While I have reservations about the GISS dataset due to the many adjustments it endures, the GISS global temperature anomaly data for March 2009 has been published.
The March 2009 global anomaly is 0.47 °C, making it the coldest March since the year 2000.
As Luboš Motl points out:
That is also colder than March 1990 and 1998, That puts March 2009 out of the “top ten”. Also, the March 2009 global mean temperature differed by 0.03 °C only from the March 1981 figure – from a month when the ENSO/ONI index was pretty much equal to the current value. This cherry-picked monthly comparison would suggest that there may have been 0.03 °C of warming in 30 years.
Another blogger, Lucia plotted long term GISS trends and got some interesting results.
- 20 year (240 month) trends with end points going back in time and
- Trends starting on Jan 1979 and ending “N” months ago. So, N=0 ends in March 09, N=1 ends in February 09 and so on.
Here they are:
Figure 1: GISSTemp longish trends.
She notes:
- The trend computed from 1979 to now is higher than the trend computed from 1979 to 2001. (This fact is true as can be seen by comparing the trend represented red square that intersects the yellow line indicating Jan 2001 to the red square representing a trend ending in March 2009.)
- The 20 year trend ending with the month of Dec 2000 is higher than the 20 year trend computed now. (This is a true fact, as seen by comparing the blue diamond intersecting the yellow line to the blue diamond ending representing the trend ending in March 2009.)
- Both facts are supposed to convince us that global warming neither stalled nor ended in 2001.
Well…. I’ve haven’t claimed global warming stopped or stalled in 2001. (In any case I’m not sure precisely what those terms are supposed to mean. If all they mean is temperature trends are down since 2001…. well, they are! If they mean that GHG’s don’t tend to cause warming and warming won’t resume… Well, the data don’t mean that.)
While GISS went up a tiny bit, from 0.41 in February 09 to 0.47 °C in March 09, you could figure that .06 °C to be essentially unchanged month to month and part of the “noise”. The lack of any real increase in trends since 2001 is the most interesting part of the GISS story.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny things, trends. Here’s a little test using arbitrary numbers :
Set up a table with years 1979 to 2009.
Put in zeros from 1979-1995. From 1996-2000 go up 0.2 pa to 1 (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1). Put in 1’s to 2006, then 0.9, 0.8, 0.7 for the last 3 years.
What you have is a rising trend from 1979-2000 at +0.031 p.a., and a falling trend from 2000-2009 at -0.028 p.a.
Yet if you combine the two, even though after 2000 you have only added in numbers that stay level or go down, the trend over the whole period from 1979-2009 is ….. +0.042. Higher than both subperiods!
And guess what, the 20-year trend from 1989-2009 is even higher +0.062.
They say you can prove anything with statistics. Looks like you can prove anything with trends, too!
It is but a statistical run, nothing to see with reality. Remember all the pictures of weather stations checked by Anthony? Provided these had a thermometer in them none can measure 0.002 of a degree!
Let me get this straight. The total solar flux in the heliosphere is the (one year) integral of the flux being emitted now (which is somewhat proportional to sunspots). Low clouds are theorized by some to be somewhat proportional to the total flux in the heliosphere. The first derivative of global temperature would be somewhat negatively related to the low clouds.
Thus, as we watch the ever-more-amazing solar minimum, we could be watching the second derivative of global temperature (if certain theories are right).
Those who ridicule those theories because global temperature has not responded quickly to the change is sunspots are missing something (maybe calc 101). The effect should, theoretically, only be slowly accelerating.
I wonder, was global temperature only painfully low near the end of the Maunder Minimum?
“RW (16:16:41) : According to GISS, I think there is something rather striking and obvious ”
The only that that strikes me about GISS data is that it is altered.
Have a look at how their data, the blue line in the top graph at the link, tracks wackier and wackier from 1999 and on :
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/images/ngeo157-f1.jpg
Its kinda obvious how the track goes awry, isn’t it?
How science is corrupted.
———————————-
Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/14/scientific-pretense-vs-democra
“We will restore science to its rightful place…”
—Barack Obama
Unpacked, this sentence means: “Under my administration, Americans will have fewer choices about how they live, and fewer choices as voters because, rightfully, those choices should be made by officials who rule by the authority of science.”
Government by scientific pretense runs against the grain of politics in two ways: First, since those who would rule by scientific management eschew arguments on the substance of the things, instead relying on the cachet of the scientists whose mere servants they pretend to be, their success depends on maintaining a pretense of substantive neutrality on the issues—the pretense that if “science” were to pronounce itself in the other direction, they would follow with the same alacrity. But this position is impossible to maintain against the massive evidence that those who hawk certain kinds of social or environmental policies in the name of science are first of all partisans of those policies, indeed that these policies are part of the identity of their sociopolitical class.
Second, it is inherently difficult for anyone who fancies himself a citizen to hear from another that he is not qualified to disagree with a judgment said to be scientific. Naturally, he will ask: If I as a layman don’t know enough to disagree, what does that other layman know that qualifies him to agree? Could it be that his appeal to science is just another way of telling me to shut up because he is better than I, and that he is justifying his presumption by pointing to his friends in high places?
Human nature rebels especially violently against those who pretend to special knowledge but who then prove inept, whose prescriptions bring misery. When politicians lay out their reasons why something should or should not be done, when the public accepts those reasons, and then the ensuing measures bring grief, the public’s anger is tempered by its own participation in the decision, and is poured out on the ideas themselves as well as on the politicians who espoused them. But when the politicians make big changes in economic and social life on the basis of “science” beyond the people’s capacity to understand, when events show them to have been wrong, when those changes impoverish and degrade life, then popular anger must crash its full force only on those who made themselves solely responsible. The failed sorcerers’ apprentices’ excuse “science made me do it” will only add scorn to retribution.
Mike Bryant (16:35:32) :
March 2009 is The Coldest March of the Millenium!
Yeah! And Earth is cooling… again.
Mike Smith – no. They haven’t even updated HadSST2 yet (usually updated the first week of the month). I think their having real difficulty with the numbers. There *must* be something wrong!
There are some strange hotspots in the GISS March 2009 (250 km radius) map.
Eastern Siberia as high as +7.9C
Aral Sea region as high as +6.3C
Svalbaard Island +4.7C
Central Antartica +3.15C (south pole at -51C was actually 3.0C warmer than normal).
(On the other hand, GISS always goes back to Siberia when it needs to bump the number up).
Map at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
Actual temp anomalies by Latitude and Longitude text file here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom03_2009_2009_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom03_2009_2009_1951_1980.txt
Oh great. I said “their” instead of “they’re.” I can’t wait to be corrected.
GISS needs more funding for more adjustments….don’t worry, Hansen will arrive at the proper data points to get taxes raised as soon as possible.
“RW (16:16:41) :
According to GISS, of the 129 Marches for which there is global temperature, only 10 have been warmer than the one just past. They are (in order of increasing temperature): 2003, 2001, 1998, 2006, 2004, 2007, 2008, 1990, 2005, and 2002
I think there is something rather striking and obvious about the years which have been warmer. What do you think?”
I think we have ascended to the top of the mountain, and now we have begun the descent on the opposite side.
When I’m using my GPS, I’ve noticed that every time I go up a hill, the altitude numbers go up. Strangely enough, when I start heading downhill, the numbers go down. And when I am only just beginning the descent, it seems that all the previous highs were the most recent ones. Rather striking and odd isn’t it?
I am definitely not getting this thread – I’ve stared at the chart several times and still see nothing of significance. What is this chart supposed to be telling me that is of significance? A little help for the slow-minded would be appreciated!
Don’t worry all, Jim and Al and their fellow adherents will make sure the numbers are once again adjusted so you will feel the warmth like in the good old days of 1999.
And remember until then that the heat’s in the pipeline and will come on like gangbusters in 20 or 30 years. Of course that will be long after we’ve gone over the tipping point (3.5 years to go).
Spoken like a Scotsman, Ed.
Those longings for freedom run deep. It will not be easy for any administration to push those feelings down. The French, it seems have forgotten, “liberty, equality, fraternity”, we will NOT forget that all men, ALL MEN, are created equal. We are not a scientocracy, we are a meritocracy.
Let’s hope that we don’t allow the word. “lysenkoism” to be replaced by “holdrenism”, gorism, hansenism or _______ism(fill in the blank.
Don’t let the USA become a mediocrity.
Mike Smith: The link below allows one to view the monthly Hadrcut data:
I check it after the 10th of the month and it eventually gets updated. It should be updated shortly
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Apparently, it was quite warm in the US Mid-West in March,
+2.4C just south of Chicago
+2.7C in the corn belt of Iowa
+2.0C in southern Mississippi
+1.9C in Oklahoma
+2.0C in western Arizona
We are arguing the change in noise- the GISS data cannot be used to reach any conclusion over this range of temperature anomalies. If we take the position that GISS is flawed (given the temperature quality control problems , the paucity of temperature stations, and the adjustments being made to the data)- then it is true any counterclaim is also flawed. GISS data is inadequate to make the claims with respect to global temperature changes -period. The data is nearly useless for these purposes. Scientific discussion will only be possible when GISS puts together a statistically valid data set. Arguing GISS data gives life to its validity.
If the warmers are waiting for the Sun to wake up and warm us up to proper CO2 levels, they are just as mistaken as the coolers who, based on a quiet Sun, are waiting for the ice age to cometh.
DJ: You wrote, “You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not ‘warming’.”
Actually, DJ, we’re at the end of a very MINOR La Nina. It’s not even rated as a “full-fledged minor La Nina”. Global temperatures respond less than 0.1 deg C for every 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomaly during an El Nino. So please advise me what GISS global temperature anomaly we should expect to see in reaction to the present minor La Nina conditions. Don’t forget to account for time lags.
And why are you emphasizing a “protracted solar minimum?” With your statement, you are inferring that there should be a cumulative cooling effect when a solar minimum extends for a period that’s longer than normal. Please cite your source.
Have a nice day.
“You have got to be kidding me. 0.47C above normal at the end of a La Nina and with a severe protracted solar minimum and we are still pretending it’s not “warming”.”
At the risk of the ducking stool (no, that was witches, what do they do to heretics–oh, burn at the stake) I will declare that I have every knowingly denied that the planet is warming (at least not when I was thinking about what I was saying).
The planet is by definition warming. It has been warming since the bottom of the most recent cooling period (“ice age”, “minimum”,what ever).
It will (did) continue to warm until we (did) head down to the next bottom.
Did we turn that corner in the last ten year? Elefino–too early to say I think.
What I do deny are the following (among, probably, others):
I deny that warm is bad and cold is good. Warm has always been associated with lushness, plenty, abundance, good health and wealth. Cold has always ALWAYS been associate with pestilence, death, want, and starvation.
I deny that man has much to do with the warming and has no meaningful control over it.
I deny that it is a good idea to destroy civilization in a doomed attempt “just in case”.
Seems like I am forgetting something important but the bad part of forgetting is that I can’t remember.
Looking for Melissa Venema tunes is a better use of my time.
“Seems like I am forgetting something important but the bad part of forgetting is that I can’t remember.”
I should have buried this in the man-has-much-to-do-with-it denial.
I deny that the warming is out of control and I deny that the seas will put me on beach-front property (the COE may do that, but that is an unrelated matter).
DJ (15:49:22) :
“The days of wiggle watching are numbered. As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.”
Exactly. We can only guess. The science is far from settled. We’ve not yet begun to understand how it all works. It will take quite a while to recover from the negative knowledge of the AGW politicized crap. We will have to go back to the fundamental realization that we don’t have a clue, and work our way up from there.
At least you are honest enough to admit that we only have a guess. Gore is certain that he knows what will happen. Certain, but wrong.
I love reports like this. Just the mention of “anomaly” and my eyes glaze over in total ignorance, but still I read on. I read of upward trends, downward trends, 10-year trends, 30-year trends and all of them supported by the tiniest fractions of degrees that cannot possibly be measured in the real world only number-crunched from measurements taken in whole degrees or half degrees from real thermometers.
And don’t give me any of that “satellites can measure to X decimal places” guff, I will believe that the day my car’s satellite navigation system stops telling me to head due south from FatBigot Towers when my destination is four miles due north.
All these exercises in tweaking minuscule differences between poorly measured raw material seem, to this poor layman, to be as informative as a bowl of tapioca pudding. “If we assume this, adjust that and use a particular starting point we can illustrate what we want to prove”, yes, of course they can but every stage of the process is just contrived nonsense.
Yet I read on and my little piggy eyes get glassier and glassier.
DJ (15:49:22) : ” As the sun awakens and El Nino returns one can only guess how HOT the planets going to get.”
I hope you are right because warmer is better. Although you probably should have said “IF the Sun awakens” because we all just assume this is part of a repeating cycle. However, lacking any evidence to the contrary it probably is and the Sun will rev up again someday, but then we can never really be sure until it actually happens.
There should be a gag order for all data sets, then all released on the same day at the same time, just for fun.