January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics - 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:
UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones:
Reference: above data is HadCRUT3 column 2 which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Dr. James Hansen:
Reference: GISS dataset temperature index data
University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Dr. John Christy:
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS):
Reference: RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.1)
The purpose of this summary is to make it easy for everyone to compare the last 4 postings I’ve made on this subject.
I realize that not all the graphs are of the same scale, so my next task will be to run a combined graphic of all the data-sets on identical amplitude and time scales to show the agreements or differences such a graph would illustrate.
UPDATE: that comparison has been done here
Here is a quick comparison and average of ∆T for all metrics shown above:
| Source: | Global ∆T °C |
| HadCRUT |
- 0.595 |
| GISS | - 0.750 |
| UAH | - 0.588 |
| RSS | - 0.629 |
| Average: | - 0.6405°C |
For all four metrics the global average ∆T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: - 0.6405°C
This represents an average between the two lower troposphere satellite metrics (RSS and UAH) and the two land-ocean metrics (GISS and HadCRUT). While some may argue that they are not compatible data-sets, since they are derived by different methods (Satellite -Microwave Sounder Unit and direct surface temperature measurements) I would argue that the average of these four metrics is a measure of temperature, nearest where we live, the surface and near surface atmosphere.
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
UPDATE #2 see this post from Dr. John R. Christy on the issue.
UPDATE #3 see the post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics - 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Seems like GISS is the odd man out and should be discarded as an “adjustment”.
Anthony - if you’re going to use a common reference period, use a 30-year period that ends in 2000 (the latest decade). This is at the recommendation of the WMO.
I think that would be 71-2000 (which should still cover the “modern global warming” period).
Remember, GISS consistantly shows as the “hottest” because of the reference period (51-80, I believe), while HadCRU and NCDC use later time periods.
Why in the world should 2000 be used. we’re already almost a decade past that and inconveniently, showing, a dramatic decline in temps. This past 7 years has already given back all of the gain of the past 150 years. Shows how vulnerable the purported changes are to real results.
speaking of real results, did you know it snowed in San Diego last week?
This drop in temperature is certainly very unusual. The fall of 0.595 degrees since Jan 2007 is the largest January-to-January drop in HAD CRU3 since 1875, and the biggest drop for any 12-month interval since -0.681 degrees in February 1974.
The January temperature is the lowest for any month since 1994, and the lowest for a month unaffected by volcanic eruptions in 20 years.
January 2008 was cooler than January 1932, even after all the downwards adjustments they have applied to the old data.
Nice to see that the data with the highest decline is the GISS, which has relied on Polar Amplification to reinforce its warming position. There’s way too much noise to pluck anything of value from the N Pole data, but the MSU data shows the Extratropics have dropped 0.94 deg C in the last 12 months. That’s a chunk, to use technical language.
NOAA is still showing an elevated SOI (1.9 for January, 1.8 for December, 0.9 for November). Dependent on the time lag between the SOI and the La Nina (2 to six months typically) we’re in for some chillier weather for a couple more months, assuming one believes ENSO has an impact on global temp. It’s tough to miss.
How long can the trend continue? How long is the lag between solar and global temperature? We won’t be seeing the rest of the recent drop in TSI for a few more years now. There go a couple more tenths.
It’ll be fun to watch.
So how’s that correlation of the temperature anomaly with the atmospheric CO2 change going? /rhet
Does anyone have an early-access look at UAH or RSS data? Can we see were we stand 20 days into February?
REPLY: No. This is why I keep saying I’m not going to analyze the surfacestation data until the survey is complete. Don’t rush the science.
So, the oceans have turned cooler or at the very least stayed the same over the last few years, and the temperature of the atmosphere have cooled significantly over the last decade. The idea of “committed warming”, i.e. a strong radiative imbalance is rather hard to reconcile with the fact that the climate system has lost heat.
It should be time to
1) use a relatively short response time to perturbations for the climate system when calculating the sensitivity and
2) admit that either the sun or possibly ocean currents play a much bigger role then admitted by the IPCC.
Can I as an AGW agnostic sound a note of caution: that sudden changes in temperature are usually quickly reversed. If that happens we could soon be back in record warm temperatures.
On the other hand it is pleasant to see the low temperatures on the graph. Thank you for doing all this work.
I surely wish that we could have unadjusted records over the peroid of record. I am not a scientists but am having trouble with the current adjustments They seem to be designed to make the recent trend warmer. The raw data dosen’t seem to be doing that.
I just wonder if GISS is trying to adjust the older records up to match current UHI levels? If so they are surely being disengenious. I will not say they are deliberately changing the record, but I do have trouble in that they do seem to have personal bias toward warming and their adjustments seem to show that.
We need to get back to raw data and eliminate the microbias stations from the USHCN and start using good methodology.
From the layman’s point of view I want climate science that I can trust. If we are going to use proxies, use ones that are conclusive (not tree rings that might be moisture related, CO2 related, or temperature related).
Thanks Anthony for such a good job..
Bill
Drop about another .5C, and we’re basically back to where we were in the mid-late 1800s when the Little Ice Age ended.
I’m really, really anxious to see Feb data now.
“Seems like GISS is the odd man out and should be discarded as an “adjustment”.”
That is *exactly* what I thought the instant I saw their data. Looks like they knew they were overestimating for a long time, and this was a great time to adjust their reporting to be in line with everyone else.
REPLY: Soon, after examination of the algorithm, they may be singing “Thats the nights that the lights went out in Georgia….” There is a flaw in the adjustment, see my post on Cedarville…urban adjustment applied to a stable rural station. Nightlights is flawed.
“Lights=0″ = 0?
I wonder if there will be a scientific consensus that this temperature drop was not caused by humans?
Please keep in mind that GISS takes 1950-1980 as their reference period and not 1960-1990 as the others do. This may explain the higher values.
Hmm. I think that would only affect their baseline (i.e., “what is zero”), but not the actual raw amount of the drop (0.75C).
And this is odd, condsidering their recent adjustments to NOAA data are nil–they don’t push current temps UP (any more than the NOAA), they have been pushing past temperatures DOWN.
“I wonder if there will be a scientific consensus that this temperature drop was not caused by humans?”
No comment on the subject would probably translate to “not human”. OTOH, there are those who say “it’s Global Warming” (Dr. Pielke points this out in his blog.)
BTW, what happens when one overlays the 100-year record of NASA and NOAA (metadata) with the NOAA data (raw, with only outliers removed)?
REPLY: So many questions, not enough time.
You can actually follow daily temp UAH here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
by clicking on the graphs you could roughly calculate the temps for feb up to current but as Anthony says it wont be relaible as it’s going up and down ect but its still below (that’s the lower troposphere data)
REPLY: I’ve visited this resource and I’ve seen some errors in the way javascript presents the data on that website, so take it with some caveats that it may not accurately represent the result due to it being an interactive web application.
What stands out to me isn’t the cooling, but the discrepancies in the numbers. There are plenty of variables that could alter the absolute temperature for each study. But if these numbers truly represented a global average temperature, there should be a very high degree of agreement over the delta T. Particularly in the most recent, and presumably most reliable, numbers.
When the data for the single most precisely measured year, shows a disagreement equal to fully 1/4 of the claimed total change, the system simply isn’t knowable at a relevant level. Assuming all the numbers are gathered and adjusted in good faith, that data can only get less precise in preceding years.
GISS includes the poles - the other temperature series do not. A larger drop in GISS simply indicates that the poles got colder faster than the rest of the globe. I would not read too much into the difference between them.
That said, I am not convinced that GISS polar measurement estimates have any connection with reality but that is a seperate issue.
Patrick is absolutely right …except for the part about it being nice to see low temperatures on the graph. I am freezing.
Raven, GISS ESTIMATE the Poles , hadcru does not.
More data for the mix.
El Nino/La Nina effects on ocean temps (+/- 5 degrees from equator, 120-170 degrees West. (Celsius), 1950 to 2007
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Anthony,
When you redo the data for the temperatures to a common reference, could you make the raw data available on your website? I have some neat statistical software I am playing with, find it frustrating using all the difference data sets and don’t have a really good idea how to change it all to a common reference.
REPLY: There are links to the raw data below each graph, maybe you missed them?
Re:
“You can actually follow daily temp UAH here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
by clicking on the graphs you could roughly calculate the temps for feb up to current but as Anthony says it wont be relaible as it’s going up and down ect but its still below (that’s the lower troposphere data)”
As Anthony mentioned the page is quirky and doesn’t seem to plot properly. However, you can select show data as text and get a nice data dump for the past 10 years and then play with it in Excel. I selected 3300 ft. altitude (lower toposphere) and performed a few quick calculations.
Dec 2007 average = 270.209 Kelvin
Jan 2008 average = 269.950 deg Kelvin
Feb 2008 average (through 2/18) = 270.007 Kelvin
February to date is roughly a 0.06 deg C increase from January. However, take it with a grain of salt and please check it out yourself as this was real quick and dirty calculation.
Take a look at NOAA’s breakdown of global temps. NH land is showing a negative anomaly and is a huge 2.4C cooler than last January (no mistake in that number).
Interestingly, Jan 2008 was the warmest Jan on record in Australia. February 2008 looks like being substantially cooler. So Feb 2008 will probably see the SH ‘catching up’ with the NH.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp
Thanks for the average. Now somebody with time on their hands should average out the four time series over the whole satellite era.
Maybe there could be a consensus that, everybody should use this average of averages as a common reference base when talking about recent global temperature changes. Without an aggregate, the debate always becomes pointless as parties get to pick their favorite temperature series.
While differing baselines could displace one graph from another linearly it seems that three graphs are congruent, the other not.
I would say as a result that the work done on the fourth is not confirmed, and barring justification of the kind Raven and Steven M. are sorting out I might even call it invalid. Perhaps I’m anal, though.
Gary.
I Am toying with a statistical test.
Giss say that they know the global temp per year within +-.05C
Hadcru say the same. how close should they be? how far apart
I’ve started “Rurudyne’s Daily Global Cooling Watch” and would like any feedback or suggestion on the article I’ve assembled. The following link is to a nice, safe, non-political forum … yes, it’s a Transformers Fan Forum. –.^
http://tfarchive.com/community/showthread.php?t=43032
[...] online sources (e.g. Watts Up With That) point to other sources providing similar messages, including that the year-to-year change in [...]
“February to date is roughly a 0.06 deg C increase from January. ”
But that’s an increase over Jan.’s temperature, not Feb.’s zero-anomaly, right?
REPLY: lets not speculate on future datasets please. Let them be released first then we can all squabble over the numbers. Don’t rush Science.
#Re Jeff C: February to date is roughly a 0.06 deg C increase from January. However, take it with a grain of salt and please check it out yourself as this was real quick and dirty calculation.
Thanks for that! great calculation…A re-check at the end of month should confirm whether we can use this for approximations at least.
The whole idea of man made global warming is so ridiculous. Will the liberal establsihment of pop-culture ideas admit their fault? That will be interesting to see! I think it will take some time. Whichever way earth’s current climate trend goes, there is little or nothing we can do about it. We can NOT PANIC and adapt as needed.
(Sigh)
A.) Okay, okay, I’ll send back my cattle prod.
B.) The IPCC followed me home. Can’t I keep it, huh?
C.) But Unca’ Rev, all the OTHER kids get to rush the science! THE’VE already GOT a hunderd years! I don’t get to have ANY fun!
[...] In fact, Watts Up has four such charts. [...]
Let them be released first then we can all squabble over the numbers. Don’t rush Science.
But, but, but, Algore said we only have 10 years left, and that was nearly 2 years ago. Geez, if we can’t rush the science, we’re DOOMED!! Floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, droughts, rising sea level, oh the horror of it.
Sorry, Anthony, that just seemed to fit this thread.
Sam Said: (20:34:11) :
“Why in the world should 2000 be used. we’re already almost a decade past that and inconveniently, showing, a dramatic decline in temps. This past 7 years has already given back all of the gain of the past 150 years. Shows how vulnerable the purported changes are to real results.”
And that’s the point. Why does GISS continue to use 51-80 for their reference period, almost 40 years in the past (and in a cooler period, before the “modern global warming” period.)
If you compare surface temps to a walk-in freezer, you WOULD get higher anomalies.
“Will the liberal establsihment of pop-culture ideas admit their fault?”
The jury is still out. (Consensus OFF. Debate ON.)
It seems probable to me that man has had some measurable effect on the temperature. However, there is preliminary evidence that temperature has been poorly measured and very badly adjusted by those responsible. Data is in the process of being gathered regarding this. Results still pending.
There is also evidence of stronger correlations to factors other than Greenhouse gasses, particularly the PDO/AMO cycle, which may well account for warming of the the 19-teens-’30s, cooling from the ’40s-70s, and warming since 1980. (The degree of warming since 1980 being particularly called into serious question). The temperature trend of the next five years may well provide (most of) the answer.
Mere correlation is not proof. It is a mere starting point for further empirical observation. Lack of correlation, however, may be considered likely to be disproof.
I think that puts it pretty fairly.
And what if those of the pop-culture establishment (which I do not consider to be “liberal” in any real sense of the definition) do, in the end, turn out to be wrong or mostly wrong, then will they admit their error?
As a liberal apostate (and continuing bleeding-heart liberal), I think I can answer that question by consultatiion of the the historical record:
Every bit as much as they admitted error on demographics.
Every bit as much as they admitted error on resource depletion.
Every bit as much as they admitted the “surge” was a success.
Every bit as much as they admitted that poverty has been reduced.
Every bit as much as they admitted that the W.H.O. is right about DDT.
Every bit as much as they have admitted Paul Ehrlich was wrong.
Every bit as much as they have admitted Dennis Meadows was wrong.
Every bit as much as they have admitted Herman Kahn was right.
Every bit as much as they have admitted tax cuts result in greater revenues.
Every bit as much as they have admitted that putting bad guys in jail reduces the crime rate.
Every bit as much as they have admitted that Reagan caused the fall of the Soviet Union.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Apology accepted. (*insert appropriate ghastly sound effects*)
“Will the liberal establishment of pop-culture ideas admit their fault?”
Evan … At the risk of citing a ‘liberal’ I must wonder at the notion that the luminaries of pop-culture have any ideas at all…. Well, good ideas.
Since the 1970s we have so many things in our popular culture that they just couldn’t have imagined and didn’t imagine. In their most cynical moment of mad brilliance all they could come up with, all they could place on the stage with Howard Beale ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGdbFh6cSI ), can’t hold a candle to the sheer mendacity and creative incompetence which these luminaries themselves have actually foisted on this nation.
They had Beale mourn the unreality of TV and yet their peers now give us “Reality TV.” Beale said “Go to God! Go to your gurus. … Go to yourselves!” but now they invite us to come to Oprah or any of the countless “People’s Court” clones.
It’s amazing to realize how unimaginative they were about themselves and their peers, what THEY were capably incapable of.
Could they make Network today? What would they say to us today? Not “Turn off your TVs!” because how would that play with the people paying for product placement ads in the movie? Maybe a Howard Beale in 2008 would be watered down to talk about the evils of … um … well …hmmmmmm?
Maybe I just lack the imagination to think of anything they might do that they haven’t already done. Go figure?
Wasn’t ‘98 “the hotest year on record” due to a super El Nino? How come GISS missed it ?
The 30 day temp anomaly from the NCDC (Jan 20 to Feb 18) is here.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_30a.rnl.html
The map shows the extreme cold conditions in southern Asia, north-west North America, parts of Arctic and Antarctica over the past 30 days. Europe and Russia are above average.
The 7 day anomaly shows there has been some moderation in all the anomalies.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html
So, February to date might be showing some moderation in temps from January.
And thanks Anthony for a great report and great website (people should print this out and show it to their global warming friends).
But the biggest cause of the temperature decline this year is La Nina. The latest sea surface temperature map shows La Nina is still going strong but ther may be some weakening. Historically, global temperature lag the La Ninas / El Ninos by 3 to 6 months so there should not be any significant increase in temps for at least 6 months.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.2.18.2008.gif
I hate to say it but, any drop in temperature if and when recognized will be attributed to AGCC. C02 will still be the villain. It’s the whole “tipping point” thing, and because we’ve upset nature’s “delicate balance”. Global Warming is so Yesterday.
Just to make sure I understand this, you are comparing January 2007 with January 2008, and drawing your conclusions from those numbers alone?
REPLY: No, but you seem to be. This is a very large anomaly, largest seen in years, coming on the heels of predictions of increasing temperaturs, so worth pointing out. Besides the fact that 4 metrocs are in agreement, what is also worth noting is that this large anomaly coincides with a large La Nina, a PDO shift, and a deep solar minimum. See previous posts on the subject.
Roger: They’ve moved on to bigger and better things, no dwelling on their legacy of achievement–commendable in a way.
henry and others, changing the anomaly peroid just sifts the line vertically, it doesnt change the trend and the trend is the issue
Roger, technically 1934 was the hottest year on record.
It is impossible to tell which periods were warm relative to others by looking at the GISS chart of anomalies. For that, you need to look at a chart of the actual temperatures (preferably unadjusted). Frankly, I don’t have a clue what the GISS chart represents. There is no sign of cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and there are no significant anomalies during the 1930’s.
I don’t really have any opinion about global warming, but I do have a strong opinion about how the data is being collected and how it is being “adjusted.”
PS. If you want to read a defense of Hansen, check out Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science, which was published in December. There isn’t a single mention of any of Hansen’s critics, their reverse engineering of his mistakes or Hansen’s stonewalling of requests for information. When critics are mentioned, they are labeled “deniers.”
Question:
Does anyone have a handy link to one (or more) of the Big Four monthly anomalies? (I.e., the “average” for each month from 1979-1998 (or whatever time period .)
“and yet their peers now give us “Reality TV.” ”
Actually, I think FOX started that.
“Could they make Network today?”
Maybe as a South Park episode.
Never Mind!
For purposes of comparison, here are the NOAA global anomolies 1900-2000
(Celsius)
LAND
J: 2.8
F: 3.2
M: 5.0
A: 8.1
M: 11.1
J: 13.3
J: 14.3
A: 13.8
S: 12.0
O: 9.3
N: 5.9
D: 3.7
Mean: 8.5
LAND/SEA
J: 12.0
F: 12.1
M: 12.7
A: 13.7
M: 14.8
J: 15.5
J: 15.8
A: 15.6
S: 15.0
O: 14.0
N: 12.9
D: 12.2
Mean: 13.9
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
For those jumping the gun, note that Feb. is normally a warmer month that Jan.
Looks like Scotland’s brave decision to lead the way in fighting “climate chaos” (see link) is having an effect already.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7213745.stm
As an aside does anyone know what “climate stability” would look like?
Jim’s question about “Those numbers alone . . . ” got me thinking.
We can’t draw conclusions but please let me know if I’m am incorrect in my thinking.
That heat is lost to the system forever setting us back to a lower starting point.
As atmospheric CO2 has not dropped and the heat loss to space was accelerated as compared to recent years (yes, I realize temp is a noisy proxie of heat but has Anthony and others have shown, it is difficult for it to be biased cold vs. high)
As the study of the climate is an on going endeavor and the actual drivers of the system are still being discovered, the recent temperature drop pushes down the confidence of CO2 as a significant driver and increases the confidence other drivers are now more likely to be more significant. (To date, those other drivers being primarily PDO, AMO, Solar Variance)
Feedback appreciated.
Re: “lets not speculate on future datasets please. Let them be released first then we can all squabble over the numbers. Don’t rush Science.”
Agreed. After playing with the data from UAH webpage more it is clear that the data is not in final form and trying to draw conclusions from it would not be wise.
Mike, my layman’s answer to your question is that the global temperatures must fluctuate a great deal more than the underlying heat in the world system. Where all the heat has gone I don’t know (below sea level perhaps?), but it is more customary just to look at annual rather monthly figures, since they at least are less dominated by very short term effects.
When trying to lose weight most experts tell us that it is not a good idea to weigh yourself on extremely accurate scales every few hours and worry about a few ounces gained or lost. They say that it is best to weigh oneself no more than once a week - and to be more concerned about the generally trend than the exact number of pounds lost.
I am slightly concerned that we might be making too much of a temporary blip in temperature and that we should take a long term view of the trend.
There seems to be a closer correspondence with PDO/AMO and (to a lesser extent) TSI than to CO2.
We have to consider that climate is subject to many different pressures and that singling out one effect is very difficult. (A correspondence might not exist between temperatures and Effect X because of vaious competing pressures even if X is important.)
But the oscillation factor seems to be important. Note that ocean temps are far less volatile than land temps (more joules required to change air temp than water owing to density of the latter).
This would seem to imply that a change in ocean temps woud carry more “Umph” (i.e., joules) than a change in air temps and that the ocean temps may well be the dog and the land temps may be the tail.
Mike, you beat me to it. The global average temperature (GAT) measures the current energy level of the atmosphere. For a drop of this magnitude to be explained, you have to find out how energy left the system or is hidden in the system. If the energy left the system, then GHG aren’t locking in and accumulating energy as the warmists claim. If the energy has gone into hiding (e.g. into the ocean), then the GAT measurement has to questioned as inadequate.
Putting 0.6 degrees in perspective– That is the amount of energy we get from sun in about 3.7 hours.
assuming:
(a) Heat capacity of atmosphere ~ 3.8*10^21 Joule/K
(b) incident radiation ~ 1366 Watt/m^2)
(c) surface temp is approximative of the whole atmosphere. (big assumption)
Losing (or gaining) .6 deg over the course of a year is not a big deal percentage wise. That would mean we averaged a radiative imbalance of -0.04% in the last 12 months, and about +0.0007% over the last century.
I think a lot of people who worry about GW don’t have a good feel for the amounts of energy they are talking about.
As an example, a solar eclipse deprives the earth of ~3.3*10^20 Joules. (Assuming it happens in the daytime, ha ha) This alone is enough to drop the Atmosphere’s avg temp by 0.085 deg K.
(assumptions: solar eclipse transit time = 7 hrs, radius of moon= 0.27*radius of earth)
[...] global warming. I wonder what the good scientist thinks of the current global cooling, especially this year the world is [...]
The “cliff” depicted by HadCRUT is of a greater amplitude than the fall off from the ‘97 - ‘98 El Nino. I am getting quite concerned.
I’m amazed that no one else is commenting on the NH land (where 90% of people live) average temp falling 2.4C (jan 2007 to jan 2008) in 12 months.
The IPCC is saying we will get that amount of warming in 50 years and it will be a catastrophe. Yet, we get that amount of cooling in a year and no one bats an eyelid.
I think the reason is that both sides of the debate instinctively believe that whatever happens, climate changes slowly and therefore a 2.4C drop in average temperature in a year must be a statistical quirk or anomaly.
Well maybe it isn’t and climate can change rapidly. There is some evidence that at the start of the Little Ice Age we had an abrupt cooling of around 3C in just a few years (perhaps 5 years).
BTW, I went and checked there wasn’t a mistake in the Jan 2007 NH land temp and found in fact it had been adjusted down slightly in the jan 2008 report and the cooling would have been -2.45C using the jan 2007 value.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jan/global.html#Temp
steven mosher (06:26:51) :
“henry and others, changing the anomaly peroid just sifts the line vertically, it doesnt change the trend and the trend is the issue.”
Once again, I agree about the trend. But if a common zero is to be chosen, why choose GISS?
Does this mean that the other three zeros should be bumped up to the GISS values, or should all four follow the lowest?
Compare GISS Jan 08 (.12C) to RSS Jan 08 (-.08). How much of that .2C difference is due to processing of data, and how much is because of the difference on reporting time?
And once again, trend wouldn’t change either way. But “alarmists” want to show the largest value above zero (implying that “zero” is normal).
Al Gore: give your Nobel prize back!
[...] het licht van de stijgende temperaturen wegens klimaatverandering. Deze meting is afzonderlijk door vier instituten bevestigd. De extremiteit van de daling is niet te verklaren via het weerfenomeen La Nina wat wel [...]
[...] het licht van de stijgende temperaturen wegens klimaatverandering. Deze meting is afzonderlijk door vier instituten bevestigd. De extremiteit van de daling is niet te verklaren via het weerfenomeen La Nina wat wel [...]
Patrick:
From one layman to another, I agree. I don’t want to make too much of it. That’s what I’m trying to figure out, what can we take from it? Don’t want to act in a catastrophist manner (if that’s a word)
Given the specific heat of the oceans, I would think the vast majority of heat exits to space.
Arthur: Question I asked myself wrt your comment. Where would the heat hide? Did atmosphere suddenly lose mass and pressure decreased forcing a temp drop? Don’t think so. Did some of it go into the oceans? Some yes, but I can’t imagine anywhere else other than outer space, (JIm Clark once gave me heck for not recognizing that some heat does travel down as evidenced by such things as thermals but I imagine the vast majority the heat escapes the system to outer space.) Maybe the heat got smart and is hiding between sample points.
Thanks for your comments. They are greatly appreciated.
Doubters ought to look at the trend in world ocean pH. Probably more stable than temperature. Increasing acidification is not good. To put it mildly.
I believe a period of cooling is in store, and that this is just the initial downward spike. Only time will tell, of course. The correlation between lower solar activity and a downward trend in temp. seems pretty clear, except to the fuzzy-brained warmers.
Since I have been taught by the almighty talking box that correlation equals causation, and since I moved from Columbus, Ohio to Westchester, NY in Dec ‘06, and have thus not had one single meal from either Taco Bell or White Castles since moving, I have to wonder if this temp drop hasn’t been a result of my dietary changes.
After all, methane is a greenhouse gas.
Of course, the AGW folks still think it’s C02, not the sun, but carry on.
There has been a lot of mention of La Nina being the reason for current change in temperature trends. Here is a bit of news that might warn us of any smugness we might have in our ability to do medium-term forecasting. A few months okay, forecasters for the Southeast U.S. were in consensus that La Nina meant continued low amounts of rainfall for Georgia. However, in the month of February already, Atlanta’s rainfall has exceeded normal rainfall. Also, the rainfall for the last three months is above normal. http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/fitness/monthly/USGA0028?from=36hr_topnav_fitness
The global warmers will completely ignore this info, since there is no way to tax the sun.
Maybe we can get Algore to donate a small portion of his global warming millions to buy winter coats for poor kids or something like that.
It’s clear why the temperatures have dropped so quickly.
The Kyoto protocol is actually working, and the cooling was in the pipeline!
Global Ice Age …… Al G. invented that !!!!!
Your website should see a nice bump as you are linked indirectly through Drudge via the link below. Congrats and back off to lurking for me.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
It is very popular in all sorts of disciplines to assemble data sets which best exemplify a conclusion which supports hypothesis. Further data will confirm or refute the most recent assertion.
It will be interesting to see if we could find explicit solar data which could be tied to these trends. That in and of itself does not refute global climate change tied to an increase in atmospheric CO2, popularly called global warming.
One misapprehension people have about global warming is that it will suddenly make everything hotter; That is incorrect. What it will do is increase the over all energy in the system, which in turn will likely be reflected in more kinetic energy in the weather systems and faster over-all exchanges of heat between the poles and the equator. *THAT* is what will likely cause major melting, not specific increases in insolation in higher latitudes.
It also means greater extremes in temperature on a seasonal basis, and less “consistent” weather over all. Boston may get one winter mostly below freezing, and immediately following have one where temps skip along mostly above.
The key now is to watch the trends, from the data we currently have, and are now starting to expand. Either way the wind is blowing (hot or cold), we need accurate empirical data. Much of what has been collected does support warming. More data in required to decisively refute that hypothesis.
I wish all of you would get an education before blabbering like hyenas on an issue you know nothing about. I’m not committed either way on the global warming debate, but to see people hysterical about a one year trend, when longer term trends (e.g., longer than decadal oscillations) clearly show warming, is laughable. Please get a clue.
Oh yeah, “snow” in san diego, baghdad, or madrid, doesn’t mean global warming is a myth. I know its hard for you genius’s to understand this, but this can be caused by larger amplitude of the polar jet, or more moisture in the atmosphere. Why aren’t we seeing record low temperatures anymore??? We have plenty of record high temperatures every year now. Cold air outbreaks are more short lived, You don’t see blobs of -10,-20,-30 degree high temperatures in the midwest like you could prior to 1995. These facts are making your head spin, I will stop now.
Duh, thanks, Jack.
FYI, hyenas are incapable of blabbering about issues. I would think your edumacation would have provided that information. People who think they know everything do, however. Us? We’re still looking for answers, we always will. It’s fine for you to believe we know all there is to know about global or even regional climates, but don’t preach to us.
Jack
International Falls, Minnesota just set a RECORD LOW of -40F (Also -40C)
It looks like the earth global temperatures were lower this year. The “librul media” is not saying that we have human factors causing global warming. The overwhelming consensus of “professional skeptics” (scientists) using legitimate methods (not faith based) say that this is a serious and perhaps catastrophic problem. These findings are supported by the world community.
Yup, we had a cool year. Thank you , God. Please give us a few more chances to get this planet back the way you gave it to us ok? We promise not to f*ck it up again.
Will Al give back his prize now? Will the media apologize? Probably not. I hope this at least puts an end to the socialists HORRIBLE cap and trade plans.
Thanks for that gnarley concert last year Al Gore. That really did the trick!!
As you were…
Are these the same scientists that can’t give me an accurate five day forecast that are telling me they can accurtately account for all of the variables involved in climatic change? Am I that far off in saying that the number factor in short term climate change is a change in oceanic currents brought about by plate tectonics? If so, since when has man ever really had a handle on how, when, or why these events occur?
Ya es oficial: enfríamiento global
Para los científicos, claro. Los políticos y los ecomarxistas seguirán dándonos la tabarra con el calentamiento global, el cambio climático y el calor que hace en Tarifa.
Tanto Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH como RSS, los cuatro centros principales de…
Given that global warming is real according to overwhelming scientific consensus, and given that humans play a significan role in causing global warming, what steps should we take to reduce the problems caused by the increases that virtually all (reputable) scientists agree are going to happen in the coming years? Is it wise to look at a single year and base our future on that? Is it wise to ignore the consensus of climate science? There will always be fringe sites that worry about the socialists destroying the earth. Is it reasonable to say that fossil fuels are a finite resource and look now for alternatives? Or is it better to just hope for the best and continue to throw dung on those evil socialists?
Thank you , God. Please give us a few more chances to get this planet back the way you gave it to us ok? We promise not to f*ck it up again.
Well, speaking as a liberal atheist, I wouldn’t wish the world we Current Apes evolved out of [100,000ya] on my worst enemies (not being a fan of ice ages–I LIKE my mid-Holocene!).
Not to worry, though. Your fears are a bit out of date. The environment was (totally) saved by the internal combustion engine around a hundred years ago. Before that, man was very hard on old terra firma. (Europe used to be one big forest before we busy pre-BigOil beavers went and chopped it up and burned it down.)
And I’d hate to lose the wealth that “getting this planet back” would entail. In order to give away (and invest) large $chunks to save the world, you have to create it in the first place. Liberalism is a lot of things, but one thing it ain’t is cheap! It requires $$$. The “Kyoto cost” in human life and welfare would be awfully steep in humanitarian terms.
Given that global warming is real according to overwhelming scientific consensus, and given that humans play a significan role in causing global warming, what steps should we take to reduce the problems caused by the increases that virtually all (reputable) scientists agree are going to happen in the coming years?
I believe it’s real. I agree man has had an impact (but not particularly significant). I dispute the degree alleged, as do a lot of reputable scientists. (I think it’s exaggerated about twofold.) I think the PDO/AMO is the primary driver and the rest is spurious measurement error and “adjustment”. I hope to all heck we can avoid a solar minimum. And the PDO is due for a cooling phase, anyway.
I think by far the most effective means we have to combat it (if severe) is to develop economically as quickly as we possibly can. If AGW is as big a threat as some say, I believe it would be suicide-terracide to restrict development or growth in any way.
In that case (which I seriously doubt, but will stipulate), the only prayer we have is to “overtake” the crisis economically and technologically, which, given current trends, we will.
Is it reasonable to say that fossil fuels are a finite resource and look now for alternatives?
Depends entirely on the cost. (P.S., cost includes not only wealth spent, but wealth never created.)
We will leave fossil fuels in the dust–long–before we are anywhere near out of it (or even short of it). We have been discovering oil faster than we have been using it ever since we popped the cork in Pennsylvania in 1859. We have nearly twice the potential reserve we had thirty years ago.
But if we murder our wealth by restricting use, we will be that much less likely to get there. We will also be that much less likely to be able to deal with any real environmental/climate crisis if it occurs.
If AGW is real and serious, we can’t dodge it–we haven’t the means. Even the IPCC says Kyoto can’t do us down more than 0.2C. If it IS real, our best chance by far is to outrun it. In which case, please don’t vote to hobble us in the name of winning the race!
Tree rings up here at 9200 ft in Colorado show sudden increases in size–then trail off into ever increasing dry periods. (rings get ever more narrow like up to now) Looking at the rings–I asked what Denver was like in 1946–reply “only the streetcars could move with boards on their fronts”. I do truly hope that the enormous drift of snow on the norths side of my dome will have melted away by this fall.
I found it interesting that on some sites, the cry immediately went from global warming to climate change. The simple reason is there is too much money that can be made from scientific uncertainty. 25 years ago it was the coming ice age, 10 years ago the coastal plains would soon be underwater, now what?
A temporary drop in temperature is to be expected when both poles are melting. It takes 80 calories per gram just to change ice to water at 0 C. That energy has to come from somewhere. The overall trends in global temperature continue upward in rough parallel with CO2 atmospheric levels, an increase in global precipitation, the recession of the glaciers, an increase in violent weather, all of whch changes are occurring more rapidly than at any other time in the history of the planet. Those that ignore these trends are fools.
Here is a perfect example -
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=80#001189
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns.”
John A. Davison
Maybe we should pour tons of co2 in the atmosphere to warm it up?
Weather is not climate change, but there is surely enough long-term evidence to downplay the role of CO2 in the warming debate before our politicians and the UN kill the global economy. There are no viable practicable alternatives to fossil fuels as sources of energy in the next 10 years ( nuclear plants take time to build, and Harry Reid is still alive) but there will be a limit to what the public is willing to pay for gasoline. Necessity is the mother of invention. Let’s hope the upcoming “Heartland” meeting in N.Y. gets some good publicity and common sense prevails in our energy policies.
dailytech has simply replaced the language with “Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming”
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Please GOD use this infomation to shut that mad man Gore up.
No, but climate is defined as the accumulation of weather over time, so the two are joined at the hip.
all of whch changes are occurring more rapidly than at any other time in the history of the planet.
I doubt that. For that matter, those changes are occurring less rapidly in the last decade than the previous two.
And now we’ve had a very precipitous cooling. A century’s warming worth of giveback in a year. So far. “More rapidly than at any other time in the history of the”–well, since we’ve been paying close attention and measuring it with satellites, I guess.
When it comes to climate, I suspect we don’t know as much as we suspect we know. I’d hate to shut down modernity on a hunch. Especially as the further progress of modernity is the only thing that will solve anything if serious warming–or cooling–is down the pike.
Those that ignore these trends are fools.
What about those who miscalculate them?
and the UN kill the global economy.
If the west is too weak-kneed, I hope at least India and China will tell the UN where to stuff it. No point in theim starving just becuase we feel a need(less) to shoot ourselves in the foot. (They have their children to think of.)
It seems apparent that no matter how often or thoroughly basic tenants of AGW theory fail when tested empirically, or how inadequetly the theory fails to explain observed natural phenomena, this theory somehow remains current, when such similar refutation of any other theory would relegate it to the dustbin of history. While AGW theory demands that atmospheric temperatures at both poles will rise first and most at surface level, and temperatures in the lower-troposphere will rise 3-4 times as much as surface levels because that sector of the atmosphere is where theory requires the inordinate capture of reflected radiation by GHGs, such measured temperatures uniformly fail to comply with theory. Now the Alarmists are confronted with the uncomfortable facts that temperatures in the Antarctic have been cooling overall for years, that lower-tropospheric measures are static when they should have been rising steadily, and surface temperatures have remained static (and dropping recently more steeply than any temperature has ever changed up or down before) in the last decade, while CO2 levels rise, and cannot explain such observations within their own theory.
Global Warming
By S. C. Yednock Jr.
I long for what the summer brings,
Swim suit clad athletic young things,
Cavorting about a net and a ball,
I’m tired of ice and snow and all.
So humor me in my chagrin
And let our relief begin.
Spray and spread the aerosol
And let’s pollute this big blue ball.
Remove all control devices,
CO2 will melt our ices.
The green house will soon be forming
And we can ENJOY our global warming
No major cooling reported by NASA here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
What is the sun explodes?
Can someone please explain to me why the NASA site is displaying diametrically opposite temperature data for 2007???
At http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ is the NASA temp data for
2007. They say: “The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period
of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had
leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the
“El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy
because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and
the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El
Niño-La Niña cycle.”
REPLY: Because they haven’t put in the data for January 2008, which was a huge anomaly. NASA has not updated that graph. The source tabular data is all there from NASA GISS, which is what I used. See links below each graph above. You are welcome to plot it yourself.
Additional plots and analysis are here with additional analysis coming in parts later.
Around 1996, the scientific community was abuzz with the discovery of a mysterious “anomaly” in the equatorial pacific which they referred to as the “Warm Pool.” The “Warm Poll” was a 13.5 million square mile body of unusually warm water sloshing back and forth between Indonesia and the west coast of South America. As an individual who had already spent 10 years studying climate change, I jumped into this with both feet (no pun intended). Over the next ten years or so, amazing discoveries were made surrounding this “anomaly.”
First of all, it wasn’t an “anomaly,” but something that had been referenced as early as the mid 1500’s. Secondly, scientists discovered the linkage between its “sloshing” back and forth and the ENSO phenomenon. They also quantified (to a certain extent) its movement with La Nina and El Nino.
But more importantly, certain scientists (and I can’t locate the names right now) drew a linkage between the “Warm Pool’s” movements and the PDO. Basically, the theory was that changes in ENSO directly impacted the PDO which in turn impacted the NAO.
Then along came Svensmark and his theory on sun spot’s activity in relation to world temperatures. Now considering the WP lies predominantly across the equator where the sun has its greatest impact, and that sun spot activity has been strangely quiet (in theory meaning colder climes), it seems to me someone must have connected the dots by now. By the way, I’ve begun posting data about the WP at epwp.com and am open to any papers.
Any comments?
Just for grins, I arbitrarily chose the GISS data, downloaded the raw data, ported it to Excel, and plotted it (1880 to 2008). Without reading all posts, I don’t know if anyone has done this yet, but lo and behold. the Jan 08 data appears to be an anomaly. That is, only ONE point is out of line with the rest of the data. The data does NOT refute the global warming theory, it’s just noisy because of the very short time period of one month. The fact that four independent sources correlate means it is probably a good data point. It doesn’t give any special significance; in fact, I would guess the temperatures will return to “normal” in the next few months, maybe even February.
Bottom line? Don’t make wild assumptions about one lousy data point. Look at all the data.
REPLY: When you say “it’s only one month or year, it doesn’t mean anything” I’ll remind everyone how folks like Mr. Gore insisted that the terrible hurricane season of 2005 spurred their predictions of worse to come with global warming to blame, followed by the two calmest hurricane seasons in a decade. And NOAA recently published a paper saying that there is no global warming link to frequency or hurricame damage.
I drew no conclusions from it other than to say that 4 metric agreed and that the anomaly was large. But it is not just Jano08, there was the entire year of 2007, as evidenced by the three other metrics also, or did you look at them?
I don’t claim that I’m right, or that I’m wrong. I only claim that such a temperature anomaly and agreement of the metrics is an unusual occurance.
“One of the most resilient skeptic tropes is the notion that back in the ’60s and ’70s the scientific community predicted that the globe would cool in the coming century. “Those scientists … first it’s one trendy theory, then it’s the opposite. You just can’t trust ‘em!”"
Now comes a new study showing, once and for all, that:
* there was no such consensus in the scientific community — quite the opposite, and
* there was no such consensus in the popular press.
Forthcoming in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the study “surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. [Study co-author Thomas] Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.” Added Peterson, “I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time.”
This is according to “The Nation” which I am pretty sure will be met with jeers from those Gore haters… Has anyone seen this survey? Can we drive a stake through the heart of the meme about all those dumb scientists thinking we were going to have an ice age?
And btw, Frank, yeah I did that Excel graph too. Pretty amazing how so many of these guys can STARE AT THAT and still throw rocks at the evidence. I wonder if, ten years from now, they will say they are sorry? I will if we are ankle deep in snow in July. I promise. :)
But if we are ankle deep in sea water in Kansas, I am going to go buy Al Gore a nice mint julep instead.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, the “librul media” IS saying “OH NOES TEH ERF IS GETTING HOTTER! SHAME, SHAME UPON YOU AMERICA!11!!!”
Libruls, go home.
Why? If it’s true he’s the one causing a lot of it!