While the press is hyperventilating over NASA GISS recent announcement of the “Hottest Decade Ever“, it pays to keep in mind what happened the last two years of the past decade.
According to NCDC, 2009 temperatures in the US (53.13F) were the 33rd warmest and very close to the long term mean of 52.86F.
Generated from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Since 1998, according to NCDC’s own figures, temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century.
Generated from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
For 2009, all regions of the US were normal or below normal except for the southwest and Florida.
Temperatures in Alaska were also slightly below the long term mean. Three of the last four years have seen below normal temperatures in Alaska.
A few fond memories from 2009 :
Americans suffer record cold as temperatures plunge to -40 16th January 2009
Jul 28, 2009 Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years
Aug 31, 2009 August Ends With Near-Record Cold
Oct 14, 2009 October Cold Snap Sets 82-Year Record
And my personal favorite:
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Philip D. Jones” <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even
h/t to Steve Goddard
Sponsored IT training links:
If you want to pass 642-533 exam quickly then download 70-236 questions and 70-293 answers for practice and pass exam on first try.
At the rate that NASA are dropping thermometers that don’t toe the party line, in a few years they will be left with just one thermometer at the bottom of Kilauea to measure the average temperature for the planet. After that they will need to underground nuclear testing. Then what?
RE Veronica (11:14:52) :
Veronica, When I do the calculations of US data from 1895, I get a slope of about 0.053 deg C/decade. This slope is significant at p<0.0001. To look at reasons, you have to look at the models, and we know that from about 1950 you need to include anthropogenic forcings to account for the global temperature changes.
If your looking for oscillations, you need to do a Fourier transform, and it’s been a few decades. I do linear regressions in my work, so that (along with basic stats) is something that has stayed fresher in my memory.
Karmazee,
Before starting your ridiculous rant, you might have taken the time to read the article and think.
According to NCDC, 2009 was the 33rd warmest year in the US, which means that there were 31 years prior to 1998 that were warmer. This is blatantly obvious from the first graph. 2008 was even cooler. 2009 was a warm El Nino year, not a La Nina year. WUWT has had numerous articles in recent weeks about temperatures in other parts of the world, and Europe has been having the coldest winter in decades.
No, what they mean by robust is that the conclusions are still correct even if the data is garbage and the procedures a sham. What robust is supposed to mean is that the conclusions are correct even if some of the assumptions are not strictly so.
“Karmakaze (11:40:19) :
Oh not this crap again.[…]”
A few simple questions:
AGW states that the planet heats up.
Where is the heat right now?
Does it hide?
Where does it hide?
If it’s not there ATM, where has it gone?
Into space?
When it can go into space, it should be able to do so in the future again.
When it can’t go into space, then where is it?
Alexej Buergin (07:04:23)
“…..analysis of exclusively remote met stations ….for all countries” (Graham Dick (11:20:24) except, of course, dead-set heat-island cases like the little beauty at Detroit Lakes featured in WUWT’s Quote of the week #27!
Incidentally, to copy and past from the BoM site to Excel, use “Paste Special” and select “Text”. The data drops straight into cells.
RE Doug in Seattle (11:38:49) :
Time to choose new term other than “robust”. The Michael Mann’s of the climate “science” community have degraded its meaning to where it now means “I’m right, you’re wrong, nya, nya, nya”.
I could have been a little more blunt and said that any conclusion that changes when the starting year is changed by one is “Epic Fail”.
No, you don’t even have enough information to make a conclusion about that period of time. The future is not based on an extrapolation of past data but on modeling physical processes. You can get a rough estimate of future temperature trends by just knowing the climate sensitivity (3 degC/doubling at equilibrium). If we do nothing, we will reach a doubling of CO2 over pre-inidustrial levels by 2050 and a quadrupling by 2100 (of course, the wheels will fall off the bus way before that).
Oh not this crap again.
Seriously, will you guys ever learn that local weather is NOT global climate; unless it is a hurricane, a drought, a flood, a disease, a sand storm, kidney stones, forest fire, melting glacier, tornado, ice storm, wind bag, ….
Sorry, we just do not believe anything any of you say any more. You lie and you know that you lie, and we know it too.
Doug,
Hansen at al have created the view of climate change as being linear. But history shows us that it is cyclical. People are always trying to do linear fits of temperature data, but perhaps it is a sine wave with 1998 as the peak? In that case a 12 year trend is much more indicative of the future than a 30 year trend.
Screwed up my tags. Let’s try again.
RE Doug in Seattle (11:38:49) :
I could have been a little more blunt and said that any conclusion that changes when the starting year is changed by one is “Epic Fail”.
That does not however mean that a twelve year trend is not relevant, just that it is not long enough to devine the future. Similarly the thirty years since 1980 are not sufficiently long to predict the next 100 years – just better than the last 12.
No, you don’t even have enough information to make a conclusion about that period of time. The future is not based on an extrapolation of past data but on modeling physical processes. You can get a rough estimate of future temperature trends by just knowing the climate sensitivity (3 degC/doubling at equilibrium). If we do nothing, we will reach a doubling of CO2 over pre-inidustrial levels by 2050 and a quadrupling by 2100 (of course, the wheels will fall off the bus way before that).
Karmakaze, please leave the name calling to the owner of this eponymous site. It distracts from the content in your comment. Even if you were Australian, and object to a commentator from another country calling your prime minister, shall we say, ‘less than intelligent’, it still doesn’t excuse it. The comments here shouldn’t cast aspersions on persons.
Concentrate the criticism on unsubstantiated conclusions, cherry picked observations, and overstated projections not supported by facts. There is plenty of targets in this post without stooping to the levels that some at this site fall to.
In the Slavic languages they commonly say not “you are wrong”, instead they say “you have that incorrect” to differentiate between a person and an idea, observation, or conclusion. Let us stay attuned to addressing mistaken information, and not attacking people in the process, no matter how much we believe the other deserves such a personal attack.
Karmakaze (11:40:19)
I got as far as “idiots” and gave up. Have another go, mate!
ShrNfr (06:39:47) :
Department of Duh. It turns out that the Catlin expedition equipment failure was due to the battery. (…)
This is, flat out, unbelievable.
If your car is not working, the interior light doesn’t even turn on, you check the battery. If your PC doesn’t turn on, you check if it is plugged in. They were prepared to service the equipment, thus they should have had at least a small multi-tester that could check if the battery was providing power. They were flying in replacement parts, and it never occurred to them to try a different battery?
Since checking if the equipment is getting power at all is so blazingly obvious, possibly they were getting some power but the equipment still did not work. They were complaining about the fuses in the battery. For one thing, internal fuses for a battery is a ridiculous concept, external fusing is what is used. So perhaps they were referring to fuses in an enclosure that was part of the battery housing. Logically they would be swappable to allow for replacement. If the equipment failed the first time it was used, the fuse blew, then there would have been no power from the battery, which can be easily checked. Fuses are generally made to make it easy to see that they blew, and a tester can check them. The only way “different fuses” makes anything like sense is if the new ones had a lower current rating. Thus the manufacturer output specs would be different, which should have been noted, and there would still be a blown fuse.
In any case, the battery stopped providing power, so swapping the battery should have been thought of.
I can clearly see why they are not naming the manufacturer of the battery, as trying to pin this failure on a certain manufacturer would be strong grounds for a libel suit. Moreover this shows such a lack of competence in the most basic of diagnostic procedures, so truly embarrassing, I actually wonder if this was deemed the “least possible stupidity” that they decided to “reveal” to cover up something immensely idiotic.
A different instrument had cables snapping. The excuses summarize as “well, it worked in the lab.” They do realize “logical responses” like that lead to people dying in the real world, right?
Paul K2 (07:18:38) :
Perhaps you show read this recent paper currently in press for the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, published by the American Geophysical Union.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Have fun!
I’ve read the paper. Where’s the graphs? Where’s the data? I have an aversion to papers that “tell” me the results, but don’t show it. And they say they used unadjusted data vs homogenized. Does this mean they used missing data infilled and TOBS. It usually does. I’ll tell you what, write to them for the answers to those questions and for the graphs of the original data. Then we’ll talk.
Have fun!!
Well, as Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan in the Laurel and Hardy movies, “this is another fine mess you got us into” Here is where I think we are today:
1. The peer review process of research papers on climate has been so tainted that it may be hard to find an honest set of reviewers.
2. Some of the data on temperatures may need to be completely reworked to eliminate systematic bias in the data including a review of the sites and methods used to measure temperature. New sites may be needed too.
3. The temperature data base needs to be recompiled so that data excluded by NASA, and others who manipulated the data to give a biased result.
4. The scientific community is polarized into warmists and deniers that will make genuine communication difficult, yet they need each other to straighten out the mess.
5. The IPCC bureaucrats see their climate ATM is in sad disrepair and may be out of money which means that climate research will take a big hit
6. The mainstream media apparently think that the situation on climate is result of a few disgruntled scientists who did not get funded by NASA or CRU.
7. The science of climate has several viable theories with alternative explanations for why the climate did or will change besides AGW.
8. The exposure of the e-mails from NASA and CRU have given the public the impression that most scientists cannot be trusted because they have a political agenda or just are bully each other to get grants.
9. There is a tendency of some scientists to disregard the fact that statistical analyses are probabilistic and therefore not absolute in their predictions.
10. Ninety percent of the public do not have the capacity to understand the debates about climate science and the multitude of theories that have been advanced to explain why climate has changed
11. The tendency of those who are studying climate to use statistical correlations between variables such as average global temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to prove that there is a real but unknown physical mechanism connecting them. Then massive but overly simplistic computer program is written to justify the correlations
12. The last point is that extrapolation of data, no matter how reliable, into the future is questionable unless there is a clear understanding of the mechanism that are controlling the parameter being extrapolated.
Please feel free to add or delete any of these items. Can we cleanup this mess? If so, what can I do?
Deech56 (07:19:23) :
Amazing – why pick 1998?
One of the best reasons to pick 1998 right now is it starts and ends with a significant El Nino. More of an apples to apples comparison. If we move into a La Nina period then the comparison period should be adjusted.
Deech56 (11:08:14) :
I will say that we have had significant global warming for the last 30 (or more) years, and that’s the relevant period to determine climate trends.
Exactly how would anyone ever conclude that a fraction of a degree is “significant”. Boogles the mind … all I can do is shake my head in wonderment.
Not only that, it’s probably the worst period to choose if you’re interested in being accurate. It’s pretty much aligned with the positive PDO and a fairly active sun. We really need 60 years minimum to understand climate. Any institution with 60 years of data available that does not use a full 60 years as a baseline is clearly biased. This includes both GISS and HadCru. I would also prefer to see UAH move to its full 30 years of data as the baseline.
Interesting that there is more of a two way dialogue on this site than in the past. With fame comes scrutiny.
Karmikaze (11:40:19) wrote:
In 1947 in the UK there was 10 times as much snow as there was in 2010, according to Philip Eden,(who is retiring vice president of the UK Met Office), in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph on January 17, 2010. Does that mean there was greater global warming going on then in the UK?
Andrew30,
Please point me to a weather forecast which goes out twelve years,or even two years. If you know anything about weather/climate forecasting you would know that weather forecasts extend rfom three days to an absolute maximum of two weeks. Any government forecasts beyond two weeks are handled by climate people, like the CPC – Climate Prediction Center.
Two years of cool temperatures is not “weather” by anyone’s definition. “Weather” is what is going to happen at your picnic, ski area or beach this weekend.
A Wod,
The heavy snowfalls in North America and Europe in recent years have been associated with unusually cold temperatures, not warm temperatures. A couple of years ago, alarmists were flaunting predictions of warm temperatures, dying ski areas due to lack of snow, drought, etc. Now they are claiming the cold and snow is due to global warming. Slippery characters at best.
I get a little testy about all the Global warming Hyperbole. When as a Mid-western Farmer we are close to not even having enough heat units to continue to raise corn. 2009 was the coldest summer in recorded history. If it gets even a little bit colder major crop failures could be a real danger. Later dates in the spring for frost and earlier dates in the fall would all spell food shortages for humans. We should not fear higher temps during this interglacial period that is normal and helpful to food production, as is higher Co2/air/plant-food. What to fear would be cooler temps and real not imagined crop failures all over the globe. Warmth doe not kill, frosts do…..Sincerely, John
Leave it to NOAA to not know the difference between below normal due to Arctic Air Mass and somewhat above normal due to Pacific Rain Storms.
That should at least balance California out to be ‘normal’ to slightly below normal.
Paul K2 (07:02:54)
I’m trying to get my head around your logic; it seems to be something like this:
its got warmer for the last 2 decades
therefore
its going to keep on getting warmer for ever and ever.
“the bear came over the mountain
the bear came over the mountain
the bear came over the mountain to see what he could see;
the other side of the mountain
the other side of the mountain
the other side of the mountain was all that he could see”
Norman (07:48:18) :
The interesting thing is that the charts are showing the U.S. is cooling but they have temperatures that show the overall globe still warming.
….
The AGW crowd tells me the US only makes up 2% of the Global Surface, but the US does not exist in a vacuum. The masses of air that move over the US come from somewhere. I just find it odd that the actual meaured temperature is cooling (US) but the Global temps show increase and most the grids are not based on actual temperature readings but mathematical guesses of what the “real” temperature would be if you took a reading.
———-
Don’t forget Canada. I’m sure our temperature trends are not that different from those experienced by the U.S. Eastern Canada also had no summer last year. While the U.S. landmass as a percentage of the Global Surface is only 2%, Canada has another 7%, making a total of 9% for North America exluding Mexico. That’s a respectable sized chunk of the earth.
Steve Goddard (14:14:33) :
I missed the first line from my (12:25:46) : post. It should have read:
“Karmakaze (11:40:19) :…
Sorry for the confusion.
Re: “Please point me to a weather forecast which goes out twelve years, or even two years.”
Even if you replaced the word ‘weather’ with ‘climate’ in that request the response would be the same. It can not be done, there are too many unknowns.