Fifteen Hottest Years Prior To 2015 Were All Increased By An Average Of 0.05 C.

“The ranks and temperature anomalies in the annual reports represent the values known at the time when each report was issued. The actual ranks will change as subsequent years are added to the dataset. The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved”.

Anomalies Increased        Click to enlarge

The chart on the left shows the amended anomalies, (the amount of warming above 13.9o Celsius, the 20th century average annual global temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces, for each of the fifteen hottest years prior to the Paris Conference in 2015.

The original anomalies for each individual year can be obtained by going to NOAA climate report and submitting the year.

Unfortunately the NOAA global temperature reports appear to be only available from 1997 onward and the previous yearly reports appear to have dealt with global weather events only.

The raised temperatures from an otherwise flat period have been made to look more in proportion to the increased anomalies of world temperatures in 2015 and 2016.

For example, 20014


was increased by (0.05 C) to 0.74 C, in 2013 by (0.05 C) to 0.67 C, in 2012 by (0.05 C) to 0.62 C and in 2011 by (o.06 C) to 0.57 C. The largest increases from the original reports in individual years occurred in 2010 by (0.08 C) to 0.70 C, in 2009 by (0.08 C) to 0.64 C, in 2005 by (0.08 C) to 0.66 C and in 2006 by (0.07 C) to 0.61 C.

NOAA used wrong baseline.  Click to enlarge

The 1997 NOAA report, on left, recorded a temperature of 16.91 C when it used the wrong baseline average, instead of 13.90 C plus the anomaly of 0.42 C, it used a baseline of 16.50 C when it posted a global temperature of 16.91 C, three degrees warmer than the average global temperature of today.

Statement from Tom Karl of  NOAA…1997 “For 1997, land and ocean temperatures averaged three quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (F) (0.42 degrees Celsius (C)) above normal. (Normal is defined by the mean temperature, 61.7 degrees F (16.5 degrees C), for the 30 years 1961-90)”.

“With the new data factored in, global temperature warming trends now exceed 1.0 degree F (0.55 degrees C) per 100 years, with land temperatures warming at a somewhat faster rate”. “It is likely that the sustained trend toward increasingly warmer global temperatures is related to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases”, Karl said.

This might explain why the temperatures of previous years were not listed due to NOAA using the wrong data in the decades earlier.

Average Temperature per Decade
Click to enlarge

NASA recorded a temperature anomaly of 0.47 C for 1997 and the Met Office 0.39 C, which when added to the 20th century baseline of 13.90 C, recorded temperatures of 14.37 C and 14.29 C respectively.

Various climate data sets have put the average world temperature for the period 2011-2017 at 14.63 C which is nearly one degree Celsius above the average for the decade 1881-1890. However there had been no significant warming until after the decade ending in 1980, (13.95 C to 14.63 C) to the period ending in 2017, an increase of 0.68 C.

The average so far for the 2011 to 2017 period, which includes the El Nino event in 2014-2016, would have been greater had it not been for cooler years in 2011 to 2013, 2017 and 2018.  The IPCC have stated that at least half the warming since 1951, when recorded temperatures beforehand were regarded as unreliable, were due to anthopogenic activities.


Section 14 2.2.2. 2001 IPCC assessment report

The Science is Settled              Click to enlarge

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible, in climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.


  1. Gardiner says:

    This does not seem like a reliable temperature measuring outfit when you see miscalculations up to 0.08 C on three occasions. The temperature increases in the years prior to 2015 are interesting because they allowed NOAA to announce there was no “PAUSE” in warming prior to the Paris climate conference. There is no annual temperature indicated for 1998 on the website but the anomaly of 0.60 C was listed and increased to 0.63 C on your chart.

  2. Reg says:

    What are we doing about plastics aren’t they made from fossil fuels? Surely a greater threat to the planet and mankind than the warming of the planet when our oceans and the food chain within them become toxic with micro plastic garbage. Every thing we touch and use today is embodied with carbon. Using renewable power instead of coal is a good thing but why are we increasing our exportation of it? Because we are not burning the coal they say it can’t be included in our emissions….really? Then we import cheaper goods that are made from the coal which are embodied with carbon.

  3. Courvent says:

    No matter whether the climate change theory is genuine or not we are still interested in solar panels and would like to get off the grid if the battery technology would make it viable. There is so much money tied up in this global warming industry that it will be difficult to obtain a soft landing if the planet starts to cool significantly.
    NOAA have been quite open about the mistakes they made in 1997, but the altering of reports in the fifteen years leading up to 2015 without releasing it to the public is another matter.
    Meanwhile the Met office have declared no warming in the same period followed by spike caused by the El Nino event in 2015, 2016 and 2017 then starting to decline again in 2018.

  4. Charles says:

    To claim unprecedented warming of the planet you have to ignore ice core evidence that confirmed there was the medieval warming period which was much warmer than today followed by the little ice age. This appeared on the IPCC assessment papers but was removed and replaced with Michael Mann’s Hockey stick graph garnered from unreliable tree ring data.

  5. Courvent says:

    Ice core samples were even able to show how dusty Australia was hundreds of years ago. Why aren’t our kids and left wing teachers protesting against the plastic garbage that is choking our oceans and waterways and the Micro plastics in the fish that we are eating.

  6. Elmer Gantry says:

    We will be struggling to meet the demand for electricity from households, industry and infrastructure if we are to rely on intermittent power let alone what would be required to charge the batteries of Millions of electric vehicles and that’s not including a further demand for the manufacture of batteries…good luck with that!

  7. David says:

    The Liberal and National Leadership should have been out promoting the virtues of Australia’s coal to constituents and school children. They should have campaigned around the fact that Carbon is a food for plants and crop growth. They should have campaigned against the IPCC reports and ensured truth came first and exploitation of the minds of children second. This however would have meant that Malcolm Turnbull, Al Gore, Michael Photio, George Soros and the Merchant Bankers would not have been able to make millions of dollars for their own pockets.

  8. Lorriane says:

    Air travel causes more warming than cars, while shipping emissions exceed them both. If the kids, who wagged school to protest against the Governments inaction to deal with climate change, how about we ban all three modes of transport and while where at it ban soft drinks and beer because they contain CO2 and ban plastics and computers because they are manufactured from fossil fuels.

  9. Golly Gee says:

    Allow me to correct you on the NOAA changes. Of the 15 years leading up to 2015, 14 had been altered not 15. The average annual temperature anomalies as per the NOAA climate reports, leading up to 2018, was .63.16 C compared to .67.27 C after alterations were made. This equates to temperatures of 14.53 C and 14.57 C respectively when added to the average 20th century average global temperature of 13.90 C. It is interesting to note that NOAA matched the NASA average anomalies of .67 C, for the same period after the alterations were made, while Met Office averaged only a .54 C anomaly at an average world temperature of 14.44 C.

    • Sel Murray says:

      The NOAA climate data reports are not reliable. The 1997 debacle and the the alterations to past reports are not what you expect from an authority that the IPCC and the alarmists have relied upon to support the scam.
      Australia is reducing emissions at the expense of its economy while more than half the world’s population are increasing theirs. Countries such as China and India are increasing their numbers of coal fired power stations while we are knocking them down.

      There are so many variables that can cause climate change, the eccentricity of the Sun, natural greenhouse gases such as the effects of cloud cover, water vapor, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, variations in heat absorption of the land and sea masses, ocean, tree and plant absorption of carbon dioxide, nocturnal radiation into space, the earth’s orbit around the Sun and its polar wobble, earth’s ice changing weight load at the poles, earth’s internal core changes, extra terrestrial radiation, shifting gravity and magnetic fields and a whole host of other influences that defy computer modeling.
      The Earth’s climate is a non-linear dynamic system, being acted upon by wide ranges of many variables. It makes long-range predictions of climate patterns with computer models impossible.

  10. Adam says:

    Perhaps we could ask the truant kids, who protested about government inaction on climate change last week, what they would be prepared to give up from their 21st century quality of life for the sake of the planet…anyone?

  11. warren says:

    Greenhouse gases deliver the hope of a new order
    Howard Bloom ties all this in with catastrophic climate change, which, as readers here can tell you, is the very much hoped for fantasy of the alarmists. No matter what data refuting the doomsday scenarios are presented, the radical warmists don’t want to see or hear any of it, as it could disrupt their cherished fantasy….

  12. Margaret Bayne-West says:

    At the end of the day it will be the cost of Labor’s renewable plan that will be it’s death knell. Disinterested, apathetic voters who at present only respond avidly to the words, ‘climate change ‘ will suddenly sit up, with ears pricked and wide eyes when the first bills start coming in. The big question is whether they will notice the oncoming storm before the election, or after?

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.