months of 2015.

That is NOT “climate change”.


“Norman said there will be an increasing occurrence of extreme weather events on Earth including storms, floods and droughts in the future, specifically due to human-induced climate change”

Not supported by IPCC

Richard C (NZ)

>”even though “climate change” is defined over 30 year periods.”

Yes, what Peter Hannam at SMH and Jonathan Chait at NYM don’t realize is that all sceptics have to do is wait.

We wait for the data for 2016. Then we wait for the data for 2017. We wait to see if there’s a La Nina following. We wait for ENSO-neutral conditions to see where that takes the trajectory of the data..

Having waited, we then get to witness all the warmist weaseling in the ensuing years with some satisfaction.

And we’re patient, because that will be fun.

Richard C (NZ)

Dr. David Whitehouse, GWPF is onto it: ‘NASA, NOAA and UK Met Office Show El Nino Boosted 2015 Temp’ Data for the global temperature of 2015 have been released by Nasa, Noaa and the UK Met Office. As anticipated 2015 is the warmest year on record and consistent with the El Nino boosting global temperatures, along with a contribution from the unprecedented warming caused by the so-called Pacific “blob.” Noaa says 2015 was 0.16°C+/-0.09°C warmer than the previous record which was 2014. Nasa says that 2015 was 0.13°C+/-0.10°C above 2014. The UK Met Office said that 2015 was 0.18°C +/- 0.10°C above 2014. Nasa made a key statement; “Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been much greater than the old record by that much.” This clearly because 2015 was like 1998 a strong El Nino year. Because of this it is unwise to use 2015 in any trend analysis. It is essential to view the 2015 along with subsequent years to catch the cooling La Nina effect. Only this way can the El Nino contribution be properly assessed. Using 2015 to increase the trend of recent years is unsafe. Remember… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

‘What Global Warming? USA temperatures DOWN as climatologists claim 2015 was hottest year’ THE USA, one of the world’s biggest producers of carbon, did not experience its hottest year on record in 2015, bucking global trends which suggest post industrial revolution activities are warming the planet. By Jon Austin PUBLISHED: Wed, Jan 20, 2016 UK Express 2015 was the hottest year on record – but not in the USA, says NASA NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and weather experts all today released data which recorded 2015 has the hottest year since records began in the 1800s, but average temperatures have risen by just 1°C since 1850. But the provisional results, which scientists unanimously accept are higher than normal due to the El Niño effect which began last year, include some anomalies including areas of cooling and where records were not set such as in North America. Todays announcement that a major developed nation like the US did not experience its hottest year ever is likely to fuel the argument put forward by many US-based climate sceptics that human activities simply do not have the level of impact being claimed by… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Gisborne Herald:

Highs and lows of 2015

THE weather in 2015 was dominated by the effects of a slowly-building El Nino which, by the end of the year, was measured as being as strong as those in 1981 and 1997-98.

It delivered a cooler year overall, with the mean annual temperature cooler by a third of a degree. There were 41 days of 25 degrees or higher compared to 52 such days in 2014.

The top temperature was 29.7 on February 3 compared to 31.6 on January 16, 2014.

It was a lot frostier. There were 76 mornings where the grass minimum fell to zero or below, compared to only 44 in 2014.

# # #

Russel Norman finds this ”disturbing” to have to consider.

Was it the frost?

Richard C (NZ)

Interesting comment at JoNova (#29):

handjive January 23, 2016 at 9:17 am [] calculates the current temperature of the Earth.

It uses unadjusted surface temperatures. The current temperature is the real-time surface temperature of the Earth. The 12M average is the mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean. New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly.

This site was created by professional meteorologists with over 20 years experience in surface weather observations.
~ ~ ~
Current temperature: 39.93°F
Current Deviation: 17.27°F (9.59°C) below normal

12M Avg Temperature: 54.82°F
12M Avg Deviation: 2.38°F (1.32°C) below normal

2015 average 0.98°F (0.54°C) below normal

Stations Processed Last Hour: 52842

Last Station Processed: Minneapolis, United States

# # #

Hmmm….. 2015 average 0.54°C BELOW the last 30 years mean. These would be land-only stations including islands e.g. Pacific island stations effectively capture Pacific air temperatures without recourse to sea water temperatures.

Richard C (NZ)

>” calculates the current temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures.”

Should point out that this is no different to NIWA’s proprietory Virtual Climate System Network (VCSN) covering New Zealand. You have to pay to subscribe to that.

Richard C (NZ)

Africa 2015 ranked 2nd warmest according to NOAA. Also corroborates Europe’s 2nd warmest ranking::

“Asia and South America had their hottest year on record, while Africa and Europe posted their second hottest years.”

Richard C (NZ)

>”Richard C (hi, Richard!) has contributed a whole lot of comments to this discussion and, because I can’t recall all his points just now, they deserve sensible archiving.”

Hello Richard T, thanks for doing this. I realize your new lifestyle block is probably taking up quite a lot of your lifestyle these days.

Richard C (NZ)

>” [] calculates the current temperature of the Earth.”

That link wasn’t recognized upthread, better like this:

On the 23rd of January the output was this:

Current temperature: 39.93°F [4.41°C]
Current Deviation: 17.27°F (9.59°C) below normal

Today, 26th of January 3 days later, the output is this:

Current Temperature: 45.42°F [7.45°C]
Current Deviation: 11.78°F (6.54°C) below normal

The earth’s temperature has risen 3°C in 3 days. The UNFCCC wont be happy about this.

Richard C (NZ)

Thomas at Hot Topic is a bit grumpy: Thomas January 23, 2016 at 1:56 pm Further: If you look at the RSS climate page: Their most cited graphs show a thin black line for their “measurements” with zero error! While showing a wide yellow band for climate simulations. An error band on RSS is not going to change the graph at all. Great that Thomas is getting up to speed on models vs observations but it’s apparently not to his liking now that he is. Easy to see why: RSS vs Models Further down the thread Gareth Renowden reports: Gareth January 26, 2016 at 9:02 am Carl Mears [RSS] has been actively pointing out that the surface tempo record is more accurate than his satellite data. See Climate Crocks for a video. One really does wonder at the motivations when Carl Mears starts dissing his own work after setting up RSS to “correct” UAH (RSS “useful as way of keeping the UAH guys honest” – Renowden). The poor Bozos at HT (excepting Andy, Bryan should know better) don’t realize that it is not necessary to bring up satellite observations in… Read more »


“One really does wonder at the motivations when Carl Mears starts dissing his own work”

A President Cruz (or Trump) won’t have to look far for those budget cuts.


Needless to say, satellites are OK if you want to demonstrate that SLR is increasing, by bolting the satellite data onto the end of tidal gauge data

If it fits the narrative, use it.
If it doesn’t, discard it

Richard C (NZ)

Heh, Thomas again from link above: I would really like to also know why the RSS data set website: Has not updated their temperature graphs on their home page since 2013!! It is a hoot is it not that they are now over two years behind. This is partly what allows dumb wits to cite the RSS data of the recent decades and claim that it shows “no warming”. While the data include the ElNino of 1998 they are so far blind to 2014 and 2015, which broke all records. And, I have been in discussion with Mears and hopefully, we will see an update of the RSS climate homepage sometime soon to reflect the latest data, which might put and end to the abuse these data endured by the denier sphere. One finds the actual RSS data on their site but I think the deniers never dig deeper anyway: # # # Okaaaay, lets see who is “blind”, who is “behind”, and who is the “dumb wit” (without even “digging a little deeper” for the most recent data – but see below). woodfortrees is never quite up to date but… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

RT, busy as I guessed.

>”btw, I hope you’re not far away, it’d be great to get together for a chat.”

20 km about. Unless my plans change I’ll be at EastPack’s Quarry Rd Te Puke site at the North end of town next week (either 3rd, 4th, or 5th Feb, probably morning of Wed 3rd) to apply for the 2016 packing season (they want me back apparently). Don’t know what I’ll be doing but I’m guessing it’ll be physical given they’ve ripped out the automation on the machine I was on last year because it was more trouble than what it was worth. Means about 30 more people per shift reqd just on that machine. Mostly grunt (stackers) to do what the robots did, that’s not me though.

I’ll email you on Monday or Tuesday. I can easily call in anywhere in Te Puke sometime after I’ve finished at EP.


Carl Mears in the Crocks video claims that anthropogenic climate change is visible in the satellite data, despite admitting that it shows no warming and is less accurate than surface data.
Confusing, to say the least

Richard C (NZ)

>”November and December CRUTEM4 data will have to be a remarkable spike to eclipse the 2007.00 1.652 anomaly (possible but unlikely I think). More likely is that the bulk of the HadCRUT4 spike will come from HadSST3 with an additional peak from CRUTEM4 but not greater than CRUTEM4 2007.00 (but could be wrong).” OK, woodfortrees has just updated CRUTEM4 and HadSST3 to end of November (2015.92). And yes I’m wrong. November CRUTEM4 really was a remarkable spike but HadSST3 didn’t contribute much at all: CRUTEM4 data: 2015.83 1.196 2015.92 1.717 +0.52°C in one month. December will add to that I think. I don’t think January 2016 will add anything given all the plummeting temperatures in the NH which are colder than normal. In other words, the spike will drop right down again by end of January like 2007.08 did (January) after 2007.00 (end of December 2006) in the graph shown. This is how that went: 2006.83 0.906 [end of October 2006] 2006.92 1.294 [end of November 2006] 2007.00 1.652 [end of December 2006] 2007.08 0.947 [end of January 2007] That was a 0.7°C drop in one month from 2007.00 to 2007.08.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Dellingpole on The End of Snow. And then on the weaseling post massive snow dump.

Richard C (NZ)

Mann et al published a “scientific report” on Monday, claiming in the abstract in respect to the last decade: “These same record temperatures were, by contrast, quite likely to have occurred in the presence of anthropogenic climate forcing” Not very convincing language. The “scientific report” is here: The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Byron A. Steinman, Martin Tingley & Sonya K. Miller Introduction “The year 1998 set a new temperature record by a large margin for both the globe and the northern hemisphere (NH). The 1998 record was matched or exceeded in 2005 and again in 2010. The precise ranks of individual years depends on both the target (e.g. NH or global mean temperature) and the particular temperature assessment (e.g. NASA ‘GISTEMP’1 vs. UK Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’2,3,4). However, 2014 set yet a new record for both the globe and the northern hemisphere in all major assessments.” Mann et al ranking of land+sea surface: #1 2014 #2 2010 #3 2005 #4 1998 Except the 12 month average of land-only CRUTEM4 to end of 2014 does not conform to the above description: CRUTEM4 rank to end of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

>”Extending the series to up to data i.e. adding 2015 [and 2016 when the data comes in], then the ranking is likely to be: #1 [2014/15 or 2015/16] or 2007/8″

2014 doesn’t rank by itself. And comparing nominal years e.g. 2014 to 2015, instead of 12 months of data overlapping nominal years e.g. 2014/15 to 2007/8, doesn’t tell us much.

Richard C (NZ)

>”This [“trajectory of anthropogenic warming”] can only be the MDV-neutral (by default) CO2-forced model mean trajectory, NOT the observations residual as implied by Mann et al.”

Mann et al (note Stefan Rahmstorf is in on this) are scientifically fraudulent if they are purporting the “trajectory of anthropogenic warming” is the observations residual after removal of transitory effects – it isn’t, the CO2-forced model mean is. The misrepresentation does seem to be their message although I’ve yet to isolate a quote that shows this explicitly (I’ll look again tomorrow).

Foster and Rahmstorf implied the same with their 2011 paper and its (near) MDV-neutral residual. Now Rahmstorf is back to his old tricks again, this time with Mann (who else?).

BTW, I don’t use the word “purporting” loosely. This is the meaning:

verb (used with object)
1. to present, especially deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely

Richard C (NZ)

>”Mann et al (note Stefan Rahmstorf is in on this) are scientifically fraudulent if they are purporting the “trajectory of anthropogenic warming” is the observations residual after removal of transitory effects – it isn’t, the CO2-forced model mean is. The misrepresentation does seem to be their message although I’ve yet to isolate a quote that shows this explicitly (I’ll look again tomorrow).” Here it is: We represent global and hemispheric mean temperature variations through a statistical model of the form, T = A + N + I …………(1) where A represents the anthropogenic-forced component of temperature change, N represents the natural (volcanic + solar) forced component of temperature change, F = A + N is the total forced response, and I represents the internal variability component (often called “noise”). Assuming that the observations provide us with T, while climate model simulations provide us with an estimate of A and N, the difference T – (A + N), i.e. the residual, can be interpreted as representing a single realization of the pure internal variability component (I) The glaring error is this: Assuming that the observations provide us with T Dead wrong assumption. T… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Mann et al’s GMST model is dead wrong in respect to observed temperature but correct (to a degree) in respect to modeled temperature. There are actually 2 models representing global mean temperature:

GMST(modeled) = A + N + I…………(1) Mann et al’s model is T = A + N + I except T is assumed incorrectly.
GMST(natural) = N + MDV + I……….(2)

N = Natural solar forcing on a millennial scale i.e. the driver of the secular trend in GMST
MDV = Multidecadal variability i.e. an oscillatory component added to the secular trend
I = noise
A = theoretical anthropogenic forcing

GMST(modeled), model (1), corresponds to the model mean where MDV is neglected.
GMST(natural), model (2), corresponds to GMST(observed).

GMST(modeled) is GREATER than GMST(natural) and GMST(observed):

Even the IPCC concedes GMST(modeled) is GREATER than observations in AR5 Chapter 9.

Richard C (NZ)

>”GMST(modeled), model (1), corresponds to the model mean where MDV is neglected.”

MDV or “natural variation”. The IPCC in AR5 Chapter 9, offers 3 reasons why the models do not mimic 21st century temperature i.e. the models are running too hot. Those 3 are:

1) Solar change (and volcanism – except there was no major volcanoes). Too little and too early for an effect.
2) “Natural variation” i.e. MDV. It is neglected. Sceptics have been yelling this in their ears for years.
3) “Too sensitive” to CO2 forcing. They can’t come out and say CO2 forcing is superfluous.

As time goes on it will become all too apparent that the IPCC’s model paradigm where solar change takes a back seat, MDV is neglected, and CO2 forcing is superfluous, is wrong.

That the hottest year ever was 2015 does not validate the models, it is just an illusory spike.

Richard C (NZ)

New Mann-made global warming study is ‘scientifically valueless paper’ [Nic Lewis, Judith Curry] The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth” [William Briggs] Briggs’ Fourth Error It is true that global warming might be a partial cause of the anomaly sequence. Indeed, every working scientist assumes, what is almost a truism, that mankind has some effect on the climate. The only question is: how much? And the answer might be: only a trivial amount. Thus, it might also be true that global warming as a partial cause is ignorable for most questions or decisions made about values of temperature. How can we tell? Only one way. Build causal or determinative models that has global warming as a component. Then make predictions of future values of temperature. If these predictions match (how to match is important question I here ignore), then we have good (but not complete) evidence that global warming is a cause. But if they do not match, we have good evidence that it isn’t. Predictions of global temperature from models like CMIP, which are not shown in Mann, do not match the actual values… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Nic Lewis on Mann et al:

Nic Lewis, a leading climate scientist in the UK, writes in an email that Mann’s latest study is a “scientifically valueless paper even if it is 100 percent correct.” That’s because there is “nothing in this study that considers the probability of the high, recently recorded temperatures having arisen in the case where there is an anthropogenic [man-made] component, but it is less strong than simulated by the CMIP5 models, e.g. because they are too sensitive.” He also says the “analyses” they cite in the study’s intro is an “editorial comment” by Michael Mann.


Richard C (NZ)

Judith Curry on Mann et al: “The analysis of Mann et al. glosses over three major disputes in climate research, ” Judith Curry, a climate scientist and Georgia Tech professor, writes in an email. “These disputes are errors and uncertainty in the temperature record” and “reconciling the surface temperature record (which shows some warming in the recent decades) against the global satellite record (which shows essentially no warming for the past 18 years).” Curry says that for the past decade, “global average surface temperatures have been at the bottom of the envelope of climate model simulations.” To separate out what is natural and what is man-made, Mann et al use the “method of Steinmann et al to infer the forced variability (e.g. CO2, solar, volcanoes), calculating the internal variability (e.g. from ocean circulations) as a residual.” She says the multi-model ensemble used by Steinmann et al assumes that all the recent warming is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2). Curry et al, led by Sergey Kravtsov, recently published a paper in Science arguing that the Steinman et al method is flawed, “resulting in substantial underestimates of the internal variability from large-scale, multi-decadal ocean oscillations.”… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

A note re Mann et al and my use of the word “residual” vs their use of it. The word “residual” in each case does NOT refer to the same data series. Mann et al (including Rahmstorf) are back-to-front in their approach. Instead of removing MDV, ENSO, noise etc to find the underlying “residual” which approximates the secular trend in the original data, they remove everything leaving what they think is MDV (it isn’t) and then call it the “residual” (contrary to what everyone else refers to as the “residual” or implies including Rahmstorf in his 2011 paper). Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) at least took the sensible approach and found a “residual” that very roughly approximates the secular trend. Singular Spectral Analysis (SSA) and Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) find this “residual”. Foster and Rahmstorf’s “residual” conforms (roughly) to my use of it and any “residual” found by SSA and EMD, and it is MDV-neutral in the strictest sense. This “residual” however, is NOT “the trajectory of anthropogenic warming” as Both Mann et al and Foster and Rahmstorf imply. “The trajectory of anthropogenic warming”, as Mann et al put it, is actually the MDV-neutral… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

>“The trajectory of anthropogenic warming”, as Mann et al put it, is actually the [conventionally known] MDV-neutral GMST “residual” WITH THE ADDITION OF [theoretical] anthropogenic forcing.

Mann ey al do not know the difference between theory and fact.

Richard C (NZ)

More amazing ignorance at Hot Topic (replied to by Andy):

CTG January 27, 2016 at 8:27 am

I’ve always found it very amusing that denialistas will claim we should ignore future projections of warming because they are based on GIGO computer models, and then in the next breath claim that there has been no recent warming based on the satellite temperature records – which are GIGO computer models.

# # #

>”satellite temperature records – which are GIGO computer models.”

I don’t think so. RSS doesn’t seem to think so either:

RSS produces high-quality, carefully intercalibrated data,using uniform processing techniques, with a brightness temperature data record spanning multiple instruments over several decades.

Lower troposphere validated by radiosondes and sea surface temperatures validated by in situ data. Carl Mears might be downplaying RSS but I don’t think he would be very happy that his technology is being described as a “GIGO computer model”.


GIGO computer models seem to be all the rage.

Can you do a course in them?

Richard C (NZ)

>”Hottest year ever was 2015. But only in Ethiopia, Vietnam, Brazil …”

That was last year.

‘Vietnam – Worst cold in history of Nghe An Province’ – 27 Jan 2016

Officials in the northern mountainous provinces of Lao Cai and Son La said the cold has caused at least VND36 billion (US$1.6 million) in losses, killed more than 600 head of cattle and destroyed large areas and vegetable fields.

Nearly 200 cows, buffaloes, and goats died in nearby Lang Son Province and more than 4,000 hectares of crops have been affected.

Richard C (NZ)

CTG: “satellite temperature records – which are GIGO computer models.” [Not] Tisdale: PARAMETRIC UNCERTAINTY Based on observations from ships, buoys and in some cases satellites, data suppliers (NOAA and UKMO) use computer models (not the same as climate models) to determine the monthly, weekly and daily values of sea surface temperatures in the ice-free oceans. There are a number of factors called parameters that data suppliers can adjust in the computer models in order to produce their sea surface temperature end products. Parameters are commonly thought of as tuning knobs. The uncertainties shown in the histograms from Huang et al. (2015) are parametric uncertainties. That is, they are the uncertainties associated with the 24 parameters NOAA uses to “tune” the ERSST.v4 “pause-buster” sea surface temperature data. As shown in this post and in the post The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts, NOAA has selected those parameters so that the warming rates of their ERSST.v4 data reside at or near the extreme high ends of the ranges of parametric uncertainties for the periods of 1951 to 2012 and 2000 to 2014. # #… Read more »


I also have a problem understanding the “instrumental drift” argument about the satellites. Instrumental drift does exist if you don’t calibrate your instruments at regular intervals. For example, putting an instrument down a very long oil well is subject to drift, for which there are corrections

I don’t see how instrumental drift can explain the divergence between satellite and surface measurements of temperature.

I’m also not convinced that surface temperature measurements are 5 times more accurate that satellite measurements. The opposite is claimed for sea level measurements


There’s a bit about calibration in the Wikipedia page for satellite data

This makes some plausible statements about overlap between sensor types.


Seems odd that satellite temperatures are being put under all the scrutiny now, yet satellites can measure sea levels to sub-mm accuracy

Richard C (NZ)

Worth noting that much of the surface data that Renowden et al are so enamoured with is sea surface temperature, of which there is variation among datasets (see graphs at link below). Here’s Tisdale again on the SST datasets: ‘On the Monumental Differences in Warming Rates between Global Sea Surface Temperature Datasets during the NOAA-Picked Global-Warming Hiatus Period of 2000 to 2014’ Bob Tisdale / 2 hours ago January 27, 2016 DATASETS PRESENTED Of the 6 sea surface temperature datasets presented in this post, 3 have been adjusted for ship-buoy bias and 3 have not. Let’s start with the datasets that have been adjusted. They include: # NOAA ERSST.v4 (NOAA’s recently introduced “pause buster” data, infilled, in situ only) # UKMO HADSST3 (UK Met Office product, not infilled, in situ only) # NOAA Optimum Interpolation/Reynolds OI.v2 – High Resolution (NOAA’s satellite-enhanced data/AVHRR-only, ¼-deg resolution, infilled, presented daily) KNMI recently added it to their Climate Explorer. Notes: The notation “in situ only” means the dataset includes only observations from ships (buckets and ship inlets) and from buoys (moored and drifting). The “satellite-enhanced” datasets also include in situ observations and the satellite-based data are also… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”This makes some plausible statements about overlap between sensor types.”

I assume this is the main one:

“From 1979 to 2005 the microwave sounding units (MSUs) and since 1998 the Advanced Microwave Sounding Units on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles.”

There’s a 1998 to 2005 sensor overlap in that statement.

Wiki also provides grounds for some scepticism:

“Satellite datasets show that over the past four decades the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled. Both of these trends are consistent with the influence of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

I think there’s more to it than that.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Worth noting that much of the surface data that Renowden et al are so enamoured with is sea surface temperature,….”

Introduction to the Oceans

Seen from space, our planet’s surface appears to be dominated by the color blue. The Earth appears blue because large bodies of saline water known as the oceans dominate the surface. Oceans cover approximately 70.8% or 361 million square kilometers (139 million square miles) of Earth’s surface (Table 8o-1)

Table 8o-1: Surface area of our planet covered by oceans and continents.

Earth’s Surface Area Covered by Land 29.2%
Earth’s Surface Area Covered by Water 70.8%

Pacific Ocean 30.5%
Atlantic Ocean 20.8%
Indian Ocean 14.4%
Southern Ocean 4.0%
Arctic Ocean 2.8%

# # #

And of that 29.2% of earth’s surface area covered by land, New Zealand, Australia, USA, UK, Africa, and probably Canada, did NOT return 2015 warmest in the records.

This is “a measure of the temperature where we live” according to Gareth Renowden i.e. we don’t live in the ocean (or the lower troposphere as measured by satellites and weather balloons).

Richard C (NZ)

>”Earth’s Surface Area Covered by Land 29.2%”

Land-only CRUTEM4 last decade of data (i.e. 2006 – 2015 inclusive):

Some discomfort in certain quarters when the El Nino spike returns to neutral. Total embarrassment if a La Nina ensues.

Richard C (NZ)

nigelj January 27, 2016 at 9:57 am

This [see rest of comment] would suggest global warming may be changing the nature of el nino. I don’t see these big spikes in the early 20th century.

# # #

Probably hasn’t looked.

Two 20 yr intervals, first in the early 20th century, second is the last 20 yrs of data. Both have large positive spikes but the difference is that the first interval has a large negative spikes too, the second doesn’t.

Woe betide the warmies if there’s a large negative spike in the next decade. It is not out of consideration.

Richard C (NZ)

nigelj – “This would suggest global warming may be changing the nature of el nino.”

He might have a point. The strong 2010 El Nino was non-existent in CRUTEM4:

Land-only CRUTEM4 last decade of data (i.e. 2006 – 2015 inclusive):

No spike, The nature of El Nino completely changed. Global warming?


In the Hot Topic thread, it reduces to abuse, as always.

Ian Forrester, possibly the person I despise most on this planet, rounds off the conversation in true form


I did spend a bit of time over the holidays exchanging abuse with Forrester on the hate site Desmogblog. He spent quite a bit of time calling me “vile and despicable” and referring to me as a liar, yet failing to provide any evidence for these “lies”

Ian Forrester is some kind of psychopath, who it would appear has a technical or academic position in Canada.

Needless to say, I have been blocked from the hate site, but the psychopath Forrester continues with his manic rants against “deniers”.

Completely and utterly barking mad.

Richard C (NZ)

At the top of Gareth Renowden’s post there is a graphic of a global temperate series. Click it and the source is this page from NASA: ‘Analyses reveal record-shattering global warm temperatures in 2015’ The series graphed is GISTEMP which I assume is the latest version given the difference between 2015 and the next warmest spike. The series graph is this: Scary huh? Wood For Trees does not have that version up yet but here is the previous version of GISTEMP plotted vs CRUTEM4 and HadSST3 from 2006: The radical spikes in CRUTEM4 are rather less conspicuous in GISTEMP. So now it’s worth a look at the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis page: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis The 2015 spike is conspicuous in LOTI but all but disappears in “Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data” (second graph down). Most telling though is this graph: Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres [NH vs SH] In GISTEMP, as highlighted by Gareth Renowden, the 2015 “record-shattering” spike occurred ONLY in the Northern Hemisphere. And since the mid 1990s, the Northern Hemisphere has diverged radically from the Southern Hemisphere in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”In the Southern Latitudes (which includes New Zealand) south of the tropical band, not only is there no spike, but the end of the series at 2015 is considerably DOWN on the immediate previous years.”

Right up at the beginning of this thread I posted the NIWA data that corroborates this from New Zealand at least:

2010 13.10
2011 12.80
2012 12.50
2013 13.40
2014 12.80
2015 12.70

Richard C (NZ)

The GISTEMP 2015 anomalies from the 1951-1980 base period

Northern Latitudes: 1.2 C plus a bit
Southern Latitudes: 0.4 C.

Note this is Northern and Southern Latitudes, not North and South Hemispheres i.e. excludes tropics. No records were shattered in the Southern Latitudes and 0.8 C less from normal than the Northern Latitudes, a third in other words.

Richard C (NZ)

In the Southern Latitudes, 1980 was warmer then 2015 according to GISS.

Richard C (NZ)

Thomas January 24, 2016 at 2:44 pm

I have been in discussion with Mears and hopefully, we will see an update of the RSS climate homepage sometime soon to reflect the latest data, which might put and end to the abuse these data endured by the denier sphere.

[…link to RSS web tool below…..]

# # #

Meantime the denier sphere will just have to get by with what RSS already provide (H/t Thomas above)

MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool

Set ‘Region’ to “South mid-latitudes (-60, -25)” and switch ‘History’ back and forth between “Full” and “Recent”. Again, as with GISTEMP, 1980 spiked warmer than 2015 according to RSS.

Now relate Recent and Full to the NASA NEWS article headline ‘Analyses reveal record-shattering global warm temperatures in 2015’.

Well, that’s enough abuse of the data for today.


This is quite a good article by Roy Spencer explaining some issues around satellites, radiosondes and surface temperature readings.


I posted the above link to Hot Topic, and the mentally deranged Ian Forrester wrote an abusive response with some random links in it, including this one:

Is this some kind of puzzle I am supposed to solve? It is hard to reach into the darkest corners of these mental patients



To those who try to say the ground based temperature records are more accurate than the satellite records, I just quote the IPCC AR5 report temperature records +/- error margins:

The 1979-2012 +/- error margins are larger for the ground based records (table 2.4, page 187) than they are for the satellite records (table 2.8, page 197).


That stops them in their tracks.

Mike Jowsey

“Vietnam (+1.07 C) and several other countries set all-time records
for annual average temperature” – RC
It looks like the pendulum is swinging the other way now…

And it’s Asia-wide:

Richard C (NZ)

>”Is this some kind of puzzle I am supposed to solve?”

Not sure what Forresters point is with the RATPAC data but it is VERY useful in the context of 2015 (i.e. the topic).

year surface

NH Extratropics
2013 1.10
2014 1.28
2015 1.63

SH Extratropics
2013 0.66
2014 0.56
2015 0.57

There was no “record-shattering global warm temperatures in 2015” (NASA) in the SH Extratropics. Same in GISTEMP:

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands [GISTEMP]

The 2015 record was a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon, exclusive of the land surface of Europe (2nd, KNMI), United Kingdom (not even close, UKMO data), United States (2nd, NCDC), and probably Canada (2014 25th, ECCC).

In respect to Forrester’s radiosonde vs satellites trend graph, RSS demonstrates that radiosonde data CANNOT be directly compared to satellite data. The comparison must be on an apples-to-apples basis (i.e. “sub-sampling):

Sub-Sampling Satellite Data to Match Radiosonde Locations
Raw Global v. Sub-Sampled Satellite Data Compared to Radiosonde Trends

Richard C (NZ)

Mike re January 2016 East Asia cold wave Wiki page – excellant. It was TROPICAL Taiwan that was extraordinary. Taiwan A surge of cold air during the weekend of January 22–24 brought temperatures as low as 4 °C (39 °F) to Taipei, the lowest temperatures in 44 years.[2] Yangmingshan, the Matsu Islands, and Kinmen all observed their coldest temperatures on record at −1.3 °C (29.7 °F), 0.3 °C (32.5 °F), and 1.3 °C (34.3 °F), respectively.[8] Due to the tropical climate, most homes across Taiwan do not have central heating or insulation, and residents struggled to cope with the temperatures. Overall, at least 85 people died from hypothermia and cardiac arrest in Taiwan, including 66 people in Taipei and Taoyuan, and another 16 in Kaohsiung. The majority of victims died in their homes.[2] The Ministry of Health subsequently claimed only three people died and 45 were admitted to hospital emergency wards # # # There was a similar South American cold wave a few years ago when the cold actually crossed the equator into the Northern Hemisphere, “unprecedented” apparently. It lowered the temperature of lakes and rivers below the survival threshold of fish,… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

“It’s cold relative to what people are used to that does the damage, especially in the tropics.” – RC
As I have said many times, “Warm good, cold bad.” Set the carbon free and let’s get some warm happening! Or, maybe delay the coming glacial.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Annual Global Analysis for 2015’ – January 2016

Gavin A. Schmidt
Director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Thomas R. Karl
Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information

2015 was by far the warmest year in the record

# # #

>”2015 was by far the warmest year in the record”

Except, scroll down to page 3:

USA (CONUS) 2nd warmest year
Africa, Europe 2nd warmest year
N. America 5th warmest year
Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands among five warmest years
Oceania 6th warmest year
Australia 5th warmest year
Argentina 2nd warmest year

Asia, S. America warmest year
Spain, Finland warmest year

>”2015 was by far the warmest year in the record”

Except, scroll down to page 10:

•Middle Troposphere (37 yr record)
–UAH: 3rd warmest
–UW-UAH: 3rd warmest
–RSS: 4th warmest
–UW-RSS: 3rd warmest
–NESDIS STAR: 5th warmest
•Lower Troposphere (37 yr record)
–UAH: 3rd warmest
–RSS: 3rd warmest
•Radiosonde data (58 yr record)
–~5,000 ft(850 mb): 2nd warmest
–~10,000 ft(700 mb): 3rd warmest
–~18,000 ft(500 mb): warmest
–~30,000 ft(300 mb): 2nd warmest
–~40,000 ft(200 mb): 14th warmest

“By far the warmest” ?

Richard C (NZ)

Notice that United Kingdom, and the globe’s longest running temperature record in particular (CET), is conspicuously absent from the Schmidt/Karl analysis.

I suspect 1779 warmer than 2015 in CET may have something to do with that. It’s not something Schmidt and Karl would be comfortable trumpeting to the media.

“2015 was by far the warmest year in the record” is by far their more preferable message.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Hottest year ever update: El Niño effect in 2015 was 20 times larger than the global warming signal’ El Nino 2015 versus Global Warming 2015. Which caused the bigger temperature increase? Guest essay by Sheldon Walker Note that the regression of “Global Warming” uses 30 years of data i.e. to obtain the global warming “signal”. It’s not the theoretical CO2-forced model anthropogenic “signal” but ‘nuther story. Problem is, for periods less than 30 years and smoothed data eliminating ENSO noise, the global warming signal disappears. The 15 yr trend in HadCRUT4 5 yr mean is flat. The UKMO delves into 15 yr and 10 yr trends in their Decadal Forecast (see future post in this blog). Sheldon Walker calculates: “The temperature change between the end of 2014, and the end of 2015, is 0.371 °C. (see calculation 1 – all calculations are documented at the end of this article) We know from the linear regression that the temperature change due to Global Warming for 1 year is 0.0175 °C. Therefore we can calculate that the warming due to El Nino is 0.3535 °C. (see calculation 2) This means that the temperature change… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Foster, Scaife, Stott, and Schmidt are effectively saying that the 2015 phenomenon, predominantly Asia/NH Pacific and absent from the SH Extratropics, is little more than ENSO-neutral in terms of temperature.

They will all look like complete prats when conditions do return to ENSO-neutral later this year.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Schmidt estimated El Niño was responsible for 0.07C of the above-average warming we saw in 2015.”

OK, let’s apply that to the HadCRUT4 anomalies from here:

2015 0.75
2014 0.57
2013 0.50
2012 0.47
2011 0.42
2010 0.56

2006 0.50

0.75 – 0.07 = 0.68. 0.68 – 0.57 = 0.11 per year 2014 to 2015, El Nino removed as per Schmidt. No change to 2014 required because 2014 was NOT an El Nino effected year according to CPC data:

Apparently, “global warming, itself mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions of human origin” (Scaife) rises ,11C per year (Schmidt). So by this warmist reasoning, a decade ago in 2006 the anomaly due to aGHGs was 0.68 – 1.1 = -0.42. The recorded anomaly was 0.5 therefore the difference, 0.92, was due to something else (what? can’t be 0.07C from an El Nino).

Problem is, 30 yrs ago (1985/6) at 0.11C per year, the GHG-caused anomaly must have been around -3.3C BELOW the climate normal according to Schmidt’s increment.

I don’t think Gavin Schmidt has thought this through.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Why El Niño and La Niña are one continuous geological event’

Written by James Edward Kamis, guest post on 04 February 2016.

Every wonder why the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) map patterns of all El Niños look strikingly similar to the Sea Surface Temperature map patterns of all La Niñas? Or why 11 of the last 15 strong El Niños are immediately followed by equally strong La Niñas

The reason these two very famous and supposedly different climate events look and act so similar is that they are actually not separate events, rather they are one geologically induced and continuous event. An event that is generated by a massive pulse of fluid flow from a major deep ocean fault zone located east of the Papua New Guinea / Solomon Island region.

# # #

A compelling and credible theory attributing El Nino/La Nina to a geological event.

Foster, Scaife, Stott, and Schmidt are claiming 90% of the 2015 El Nino temperature response for AGW.

Richard C (NZ)

Re Sheldon Walker article, I said:

>”Note that the regression of “Global Warming” uses 30 years of data”

I’m wrong. From the post:

Graph 1 shows the HADCRUT4 monthly temperature anomaly plotted for the years 1880 to 2015. Also plotted is a LOESS curve for the HADCRUT4 data. The LOESS curve was generated using multiple local regressions, each regression using 20 years of data.

Richard C (NZ)

Bill Illis in reply to Steven Mosher at WUWT demolishes the notion that the underlying trend in HadCRUT4 once all the noise is removed is CO2-forced (but still leaves a miss-attribution, CO2 for solar – see below): Bill Illis February 4, 2016 at 5:22 pm Mosher says: “For grins.. take your time series and make a time series going back to 1880 using only el nino years Do the same for La Nina”. Well, a person can go back to 1856 if your want and use the monthly data (not the crappy annual data that you were thinking of) … … and not only adjust for the El Ninos and La Ninas, but also for the AMO (the 60 year cycle in temperatures which is a real thing) and the volcanoes and the solar cycle … … and one gets a very good monthly model of Hadcrut4 all the way back to 1856 – over 1900 monthly datapoints. #1 Then we pull out the natural variables and leave just the ln CO2 warming trend. Just a very consistent white noise series that approximates the actual CO2 warming over time (just back to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

GISTEMP monthly mean has gone over the peak in January 2016:

NH phenomenon anyway but downhill from here on for a couple of years in a normal rational world.

In Warmer World, Gavin Schmidt claimed all but 0.07C of the 2015 El Nino spike for AGW. The monthly mean is down about that much already in January 2016. If Schmidt is right (doubtful) the monthly mean should not fall any further. We”l know in a month’s time.

And Warmer World citizen Stefan Rahmstorf agrees in the SMH:

“The record is helped along a bit by El Nino, but most of it – more than 80 per cent – is due to human-caused global warming”

Also an interesting take on what an El Nino is from the SMH (speculation unsupported by any evidence in the IPCC assessments i.e. make it up as you go along):

“During El Nino years, the usual westward-blowing trade winds stall or reverse, lowering the rate the ocean absorbs the excess heat being trapped in the atmosphere by rising levels of greenhouse gases.”

# # #

I await the next Climate Clown installment with eager anticipation.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Historical Station Distribution’ By “goirish” (not Steve McIntyre). Climate Audit, 2009 In his comment to How much Estimation is too much Estimation?, Anthony Watts suggested I create a scatter plot showing station distribution with latitude/longitude. It turned out not to be the ordeal I thought it might be, so I have posted some of the results in this thread. I started with 1885 and created a plot every 20 years, ending in 2005. I deliberately ended with 2005 because this is the final year in the GHCN record prior to the US station die-off of 2006. Every dot on a plot represents a station, not a scribal record. Stations may be comprised of multiple records. A blue dot represents a station with an annual average that was fully calculated from existing monthly averages. A red dot represents a station that had missing monthly averages for that year, so the annual average had to be estimated. Stations that had insufficient data to estimate an annual average are not shown. In the case where multiple scribal records exist for a station in the given year, I assigned a blue dot if all records were fully… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

I wonder how Schmidt and Rahmstorf will spin this.

GISTEMP February Land anomaly has shot up again after dropping in January but the Ocean anomaly is down. From this GISS page:

Global Temperature — More Figures

2015.125 1.54
2015.208 1.52
2015.292 0.88
2015.375 1.03
2015.458 1.08
2015.542 0.87
2015.625 1.01
2015.708 1.07
2015.792 1.45
2015.875 1.36
2015.958 1.79
2016.042 1.54
2016.125 2.37 [Feb]

2015.125 0.52
2015.208 0.57
2015.292 0.63
2015.375 0.68
2015.458 0.68
2015.542 0.71
2015.625 0.72
2015.708 0.76
2015.792 0.81
2015.875 0.80
2015.958 0.77
2016.042 0.80
2016.125 0.74 [Feb]

Schmidt claimed all but “0.07C” of the 2015 Land+Ocean spike for AGW and Rahmstorf “more than 80%”.

Problem is, now the Feb 2016 Land anomaly is 0.58 C higher than the Dec 2015 Land anomaly that made news headlines (2.37 – 1.79 = 0.58). This is 1.36C higher than only 6 months previously (2015.625 1.01).

2.37 (Land) is far and away the most spectacular anomaly in the GISTEMP dataset and more than 0.5 on what Schmidt claimed for AGW. So what to do? Double down and claim Feb 2016 too?

I’ve yet to see a news headline on this.


Yes. Let’s quote you directly from above:
… and I’m sure a lot of otherwise well-informed people have gained quite the wrong impression from the lies put about by scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Mike Mann that the temperature has been rising for years.

Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”Have you seen the Feb 2016 anomaly yet?” Yes. I you had bothered to look you would have seen the GISS data one comment above yours. Also duplicated in the ‘Met Office’ thread. Viz (abridged): I wonder how Schmidt and Rahmstorf will spin this. GISTEMP February Land anomaly has shot up again after dropping in January but the Ocean anomaly is down. From this GISS page Land 2015.125 1.54 2015.208 1.52 2015.292 0.88 2015.375 1.03 2015.458 1.08 2015.542 0.87 2015.625 1.01 2015.708 1.07 2015.792 1.45 2015.875 1.36 2015.958 1.79 2016.042 1.54 2016.125 2.37 [Feb] Schmidt claimed all but “0.07C” of the 2015 Land+Ocean spike for AGW and Rahmstorf “more than 80%”. Problem is, now the Feb 2016 Land anomaly is 0.58 C higher than the Dec 2015 Land anomaly that made news headlines (2.37 – 1.79 = 0.58). This is 1.36C higher than only 6 months previously (2015.625 1.01). 2.37 (Land) is far and away the most spectacular anomaly in the GISTEMP dataset and more than 0.5 on what Schmidt claimed for AGW. So what to do? Double down and claim Feb 2016 too? So Simon, is ENSO “noise” (a 2 month… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Simon seems to think the Feb 2016 spike in GISS Land represents “temperature …… rising for years”:

GISTEMP Land & Sea

>”It might be time to turn the cognitive dissonance all the way up to 11.”


Richard C (NZ)

Simon, 2015 SH Extratropics in GISTEMP was actually LOWER than recent years:

(c) GISTEMP Southern Latitudes (Extratropics)

Apparently AGW has abandoned the Southern Hemisphere.

Richard C (NZ)

>”I wonder how Schmidt and Rahmstorf will spin this.” Here’s Rahmstorf: ‘True shocker’: February spike in global temperatures stuns scientists Date March 14, 2016 – Peter Hannam, Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Global temperatures leapt in February, lifting warming from pre-industrial levels to beyond 1.5 degrees, and stoking concerns about a “climate emergency”. According to NASA analysis, average temperatures last month were 1.35 degrees above the norm for the 1951-1980 period. They smashed the previous biggest departure from the average – set only in the previous month – by 0.21 degrees. “This is really quite stunning … it’s completely unprecedented,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, from Germany’s Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research and a visiting professorial fellow at the University of NSW, noting the NASA data as reported by the Wunderground blog. The blog’s authors, Jeff Masters and Bob Henson, described February’s spike as “a true shocker, and yet another reminder of the incessant long-term rise in global temperature resulting from human-produced greenhouse gases”. The monster El Nino event had contributed to the current record run of global temperatures by increasing the area of abnormally warm water in the central and eastern Pacific.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Apparently, 2008.208 [1.76] El Nino [Land] data was ALL natural but 2015.208 [1.79] was almost all AGW – how so?”

And 2007.042 (1.89) was higher again – ALL natural back then.

AGW has just started pumping El Ninos apparently, strange phenomenon that it is.

Richard C (NZ)

>“We are in a kind of climate emergency now,” Professor Rahmstorf said

Rahmstorf’s climate emergency (GISTEMP Land)

2005.375 0.90 neutral
2007.042 1.89 natural El Nino
2007.458 0.88 neutral
2008.208 1.76 natural El Nino
2010.542 0.89 neutral
2015.208 1.79 “more than 80%” AGW El Nino – Rahmstorf
2016.125 2.37 “CLIMATE EMERGENCY !!” – Rahmstorf
2016.958 0.90 neutral

Richard C (NZ)

>“We are in a kind of climate emergency now,” Professor Rahmstorf said, noting that global carbon dioxide levels last year rose by a record rate of more than 3 parts per million.


‘Global fossil-fuel emissions predicted to decline for 2015’

Date: December 7, 2015. Source: Stanford University

Annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels could drop slightly in 2015, according to a report from the Global Carbon Project led by a Stanford University researcher. This surprising result contrasts with the rapid growth in emissions before 2014, underlining the need for action to stabilize and permanently lower global CO2 emissions, the researchers conclude.

The new report, titled “Reaching Peak Emissions,” was published on Dec. 7 in the journal Nature Climate Change, with detailed data published simultaneously in Earth System Science Data.

Robert B. Jackson, Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Nebojsa Nakicenovic. Reaching peak emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2892

# # #

If fossil fuel emissions decline in 2015, record 2015 atmospheric CO2 level growth (or any growth) was El Nino driven i.e. by a natural driver – NOT driven by fossil fuel emissions.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2’ The evidence grows that 1. Temperature drives carbon dioxide, and 2. man made carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends, Roger J. Francey et al, Nature Climate Change 3, 520–524 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1817 The Hockey Schtick reports: A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures. The data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels. ‘New paper [Francey et al… Read more »


There is a half page article featuring Rahmsdorf in today’s Christchurch Press, warming of a “climate emergency”

Richard C (NZ)

>”I wonder how Schmidt and Rahmstorf will spin this.”

Here’s Schmidt:


Long way short of Rahmstorf’s “climate emergency”.

[BTW, Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ is screening on the Maori Television channel tonight.]

Richard C (NZ)

>”2016.958 0.90 neutral”

I made that up for chuckles.

I’ll be interested to see how much of the 2015/16 El Nino spike (i.e. oceanic heat dissipation to the atmosphere) much of which claimed by Schmidt and Rahmstorf for AGW, is actually “trapped” by “greenhouse gasses” once the event has passed by.

Given the usual reversion to neutral, I’m guessing zero at this stage.

Richard C (NZ)

>There is a half page article featuring Rahmsdorf in today’s Christchurch Press, warming of a “climate emergency”

That will be the same as SMH upthread. Here it is in Stuff:

‘True shocker’: February spike in global temperatures stuns scientists

They are all part of a self-confessed media group dedicated to disseminating the latest climate alarm.

Richard C (NZ)

If you follow the link to Schmidt’s “Wow” quote upthread you get this graph of the February GISTEMP LOTI anomaly by latitude:–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/

Obviously not “global” warming.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Obviously not “global” warming.”

GISTEMP LOTI Southern Hemisphere Extratropics from 1980

Data: Annual mean Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 degrees Celsius

Year 90S-24S
1980 46

1988 42

1991 43

1996 45

2001 44
2002 48
2003 41
2004 32
2005 45
2006 40
2007 48
2008 40
2009 50
2010 48
2011 58
2012 44
2013 53
2014 54
2015 41

“Hottest year ever” (2015) was cooler than 1980 in the SH Extratropics. So much for the “climate emergency”.


That’s quite an impressive correlation between latitude and temperature anomaly in RC’s 2:01pm comment two above

Richard C (NZ)

From the Mashable link upthread featuring Schmidt’s “Wow”:

‘5 implications of February’s astounding global (sic) temperature record’

5. Warming may slow a bit by next year

El Niño forecasts show the current event is likely to weaken to so-called “neutral” conditions by the spring and summer, followed by the potential development of a La Niña cool phase.

This would tend to dampen down the rate of global warming temporarily, which could yield fewer monthly records like February of 2016.

As Trenberth told Mashable, “It won’t be long before that [El Niño bounce] disappears and it won’t continue throughout 2016. I will still take bets that 2015 will be warmer than 2016.”

However, if this occurs, it won’t mean that long-term global warming has stopped or reversed, but that it has just temporarily dialed back, likely to speed up again soon afterward.

Somewhat anticlimactic (or is that anticlimatic?).

>”….likely to speed up again soon afterward.”

Or not. We’ll see.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Alarmism Cranked Up to Absurd Level’ Bob Tisdale / March 16, 2016 Some good graphs showing how the climate clowns are hyperventilating about a natural, and Northern Hemisphere, phenomenon. For example” GISTEMP LOTI Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere Model-Data Comparison of 360-Month Trends (Trailing) [GISS LOTI] And for chuckles, Tamino’s “adjusted” series starting 1950 (why not 1880?) Grant Foster’s “adjusted” GISTEMP LOTI Oddly, the 2015/16 El Nino spike remains in entirety. As Tisdale puts it: “Apparently his [Grant Foster’s] model needs some work, because after supposedly removing the effects of El Niños it still shows an uptick caused by the 2015/16 El Niño.” What is amusing is that, irrespective of the imposed trend curve (basically just 2 linear trends – look closely), The 21st century ‘hiatus’ is clearly evident from the mid-2000s onwards. All Taminos “adjustment” does is move the pause along in time. This would be even more clear if Foster had actually removed the 2015/16 uptick. In other words, his trend line is missing a 3rd linear trend from about 2005 onward. Clearly, from 2010 onwards, the bulk of the data is BELOW Foster’s linear trendline. 2010 is significant here… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Tamino’s post:

‘Surprise, but not Shock’ – Tamino (Grant Foster)

Advanced signal analysis is rather more revealing than Foster’s inept (and therefore non-contiguous) efforts.

For example:

‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’. Diego Macias , Adolf Stips , Elisa Garcia-Gorriz. Published: September 10, 2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

Provides this:

Analysis of Global Temperature Anomalies
comment image

Compare the residual (red line) to Foster’s (latest) residual:

Foster’s March 2016 ‘adjusted’ GISTEMP
comment image

Foster, in his ignorance, will be out of options around 2020. His blind belief that the data trajectory is his linear residual will be undone in the intervening time. Firstly by a return to neutral conditions after the El Nino. Secondly by a very probable La Nina. Thirdly by a return to neutral after a La Nina. All of which will be BELOW his residual trendline, as was the post-2010 data BELOW his F&R2011 residual trajectory.

Foster dug himself into hole. Now he’s tying himself in knots. Schadenfreude is fun.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Some duplication of comments taken forward to the ‘Met Office – warming to continue’ thread here:

Richard C (NZ)

‘2015 Hottest year on record – NASA, NOAA’

Posted in In the News on January 21st, 2016. [Science Media Centre]


The NASA announcement has been covered in New Zealand media. Examples include [hotlinks]:

TVNZ News: 2015 was the world’s hottest year on record – and it’s not good news for NZ

3 News: NZ should be worried about hottest year on record Greenpeace

New Zealand Herald: 2015 was hottest year in recorded history, scientists say

3 News: 2015: hottest year on record

NZ City News: Hottest year on record ‘disturbing’ for NZ

RNZ: 2015 hottest year on record – NASA

Yahoo NZ News: Last year was hottest on record globally – U.S. science agencies

# # #

In the NASA GISS dataset, the 2015 SH Extratropics anomaly was cooler than 1980 (0.41 vs 0.46).

Post Navigation