Sept_globalstats_300

Last Month was 2nd Warmest September Ever Recorded

News by NOAA
(October 21, 2009) in Society / Environment

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.


NCDC scientists also reported that the average land surface temperature for September was the second warmest on record, behind 2005. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was tied for the fifth warmest on record for September.


Global Temperature Highlights

  • The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.12 degrees F above the 20th century average of 59.0 degrees F. Separately the global land surface temperature was 1.75 degrees F above the 20th century average of 53.6 degrees F.

  • Warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed most of the world’s land areas during the month. The greatest warmth occurred across Canada and the northern and western contiguous United States. Warmer-than-normal conditions also prevailed across Europe, most of Asia and Australia.

  • The worldwide ocean temperature tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest September on record, 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 61.1 degrees F. The near-Antarctic southern ocean and the Gulf of Alaska featured notable cooler-than-average temperatures.


Other Highlights

  • Arctic sea ice covered an average 2.1 million square miles in September - the third lowest for any September since records began in 1979. The coverage was 23.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and the 13th consecutive September with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.

  • Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent on record, behind 2006 and 2007.

  • Typhoon Ketsana became 2009’s second-deadliest tropical cyclone so far, claiming nearly 500 lives across the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The storm struck the Philippines on September 26, leaving 80 percent of Manila submerged.


Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NCDC’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. The data have a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.


NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • LagerHead
    I wonder

    If this is like 2006 being the warmest year on record. Even though it wasn't the warmest year on record. With more and more of this global warming hysteria being debunked almost daily, I'm more than just a bit skeptical.

    And I can tell you for certain, that it absolutely, positively wasn't even close to the warmest September where I live.

    - LagerHeadUS October 21, 2009 1:25PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • State of Reason
      Care to back that up?

      Both the part about 2006 being claimed as the warmest on record and it being disproved. As I remember it was 2005 that was supposed to be the warmest.

      Also they did not say this was the warmest year. They said it's the warmest September. Very different. Don't get caught up in the hysteria. :)

      It wasn't the warmest Sept where you live? You mean increases in global average temp don't mean universal increase in temp everywhere on the planet? OMG! Call the scientists!! You are aware of the difference between weather and climate right? And the difference between local and global?

      - State of ReasonUS October 21, 2009 3:30PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • LagerHead
        Thanks for the elementary vocab lesson

        But try to keep up. First, here is the revised data from NASA showing that 1934, not 1998 (sorry for the error on 2006, but it was more to show my skepticism than to paint a scientific fact - I will slap my hand now) is the hottest year on record. Revised, because some schmoe on the Internet was able to find the "error" that NASA, conveniently, was not.

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D .txt

        Second, I know the difference between a year and a month, but again, I was asking if the same kind of data that said 1998 was the warmest YEAR on record, showed that September 2009 was the warmest MONTH on record. If so, maybe we could get the schmoe alluded to earlier to help out with that.

        Third, thank you for pointing out that even my fat ass doesn't cover the entire planet and therefore doesn't constitute the entire data set. And yes, I am aware of the difference between climate and weather and local and global. But thanks once again for being there for me.

        I also know the difference between irrational hysteria perpetuated by liars and crooks with an agenda (i.e. Al Gore and Stephen Schneider) and honest debate. Do you? If so, you have to ask yourself why Schneider, a "leading" proponent of global warming , was just 20 or 30 years ago warming of the impending ice age, triggered by the very same fossil fuels that he is now warning is going to burn us all. Is it possible that he was wrong then and he is wrong now? I'm just asking. That is the spirit in which my original post was intended.

        - LagerHeadUS October 21, 2009 3:52PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MrBook
          impending

          The so called impending upcoming ice age was a minority position that received some media coverage. Even back then the research was starting to indicate a warming trend.

          - MrBookUS October 21, 2009 8:46PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • caelum
      Very little

      of the science has been "debunked." You can find anomalous examples that are inconsistent, but this has to do with chaotic dynamics in fluid behavior.

      Individual years are actually irrelevant in climate science, anyway. This has a variety of explanations which could literally take me pages to explain about various cycles, navier-stokes curling, orbital tilts, solar variations etc etc. The only people that really care about individual years are media figures. What matters is periods of years, and if you look at periods of years, it's entirely consistent.

      2002 - 2006 was warmer than 1930 - 1934, and 1998 - 2002 was much warmer than either of them. That's what really matters. 1934 actually saw a surge in warmth because of well-understood orbital and solar patterns, whereas this is not true of the recent warming behavior. It's impossible that is the current cause of the warming, though.

      For the "warmest year" you can get a variety of data based on whose methods of measurement you used and whether we are talking about atmospheric or oceanic temperatures. What really matters is the long-term patterns over several year period, and the analysis on that is clear - we are getting warmer.

      The NASA error you were referring to was a computer glitch, not a science glitch. Luckily we have countless other agencies that can replicate data so we know the numbers are consistent regardless of a single error.

      - caelumUS October 22, 2009 2:01AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • LagerHead
        Still shady.

        Was they "hockey stick" graph a computer glitch? I don't think so. I think it was an intentional attempt to further an agenda by leaving out data that directly refuted the statement they were trying to make.

        How about Greenpeace's statement - later recanted - that the arctic would be ice free by 2030? Was that a computer glitch? Or was it again, another attempt to further an agenda via misinformation?

        Then there's Gore's hysteria about the declining polar bear population. Except it isn't declining, even if he refuses to admit it.

        The point here is the point I have made against the anti-gun campaigns. If you have to lie to further your agenda, then the public should be asking whether the agenda is really worth furthering in the first place.

        And as to MrBook's point about the impending ice age: it may have been a minority opinion, but I was taught it in school , so it wasn't exactly fringe stuff. Regardless, my point there was whether we should be skeptical of someone who adamantly claimed we were heading for an ice age, but now claims we're heading for heading for a fiery inferno.

        Besides, we are not even close the warmest the earth has ever been. The earth was much warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland, and that was way before all the man-made CO2 emissions. And there have been substantially cooler periods when the CO2 was much higher.

        I think there are much more pressing pollution problems that need to be addressed that have real ramifications on our daily lives, but they are being ignored because this " global warming " hysteria is the cause du jour.

        - LagerHeadUS October 22, 2009 8:16AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • caelum
          Comment is apparently too long ....

          I somehow wasted 1/2 hour doing this. I'm upset because I had worked to do. Anyway, split this up into multiple comments due to character limitations. It's hard to respond to your claims in short language =(

          The Hockey Stick graph "controversy" isn't really that big of a deal.

          There was a question about 2 papers' methodology by Mann. However, the few dozen other papers that got similar results had no statistical or methodological concerns and retrieved similar results, something conveniently overlooked by skeptics . The original objectors, non-scientists McInytre and McKitrick, did not publish their results in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's not surprising, since their objections were garbage despite Congress having a little hissy fit about it because they thought they could vindicate their believe that global warming doesn't exist. In fact, the article was refused by Nature because it did not meet scientific standards (although the two authors lie and say it was some bogus time issue, which is completely contrary to Nature policy). Anyway, they essentially claimed the graph of the 1998 to then present reconstruction was some type of artifact due to a use of series with infilled data and the manner in which some data were represented using principal component analysis. However, McInytre and McKitrick did not understand that the PCA doesn't affect orthonormality and the completeness of eigenvector basis sets (it's pretty standard statistics and embarrassing that they didn't know this). In essence, the objectors were wrong - really wrong. The statistical shortcomings of Mann's paper were actually inconsequential to the overall result and for entirely different reasons than the original objectors contended.

          Not to mention, Mann's work has been reaffirmed by several studies by Rutherford, the American Meteorological Society; a paper out by Wahl and Amman in geophysical letters; the National Research Councils report confirms the overall accuracy of their findings while citing slight statistical errors that weren't particularly relevant to the overall graph structure and statement.

          The statistical errors were demonstrated by the Wegman Report (who's methodology is questionable anyway since it's not peer reviewed and no one can see the support of their claims but whatever) at a Congressional level. However, the report fails to recognize that once corrected - the graph barely even changes, making the criticism irrelevant to the overall claim. The difference in the record is virtually non-existant, so the Wegman report was another claim over-hyped by skeptics looking for anything.

          So, in short, the "controversy" was brought on by non-scientists who have a political agenda. There is no "real" controversy about the graph. If it were not for moronic politicians, this would have been a quiet issue amongst scientists who were already well aware of the insignificant short-comings in Mann's report and were already being corrected by other authors before the "controversy" even started.

          - caelumUS October 22, 2009 10:40AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • caelum
          And More

          The Greenpeace report was a misunderstanding. Their own press release is badly phrased, but it is clear that ice-free summers are referring to the lack of polar sea ice, rather than land ice, which is not a strech at all. This controversy is about the media 's inability to understand scientific nuances and that fact Greenpeace's director didn't read his own press releases and so wasn't able to clarify it properly in an interview .

          Regardless, Geenpeace is not a scientific establishment so I don't really care what they think.

          The Polar Bear population levels are not evidence for or against global warming . You can't say "polar bear population decline means the earth is warming" that's illogical. It's a ploy done by media and public officials (like Al Gore) to play on people's heartstrings to support a cause for the cute polar bears. It's only logical that with melting sea ice they won't be able to get food and will die off in the next 30-50 years. If they can't eat, they would die. There isn't too much to that. However, I don't follow the population of polar bears so I had to dig a little research on this. This appears to be another disingenuous claim by skeptics that, once again, fails to account for the nuances.

          It appears that severe hunting put them at near extinction, and then conservation efforts caused them to grow in huge numbers post 1960s, but that is now suffering. Furthermore, population measurement of polar bears were limited then and so nobody can say just how much the numbers have grown by (just that they have grown relatively substantially). For recent times though, the "official" report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group is much more bleak. The 2005 report shows a mix of declining and stable populations in the sub-populations, but some have a "very high" or "higher" risk for further decline; with most having insufficient data to say either way. The preliminary announcement for the 2009 conference appears to be the situation has gotten worse, with a press release citing that "PBSG concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend."

          I had to look up the links for this comment since I didn't know either way, rather than off my memory, so I'll just post them.

          http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

          http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/15-Copenhagen.html

          BTW, I can't be sure those claims are accurate since I know very little about ecological techniques and conservation ecology . I'm taking it on faith since I'm not qualified to read their techniques and whether their population estimation methods meet the scientific standard for this. On face value, given my limited knowledge, it seems reasonable though.

          On the note of global cooling, it was always fringe stuff. The fact it was taught in your school just tells me whoever taught it didn't know what they were talking about. The media trumped it up and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists were saying that the information was inconclusive and no conclusion could be made. In fact, a study by Peterson in Bulletins of the American Meteorological Society found only 7 papers published in that time period, which only garnered 12% of citations during the 70s - almost all of which were other scientists debunking them.

          Wrong studies are published often by a few mediocre / poor scientists (and sometimes even good ones, although less rare obviously), and then the scientific community comes along and goes "uh, you guys are retarded" and piles on massive evidence against them. It is not a case against global warming because the media is retarded and can't understand how the scientific process works and they thought the idea of an imminent ice-age was a more interesting position than the majority of the scientific communities position that "we can't tell given the data, it's too limited."

          - caelumUS October 22, 2009 10:40AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • caelum
          And last bit

          Your Viking point is irrelevant. Temperature can be influenced by many factors, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't have to prompt it. Just because temperature rose without human industry prior, doesn't mean we aren't causing it now. The evidence points to us causing it, though, since natural phenomena cannot explain the current behavior. You are incorrect on your point about that time period though. The Earth wasn't "much warmer", only the North Atlantic was slightly warmer whereas the average planetary temperature was cooler.

          Furthermore, this wasn't without consequence either. There were droughts during that period in North America on substantial scales and archaeological evidence shows that, in North America, there was a collapse of culture and massive death. Maybe that's something we have to look forward too!

          You're point about substantially cooler periods with greater carbon dioxide fails to address that carbon dioxide does not cause immediate warming. There is a delay that can range from decades to even thousands of years, due to a whole host of factors. When you adjust for this delay and accounting for Milankovitch cycles, some orbital factors, axial stochasticity etc you can get a very, very good match. Nobody expects instant carbon dioxide to bring instant warming.

          I consider the possibility of a repeat of massive droughts during the Medieval Warming Period causing death and collapse of culture in North America to be a real ramification that could affect the daily life of myself or the future of society .

          Regardless, I think we both can agree we find Al Gore annoying though ...

          - caelumUS October 22, 2009 10:41AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Even a three year old can grasp the beauty of nature and understand the ramifications of pollution and global warming.

-- Blog on Smog

See Related...