Skip to content

NASA Successfully Eliminates the 1998 El Nino

August 17, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




From Climate Change Dispatch:


Has anyone looked at the recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis? A chart of it was used in a recent Australian Broadcasting Company debate on global warming to make the case that surface temperatures have risen continuously during the past 20 years.






There’s a pretty blatant problem with the NASA chart, however. And it’s a fault that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of climate studies would recognize.

The NASA GISS analysis essentially eliminates the 1998 El Niño. Instead of the ’98 El Niño towering above neighboring years, thanks to its massive release of stored Pacific Ocean heat content, 1998 is simply depicted as one rung on an ever-climbing temperature ladder. And then, suddenly, there’s 2016, with an El Niño that explodes far above all of the preceding years.

If one hasn’t studied any recent climate data, then the chart looks plausible. After all, it was produced by NASA…

But the NASA GISS analysis contradicts every other recent measure of global temperatures. Specifically, the 1998 El Niño produced a major spike in temperature readings and one that the 2016 El Niño has been hard-pressed to beat. (An intervening El Niño in 2010 was far smaller by comparison.) But net global temperatures essentially flatlined in the intervening period of 1998-2016.

None of this is discernible in the NASA GISS analysis, however. And so, it’s disturbing that NASA is promoting such a graph—and that climate alarmists are using it without either knowing or caring that it is based on a very distorted representation of temperature data.

This sort of deception isn’t a complete surprise, though, given the questionable study published last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But it reveals the degree to which academic and government elites will pursue their own agenda at the expense of institutional honesty.

  1. August 17, 2016 10:34 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The latest NASA – scientific fraud – update…

    “it’s disturbing that NASA is promoting such a graph—and that climate alarmists are using it without either knowing or caring that it is based on a very distorted representation of temperature data.”

  2. NeilC permalink
    August 17, 2016 10:35 am

    Nothing less than fraudulent. Not only does this reflect the depths that climate science has sunk, but it reflects across all of science, academia and politics. What a sad sad world we live in.

  3. Ian George permalink
    August 17, 2016 10:38 am

    The graph shown above is the newly released ‘Version 5’.
    I haven’t checked yet, but the one Cox used was the ‘Version 4’ shown here.

    Here’s GISS graph from around 2009.

    Note the number of years that are now above 0.6C when only 2005 is above in the 2009 graph.

  4. Don B permalink
    August 17, 2016 10:44 am

    Even “consensus” climatologists concede that warming has slowed this century, despite increases in carbon dioxide.

    “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. – Fyfe et al.”

  5. August 17, 2016 10:55 am

    I cannot access the older pages through the Wayback Machine, so I guess screen shots are in order.

    Can we look forward to the 2016 El Nino being eliminated if temperatures start to drop? I would guess the answer is a resounding “YES”. How to lie with statistics has nothing on these people.

  6. August 17, 2016 11:43 am

    In today’s society the worst thing you can be is “inconvenient” to someone. Apparently that applies to El Nino also. Both can get you eliminated.

  7. Malcolm Bell permalink
    August 17, 2016 12:45 pm

    I look forward to Professor Cox’s considered response. I presume he will just dismiss Paul’s analysis as not from the overwhelming consensus.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    August 17, 2016 12:59 pm

    The 2015-16 El-Nino is currently in neutral (“El-Nada”) on its way to La-Nina. On a three-month basis it has been warmer than 1997-98 but it is weakening.

    The Hadley Met Office monthly data (NINO 3.4) show 2016 warmer than 1998 for the last two months so it’s unlikely that the incoming La-Nina will be as strong as 1998-99?

    These are, of course, Pacific sea surface temperatures.

  9. August 17, 2016 1:07 pm

    NASA and DOE have successfully hidden from the public the nature of the source of energy that made our elements, birthed the solar system, controls Earth’s climate and sustains our lives for decades. Such abuse of government science to deceive the public might have continued undetected, if not for the Climategate emails that surfaced in Nov 2009.

  10. August 17, 2016 1:18 pm

    I don’t think any of the global surface temperature anomaly estimates have ever shown a towering 1998, at least not near as much as the satellite derived global lower tropospheric temperature estimates. For some reason, the global surface estimates show a much higher relative spike with the 2015-16 El Nino than with the 1998-99 El Nino and I suspect it may be related to very high 2015-16 temperature anomalies in the Arctic adding on to the El Nino effect (which did not happen in 1998). Both the satellite and surface estimates show much closer agreement for the 2015-16 high spike, but not for 1998-99 high spike, and I am not sure why.

    • Broadlands permalink
      August 17, 2016 2:57 pm

      Oz… In the US 48 states the “towering spike” was in 2012. Even with that “spike” the annual average temperature trend since 1998 has been down, with the strongest downward trend in the winter (DJF).

      It is interesting? that in 1998 there were 10 contiguous states that experienced record high annual values…all of them in the East and Northeast. 1997-98 El-Nino? Or UHI? Those states are also among those with the highest population densities…a coincidence?

    • A C Osborn permalink
      August 17, 2016 4:12 pm

      Take a look at the GHCN V1 data shown on Clive Best’s Post here

      I would say over 0.5 degree in 2 years is pretty towering compared to the 100ths of a degree they talk about today.

      • August 17, 2016 8:51 pm

        A C, thanks for the link. I haven’t been to Clive’s web site for awhile and missed that excellent post. I didn’t realize that in “CRUTEM3 they used (NH+SH)/2 but then switched to (2NH+SH)/3 for CRUTEM4”. Seems absurd to me and contrived to falsely exaggerate global warming. His Figure 5 shows little impact on 1998, but a significant high bias introduced since then. His Figure 2 also shows an artificial lowering of the estimated global temperature anomalies before about 1940, very similar to what Tony Heller has shown from tampering by NASA GISS. Funny how these “corrections” always make the past colder and the present warmer. What a coincidence. 😉

  11. tonyfromct permalink
    August 17, 2016 1:55 pm

    The alarmists become more brazen as the evidence mounts against their psuedo-scientific position. Give this chart a few more weeks and it will become incontrovertible fact that we are soon to be doomed.

  12. August 17, 2016 2:12 pm

    Dr. Humlum puts all of this into context, and provides graphs to counter people like Brain Cox.

  13. August 17, 2016 3:58 pm

    NASA: we don’t need no stinking data!

  14. August 17, 2016 7:03 pm

    Reblogged this on How to s..t on humans and commented:
    From “not a lot of people know that” about NASA’s world temperature anomaly estimate.

  15. August 18, 2016 7:01 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: