I was working on a general report yesterday, but in checking background for it, I discovered this recent missive from Dr. Hansen. I suppose when your agency is the “odd man out”, you feel a need to explain yourself. Note the difference in November 2010 global temperature anomaly metrics:
UAH: 0.38 GISS: 0.74°C
Yes, I’d try to explain that too. I’ll have another post on this, but for now, here’s GISS report verbatim as it appears here. – Anthony
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
2010 — Global Temperature and Europe’s Frigid Air
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo
Figure 1:
(a) January-November surface air temperature anomaly in GISS analysis, (b) November 2010 anomaly using only data from meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations, with the radius of influence of a station limited to 250 km to better reveal maximum anomalies. (View large PDF)Figure 1(a) shows January-November 2010 surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-80) in the preliminary Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis. This is the warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years. However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.
As described in an in-press paper at Reviews of Geophysics (see summary PDF) that defines the GISS analysis method, we estimate a two-standard-deviation uncertainty (95 percent confidence interval) of 0.05°C for comparison of global temperatures in nearby recent years. The magnitude of this uncertainty and the small temperature differences among different years is one reason that alternative analyses yield different rankings for the warmest years. However, results for overall global temperature change of the past century are in good agreement among the alternative analyses (by NASA/GISS, NOAA National Climate Data Center, and the joint analysis of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit).
Figure 1(b) shows November 2010 surface temperature anomalies based only on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations. In producing this map the radius of influence of a given station is limited to 250 km to allow extreme temperature anomalies to be apparent. Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4°C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.
The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November. The contrast of temperatures at coastal stations in years with and without sea ice cover on the neighboring water body is useful for illustrating the dramatic effect of sea ice on surface air temperature. Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.
The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.
Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year.
Figure 2: Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for (a) annual and 5-year running means, and (b) 60-month and 132-month running means. In (a) the 2010 point is a preliminary 11-month anomaly. Green vertical bars are two-standard-deviation error estimates, as discussed in our Reviews of Geophysics paper. (View large PDF)
Figure 2(b) shows the 60-month (5-year) and 132-month (11-year) running-mean surface air temperature in the GISS analysis. Contrary to frequent assertions that global warming slowed in the past decade, as discussed in our paper in press, global warming has proceeded in the current decade just as fast as in the prior two decades. The warmth of 2010 is especially noteworthy, given the strong La Nina that developed in the second half of 2010. The La Nina, caused by unusually strong easterly equatorial winds, produces the cool anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean as cold upwelling deep water along the Peruvian coast is blown westward along the equator.
Figure 3: Temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 for the European region defined by 36°N-70°N and 10°W-30°E. (View large PDF)
Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh.
However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper in press that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record. Figure 3, from our paper in press, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology. The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.
Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow. If the warming trend that is obvious in that figure continues, as is expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase, such extremes will become common within a few decades.
A copy of this webpage text is also available as a PDF document.
Reference
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., in press, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.
Contacts
Please address media inquiries regarding the GISS surface temperature analysis to Ms. Leslie McCarthy by e-mail at Leslie.M.McCarthy@nasa.gov or by phone at 212-678-5507.
Scientific inquiries about the analysis may be directed to Dr. James E. Hansen.
DMI shows the Arctic normal for November. Hansen should stop making up numbers.
One must say, that strategically placed thermometer at Labrador was a smart move.
I feel much better knowing that there is good agreement between GISSS and Had-CRUT, expecially since Vicky Pope has already assured us that this will be the warmest year, ever (even though a frigid December is not even half-over).
“UAH: 0.38 GISS: 0.74°C”
You know that they have a different reference period??
Most of the warming during last 350 years in the area of NE Atlantic, as expressed in the CETs, happened in the winter months ( if UHI is eliminated?), when the Gulf Stream effect is predominant.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
This would imply either warming of the equatorial Atlantic or change in the Gulf Stream thermal efficiency. There are three major 50 year long warming periods 1680-1730, 1810-1860 and 1960-2010. There also 3 major cooling periods (2 x 50 and 1 x 40 years).
This would suggest that the winter CET’s variations are more part of natural cycles, then anthropogenic. If so then implication is that the CET’s winter temperatures are on the threshold of several decades of cooling, the last and current winter may be precursor of what is to come.
In this case any anthropogenic CO2 generated warming would be more than welcome, in order to ameliorate even lower temperatures and so reduce demand for heating fossil fuels. What is valid for the CET area it is applicable to the most of NW Europe, one of most dense populated regions of the globe.
Conclusion must be that the AGW may not be a disaster, but actually a beneficial at the periods when natural cycles turn downwards.
A rather long few paragraphs amplifying what we already know . ( Ahem)
A: WARMEST YEAR EVER, ‘cept maybe for the other warmest year .
B: Cold temperatures, as seen in Europe and the US, and crushing snowfalls are weather. While warm temperatures, such as those in Moscow during the summer, are climate.
That is what it says.
If conditions at Baffin and Hudson are comparable, and have downstream weather effects, why do the effects seem to be opposite ?
If I remember correctly, GISS deletes SST data for places that ice up in winter. This enables them to use nearby land temperatures that are more variable and give more positive anomalies. However for air temperatures, measuring over ice is good because you get a huge temperature uplift when the ice has melted.
All methods seem to result in higher temperatures. Must be a coincidence…
I wonder how long it will be before the epithet “Wrong way” becomes applied.
Hansen has no shame.
The reason Hudson Bay is slow to freeze is the blocking pattern, which transports above average air up that way, even as cold air is transported to Florida. But of course Hansen suggests the tail wags the dog, and Hudson Bay’s lack-of-ice is causing the blocking pattern.
Then he uses a map which makes Greenland look bigger than South America.
And so on and so forth.
No shame whatsoever.
Doesn’t that all suggest that more open water in the Arctic Ocean actually vents heat to space faster rather than encouraging global warming from reduced albedo and more insolation into the Arctic waters ?
That is what I have been suggesting for some time.
So the quieter sun somehow causes an expanded polar vortex, the associated high pressure cells intensify and migrate towards the mid latitudes with more intense and extensive lower pressure at the pole with faster ingress of warmth and faster upward energy transfer for global cooling.
Meanwhile the more equatorward polar jets reduce solar input to the oceans via higher global cloudiness and albedo.
So while the sun remains quiet we have faster energy out and less energy coming in. Perversely a warmer upper atmosphere is needed to intensify the high pressure cells (see Joanna Haigh’s data) and allow faster energy exit via the poles and slower energy input to the oceans. The opposite of the cooler upper atmosphere that was observed when the sun was more active.
The question then must be whether it is right for AGW proponents to say that these developments are a result of AGW rather than natural solar influences on the polar vortices.
Since much the same must have happened in past cooling spells (the jets behaved like this then too) and since CO2 continues to rise I would say that what we are seeing is a natural solar induced event.
If AGW had been the driving force then the current situation would have been developing gradually over the past 40 years. But it did not. In fact the opposite occurred with the jets pushed more poleward and the AO more positive.
Until the sun began to behave differently.
Now one can surmise that nonetheless there is a background warming effect from CO2 but if so would not the system response be exactly the same? Namely a miniscule change in pressure distribution to negate it completely.
With regard to demands for data I would just say that it will be obtained soon enough. Past data of relevance has quite simply never been acquired.
As regards evidence of a more general nature the recent changes are exactly as anticipated by my earlier suggestions. We now have a fast developing scenario that fits perfectly.
The current setup may come and go over time as solar and ocean cycles change and interact but on a 1000 year cycle (500 year half cycle) the pattern will in my opinion be maintained.
Note that the establishment views in relation to sun and climate never expected any of this and none of it was predicted or projected in model runs but all that we see is just an intensification of changes that I have been drawing attention to for over three years now.
Has anyone audited the station data to make sure they don’t have a bunch of “999”s in there?
Per GISS, the anomaly for 2010 is 0.73C using 1200-km smoothing, and .62C using 250-km smoothing. [Compare 1200-km and 250-km.]
However, that uses GISS’s default baseline period of 1951-1980. When one uses the same base period of 1979-1998 (and a 250-km smoothing radius), the GISS anomaly drops to 0.46 C. [See]
So the discrepancy has a lot to do with the base period, although large-scale smoothing (mostly in the Arctic and Africa) contributes as well.
On the other hand, if I remember correctly, lower-troposphere (LT) temps were expected (by models, naturally) to increase about 20% more than surface temps, so in that sense there is a greater discrepancy than 0.46 (surface) vs. 0.38 (LT).
Why is this failed prophet advocate of the Greens still employed?
How does he look people in the eye?
Why do I recall scenes from Inglurious Basterds whenever I see a photo of him?
Still wondering what happened to 1998…
Smital says: {December 12, 2010 at 9:24 am}
” “UAH: 0.38 GISS: 0.74°C”
You know that they have a different reference period??”
Exactly why speaking of anomalies to depict a specific temperature difference is silly.
“The warmth of 2010 is especially noteworthy, given the strong La Nina that developed in the second half of 2010.”
=============================================
Idiots! There is a 4 to 6 month lag from the effects of La Nina in the atmosphere.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow. If the warming trend that is obvious in that figure continues, as is expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase, such extremes will become common within a few decades.”
================================
Idiots again!
No mention. None….of the correlation with their Figure 3 to the cycles of the AMO.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates, I want you to notice your guru has dismissed extreme events as weather related and are outside the relentless warming he sees. He gives a bit of space to the idea that global warming could be the cause of cold but then dismisses it with “However” evidence to the contrary (wonder of wonders). So even Hansen dismisses your nonsense of chaos. According to Hansen, he sees climate to be rather easily led around by the nose by that tiny little mouse called anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
“However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper in press that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record. Figure 3, from our paper in press, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology. The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.”
If Hansen lives long enough, he will completely miss the next ice age cycle, as he hangs on to his phone book global temperature average.
“Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow. If the warming trend that is obvious in that figure continues, as is expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase, such extremes will become common within a few decades.”
If he knew what causes heatwaves he could say for sure how common they will be, even when they will happen, but there occurrence is nothing to do with trends in the slightest, trends do not make heat waves, duh !
The map for Scandinavia looks a bit different from the map on page 15 in this document: http://met.no/Klima/Klimastatistikk/Varet_i_Norge/2010/November_2010/?module=Files;action=File.getFile;ID=3737
Nearly all stations in Norway were well below the 1961-90 normal for January to November.
Finally, does it incense you, as it does me, that this taxpayer-funded behemoth with its talking head scientists spouting nonsense….that they would over-dramatize the .5 degree celsius rise over the 130 year GI** record??
A half a degree celsius! OMG time to go rescue the polar bears.
Any graph on a scale which only shows a half a degree celsius with the respective rise from the recovery of the LIA, is going to look like a hockey stick blade.
The scale of Hansen’s graph is purposefully misleading….and represents a type of blatant….well….um….misrepresentation. Fraud, really.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Steven, the same thing, in my opinion, can be applied to your idea. You hang on to the idea of the tiny little mouse called the “variable” Sun (and all you can come up with is the word “somehow”) as much as Hansen hangs on to his tiny little anthropogenic CO2 mouse. Yet you both ignore the elephant still romping about in the room, refusing to be scared by the Sun or CO2. The elephant is our own highly variable planet.
Hansen et al: “The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw”
He’s saying that a warm anomaly causes a cold anomaly. My understanding of weather is that weather anomalies are driven by factors like warmth and cold not the difference between some current temperature somewhere and some past average based on an arbitrary or politically convenient interval. The main thing he is missing is that NAO and ENSO drive those American and European anomalies and NAO and ENSO have their own causes that are mostly independent.
Jim Hansen has it largely correct. We’ve had the Arctic “freezer door” open for going on the second winter now (spanning both an El Nino and La Nina and their associated atmospheric pressure anomalies). The cold air pouring forth from the Arctic to southern latitudes is reflected in record cold in those southern latitudes and record highs in the Arctic regions. Now, IF the entire N. Hemisphere were cooling, from the equator to the pole, and Arctic Sea Ice was exanding back to even the 30 year normal line, that would be an entirely different matter. But that is absolutely not the case. What we have is unusual pressure anomalies that are simultaneous associated with (globally speaking) record high or near record high temps. Yes, this absolutely does not prove that the 40% increase in CO2 over the past few hundred years is to blame, but it does fit in with the general AGW hypothesis, and certainly does not dispprove it.
What does “warmer than climatology” mean ?