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.
Looks like Scotland’s brave decision to lead the way in fighting “climate chaos” (see link) is having an effect already.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7213745.stm
As an aside does anyone know what “climate stability” would look like?
Jim’s question about “Those numbers alone . . . ” got me thinking.
We can’t draw conclusions but please let me know if I’m am incorrect in my thinking.
That heat is lost to the system forever setting us back to a lower starting point.
As atmospheric CO2 has not dropped and the heat loss to space was accelerated as compared to recent years (yes, I realize temp is a noisy proxie of heat but has Anthony and others have shown, it is difficult for it to be biased cold vs. high)
As the study of the climate is an on going endeavor and the actual drivers of the system are still being discovered, the recent temperature drop pushes down the confidence of CO2 as a significant driver and increases the confidence other drivers are now more likely to be more significant. (To date, those other drivers being primarily PDO, AMO, Solar Variance)
Feedback appreciated.
Re: “lets not speculate on future datasets please. Let them be released first then we can all squabble over the numbers. Don’t rush Science.”
Agreed. After playing with the data from UAH webpage more it is clear that the data is not in final form and trying to draw conclusions from it would not be wise.
Mike, my layman’s answer to your question is that the global temperatures must fluctuate a great deal more than the underlying heat in the world system. Where all the heat has gone I don’t know (below sea level perhaps?), but it is more customary just to look at annual rather monthly figures, since they at least are less dominated by very short term effects.
When trying to lose weight most experts tell us that it is not a good idea to weigh yourself on extremely accurate scales every few hours and worry about a few ounces gained or lost. They say that it is best to weigh oneself no more than once a week – and to be more concerned about the generally trend than the exact number of pounds lost.
I am slightly concerned that we might be making too much of a temporary blip in temperature and that we should take a long term view of the trend.
There seems to be a closer correspondence with PDO/AMO and (to a lesser extent) TSI than to CO2.
We have to consider that climate is subject to many different pressures and that singling out one effect is very difficult. (A correspondence might not exist between temperatures and Effect X because of vaious competing pressures even if X is important.)
But the oscillation factor seems to be important. Note that ocean temps are far less volatile than land temps (more joules required to change air temp than water owing to density of the latter).
This would seem to imply that a change in ocean temps woud carry more “Umph” (i.e., joules) than a change in air temps and that the ocean temps may well be the dog and the land temps may be the tail.
Mike, you beat me to it. The global average temperature (GAT) measures the current energy level of the atmosphere. For a drop of this magnitude to be explained, you have to find out how energy left the system or is hidden in the system. If the energy left the system, then GHG aren’t locking in and accumulating energy as the warmists claim. If the energy has gone into hiding (e.g. into the ocean), then the GAT measurement has to questioned as inadequate.
Putting 0.6 degrees in perspective– That is the amount of energy we get from sun in about 3.7 hours.
assuming:
(a) Heat capacity of atmosphere ~ 3.8*10^21 Joule/K
(b) incident radiation ~ 1366 Watt/m^2)
(c) surface temp is approximative of the whole atmosphere. (big assumption)
Losing (or gaining) .6 deg over the course of a year is not a big deal percentage wise. That would mean we averaged a radiative imbalance of -0.04% in the last 12 months, and about +0.0007% over the last century.
I think a lot of people who worry about GW don’t have a good feel for the amounts of energy they are talking about.
As an example, a solar eclipse deprives the earth of ~3.3*10^20 Joules. (Assuming it happens in the daytime, ha ha) This alone is enough to drop the Atmosphere’s avg temp by 0.085 deg K.
(assumptions: solar eclipse transit time = 7 hrs, radius of moon= 0.27*radius of earth)
[…] global warming. I wonder what the good scientist thinks of the current global cooling, especially this year the world is […]
The “cliff” depicted by HadCRUT is of a greater amplitude than the fall off from the ’97 – ’98 El Nino. I am getting quite concerned.
I’m amazed that no one else is commenting on the NH land (where 90% of people live) average temp falling 2.4C (jan 2007 to jan 2008) in 12 months.
The IPCC is saying we will get that amount of warming in 50 years and it will be a catastrophe. Yet, we get that amount of cooling in a year and no one bats an eyelid.
I think the reason is that both sides of the debate instinctively believe that whatever happens, climate changes slowly and therefore a 2.4C drop in average temperature in a year must be a statistical quirk or anomaly.
Well maybe it isn’t and climate can change rapidly. There is some evidence that at the start of the Little Ice Age we had an abrupt cooling of around 3C in just a few years (perhaps 5 years).
BTW, I went and checked there wasn’t a mistake in the Jan 2007 NH land temp and found in fact it had been adjusted down slightly in the jan 2008 report and the cooling would have been -2.45C using the jan 2007 value.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jan/global.html#Temp
steven mosher (06:26:51) :
“henry and others, changing the anomaly peroid just sifts the line vertically, it doesnt change the trend and the trend is the issue.”
Once again, I agree about the trend. But if a common zero is to be chosen, why choose GISS?
Does this mean that the other three zeros should be bumped up to the GISS values, or should all four follow the lowest?
Compare GISS Jan 08 (.12C) to RSS Jan 08 (-.08). How much of that .2C difference is due to processing of data, and how much is because of the difference on reporting time?
And once again, trend wouldn’t change either way. But “alarmists” want to show the largest value above zero (implying that “zero” is normal).
Al Gore: give your Nobel prize back!
[…] het licht van de stijgende temperaturen wegens klimaatverandering. Deze meting is afzonderlijk door vier instituten bevestigd. De extremiteit van de daling is niet te verklaren via het weerfenomeen La Nina wat wel […]
[…] het licht van de stijgende temperaturen wegens klimaatverandering. Deze meting is afzonderlijk door vier instituten bevestigd. De extremiteit van de daling is niet te verklaren via het weerfenomeen La Nina wat wel […]
Patrick:
From one layman to another, I agree. I don’t want to make too much of it. That’s what I’m trying to figure out, what can we take from it? Don’t want to act in a catastrophist manner (if that’s a word)
Given the specific heat of the oceans, I would think the vast majority of heat exits to space.
Arthur: Question I asked myself wrt your comment. Where would the heat hide? Did atmosphere suddenly lose mass and pressure decreased forcing a temp drop? Don’t think so. Did some of it go into the oceans? Some yes, but I can’t imagine anywhere else other than outer space, (JIm Clark once gave me heck for not recognizing that some heat does travel down as evidenced by such things as thermals but I imagine the vast majority the heat escapes the system to outer space.) Maybe the heat got smart and is hiding between sample points.
Thanks for your comments. They are greatly appreciated.
Doubters ought to look at the trend in world ocean pH. Probably more stable than temperature. Increasing acidification is not good. To put it mildly.
I believe a period of cooling is in store, and that this is just the initial downward spike. Only time will tell, of course. The correlation between lower solar activity and a downward trend in temp. seems pretty clear, except to the fuzzy-brained warmers.
Since I have been taught by the almighty talking box that correlation equals causation, and since I moved from Columbus, Ohio to Westchester, NY in Dec ’06, and have thus not had one single meal from either Taco Bell or White Castles since moving, I have to wonder if this temp drop hasn’t been a result of my dietary changes.
After all, methane is a greenhouse gas.
Of course, the AGW folks still think it’s C02, not the sun, but carry on.
There has been a lot of mention of La Nina being the reason for current change in temperature trends. Here is a bit of news that might warn us of any smugness we might have in our ability to do medium-term forecasting. A few months okay, forecasters for the Southeast U.S. were in consensus that La Nina meant continued low amounts of rainfall for Georgia. However, in the month of February already, Atlanta’s rainfall has exceeded normal rainfall. Also, the rainfall for the last three months is above normal. http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/fitness/monthly/USGA0028?from=36hr_topnav_fitness
The global warmers will completely ignore this info, since there is no way to tax the sun.
Maybe we can get Algore to donate a small portion of his global warming millions to buy winter coats for poor kids or something like that.
It’s clear why the temperatures have dropped so quickly.
The Kyoto protocol is actually working, and the cooling was in the pipeline!
Global Ice Age …… Al G. invented that !!!!!
Your website should see a nice bump as you are linked indirectly through Drudge via the link below. Congrats and back off to lurking for me.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
It is very popular in all sorts of disciplines to assemble data sets which best exemplify a conclusion which supports hypothesis. Further data will confirm or refute the most recent assertion.
It will be interesting to see if we could find explicit solar data which could be tied to these trends. That in and of itself does not refute global climate change tied to an increase in atmospheric CO2, popularly called global warming.
One misapprehension people have about global warming is that it will suddenly make everything hotter; That is incorrect. What it will do is increase the over all energy in the system, which in turn will likely be reflected in more kinetic energy in the weather systems and faster over-all exchanges of heat between the poles and the equator. *THAT* is what will likely cause major melting, not specific increases in insolation in higher latitudes.
It also means greater extremes in temperature on a seasonal basis, and less “consistent” weather over all. Boston may get one winter mostly below freezing, and immediately following have one where temps skip along mostly above.
The key now is to watch the trends, from the data we currently have, and are now starting to expand. Either way the wind is blowing (hot or cold), we need accurate empirical data. Much of what has been collected does support warming. More data in required to decisively refute that hypothesis.