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.
very good post thank you
[…] of America: Minnesota town hits a record low (International Herald Tribune, February 11, 2008) 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, February 19, 2008) 2008 – Forget global warming: Welcome to the new […]
Alan,
That is not what Al Gore said. Al said that temperates will increase along with CO2. CO2 is increasing and the temperature is lowering. Also, most scientists agree that warmer is better for humans. The little ice age was not good for humans. The truth is that there is not enough evidence to say that global warming cycles, that are a natural, are man made. It is ok to have a hypothisis, but follow the numbers.
[…] http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200… […]
[…] the future. If you can explain to me why the data related to the link is bogus, I am all ears. January 2008 – 4 sources say globally cooler in the past 12 months Honestly, maybe I am missing something. I could save you some trouble by quoting ‘Dr. John […]
SAVE THE PLANET BUMPER STICKER
MORE CO2 = MORE GREEN
http://www.makestickers.com/display.aspx?cat=119
Just click on the template and enter the words MORE C02 = MORE GREEN
or whatever you want to say.
Al Gore saved the world!!!! Global temperatures have consistently dropped since the premiere of “An Inconvenient Truth”. That movie must have had some magical power that caused temperatures to drop dramatically.
In an unrelated story, solar output has consistently dropped over the past several years.
[…] According to some reports the global temperature actually dropped in 2007, despite lobbyists continuing to affirm the effect of “Global Warming”. First off, the term “Global Warming” seems silly to me. If the temperature is fluctuating, a more accurate term is “Climate change”. Sorry, it just gets to me these days when I hear anyone say “Global Warming”. Makes me think they haven’t a real clue what they’re talking about, or they’re trying to work some angle. […]
[…] the future. If you can explain to me why the data related to the link is bogus, I am all ears. January 2008 – 4 sources say globally cooler in the past 12 months Honestly, maybe I am missing something. I could save you some trouble by quoting ‘Dr. John […]
I know this is an old discussion now, but I would like to clear up a question I have. I have read somewhere (can’t remember where) that CO2’s power as a greenhouse gas is not linear. In otherwords, as the concentration of CO2 increases, its relative power (per molecule) as a green house gas decreases. A 2x increase in CO2 would not lead to a 2x increase in warming due to CO2, but rather something less. At somepoint, no matter how much CO2 is added, its contribution to the greenhouse effect does not increase.
Is this true? What does the research show?
[…] is evidence that global temperatures dropped by as much as 0.65C between January of 2007 and January of 2008. […]
It’s not complete and correct data without applying the governments weather modification/mitigation (chemtrails) programs worldwide (NATO countries).
I am not sold on the natural drop in global temps without acknowledgement of the literally millions of tons of Barium, Aluminum and other “weather modification” particulates.
There has been a tremendous amount of interest and comments trailing up from February until now – 11/18 – by my watch. Where is year #2 stacking up after the preciptous drop? Are you waiting until next February to refresh this data? I believe polar and antartic ice are building to 25 year highs, this would suggest the drop lengthens and is getting deeper.
Also, I am very interested in looking at any good Martian data, is there a good site for this?
[…] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-mont… […]
Randall (11:08:02) :
The effect of CO2 is considered to be logarithmic.
See Table 1 here.
From Alan Henderson (12:03:26) :
This thread is mystifying to me.
What do short term month to month data matter? Or even year on year data? 5 year averages are more relevant.
end quote
It depends on what you want to measure. I trade stock a lot. One uses longer term averages to see a major trend, but they miss important inflection points. One uses shorter term averages to see if an inflection against the major trend is shaping up.
Your statement amounts to an assertion that you would not want to know that a major change (inflection) had happened for at least 3 years…
I have found that it is vitally important to look at averages of at least two different time periods to really know what is going on. It doesn’t matter if you are a long term investor (5 year weekly data points chart vs 1 yr daily) or a day trader (10 day hourly chart vs 5 day 5 minute chart). One shows the major trend that is / has been and the other gives you a rapid ‘heads up’ when that trend is violated.
What we are seeing in the crashing temperatures is just such a rapid inflection point. Were it a stock, I’d be selling my ‘warming’ position (and with the speed of the drop world wide preparing to short ‘warming’) while prepping to buy ‘cooling’. (Come to think of it, I am doing that. Just bought natural gas stocks last week …)
From Randall (11:08:02) :
I know this is an old discussion now, but I would like to clear up a question I have. I have read somewhere (can’t remember where) that CO2’s power as a greenhouse gas is not linear.
…
Is this true? What does the research show?
end quote
Yes, it’s true. The effect decays. Rather like the 10th cup of coffee doesn’t effect you nearly as much as the first 😉 Imagine putting silver on glass. At first you don’t get much effect. Eventually you have a dim mirror, then a full mirror. At some point, adding more silver does not make more than 100% of the light reflect.
From Dave (14:29:07) :
There has been a tremendous amount of interest and comments trailing up from February until now – 11/18 – by my watch. Where is year #2 stacking up after the preciptous drop?
end quote
Dave, google “2008 record cold snow” and stand back… Snow all over, cold records all over. Even record cold in Cuba and snow in S. Brazil…
I would expect this winter to be an ongoing series of weather events and cold news.
Hello all I live up in Shetland (the most northerly point in the British isles) up in Shetland we can get some amazing weather, about 3 weeks ago we had 117 mph winds. When you get that with snow you’re in for it. Over the last decades we have noticed a decline in the amount of snow, and cold weather we get, but this winter so far has been very cold. We had snow in October, that hasn’t happened since 1830. We have also had drifting snow in November, and it has been very cold. I just think it’s very funny how some of the scientists think, the sun, plays no part in the weather. If you cross reference sunspot activity and global temperatures, you will see clearly that the sun indeed has an effect. A Mr. Kenneth chatten has predicted very successfully, the sunspot cycles before, and has predicted that the sunspot cycle we are entering, cycle 24, will be very weak, but he has also predicted that, not only will sunspot cycle 24 be weak but cycles 25 & 26. which could result in very cold conditions on this earth. The difference in global temperature from the 1998’s temperature peek and the little ice age minimum is just 1.5 degrees. In one year the temperature has gone down by 0.7 degrees. It’s not looking good. When we do really need our 4×4’s the government has taxed it to the max. You have to laugh or you would cry.
[…] the future. If you can explain to me why the data related to the link is bogus, I am all ears. January 2008 – 4 sources say globally cooler in the past 12 months Honestly, maybe I am missing something. I could save you some trouble by quoting ‘Dr. John […]
[…] January 2008 – 4 sources say globally cooler in the past 12 months Are you so immersed in your ‘scientific’ beliefs that you do not find the dramatic shift in temperature of interest? I do find it interesting, but given the point was a warming trend the 12 month data is not an indicater of any trend by itself. If we had been discussing 1998, the unusual rise in temperature would not BY ITSELF proof anything. It is when coupled with the longer term trend data. Quote: […]
I have been working since 2003 on actual emissions calculations of internal combustion engines. I believe the that I can prove that calculations of carbon of specific fuels to co2 is grossly exaggerated. I will be publishing end of 08. This may help the debate of co2 to heat retention.
Ron
Ron Long (14:09:52) :
I have been working since 2003 on actual emissions calculations of internal combustion engines. I believe the that I can prove that calculations of carbon of specific fuels to co2 is grossly exaggerated. I will be publishing end of 08. This may help the debate of co2 to heat retention.
Fuel goes in with x carbon. It comes out with v CO2, w CO, y C particulates, and z HC. Is there more to it than that? Looking forward to your paper… If all the tons of C particulates are being misattributed to CO2 that would be an issue… (rampant speculation…) but you’ve got me interested and thinking.
There has been a lot of world –wide concern over the past several years about the possibility of Global warming. The data indicates from the 19th century to 2007, the earth has warmed 1.2 degrees C and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 80 ppm from around 260 ppm to 340 ppm . All basically agree on these facts. Many scientists and other pundits jump on this fact as proof that man is causing global warming by spurting the green house gas carbon dioxide into the air from profit hungry factories and the infamous internal combustion machines. While carbon dioxide gets all the publicity, water vapor is actually is 60 to 80 percent of the green house gases and watch out for that sleeper methane that is 26 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. While it is a known scientific fact that greenhouse gases help retain heat from the sun making the earth a more hospitable planet, please remember that most of our warmth comes mainly from the sun. Depending on the activity of the sun and sun spots, the earth’s temperature does vary. A more plausible explanation for me for the concurrent rise of Earth temperature concurrent small increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is as follows. Carbon dioxide may not the cause of global warming but actually the result of global warming. The greenhouse gas, CO2, in the air is not a new thing. Volcanoes have been releasing it for years. So why hasn’t it build up in the air turning this planet into the desert of Hell? It does not build up in the air because it is soluble in water and rain delivers it to our lakes, rivers and oceans where it forms a weak, very dilute, carbonic acid. (yes, it is more complicated than that, carbon dioxide reacts in more than one way and the carbonic acid that it forms can further react with other elements such as calcium to form the insoluble calcium carbonate.) But let’s keep this discussion simple like me. There have been many previous times in the earth’s long history where the earth’s temperature rose or fell and at the same time it can be confirmed from old ice cores that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air also rose or fell. As the earth temperature rises and it’s waters warm and the solubility of carbon dioxide gas in warmer water decreases, so carbon dioxide must be released from water, to where? Where else, the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide in the air is in equilibrium with the amount in this plants water. (I said simple. let’s keep the amount used plant life use as a constant)
I believe that this warming issue is a weather or a physics problem but a good ol’ Chemistry 101 explanation and given the known amount of water and atmosphere on this planet and the delta temperature , the exchange of CO2 from the water to the atmosphere can be calculated.
OK, supporters of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, time to beat me up.
Peter Rafinate
tHanks
I have been working since 2003 on actual emissions calculations of internal combustion engines. I believe the that I can prove that calculations of carbon of specific fuels to co2 is grossly exaggerated. I will be publishing end of 08. This may help the debate of co2 to heat retention.
Ron
There has been a tremendous amount of interest and comments trailing up from February until now – 11/18 – by my watch. Where is year #2 stacking up after the preciptous drop? Are you waiting until next February to refresh this data? I believe polar and antartic ice are building to 25 year highs, this would suggest the drop lengthens and is getting deeper.
Also, I am very interested in looking at any good Martian data, is there a good site for this?