Global Temperature Update

NASA has just released their latest global temperature update. It’s still hot (the latest value is shown in red):


This also brings the hottest 12-month moving average yet:


The simple 1-year averages (although the year 2016 isn’t yet complete) show just how likely it is that this year will be the hottest on record, for the third time in a row:


Anyone who continues to talk about a “pause” in global temperature, or about “no warming for XX years,” is either lying to himself or lying to you.

The planet has heated up even more over land areas than land+ocean, as the NASA record based on meteorological stations shows:


The heating is yet more pronounced if we look at land areas in the northern hemisphere, where most of us humans live:


Over northern hemisphere land areas we’ve already warmed 2°C (3.6°F) since just 1880.

Temperatures are bound to subside as the effect of the el Niño subsides, but what won’t subside is the upward trend. That’s because CO2 continues to rise at an alarming rate:


The absolute worst thing that can happen in the near future, that will obstruct doing anything useful about this, would be for the U.S. to elect as president an arrogant sexual predator moron who said that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

Finally, by request I present a graph of the 30-year moving average temperature for the globe as a whole:


This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.

20 responses to “Global Temperature Update

  1. Just to be clear, there have never been three consecutive record-breaking warmest years before in the instrumental record. Which will make this a record record, though not one to be proud of.

    I suppose one could calculate the odds of a trendless random process throwing up three consecutive maximum values after 130 previous ones, but what would be the point? The warming trend is obvious to all but the most die-hard motivated AGW deniers… and probably even to them too.

    I’m looking forward to seeing how much of the 1940-45 bump survives a re-examination of the surface sea temperature data collected during the war. There are at least two groups working on this now, and Hansen’s apparently has a paper that is either in review or close to submission.

  2. Heh. Very convincing, not that I needed convincing.

    I’m reminded, though, about when I linked to your early (before Foster & Rahmstorf) graph removing volcanoes and ENSO in an online discussion. I was quite happy with that, but the guy I was writing to said that you can’t trust Tamino because he fiddles the data. I never got anywhere with him, but I have changed the minds of some other people.

  3. “but the guy I was writing to said that you can’t trust Tamino because he fiddles the data.”

    At which point I trust that you stopped wasting time engaging with the fool.

    • Others were reading our posts. It would be stupid to let him spout his ideas without responding.

      • Indeed. Every dumb-ass assertion made is an opportunity to educate–even though it is usually not the dumb-ass who actually receives it.

      • True, but is not necessary to engage with him to counter his nonsense. Address the fallacy of his ideas, but stop addressing him.

  4. Good science. Questionable politics. After all HRC has managed to continue neoloberal BAU for many tears, is good at it, and will keep doing it in office, in part because of “lesser evilsim” of Tamnino’s kind. The US needs a political sea-change and HRC is obviously not this. Its like Einstein on insanity, as has the last 30 years been, and as will continue with Tamino’s candidate in office. And as Tamino’s own figures will show, and keep showing. Deep down, we all know this.

    [Response: Tell you what else we should know.

    Donald Trump isn’t an “ordinary” alternative. If this were Obama.vs.McCain or Obama.vs.Romney, there might be a case for choosing neither in favor of an attempt to help along a “political sea-change.” But this is Clinton.vs.Trump, the guy who ridicules climate science, encourages anti-vaxxers, promises to dismantle the EPA, intends to destroy the Paris climate agreement, wants to jail his opponent (because he imagines himself judge and jury of everybody), instigates violence, spreads racist hatred against Mexicans and Muslims and American blacks, insults women in the crudest fashion (proudly no less), whines like a baby when he’s criticized, and to top it all off, brags about committing sexual assault.

    If we don’t stop him, people will suffer, America will suffer incredibly as a result — and so will the rest of the world. Your “lesser-evilism” attitude is the epitome of naivete.

    Hillary Clinton is the only person who can stop him. Damn right I’m gonna do everything I can to help her do that.]

  5. “The US needs a political sea-change…”

    Indeed it does, but most of us do not live in some idealistic fantasy world, we live in the real world, where the only possible “political sea change” that can come out of this election is akin to an off-the-scale Category 6 hurricane.
    Are you sure you can live with that?
    If so then you have no business lecturing anyone about insanity.

  6. Is there any intent for irony in the term “political sea change”? Should the worst happen and Trump gets in, the resultant “sea change” could well be an even faster sea level rise. That’s a sea change I won’t really welcome.

  7. My prediction ? A speech by Clinton in 8 years saying ‘something needs to be done about climate change’

    Anyone voting for Ms Clinton is just accepting BAU is OK with them. No, that’s not an endorsement of Trump just an observation.

    [Response: Anyone NOT voting for Ms Clinton is just accepting Donald Trump is OK with them. Probably because they see their own frustration at not getting what *they* want as more important than the rest of humanity.]

    • “Anyone NOT voting for Ms Clinton is just accepting Donald Trump is OK with them. ”

      Exactly. Sanders lost and Jill Stein has zero chance of being elected. That’s reality, get over it. Pouting in the corner will just achieve the election of Trump.

    • And what, exactly, is Ms Clinton supposed to do when she does not make the law of the United States? Apart from the Presidential power of veto, United States government lawmaking is done by the House of Representatives and the Senate (Congress).

      • In case you hadn’t noticed, President Obama’s climate policies were put in place under precisely the same constraints. (Actually, perhaps worse ones, since there seems to be a realistic possibility of the Senate flipping back to Democratic.) HRC would preserve and enhance those measures; Trump, just the reverse.

      • Chris O'Neill

        President Obama’s climate policies were put in place under precisely the same constraints.

        And we all know how wildly successful those policies have been in reducing the USA’s Carbon emissions, hence leading to comments like ‘Anyone voting for Ms Clinton is just accepting BAU is OK with them’.

        Trump, just the reverse.

        Indeed. Having the right President is absolutely necessary to avoid having necessary laws such as a Carbon tax being vetoed by the President. Of course, those laws need to be put up by Congress in the first place and the sad fact is that a lot of US voters who vote in Presidential elections don’t bother to vote in mid-term Congress elections when the outcome of those elections is at least as important as who becomes President, if not more so.

  8. Keith Olbermann’s message to Trump voters:

    You know this man, You have always known this man.

    Olbermann is on fire.

    • Oh, yes… blazing. Thanks for the link. It’s worth watching every second of its 12 minutes.

      “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
      Maya Angelou

    • Already posted on another thread, but with our host’s indulgence, a creative response to the magnificent Olbermann rant:

  9. methane madness

    Cheers for the 30 year graph, it”s a pity it was never the standard matrix, it would have left far less room for denialists to fester in.