Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Land-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008. Like we’ve reported before for other datasets, including the RSS and UAH satellite temperature anomalies, GISS also had a sharp drop in January.
The GISS ΔT was -.75°C, which is larger than the satellite data from UAH ∆T of -.588°C and the RSS RSS ∆T of -.629°C
click for larger image
The ΔT of -.75°C from January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set.
This is yet one more indication of the intensity of planet-wide cooler temperatures seen in January 2008, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which has seen record amounts of snow coverage extent as well as new record low surface temperatures in many places.
(h/t) moshpit
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi,
Evan you forgot AGW…LOL
Questions on AGW
1. If we create something called a global temperature that temperature should be very stable. Since the earth always has the same exposure to the sun then the energy received is always the same. Day and night should be balanced equally along with seasonal variations. On a monthly scale taking all variables into consideration the temperature should rise or fall very little. If not, then we need to decide where the excess energy to heat or cool the planet came from.
MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE LT5.2
ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN
YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH TRPC NO.DAYS GLOBAL NH SH TRPC DAYS
2006 1 0.368 0.444 0.291 0.144 31. 0.328 0.428 0.228 0.263 365.
2006 2 0.438 0.753 0.122 0.305 28. 0.331 0.451 0.211 0.237 365.
2006 3 0.325 0.441 0.209 -0.014 31. 0.329 0.442 0.216 0.193 365.
2006 4 0.183 0.207 0.159 -0.117 30. 0.310 0.411 0.209 0.154 365.
2006 5 -0.011 0.205 -0.227 -0.248 31. 0.290 0.411 0.170 0.124 365.
2006 6 0.154 0.349 -0.042 -0.038 30. 0.283 0.405 0.160 0.108 365.
2006 7 0.206 0.321 0.091 0.215 31. 0.273 0.396 0.149 0.101 365.
2006 8 0.256 0.277 0.235 0.232 31. 0.278 0.394 0.162 0.100 365.
2006 9 0.274 0.390 0.158 0.049 30. 0.271 0.391 0.152 0.085 365.
2006 10 0.341 0.338 0.343 0.247 31. 0.267 0.381 0.153 0.098 365.
2006 11 0.288 0.315 0.260 0.165 30. 0.258 0.367 0.148 0.092 365.
2006 12 0.308 0.541 0.075 0.415 31. 0.260 0.380 0.140 0.112 365.
2007 1 0.594 0.762 0.425 0.582 31. 0.279 0.407 0.151 0.150 365.
2007 2 0.450 0.744 0.156 0.401 28. 0.280 0.406 0.154 0.157 365.
2007 3 0.403 0.612 0.194 0.152 31. 0.286 0.420 0.152 0.171 365.
2007 4 0.244 0.344 0.144 0.009 30. 0.291 0.432 0.151 0.182 365.
2007 5 0.199 0.234 0.165 0.001 31. 0.309 0.434 0.185 0.203 365.
2007 6 0.203 0.375 0.030 -0.021 30. 0.313 0.436 0.191 0.204 365.
2007 7 0.255 0.317 0.193 0.074 31. 0.318 0.436 0.199 0.192 365.
2007 8 0.286 0.325 0.247 0.110 31. 0.320 0.440 0.200 0.182 365.
2007 9 0.201 0.240 0.162 0.075 30. 0.314 0.428 0.201 0.184 365.
2007 10 0.231 0.241 0.221 -0.129 31. 0.305 0.419 0.190 0.152 365.
2007 11 0.209 0.165 0.254 -0.052 30. 0.298 0.407 0.190 0.134 365.
2007 12 0.114 0.150 0.077 -0.179 31. 0.282 0.374 0.190 0.084 365.
2008 1 -0.044 -0.115 0.027 -0.213 31. 0.228 0.299 0.156 0.016 365.
DECADAL TREND= 0.140 0.206 0.075
where did the .35 heat anomly come from (12/2006 to 1/2007) SH
Not to be totally naive, but wasn’t last year the warmest January in the series? And this January the coolest only since the 80’s? Doesn’t it make sense that there might be a larger than usual reaction? Or some anomalies distorting the record?
The theory of global warming includes – has always included – the possibility that trapped greenhouse gases can throw off ocean currents which might in turn bring colder weather. (See the historical Little Ice Age for information on why this would be bad for civilization as we’ve created it. Napolean’s army in Russia, for example, could tell you why.)
But I believe the real problem is the rapid and unusual shifts in weather patterns. We can’t prepare for shifts that we can’t predict or have never been used to preparing for (like increasingly violent hurricanes). Global warming isn’t a problem unless you care about preserving human civilization. And in that sense, global warming is a “natural” way for the earth to eradicate the problem – human beings.
MODERATORS REPLY: This post is so misinformed on so many levels, such as the Little Ice Age had little to do with ocean currents and everything to do with changes in the sun. I’ll leave it up to the team to educate you as to why.
If you’d paid attention to the wording, “moderator,” rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, you might have realized that my reference to the Little Ice Age was about why climate change is painful for civilization as we’ve created it. It did not in any way link the causes of Little Ice Age and our current climate situation. I am well aware that these causes are different. It’s the underlying result that *may* connect them and that is what specifically concerns me.
But clearly, I was misinformed about the purpose of this site. I thought this might be a site for an exchange of ideas, not insults. I realize now that you just want to preach to the choir so I’ll leave you and your “team” to your masturbatory exercises.
MODERATOR REPLY: Well, I misunderstood your original paragraph, and for that I apologize. Thank you for clarifying. However there’s no misunderstanding of your use of the phrase “masturbatory exercises”, which is quite uncalled for. A simple “You misunderstood what I was getting at…” would have sufficed. Lets look at this phrase: “global warming is a “natural” way for the earth to eradicate the problem – human beings.” Are you saying that humans beings should be eradicated or something else?
The “team” is people that frequent the site and help others understand concepts or help answer questions when the workload becomes too much. Take for example, Evan and his posting of abbreviations today to help a new visitor understand what some obscure abbreviations mean.
So it looks like we both misunderstood what the other was trying to say. It’s the Internet, it happens. How you choose to deal with misunderstandings is what makes the difference.
Evan you forgot AGW…LOL
I wish I could claim credit for doing so. Full credit to Phillip Mulholland for this excelent list.
(I think he left off COOP. (Cooperative Observer Program)
Does anyone have any hard data re skills of GCM’s? I’ve read on Tamino etc the claims of paleoreconstruction and various claims of how GCM’s have been able to reproduce this and that, and yet… I have no idea where to find the actual results and how the inputs were done or anything. Simple graphs would do nicely (e.g. comparison of hindcast vs what actually happened.)
Since so much of what’s reported re AGW relies on the GCM’s then you’d think there’d be a mountain of data… but there’s none that I can find, just claims and a few papers that discuss the outputs in general terms, with no way to look at what they had to fudge and/or set up to get the thing to run. Perhaps my google fu is poor. Perhaps this is a secret and only the high priest can see it. I can’t tell which is which.
Thanks…
Solar Cycle 23 ended Mar. 07 SC 24 has not started. No sunspots a sign of weak solar magnetic field which allows more high energy cosmic rays to break up molecules in the upper atmosphere, ionized debris forms condensation centers, increased clouds incr. albedo and shade earth. Check out http://solarscience.auditblogs.com for details. Remember that V.P. Gore’s presentation of his film; ‘A Pack of Irresponsible Lies’ presentation in the N.Z./Australia area was somewhat spoiled by record cold and snow while here in the Pacific N.W. summer was cold and damp and this winter we have a snow pack that is already larger than a normal winter with some months to go and our lowland high temps have been below normal most days. Maunder Minimum anyone?
If this is true — (The theory of global warming includes – has always included – the possibility that trapped greenhouse gases can throw off
ocean currents which might in turn bring colder weather. )
— then I wonder how the GCM’s account for this in the dire prediction category. I take her statement to say that climate (fueled by AGW) is so complex that anything could happen, which if true, ought to make it rather difficult to predict the climate of 2108.
If I’m at all understanding the general idea of what the GCM’s are doing, it would seem that they use simpler models of known physics and sprinkle in variables which ought to supply forcings and such, and then plot the trendline and call it a day.
On the other hand you have no end of AGW believers who say the exact same type of thing as the poster I’m quoting… is there a source for this that made it from a GCM? Where do these things come from (outside of schlocky hollywood special effects extravaganzas) ??
Thanks.
[…] say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal […]
[…] say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic […]
I am sorry but I cant find the discusssion Evan refers to above can someone help me?
I was referring to his post labeled 22:12:10. sorry I didnt mention that above.
Didn’t anyone notice that the chart above only charts the data for the months of january, arbitrarily leaving out 11/12ths of the monthy climate data. This is clearly a dishonest representation of the data, is it not?
REPLY: “dishonest representation of the data” ? I resent that implication, and the graphic is clearly labeled.
This is the magnified graphic linked in the post, so please click this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-jan08.png
It says “Month of January” right in the title of the graphic. The data plotted is for January, not yearly. GISS provides every month of the data individually. Also, the title of the post says “…in Jan08”, not for the year 2008.
The post was about comparing the month of January 07 to the month of January 08. The weather events of January are discussed, not the events of the year. The idea here is to show the change related to those events. When the year 2008 data is complete I’ll then compare the entire year of 2008 to previous years.
[…] say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal […]
“I am sorry but I cant find the discusssion Evan refers to above can someone help me?”
No prob.
http://*tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/open-thread/*
Have at.
MODERATOR NOTE: FYI, Since the above named blogger has adopted a policy of placing asterisks in url’s that link to “denialist” websites, so that “search engines don’t increase the relevance” (see his previous thread on Joe D’Aleo’s work) I’m returning the favor, but only for this particular blog. Seems only fair. If he drops this policy, and actually posts that he does, I’ll leave links to his blog unchanged..
I think anngarner may be conflating the Little Ice Age with the Dalton Minimum that froze Napoleon’s army in 1812.
[…] say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes�compared to 2007, and that�our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal […]
If this is cold now, does that mean solar winds from sun spots contribute to the planet’s net heat input more than formerly thought? Would a stronger earth magnetic field make it worse?
It’s higher water vapor positive albedo feedback i.e. where temp’s below 32F higher water vapor = greater snow across land mass, larger measurements snow cover, and sea ice a function earlier melt = less salt water more freshwater = more sea ice occurring during an off the sharts La Nina.
Sunspot cycles way foolishly overated, but has an effect but not enough to show up unless dramatice like a Dalton, Maunder or milankovitch.
it’s La Nina, increased baroclincity for current storm track etc.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif see La nina bottom blue and have fun
I’m afraid I don’t see what the fuss is about. This drop from Jan ’07 to Jan ’08 is a big one, to be sure, but it still leaves Jan ’08 as significantly above the baseline. Further, the chart as a whole shows a consistent, obvious upward trend in January temperatures, and even this 07-08 drop isn’t enough to destroy that. What exactly are you suggesting here?
I’m with Evan Jones. Evidence of cooling is OBVIOUSLY further proof of man-made global warming. If it gets colder and colder every month for the next 20 years until earth is an iceball that will simply continue to be a wake-up call that global warming is real and getting worse.
” [AGW Theory] has always included – the possibility that trapped greenhouse gases can throw off ocean currents which might in turn bring colder weather”
Really? A citation would be nice. There was an event thousands of years ago when a huge ice dam burst letting a reserve of fresh water, for which there exist no analog today, flowed into the ocean in a matter of days or weeks. This did affect the Gulf Stream salinity, probably. I would be interested in hard science which lists this as a possibility today, as opposed to speculation in the popular press or in Hollywood movies.
Also, the cold in the north would be balanced by warm to the south, as heat would be trapped in the tropics.
According to that graph we still appear to be above the average temperature.
And of course it should be obvious to anyone what the general direction of the graph is
randomengineer: In support of my fellow engineer here’s a link courtesy of Mr. Mosher in commentary at CA:
http://mitgcm.org/pelican/online_documents
I gather from their discussion it is about as good as documentation gets along these lines but I cannot verify.
Having looked into their heuristics for nearly a year, I concur:
“If I’m at all understanding the general idea of what the GCM’s are doing, it would seem that they use simpler models of known physics and sprinkle in variables which ought to supply forcings and such, and then plot the trendline and call it a day.”