NASA, NOAA to Announce 2016 Global Temperatures, Climate Conditions

Climate experts from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will provide the annually-scheduled release of data on global temperatures and discuss the most important climate trends of 2016 during a media teleconference at 11 a.m. EST Wednesday, Jan. 18.

The teleconference panelists are:

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York

Deke Arndt, chief of the global monitoring branch of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina

Media can participate in the teleconference by calling 888-323-5258 (toll-free in the United States and Canada) or 415-228-4837 (international) and use the passcode “climate.”

Audio of the briefing, as well as supporting graphics, will stream live at:

25 responses to “NASA, NOAA to Announce 2016 Global Temperatures, Climate Conditions

  1. I wonder if GISS will change to GHCN v4 now?
    It’s the last chance to do what was planned for 2016:
    “Planned for 2016: GHCN v4 — 26,000 stations”

    It’s also the last chance to do something that probably will be disliked by the new skeptical administration. GHCN v4 will likely remove the Arctic cooling bias, and increase the global trend slightly in the recent 20 years, or so..
    To interfere with “the pause” is not popular in certain political camps, and might be seen as a sheer provocation..

  2. Thanks for the heads-up, Tamino! Been wondering when we’d see this.

  3. we have to talk to conservatives in a past frame to reach them,

    so we say “you know we never had 5 straight years of steadily increasing global temperature in the past. And that 5 straight years includes the last three years that have each set the record for the warmest year on record. We really need to get back to the old weather pattern where you had a warm year or two, then a cooler year or two. It has been going up steadily, but nothing like this last five years. We need our old weather pattern back.”


    • Make climate great again?

      • yup, make climate great again. no need to go to the effort if you are enjoying the culture wars and prefer to simply blast the conservatives as idiots as you continue to beat them over the head with future-oriented presentations about global warming. I understand the attraction to that approach, but seems like we kinda lost big-time in the last election cycle. Maybe it’s time to speak to conservatives in a frame that moves them.

    • Mike,
      If the cognition of human beings is so utterly flawed that we cannot accept a truth that threatens the very survival of our species unless it is presented in a way that doesn’t hurt our delicate feelings, then we are a species that is too flawed to survive.

      Nature really doesn’t care about our survival, much less our feelings. The truth matters, and at some point if we cannot acknowledge it, it will kill us off. Climate change is as good a tool for evolution as any other.

    • Chris O'Neill

      And that 5 straight years includes the last three years that have each set the record for the warmest year on record.

      And the conservatives say back to you: “that it is just more faked data. As proof of this, they assert that the yearly string of record highs, is just one exaggeration after another since the string of highs clearly can’t be real.”

      What a roaring success is talking to conservatives in a past frame.

      • michael sweet

        In my High School in an upper middle class suburb in Tampa, Florida I have discussed AGW for about 10 years. 10 years ago every class (I teach 6 classes a day, 25 students per class) had three or four students who insisted that the data was faked. For the past three years I have only had one student who made this claim. Some students do not speak their minds, but there has been a clear decrease in students who make the “hoax” claim.

        Even without the hoax claim many students are not willing to take significant action. They often call for more research to determine the source of warming.

      • Chris, perhaps you have a better suggestion? I for one would like to hear it, if so.

        If not, please don’t waste your electrons telling us How Futile It All Is. We have better things to do–and they *are* better, whether or not they are futile.

        Despair is not adaptive.

  4. mike, we didn’t lose. Hillary Clinton got 65 million votes, Trump got 62 million. The bad guys rigged the election through voter suppression laws at the state level, and hacking and distorting emails courtesy V.V. Putin. How did you miss all that?

    • Hi BPL,
      Is it your position that Hillary won the election? Is Hillary going to nominate the ninth justice? Is there any way on a reasonable planet that a candidate as bad as Trump should get 62 million votes and have a chance of winning enough states to carry the electoral college? We now have all three branches of government controlled by a political party that by and large refuses to accept the solid science of global warming. That looks like a big loss to me. To claim otherwise seems like frustrated thrashing to me.

      That is the context in which I suggest that we might want to be smarter about how we communicate with folks who do not process the dangers of global warming well when it is framed in terms of future impacts. I suggest we review the empirical science about the way that many US voters think and make sure we do our best to reach those folks and help them understand our situation because we are all in this together. I know that it is fun to engage in the rhetorical back and forth and score points by ridiculing folks, I am simply tired of that fun and more worried about the world we are leaving to my grandchildren (or when I talk now with conservatives” I want to do things that restore the stable climate that our grandparents enjoyed).

      I am a social scientist with enough basic math and science skills to recognize that the global warming science is solid. I wonder why this is not apparent to more US voters. Then I look at the social science about communication of global warming and realize that endlessly preaching to the choir in the language of the choir may not be the most effective means of communicating the science to the entire community.

      But, hey, what do I know? Maybe we did not lose? Maybe you have that right. All the “resist” talk has made me think we lost. Are congrats in order on the big win in November?

      Carry on,


      • sbm: Is it your position that Hillary won the election?

        BPL: YOUR position was that “that approach” is what lost us the election. I was pointing out that your analysis of cause and effect is flawed. Losing the election tells us NOTHING about how effectively we are communicating since the election WAS RIGGED. Hello? Do you understand what the term “rigged” means in regard to a election? The popular vote didn’t matter.

      • Let’s not get bogged down in silly nit-picking.

        Let’s organize and act.

      • Aren’t counterfactuals fun? We can speculate all day about what went wrong and what would have happened if Bernie Sanders had actually been a robot sent from the future! The good doc is right. The women are showing the way. Protests on all seven continents. We cannot go back in time and win the 2016 election. We cannot say what strategies will win in 2020. We can make these bastards wish they’d lost.

      • BPL,

        Do you understand what the term “rigged” means in regard to a election?

        It’s perfectly true that without the underhanded and probably illegal machinations you cite, HRC would have won. OTOH, those machinations wouldn’t have worked if there hadn’t been enough actual, benighted Trump voters. What’s shocking to me that there were as many as 62 million* of them.

        * That’s assuming we can believe the reported numbers, of course. I’m, uhm, skeptical.

  5. We could communicate the reality and danger of global warming to 90% of the electorate, and if 41 percentage points of that 90% are kept out of the voting booth, or have their votes changed electronically, it wouldn’t bleeding well matter, would it? Get your head out of your nether regions and take a look at the world around you. We became a one-party state on November 8th, 2016. The GOP controls the presidency, both houses of congress, the majority of governorships and state legislatures, and will soon control the supreme court and almost all federal courts. The time for courting popular opinion is OVER.

    Legal means are no longer available. The only ways out now are 1) armed revolution, which won’t happen, 2) sabotage, which may happen, and 3) progress in other countries making renewables so cheap that the feudal lords have to go with it to keep making money. Electoral politics is utterly irrelevant at this point, and has been since “Citizens United.”

    • Legal means are indeed available. It starts with the right to petition, so that our views are abundantly clear to our politicians, and so that it is transparently clear to all that the case has been made to them. To be effective, we need numbers. We do not have them for the climate change issue by itself, ergo we must act as part of a broad coalition opposed to the current government’s agenda. But this can be done, and if we follow up with what’s happening today in DC, and in over 300 places around the world this day.

      Will petition be enough? Of course not. But there is tremendous power in nonviolent protest. We will need to be in the streets. We will need to be in the voting booths. We will need to be on the phone lines, and in social media. We will need to be inconvenient, foolish, nasty, wrong, and unAmerican, or a least be willing to be called such. We will need to be willing to be hurt, socially, psychologically, financially, emotionally and physically.

      Because that is what it is going to take.

      Do we care enough?

      • time and climate change are on our side. AGW is more catastrophic and apparent every day. Conservatives will come to accept it. They will come more quickly if we treat them well and communicate with them in the most effective manner possible. I was/am much more impatient with dems than I am with republicans because the dems by and large accept that AGW is happening and it’s a big, BIG problem. Yet, they do so little. Republicans think/claim AGW is not a problem so they do even less. In any case, “we” are not doing enough. If it’s a carrot and stick, I would use the carrot with republicans and the stick with democrats.

  6. It’s ironic that folks who are so eager and willing to recognizing the quality of peer-reviewed science on climate are so dismissive about the neuro/cognitive science. I agree with much that is said about our species and agree that it is silly that we should have to frame solid science in a certain way so that certain people can understand the science. Lots of silly stuff is nonetheless true. 62 million people voted to make Donald Trump our president. I am hard-pressed to find anything silier than that on inauguration day 2017. Yes, the species is often quite ridiculous.

    I only share the communication science for folks who want to attempt to be more effective at seeking meeting of the minds with the political right. If you prefer the culture wars, don’t bother.

    I am reminded of the story about the guy who was found looking for his car keys. A friend walks up and says, hey, I will help you find them, where did you drop them? First guy says, oh, up there in the dark next to my car. friend says why are you looking here then, this is half a block away? first guy, it’s too dark up by the car, there’s no way I can find anything there. With the streetlight here, at least I can see the pavement.

    Our next bite at the apple is the midterm elections in two years. Would you like to sway people for that election or is just too much fun bashing folks who do not think in the same way you do?



  7. m: Our next bite at the apple is the midterm elections in two years.

    BPL: Too late. It will be rigged. The Supreme Court will have a 5-4 conservative majority that will uphold all the voter suppression laws in place and all the new ones that will be added in the next 2 years. As I said above, we are now a one-party state, and we will remain that way. In 2020 comes a new census, and the GOP will gerrymander even more than they already have. Democracy is quite dead.

    I’ve been trying to “sway people” for twenty god damn years without any success. People who have made up their mind can’t be swayed. The only people that can be reached are those who haven’t decided yet. For all your talk about neuropsychiatric research and so on, you appear to have missed all the studies that say beliefs are determined on a group-identity basis. You cannot argue logically with someone whose premise is that logic doesn’t matter. You can’t argue evidence with someone who says the evidence is faked. And in any case, it doesn’t matter, because we CAN’T WIN ELECTIONS ANY MORE. Got it?

    • I hope you are wrong and fear you are correct. We will see. I am not taking part in any “resistance” actions at this time. No sign-waving, no petition-signing, no marching for solidarity without clear tangible goals. I am ruminating on things and waiting for a coherent idea/plan about how to proceed in this situation.

      What is your plan for response beyond frustration, despair and SHOUTING at folks who largely agree with you?

      Cheers, buddy


      • Mike,
        I think that what you are running up against here is that scientists are not willing to dilute or sugar coat the truth. The Trumpistas refuse to even acknowledge that truth exists.

      • I marched in the New Orleans iteration of the women’s march. It was extremely inspiring and energizing.

        Perhaps more important, it demonstrated that the coalition I mentioned above is there for the realizing–lots of mentions of climate change, among the many other issues in play. “Intersectionality” is the relevant buzzword.

      • I had planned to join the Women’s March in my city, until I learned it was being organized by a women who gave her occupation as “astrological counselor”. I understand the need to join with like-minded allies, but the mind of a hustler of pseudo-scientific woo isn’t sufficiently like mine.

  8. You don’t agree with me. Your whole act here recently has been blaming the victim.