While we find cooling trends now in RSS and UAH global data from 2002, the US contiguous temperature record for 2009 seems to be returning to very near the normal baseline for temperature in the last century.
From World Climate Report: Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?
Early last January, when the final 2008 numbers were in for the U.S. annual average temperature, we ran an article titled “U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?” in which we noted that “The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.”
2009 seems to be following in 2008’s footsteps.
The national average temperature had been elevated ever since the big 1998 El Niño, which was leading some folks to clamor that global warming was finally showing up in the U.S. temperature record. “Finally,” because prior to 1998, there was little sign that anything unusual was going on with U.S. average temperatures (Figure 1). The end of the record was hardly any different than any other portion of the record. The slight overall trend arose from a couple of cool decades at the start of the 20th century rather than any unusual warmth towards the end.
Figure 1. United States annual average temperature, 1895-1997 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
Then along came the 1998 El Niño, which raised both global and U.S. temperatures to record values, and our national temperatures remained elevated for 10 years thereafter (Figure 2). Instead of looking for some explanation of this unusual run of very warm years in the (naturally) changing patterns of atmospheric/ocean circulation in the Pacific Ocean, it was often chalked up to “global warming.”
Figure 2. United States annual average temperature, 1895-2007 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
But then something unexpected (by the global warming enthusiasts) happened in 2008—the U.S. annual average temperature returned to normal.
In reporting this in our World Climate Report article last January, we noted the drop in temperatures and wondered about the future:
But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.
Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.
Now, 10 months have passed and we are starting to get a good idea of how 2009 is shaping up temperature-wise for the U.S. We may be jumping the gun a little here, because there are still two months (17%) of data still outstanding, and November has started out pretty warm across the West, but, in any case, Figure 3 shows the national temperature history for the first 10 months of the year.
Figure 3. United States January-October average temperature, 1895-2009 (data source: National Climate Data Center).
Thus far, 2009 is looking like another normal year—further indication that the warm period from 1998-2007 was an anomaly, rather than a step change to a new climate across the U.S. (be sure to check back in two months to see how the final 2009 numbers pan out).
No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change.
Sorry! (the one ending in the year 2000 and including the 1980s).
should have been the 1970s, and
folks should have been folk’s
chmd (18:20:19) :
>Sorry to spoil the party (if that’s possible), but I
>look at those graphs (even figure 1) and I see an
>upward trend.
Really? I see down in 1912, up in 1930, down in 1965-1975, up in 1998. Then down again. If you plot a linear trend line, yes, it looks like it would be going up slightly. But that is not the signature of AGW.
Ron and Guy, temperaturejump since 1988 in Holland cannot be explained by a population jump – the latter does not exist.
Many weather stations are in rural area’s and urbanisation has been a feature of Dutch demographics for many decades. Meanwhile the largest temperature increase is in the north and northeast of Holland – where population density is relatively low ànd hasn’t increased much.
” P Walker (12:13:27) :
OT question – What happened to Erl Happ’s post ? I was hoping to try and digest it a little at a time , and was looking forward to comments .”
It’s still in the sidebar, as a one-liner named “The Climate Engine.” It’s hard to see, in part because the items above and below it are three-liners. In general, all the menu items in the sidebar blur into each other, mostly because there are no end-point markers (like periods) or start-point markers (like indentations). I’ve suggested both two or three times in recent months, but now I’ve given up.
How about we wait and see what the low portion of the PDO/AMO cycle reveals eh? The PDO/AMO signal rides on top of the solar signal. The suns activity has increased significantly from 1900-1960. The sun should be going back to close to where it was in 1900, so let’s wait and see the impact on temps when the low cycle hits bottom into 2030 eh? We’ll have some level of understanding by then, and at least some better quality data along the way…
No need to panic certainly…
RR Kampen (03:59:30) :
“Ron and Guy, temperaturejump since 1988 in Holland cannot be explained by a population jump – the latter does not exist.”
I don’t see very much of a temperature jump since 1988 in the graph you advised : http://www.weerwoord.be/uploads/15102009295052.png
Even if there is no “jump” in population since 1988 there is definitely an increase and it is not totally trivial; actually 15% (16,50 MI/14,35 MI).
What is absolutely not trivial is the increase of economic activity since 1988. The GDP has tripled (from 197 BI EUR to 596 BI EUR).
I can’t find any figures of number of vehicles 1988 but maybe enough is said by the increase from 2000 to 2008: + 33% !
I think it is to be on the very safe side to conclude that the general economic activity (which of course proportionally will involve larger use of energy) has more than doubled since 1988.
RR Kampen again:
“Many weather stations are in rural area’s and urbanisation has been a feature of Dutch demographics for many decades. Meanwhile the largest temperature increase is in the north and northeast of Holland – where population density is relatively low ànd hasn’t increased much.”
Well, are airports rural areas?
Of the 35 stations listed at the KNMI site (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) 13 (37%) are located at an airport. A special feature can be found here: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/metadata/schiphol.html . Click the photo. Priceless!
14 of the stations (40%) seems – just from a hasty look – to be of good and even excellent quality.
8 (23%) of the stations need further investigation in order to determine the quality.
Furthermore: 8 (23%) of the stations are located in the North and Northeast. 4 of them seems to be good or excellent, 2 needs to be further examined and 2 are located at airports.
It is certainly not a majority of Dutch weather stations and the quality of these Northern and Northeastern as a whole is debatable.
I cannot find tables of temperature anomalies for different regions ( maybe because I am Swedish rather than Dutch; my knowledge in German helps but not entirely) but it would be nice if someone can advise me. In the meantime I cannot evaluate RR Kampens statement about largest temperature increase.
Taken into account all the above I can repeat what I previously wrote:
I would be extremely cautious in drawing any conclusions from the Netherlands temperature record until somebody had given a satisfactory explanation how the temperature recording authoriries has dealt with the UHI problem.
Making predictions based on a few decades reminds me of the story of the Blind men and an elephant. Climate is too big an elephant for scientists to properly identify by just feeling one leg. If they could just stop being so left-wing perhaps they would be able to see the whole elephant.
Just FYI, I linked to your article from mine: The Mechanics Behind the Global Warming Hoax