From NASA’s press release
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years
From NASA GISTEMP- Click image for original source
WASHINGTON — A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.
“There’s always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year’s ranking, but the ranking often misses the point,” said James Hansen, GISS director. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.
“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”
The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.
“The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States’ temperature does not affect the global temperature much,” Hansen said.
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.
Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.
Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.
“There’s a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends,” Hansen said. “In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.”
For more information about GISS’s surface temperature record, visit:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
* For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted, particularly at the northern latitudes, see this article
GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect
GHCN – Up North, Blame Canada!, Comrade
Yeah, but it’s GISTEMP so nobody is going to take it seriously.
NIWA in New Zealand reported that the last decade was the “warmest on record” for NZ, but in fact it was a few 100ths of a degree warmer than the 80s and the 90s were cooler than both.
This announcement was treated with a certain amount of disdain as a result, even in the mainstream media.
It certainly was a record decade for AGW bullshit.
I’ve looked at their data for the Station nearest to me, Glasgow airport.
1. It starts in 1880 which is 30 years before regular manned flight
2. Raw data shows no warming trend at all over the full data
3. The adjusted data shows the early years temps are adjusted downwards, later ones which are more likely to be affected by UHI are unadjusted.
4. When looking at the stations used in Scotland they use mainly airports and sea level stations, odd considering Scotlands mountainous countryside and large rural unpopulated areas.
Based on this I cannot believe a word these guys say
* We measure from the end of the Little Ice Age and seem startled when temperatures increase.
* We move thermometers and measure from Airports and seem startled when temperatures increase
*We increase thermometer numbers then drop them from cool areas such as Russia then seem startled when temperatures increase
*We urbanise most of the measuring points then disregard UHI and seem startled when temperatures increase
The notion of a Global temperature is severely flawed in concept and execution, and the way it is measured and adjusted so inconsistent that these figures have little merit other than demomstrating the old adage that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Very many individual stations around the world are showing a cooling trend-some for many years- demonstrating that the warming signal is being highlighted by the way the fgures are compiled.
Tonyb.
After Climategate would you buy a car from these ‘used car salesmen’? Maybe they should have said:
In years to come we may have the makings of GISSgate or NASAgate.
The last decade was the warmest decade this millenium, but when I think about it, also the coolest 😉
For all Hansen’s bluster, we know that they way they interpret the temperature data is designed from the outset to lower earlier temps and raise later temps. Taking thousands of stations from cold environments out of the record is bound to show a warming in the trend. If they keep going on like this, then the global temperature record for the 2050s will taken from one thermometer, surrounded by light focusing mirrors, in death valley California.
What warming that there may have been is entirely within natural variability.
Still a long way to go to match the Medieval Warm Period.
Sorry, not believing it.
Airports are very damn lousy mesosites in spite of often favorable microsite attributes. In the US, airports have warmed much faster (by ~0.12C per decade) over the last 3 decades than well sited non-AP sites.
Speaking of broken records, Hansen is beginning to sound like one. Somebody please give this clown a new act.
James Hansen says “When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
I interpret that as
“After the little ice age which began in 1650 and ended in 1850 temperatures are finally returning to normal”
So is averaging over 5-10 years enough now to talk about climate, according to Hansen himself? How strange…
I’ve just discovered that I am really no longer interested in anything GISS has to say. That whole “science” is simply no longer credible. We keep warning each other that the shenanigans of “The Team” were going to hurt science in general and climate science in particular… and I find myself now with neither interest or confidence in what one of the leading research organizations has to say.
Maybe I’ve been hanging out here too long. ; )
Considering the work of Anthony and others at surfacestations.org, the measurement errors and interpolation required for global temperature back in 1880, and the intervening UHI, that would be a 0.8 degree C increase +/- around 3.0 degrees C? I love the additional explanation and discussion regarding el nino, jet streams etc. It conotes an understanding more of the theory and models than of reality. They should report it in the newspaper, between the astrology section and the racing tips.
NASA measured the warmest decade based on their temperature product that measures the mean global temperature anomalie with respect to 1950 to 1980. However, the weather didn’t change that much as we all observed. Doesn’t this mean that the weather of the earth is not very sensitive to global temperature anomalies.
So Coleman’s TV report Part 4 was 100% correct! LOL
“GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements”
JohnH
I’ve looked at the unadjusted figures from Scotland for the stations that have been recording from 1930s up to 2008. The only one that shows any significant warming in the original data is Eskdalemuir . However once we correct for the “travesty” of lack of warming the picture changes substantially.
Ed
Even if “global warming stops” as from today for the next ninety years one can, at the end of this century, rightly claim that this was the hottest century of the last 500 years or so, yet it falsifies the run-away AGW hypothesis. Claims like: this is the hottest decade or the hottest century are meaningless, they are always used when upward trends stall or reverse, like we have seen this last decade
“Hey Rocky !”. “Watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat. ”
“Again ?”
“Grrrrr… </B.”
“No doubt about it, I got to get me a new hat.”
Really it’s simple, just eliminate all those” cold ” thermomemters and you can cook the stats at the same time as you ” cook ” the earth.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
more here
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2465893
“NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record”. Really?
Well, here in Australia, we’re cool.
“Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely”,
the current decade in Australia is
0.6-0.7 deg C cooler than it was in 1881-1890.
This estimate is derived from the annual Mean Maximum Temperatures provided by the Bureau of Meteorology for the following meteorological stations:
46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015.
These operational stations have temperature records back to 1881 or beyond.
Not included in this analysis are the following long-standing stations based at airports or in major cities: 38003, 61055, 66062, 80015, 86071, 94029. Inevitably, local “urban warming (heat-island)” effects at these hot spots would have artificially inflated estimates. Indeed, they are on average 1 deg C warmer this century than previous highs. They rightly should be excluded from estimates of the true temperature trends across the country.
So Dorothea MacKellar’s beloved “Sunburnt Country” was at least 0.6-0.7 deg C hotter during her early childhood than any other decade on record.
All estimates can be checked using relevant links from
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
Look, you deniers, this is becoming serial!
GISS data comes directly from NASA – yes, NASA, the people responsible for getting man to the Moon and back more than 40 years ago – so it must be an unimpeachable source of data.
Once the NASA data are sifted through the intelligent, careful, and loving hands of Dr James Hansen, they become a tour de force of carefully adjusted real-world data.
We really need to congratulate Dr James Hansen, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Michael Mann, and others (and not forgetting our Mann of the Minute, Dr R.K. Patchauri), upon their valiant but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to prod (with a hockey stick) a reluctant bristlecomb pine fair up the [snip] of the World’s economy.
Given the current, um, unrest surrounding the IPCC and their camp-following carpet-bagging sicophants, it is surprising that GISS has come up with these figures.
However, if we consider that the “cake was baked” well prior to Hopenchangen, then this story is not in any way exceptional – indeed it was to be expected.
Dr James Hansen, if you or one of your many acolytes are reading this, please be assured that we are indeed coming to get you.
Of course it is was a warm decade, if you can massage the figures to say so. This is the Central England temperature record – largely raw data:
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
This is the same temperature set after Hadcrut got hold of it:
http://artofteachingscience.org/images/mean_england_temp.gif
PRESTO !!! Global Warming !!!
(Hadcrut is run by David Blaine and David Copperfield.)
.
I think people who can look at the long range climatological record as summarized in other GISS data are either not real scientists or are at the early stages of Alzheimer’s and should be pitied.
There will always be a “warmest decade” or two before the inevitable down slides that the records show in the millenia long records.
Hansen said. “In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.”
More likely: In the last decade, global warming FRAUD by the Hockey Stick Team has not stopped.
Bad NASA, Bad Hansen. No Sunspots for you.
Seinfeld – Soup Nazi – NO SOUP FOR YOU!
corrected
I think people who can look at the long range climatological record as summarized in other GISS data and talk of “hottest decades” are either not real scientists or are at the early stages of Alzheimer’s and should be pitied.
There will always be a “warmest decade” or two before the inevitable down slides that the records show in the millenia long records.
And as predicted back in November, those claiming that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record failed to explain the reason:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-temperatures-this-decade-will-be.html
As long as people’s heating bills continue to rise, I doubt the news will be much consolation. Thinking it’s warm is not going to pay the oil or gas bill.
Couple of weather anecdotes:
1) Arctic coldest in 6 years!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (compare to other years)
2. Berlin doesn’t see sun in 16 days – the most since 1964.
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100121-24729.html
The language suggests significant warming. But the numbers are tiny. 0.3 degrees here, 1.5 degrees there. Doesn’t anybody else think these “record temperatures” are infinitesimally close to the “non record temperatures”?
I don’t understand why anybody is worried about this. On top of the fact that they are not actually claiming a significant temperature change, we know that the measurements are no good (urban heat Island, “hide the decline”) anyway.
Then they come up with their “cluster of recent record high temperatures”. Why? Because it kind of supports their argument at first glance, as long as you don’t look at how small the numbers are.
And of course, the recent cold spells, and they were *really* cold, a real difference that you could feel and were affected by, were just weather, not climate. This is a classic example of human bias creeping into analysis.
Am I missing something here? How are these posts helping? No critique of the analysis, just reposting the NASA press release?
PS I know that this so-called “independent data set” was not involved in the “hide the decline” statement, but the people involved in that are for all practical purposes the same group of people involved in this and from the emails we know their mindset, morals and ethics. I do not trust them to carry out unemotional, unbiased scientific analysis.
I think the stink starts here
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
I’m sorry you feel compelled to post this drivel.
2009 produced massive extreme records not just here, but all over the world.
All over the United States temperatures were well below normal. Extended periods of time had set records for precipitation, snow and highest minimums.
I can only confirm that 2009 produced record extreme lows that outpaced extreme high temperatures and lowest maximums in over a decade.
The Northern Hemisphere experienced record early snow and record snow cover.
The plain states, the mid-west, and the great lakes region saw the coolest summer in over 80 years.
In South America, certain populations saw snow for the first time in their lives.
In Australia, new research confirms that temperature readings in the metropolitan areas trended higher than the villages in the outback , confirming UHI effects.
And when it really comes down to it, the alarmism of Jim Hansen is about a few tenths of a degrees.
We are witnessing a cooling process that which no living person has ever experienced.
Period.
2010 is already starting to prove one for the record books.
Snow blankets the U.K.
The Arctic sea ice is on pace to be above normal for a third straight year.
And if I hear anymore alarmism in regards to sea level rise, I’m going to puke.
With continental plate shifts and seduction and volcanism, how can we blame sea rise as nothing more than a natural phenomena.
Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are an embarrassment to science and should be removed from their profession.
Until that day, WUWT readers will be forced to see similar posts, because the [snip] would only complain that WUWT favors the reports on cooling.
Good Day !
Ho hum, same old same old: http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Fraud and/or stupidity?
From a scientific point of view this NASA press release is another fraud of the public.
We just escaped the aftermath of the Little Ice Age, lasting from 1350 to 1850.
Since 2001 we are on a temperature plateau, with slightly decreasing temperature anomalies. Therefor all last 10 years belong to the 10 warmest since 650 years, (eventually the 1940ies might have been equally warm if manipulation of temperature anomalies could be ruled out).
It is bad science from NASA to make a headline “warmest decade on record, 2009 second warmest”.
Of course, this scientific fraud is taken up by the alarmist and anthropogenic warming supporting press with great enthusiasm.
It is both fraud and stupidity!
Has the NASA cherry tree enjoyed ANOTHER bumper crop then?
If anyone believes this headline they should look at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-asia-chinese-footprints-in-siberian-snow/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-south-america-siesta/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-antarctica-ice-on-the-rocks/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
Dubious station selection, deletions, and adjustments and homogenisation, no matter where you look. As the world becomes aware of the corruption and dishonesty within climate science, the pressure on NASA to fire Hansen and sgut down GISS can only grow.
David Alan (01:44:28:
[Until that day, WUWT readers will be forced to see similar posts, because the [snip] would only complain that WUWT favors the reports on cooling.]
Oh man. that was funny. Snip the funniest line I’ve ever written.
How about, ‘the environmentally challenged pedantic purveyors of public opinion’ ?
Ha ha and more ha !
[Acceptable, and just as witty. Thank you. RT – mod]
I forget : how do they explain the pause/decline in temperatures between 1940 and 1970? Surely this period saw an explosion in Co2 emitted?
Also, what’s the IPCC projection for increase in degrees per century?
Oh, I forgot to include UHI which must account for at least half the 0.5C warming in the last 30 years.
p.s. NikFromNYC (01:44:52) :
Ho hum, same old same old: http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Ta for posting that, it’s a great jpg.
“average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.”
………………………………………
0.62 per century , and this is with natural post “little ice age” variability, UHI effects, and known data massaging……..
You have to admire their audacity. Two freezing winters and a cold wet summer here in the UK will ensure that their words fall on ever deafer ears.
The tide is turning – even the BBC’s Richard Black agrees….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html
‘JohnH
I’ve looked at the unadjusted figures from Scotland for the stations that have been recording from 1930s up to 2008. The only one that shows any significant warming in the original data is Eskdalemuir . However once we correct for the “travesty” of lack of warming the picture changes substantially.
Ed’
Most of the former sheep farms round Eskdalemuir have been turned into commercial spruce forests in the last 50 years. Would be surprised if this major land use change has not made a slight difference to the local climate.
This excuse for a scientist Hansen was discredited long ago. See the WUWT story from 22/10/09
Why does this man still have a job? Let alone feature prominently in press releases.
Every time I see his picture he reminds me of a used car salesman (apologies to used car salesman)
Hansen (you agenda driven truth hiding) poor excuse for a man. A thousand curses on you and yours (I wish I could swear)
Step 1 of the GISS analysis method contains:
“Non-overlapping records are viewed as a single record, unless this would
result introducing a discontinuity; in the documented case of St.Helena
the discontinuity is eliminated by adding 1C to the early part.
After noticing an unusual warming trend in Hawaii, closer investigation
showed its origin to be in the Lihue record; it had a discontinuity around
1950 not present in any neighboring station. Based on those data, we added
0.8C to the part before the discontinuity.”
I am not a ‘climate scientist’ but the adding of ANY values to the ‘data’ seems a bit non-scientific to me.
Are these adjusted figures?
I’m still wondering what the problem is. The “officially” recognized warming over the past 100+ years is still well within normal operational parameters of natural climate change. Therefore, it’s clear that man has very little resultant impact if any on climate. To say otherwise actually goes against the latest observed results produced by NASA.
David Alan (01:44:28) :
“With continental plate shifts and seduction and volcanism, how can we blame sea rise as nothing more than a natural phenomena. ”
Should be “subduction”.
And I’ll bet that the reason all the temperature records look the same even from different “official” sources is that if one of them produced a graph showing the truth their work would have been discredited and the funding discontinued.
So they all probably adjusted the data so as to produce graphs like the “officially accepted ones”.
And in reponse to Trigge, subtracting 0.8 from the higher value to match a discontinuous previous value is just as valid as adding to the previous to “hide” the discontinuity.
Why didn’t they do 50% additions and 50% subtractions and smooth the result?
Robert E. Phelan (00:38:05) :
Robert, I am also beginning despair. If a scientist told me that water was wet, I’d now have a hard time believing it. Sadly, that elevated status we once believed was almost “god-like” is now degenerating to the level of suspicion preciously reserved for used car and door to door vacuum cleaner salesmen. Actually in comparison, the salesmen appear to be pillars of virtue. Such a decline – and it’s a travesty we can’t explain it.
Zorro at 59:51 posted one of THE BEST reported stories on the manipulation of data i have seen thus far!! I HIGHLY recommend it goes up on the main page!! (And gets passed to anyone and everyone you know!!)
i am emailing it to everyone n my facebook and in my Email Address Book.
You can find it here:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
Re: Rhodrich (Jan 22 02:20),
Black still not addressing the real points, but the comments to his article are! And strongly!
Even the Beeb can’t keep the party line for much longer
GISS shows + deg C anomaly for Central Europe.
Our only truly rural station, Lomnicky stit observatory, shows 51-80 base period 0.7 deg C colder than 1998-2008.
So GISS is only 0.3-1.3 deg C off mark.
There is no end to their mendacity. The Mercator projection they use conveniently distorts the representation of land area so that the allegedly warming polar regions appear far bigger than they really are. And I like the idea of Antarctic measurements – plural measurements, singular station.
Just for the records:
A decade starts with year xxx1 and ends with year xxx0 (Just compare it to the “official” reference-period: 1951-1980)
So, since we haven’t finished the current decade yet, there is no warmest decade on record.
And if you take a look at the true data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2000&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg you will see, which kind of swiss cheese the warmest decade on record really is…
“NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880.”
Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH!
No more, no more please, you’re killing me.
You couldn’t make it up could you? Although come to think of it…
This report reminds me of the mindset taken by Wall Street on the economy.; Illusions of prosperity.
NASA, GISS; Illusions of global warming.
I simply cannot believe that this is the same NASA that put men on the moon. It must be another bunch using the same acronym:
Nuts And Shysters Association?
Nincompoops And Silly Asses?
Never Any Science Allowed?
No wonder the Arctic looks warm when comparing with 1951-1980. Here’s a long running Siberian station: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222202920005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Note how warm the 1930-1950 period was!
Now remind me again … How many thermometers are there in that big block of orange at the top?
So much agenda, so little time.
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip. – Tom Wigley (and yes I know he is not NASA)
Looking at the image of temperature anomalies, it seems to me that the majority of warming anomalies are concentrated over land, while the sea areas excluding the Arctic generally show very slight cooling, no change or very slight warming. The land based data are from suitably homogenised and adjusted weather stations whilst the sea based data come from satellite measurements, not withstanding the fact that the satellite era only commenced in 1979 while the anomalies are against a 1951-80 average.
It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for this.
1. The land based data has been corrupted with UHI and other “adjustments.”
2. The anomalies are correct and therefore the sea is now cooling as compared with the land and that with its much greater heat content, it is an indication that the warming period has come to an end and we can expect a sustained period of stable temperatures or even cooling.
Whichever explanation is true, should it not be the duty of Mr Hansen to explain this difference in his summary?
Taking this analysis a stage further, is the best compromise for a global temperature just simply the satellite based sea surface temperature? All the land based data have been corrupted with UHI and other adjustments and the guardians of these data sets acknowledge that complete coverage is not a requirement by way of them having deleted the vast majority of weather stations anyway. Likewise the UAH and RSS records are of the lower troposphere and therefore are only a proxy for what is happening at ground (or sea) level.
You are all missing the point….
The general public doesn’t want scientific truths, they want someone to tell them what is happening and all most have is the MSM which loves to report ‘records’. In a few months from now many people will honestly, if misguidedly, say at parties, in coffee shops and pubs or round the water cooler that the last decade was the warmest on record. They won’t remember where they read or heard it and that won’t matter because they will have integrated it into their world view and it will be as good as a fact to them and all they dispense the information to.
When the climategate furore dies down, which is dependent on how long the dedicated people who run sites like these can keep up the amount of work needed to keep it current, what people will remember is the ‘record decade’. The only thing keeping us all from the CTS scams is the dedication of volunteers at WUWT, CA and others and that is a finite resource. Remember, what the general public sees is so-called ‘respected scientists’ from major institutions who are obviously passionate about their work and appear to truly believe in it – that is a strong message whether it is true or not.
I continue to keep my fingers crossed that the truth is revealed and this craziness will come to an end but the longer it goes on, the more concerned I get that the luddites will eventually triumph.
Sorry for the rant, I am not diminishing any of the commenters on here, I think there are many valid points made by people smarter than me, I just don’t think the GP cares and I speak as a non-scientist who believes we are about to flush civilization down the toilet so I would love to be proved wrong.
Outside of the Alarmists blogesphere no one is really listening. BTW, Hansen will be 70 next year. Perhaps it is time for him to retire.
Interesting that a number of posters here find the recent warm 2009 hard to accept. Don’t they know that if you put a whole load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it will (in the absence of a negative forcing) have a warming effect? If they don’t know this then I suggest they go back to school. It’s high-school physics.
!! A must read !!
Now we know why it has been “so warm”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
when ever i see GISS i just ignore what ever they say. I use to respect hansen but after seeing how political he is and now writing books like al bore, as well as data manipulation, who can believe any thing he puts forth.
But sadly, as with most ‘alarmist’ propaganda, this is the story that the media will peddle.
We may know this data has been fiddled and I have no doubt honest scientists here and across the web will put this report into a proper perspective. But to my mind a huge problem remains. No amount of self-congratulation here about our ability to see the truth, and no amount of honest science discussed here, will do much to correct the propaganda message which the public and politicians will hear and continue to follow.
In almost all cases the ‘alarmists’ are still being allowed to make all the plays. Not only does alarmism sell but the whole AGW debate is being played completely to their rules. They make an often ridiculous claim then we moderates, sceptics and realists end up playing catchup. Even good spokesmen like Lord Monckton or Christopher Booker are forced to pedal a mainly negative message simply rebutting the extreme claims. Because the realists need to be careful to stay absolutely within the true science and be honest they can only defend, they have almost nothing to attack with.
I think someone needs to fight the ‘warmist’ dishonesty by their own methods, we need some good publicity-attracting scare stories of our own that can be fed to the media. Wind generators shredding a few birds or blighting the view are not bad enough. We need some headline grabbing stories to detail and underline the serious problems that might happen if we follow the ‘alarmist’ agenda. We need to play by their rules and start populating their playing field with some real scary downsides.
I guess Anthony may not approve of ‘misusing’ science even in a good cause to get our own back so it wouldn’t be done here. But even so a couple of things come to mind. Rather than us realists just saying ‘Carbon trading will impoverish us all’ have any social economists tried to predict how a US or UK family might live in 2100 in abject poverty with limited carbon credits and all jobs outsourced to India and China?
On a science tack, what’s the chance that windfarms may cause ground vibrations which increase earthquake risks? This is just as true as some of the extreme ‘warmist’ nonsense we hear and carries a common sense value making it very hard to completely debunk as an idea. Has anyone even thought about it?
To those who query why this report was posted: folk such as I NEED to see what rubbish the AGW church is posting, so we can be alerted to the MSM coverage which will follow, and can do our best to debunk it with our circle of friends and aquaintences.
I mostly get shouted at, of course, because far too any still believe the AGW hysteria; regarding MSM like the BBC, and institutions like the UN, as authoritative. They just don’t believe that the data and analysis is crap, and take the band wagon of politicians as showing it must be true. Still, progress here and there: keep blogging, emailing, talking in Pubs (bars), writing to politicians etc. Emphasise what else the £ & $ could be used for!
“GISTEMP is showing record 2009 combined surface temperatures for the
Southern Hemisphere, while the 2009 TLT anomalies are far from record
levels.”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-2009-warmest-year-on-record-in.html&usg=AFQjCNH2KG0-dSl6yIpjUwMmxQSQozz9rw
So NASA says average global temperatures have gone up by 0.8 degC since 1880. Also “That’s the important number to keep in mind”. Important? 0.8 degC? Huh.
Remind me again please, when did the Little Ice Age end?
In other news…
o Pope confirms he’s still a Catholic
o Bears confess to defecating in woods
etc. etc.
Dave
“David Alan (01:44:28) :
We are witnessing a cooling process that which no living person has ever experienced.
Period.”
It was colder in the 70’s, just. And, hang on a sec let me check….yup I am still alive.
Why do they choose 1950-1980 as the period to compare against? Why not 1920-1950?
Marc Sheppard*:
“And convince you it’s your fault.”
There is the nub of the AGW; Guilt and Fear; no Hope.
“And convince you it’s your fault”.
The AGW Fraud was built on a single pillar: Fear-Guilt.
The single pillar of the AGW Fraud has been pulled down; the Temple of AGW has collapsed.
Great was the fall of it.
…-
“*Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg”
[…]
“Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world — with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle.
Remember that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose:
“To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south.”
Pretty slick, huh?
And those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming.
And convince you it’s your fault.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
san quintin (04:09:09) :
You were being sarcastic right? RIght?
The alarmists have the spin cycle to maximum warp speed. Can you just imagine what their emails are saying now?
Let us hope there is a very warm place for scientists (in this case, alleged scientists) who abuse the public’s trust.
Torsten Wedin (00:22:30) wrote:
This last decade was the warmest decade of this millenium
NASA wrote:
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record (~150 years)
Torsten’s spin is more spectacular then NASA’s 😉
Baa Humbug
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m just intrigued to see how many here thinks that dumping C02 quickly in the atmosphere will have little or no consequence.
ANTHONY –
Hansen clearly has an agenda to push so it’s no surprise that the data is tweaked and manipulated to fit his ends.
See this story in the national Telegraph newspaper about Hansen’s recommendation of a book that calls for an end to civilisation itself:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
The only thing stopping these guys would be a total crop-failure !
Given the lack of agricultural stocks on a worldscale the impact would be far more dramatic than rise in temperature by 2 or 3 degrees celsius .
False prophets flying around the world on imaginary red carpets ?
gerard (02:51:01) :
Are these adjusted figures?
You shouldn’t need to ask. All temperatures must be sanitised to prevent spread of that virulent disease of AGW scepticism, which sadly is spreading like wildfire through the population.
You can tell who has immunity by their repetitive moans of “The science is settled” but who illogically ask for more research money to settle the science all over again.
ghw (03:26:31) :
*sigh*
No.
Just because some innumerate fool decided that some bloke did not have a year ‘zero’ like all children do, does not mean we have to get into this argument every decade/century/millennium.
They all start on ‘0’ and end on ‘9’ (apart from the ‘first’ one, and anyone who likes it different is being daft. No offence meant, but it’s the way we actually mark the decades/centuries/millennia.
And most warming occurs where there are fewest thermometers, or none at all if you look at that bright red spot at the top of the world
The statement that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s is morally close to the statement that 2005 was warmer than 1995, or that the slope was positive in the 1995-2005 or 1990-2009 intervals.
However, the statement that the warming stopped in the last decade means that the trend is zero or negative in the 2000-2009 interval, which is an entirely different statement. And it is true.
The Telegraph online in the UK has run this, but judging by the article photo it doesn’t appear at first sight to be such an unappealing phenomenon.
The Met office has just sneaked out its ownHadCrut3 annual data
here
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
But the December 2009 monthly data is still missing.
No announcement, maybe because it does not agree with the GISS data. Hiding the decline maybe?
Anyway, HadCrut3 shows a variance of 0.439c (different base line from GISS) which makes it the 5th warmest on record:
1: 1998
2: 2005
3: 2003
4: 2002
5: 2009
GISS make it the 2nd warmest on record, mainly because they paint the whole of the antarctic and arctic at the same temperature as their nearest temp stations. HadCrut3 ignores the poles as the land based data is so sparse.
Interestingly the satellite record (University of Alabama Huntsville series) shows 2009 to be the 7th hottest in its record. Its ranking is;
1: 1998
2: 2005
3: 2002
4: 2007
5: 2003
6: 2006
7: 2009
Now the UAH data [i]does[/i] include the poles, and so does not need to guess for missing information. So in terms of believability I would rank the studies as:
1: UAH
2: HadCrut3
3: GISS
😉
Has anyone seen the new Alaskan Surf Board? They’re so big 10 people can get on the thing. Understand the one’s they use up on the North Slope beaches are even bigger too, something to do with the humongous size of North Pole waves. And there’s a new stronger suntan loation coming out for Arctic beaches that is 10 times stronger than anything they have in Central Australia. Life’s a beach, never the same from one day to the next. Surf’s Up! (Do you think NASA is a major stockholder in all the new beach property scemes? I believe Disney and NASA are working together on a new Antarctic Tropical Theme Park.)
The credibility factor is now lacking.
Rhodrich (02:20:29) :
The grand experiment continues. Mankind continues to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Even before the debacles of Copenhagen and Climategate, the largest generators of carbon dioxide were not going to cut back.
Cap and Trade is dead. Kyoto is going to be dead, not that it matters.
Whatever our views on AGW, mankind will continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth will do what it will.
My guess? And this is a guess because I don’t know what is really going to happen until it does.
I think the sun drives our climate, directly or indirectly. Until the sun decides to crank up again, we will be in the short term cooling trend we have seen since 1998. Over the next century, possibly a continuation of the gradual warming we’ve seen since 1850. But here’s the big question, will the earth do another 1940 to 1975 cooling or will the current short term cooling trend become a Dalton type cooling?
Time will tell.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm
It won’t really matter how many ‘death trains’ deliver their contents. It won’t matter what kind of cars we drive or whether or not we build a lot of solar cells and wind turbines. It won’t matter whether we use nuclear or not.
We are not going to stop generating CO2.
The climate will pretty much do what it was going to do in first place.
Guys….I think everyone agrees that the surface station figures are a such a leap of statistical faith, with so many caveats that we can ignore it…….unless……it concours with the satalellite temps? (I know there are probs with those too). But we also know that Christy & Spencer are not pushing alarmist agendas, so if their findings back up GISS, then we should do some deep thinking. What do the Sats tell us at the mo? Should be a 30yr record yes?
BTW I don’t want to come over all AGW on you, in my heart I think its all a scam, but my head tells me not to relax my skepticism on either side…I’d hate to be wrong!!
I actually applaud this sort of rubbish being publicised. The more there is of it the more the whole AGW business looks ridiculous to the general public.
The fact is that AGW took off in the public consciousness because it did get warmer and we had some hot summers and not very cold winters.
The cause of the warming escapes many people and many journalists and even some scientists or ‘scientists’. But if the cries of ‘wolf, wolf, there really is a wolf this time honest’ continue during a period of obvious hemisphere wide cold the AGW camp just make themselves look ridiculous.
There is more to come, much more. If we really do have a few cool/cold years to come then:
The ‘melting ice caps’ will expand again.
There will be an impact on agricultural prices because of frost damage and crop failures.
Some more brutal winters etc
None of this is to be welcomed but it might be what happens.
At the moment the dominant generation are people who grew up when it was colder than in recent years. Fast foward a few years and we might have a generation with memories of it being a lot warmer when they were growing up.
All of this is beside the point for the causes of warming and cooling but it is very relevant to public perception.
Ironically, due to their importance in the AGW conspiracy, we might find lefties/green leaders supporting the expansion of airports over green belts!
A man asccended the Eiffel tower and jumped off the top. A third of the way down he said ‘thats remarkable, Im in the highest 1 percent of people in Paris!
You would think scientists could get it right.
They can’t make a claim for the decade until the decade is over. The current decade started on 1 Jan 2001 and will end on 31 Dec 2010, more than 11 months away.
Just because the general public can’t get it right doesn’t mean scientists should go along with them.
I know many climate scientists have a problem with this concept but science is not majaority rules. Science is facts. And the fact is there was no year 0 AD (or whichever system you want to use), so the first decade was 1 Jan 1AD to 31 Dec 10AD. Therefore every decade since ENDS with the year that ends in zero (10, 20, 30,.. 1990, 2000, 2010), decades don’t START with years that end in zero.
Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.
If they mention 1998 as part of the ‘cluster’ then what about 1934? That was warmer.
He must have a change of heart. This is his identity. If he leaves, he can’t find work except in a sneaky way. No he and Joe Romm can’t even succeed in selling cars because of their angry and hostile temperaments. To sell cars, they would have to become decent and civil which is a stretch.
Wait a moment. Way back here (at something called norcalblogs.com/watts), it was reported that how Steven McIntyre got NASA to properly calculate GISS, resulting in 1934 being the hottest year on record (in 2007) with 2006 being number 4. Now this press release pegs 2005 as warmest on record, which wasn’t even in the top ten back then, just a few years ago.
And now in the “virtual tie” for second warmest are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. In that corrected top ten list reported in 2007, the only 200x year was 2006, with the original list having only 2001 and 2006. How did all those 19xx years get bumped off?
Oh well, at least Climatologist Gavin Schmidt was able to get some time away from his Real Climate duties to make a scientific-sounding statement.
Anthony
Re: NASA press release: ‘NASA Research Finds Last Decade was
Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years’
1. Pardon my repeating a point that I have made before!
2. I quote from the NASA press release:
‘GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct
its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more
than a thousand meteorological stations around the world,
satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and
Antarctic research station measurements.
Other research groups also track global temperature trends but
use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre
in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS,
for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and
Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.
Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in
the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are
essentially identical.’
3. What NASA does not say is that Climategate has so shaken
public confidence in the ‘different analysis technique’ of the
Met Office Hadley Centre that on 5 December 2009 eg the UK
Daily Telegraph reported:
‘Scientists may re-examine temperature data to prove climate
change
Climate scientists may re-examine 160 years of temperature data
after admitting that public confidence in the reality of global
warming has been undermined by ‘climategate’.
…
To try to restore public confidence the Met Office is talking to
other meteorological organisations around the world about
recreating the model using the same raw data but more modern
computers.
The whole process will also use any new information and be more
open to the public.
However, it could take up to three years for the study to
complete, meaning the scientific world would have to wait until
after 2012 to provide updated proof of the extent of global
warming.’
4. The Times reported the same story, but also added:
‘The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from
carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be
seized upon by climate change sceptics.’
and in a later story the same day the BBC reported:
‘An MO spokesman denied it would spend up to three years
re-examining the climate change data’.
5. But the UK Government has now survived Copenhagen. So
we can ask again: Did the words ‘the Met Office is talking to
other meteorological organisations around the world’ include
NASA GISS?
If so, NASA GISS can no longer rely upon the Met Office Hadley
Centre’s present analysis.
And NASA GISS was wrong, by the words ‘Although the two methods
produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the
decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical’,
to imply, without substantial qualification, that it
nevertheless does still rely upon the corroboration of the
findings of the NASA GISS analysis by the findings of the
Hadley Centre analysis.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Friday 22 January 2009
I have been living in NC for over 10 years …2009 was bookended by two cold winters and the mildest summer. Cincinnati, barely had any days that reached 90F this past summer, very unusual… The AGW joke continues
Why get excited about this? As Anna V mentioned earlier, the last decade of warming (if that’s what we’ve just had) would, by definition, be the warmest on record.
Besides, I thought 10 years was too short to draw conclusions from????
Hansen, Gavin & GISS . . reduced to using just one thermometer . . .[snip]t.
I see several comparisons to used car salesmen. Please folks. That group cleaned up a lot. They have laws to follow that don’t let them adjust mileage on the car to make it look like it was driven less. James Hansen would be compared with car salesmen that rolls back the odometer to help the car become newer.
We have documentation that CO2 was 400 ppm in the early 40’s.
We have proof it has been higher.
I’ve just been checking the decadal averages for both GISS and UAH over the past ~30 years. To provide a fair comparison I’ve used the satellite period (1979-1998) as the base period for the anomalies.
The respective decadal average anomalies for 1980s, 1990s & 2000s are as follows:
UAH -0.05 ; 0.06 ; 0.22
GISS -0.06 ; 0.08 ; 0.28
I am yet to be convinced that GISS are guilty of large scale fraud.
No surprise here.
What were you expecting them to say…
.03c of that .51 up in the right hand corner of the map is due to infilling up 1200km. Compare the 1200km map to this 250km infill map:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2000&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
Or how about looking at Polar view maps for 250 km:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2000&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol
Puh-lease.
As Kadaka has pointed out, the accepted corrections by McIntyre have somehow been forgotten.
In 2007
2006 was 1.23 and afterwards became 1.13
But now if you look at the values from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
you can see that somehow 2006 has become 1.31.
Also in 2007 the ranking was
Year Old New Today’s Temp accoding to the link above
1934 1.23 1.25 1.22
1998 1.24 1.23 1.31
1921 1.12 1.15 1.12
2006 1.23 1.13 1.31
1931 1.08 1.08 1.00
1999 0.94 0.93 1.07
1953 0.91 0.90 0.87
1990 0.88 0.87 0.91
1938 0.85 0.86 0.77
1939 0.84 0.85 0.80
Notice how temperatures for the earlier dates are now lower and those more recent are higher.
What are they playing at?
From the Laws page on the Number Watch Site:
Langmuir’s Laws of bad science
1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
Wolf ! Wolf ! Wolf !
First of all, the LAST decade was from 1991 through 2000. The CURRENT decade started in 2001 and ends on December 31 (11:59:59 PM) of this year. The next decade begins at 12:00 AM on January 1, 2011.
Second, we all know GISS uses a different (lower) baseline, so the temperature anomaly is higher than other measurements such as UHA.
Third, the records back to 1880 aren’t complete enough.
“warmest” or really “not as cold”? In this data has the summer temperatures actually gone up? Or are the winters less cold? That’s what I’m finding. (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/25338819/What-Does-Averge-Temperature-Actually-Mean#stats)
I now have all of Ontario and will be doing a merge and analysis once it’s all imported into my database.
Anthony,
For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted …”
What do you mean “more?” I don’t see any such information in the post. Did I miss something?
REPLY: Yes
Most respondents to this site have seemed to like Roy Spencer’s monthly satellite record of the global temperature anomaly at 14,000 feet, especially after it dipped down to essentially zero in year 2,000. Well, take another look at that chart. It certainly shows the past decade to have been the warmest in the thirty or so years satellites have been taking those measurements. When Spencer publishes the January, 2010 anomaly, brace yourselves for a shocker because the thing is sailing well above any comparable January in the past.
It is a mistake to let “Hansen hatred” addle one’s brains to the point that one forgets what the real controversy is all about. Which modern decade may have been the warmest is NOT the fundamental issue at stake in the AGW challenge. Although I see ample evidence the GISS numbers are not to be trusted, I see no such evidence against the satellite record. It seems to me the satellite record probably adds weight to Hansen’s most recent pronouncement and thus demonstrates the ancient truism that “Even a blind pig can occassionally find and acorn.”
CH
No surprises here. Just like the UEA-CRU, NASA-GISS have to provide the ‘evidence’ their masters want to hear. Climategate provides a great insight into the motivation behind perpetuating this fraud, and I’m certain more evidence of this will be coming out of the woodwork soon.
The data behind climate science has lost all credibility and the CAGW hypothesis falsified.
Have you guys forgotten this already?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Example from the link:
“It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.”
Bad science being exposed.
I suppose if they can cherry-pick ten trees, they can cherry-pick ten thermometers.
2009 El Nino was cooler than 2005, and tied for 1998 El Nino… how can we say that warming is going on unabated? That’s before you even start to question what happens in Hansen’s Kitchen. That guy is quite the bull-s artist.
BTW the values that Kadaka and I are questioning only relate to GISS US Temperatures but how can an accepted temperature anomoly such as 1953 which was 0.91,then after McIntyre became 0.90 and now is 0.87 be correct?
Why do the numbers change?
Thanks sunsettommy. But that doesn’t explain to me why pre 1990 values are now less than they were in 2007.
John Finn,
The fraud if it exists is in the ‘early’ records or more accurately…the comparison to the earlier records.
The Glaciers on Mt Rainier are the most studied glaciers in the world. The only thermometer I trust.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/ncrd/glaciers.htm
Between the 14th century and A.D. 1850, many of the glaciers on Mount Rainier advanced to their farthest..Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid…Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980’s, however, many of the major glaciers advanced…Since the early-1980’s and through 1992, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed.
One has to wonder,
Are researchers contaminating their own data? Is the recorded temperature of Antarctica higher because of the heat the researchers generate? Are the coral dying because of the sunscreen researchers wear? Are frogs dying of bacteria brought to remote areas on the shoes of researchers?
Temperature goes up and temperature goes down.
But Deg/CO2=0.
I agree with Claud Harvey and the others, just because GISS is a mess it does not mean it can’t be right twice a day, like a broken clock. We should only laugh at GISS if our weapon of choice, UAH, contradicts GISS wildly.
It looks like UAH & GISS may not be too far apart. Which means GISS despite its incredibly unbelieveable infill is coming up with the goods (that stuck in my throat).
So…….do we now diss UAH or look to a reason.
Is it the oceans actually giving up the heat in the pipeline, a possible short term affect and thus the sign of impending cold? Or is the atmosphere actually getting warmer, a result of El Nino on top of a couple of LA Ninas making the anomaly high. Or is it the dreaded CO2 after all. I still can’t buy the idea of CO2, it would be all to convienient to the politics in play. But in truth the world has not chilled enough to ‘basket’ the 90s EL Ninos…its dropped a gnats and plateaued.
Is this still the ongoing warming from the LIA?
So many questions.
Hansen says:
“There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
The NOAA disagrees.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/bams/full-report.pdf
NOAA report: State of the Climate in 2008, pg 24
“El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions
can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature
rise.”
1999-2008 saw an ENSO adjusted trend of 0.00c. Obiviously, this period being analyzed is one year earlier than Hansen is talking about, but 2009 was also an El Nino year, which began in June, so I doubt the ENSO adjusted trend changed much.
Hansen also says:
“Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.
Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.”
Well the NOAA analysis above was done using HadCrut3 Data, which does not suggest that after adjusting for ENSO that “global warming is continuing unabated”.
Also, I find it interesting that Hansen never actually quantifies the last decade in this release. He talks about the last decade but only quantifies longer trends, and ignores actually putting a number to the claims about the last decade. I wonder why.
John Finn (05:48:27) :
UAH -0.05 ; 0.06 ; 0.22
GISS -0.06 ; 0.08 ; 0.28
the UAH measured troposphere should warm faster than GISS, indicating a warming bias of approx. 0.1 deg or 30%. If this bias is attributable to land only, the land warming bias would be around 100%.
add similar bias due to the downward correction before the satellite era, or more, as there is no crosscheck possibility, making that period ideal to hide the decline.
then the question arises – where the heck is the warming since the 1930s ?
Check out this latest item debunking GISS temperature data records at American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Unless temperatures take a serious downturn (which can’t be adjusted out), I predict the next 10 years will be the warmest in history. The Team will do it’s best to keep the fraud going for as long as possible. After all, they have a financial interest in WARMING.
By the way, some real warming wouldn’t be bad, but I just don’t want man-made warming to be a result of the way it is recorded and adjusted, even if the record doesn’t show any warming.
GISS understands that headlines sway opinions. As long as they can continue to adjust the adjustments, the higher highs are likely to continue.
I challenge Hansen to provide a graph of El Nino/La Nina 3 month running averages graphed with global 3 month running averages, graphed with CO2 three month running averages. Using raw data, not value added data. I dare you. In other words, prove your premise. Do the research and report it like it is supposed to be done. For once.
There are a couple of glaciers forming in the parking lot of the Galleria right now. They sure try their darndest to get rid of them though.
“Why it is sometimes wise to hide the ‘orignal’ data”
– Reinhard Boehm of the Central Office for Weather and Geodynamics in Vienna.
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-contribution-from-reinhard-bohm.html
John Finn (05:48:27) :
I’ve just been checking the decadal averages for both GISS and UAH over the past ~30 years. To provide a fair comparison I’ve used the satellite period (1979-1998) as the base period for the anomalies.
The respective decadal average anomalies for 1980s, 1990s & 2000s are as follows:
UAH -0.05 ; 0.06 ; 0.22
GISS -0.06 ; 0.08 ; 0.28
I am yet to be convinced that GISS are guilty of large scale fraud.
I just checked the period from 2003. I chose 2003 because UAH started using AQUA in 2003, so the last 7 years has the most reliable satellite measurements. Hadcrut is missing data for the last couple of months, but at least for the given data, the downward trend is almost identical to that of UAH, while GISS is almost flat:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2003/mean:11/plot/uah/from:2003/mean:11/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/mean:11/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend
And still they soldier on with manufactured data. I can only think its because enough people still support the AGW theory to encourage them their belief they can make it through the gauntlet of doubt. Puts me in mind of the black knight in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
A member survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, Geophysicists of Alberta of which I am a member (chemical engineer) shows 68% DO NOT believe carbon dioxide from human activity drives climate change. I can personally verify the debate in the pages of our monthly journal rages on. Anyone announcing the science is settled would find themselves dodging to avoid getting hit in the fray.
Anthony,
I am sure you have read this http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
whereas a peer reviewed report from NOAA supposedly debunks your work on poor temperture stations causing a skewed warmer data base……..John
Interesting that the fox in the henhouse is writing the paper!
REPLY: Well aware, look for my rebuttal in the next few days – A
I have a new way to measure global warming locally. Last winter in Hawaii, by this time I had worn pajamas to bed 12 times, this year? Only 6 times. So it is 50% warmer here this winter. OMG! We’re doomed!
On a more sane note, in 1992 we had Hurricane Iniki which strengthened over warmer tropical waters (EL Nino Effect). Since then, the ocean temps have cooled around Hawaii and hurricanes typically die out before reaching us. If waters were warming, you would see many more hurricanes striking land in the middle of the Pacific. I am interested to see what happens with the El Nino over the next few Hurricane seasons but this is one way you can check against the claims of the alarmists.
OT but somewhat interesting.
I went to check on that 1.5% surface area number for the contiguous United States, from here (the IAEA) I got this link
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook
to the CIA Factbook.
Three times now, I’ve gotten this error message from Earthlink, my ISP (emphasis added):
We are sorry, facebook cannot be found.
*sigh*
Is the Earth receiving an unusually large amount of cosmic radiation today causing strange computer glitches, or is the internet just having “one of those days”?
Nik Marshall-Blank (06:36:17) :
BTW the values that Kadaka and I are questioning only relate to GISS US Temperatures but how can an accepted temperature anomoly such as 1953 which was 0.91,then after McIntyre became 0.90 and now is 0.87 be correct?
Why do the numbers change?
Ask NOAA:
“Sep. 10, 2007: The year 2000 version of USHCN data was replaced by the current version (with data through 2005). In this newer version, NOAA removed or corrected a number of station records before year 2000. Since these changes included most of the records that failed our quality control checks, we no longer remove any USHCN records. The effect of station removal on analyzed global temperature is very small, as shown by graphs and maps available here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
san quinton (04:09:09) – Please see Bob Tisdale’s post at (01:28:52)
Someone else mentioned it, but if this was the warmest decade and the southern hemisphere is abnormally warm, why has antarctic ice been above normal, and remains at or above the mean?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Anthony,
And what in your posting is the definition of something that cannot be “trusted?”
Friends:
So, the article reports that NASA GISTEMP says;
“January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.”
and James Hansen asserts;
“There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
OK, for sake of argument, let us accept the above statements as being true (although they are extremely dubious as the leaked CRU emails prove) and consider what they mean if they are true.
The NASA GISTEMP “record” is very short and dates from about 1880. But several studies indicate that the globe has been warming from the Little Ice Age since about 1700 (e.g. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) )”. Importantly, global temperature has fallen since its peak in 1998. Hence, of course recent global temperatures are among the “hottest” recorded.
Using “average temperature over five or ten years “ hides the decline since 1998. Indeed, it is a statistical trick to hide the fact that the GISTEMP record shows no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Of course the most recent decade is warmer than any other in the GISTEMP ”record”. Similarly, a person who walks up a mountain is still high soon after he has started down the other side.
Importantly, it is worthless information that the GISTEMP global temperatures averaged over decades shows the most recent decade to be the hottest. At issue is why temperature rose through the twentieth century and has shown no significant rise recently.
Indeed, there is good reason to anticipate that the fluctuations around a value of global temperature of the last decade will continue for another two decades. This is because the climate varies in cycles that are overlaid on each other, and two of them are worthy of especial note.
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP: indeed, there is no reason to suppose the causes of these two warming periods differ.
And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that coincides with variations to the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This caused cooling to ~1910, then warming to ~1940, then cooling to ~1970, then warming to 1998, then cooling since.
So, if these cycles continue when the ~60 year oscillation returns to a warming phase around 2030 either warming will resume until the globe reaches temperatures of the MWP, or cooling will continue until the globe reaches temperatures of the LIA.
Hence, the fact that it has been warm in the last decade tells nothing about whether it will get warmer or colder in the next few decades. All sensible people will hope for warming.
Richard
We have to expose the thermometer genocide and the rewriting of the past of GISS to discredit NASA’s “warmest” claims. A lot of people still believe the MSM – i wouldn’t call them leftists but mostly apolitical. It must be exposed that GISTEMP is a fraudster’s work and that the fraudster is Hansen. This is the key.
If the satellite data differs from earth based measurements, I would say, better check out what’s wrong with that satellite.
But that is just me, I have a basic mistrust of mechanical things. They tend to break.
““There’s a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends,” Hansen said. “In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.””
Except that Hansen does not seem to realize (or care) that the issue hasn’t been the last decade for some time. It is now something like twelve years.
From the press release:
Since all these years are in a”virtual tie”, I read this as an explicit admission by NASA that there has not been any “significant” warming for 12 years!
kadaka ,
try this link to the factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
A bit off topic, but Richard Black, BBC hero, has managed to assess the state of climate politics, without even mentioning climategate.
Outrageous.
http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/01/22/richard-black-ignores-the-ten-ton-elephant-again/
Assuming that Hansen et all are right, and that its all ‘settled’, I find it irritating when scientists (even if it is for a press release) blather about how its getting ‘warmer’ – and the actual numbers are tiny, like ~0.8F.
Yes, that would be ‘warmer’ than ~.2F – but how does it compare to the previous alarms about temperatures rising by 6C?
It is also irritating when those scientists just throw numbers around, without indicating the units they are talking about. There is, to my certain knowledge, a slight difference between 1F and 1C …
And I find it irritating when people go on about how ‘we’ put so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
I seem to recall that there is a lag of 800 years between a warm period and subsequent rise of CO2. So isn’t the rise we’re seeing the result of the MWP? Or am I missing something?
A year or so ago, perhaps two, a poster asked if the communications transmissions we all use would have any effect on the air temperatures. Anthony showed how weak those transmissions were and thus had no effect. Is it time to revisit that as communications have increased exponentially or are they still too weak to play a part?
“Warmest Decade” measured from ground based stations offers too much variability. Historically we have to account for the urban warming effect, loss of reporting stations in very cold climates, and “smoothing” to fill reporting holes that doesn’t account for altitude variability. The thermal inertia to warming of the oceans is potentially the only reliable source of comparison. What does that data set tell us?
Warmest decade on record? Absolute bollocks. These clowns at NASA should be tarred, feathered and run out of town.
They had to report something after the world finds out the numbers have beed doctored.This is nothing but recycled news after the longest cold snap since the 70’s and were not finisned with winter this year by no means.
Anthony,
Also I see they are mixing climate change, clean air (smog vs Co2) with energy independance and a need for more alternatives for energy that is domestically supplied which all of us support, Sincerely John
http://www.desmogblog.com/republican-pollster-confirms-americans-energy-concerns If you follow the links you can end up here http://www.edf.org/documents/10738_Language-of-a-Clean-Energy-Economy.pdf?redirect=language
Which really is a parsing of language used in the debate. We all want clean cheap energy sources and favor them even more if they are produced domestically. But to slap a huge tax or cost on dependable cost effective clean burning fossil fuels to save mankind from AGW is where we differnt deeply………John….
REPLY: It is useful to remember who funds desmogblog
– Anthony
So, people; Is it young Peter here being a fraud, or is it James Hansen ?
Anyone? ;
It was warm and steamy alright. The kind of warm and steamy my dog likes to sniff.
Global warming hits Arizona
http://134.114.127.22/jpg/hugesize.jpg
I have few questions:
– having the russians complaining about that preferrably stations showing increasing temperatures are used, how can one trust this red all across Siberia?
– the deep red north of Svalbard, is it measured or calculated?
– the deep red north of Alaska/ Bering strait, is it measured or calculated?
These 3 areas are significantly contributing to the warm image of the Northern part of the world.
Thank you for clarification.
After Ohio struggled to stay near 80 all summer, and indeed had a very very cool summer, I don’t really give a crap what GISTEMP says. I don’t buy it. Here is why. If I can experience the second coldest summer in the warmest decade* since time began, then I am not going to be concerned about anything. I think it is the Bolivia Effect. Weather isn’t climate, but when it comes to these jokers, neither is climate.
/rant
>>>>Wolf ! Wolf ! Wolf !
Indeed, and nobody is listening any more. But when will indifference turn to derision and anger??
.
RomanM (07:36:52) :
I believe the words for this are “Oh snap!”
One wonders if the word in the back rooms of the political rainmakers is really all about using public funds to subsidize alternate energy as the main strategy for the war on terror. It may simply be to impoverish the enemies of the west by no longer buying their oil. In order to scare the public so we accept the punitive taxes surely coming our way they demonize oil. I really can’t otherwise imagine why any reasonable person would so blindly embrace such wobbly science in the face of confounding data. Naw, couldn’t be.
For me this is one of the most important developments in this debate so far:
recommendation of a book that calls for an end to civilisation itself:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
Anthony there must be huge mileage in this?
John Theon speaks out:
“In a 37-year career at NASA, his titles included Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch followed by a stint as Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA HQ.”
“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote. “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.
“They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
WOULD YOU BUY A USED TEMPERATURE DATA SET FROM THIS MAN?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
Anthony,
I have always wondered why the RAWS system in the US is not incorporated into UHI evaluation checks. I would love to see a screen with overlays for weather data for ASOS locations and then compare to the nearest RAWS and the nearest long term surfacestation.
It provides a check for each of the official stations used. A way to view weather changes, by the reports from the different major systems not included in the climate models. It provides the best set of tools to measure “UHI”. The equipment is perfectly situated to show heating or cooling trends in wilderness interface locations.
The Remote Automated Weather System has been installed in about 2,200 remote locations all over the US. It is continuously updated and upgraded with new hardware as technology advances. The locations are specifically picked to provide timely information about the “Wilderness” for fire science.
If its good enough for evaluating the forest for fire conditions, it should be good enough to help check the accuracy of the equipment near by.
best,
Jack Barnes
http://www.fs.fed.us/raws/
It’s discussed in the link that follows Anthony’s sentence:
2005 was the warmest year on record and 2009 tied with 1998 (and cluster) as second warmest?
How do they expect to be taken seriously with statements like these?
This reads like propaganda.
I’d love to feel some of those warm yellows and reds at my house. I’m tired of the cold.
Re: Roger Knights (08:41:09) :
I continue to wait for someone to put in writing here precisely what is “not to be trusted” rather than to have me look somewhere else. I did read the two links provided at the very end. I did not find any evidence in those two links supporting the assertion that GISS data is “not to be trusted.”
My initial question to Anthony references that he wrote “For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted” (emphasis added). That has me looking for something in the original blog entry which is his evidence. I repeat: what is the evidence in Anthony ‘s blog ?
This whole thing about the warmest year “ever” is so tiresome. How many times have you heard someone tell you the weather has never been so hot, never been so cold, never been so wet, etc? People have short memories and the data is not adequate to be able to really make these statements. And never mind the fact that it’s a “so what” kind of statement anyway. Yet the warmers continually pump this information out with menacing connotations. This is not neutral science, it’s agenda driven nonsense.
The only source to be trusted it seems is the satellite record. So that has 2009 as the 7th warmest year, but only takes into account the past 30 years. The last 10 years shows no significant warming or cooling.
kadaka (05:35:58) :
(…) resulting in 1934 being the hottest year on record (in 2007) with 2006 being number 4. Now this press release pegs 2005 as warmest on record, which wasn’t even in the top ten back then, just a few years ago.
“NASA – Prior decades much the same as last one”
Really wasn’t doing much for press momentum.
@ josef (10:01:41) :
“The only source to be trusted it seems is the satellite record.”
Even if the satellite is correct, ( and I would have to add, correct compared to what? Is somebody checking the surface temps with a thermometer to see if they match up with the satellite?)
From what I’ve read here, the satellite temps are measuring only the surface of the oceans and this is new data that was added 30 years ago. (And please, somebody correct me if I’m wrong,) I presume then, that they did not include ocean surface temps before that or that there were very few. If this is true then, how do you mesh the old data with a whole set of new data, (and oceans and land are like apples and oranges,) to come up with a global temperature that has any meaning compared to the simple land temperatures before?
Was it the warmest year ever for you? Maybe yes? Maybe no? I guess how we answer depends on where we live. Is it “true” that it was the warmest year in modern times for the planet from an honest Scientific” data perspective. Who knows.
The biggest problem that Hansen and NASA and the Met Office has (and so too many other Weather professionals as well) is that they have lost a lot of credibility with the people who pay their wages and buy their expensive little toys. Hansen tried to pull off a con, for whatever reason, and he failed. He used his office and connections to do it. He embarrassed NASA, his associates, and the politicians and business men who sought to use him for their own dubious reasons.
When we think of rats leaving a sinking ship we often think of them jumping into the water near the waterline. There are, however, others who run to the highest parts of the vessel. Hansen will be found at the top of the topmast. He will be the last to drown.
What of duty, honor, country? What of integrity? What of NASA or The Met? For many these never were, and never will be, matters that they ever gave the slightest thought. The worst fight you’ll ever have will be the one you have with a rat you’ve chased into a corner, or up to the topmast of a sinking ship.
I’m sure their bosses are scared to death and don’t even want to think about handing them a pink slip.
Yea, right now it seems NASA stands for:
Not
As
Smart
As people think they are.
James Hansen says “When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
Er no, James. When we average the last 10 years we find no warming.
r (10:21:14) :
Im sure you know that they did temperature measurements using baloons before the satellites came along?
And that they compared baloon measurements with satellite measurements in a transition period. They’ve been at it for a long time by now, you know. And if a “bug” is detected, they are open about it. They also post raw data and methods on the web.
Hansen’s timing is awful. He shouldn’t release these articles during record cold spells in the US and Europe. Better to wait till a hot day in July.
Two things to consider: the most recent decade of the Dow Jones Industrial Average was its highest on record; Air America filed bankruptcy because it couldn’t afford its heating bill (and other expenses) due to global warming.
“In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.”
Not even close. At most, it was the 4th warmest year of the last 30 in the Southern Hemisphere…
UAH LT SH
kwik,
Thanks, good to know. But have they checked it lately? To see if there is any drift over 30 years?
The map reminds me of the IPCC statement:
‘the medieval warm period is only local!’
With tasmanian tree rings as proof and their own models showing no change around Tasmania in case of a global temperature rise!
Why is this rise in the northern hemisphere not called local?
Baa Humbug (02:32:58) :
Hansen (you agenda driven truth hiding) poor excuse for a man. A thousand curses on you and yours (I wish I could swear)
You could always use my grandpa’s colorful description of those he disliked: illegitimate son of a syphilitic camel, has a bit of a punch doesn’t it. (He really hated camels)
“Herman L (09:38:59) :
[…]
My initial question to Anthony references that he wrote “For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted” (emphasis added). That has me looking for something in the original blog entry which is his evidence. I repeat: what is the evidence in Anthony ’s blog ?”
Hey genius, see that little rectangle on the top of the page with the title “Search”? How about you enter the word “GISS” there, press the ENTER button on your keyboard and read the search results?
So, that’s enough tips for you. Go read that and come back when you’re done. Like the RealClimate guys always say: go read these 800 “peer-reviewed” papers by “credible” climatologists… some of your own medicine for you.
Nik Marshall-Blank (06:01:45) :
As Kadaka has pointed out, the accepted corrections by McIntyre have somehow been forgotten.
In 2007
2006 was 1.23 and afterwards became 1.13
Another one who thinks 2% of the total surface area is the world.
Think about it Tom, this is actually a very effective way of getting rid of energy (via energy conversion to RF or ‘radio waves’).
At least half of the EM energy from any given ‘transmission’ heads into space (assuming vertically oriented dipole, doughnut-shaped rad pattern etc) and a portion of the balance is reflected and makes its way into space too. Conversion efficiences of PAs (power amplifiers) overall of VHF – UHF range from 60% (good) to 30% (poor) so there is locally generated ‘heat’ that may outweigh effects of ‘heat’ directly due to the RF EM energy …
And, the vast majority of the wavelengths/frequencies you’re concerned with here see an ‘optically transparent’ path/opening into space, regardless of overcast …
.
.
Wait a moment. Way back here (at something called norcalblogs.com/watts), it was reported that how Steven McIntyre got NASA to properly calculate GISS, resulting in 1934 being the hottest year on record (in 2007) with 2006 being number 4. Now this press release pegs 2005 as warmest on record, which wasn’t even in the top ten back then, just a few years ago.
….and another one. The 1934/1998 issue relates to the US only .
…see that little rectangle on the top of the page with the title “Search”? …?
Read my first post. Anthony claims I missed something in this post.
REPLY: At the risk of overstating the blatantly obvious, follow the links at the bottom of the article that I provided, that’s where there are two stories about GISS data. You can also use the search box here, and you’ll find dozens of stories about GISS issues. – Anthony
r (11:51:59) :
Well, I found something about it here, middle of the page;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
It may have been the warmest decade in total, but the temperatures were still cooling over the entire decade. There is no warming trend in the 2000s, yet it is still the warmest. Guess it depends how you look at it, and it’s kind of misleading. As long as the rate of warming in the 1990s was greater than the 2000s, the 2000s will be a warmer decade. It’s a meaningless statistic.
Interesting, 1934 the warmest year of the century, my year of birth.
It is about 60 years ago I learned at school of all kind of climates: Tropical climate, Pole climate, Moderate climate, Sea climate and Land climate. But no World climate……and I really believe that this is nonsense.
And all that temperatures of years and decades has nothing to do with climate, that is meteorology. To-morrow we have again some frost here in Holland, but we still live in a Moderate seaclimate.
Just curious… was it the warmest inferred decade in Bolivia too?
Hope this comes out right.
GISS US temps
2000 2007 2007 2009 2010 2010
Old New Jan10 Jan22
1934 1.30 1.23 1.25 1.24 1.26 1.22
1921 1.20 1.12 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.12
1931 1.15 1.08 1.08 1.10 0.99 1.00
1998 1.05 1.24 1.23 1.24 1.29 1.31
1938 0.92 0.85 0.8 0.86 0.79 0.77
1939 0.90 0.84 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.80
1990 0.71 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.89 0.91
1999 0.70 0.94 0.93 0.94 1.05 1.07
1953 0.44 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.87
2006 x.xx 1.23 1.13 1.10 1.29 1.31
DaveE.
If NASA cannot even figure out that a decade is ten years and that it does not end until the END of 2010, how can we have faith in any other numbers they give???
John Finn: You are missing something. US land temperatures follow water temps. We have long ocean coastlines, some of the contiguous states are practically surrounded. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Gulf of Mexico… To the north are the Great Lakes and the Arctic Ocean. Don’t forget the cases of Hawaii and Alaska if looking at all the states.
The water has the most abundant surface area. Whatever heat gets generated over the largest land masses, Europe/Asia, Africa, even South America, does not get to us without crossing that water which influences the received warmth.
With our small 1.5% (or 2% as you state it) surface area, it is obvious that our temps should be controlled by the large bodies of water. Likewise, global temps should also see a controlling influence, simply because the water has by far the greatest surface area, its temps are the largest amounts in the global average.
Yet do the US high temp record years match with the global ones? Nope. So, why not?
What caused all that heating in the contiguous US during the 19xx years to push them higher than global? What caused cooling during the 200x years to give us lower than global?
san quintin (04:09:09) : You wrote, “Interesting that a number of posters here find the recent warm 2009 hard to accept. Don’t they know that if you put a whole load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it will (in the absence of a negative forcing) have a warming effect? If they don’t know this then I suggest they go back to school. It’s high-school physics.”
Unfortunately, what is taught in high-school physics misrepresents the actual effects of carbon dioxide. There is no indication that downward shortwave radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has any impact in Ocean Heat Content. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
The variability of the North Atlantic OHC has been explained as a product of the North Atlantic Oscillation and ENSO:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
And the North Pacific, similarly, appears to be driven by variations in atmospheric pressure:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html
Lower troposphere temperature anomalies show upward step changes that result from strong El Nino events:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Sea surface temperature records show that approximately 25% of the global oceans can warm, counterintuitively, during La Nina events due to oceanic processes that redistribute warm waters back to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The impacts are noticeable after strong El Nino events.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
So, in summary, the rise in global temperatures over the past 30 years can be explained as multiyear aftereffects of ENSO.
Two word describe the thread’s picture of the world’s temperature:
Paint Job.
The Agenda is to shove this down our throats before anyone has a chance to unearth the data in it’s entirety. Early indications are that the data is heavily tampered with. Nary a month goes by and they keep shoving the nth warmest something on record, even though folks are shivering.
I’m not buying any of this baloney.
So, I say to the NASA promoters of record warming in the last decade:
Get out of here. No, really, get out of here.
With the world wide concerted attempt by well funded climate bureaucracies to subvert the science of climate to criminalize CO2 one must consider the conspiracy theories regarding the NWO and its doctrine of eugenics my have some foundation!.
Instead of telling us why the latest decade was the warmest since record keeping began, I’d like to know why the 30 year period from 1951 to 1980 was, on average, .8 degrees colder.
That IS what the anomalies tell us, isn’t it?
Maybe we need to look at the state of measurements during that period (number of stations, locations, etc). Force them to explain why they can’t follow the recommendations of the WMO (i.e, use the latest decade for your averaging period).
san quintin (04:50:26) :
Baa Humbug
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m just intrigued to see how many here thinks that dumping C02 quickly in the atmosphere will have little or no consequence.
And I am totally astounded someone would actually think something as complex as the climate here on earth is completely dominated by a minor greenhouse gas especial given the geologic record of repeated Ice Ages. If CO2 was the main driving force weather forecasting would be very simple.
This is the absorption spectrum of the greenhouse gases notice water is the dominant player. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
“There are about 30 times as many water vapor molecules in the air as CO2 molecules, and water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum which is about three times wider than that of CO2. It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does. It is obviously not being honest to say CO2 does twenty percent of the heating, when there is a hundred times as much effect by water vapor doing the same thing.” Also the IPCC report shows there is a major increase in water vapor due to man. Irrigation of deserts such as California, Arizona and the middle east. Watering of lawns and golf courses, irrigation of farmland….
Mars is also warming according to the National Geographic so tell me what the earth and mars have in common that might explain BOTH warming at the same time? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
You might want to read http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
Then think about this:
Everyone agrees about the Milankovitch theory of the cause of ice ages. And we are now seeing a change in the earth’s magnetic field, earthquakes, volcanoes erupting….
Massive Volcanic Eruption + quiet sun + ocean cycles + Milankovitch cycle = ICE AGE and CO2 concentrations just does not matter.
Lesson from the past: present insolation [energy from sun] minimum holds potential for glacial inception “. .we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” [that means an ice age will start] “… early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.
These predictions are based on continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and on the orbital forcing that will provide only muted insolation variations for the next 50 ka. To assess the potential climate development without human interference, we analyse climate proxy records from Europe and the North Atlantic of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 (423–362 ka BP), an interval when insolation variations show a strong linear correlation with those of the recent past and the future. This analysis suggests that the insolation minimum at 397 ka BP, which provides the best available analogue to the present insolation minimum, terminated interglacial conditions in Europe. At that time, tundra–steppe vegetation spread in Central Europe and pine forests dominated in the eastern Mediterranean region. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4R5G3HY-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb1e6a13c78265cfe621ac4fdeb8f7d3
“SOLAR-PLANETARY-CLIMATE STRESS, EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANISM”
ABSTRACT
The largest volcanic eruptions since AD 1800 correlate with periods of enhanced seismicity , changes in the earth’ s spin rate, and the Chandler wobble.Furthermore, a marked increase in the number of major eruptions apparently occurred during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum (1645-1715) at a time when global temperatures were depressed. Solar activity might trigger volcanism through solar-induced climate change which could lead to variations in global spin rate and hence to increased crustal stresses and seismic and volcanic potential . Such solar activity may be modulated by planetary tidal effects which might additionally lead to enhanced crustal stress through direct influence on the earth’s axial tilt, wobble and rate of rotation .
A good correlation exists between the long-term smoothing of the sunspot cycle, and Greenland temperatures – with cool temperatures corresponding to long-term sunspot minima
We acknowledge valuable discussion with R. W. Decker, J. E. Hansen [James Hansen] and J. E. Sanders. Work was supported by NASA.”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066907_1990066907.pdf
If you ignore all the competing theories on the mechanisms driving earth’s climate and just look at what mother nature tells us in the geological record you can see we are on borrowed time and the slide int an major ice age takes only a decade. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
On page 7 of David Archibald’s “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States” he shows a plot of the last five Volstok interglacials superimposed and aligned on peak temperature vs time. http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
A little ice age or even worst a major Ice age is a much worse nightmare the CO2 caused global warming AND it is absolutely guaranteed to happen the only question is how soon.
“The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.”
That sentence is forcing me to reevaluate my limitations as an ignorant nonscientist type. Foolish clod that I am, when I look at that statement, I’m tempted to suspect that for seven of the last twelve years global temps have been laying there like a dead dog. If you throw in the dramatically lower number for 2008, a dumbhead like me can delude himself into thinking he might be seeing signs of an actual decline in the trend.
Lucky for me I’ve got a guy with the lively scientific intelligence of Mr. Hansen to point out how foolish I am to even consider such nonsense. Evidently, when looked at scientifically, a 12 year period where the temp at both ends, and most of the middle, is virtually identical and one year is dramatically lower actually indicates a dramatic rising trend. Who’d a thunk it? When I was young and my brain was more limber I might have been able to get my mind around such advanced scientific ideas, but my advancing years must be causing a certain mental rigidity to set in, because try as I might, I can’t do it nowadays.
I guess I’ll go make some cocoa and sit in my rocking chair for a while.
John Finn, Herman L et al.
We’re not stupid
Yeah, you can take the, we know they screw with 2% of the World surface temperature measurements, but the rest is real attitude all you like.
Sorry, it doesn’t wash!
DaveE.
The past decade was the 13th since 1880.
Which of those 13 was supposed to be the warmest, if the last one being the warmest is such dire news?
REPLY: At the risk of overstating the blatantly obvious, follow the links at the bottom of the article that I provided, that’s where there are two stories about GISS data. You can also use the search box here, and you’ll find dozens of stories about GISS issues. – Anthony
Well, then I suggest you take out the word “more” from your statement “For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted…” because they way you have written that tells me that your post contains an analysis of the GISS data. Now you’re telling me it doesn’t.
REPLY:
* For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted, particularly at the northern latitudes, see this article
GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect
GHCN – Up North, Blame Canada!, Comrade
What part of that don’t you get? Does your PC not show links for some reason? Or are you being a troll for the sake of it?
Heat-island effects are demonstrated in the following example for Australia.
A. Urban/Airport Meteorological Stations
2000-2009 was 1.1 deg C warmer than 1881-1890
B. Remote Meteorological Stations
2000-2009 was 0.60 deg C cooler than 1881-1890
Statistically, the difference between the two groups, A and B, is significant at a confidence level greater than 99.98% (z = 13.52).
Conclusions
1. Heat-island effects are significant.
2. Temperature records obtained in affected locations such as cities and airports must be excluded from estimates of national and global temperatures.
3. In that case, the decade 2000-2009 in Australia was 0.60 deg C cooler than it was in 1881-1890.
Estimates are derived from Mean Maximum Temperatures per favour
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
for the following longstanding operational met stations:
City/Airport: 38003, 61055, 66062, 80015, 86071, 94029
Remote: 26026, 46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015
The data were released as negotiators at the two-week talks worked to craft a global deal to step up efforts to stem climate change.
Corrections (less than glacial!) to my previous post are in the lines marked with “*”
Heat-island effects are demonstrated in the following example for Australia.
A. Urban/Airport Meteorological Stations
* 2000-2009 was 0.92 deg C warmer than 1881-1890
B. Remote Meteorological Stations
* 2000-2009 was 0.68 deg C cooler than 1881-1890
* Statistically, the difference between the two groups, A and B, is significant at a confidence level of 99.98% (z = 3.73).
Conclusions
1. Heat-island effects are significant.
2. Temperature records obtained in affected locations such as cities and airports must be excluded from estimates of national and global temperatures.
* 3. In that case, the decade 2000-2009 in Australia was 0.68 deg C cooler than it was in 1881-1890.
Estimates are derived from Mean Maximum Temperatures per favour
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
for the following longstanding operational met stations:
City/Airport: 38003, 61055, 66062, 80015, 86071, 94029
Remote: 26026, 46043, 55023, 58012, 64008, 69018, 75031, 83025, 84016, 85096, 90015
Records at these stations are reliable according to this statement by NASA in the current WUWT article: “Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely….”
Slightly OT but a clear indication of biased presentation of temperature informatio, whilst browsing I discovered this on NASA Earthobservatory site:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36900
It shows Australia and has the caption “Exceptional Australian Heatwave”. Now when I look at the image I see that the southern part of Australia is indeed suffering from high temperatures, but it also shows the north suffering(if that is the word to use) from equally anomalous low temperatures, and to my eye I judge that the low temperature areas are slightly more extensive than the high.
So temperatures averaged across Aus as a whole (on the same basis as global averages are arrived at) are probably about normal or even a little on the cool side.
The big difference is that most of Australia’s inhabitants live in the hot, bit so whinge about it, blog about it and the media covers it
What part of that don’t you get? Does your PC not show links for some reason? Or are you being a troll for the sake of it?
I get it all, except for when you write “For more information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted … .” My dictionary defines “more” as “in greater quantity” or “additional.” There’s nothing preceeding that sentence you have classified as “information about why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted.” All I’ve asked is for you to point me to the non-additional evidence for your assertion. I have been clear about this since my post at 06:15:22.
Other websites do a very good effort at posting hyperlinks or listing reference documents that support their assertions along the way. You wrote your post (“for more information”) in such a way that I have to take it on faith that there’s information out there supporting your assertion. I won’t. I expect you to back it up with solid evidence.
REPLY: Well you are the only one who’s complaining about the word formatting, and I find your argument petty. Read the links that you’ve been ignoring “since my post at 06:15:22”. That’s where the “more” information is. When people make valid complaints about formatting or other issues here, I correct them, so far your single complaint hasn’t risen to a level of credibility that make it worth correcting, mostly it is that of what’s called a “concern troll”. Stop wasting my time with Clintonian arguments on a single word – A
Herman L (07:21:06):
Asks:
“…why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted…”
All of the GISS data manipulations seem to result in more steeply rising temperatures. For example, here’s a blink gif showing Hansen’s “adjustments” of the temperature record: click
GISS lacks credibility. I have more links if you’re interested.
Ralph (01:17:20) :
Of course it is was a warm decade, if you can massage the figures to say so. This is the Central England temperature record – largely raw data:
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
This is the same temperature set after Hadcrut got hold of it:
http://artofteachingscience.org/images/mean_england_temp.gif
The second graph is a graph of the anomalies. This is the more useful graph because it presents the data on a scale which shows the variation more clearly. The first set of graphs can be misleading. For example the temperature scale includes several values which are irrelevant for most of the seasons (e.g. summer has never had values between 0 and 10). You might just as well use the Kelvin scale and a use values between 0 and 300 degrees.
Gail Combs (15:38:45) :
sAnd I am totally astounded someone would actually think something as complex as the climate here on earth is completely dominated by a minor greenhouse gas especial given the geologic record of repeated Ice Ages. If CO2 was the main driving force weather forecasting would be very simple.
This is the absorption spectrum of the greenhouse gases notice water is the dominant player. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmissi
Sorry Gail but that ‘spectrum’ of the outgoing radiation is little more than a cartoon and is totally useless for any understanding of what’s going on. I’ll post something more realistic later.
Does the known cherry picking of and ignoring low temperatures in Siberia have anything to do with this? How about the dropping of high latitude and high altitude sites in Canada?
Actually John Finn the second graph “clearly shows” that the Had/CRU ia fudging the data. Man made global warming indeed!
Phil. (12:56:35) :
Sorry Gail but that ’spectrum’ of the outgoing radiation is little more than a cartoon and is totally useless for any understanding of what’s going on. I’ll post something more realistic later.
Here it is, the first image is the outgoing longwave through the tropical atmosphere at 70km, the absorbing gases removed progressively as shown on the figure.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Atmos.gif
the article best describes the future effect of temperature on earth. if this temperature continues then the end of world begins
Stop wasting my time with Clintonian arguments on a single word
I will — when you admit that your post contains no evidence about “why the GISS data isn’t much to be trusted”
jerome:
😉
I know this dispute, but then please tell me, why the standard reference period used in climatology lasts from 1961 to 1990 (1971 – 2000) and not from 1960 to 1989?
Anyway, it is just a random chosen period of time, no matter where it starts and ends…