2015 Climate Announcement from NASA, NOAA

Climate experts from NOAA and NASA will announce new data on 2015 global temperatures during a media teleconference on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 11:00 a.m. ET. The scientists will also discuss the year’s most important weather and climate events in context of long-term warming trends.

You can read more about it here, and listen to a livestream of the briefing here (it starts at 11:00 A.M. Eastern time).

We already know the overall result: that 2015 WAS the hottest year on record. By a long shot. The deniers have already started to deny.

Just to whet your appetite, here are the number of billion-dollar weather/climate disasters in the lower 48 states of the U.S.A. since 1980 (and yes, it’s adjusted for inflation):


Do you notice a trend?

24 responses to “2015 Climate Announcement from NASA, NOAA

  1. Also released recently is the DOD DIRECTIVE 4715.21

    Pentagon directive http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d4715_21.pdf
    Cleared for public release – Jan 14, 2016
    Available on the DoD Issuances Website at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.

  2. skeptictmac57

    I don’t know yet what they will reveal, but I predict it will be a ‘goat’.

  3. Trend? The likelihood of a repeat of our 1987 experience appears to decrease as time goes by. The chart suggests increased chaos will be in our future.

  4. There is a clear downward trend since 2011. That’s all I see here :)

  5. Harold Brooks

    I wish they used current-cost net stock of fixed reproducible tangible wealth, or something like it, to adjust, rather than CPI. The CPI underestimates the adjustment needed for what’s damaged. As a simple example, in the house I grew up in 50 years ago, we had 1 TV, no computers, no microwave, etc. Not only does stuff cost more, which is what CPI tries to estimate, but I have more things in my house than my parents did. GDP doesn’t do a horrible job. We compared the CPI and tangible wealth adjustments for tornado damage ~15 years ago. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282001%29016%3C0168%3ANDFMTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    • I’ve seen a similar chart comparing number of earthquake events to weather disasters – the lack of trend in earthquake events was contrasted with the trend in weather disasters.

      The challenge with using tangible wealth adjustments is that ideally we are also building more resilient buildings, so in a stable climate, we’d expect damage to increase more slowly than tangible wealth does.

      • I think what we need here is the cost of earthquake events vs the cost of weather events over time. If you assume that we are adjusting to climate and earthquakes at roughly the same rate, then any long term trend difference in costs would be due to greater frequency/severity of weather events.
        Assuming, of course, that there is no long term trend in earthquakes.

      • skeptictmac57

        John- Is this the kind of comparison that you were looking for?

  6. 2015 was 0.87 deg. C above the 1951 – 1980 base period, a big jump from last year’s anomaly of 0.75 deg. C.


    • Remembering the kerfuffle over 2014’s top rank but the uncertainty for the top 3 overlapping, does this figure clear that hurdle outright? The uncertainty estimate was 0.09C for 2014 land+ocean, so that would make 2015 the warmest even with uncertainty estimate, right?

    • SotC 2015 global is out, and my question is answered.


      The 2015 anomaly there is 0.90 deg C, rather than 0.87, and the uncertainty estimate is 0.08.

    • Tsk – that’s the NOAA figure (and uncertainty), not GISS. Sloppy of me.

      • I’ve readied myself for the deniers to (ironically) use 2014 as their new benchmark for naysaying “hottest year” for 2015. But it looks like 2015 has cleared that statistical hurdle. Not to worry. There’s always the satellite record for them to fixate on. It stills puts 1998 and/or 2010 on top.

      • Yup, the satellite data is all they have left. So they can’t use any of the other evidence that the planet it warming, or that the surface is warming. What they don’t seem to realise is that not much lives at the TLT or TMT levels, so those data have very little importance in the grand scheme of things. So now they are starting to say that the satellite data are the best data we have [for what’s happening at the surface], even though the RSS folks, at least, don’t agree. Go figure.

  7. Regarding the chart, it is better to compare it with trend of geophysical events:

  8. Couldn’t get the nasa.gov pdf to work, but found a copy on the NCDC. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf

  9. Global warming stopped in 1998…err…I mean 2015!

  10. It’s on the GISS website. 0.87C

  11. daveye Going on the probabilities, it’s ‘no global warming ssince 2017.’

  12. Well, it all seems sort of convincing and sciency and all but I think I’ll wait to hear what Professor Monckton of Brenchley has to say first, just to be on the safe side.

  13. NOAA State of the Climate 2015 is up.


  14. GISS have posted 2015 report on their site, with links to PDF etc there.


  15. Are the data in the chart also adjusted for population size, and average accumulation of more “stuff”? It could reasonably be argued that either or both will impact the trajectory, although MMM has already pointed out that this can be calibrated by including a climate-independent variable such as earthquakes.