By Phillip Gentry, UAH
Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years; In the U.S., 2012 sets a new record high temperature Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.20 C (about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year averagefor December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Tropics: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.28 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.27 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2013:
Globally, 2012 was the ninth warmest year among the past 34, with an annual global average temperature that was 0.161 C (about 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. 2012 was about three one-hundredths of a degree C warmer than 2011, but was 0.23 C cooler than 2010.
Eleven of the 12 warmest years in the satellite temperature record have been been since 2001. From 2001 to the present only 2008 was cooler than the long-term norm for the globe. Despite that string of warmer-than-normal years, there has been no measurable warming trend since about 1998. The long-term warming trend reported in the satellite data is calculated using data beginning on Nov. 16, 1978.
1979 through 2012
Warmest to coolest
1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.394
3. 2005 0.260
4. 2002 0.218
5. 2009 0.218
6. 2007 0.202
7. 2003 0.187
8. 2006 0.186
9. 2012 0.161
10. 2011 0.130
11. 2004 0.108
12. 2001 0.107
13. 1991 0.020
14. 1987 0.013
15. 1995 0.013
16. 1988 0.012
17. 1980 -0.008
18. 2008 -0.009
19. 1990 -0.022
20. 1981 -0.045
21. 1997 -0.049
22. 1999 -0.056
23. 1983 -0.061
24. 2000 -0.061
25. 1996 -0.076
26. 1994 -0.108
27. 1979 -0.170
28. 1989 -0.207
29. 1986 -0.244
30. 1993 -0.245
31. 1982 -0.250
32. 1992 -0.289
33. 1985 -0.309
34. 1984 -0.353
(Degrees C above or below the long-term norm.)
While 2012 was only the ninth warmest year globally, it was the warmest year on record for both the contiguous 48 U.S. states and for the continental U.S., including Alaska. For the U.S., 2012 started with one of the three warmest Januaries in the 34-year record, saw a record-setting March heat wave, and stayed warm enough for the rest of the year to set a record.
Compared to seasonal norms, March 2012 was the warmest month on record in the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Temperatures over the U.S. averaged 2.82 C (almost 5.1° Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in March; the warmest spot on the globe that month was in northern Iowa. The annual average temperature over the conterminous 48 states in 2012 was 0.555 C (about 0.99 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coolest area on the globe throughout 2012 was central Mongolia, where temperatures averaged about 1.39 C (about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. The warmest area was north of central Russia in the Kara Sea, where temperatures averaged 2.53 C (about 4.55 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for 2012.
Compared to seasonal norms, over the past month the coldest area on the globe was eastern Mongolia, where temperatures were as much as 4.55 C (about 8.19 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms. The “warmest” area was off the coast of the Antarctic near South America, where temperatures averaged 3.79 C (about 6.82 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for December.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
The processed temperature data is available on-line at:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
And as I always provide here on those monthly TLT update posts, here’s a link to the preliminary global and NINO3.4 sea surface temperature update for December 2012:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/preliminary-december-2012-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/
Happy New Year to all.
With the third graph, if you were to flip it end for end so that the date 2012 would be in the upper LEFT hand corner would the “rate” of warming be the same ? what would it look like if the graph were extended back a few more years ?
“December temperatures (preliminary)”?
Apparently they know they will be revised later. If these figures are like the weekly US Unemployment figures, they are pre-skewed for political advantage and will be readjusted later (when not so many people are watching).
0.161 deg C! I’m melting, I’m melting! Hang on, no I’m not…
I’ll just take my pullover off, dang! Now I’m too cold. It’s hard adjusting to these wild temperature fluctuations… (Sarc obviously, well maybe not to Alarmists)
How does UAH account for snow cover?
[“By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.”] (Steven Mosher, July 6, 2012)
Uh Uhhh! Sorry Steven, wrong guess, would you like to go for double jeopardy where the scores can really change? (With apologies to Bruce Willis…)
“9th warmest of the past 34 years”
So?????
What good are any of these numbers without error bars/analysis? Put in error bars and then tell me whether you can say anything about “rank”.
It would be interesting to see how this current 30 year average compares with the average of 1920 to 1950.
8th warmest of the last 10 years.
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
This has three parts for a number of data sets:
1. Here I give the ranking of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
2. Here I give the longest time the slope is flat for a number of data sets.
3. Here I give the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
1. Below, I am giving the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html (Others may also be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/#uds-search-results)
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
If you would like to see the above month to month changes illustrated graphically, see:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2012/plot/uah/from:2012/plot/rss/from:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012
2. For the part below, I went from the latest date that data is available on WFT to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) (December is not out yet, but there is no way that it will not be negative to December when it comes.)
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
3. For the part below, I went to the following site and determined the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This indicates for how long the warming is not significant at the 95% level. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If you wish to verify any such as RSS for yourself, put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then click “calculate”. The second number needs to be larger than the first number in order to have the possibility for a slope of 0.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
Based on yesterday’s Alaska story and the graph which it included, I beg to differ with the following statement:
While 2012 was only the ninth warmest year globally, it was the warmest year on record for both the contiguous 48 U.S. states and for the continental U.S., including Alaska.
The graph http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/alaska_temps.png?w=960&h=666
clearly shows Alaska wasn’t that warm last year compared to many recent years.
No mention of the cold records last January, including the one that missed the all-time record low for the USA because the measuring device froze?
Out of curiosity, where does the claim come from that there has been no warming in the last 16 years, when the charts on this site’s own Global Temperature Page all show increases from 1996 to 2012?
Are all of these data within two sigmas of the mean? One sigma? Without knowing these parameters, I would guess that none of the 34 years averages are statistically different from the mean.
How about the deltas? Are the anomalies significantly different?
The temperature anomaly known as the ‘Arctic amplification’, as depicted in first illustration has an uncanny resemblance to the distribution of the Earth’s magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTSD.jpg
Is this a pure coincidence. Possible but unlikely?
Common cause Natural variability?
I would suggest so: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NV.htm
I’m sorry but maybe I’m missing something – why is this temperature comparison limited to the last 34 years? Is it because satellite temperature data have only been available globally for the past 3 decades or so? Can the satellite data be compared to surface measurements so that a trend (or lack there of) can be observed over a longer period of time?
Mr. Brozek:
Thanks for the analysis. You were answering at the same time I was querying.
G
2012 is the warmest year since 2011!
Matthew W says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:57 am
“9th warmest of the past 34 years”
So?????
And with 2011 coming in at 10th place and 2008 coming in at 18th place, three of the last five years were not in the top 8. That indicates to me that any warming that may be occurring for whatever reason is certainly NOT catastrophic!
To oldfossil:
The increases are not enough to be statistically significant.
Rob Dawg says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:06 am
8th warmest of the last 10 years
Does not that make it the 3rd coldest in the last ten years ???
Flint says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:38 am
—
The problem is that the surface measurements are so bad and so spotty, they you can’t compare today’s surface measurements with those of 30 or more years ago.
Still below the 15’C that used to be ‘0’ when Hansen started his crusade.
There was a report in the Herald-Sun yesterday from the Aussie BOM stating that 2002-2012 in Australia was the 5th warmest 10 year period on record and that 2012 wasn’t that warm here. Do you think I can find that article now? Nope, probably removed for being inconvenient.
Stevo says:
“Does not that make it the 3rd coldest in the last ten years ???”
I have often wondered why even scientific skeptics insist on labeling the coldest years of the decade as ‘the 8th warmest of the last 10 years.’ ‘The 3rd coolest’ makes more sense.
As Werner Brozek shows, there has not been any acceleration of global warming. The long term global warming trend has remained at ≈0.35ºC per century. Recently, global warming has stalled.
Despite the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, the global warming trend since the end of the LIA has remained the same. Therefore, CO2 has had no measurable effect. RIP AGW.
“should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps ”
Uh Uhhh! Sorry Steven, wrong guess, would you like to go for double jeopardy where the scores can really change? (With apologies to Bruce Willis…)
###########################################
Sorry, look at sun spots we are coming close to a max, so the sun has yet to go quiet. See max is when the hump is high and decline is in the valley. We are at least 5 years away from the min.
get it? max is high. min is low. and if we get a long period of quiet ( what I was actually referring to ) then you will really see the solar nuts heads explode.
I don’t know Mosher’s real angle, but most of the evidence is pointing to very little human contribution to warming. But as more and more proof comes out, he’s digging his hole deeper and deeper. Is it something personal a “solar nut” said to him?
It would aid my comprehension of these anomalies if the actual value in degrees C, of the 30yr mean, was somewhere in the text.I click on the source, can’t locate this number.
Am I looking right at it and not seeing?
I am beginning to regard these anomalies as anoma-lies , as in a deliberate ruse, an information free distraction.
A real number attached to the estimated mean, the error range of this monthly guess, would do wonders for my evaluation of the deviations significance.
Only in government are people expected to nod and agree when they do not understand.
Sorry but anomalies are not information, without the mean being stated.
From what I have gleaned over the Xmas break, from WUWT August 2012 archive, from Richard Courtney 2010 Brief to UK govt, prompted by The Chiefio, Do Temps have a mean?, these discussions of warming and its significance may be pointless bafflegab.
So say it isn’t so and show a statistically ignorant fellow where this number lies.
Is one picture worth more than a thousand words
from the latest IPCC report?
Maybe yes, maybe not
but still it tells a lot .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
@Steven Mosher says: January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Why should anybody be comforted that your prediction on the sun was wrong. How does this give us more confidence on your predictions for the climate?
Steven Mosher says: January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
James Ard says: January 3, 2013 at 11:53 am
Steven, James is right, STOP DIGGING!
James, Steven’s problem is that he constantly bases his argument and pejoratives on the assumption that the admitted radiative properties of a trace gas will have a significant effect on ‘global temperature’. You’ll notice that most of his comments are either about the future according to his world view, or about models. ‘Real’ evidence appears to elude him and yet he tries to hide behind appeals to his own authority. Not entirely what the ‘scientific method’ is all about…
and so, where does 2012 rank in the Holocene ? … about 8,000th hottest ?
Is this the best their temperature fudging can do? Or have they become so obvious in their “adjustments” they don’t dare push it any further?
Steven Mosher says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:41 am
Nobody’s heads are going to explode, Steven–unless you’re directing the next ghastly ad for 350.org or something.
“Get it?” (Just quoting you)
(badabing!)
James Ard says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:53 am
I don’t know Mosher’s real angle, but most of the evidence is pointing to very little human contribution to warming. But as more and more proof comes out, he’s digging his hole deeper and deeper. Is it something personal a “solar nut” said to him?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you believe that CO2 is the climate control knob, the IPPC chart of components of radiative forcing has CO2 and CH4 as the main controllers of the temperature, then you can not give solar any room at the table.
Those who think the sun has some effect on the climate are quite willing to agree there is no single control knob and that water vapor, clouds, oceans and atmospheric effects also play a part.
If you are going to defend the IPCC’s position then you are going to defendthe position that the sun has very little effect on the climate about the same order of magnitude as aircraft contrails.
Please see: AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing… for perspective. HO HUM…so the 40’s were bitter cold, the 20’s were WARM (anecdotally), so were the 1880’s. SIGNIFICANCE…
Steve Mosher –
Yes, sunspots are nearing a maximum. A glance at Hadcrut3 with the sunspot record will show you that temperature tend towards low when sunspots are low, though the effect isn’t strong. When sunspots are low, TSI is low, so the lack of direct heating is consistent with the temperature correlation. Also, when sunspots are low, Galactic cosmic ray flux is high because the sun is quiet and the low Solar Field doesn’t shield the planet as much. The cloud seeding effect on albedo makes that also consistent with low temperature on sunspot lows. If we get a long period of quiet, it will be cold (like the Maunder minimum).
Can you explain what you are getting at, if it differs from this?
500 million years ago we had 15 times today’s levels of CO2…around 5,700ppm+. Did we burn up or green up? We greened up. As CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up it is clear we do not have an issue, so will the AGW crowd please put away your 34 year old playstations and learn to put things in perspective. Whatever is going on is nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. It makes plants grow and they can’t get enough of the stuff…lovely jubbly as we say in the UK…yum yum…..got anymore CO2?…as the tomato said.
If I’m not mistaken RERT, Mosher thinks the runaway warming from increasing co2 will outweigh any miniscule effects your weak sun may have on temperatures. Proving once and for all that the IPCC has been telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
drbob has hit the nail on the head…..2012 is the 8,000th warmest in the Holocene. And thats just this Holocene!
Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years – This means in plain English = It is a Global Cooling trend!!!!
Ouch Mosher writes “get it? max is high. min is low. and if we get a long period of quiet ( what I was actually referring to ) then you will really see the solar nuts heads explode.”
But obviously isn’t aware that a “quiet” sun has been measured to produce much less UV but more Visible. Thats right Mosher, a quiet sun actually heats up the earth at ground level with more energy in the visible ranges…or at least thats the conclusion of Haigh et al
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
So if the sun goes “quiet” and the earth heats up then thats what I’d expect. I’d also expect the stratosphere to cool with any reduced UV, falsely giving the appearance of the “CO2 fingerprint” at work.
Now we dont have enough data to be sure of this by any stretch, but its important to be aware of all the effects that have been measured (ie real data) occurring in our climate.
The current solar high is pretty damn low, Steven, in case you had not noticed!
But that’s not how my models work!
Since the models don’t work this way, this cannot be true.
/snark
Chris R. says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:56 am
To oldfossil:
The increases are not enough to be statistically significant.
Thanks Chris R. for attempting to answer the awkward question in my post, but “statistically [in]significant” isn’t a very satisfying explanation to a skeptic’s skeptic like myself.
In the absence of other replies, may I assume that “16 years of no warming” is just another urban legend that has gained currency through frequent repetition?
oldfossil,
Sixteen years of no global warming is factual. That is what creates such consternation among the alarmist crowd: not only has there been no acceleration of global warming, but for the past 16 years global warming has stopped.
It is hard to argue that AGW matters under these circumstances.
Werner Brozek @ 10.20. Thank you for that analysis. In point 3 you say you went to a site to calculate the figures but did not actually say what the site was. Could you please give us a link to the site. Thanks.
Ross: See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
If you wish to verify any such as RSS for yourself, put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then click “calculate”. The second number needs to be larger than the first number in order to have the possibility for a slope of 0.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
It’s there RossP, just above the ‘If you wish to verify’ statement. RSS Trend: 0.130 ±0.132 °C/decade (2σ).
Using their own graph, NO warming for 23 years.
Hehe.
@oldfossil,
When talking about trends, statistics is important. I’m not qualified to tell you why! LOL my best understanding is due to averaging the temperatures “error” is created. Statistically speaking, when you have an average, you have an error bar around that average. So, a slight trend up or a slight trend down means statistically no change.
Sorry WB, you answered RossP as I was replying.
BTW, I’m using the SkS / David Appell approach of NOT using ‘Autocorrel {t} period’
We’ve just started heading down in temperature now.
The 3 month lag with respect to the ENSO means that temps will go down for at least another 3 months. UAH will be closing in on 0.0C anomaly by April which will be close to -0.5C below the IPCC forecasts in AR4 and AR5.
Should this trendline come to pass (which looks even more likely now that the ENSO is heading into La Nina territory by the Spring), the climate model forecasts will be SO far off that the IPCC will have to recognize that something is wrong.
A make or break 6 months is coming up folks.
Philip – I have to straighten you out on how to report temperatures in the satellite era. First, there was a step warming caused by the super El Nino that raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees. It started in 1997 and was complete by 2001, a stretch of only four years. That step warming was the only warming during the entire satellite era and there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever. The only reason those warm years you list are warm is that they sit on top of the high temperature platform created by the step warming. You must not average temperatures on one side of that platform with temperatures on the other side as you are doing – that average makes no physical sense. The first seven years after the step warming were a horizontal platform that was followed by the 2008 La Nina. That is the one whose cooling Trenberth could not fathom. We are now back to ENSO oscillations but it is not clear how they will settle down for the long haul. In the meantime, compare apples with apples and group the twenty-first century temperatures separately from what went on before. And as always, pay attention to ENSO phases: they can influence temperature by as much as half a degree or more.
“UAH v5.5 Global Temperature Update for December, 2012: +0.20 deg. C.”
“Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2012 is +0.20 deg. C.”
See UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for December 2012: +0.20 deg. C. (January 3rd, 2013), http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/uah-v5-5-global-temperature-update-for-december-2012-0-20-deg-c/
The December anomaly is 0.08 deg. C less than for November 2012.
Mosh’ , for historical reasons I’d like to take you seriously but cropping off the bit you got wrong and then posting a snarky reply does look a bit dishonest:
“By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.”
That was correctly attributed to you wan’t it?
“Solar nuts” really doesn’t tell me much about who we are supposed to join you in despising.
SN= all climate is due to SSN ?
SN= TSI matters?
SN= current lack of warming is “only” because of unusually lot solar activity masking CAGW?
SN= sunny days are warmer than cloudy days?
SN= maybe there is more to climate than CO2?
SN= None of the above?
Since you seem to have somewhat jumped the gun on the demise of this stupid meme, that gives us a little more time to poke fun at them before they’re forced to admit the game’s up.
So that we can better coordinate the mocking, could you please help me with how to identify the “nutters” ? Hell, I may even be one, I need to know.
Thanks.
Thank you Werner and BruceC –I should have read more carefully. Fancy a ScepticalScience tool providing that info !!!!
Quite frankly, seeing we are still, hopefully, climbing out of the the LIA, and considering that urban heat effects can add as much as 3-4C to a local temperature, I am amazed at the lack of records that have been set recently. I would have expected far more.,
Maybe it isn’t getting as warm as we thought. !!
Are we over the peak already? Darn
I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. They will point to the hottest 12 years all being occurring in this century (year 2000 was the only year in this century not to be in the top twelve with 1998 still holding number one position).
Then they will look for reasons to explain this, and as we all know they use the old chestnut, carbon dioxide because it is a greenhouse gas and increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. It would be better for all concerned if WUWT didn’t publish this material but leave it up to the pro AGW sites to spruk their own cause.
P. Solar
[““By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.”
That was correctly attributed to you wan’t it?”]
Yes, here is the link:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/june-uah-0-369-c-hot-hot-africa-hot/#comment-99112
@Gail
There are so many competing candidates for making a contribution to global warming that there is getting to little space for CO2 to matter much. On the ascendancy are black carbon, solar+multiplier(s) and solar wind-induced ozone at different altitudes. Prof Lu here in Waterloo places a lot of stock in Antarctic ozone and its modulation. Those who have elevated CO2 to pre-eminence are experiencing a let-down. It’s OK. All it means is undoing the wasteful rulings on emissions and their pointless, self-inflicted harmful consequences (largely economic).
“get it? max is high”
This last one… not so high ! Sort of a “clayton’s” maximum.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
“I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. ”
Oh, Pleeeeease!
The main reason I like this site is it gives the real deal (I’m not talking about comments). If the seas have evaporated I will read about it here and I will give it credance. If Big Fat Al tells me the seas have evaporated , I’m so sure he’s bullshitting me that I don’t even waste time checking.
P.Solar, I agree the moral high ground is to provide balance, but we are dealing with a mainstream media that is completely biased backing the AGW proponents at every turn. By WUWTpresenting both sides, it would appear that the AGW arguments are correct as there is nothing out there to present a credible alternative.
I suggest that you look up other sites like skeptical science if you want an alternative view. Please leave this site as the last bastion of alternative ideas on AWG.
““I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. ”’
Can’t see why. The data shows that nothing much is happening..
CAGW looks pretty much like a NON-EVENT !!
RossP says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Thank you Werner and BruceC –I should have read more carefully.
I cannot really blame you since for some reason, all other links stood out in purple, but this one just blended in. However if any one knows of other sources for this data for 95% significance, I would be interested in knowing it. Thanks!
Early days but the meme, of every decade being hotter than the last, is not holdng up so far for the 2010s.
This decade is running cooler than the ‘noughties’ average so far.
Alan
Andyg55, because you can’t see anything, doesn’t mean someone won’t draw attention to the fact that 11 of the top 12 hottest years occurred in the last 12 years. People can use this as evidence that AGW is happening. Not all people share your analytical skills and will come same conclusion.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:41 pm
I wish WUWT would not publish this data as it gives sustenance to the AGW brigade. They will point to the hottest 12 years all being occurring in this century
What does the W stand for? It is “WARMING”, not “BEING WARM”. As I have shown above, to the nearest year, and on three data sets, there has been NO warming for 16 years.
And on five data sets, there has been no 95% statistically significant warming for between 17 and 23 years.
Last year Michigan lost a good deal of its fruit crop after the Feb/Mar early spring followed by the normal freezes in April. Then the corn got incinerated in June and July. Bad year for farmers here.
Note that the planet has been much warmer frequently during the geologic past [we are currently at the top of the chart].
This is a relatively cool period, and a couple of degrees warmer would be entirely pleasant. The past warming peaks lasted hundreds of millions of years, and were up to 8ºC warmer than now with no ill effects.
AGW is such a minor forcing that it can be completely disregarded. It is a scare tactic that is based largely on pseudo-science. AGW is actually nothing but a conjecture; an opinion. There is really nothing to worry about regarding AGW. It is so minuscule that it cannot even be measured.
What is astonishing is the $7 – $8 BILLION in federal grants that are wasted every year on ‘climate studies’. It is pure anti-science pork, which could be funding real science instead of perpetuating the bogus AGW scare. Scientists in non-climate fields should be raising hell over being starved of funding, while the climate gravy train rolls on year after year.
.
trafamadore says: “Last year Michigan lost a good deal of its fruit crop after the Feb/Mar early spring followed by the normal freezes in April. Then the corn got incinerated in June and July. Bad year for farmers here.”
So, what’s your point?
Regardless of the climate, my current reality is an air temperature of 1 deg F outside my window as I write this. Cold temperatures such as those we are currently experiencing here in NH are very dangerous to those exposed, unlike the supposed “dangers” of CAGW…
P. Solar says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm
My advice to you is to do what I am doing as a new year’s resolution and that is to not respond to Mr. Mosher’s posts here at WUWT…maybe someday, his posts will be coherent, interesting, and less filled with ad homs and snark, but for now…
“Not all people share your analytical skills and will come same conclusion.”
There are always maximums at the top of a curve.
The AGW bunch can interpret things as they like, doesn’t make them correct, just look more stupid later.
WUWT should stick to presenting the facts and data , as they are, regardless of which way they might be interpretted.
This is NOT a propaganda site like many of the warmist sites , and it should not act like one.
Werner, people with a limited grasp of statistics would dismiss your statement. What they see is the last 12 years are the hottest (bar one exception), than any comparable period before. Therefore, by presenting this evidence, WUWT is promoting the concept that the earth is warming.
Looking at the data which shows that not only was it the ninth warmest in the past 34 years, but that it has been the eighth warmest year since 2000 reminds me of an old Soviet joke about Pravda and the accuracy of its reporting:
The Soviet and British ambassadors in Paris challenged each other to a race in order to show which country was more physically fit. The British Ambassador won. The London Times reported that the British Ambassador beat the Soviet Ambassador in a foot race. Pravda reported that the Soviet Ambassador in Paris finished second in a foot race and the British Ambassador finished second from last.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:44 pm (responding to)
@Gail
(also)
D Böehm:
To the contrary, there is a very real possibility that “CO2 IS responsible for the late 20th century warming” … but not because of the its much-hyped and research greenhouse gas effects and their exaggerated (always positive!) model-driven feedbacks.
Rather, consider whether the earth’s land-only albedo – land, tundra, evergreen and pine forests, deciduous forests, fields, jungles, steppes, grasslands and grapevines – has “gone greener” by perhaps 5-8% over the past 50 years. All that would be required is a small change from 0.31 to 0.33 for example.
And, cities, suburbs, counties, and farmlands ARE greener and darker now because EVERY plant on earth is suddenly growing 17% – 23% more limbs, more leaves, more branches, and more fruit due to the increase in phosphates and nitrates as fertilizer, water, and CO2 that now available. But ocean growth? Not so much – though plankton increase, but ocean albedo won’t be as affected as land-albedo.
Would not that single fact alone – NEVER mentioned nor researched! – account for a warming of land-based temperatures worldwide? Would not a darker tundra and forest and fields and meadows in summer – and more limbs and trees in the winter INCREASE mid-land arctic temperatures, but leave water temperatures as-is? Which is what has happened – the DMI reading actual air temperatures at 80 north latitude – reports NO increase in summertime temperatures since 1959.
Would not more green mass increase albedo over every square kilometer capable of bearing life, but not change extreme deserts and mid-continent (high, dry, desolate bare rock) deserts and extreme mountain ranges?
trafamadore says: “Last year Michigan lost a good deal of its fruit crop after the Feb/Mar early spring followed by the normal freezes in April. Then the corn got incinerated in June and July. Bad year for farmers here.”
D Böehm says: “So, what’s your point?”
Not sure I am allowed to make a point on this blog. I suddenly use the wrong email address these days.
But I think I was agreeing with the record US temps, based on living here in Michigan and watching. In a different time, before global food distribution, we would have been no different than Arkansas in the dust bowl times….when normal people starved.
9th warmest? And what would that be in terms of coolest? We seem to be getting to the point where these nonsensical pronouncements will begin to sound ludicrous to even liberals!!!!!!! Next year we could be facing the 12th warmest year! Only Obama would get all twitter pated over that one.
Arno Arrak says
“First, there was a step warming caused by the super El Nino that raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees”
I think the change in the AMO more closely correlates with the step in global temperatures.
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/atm/amo.php
Also most of the ocean heat gain corresponds with the North Atlantic rather than the equator.. When the AMO drops off in the next few years Like the PDO did the game is over for AGW. Even the Berkely group recognizes this. .
Pamela, if 2013 turns out to be the 12th warmest year on record, people will then spout that 12 of the 13 years of this century are the hottest on record. This is the problem with publishing this sort of data. Of course if 2013 turns out to be the hottest, then you will never hear the end of it. Similar to when it was first determined that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Of course, you would have to change the phrase: ‘but it hasn’t warmed since 1998’ to ‘it hasn’t warmed since 2013’ for subsequent years, but that is easily done as before 1998, we used to say ‘but it hasn’t warmed since 1991’.
If you have confidence in the temp data then enjoy the weather while it lasts, and don’t forget to stock up on warm undies for future comfort.
Even fur may come back into fashion. Heating oil has been taxed out of grasp in India so now wood is burned for building heat. Great progress! Is this our future?
a very sad sarc/
A quick and short followup.
The fur trade made the Northeast US a very profitable place in the pre Revolution US.
Would anyone want to hazard a guess why?
@RACookPE1978
I would love to see the calcualtioon of the amount of energy required to create the surge in plant growth.
trafamadore says: January 3, 2013 at 6:46 pm
But I think I was agreeing with the record US temps, based on living here in Michigan and watching. In a different time, before global food distribution, we would have been no different than Arkansas in the dust bowl times….when normal people starved.
===================================
Welcome back tramador. Just want to caution you about the agricultural experts that we have lurking around this bog. They show no mercy when they find a victim. I’ve seen some real hatchett jobs. Just a friendly warning.
9th warmest year out of 34 means–it’s solidly in the middle of the pack!
Yes, folks, the USA may have had its hottest year ever, but the USA is only
2% of the Earth’s surface–as the warmists like to point out. Elsewhere
around our large and varied world, this pas year was NOTHING SPECIAL.
Yep, we are surely all going to die from the world getting so hot so
quickly.
/sarc
Pleeeeease, Based on how the global temperature is calculated and comparing to some date in the past, it’s warmer now. It’s OK to tell the truth. How much warmer and man’s role in that is debatable. What mankind should do about it without knowing the truth is cart before the horse politics.
Does it make sense to collapse a year into a single figure and from that say it is warmer than another year. On that basis San Francisco is warmer than New York.
Just wondering if there’s a better way of comparing two years.
9/34 … not a very impressive trend is it.
Chris R
Yes, folks, the USA may have had its hottest year ever, but the USA is only
2% of the Earth’s surface–as the warmists like to point out. Elsewhere
around our large and varied world, this pas year was NOTHING SPECIAL.
Yep, we are surely all going to die from the world getting so hot so
quickly.
So, the US doesn’t count? Really?
That aside, spare a thought for the 86 Euclans who inhabit an infinitisimal percentage of the earth’s surface. They are probably right this moment having a bit of a really hard think about whether polynomial cointegration really is heating the planet. Something has to be cooking the place up:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CF0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEucla%2C_Western_Australia&ei=WFzmULmXOY-ImQWM4YAY&usg=AFQjCNH6is6vqDxoALGaD8oK4TU02C46Xg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY
Cecil, Werner’s post at 5:56 says ‘there has been NO warming for 16 years. And on five data sets, there has been no 95% statistically significant warming for between 17 and 23 years.’ This contradicts your statement that ‘it’s warmer now’. It is loose statements like yours that are seized upon by AGW proponents, because once it is accepted that it is warmer now, they look for reasons for ‘why’ it is warmer. Without a list credible suspects, they can only point to the increase in CO2 produced by humans as the culprit, pointing out it is a greenhouse gas afterall. One thing follows on from another and they will demand politicians do something about reducing these emissions to avert further warming.
I’m not seeing in NOAA’s scientific reports anything that supports the claim above that 1998 was the warmest year since 1978. “1979 through 2012Warmest to coolest” data chart.
NOAA data contradicts that assertion:
2010 Global Climate Highlights:
Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*
–http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
Above the chart, the article refers to “Eleven of the 12 warmest years in the satellite temperature record.” Does this factor in both land and ocean temps as does the NOAA data?
Am I misreading this data? Perhaps it was poorly presented? It appears at first glance to be false. Funny that no one else, including supposed scientists posting, have caught this apparent error.
Cecil, I should also,point out how Werner is using a disciplined approach to describe warming. He is not calculating how far back he has to go to get a significant result to say if the planet is warming or not. Because if he were to do this it would be used by the AGW crowd for there own purposes. But rather he has stated the inverse, ie that there has been no significant warming for 17 to 23 years. This is a much safer statement that cannot be distorted to represent something it is not.
From the article: “Despite that string of warmer-than-normal years, there has been no measurable warming trend since about 1998.” Huh?? Looks like another urban legend and skeptic canard, presented as a scientific fact above. I expect the paper to be gutted by climate scientists…unless I’m missing subtle scientific points in it. (quite possible, I admit.)
This again goes against the preponderance of evidence as noted on SkepticalScience.com, busting the myth that “It hasn’t warmed since 1998.”
“No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
“Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.
“There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there’s no signs of it slowing any time soon.”
–http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
pkatt says:
January 3, 2013 at 8:29 pm
9/34 … not a very impressive trend is it.
—-
A not very impressive trend of misunderstanding trends, isn’t it? Comparing one year in 34 is not a valid analysis of a trend.
Putting 34 years together, averaging them, then seeing how each year fits in the context of all the years, and plotting the data points to form a trend line, is what’s key to analyze. The trend is…higher temps from 1978 to 2012. A
And it’s not clear if the paper above is using combined land and water temps. Note my post referencing SkepticalScience,com on “What has global warming done since 1998?”, pointing to the inherently “more ‘steady’ indication of the warming” in ocean temps.
Is the paper above cherry-picking data? Or are readers cherry-picking its data?
Eucla max recorded temp….. 47.9 °C (118.2 °F) on 3 January 1979 ie. right at the beginning of the warming scare.. NOTHING since.
forecast http://www.eldersweather.com.au/wa/eucla/eucla 39C on monday.
“So, the US doesn’t count? Really?”
No, not significantly. And if they are refering to Hansenised land temps.. forget it !!
This post is for Dr. Spencer and John Cristy, and Phillip Gentry. I am completely confused. I reread the article slowly several times–I am concluding I must be stupid.
“Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years”–Ok, I wasn’t everywhere on the planet and maybe it was the warmest globally in 34 years. But this “2012 sets a new record high temperature Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade December temperatures (preliminary)” and “… it was the warmest year on record for both the contiguous 48 U.S. states and for the continental U.S., including Alaska.”
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. What planet is everyone living on???? Look at the Headlines (below) for the last two weeks of Dec. (complimets of iceagenow.info) and where is the warmest anything? And look at Alaska–cooling by 2.4 degress and we read this on this post, “Northern Hemisphere: +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.”
This is nuts or I’m living in an alternate universe. And slipped in here through a rip in the fabric of ‘space weather’ or something. In the universe I come from, this December was really really cold, breaking records all over the globe. On the other hand, I could , as already referenced, be stupid.
Record snow in December in Dayton OH
http://blogs.wdtn.com/2012/12/29/record-snowfall-today-helped-us-surpass-last-year-total/
Alaska cooling: In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Wendler et al, the cooling is widespread — holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/forget-global-warming-alaska-headed-ice-age
Russia – Coldest winter in decades. Snow is as much as 5 meters (16½ ft) deep – Plows and machines cannot reach roads to clear them –
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/12/28/2012122800375.html
Widespread cold in Mongolia. The EIC reports, “In December, the weather will be colder than average in Mongolia, and snowfalls and blizzards will also be at a greater magnitude than average
http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/?p=2211
“Cold Weather Across Europe, Asia Kills Hundreds. Cold weather in the past few days has sadly gone from severe to deadly
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/europeans-freezing-by-the-hundreds-as-workers-lose-their-jobs-in-mindless-government-attempt-to-make-the-weather-colder/
North India “cold snap” kills 25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20842932
Uzbekistan low on food because of snow and temperature has fallen to -10 Degree Centigrade in upper areas.
http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/Pakistan/39183-Heavy-snowfall-halts-life-in-Gazar
Nepal – Cold wave kills 17 in 10 days
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/752403.shtml
Freezing Japan. Numerous Japanese cities set record low temps as freezing temperature persist
http://japandailypress.com/numerous-japanese-cities-reach-record-lows-as-freezing-temperature-persist-2620432
Russia’s brutal winter claims 123 lives. Temperatures have been about 12 degrees Celsius lower than seasonal norms in Russia,
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/russias-brutal-winter-claims-123-lives/story-e6frfkui-1226543460539
Dozens die in Ukraine “cold snap” Temperatures as low as -23C (-9F) and heavy snowfall this month
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20809898
Dozens die in Poland “cold snap” The Interior Ministry said the death toll from sub-freezing temperatures that set in in December was 49 people so far
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/dozens-die-in-poland-cold-snap-578660.html
Coldest December on record prompts state of emergency in Altai. Extreme cold prompts regionwide state of emergency
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_20/Extreme-cold-prompts-state-of-emergency-in-Altai/
Extreme cold extends into Thailand. Nearly 19,900 households in 169 villages have been declared cold-stricken disaster areas.
http://www.oananews.org/content/news/general/cold-snap-hits-thai-north-0
Kazakhstan Freezes – Far colder than normal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/20771143
Russians freeze to death – Strongest winter in decades
http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/
19 dead in 24 hours in Ukraine freeze. Temperatures fell to minus 16C in the centre and south of the country and to minus 23C in eastern Lugansk region.
OK–Now that was only for the last two weeks of December–I could have gone on, but you can see, something is not right.
AndyG55 says: Are we over the peak already?
I am not sure we will ever know because I am having such a hard time understanding how so much cold still causes the warmest December.
Policy Guy says: If you have confidence in the temp data…
Pamela Gray says:
January 3, 2013 at 6:46 pm
9th warmest? And what would that be in terms of coolest? We seem to be getting to the point where these nonsensical pronouncements will begin to sound ludicrous to even liberals!!!!!!! Next year we could be facing the 12th warmest year! Only Obama would get all twitter pated over that one.
—–
Okay…9th warmest out of 34, vs. 25th coolest?? In trend that clearly reveals warming over 34 years?
It seems valid to phrase things in terms of warmest compared to temps in the past that are *generally* cooler, according to the trends of rising temps. To switch back and forth–going from “Xth coolest year since [year N]” to “Xth warmest year since [year N]”–would introduce unnecessary confusion in wording. Consistency creates clarity.
Now if the trends showed long-term cooling, then “Xth coolest year since [pick a year]” would make sense. If used consistently. It looks like skeptics are actually objecting, via their objections to this wording, to the reality that the Earth is warming and has been on steady course doing so since temps have been measured around the 1880s.
Okay, object to “Xth warmest” language all you want. It’s futile. The science contradicts your objections.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” –Stephen Colbert
Watcher says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm
“No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever.
My post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/#comment-1188803
Indicates 4 data sets that do have 1998 as the warmest year and 2 that do not.
The satellites measure the air both above the land and the ocean.
Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening.
Again, from my post above:
Sea surface temperatures have a flat slope since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
Watcher, this blog provides a valuable resource to look at evidence differently and come to different conclusions to the traditional scientific methods. Cherry picking, as you call it, is a legitimate way of breaking the data down into manageable chucks and achieve different conclusions had you looked at all the data as a whole. So it is important to present the science correctly. That is why the language that is used and the way statements are framed are so people’s natural biases are catered for. I for one wished this topic had not been covered by WUWT as it allows issues that are hard to argue against to be covered. Some posters have argued that it should be but i beleive that should be the job of the other sites like skeptical science.com.
AndyG55
Eucla max recorded temp….. 47.9 °C (118.2 °F) on 3 January 1979 ie. right at the beginning of the warming scare.. NOTHING since.
The 86 Euclans just got themselves a new max record: 48.2 °C. Let’s hope it is the end of polynomial disintegrated global warming for the Euclans.
It is not all bad. Euclans can fry eggs by putting the pan out in the sun. Cheap. Quick.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweather.yahoo.com.au%2Flocal-climate-history%2Fwa%2Feucla&ei=WFzmULmXOY-ImQWM4YAY&usg=AFQjCNHAB36UYnGB5UxvXYw6GMq0EanZKA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY
AndyG55
“So, the US doesn’t count? Really?”
No, not significantly.
Wrong.
Transposing the immortal words of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, in relation to international climate policy The US is the firstest and the mostest.
If the US gets climate policy right, the rest of the world will follow.
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:09 pm
I’m not going argue for or against Werner’s comments. Your earlier messages said that this months anomaly should not be reported at WUWT because the Warmistas would spin it. Of course they will. Anti-warmistas will spin it too. The frigging data point is what it is: A data point in a series. From the baseline of the series, the newest data point is higher. That’s all the post from UAH said and it should be reported as just that. Trying to hide that number is just wrong.
Imagine not reporting what the DJIA is today because “someone” doesn’t want others to spin it. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a calculation. It might mean something and it might not and if you compare it to the past 30 years, both are higher now. Maybe we shouldn’t report unemployment numbers because someone will spin it. All of those examples are ‘questionable’ calculations, and some will be revised as new data arrives or processes are used. Like the number of weather stations used to calculate global temperature, the DJIA is adjusted with new companies entering to replace others. Doesn’t matter whether You or I agree with the choices made. The number is what it is.
“I am having such a hard time understanding how so much cold still causes the warmest December.”
Hansenian statistics
Watcher “has been on steady course doing so since temps have been measured around the 1880s. ”
Yep, no anthopogenic signal AT ALL !!!
Day by day, good list. We need that sort of information to counter the ‘number of warm records broken’ meme that the AGW crowd keep coming up with. I wish I had your list back in July when Reuters reported15,000 warm records were broken, but of course that was in summer and your list only came out in December.
AndyG55 says:
January 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Quite frankly, seeing we are still, hopefully, climbing out of the the LIA, and considering that urban heat effects can add as much as 3-4C to a local temperature, I am amazed at the lack of records that have been set recently. I would have expected far more.,
Maybe it isn’t getting as warm as we thought. !!
——-
The Wikipedia article on the LIA notes several facts that contradict your assertion:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 describes areas affected by the LIA:
“Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries…”
“The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.”
–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Gosh, aren’t people who do actual research that contradicts urban legends *annoying*??
Werner Brozek says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
Matthew W says:January 3, 2013 at 9:57 am“9th warmest of the past 34 years”So?????
And with 2011 coming in at 10th place and 2008 coming in at 18th place, three of the last five years were not in the top 8. That indicates to me that any warming that may be occurring for whatever reason is certainly NOT catastrophic!
——-
This is yet another example –among many here by commenters–of cherry-picking to make a point that’s scientifically invalid:
“…three of the last five year s were not in the top 8 [the cherrypicking]…[so therefore] any warming that may be occurring…is certainly NOT catastrophic [the invalid conclusion based on a long-term context].”
Of course it isn’t catastrophic. I haven’t read of any real climate scientists claiming that over a 10-, 16- or even 20-year period that the warming trend is “catastrophic.” The long-term trend indicates, according to models* that are quite accurate, that catastrophic consequences will occur…again over the long term.
This is not only cherry-picking data to make an invalid/untrue point in a long-term context, but a misleading source of fuel that promotes ignorance among skeptics.
A qualified scientist wouldn’t make such claims based on such limited data. There simply isn’t enough data, over a long enough period, to reach such conclusions.
*In case someone wants to counter with the debunked “models are inaccurate” claim, check the evidence: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Dale says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:30 am
“There was a report in the Herald-Sun yesterday from the Aussie BOM stating that 2002-2012 in Australia was the 5th warmest 10 year period on record and that 2012 wasn’t that warm here. Do you think I can find that article now? Nope, probably removed for being inconvenient.”
Here’s the BOM report:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20130103.shtml
Quote: “Globally, 2012 was ninth warmest of the past 34 years.”
After my calculations, this puts 2012 just slightly above the average of the past 34 years. after all, we are talking 0.14 degrees Celsius here! Omygod, we’re all goinna fry! Not…
Also, there is a clear trend for cooling visible in the trend over the past 10 years.
I bet, 2013 will be called “the tenth warmest year of the past 35 years”.
So what gives?
Pleeeeease says:
January 3, 2013 at 5:25 pm
>>
P.Solar, I agree the moral high ground is to provide balance, but we are dealing with a mainstream media that is completely biased backing the AGW proponents at every turn. By WUWTpresenting both sides, it would appear that the AGW arguments are correct as there is nothing out there to present a credible alternative.
I suggest that you look up other sites like skeptical science if you want an alternative view. Please leave this site as the last bastion of alternative ideas on AWG.
>>
I quite happy to “leave” this site as it is , it was you that was asking for a change in policy.
I don’t think you idea of not publishing data you think does not support your views will get much traction around here.
Keep track of all the global temperature datasets here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/category/global-temperature-updates/
If ENSO remains neutral, the temperatures for the next few months should be comparable with 2001-2, the last time ENSO conditions were neutral for a long period.
Current UAH figures suggest temperatures are about the same as then.
‘9th warmest in the last 34 years..’
Surpirised the ‘warmists’ haven’t jumped on that to state that it was the ‘9th warmest on record’ – ‘climate’ having actually started, as everyone knows, in 1979…
Henry@werner
if you plot the ranking’s results from 1992,
1992 -0.289
1993 -0.245
1994 -0.108
1995 0.013
1996 -0.076
1997 -0.049
1998 0.419
1999 -0.056
2000 -0.061
2001 0.107
2002 0.218
2003 0.187
2004 0.108
2005 0.26
2006 0.186
2007 0.202
2008 -0.009
2009 0.218
2010 0.394
2011 0.13
2012 0.161
you do get a reasonable binomial plot
which seems to have peaked around 2007.
However, that would seem far too late a peak, according to my own data set.
RSS seems to be more correct, showing a decreasing trend from 1998
The linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of [RSS].
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Henry says
sorry that should be
the linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of RSS.
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Pleeeeease says:
Pleeeeeese note that at this site you do not need to say the same thing in 8 separate posts for the average reader to understand your point.
to illustrate the point I am making
i.e. why I say UAH must be wrong
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/trend
@RACookPE1978 says:
>To the contrary, there is a very real possibility that “CO2 IS responsible for the late 20th century warming” … but not because of the its much-hyped and research greenhouse gas effects and their exaggerated (always positive!) model-driven feedbacks.
OK…. how exactly?
>Rather, consider whether the earth’s land-only albedo – land, tundra, evergreen and pine forests, deciduous forests, fields, jungles, steppes, grasslands and grapevines – has “gone greener” by perhaps 5-8% over the past 50 years. All that would be required is a small change from 0.31 to 0.33 for example.
What has that got to do with CO2? CO2 fertilisation? The shrinking of the Sahara desert means a lot more ‘dark matter’ in the form of grass and shrubs but that is hardly caused by CO2, it is caused by the cyclical shift in the desert/Sahel line.
>…as fertilizer, water, and CO2 that now available.
Well, I get your point but that is not a dominant change in my view. Increased plant growth by area, maybe, but that is from climate cycles not really CO2. The difference in absolute growth rates (which varies with plant type) is still quite small and definitely could not have been responsible for the warming that is supposed to be driving the process. What came first? Warming then CO2 then growth? In that order? I think I agree.
>Would not more green mass increase albedo over every square kilometer capable of bearing life, but not change extreme deserts and mid-continent (high, dry, desolate bare rock) deserts and extreme mountain ranges?
Well, yes, but it is the consequence of warming, not the dirver of it. One could argue that once it is started it is self-reinforcing. Same as once warming starts at the end of an ice age, the released CO2 drives further warming. It is possible, but the limiting effect of melting ice absorbing CO2 starts to dominate towards the end of the melting. This effect is visible in the ice core samples. In fact so is hte warming kicking off the CO2 rise. What we know for sure is that we do not know for sure, and that CO2 from human emissions is very minor in the whole scheme of things even if CO2 is a major player.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 4, 2013 at 7:01 am (responding to my comment pointing out the CO2 drivers that increase albedo via greater plant growth)
I think you missed the entire point: EVERY plant and plankton alive now on earth is growing 8% to 27% faster, greener, and taller because of the increase in CO2 over the recent years: exact increase depend on type of plant and leaf (I, II, or III) but every chlorophyll-using living thing is producing more energy and sugars and plant growth because of the increase in CO2 – some also because of the 1/5 of one degree of heating that we have, but all because of the CO2 increase.
Now, it doesn’t matter whether that CO2 is fossil-fueled released (man-caused) volcanic, or sea-water-heating … it is in the atmosphere and is being used.
Additional farm-fertilized plant growth is also happening as we produce nitrates and phosphates, but that is minor but only important locally, such as crops and river runoff. Present, you can’t ignore it, but not a global affair. Further, in the mid-Canada and mid-Siberian tundra and forest, there is no artificial fertilizer being released. 8<)
If you look at global CO2 distribution, CO2 REDUCES as the northern hemisphere westerly winds cross the land of America, Europe, and greater Russia-Siberia. This is because of the plants sucking it out of the air. Such removal would "cancel" the supposed OC2 released by industries and automobiles – since it is being MEASURED going down as the winds cross industrial areas (that are shared with plants by the way), but increases where CO2 is NOT being sucked out into plants: the Sahara, the Gobi, the US deep southwest and great basin, the mountains of Turkey, Mongolia, and India. One of the lowest CO2 areas is jsut east of the Amazon basin for example ….
Watcher:
It pleases me that your trolling is failing because your points are so silly that nobody bothers to address them, especially when you cite the laughable SkS and the Connelly-corrupted wicki as your sources.
I am now responding to your posts solely to ensure that any uninformed onlookers are not misled by your twaddle, and I hope everybody will continue to ignore your silly posts.
The nature of your points is demonstrated by, for example, your post at January 4, 2013 at 12:25 am where you cite the TAR as saying
OK, Mastermind, then please tell us
(a) how it is known that the LIA ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century?
and
(b) if it did then end, when will the warming that is recovery from the LIA end?
and
(c) what will global temperature be when recovery from the LIA is completed?
Don’t cite wicki’s version of the TAR: quote the TAR and reference where the TAR says what you claim. And don’t provide any more of your copy-and-paste twaddle from propaganda sites until after you have provided the required clarifications which I list as (a) to (c).
If you do provide the clarifications then you will have contributed to the thread.
All copy-and-paste trolls are a nuisance and – so far – your posts are wasting space on the thread.
Richard
Well, at the very least, we’re now focused on the satellite records & correctly ignoring any of the doctored surface records. Even the warmers don’t say much about the surface stations any more. That’s an improvement…
Pleease seems like a rather decent attempt at a concern troll.
If his/her suggestion were followed, WUWT could be more easily dismissed as an anti-science propaganda blog. They already try to do that – why give the claim credence?
henry@werner brozek
do you know why the trends of these two satellite data is exactly opposite ?
(I am trying to locate the error in UAH because it puzzles me
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2013/trend
there must be an obvious reason but I am missing it…
Compared to most other data sets, UAH is reading consistently too low.
I would therefore (again) say that UAH has issues with calibration, which still have not been sorted out (if I go by current woodfortrees’s data)
linear trend from UAH from 1998 is opposite that of RSS.
I cannot figure out why this is so.
Presently, UAH is using version 5.5, however a more accurate version 6 has been in the works for a while, but it is not completed. Hopefully it will narrow the gap when it is done.
From Dr. Spencer on January 3, 2012:
“I’m making very good progress on the Version 6 of the global temperature dataset, and it looks like the new diurnal drift correction method is working for AMSU. Next is to apply the new AMSU-based corrections to the older (pre-August 1998) MSU data.”
Watcher said: “I’m not seeing in NOAA’s scientific reports anything that supports the claim above that 1998 was the warmest year since 1978. “1979 through 2012Warmest to coolest” data chart.
NOAA data contradicts that assertion”
using this reference:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
That report includes error ranges for the first time, +/-0.07C on the figures.
So Watcher if you dig a little deeper into the numbers you can see with 95% confidence that all years since and including 1998 are indistinguishable, with the exception of 1999 and 2000 (both cooler). The only other separation is 2010 is warmer than 2008 (the low end of 2010 is only 0.0087C higher than the high end of 2008 though).
So the NOAA data does not contradict the assertion, the report introduces error ranges for the first time but doesn’t use them in discussing the hottest years.
Data here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
climatebeagle January 4, 2013 at 9:58 am
That NOAA reference for which you give an address is worthless. First, they claim that 2010 and 2005 are tied for highest temperature. Both are lower than 1998 according to satellites. Their ground-based data simply have poor resolution and do not show the actual height of the 1998 super El Nino. That is important because 2010 happens to be the peak year of the 2010 El Nino and you cannot draw a global temperature curve by using just El Nino peaks, especially if you can’t even measure their height properly. To determine the mean global temperature you must average the El Nino peak temperature and the neighboring La Nina bottom temperature. They alternate like that, going back as far as temperature records exist. You can do this by hand or you can approximate it by using a running mean of say, 11 years which is about twice the length of an ENSO cycle. Reporting just the El Nino peak temperatures is deceptive. But if you do that, say so and make it your business to show the El Nino peaks correctly which their twisted ground-based records do not do well. Their records are also suspect because of constant revisions that nobody is told about as well as computer processing that goes back at least 33 years. They did not know this but one of their computer sessions had an unanticipated consequence when it left sharp temperature spikes sticking up at the beginnings of many years. So far I have determined that these anthropogenic spikes exist in exactly the same places in GISTEMP, NCDC, and HadCRUT temperature curves. Looks like the processing was done to the ancestor of these three curves and was later thought of as noise, not an anthropogenic artifact. We don’t know what is going on now but divergences between different data sets could all be due to behind the scenes manipulation that we don’t know anything about. There probably is a law against manipulation of data sets passed off as original data.
Climate Ace.
Ever heard of “cherry picking”? I know that place perfectly well. They were the only place in all of AUS that received no rains (***) when everywhere else was being deluged.
(***) Or should we say did not report the rains. It was spooky to see the national map with one little tiny, tiny, minuscule area by the sea not receive a drop! If you are one of those Carbonazis I suggest you shoot all the aboriginals because the recent NASA night image of AUS was ruined with all those fires.
Arno Arrak at: January 4, 2013 at 1:35 pm
I was just showing Watcher at January 3, 2013 at 9:04 pm that the actual NOAA data he relies on to show 1998 was not the warmest year actually shows something different.
James Ard – thank you! I figured out Steve Mosher’s angle somewhat asynchronously after a night’s sleep. I feel like less red wine or fewer birthdays would help.
Steve Mosher – You are somewhat right. If lower temperatures don’t show up, I will be surprised but not devastated. As I said, a glance at the data shows the cyclical effect is small, and I don’t think the instrumental record really gives a clue what happens when the sun falls off a cliff like this cycle is winding up to do.
Andyj
Climate Ace.
Ever heard of “cherry picking”? I know that place perfectly well. They were the only place in all of AUS that received no rains (***) when everywhere else was being deluged.
(***) Or should we say did not report the rains. It was spooky to see the national map with one little tiny, tiny, minuscule area by the sea not receive a drop! If you are one of those Carbonazis I suggest you shoot all the aboriginals because the recent NASA night image of AUS was ruined with all those fires.
I admire your perfect knowledge. The rest of us can but aspire. As for the rest of your post, I trust that the moderater will re-read it and expunge it on the grounds that it:
(a) makes a personal attack on another poster
(b) makes light of the real Nazis who trashed europe and russia and who were responsible for the mass murder of millions and the collateral deaths of tens of millions of innoncent people;
(c) makes up data about rainfall on a blog dedicated to scientific facts
(d) encourages the genocide of Australia’s Indigenous population.
But since the moderator saw fit to publish another post which abused the memory of the Holocaust to make an obscure point about climate science, I doubt it.
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. The comment you cite was not out of bounds. If we started censoring comments that someone didn’t like, we would be no different from alarmist blogs. You have the right to respond. Take advantage of it. Readers will make up their own minds, and the truth will eventually emerge. — mod.]
Henry@Werner
thanks
RERT says
If lower temperatures don’t show up, I will be surprised but not devastated. As I said…
Henry says
I would be very surprised, This is the cycle we are in:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
We will drop
ca. -0.3K in the next 8 yrs.
HenryP January 4, 2013 at 7:00 am
To illustrate why you think that UAH must be wrong you refer us to a Woodfortrees temperature chart showing both UAH and RSS data on the same graph since 1998. These people draw two straight lines through the entire plot starting in 1998. That is dead wrong. You must not include the super El Nino and the step temperature rise that follows after a La Nina dip with 21st century temperatures. You have to start your trend line for the 21st century from 2001 and if you do that you discover that RSS trend line points down and shows a temperature decrease of 0.1 degrees in twelve years while UAH is horizontal – no trend either way. I have noticed this divergence before and think that RSS is monkeying with their temperature data.
Dang ! does that “satellite record” filter eliminate the moon, or do you have to say “artificial” satellite record; well that would be anthropogenic satellite record, I guess.
But that is awefully constraining, since I’m quite sure that the first ASRs did not appear prior to 1957, when I filed a newspaper report on something called Sputnik, so we hardly have much of a time scale relative to the SI unit of climate time; aka 30 years.
So that leads me to observe; for the umpteenth time, that it is simply amazing how the highest values in a data stream tend to gather around any local maxima in that data.
It’s similar to the reason for mountains tending to be higher altitudes, than valleys or ocean depths.
So 2012 was ninth warmest in the neighborhood of the present local maximum; Ripper Mate !!
What is quite noticeable is the UAH graphics matches the local regions temperature much closer than the surface data sets for HAD4 and GISS do. Just shows how much better satellite data sets are in the detail.
A reminder for those that didn’t know, HAD3 had December 2010 about 0.5c to 1c above average for the UK when it was the second coldest December recorded.
A.rno Arrak says
You have to start your trend line for the 21st century from 2001 and if you do that you discover that RSS trend line points down and shows a temperature decrease of 0.1 degrees in twelve years while UAH is horizontal – I have noticed this divergence before and think that RSS is monkeying with their temperature data
Henry says
NO. RSS is fine, as it corresponds with all other data.
UAH is wrong, going up insteasd of down , as compared with all other data
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend
From http://icecap.us/ on Jan 5th, 2013
Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius, 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration. The cold in Eurasia and elsewhere offset warmth in the US and created global temperatures below the NCEP model normal for December.
I been following the record lows this December.
Bitter cold has covered the globe in Dec-Jan. How can this article claim this, “Northern Hemisphere: +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.”
Once again, I don’t believe it. And the NCEP agrees with me.
And Matt G says, A reminder for those that didn’t know, HAD3 had December 2010 about 0.5c to 1c above average for the UK when it was the second coldest December recorded.
That’s what I’m talking about–something is not being reported correctly and I’d like Phillip, John Cristy, or Dr. Spencer to tell us what it is.
[Sorry, per site Policy we don’t discuss HAARP. — mod.]