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.
Can I really thank the person who posted the early February 2008 global temperatures. If these are as low as suggested, it really is a spanner in the works for global warming alarmists because unless there is an equally dramatic warming, it will mean that yet again the UK Met Office have predicted a rise when none happened.
What is the chance of getting your forecast high 9 out of 9 years if there is not a consistent error in the forecasting model? Here is the actual global temperature and the UK Met Office’s “overwhelming scientific consensus” that the year would be warmer than the actual temperatures we got:
Year: Actual
2000: 0.238°C (claimed >80% chance of >0.33°C)
2001: 0.400°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.42°C)
2002: 0.455°C (claimed >50% chance of >0.47°C)
2003: 0.457°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.50°C)
2004: 0.432°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.47°C)
2005: 0.479°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.48°C)
2006: 0.422°C (claimed >50% chance of >0.45°C)
2007: 0.402°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.49°C)
Now if you are claiming 75% chance of something then on average 75% of predictions should be right! Instead 75% are way out and 100% of their forecasts are high! Using the Met Office’s own probability, there’s less than 1% error of getting their forecast consistently high, unless there is something wrong with the forecast.
And that error is a consistent prediction of temperature rise of some +0.06°C per year and if this were to continue, then it would mean that by 2014, instead of the average temperature rising to 0.73°C as the UK Met Office currently predicts it will have cooled to 0.3°C
Has anyone else noticed the near total silence on this subject from the main stream media. Except for Drudge, I would never have found this website and the great discussion on it.
If I understand the comments correctly, there is a consensus here that the dramatic dip in average global temperature in 2007 does not disprove or prove anything. On the otherhand, the AGW theory is weakened because its predictions and observed real world don’t agree. (Even if the time scale is small – 1 year).
An objective media would want to inform people of all the facts before we make election choices.
From earlier post: “Today’s news tell the current ‘winter’ is the warmest ever recorded. The average temperatures between Dec 2007 -Feb 2008 are about ONE degree above the previous record warm wintger 1924-1925.”
ONe question, my Finnish friend: Why was it so warm in 1924-1925? SUVs?
I see in these posts much speculation over numbers, many assertions regarding their meaning, and a great deal of dismissive language aimed at people who are definitively *NOT* stupid. None of these activities is particularly useful in *understanding* the numbers.
What would be useful is to see some hypotheses.
If the numbers suggest cooling, why?
For that “why”, if it is true, what other evidence should we see?
What is the relationship between those parallel effects and the original phenomena?
For that evidence, how do we collect and measure it?
Assertions are not particularly useful. Testable theory *is*.
to: Evan Jones.
Thanks. Your comment is supported by an article in National Geographic News titled “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.
You are absolutely right in suggesting that some scientest believe the warming of Mars is due to it’s “wobble.” Unfortunately I have been unable to find anywhere on the net scientific evidence that Mars is in fact wobbling. Perhaps some readers of this blog will be able to furnish that data for me. To say that Mars is warming due to a wobbling orbit, without evidence of that wobble, is really bad science. We have the fact that the south pole of mars has been decreasing in size. We seem to have only the theory that this is caused by orbital wobble. Theorys are well and good, but to be valid they must be supported by fact. If someone can furnish scientific evidence that wobbling in the martian orbit is occuring, I will gladly, happily, quickly, and even really fast, retract all my previous comments. Yet, if no scientific data supports the wobble theory, then perhaps we best keep an eye on Mars. CK.
Darn, there goes my NSF grant. Guess us “clima’psuedo’tologists are gonna have to come up with something else to scare the public ……….. so we can get that grant money.
Chicken Little
[…] internet meme began with a misleading post by a meteorologist about how cool January 2008 was compared to January 2007 (but who made no connection to global […]
For a check of what’s going on in solar cycle 24, check:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Pretty quiet.
Max
Just a quick question from a non scientist schmuck. If it is true that “Theorys are well and good, but to be valid they must be supported by fact.” and that statement is agreed upon by the scientific community, then where exactly can I find the set of agreed upon “facts” that demonstrate human causes of global warming? Thank You
to Hagar:
Unfortunatly I must agree with you. The conflicting data and “scientific” studies have gotten so confusing, that for any “fact” you find on one side of the debate, there seems to be another “fact” on the other side refuting it. This is why I am looking at Mars for something that will blow away all the chaff, and the thesis antithesis arguments going around.
Now, if you are seriously looking for “fact” in this debate, I might recomend that you try looking in Oz. I understand from a reliable sourse (the tooth fairy) that in a cave in Oz, you will find the holy grail, the lost arc, and the book of truth on Global Warming. But be careful. I understand it is guarded by Elvis. CK.
Answer to Hagar’s question, “where exactly can I find the set of agreed upon ‘facts’ that demonstrate human causes of global warming?”
You can’t, because they do not exist.
Max
Sandy, In order to measure the earths temperature one must know where to stick the thermometer…generally that’s Clevland.
Hagar,
Try searching Google Scholar for peer reviewed publications relating to any climate change topic. I think you’ll soon come to the same obvious conclusion that the vast majority of true climate scientists have. Unfortunately, you’ll also quickly be inundated. Such is the nature of overwhelming data.
Sorry, I know of no compendium of data for which you would not have to check peer review. Some sites are excellent. But, with ExxonMobil funding behind others that appear to be at the same level of quality, everything must be checked and re-checked with peer reviewed publications.
One more thing Hagar,
If you really are willing to do the level of work necessary to read a book or two, here are a couple of good ones with very good endnotes citing all of their peer-reviewed information.
Is the Temperature Rising: The Uncertain Science of Global Warming – S. George Philander: A relatively light book and highly readable for a climate science text book.
The Weather Makers – Tim Flannery: Details the reality of anthropogenic climate change. What is known, what is not, what we must do, and what can and cannot be saved.
Its sad, but this data will probably never reach the average person. Al Gore and the rest of the elite already said it…thus it is and will be. The media has not said anything about this and they probably never will. Global Warming will be the next set of misleading information leading to further deterioration of our rights, liberties, and self respect.
Chipping away…quickly and quietly, they chip away, but the truth is too depressing and the television shows are too damn good to miss.
Some more advice for Hagar
Hagar asked: “where exactly can I find the set of agreed upon ‘facts’ that demonstrate human causes of global warming?”
Misanthropic Scott’s advice to search Google for “peer reviewed publications relating to any climate change topic” might not really give Hagar the “facts that demonstrate human causes of global warming” for which he is looking, but rather provide him “overwhelming data” that support the mainstream (and IPCC supported) view.
A tip for Hagar: forget ”peer review” as a stamp of authenticity – it has been shown to simply be a rubber stamp by the current mainstream view (viz. the peer reviewed but since discredited Mann “hockey stick” to prove that we are in a period of “unprecedented warmth”).
Scott’s reference to “ExxonMobil funding” is as ingenious as referring to “taxpayer funding”. Let’s face it, you are paying for both, either as taxes or at the pump when you fill up your car. Both sides have a “vested interest”. But “ExxonMobil” funding is truly a tiny drop in the bucket when compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars being paid to fund the whole “climate disaster” research, in order to gather public support for draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes involving hundreds of billions of dollars (again paid by you) being shuffled around by UN and other bureaucrats and politicians. So you have to check and recheck both sides of the story very carefully.
Hagar’s best bet is to be skeptical and to insist on evidence based on observed actual data, not on projections based on the virtual reality of model studies, and to make sure he is not being “bamboozled” by someone that has a hidden agenda.
Max
Max,
A tip for Hagar: forget ”peer review” as a stamp of authenticity – it has been shown to simply be a rubber stamp by the current mainstream view (viz. the peer reviewed but since discredited Mann “hockey stick” to prove that we are in a period of “unprecedented warmth”).
On the assumption that you are not a religious fanatic who does not believe in science, I must ask you this.
Why exactly do you believe that on this single topic alone in science that the peer review process is more corrupt that corporate american greed?
Your assertion to throw away peer review is akin to throwing away all science. Peer review is the process by which science works. If you make such an assertion that peer review is invalid, you really must back this up. Do you believe that peer review prevents people from publishing views opposed to other scientific areas? If not, why is this one area different?
I think you are highly deluded on this subject. I think you should simply denounce science and all that it has brought to this world as summarily as you dismiss the peer review process on which it is based. I think you should probably turn off the computer on which you are reading this. It relies on quantum theory, which withstood the peer review process, in order for its semiconductors to do the job the engineers set forth for them.
As for my ExxonMobil statement, do you get your information about whether cigarettes are bad for you from Phillip Morris? I bet you do. Do you get your statistics about the dangers of mercury in the environment from the top coal companies? I bet you do. Do you get your information about the dangers of obesity from McDonalds? I bet you do.
Yes, one should clearly consider the source of one’s information. That you ignore the sources of yours simply states that you have very little understanding about the nature of the greed that drives corporate America.
To Max:
I can’t agree with you more on your point of rubber stamped peer review. It is unfortunate that is the case, but so many people have a vested echonomic interest in Climate Change it almost dictates such a result.
So, well done on that comment.
Do you know of anyone anywhere who has run an expierment that actually proves that greenhouse gasses are infact greenhouse gasses? Do they “reflect” the heat back to the surface of the earth, or absorb the heat through their spectrum? To date I have been absolutely unable to find anywhere such an expierment. Without that expierment, it would seem to me that all we have here is conjecture by zellots on one side or the other of the debate.
Damn if it isn’t hard beeing open minded and nutral on the subject. The moment you drift towards one side or the other, you find yourself defending your point of view with trash science. That makes it difficult for anyone who is honestly trying to find the “truth” about Climate Change. CK
I would call this a tentative erasure of most of the warming in the last 100 years. The change is such that one could conclude that coolers times are likely to be sustained.
REPLY: It is not an erasure, but a large anomaly, the duration of which is uncretain by any measure. For all we know, it may swing positive again in the next month.
chris kilpatrick,
… so many people have a vested echonomic [sic] interest in Climate Change it almost dictates such a result.
ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, …, big coal companies, natural gas companies, all auto manufacturers, etc. Yup. Clearly the deep pockets are the educational institutions paying for real research. When the Kool-Aid smells like almonds, don’t drink it. Oops too late.
As for your CO2 ignorance, the answer is that the satellites can determine the wave lengths of infrared light, A.K.A. heat, that are missing in the radiation of heat by Earth. And, big shock, the wavelengths missing are the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, Methane, CFCs and the rest in exactly the expected amounts based on the known concentrations in the atmosphere. What part are you having trouble with?
Let us not forget what may be revealed as the greatest ecological disaster ot the past 100 years which occured in January and early February, 2008. Southern and eastern China, where many places have a climate similar to central Georgia (moderate winter coolness, odd light snow, humid). In January, blizards followed blizzards along with multiple ice stoms, encasing cities and towns in ice and collaping over 100,000 unprepared roofs in one city alone, where 400,000 waited (without violence) at a train station to get out of Dodge for the Chinese New Year, and back to their distant families. Can we in America imagine millions of snowed in citizens with no electrical power or heat, shivering for over 35 days? I don’t think so. The ecological disaster? An area of 670,000 square miles (about the size of Florida’s total land mass) has been denuded of vegetation, since most of the trees were unable to tolerate the prolonged and unprecedented encasement in ice. Dead semi-tropical softwoods will grow back, but it will be decades in the process. The Communist government, possibly less honest than American green extremists, reported only a miniscule number of of dead, from a bus accident and such. We must not bear bad news on the eve of the Olympics! By the way, the island of Crete was totally snowed over in February, and incapacitated for the first time in a century or so. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in memory.
Where is the media to bring this news to the masses?
Dr of Many Things
scott:
CO2 absorbs only 3% of the light that passes through it. That is confirmed by expierment. That is .03. Then we know from air samples that the atsmophere is about 3% CO2 at present. That means .0009 or so of the light is absorbed by the CO2, (.03 X .03) much less than one percent. This too is confirmed by expiermental data. So, our expected heat exchange is less than one percent, much less than one percent. If as you say this is the expected result, then it is hardly significant. Next, we know that as much CO2 as man produces, the oceans produce much much more. Animals produce more, vulcanic action produces more. For sake of argument (only because I lack the numbers) Let us say that man produces about 25% of the CO2, a fantastically high percentage. That means, (a little simple grade school math here) man contribution is .000225. I do not see how 2/100% is significant in terms of global warming.
That leaves reflection. That is, the gases reflect the heat back onto the earth. Here there is no expiermental data to confirm that outcome that I have been able to find. By what means does CO2 and other gases reflect the heat back to the earth?
Your response dictates absorbtion of wave lengths, and that just does not wash when you look at a gas spectrometer. It is not significant when you crunch a few simple numbers. So, for me at least, it’s back to the drawing board. Where the heck is the expierment that proves HOW green house gases act as green house gases reflecting heat back onto the surface of the earth? CK
Andrew, do you even understand what you are looking at here?
These graphs show tempreture anomoly over average. So Jan 2008 with a positive figure is still above average, even if it is below Jan 2007. There is no cooling, month-to-month variation is weather.
Weather is not climate. Haven’t you noticed it gets cooler in winter? (Which is relevent here because Jan is winter in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is – the sea tempreture in the south changes much slower).
You’ll also note that Jan 2008 is warmer than every month before Jan 1920. And also every month since 1980 is warmer than every month before 1920.
ie. it is getting warmer, with lots of ups and downs, but steadily, persistently warmer.
Andrew Bolt: mugged by reality again. It would be entertaining if his ability to think straight didn’t go astray at the same time.
Chris Kilpatrick: [blah and numerology eliminated]
Chris, the CO2 argument is basic physics established over 100 years ago by Arhennius, one of the first Nobel Prize winners.
He pointed out that with 0% CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would have an average tempreture of about -15C, but with CO2 at the then levels of approx 275ppm the average tempreture was approx 14C.
He proposed – using energy balance arguments based on the absorbtion of infrared by CO2 that if CO2 levels reached ~400ppm, the average tempreture would rise by about 2C.
Well over the last 100 years we’ve done the experiment. CO2 levels are now approaching 400ppm and average tempreture is about 1.6C higher.
QED.
It really is pretty basic science, back-of-the-envelope nonsense is not required when we have the real data.
CK: “Your response dictates absorbtion of wave lengths …”
Observed in the lab
“and that just does not wash when you look at a gas spectrometer. ”
It always worked for me back when I used gas chromatographs. What are you referring to? Are you saying gas chromatographs are snake oil devices sold to fools rather than expensive instruments sold to industry so they can make real profits?
“Where the heck is the expierment that proves HOW green house gases act as green house gases reflecting heat back onto the surface of the earth? ”
It’s simple physics, readily demonstratable. The lesson begins.
CO2 absorbs infrared to some extent (from the sun or from the earth doesn’t matter – it gets absorbed both coming and going), which leads the bonds in the molecule to vibrate (that’s the energy absorbed). The vibration allows the molecule to shed the energy which then goes in one of two directions – up or down.
If up, it goes to space and does not warm the earth. If down, it warms the earth. So a small amount of absorption allows CO2 to behave like a blanket. 50% of the absorbed heat is reradiated and retained in the atmosphere.
The heat that is retained warms the earth (to the tune of about 30C). Thicker blanket, more heat retained.
Lesson ends.