January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:
UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones:
Reference: above data is HadCRUT3 column 2 which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Dr. James Hansen:
Reference: GISS dataset temperature index data
University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Dr. John Christy:
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS):
Reference: RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.1)
The purpose of this summary is to make it easy for everyone to compare the last 4 postings I’ve made on this subject.
I realize that not all the graphs are of the same scale, so my next task will be to run a combined graphic of all the data-sets on identical amplitude and time scales to show the agreements or differences such a graph would illustrate.
UPDATE: that comparison has been done here
Here is a quick comparison and average of ∆T for all metrics shown above:
| Source: | Global ∆T °C |
| HadCRUT |
– 0.595 |
| GISS | – 0.750 |
| UAH | – 0.588 |
| RSS | – 0.629 |
| Average: | – 0.6405°C |
For all four metrics the global average ∆T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: – 0.6405°C
This represents an average between the two lower troposphere satellite metrics (RSS and UAH) and the two land-ocean metrics (GISS and HadCRUT). While some may argue that they are not compatible data-sets, since they are derived by different methods (Satellite -Microwave Sounder Unit and direct surface temperature measurements) I would argue that the average of these four metrics is a measure of temperature, nearest where we live, the surface and near surface atmosphere.
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
UPDATE #2 see this post from Dr. John R. Christy on the issue.
UPDATE #3 see the post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline.
Sponsored IT training links:
Get professional help for your HP0-J33 exam! Download the 650-575 test questions for practice and pass 117-201 exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alex,
“if they cut back on cars and high emission vehicles and production lines and we start to become more sustainable throughout the whole world, surely it is a good thing. correct me if i am wrong.”
Using the word “surely” generally means you are asserting what you are saying instead of actually proving it.
If I have to pay $500/yr more for green energy & green technology, that’s $500 less I have to give to international development. And for some projects in West Africa $500 is all it takes to build a well for a village.
I would agree with Ralph that the “peak oil” hypothesis ignores major North American reserves in tar sands and oil shale. These two alone would triple the total world reserves according to estimates.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
Max
Comment to Ralph on G+T
I do not believe that G+T are “quacks”.
I also do not support their conclusions (one way or the other).
Part of their analysis went toward pointing out mathematical errors (be this right or wrong). Another part took aim at the “radiation balance” diagrams used to explain greenhouse warming. Yet another part questioned the validity of a global temperature.
But the most basic (and controversial) part questioned the re-emission of heat from the cold atmospheric CO2 layer back to a warmer surface of the Earth, claiming that this violates the second law of thermodynamics.
I cannot say whether this makes sense or not.
I have seen the Smith paper but have not seen any papers directly refuting the points made by G+T.
Maybe they are out there somewhere, but just writing someone off as a “quack” is not the same as refuting their claims with hard facts.
There is no “Peak Oil” crisis.
Peek and ye shall find!
Some temp facts for Misanthropic Scott
All of the four temperature records show that the late 20th century global warming trend stopped in 2001.
Plotting the monthly data from the records and putting in a linear trend line shows the following trend from January 2001 to today:
The Hadley record shows a cooling trend of –0.108 degrees C per decade
The RSS record shows a cooling trend of –0.060 degrees C per decade
The UAH record shows a cooling trend of –0.004 degrees C per decade
The GISS record shows a flat trend of 0.000 degrees C per decade
The 21st century started officially on January 1, 2001 (Wikipedia).
So it is correct to say that there has been no observed global warming trend (so far) this century.
Those are just the plain unvarnished facts.
This is not to say that a 7-year record constitutes a new trend. It will take many more years to see what will really happen.
But it is correct to say that it appears that the rapid warming trend of the late 20th century stopped around 2001.
And it raises some serious questions regarding the IPCC projections of a warming trend of +0.2 degrees C per decade for “the next two decades”.
how can I see your stat charts.
I think the trend analysis is quite significant !
Lou Geoffrion
Mancehster-by-the-Sea, MA
Message to Lou Geoffrion
Hi Lou,
Just download the temperature record as it is published (globally averaged land and sea monthly figures). Below are the links for Hadley (surface) and UAH (troposphere):
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Plot the monthly data in Excel starting January 1998 (or January 2001) to February 2008.
Put in a linear trend line with the equation for the trend.
I started out with the 1998-2008 (latest decade) trend, but got some criticism for starting with 1998 (a record warm year), so I re-did the plot starting January 2001 (the “first year in the 21st century”), for a 7-year trend. Either way, the trend is flat to slight cooling.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Hi Lou,
Forgot to mention. When you have put in the linear trend line and the equation, you will see an equation that reads y = b*x + a. This is the linear trend line equation. The “b” tells you the linear trend of change. Since you plotted monthly data it gives you the monthly trend in degrees C per month. You have to convert this to the trend conventionally used, degrees C per decade by multiplying the “b” number by 120.
Regards,
Max
Fascinating discussion. BTW, we’ve had snow in Seattle for two days (April 19 & 20, 2008). I hear it’s a record for the latest measurable snowfall.
Correlation between temperature and CO2
Back in February Joe Black asked: “So how’s that correlation of the temperature anomaly with the atmospheric CO2 change going?”
On April 10 I posted a blog showing that the data from the Hadley record shows that there have been several multidecadal cycles in the temperature anomaly, from warming to slight cooling, over the entire record since around 1850.
Now if you compare the change in temperature anomaly with the change in atmospheric CO2 (from Mauna Loa and IPCC) over these periods you see:
Period………….Trend…Years…DTemp…DCO2
1860-1879……..+0.196…20……+0.39………2
1879-1906….…..-0.047…27……-0.13………5
1906-1940……..+0.161…35……+0.56………14
1940-1976………-0.020…36……-0.07………25
1976-1998……..+0.175…22……+0.39………33
1998-2008……….0.000…10……0.00………..20
Trend is linear decadal temperature trend in degreesC/decade
DTemp is linear temperature change over period in degreesC
DCO2 is increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over period in ppmv
If you download the first column (Period) and columns 4 and 5 (DTemp and DCO2) and plot it in Excel, you will see that correlation of change in temperature anomaly with change in atmospheric CO2.
Not very convincing.
Max
How IPCC sees the temperature / CO2 correlation
The temperature record shows multidecadal fluctuations with no correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentraction until around 1976.
There is a 22 year period where the correlation between temperature and CO2 appears to be strong, and the most recent flat trend is mostly outside the data used by IPCC and not acknowledged as a slowdown in its latest AR4 WG1 report.
IPCC points to a 1976 divide as a “date of widely acknowledged climate shift” (Chapter 3, p.240)
The 22-year cycle starting in 1976 accounts for around 30% of the warming since records started and is used as the “proof” of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) due to CO2 (and other GHGs).
IPCC (Chapter 9, p.681): “The simulations show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing, regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used, stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming.”
So CO2 is guilty “by default” (since there is no other explanation).
But what about the earlier warming cycles (1860-1879 and 1906-1940), which accounted for 70% of the total warming?
IPCC (Chapter 3, p.240) says: “The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here. This amounts to “we’re not going there, folks”.
The period 1860-1879 had the highest decadal rate of increase and accounted for 30% of the total warming with essentially no CO2 increase, yet it is not mentioned by IPCC at all.
Very brief mention is made of the 1906-1940 period (Chapter 9, p.691): “Detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming.” This period accounted for 40% of the total warming, yet it is only mentioned in passing, with the admission that there is “uncertainty” regarding the causes for this warming.
So we essentially have this logic:
1) We don’t know what caused the 1860-1879 or 1906-1940 warmings (total: 0.95C) (nor are we going to talk about this or investigate this “uncertainty” more closely).
2) We know that CO2 caused the 1976-1998 warming (total: 0.39C).
3) Why?
4) Because nothing else explains it.
No attempt has been made to analyze these earlier periods to find “unexplained” causes for the observed rapid warming. What are these causes and what was their impact? Could these “unexplained” (but observed) causes also have been causes for the late 20th-century warming, which is being attributed to AGW by default?
Instead of actually looking for true explanations for these “inconvenient” earlier warming periods, IPCC chose to ignore them and use the late 20th-century warming period as confirmation of their preconceived AGW theory.
As a result, the suggestion that “late 20th-century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin” since “no climate model using natural forcings alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the 20th century” is made without any basis other than conjecture.
Max
And since we don’t even know all the forcings involved, and many are poorly understood, their so-called “logic” fails even further. One should also note, I believe, that models have to pump more CO2 into the virtual realm than we’re currently adding, which invalidates them even more.
[…] Age (National Post, Canada) 2008 – Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech) 2008 – 4 sources say globally cooler in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist) 2008 – The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press) 2008 – […]
[…] Age (National Post, Canada) 2008 – Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech) 2008 – 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist) 2008 – The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press) 2008 – […]
[…] Age (National Post, Canada) 2008 – Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech) 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist) 2008 – The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press) 2008 – […]
[…] Age (National Post, Canada) 2008 – Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech) 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist) 2008 – The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press) 2008 – […]
[…] global warming and our role in it. After researchers revealed recently that they had observed a cooling trend over the last twelve months and that hotspot activity on the sun had decreased alarmingly, the contrarian opinion to the […]
[…] as tendências efectivas da história climatérica. Por exemplo, dados recentes indicam que durante o ano de 2007 houve um decréscimo acentuado da temperatura global. Algumas fontes de medições climatéricas indicam que nos últimos 10 anos a temperatura global […]
I threw and article out on my ‘blog’ (really, it’s just a collection of links I found interesting about the world and green stuff) that referenced some of your data. Someone made an informative comment on it and mentioned El Nino and La Nina.
What are your comments on that? Is it just a normal El Nino/La Nina cycle this year or is it actually going down? Will it probably still continue going down or is it really and ‘anomaly’ like some ppl have suggested?
Here is the link: http://www.makegreenwork.com/misc/05052008/what-cause-the-effects-of-global-cooling/#comment-66
I went to the net and typed in “hottest year on record”. I came to the conclusion that nobody anywhere has any idea what was the hottest year over the last one hundred or so years. The articles read, “2007, the hottest year on record”; “2005, the hottest year on record.” And so on and so on.
My questions are these:
One: If there isn’t any scientific agreement on just how hot is hot, and when hot becomes hotter, how the heck does anyone know just what the heck the earth is doing?
Two: On the asumption that only one year was “the hottest” doesn’t that discredit everyone who uses other figures? I mean, if they can’t get that right, how can you trust them to get anything right?
Three: Anyone out there KNOW what was the hottest year? Was it 1934, or 2007, or 1998, or what?
Four: To have a “hottest” year, don’t you need some sort of consistancy in measurment? Is there any?
I have to believe that scientific agreement on global warming is a crock. The scientific establishment can’t even agree on how hot is hot.
CHK
Those who are attempting to disparage the nearly TWENTY THOUSAND scientists who have signed the OISM petition strobgly questioning AGW need to read this:
http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1834.htm
…not that it will make any difference to the True Believer climate deceivers. But it may convince reasonable, moderate people that AGW is built 98% on hype.
The link above refers to the peer-reviewed paper which can be found here:
http://www.oism.org/pproject
The UN/IPCC used only about fifty tamed scientists to produce its summaries. Those scientists allow themselves to be petted by the UN – in return for money.
Contrast that tiny handful of co-opted scientists with the nearly 20,000 who have signed the IOSM petition above, who are highly skeptical of AGW.
For further proof that AGW is over-hyped alarmism, one only needs to reflect on the undeniable fact that neither Al Gore, nor the UN/IPCC, nor James Hansen, nor Michael Mann, nor any of the other purveyors of the AGW doomsday scenario will debate their position.
Since the promoters of AGW consistently run and hide from any debate [and also refuse to publicly archive their data and methodology], then the conclusion is crystal clear: they are lying.
When I first came to this blog I said that Mars was the key. That we need to keep an eye on the melting polar caps of Mars. Time to revisit that idea. Back in Feb of this year the caps were melting, and according to thought then, only about a meter thick, and the north polar cap was all but gone.
How times change.
Now according to the latest measurements, the north polar cap covers an area of about 800,000km, and is at least a mile thick. We cool, Mars cools. We heat up, Mars heats up. We have CO2 emmisions and Mars has- – – .
Maybe Marvin Martian is using coal in his rocket ship.
The expansion of the north polar cap on Mars is greater than can be expected by normal seasonal varations. It has gotten a good deal colder on Mars than any scientest expected, or predicted.
I contend that the expanding north polar cap on Mars puts an end to all argument that global climate change is AGW. I doubt that anyone can argue effectively that the expansion of the north polar cap on Mars occuring at the same time as the cooling on earth is anything but related to solar heating and cooling, and that there is no relationship in that to the CO2 emmisions on earth.
CHK
REPLY: Got references for the change in Mars? Love to see them.
got that from yahoo news. The figures I quoted came directly from there. CHK
Interesting. At first there was a receding of the Mars cap a few years back. That was chalked up to orbital eccentricity (though how that could affect things so quickly even with an unstable orbit was not explained).
If it’s getting cooler, in coincidence with earth, that adds buckshot to the idea.
I am a sea witch, but I also acknowledge the sun’s role as primary driver.
I’ll be keeping my eye out for more on this.