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
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…