NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History

Oct 21, 2014

Image credit: NASA/GISS

By Terrell Johnson

Last month was the warmest September in historical temperature records that date back more than 130 years, NASA said Sunday in its monthly global temperature report.

The global average temperature for September 2014 was 0.77°C (1.38°F) above the 1951-1980 historical average for the month, the agency reported Oct. 12 in its monthly Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, which shows the temperature anomalies for each month of the year going back to 1880.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

19 comments on “NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History

  • Last month was the warmest September in historical temperature records that date back more than 130 years, NASA said Sunday in its monthly global temperature report.

    I see the comments on the link show the denialist know-it-all blinkers, help their owners continue to make up nonsensical babble, which they add to the stuff they have collected from muppet websites, where fumble-brained scientifically illiterate clowns, who have no idea how to measure, or what to measure, pretend that scientists can’t measure or calculate!!

    The global temperature map is very telling.

    The Greenland moulins with scenic temporary lakes on the surface of ice-sheets, are colourful, but not individually in themselves conclusive evidence. That comes from the overall year on year reduction in the volume of the ice sheet as measured by satellites.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.VEbWZld27PU

    In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.

    The study was produced by an international collaboration – the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) – that combined observations from 10 satellite missions to develop the first consistent measurement of polar ice sheet changes. The researchers reconciled differences among dozens of earlier ice sheet studies by carefully matching observation periods and survey areas. They also combined measurements collected by different types of satellite sensors, such as ESA’s radar missions; NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat); and the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE).

    “What is unique about this effort is that it brought together the key scientists and all of the different methods to estimate ice loss,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “It’s a major challenge they undertook, involving cutting-edge, difficult research to produce the most rigorous and detailed estimates of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica to date. The results of this study will be invaluable in informing the IPCC as it completes the writing of its Fifth Assessment Report over the next year.”



    Report abuse

  • I see the comments on the link show the denialist know-it-all blinkers, help their owners continue to make up nonsensical babble, which they add to the stuff they have collected from muppet websites, where fumble-brained scientifically illiterate clowns, who have no idea how to measure, or what to measure, pretend that scientists can’t measure or calculate!!

    Don’t hold back Alan. Say what you mean.

    That wonderful Australia Science media program Catalyst recently had an article on the “Pause” in global warming. Explains all the complaints from the “Lets Go Extinct Now” deniers. I sometimes wonder who is worse. A religious fanatic or a global warming denier. Both rate highly on the “Threat to Humanity”scale.

    Here is the Catalyst Link. I don’t know if the video is limited to regions, but the transcript is available. (Can someone from the Northern Hemisphere tell me if the video plays.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4107264.htm



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen Oct 21, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    (Can someone from the Northern Hemisphere tell me if the video plays.

    It plays in England, – showing the determined fringe-cherry-picking and doubt-mongering of denialists who refuse to look at the massive data supporting the big picture!



    Report abuse

  • 5
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    I sometimes wonder who is worse. A religious fanatic or a global warming denier. Both rate highly on the “Threat to Humanity”scale.

    Don’t forget, there’s more than a few people in the US who are both (many of them are in the US Congress). Danger, danger… as a famous Aussie used to say.



    Report abuse

  • I am concerned that this website which SHOULD be focused on the challenges posed by the religious among us dilutes its credibility by embracing the ‘world is melting’ fanatics. Facts should support any supposition.

    Are world temps increasing? They seem to be, but then again the relatively brief amount of time that humans have been tracking such things bears the problem of basing suppositions on very limited information. The other problem is properly assessing the affect humans have upon the process. Methane is a far more problematic gas in terms of the greenhouse effect, than CO2. Beyond animals, decaying vegetation (both terrestrial sources and from our oceans) are contributors of massive amounts of methane (which again is MANY times more effective greenhouse gas than CO2).

    The ‘frightening’ part is when you bring this up to what I’d call ‘global warming fanatics’ they verbally attack you in the same knee-jerk way that a holder of religious beliefs inflict upon non-believers. I guess humans want to think more of themselves than what they really are – just a differently evolved level of animal.

    The Earth has survived tectonic shift, constant bombardment by meteorites and cosmic radiation, reversal of the magnetic poles, tidal waves, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes… yet humans have the gall to think THEY are a threat to the planet. When the Earth tires of us (so-to-speak) it can rid itself of us easily – I’d guess a virus will do us in at some point. The Earth isn’t going anywhere and will be JUST fine – we will be leaving though at some point. :0)

    If the movement of atheism supported by this website is to go forward, we should be careful not to pepper the website with ‘pet-beliefs’ which the facts of the situation do not dictate.



    Report abuse

  • I am concerned that this website which SHOULD be focused on the challenges posed by the religious among us dilutes its credibility by embracing the ‘world is melting’ fanatics. Facts should support any supposition.

    @Eddie
    First mistake Eddie. This is the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science discussion forum. Click on the NEWS button at the top of this page and you will see that articles reporting science are common, and welcome. Every time the scientific methods moves the ball forward a few yards, we all benefit. There are no fanatics here, just Reason and Science people.

    In paragraph two you speculate and pose questions without answering said suppositions. Given this is a web page devoted to the promotion of Reason and Science (Note these words Eddie) then Reason and Science will supply the answers to your questions. While no science is ever conclusive, there is a high probability that we, the human denizens of this closed planet, are altering it’s climate by our actions. That is the conclusion of the prevailing Reason and Science at this time. If you think the Reason and Science are wrong, then you need to cite studies that support your position. That’s how this forum works. If your material survives scrutiny, you will have kicked a goal.

    Paragraph 3. Firstly, no one is going to attack you. I am going to reason with you. It is an interesting gambit you pose. You’ve committed a Spoonerism in your argument. People whose opinions are supported by Reason and Science are the subject of frequent attack by the religious. Click on the News button above for myriad examples. If you want to line up the ducks correctly in Paragraph 3, religious fanatics who act contrary to Reason and Science, line up with ideologically driven global warming deniers, who also act contrary to Reason and Science. Rational people follow the scientific consensus.

    Paragraph 4. Yep. The Earth can wipe us out. Not much we can do about that. But to kick an own goal by wiping ourselves out, is just stupid. Eddie. Look up Pascal’s wager. He says you may as well wager that god exists because if he does, you’re in heaven, and if he doesn’t you haven’t lost anything anyway. To act or not to act on global warming is a Pascal’s wager. If we act, and global warming was real, we go to heaven. If we act, and it wasn’t real, we’ve sent Saudi Arabia broke and replaced a finite energy source with an infinite energy source. Win / Win.

    If the movement of atheism supported by this website is to go forward, we should be careful not to pepper the website with ‘pet-beliefs’ which the facts of the situation do not dictate.

    This is not just a movement “of (for??) atheism”. Reason and Science. It’s in the title page. It’s interesting that you consider it a personal “pet belief” that humans are warming the planet by burning carbon. You couch it as though it’s something I just thought up last Monday and kinda like the way it rolls off my tongue. You are suggesting that it is just a whimsical fantasy. This is where Reason and Science kick in. To be consider a person for whom the term Reason and Science could realistically apply, requires your views to be founded on Reason and Science. There is also an obligation on you, being a Reason and Science person, to change your mind, as the Reason and Science changes. That is by definition, a scientific skeptic. The prevailing Reason and Science is overwhelming in its evidence that we are warming the planet through burning carbon. If you disagree with the Reason and Science that supports this position, it means you are in denial. You are denying a scientific position without evidence. Another group that we frequently come in contact does the same thing. The religious believe in god on the basis of faith. Faith is defined as a belief in something in the absence of evidence, or contrary to the evidence. This is the definition of a global warming denier.

    So Eddie, if you are in fact a denier of Reason and Science, then you are placing yourself squarely in the same team as the religious fanatic. I would encourage your to stick around and follow the discussions. This is one of the most rational places on the internet. Slowly over time, you will understand the scientific method wins over ideology. That Reason and Science produces a better world, than denial of evidence. That morality and good behaviour fall out of rational discourse, not a holy book. It’s a wonderful place to hang up with some great minds. If you post stuff that is stupid, you will be supplied with evidence to improve your position. See ya around.



    Report abuse

  • Eddie Oct 23, 2014 at 1:02 am

    I am concerned that this website which SHOULD be focused on the challenges posed by the religious among us dilutes its credibility by embracing the ‘world is melting’ fanatics. Facts should support any supposition.

    Oh dear! Perhaps you should have read the figures on the gigatonnes of ice-sheets which are melting, (in the post just before yours) before making a fool of yourself, claiming the space agency scientists are ‘world is melting’ fanatics.

    Are world temps increasing? They seem to be, but then again the relatively brief amount of time that humans have been tracking such things bears the problem of basing suppositions on very limited information.

    Your understanding may be limited to a very brief history, but the climate science has records going back centuries, millennia, and millions of years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    The other problem is properly assessing the affect humans have upon the process.

    Not really! The isotopes from fossil carbon show the human generated percentage of atmospheric CO2. There are also the world trade figures, which record the year-on-year billions of tons of coal, gas and oil burned.

    Methane is a far more problematic gas in terms of the greenhouse effect, than CO2.

    Methane has about 10 times the greenhouse effect of CO2, but it breaks down very much more quickly so its effects are short lived.

    Beyond animals, decaying vegetation (both terrestrial sources and from our oceans) are contributors of massive amounts of methane (which again is MANY times more effective greenhouse gas than CO2).

    That is part of the natural cycle which has the human CO2 contribution in addition to it. There are however additions from natural feed-backs CAUSED by warming. (Out gassing of methane, forest and peat fires, CO2 releases from warmed oceans)

    The ‘frightening’ part is when you bring this up to what I’d call ‘global warming fanatics’ they verbally attack you in the same knee-jerk way that a holder of religious beliefs inflict upon non-believers.

    It is understandable that when some ignoramuses call leading scientists “fanatics”, that the scientists tend to demolish their lame arguments pretty swiftly, and suggest that they learn something about the subject from reputable scientific journals, rather than copying drivel from scientifically illiterate journalists, and dishonest websites sponsored by the carbon industries.
    The consensus view among expert climate scientists is absolutely clear.
    http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

    I guess humans want to think more of themselves than what they really are – just a differently evolved level of animal.

    Some do!

    The Earth has survived tectonic shift, constant bombardment by meteorites and cosmic radiation, reversal of the magnetic poles, tidal waves, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes… yet humans have the gall to think THEY are a threat to the planet.

    Humans are no threat to the planet – just to themselves and many other life forms. If humans decide to boil themselves into extinction the planet and simple life forms will continue for billions of years.

    When the Earth tires of us (so-to-speak) it can rid itself of us easily – I’d guess a virus will do us in at some point.

    That seems unlikely to exterminate ALL, although a virus could cause great mortalities. –

    The Earth isn’t going anywhere and will be JUST fine – we will be leaving though at some point. :0)

    Some of us may head off into space if that becomes a political priority, rather than spending on wars and consumer luxuries.

    If the movement of atheism supported by this website is to go forward,

    This site also supports science and evidenced reasoning.

    we should be careful not to pepper the website with ‘pet-beliefs’ which the facts of the situation do not dictate.

    I agree! You really should look at evidence to support views you post here, rather than copying the “pet beliefs” of the ignorant in the denial of science!



    Report abuse

  • Eddie, why are we so sure about this planet age? How many years has been human species unconsiciously spoiling its atmosphere? Why trust some facts and not others? all coming from people who have worked hard figuring all these facts. You trust the earth is 4.5 billion years old but dismiss the overhelming facts. Besides, how you compare the time of rock formation with evidence formation, come on



    Report abuse

  • Eddie Oct 23, 2014 at 1:02 am

    I am concerned that this website which SHOULD be focused on the challenges posed by the religious among us dilutes its credibility by embracing the ‘world is melting’ fanatics. Facts should support any supposition.

    Should you wish to study evidence and facts about ice loss, I posted these links to scientific research in this earlier comment, which was in response to a question I was asked (albeit on the wrong thread)!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/10/worlds-most-asked-questions-how-old-is-earth/#li-comment-158326



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Timothy McNamara says:

    Nice to read your words again Alan, after a long absence on my part. Not tip-top mentally recently, but can see why I remember holding you (You’re apparently amnesia and PTSD proof) as the pinnacle of message-board educators, hard working people that spend more time typing words that better society, than many paid lecturers or professors. What I sought to point out when logging in, is a response type we all have heard. My Uncle, upon being presented verbally that Septmember 2014 was the hottest September on record, said “They say hottest on record all the time nowadays”.

    “They say hottest on record all the time nowadays”. Well Fuck.

    Let’s beat our words against ignorance rather than our heads against walls, where possible.



    Report abuse

  • 14
    henrycavanagh says:

    This is a ridiculous comment. You use the term ‘global warming fanatics’. No, Global warming is a fact. And is supported by the facts. And global warming deniers use the same warping of limited cherrypicked facts to weave a disreputable and totally false cloak of respectability. It is apparent to me you have not objectively investigated the facts. The tactics of these deniers are similar to those religious fanatics who want to suppress the facts of evolution and foist their own silly views on people (mostly because they are insecure in their own psyches and cannot accept a diminished role in the world’s history of life).



    Report abuse

  • henrycavanagh Oct 25, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    The tactics of these deniers are similar to those religious fanatics who want to suppress the facts of evolution and foist their own silly views on people . .. .

    That covers the gullible deniers.
    We should also remember the wilfully dishonest deniers working for their commercial vested interests.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/harvard-historian-denial-strategy-extremely-successful.html

    One of the most startling revealing aspects of the book was how some of the same institutions and individuals who held out against a wave of scientific warnings about the health impacts of tobacco smoke became integral to efforts to block any meaningful policy response to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Q: Merchants of Doubt looked at the role of think tanks, vested interests and free market ideologies in attacking the science linking fossil fuel burning to climate change, smoking to cancer, pollution to acid rain and CFCs to the ozone hole. Four years later, has anything changed?

    Not really. There are some new faces on the horizon, but recruiting “fresh voices” has been a tactic for a long time. So even the things that may look new are in fact old. The Heartland Institute has become more visible, and the George Marshall Institute a bit less, but the overall picture continues: these groups continue to dismiss or disparage the science, attack scientists, and sow doubt.

    They continue to try to block action by confusing us about the facts. And the arguments, the tactics, and the overall strategy has remained the same. And, they’ve been extremely successful. CO2 has reached 400 ppm, meaningful action is still not in sight, and people who really understand the science—understand what is at stake—are getting very worried.



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile in England monitoring increases in accuracy again!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29789208

    Funding has been confirmed for a £97m supercomputer to improve the Met Office’s weather forecasting and climate modelling.

    The facility will work 13 times faster than the current system, enabling detailed, UK-wide forecast models with a resolution of 1.5km to be run every single hour, rather than every three.

    It will be built in Exeter during 2015 and become operational next September.

    The Met Office said it would deliver a “step change” in forecast accuracy.

    “It will allow us to add more precision, more detail, more accuracy to our forecasts on all time scales for tomorrow, for the next day, next week, next month and even the next century,” said Met Office chief executive Rob Varley.

    As well as running UK-wide and global forecasting models more frequently, the new technology will allow particularly important areas to receive much more detailed assessment.

    For example, forecasts of wind speeds, fog and snow showers could be delivered for major airports, with a spatial resolution of 300m.

    ….. . . . . . . ……

    It makes us world leaders not only in talking about the weather, but forecasting it too”

    Greg Clark, MP Minister for Universities and Science

    … . . . . . . . …

    The extra capacity will also be useful for climate scientists, who need massive amounts of computing power to run detailed models over much longer time scales.

    It will address one of the key challenges of climate projections – to “answer the real questions people need to know”, said Mr Varley.

    “We can tell you that the global average temperature is going to increase by 3C or 4C if we carry on as we are – but the critical question is what is that going to mean for London?

    “What is it going to mean for Scotland? What is it going to mean for my back garden? At the moment the general looks that we can produce really don’t answer those kinds of questions,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today.

    The new system will be housed partly at the Met Office headquarters in Exeter and partly at a new facility in the Exeter Science Park, and will reach its full capacity in 2017.

    At that point, its processing power will be 16 petaflops – meaning it can perform 16 quadrillion calculations every second.

    The “Cray XC40” machine will have 480,000 central processing units or CPUs, which is 12 times as many as the current Met Office supercomputer, made by IBM. At 140 tonnes, it will also be three times heavier.



    Report abuse

  • The new IPCC report has come out and reiterates what many well informed people have been saying for years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29855884

    The unrestricted use of fossil fuels must end soon if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.

    That is the central message of a stark new report from the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    The IPCC urges that by 2050, most of the world’s electricity must – and can – be produced from low carbon sources.

    Fossil fuels, without carbon capture and storage (CCS), should be phased out “almost entirely” by 2100.

    The short Synthesis Report was published on Sunday in Copenhagen, after a week of intense debate between scientists and government officials.

    The report says the world faces “severe, pervasive and irreversible” impacts without effective action on carbon.

    “It’s very clear from the report that fossil fuels have had their day,” said Prof Arthur Petersen from UCL and a member of the Dutch government’s team in Copenhagen.

    “Of course it is up to politicians to decide which risks they want to take with climate change, so it is not policy prescriptive in saying that these reductions should take place, but it is absolutely clear that the reductions should take place if you want to limit (temperature increases) to 2C.”

    . . . . . .

    For electricity production, this would mean a rapid move away from coal and into renewables and other low carbon forms, including nuclear.

    The report suggests renewables will have to grow from their current 30% share to 80% of the power sector by 2050.

    In the longer term the report states “fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100”.

    . . . . . .

    Three previous reports from the IPCC, issued over the past 13 months, have outlined the causes, the impacts and the potential solutions to climate change.

    . . . . .

    In their discussions on fossil fuels, there was a fierce battle over a chart that showed how much the electricity sector needed to curb its carbon.

    According to one observer, “the Saudis went ballistic” over its inclusion.

    Another significant fight was over the inclusion of text about Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    It quickly became a standoff between those who want the focus to be on cutting emissions against those who think the right to develop economies must come first.

    An unlikely alliance between Bolivia and Saudi Arabia ultimately saw the section dropped entirely from the underlying report.



    Report abuse

  • While the Earth heats up, the brain-dead carbon-stooge politicians, are still making perverse decisions and spouting PR rubbish!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29985382

    The report said G20 nations had been spending almost $90bn a year on finding more oil, gas and coal

    World governments have been breaking promises to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, a report says.

    The Overseas Development Institute says G20 nations spent almost £56bn ($90bn) a year finding oil, gas and coal.

    It comes despite evidence that two thirds of existing reserves must be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change.

    A government spokesman said the North Sea oil and gas industry “creates jobs and generates investment” in the UK.

    . . . . .

    However, the report said subsidies were irrational, a waste of public money and harmful to the environment.

    With rising costs for hard-to-reach fossil fuel reserves – together with falling coal and oil prices – renewable energy was a better way to invest taxpayers’ funds, it added.

    The report’s authors said the UK had introduced national subsidies for exploration valued at up to £757 million a year.

    Those included tax breaks for North Sea exploration worth £528 million to Total (HQ France), £256 million to Statoil (Norway), £144 million to Centrica (UK) and £45 million to Chevron (USA) between 2009 and 2014.

    The report also traced G20 governments’ funding of fossil fuel exploration overseas.

    The UK has been spending £418 million annually in public finance for exploration in Siberia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Guinea and Ghana, it said. The funding was through export finance guarantees.

    The USA has been spending £883 million annually in public finance for overseas exploration in Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia, the report added.

    The same Luddite, apologist stooges, are dithering over getting proper investment in the urgently needed renewable energy power sources, and creating jobs in sectors which have a future!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.