NASA - May 2015 Global Avg. Temps .71C (1.3F) Above Long-Term Avg.; 2015 Off Chart So Far

[hatrack]

Just today, NASA released its global temperature data for the month of May 2015. It was a scorching 0.71°C (1.3°F) above the long-term average. It is also the hottest first five months of any year ever recorded. As we look at climate patterns over the next year or so, it is likely that this year will set a new all-time record. In fact, as of now, 2015 is a whopping 0.1°C (0.17°F) hotter than last year, which itself was the hottest year on record.

Below, NASA’s annual temperatures are shown. Each year’s results are shown as black dots. Some years are warmer, some are cooler and we never want to put too much emphasis on any single year’s temperature. I have added a star to show where 2015 is so far this year, simply off the chart. The last 12 months are at record levels as well. So far June has been very hot as well, likely to end up warmer than May.



So why talk about month temperatures or even annual temperatures? Isn’t climate about long-term trends? First, there has been a lot of discussion of the so-called ‘pause.’ As I have pointed out many times here and in my own research, there has been no pause at all. We know this first by looking at the rate of energy gain within the oceans. But other recent publications, like ones I’ve written about have taken account of instrument and measurement quality and they too find no pause.

Second, there has been a lot of discussion of why models were running hotter than surface air temperatures. There was a real divergence for a while with most models suggesting more warming. Well with 2014 and 2015, we see that the models and actual surface temperatures are in very close agreement. When we combine surface temperatures with ocean heat content, as seen below, a clear picture emerges. Warming is continuing at a rapid rate.



EDIT

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/15/the-latest-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records

[GreatGazoo]

1. This well-reasoned piece is marred by the hyperbolic inclusion of "off the chart"

Obviously the chart could include whatever Y-axis range they wanted.

[hatrack]

2. It's a NASA graphic

So call Houston, unless that would "mar" your day.

[GreatGazoo]

3. Wrong. It is NASA's data but the author made the graphic with the "off the chart" star

as clearly stated here:

Below, NASA’s annual temperatures are shown. Each year’s results are shown as black dots. Some years are warmer, some are cooler and we never want to put too much emphasis on any single year’s temperature. I have added a star to show where 2015 is so far this year, simply off the chart.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. OK, so here is NASA’s chart

[hr]



As you can see, it wouldn’t take much of an increase over 2014 to be “off-the-chart.”

[GreatGazoo]

5. What I see is that the top chart's Y-axis goes to 0.8 while the author's goes only to 0.7

but whether the number is on or "off" of his intentionally stunted chart is a distraction and that's why he should not have done it.

In doing so he comes off as smart as Nigel:

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Notice the 2nd NASA chart - (the one the author used) only goes to .7

(Source http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ )

Nothing afoot here.

At one point, my brother and I were watching Star Trek, and the readings were “Off the scale.” He wondered why, in the 23rd century, they no longer used logarithmic scales.

[Nihil]

7. Thank you for your concern.

> Account status: Active
> Member since: Mon Sep 13, 2004, 07:32 PM
> Number of posts: 1,045
> Number of posts, last 90 days: 301

Now that you've woken up and started posting to DU, maybe you should
extend yourself and try emailing Dr. John Abraham (the author) at the
Guardian with your knowledgeable insights and constructive criticism?

I expect you would receive an answer along the lines of "I simply took the
supplied NASA graph and super-imposed the star for this year in order to
illustrate my article. If I had attempted to redraw the axes on their graph
without re-plotting their dataset (i.e., repeat their work after obtaining their
full dataset) then I would have been accused of "distorting the NASA published
data for "hyperbolic" reasons ..."

[GreatGazoo]

8. Here is your (lack of) logic: You find nothing wrong in this author's "off the chart" hyperbole

I said only that it weakened his overall argument, which I called "well reasoned", so you go into snowflake mode, violate TOS and accuse me of being a troll based on my post count (?) Do I have that correct?

All I said was that the article would have be stronger IMHO if the author had not cut the graph lower than the data and just to make a meaningless point about how a number is now "off the chart."

I have spent the last 10+ years working on global warming. I didn't own a car for 17 years of my adult life. I run an eco-friendlty small business and in season I am an organic farmer working with a group of investors who are pushing for electric tractors and other non-carbon releasing energy sources for agriculture. Researching low input methods and ways to grow in an environment that is increasingly prone to extreme rain events (poly tunnels, high drainage soils, etc) and increasingly warm.

If you had read any of my 1044 other posts you might have figured that out. You didn't.

Can I ask what you have done about global warming ? Carbon-neutral witch hunts perhaps?

[Nihil]

9. Did you actually read any of the replies upthread? (e.g., .4 & .6 which answer your "concern")

I have no idea what you are burbling on about "snowflake mode" or how you think that
I "violate TOS" but, there again, I don't really care either so enjoy yourself with that one.


If you have indeed been doing all that you claim then congratulations. We appear to be
sharing common goals.


> If you had read any of my 1044 other posts you might have figured that out. You didn't.

If I had recognised your username from the one or two posts a month you've done in E/E
(a grand total of 10 between December 2014 and the start of this week) then I might have
noticed that you have a consistent anti-GMO view (with which I agree FWIW) but, on further
investigation, still none of them suggest (or support) any of your claims in .8 so no,
the reason I couldn't have "figured that out" was that there was no "that" there.

All I'm left with is your sudden "concern" arising from a failure to understand the original
graphs provided along with a fresh bucket of "I've done more on global warming than you
because I say so".



Have a nice day, whatever you are doing.

[GreatGazoo]

10. Aren't you a pleasant and straightforward poster:

I "violate TOS" but, there again, I don't really care

The fight against global warming is going to take more than your passive aggressive internet postings.

Thanks for putting me on trial. It's been fun.

[Nihil]

11. Selective quoting again?

The complete phrase was
>> I have no idea what you are burbling on about "snowflake mode" or how you think that
>> I "violate TOS" but, there again, I don't really care either so enjoy yourself with that one.

Quoting incomplete subsets of a sentence just to set up a strawman shows you as being
basically dishonest - as does ignoring the explanations for your "concern" - so doubts about
your claimed pro-environmental credentials are merely enlarged.

I am usually straightforward. I am not always pleasant.
I am not here to "put people on trial" nor to entertain trolls but, as long as you've had fun,
I guess your disruption is over for a little while.