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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is perfectly correct to say: Of the last dozen years the last two were the coolest.
But as soon as we start to do any calculations, the issue of cherry-picking rears its head. Why start with that year and not with the other one?
That can be easily avoided if we start with 2001. It is the beginning of a new millenium, after all. That should be reason enough.
Alexej,
As I have explained several times already, the reason to start the second graph with 1998 is because there was a large step function upwards in that year, leading to Hansen’s “warmest decade ever.”
The point is that temperatures have been declining through the past decade, and are back to where they were from 1930-1997.
The first graph shows the entire NCDC record. Is that “cherry picking?”
For what it’s worth, aol and bloggingstocks are touting stocks that will benefit from the cold weather, and how you too can get in on the action. Bloggingstocks mentions that the Farmer’s Almanac predicts more really cold weather before the winter is over.
But maybe 2010 will be the warmest year on record.
RE Alexej Buergin (05:14:53) :
In my experience, you pick the level of significance at 95% and the sidedness of the test ahead of time, but report the calculated p value if the result achieves significance. So the result would be either “not significant” or “p<0.0XX".
RE Tom_R (06:41:04) :
Who is saying that “catastrophic global warming” is occurring? You may expect temperatures in every 2% of the globe to track global temperatures, but I don’t know that this is the expectation of those who study climate.
What I see here is people saying the data are no good, but BTW, the data show cooling. The goal of science is to find the truth, and to put together a scientific viewpoint one has to have a coherent argument.
And Herman L @ur momisugly 06:54:50: Amen brother.
Herman L (06:54:50) :
” Now excuse me while I dig up a bone in the yard and scratch some fleas.”
Speaks volumes.
Andrew30 (19:38:17) :
A flippant comment if there ever was one.
No, it was just facts.
The insane AGW driven mentality to convert food into low CO2 Ethanol is the problem. AGW proponents like you create the demand using scare tactics backed up by lies based of fiction and the companies that fund the fiction create the products and reap the profits.
I think your confused. I’ve never been an AGW proponent. I simply like to look at all things based on the facts. In fact, that’s why I’m not an AGW proponent.
It is an evil agenda you seen intent on supporting.
All I did was pass along the facts on corn based ethanol. One of the worst things skeptics can do is start chasing their tails. Try to stay with the facts and everything will take care of itself.
Deech56 (05:04:57) :
Let me expand on what I wrote. Anyone who chooses 1998 as a starting point to make any kind of conclusion is on thin ice. Why? Two reasons:
1. Almost any temperature trend using such a short period (1998-2009) will be statistically insignificant.
2. A change in starting year ±1 will affect the conclusion; therefore, the data are not robust.
Another point is the inconsistency in the arguments here – I read about doubt in any surface measurements, yet see people making all kinds of statements (“It’s cooling.”) based on these measurements. There is talk about the MIA and MWP and cycles (“…we know about ~400 year periods…”), but what are these conclusions based on? Nobody here likes the proxy records, so what other data are there? I won’t go into regional vs. global measurements.
It appears we are in agreement for the most part. I realize the statistical problems. However, you have to understand these kind of claims have been coming from the alarmist camp for 20 years. Essentially, these kind of articles are simply throwing it back into their face. In addition, the unknowns are likely to be so large that any analysis is fraught with problems.
And why the slam on medical research of the 1960s? We had antibiotics, vaccines for smallpox and polio and were developing vaccines against the other childhood diseases. The structure of DNA was known and the genetic code was being unraveled. The Surgeon General declared that smoking was harmful and the harmful effects of DDT were publicized. Of course we know more now, but the medical researchers were on the right path and were shown to be correct. There were naysayers back then, like the tobacco companies that waged a campaign to sow doubt about the science, but I’m not sure you want me to go down that path. Hmmm…maybe we are at the same stage as medical research back then.
I didn’t slam anything. I pointed out that there were many outrageous claims being made by medical researchers 1960s. In a similar manner, lots of good work is being done in climate science at the moment. The problem is you once again have outrageous claims being made with poor supporting evidence. That’s why I said I thought there were many similarities.
Re dekitchen (07:20:32) :
So the science is settled eh?
The OISM petition, signed by over 31,000 scientist , circulated just in the USA, with over 9,000 PHD signatories, all disputing CAGW. Scientist such as Lindzen http://www.openletteglobalwarming.info/Site/Richard_Lindzen.html and many others, highly qualified PHD scientist that state far more then minor differences and subtle changes. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptical scientist. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position. The Russian Academy of Sciences and the US Association of State Climatologists are just two of the scientific organizations that have trenchantly expressed serious doubts about the imagined “consensus” on climate change.
And so sir, do not rip on lay men who may missrepresent skeptics and inflate conclusions in either direction, instead read the papers, read about the hockey stick, read the Wegman and North reports, read the Real Climate defense and read the “climate audit responses, read the climategate papers, etc, etc.
By your post above you place yourself directly in the same camp as those you condemm, just the other side of the coin.
Gavin Schmidt in a NASA publication about the temp records:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42382&src=eorss-nnews
Lots more bitter (below normal) cold on the way for the next two weeks in the US.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html
Same for Europe.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html
Same for Mexico. The entire country is running cold.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp3.html
The Met Office and Hansen promised the warmest year ever. How unlucky for them that their readers are primarily in the US and Europe.
Can anyone spot the false, erroneous, and misleading statements? How many do you count?
D. Patterson,
Please point out all the “false, erroneous, and misleading statements.” All of the information is taken directly from NSIDC, NCAR and various newspapers.
‘ Steve Goddard (09:07:13) :
Alexej,
As I have explained several times already, the reason to start the second graph with 1998 is because there was a large step function upwards in that year, leading to Hansen’s “warmest decade ever.”
The point is that temperatures have been declining through the past decade, and are back to where they were from 1930-1997.
The first graph shows the entire NCDC record. Is that “cherry picking?” ‘
I quite agree. My point was a “political” one on how to AVOID a discussion about cherry-picking (valid only at the moment).
” Deech56 (10:16:38) :
In my experience, you pick the level of significance at 95% and the sidedness of the test ahead of time, but report the calculated p value if the result achieves significance. So the result would be either “not significant” or “p<0.0XX". "
OK if you think the word "usually" before "pick". But if a new AIDS-medicament has significant healing at 90%, that would be good enough for me to produce it.
phlogiston (14:53:25) : E.M.Smith (04:13:07)
Kukla pointed to two things as conditions for a return to a glacial period – a low obliquity and perihelion in NH winter. Right now one of those conditions is met – perihelion at Jan 7 2010 – but the other is not, obliquity while falling is above its midpoint.
Do you see either of these factors as relevant?
They are very relevant to a reentry to an ice age glacial. And we don’t really know at exactly what obliquity we get the tipping point…
But as I’ve said many times, it’s not a glacial that’s the problem. The ice cap was at New York, now it’s at Greenland. Draw a line, divide by 100,000 years. That’s the rate of ice advance. About 800 feet / year. Even a snail can outrun a glacial.
The problem is events like the one 3200 BC when Otzi got buried under a brand new glacier and when the “tropical ice caps” in Peru flash froze some tufts of green that are just now thawing out… So we KNOW that sometimes there is a very rapid onset of cold. (But the ice depth being mass flow limited takes time to catch up…)
Those events can not be caused by planetary / orbital mechanics.
So we’re back at ocean oscillators, solar variation (perhaps of a kind we’ve never seen before), cosmic ray / cloud effects, whatever…
But what is clearly shown in the ice cores and ocean sediments is a 1500 year cycle of Bond Events (and even back before the holocene in prior glacials as Dansgaard Oeschger events – same cycle, just each team found it in a different time period and via different means, so both get a name for the part they found…) SOMETHING causes a 1500 year (mostly periodic but with some error band) sudden onset of cold… and we don’t know what… and it happens both during interglacials and during glacials. (Yeah, middle of a $^$#% ice age and it gets COLDER?! Talk about your ‘bad day’ 😉 and it looks like there is a 5200 year or so cycle too, given the Maya calendar match to the 3200 BC mountain glacier onset event.
So my vote would be on a solar cycle that we’ve not observed (the last one having been about 1500 years ago…) but who knows.
On corn for fuel and feed storage:
Yes, we are setting ourselves up for hideous disaster from any absolutely normal crop failure with our “just in time” system. And yes, the Chinese are buying up all the coal contracts they can get…
But turning field corn into fuel does not do much to reduce food available. We ferment out the starch, but the protein does go to make cows and pigs… The problem is not shortage of food, the problem is that the folks who need it live an ocean away and in poverty. (The feed conversion ratio on cows is about 10:1 while pigs are about 3:1 so if we were short of food, we could skip a 1 lb steak and have 10 lbs of corn and soybeans (dry weight). It takes a LONG time to eat one dry pound of either of those two…
Rhodesia (or whatever they are calling it these days) is a prime example. Regional Bread basket and food exporter turned into starvation by a loony “back to the land” and “economic justice” plan. Large mechanized farms produced excess; then chaos and small family plots failed to produce. People starve. In Sudan it’s the conflict between Muslims who control the food imports and Christians in the south with no ports. You can go down the list… Famine is NOT a production issue. It’s a distribution issue (usually resulting from political conflict or greed).
But algae gives vastly more production of fuels / acre (and consume sewage…) so are a much better choice. Sugarcane in the tropics is also much better ( IIRC 8:1 energy gain as opposed to about 1.3 : 1 for corn alcohol.) In the USA, corn ethanol is just a backward farm subsidy program.
BTW, shipping boat loads of food to an impoverished country usually does as much harm as good. Puts the local farmers out of business. Then what happens NEXT year?… There is no good solution (which is why Economics is called ‘The Dismal Science’… best you can do is ship almost, but not quite, enough grain (so prices stay up) and not very good tasting grains at that…or rubbery ‘food bars’…
*******
E.M.Smith (05:58:42) :
So we’re back at ocean oscillators, solar variation (perhaps of a kind we’ve never seen before), cosmic ray / cloud effects, whatever…
But what is clearly shown in the ice cores and ocean sediments is a 1500 year cycle of Bond Events (and even back before the holocene in prior glacials as Dansgaard Oeschger events – same cycle, just each team found it in a different time period and via different means, so both get a name for the part they found…) SOMETHING causes a 1500 year (mostly periodic but with some error band) sudden onset of cold… and we don’t know what… and it happens both during interglacials and during glacials. (Yeah, middle of a $^$#% ice age and it gets COLDER?! Talk about your ‘bad day’ 😉 and it looks like there is a 5200 year or so cycle too, given the Maya calendar match to the 3200 BC mountain glacier onset event.
So my vote would be on a solar cycle that we’ve not observed (the last one having been about 1500 years ago…) but who knows.
********
Good observations. IMO, it’s got to be some kind of ocean-current change. A failure of the N Atlantic Drift could be it (the Gulf Stream circulation wouldn’t stop, but deflect southward).
There’s no precedent for a solar change of the magnitude required to cause these abrupt, massive temp swings. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be, of course, but I doubt it.
Look at the overall trend, genius. Its WARMING!
Good point. Temperatures in 2009 were a full 0.05 degrees warmer than 1896. Of course that was after USHCN added 0.6 degrees to the 2009 temperature.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
It is funny to watch these AGW adherents follow their glorious leader Gavin’s charge for them to go to skeptic blogs and try to bog them down with misstatements. I have noticed a decided uptick in these goofballs posting since he made this suggestion, both here and at Climate Audit. Coincidence? I think not.
Gavin made a suggestion to come over here? I must have missed that. I just have this annoying habit of trying to correct misinformation.
RE: Alexej Buergin (04:26:58) :
” Deech56 (10:16:38) :
In my experience, you pick the level of significance at 95% and the sidedness of the test ahead of time, but report the calculated p value if the result achieves significance. So the result would be either “not significant” or “p<0.0XX". "
OK if you think the word "usually" before "pick". But if a new AIDS-medicament has significant healing at 90%, that would be good enough for me to produce it.
If the results of a trial had a p value of 0.1, it would fail. This might be good enough for you to produce it, but the FDA would not approve it. If a drug were that promising, though, another trial with a higher N might be run.
And Richard M,
Which outrageous claims were made in the peer-reviewed medical literature in the 1960s? I agree that there is a lot of good climate science being done now; all I am asking is that you and others accept the results – if you want to be picky (which is not a bad idea) focus on just the scientific literature.
RE Veronica (11:03:07) :
Hi Anthony – Do you plan to submit your reply to the Journal of Geophysical Research? Thanks in advance.
Deech56 (18:49:43) :
“Hi Anthony – Do you plan to submit your reply to the Journal of Geophysical Research? Thanks in advance.”
Why that particular journal? If I were Anthony I would not give such information out publicly, considering what the scoundrels exposed in the CRUtape emails and their financial backers are capable of doing, such as blackballing journals, causing mass resignations, and even getting a scientist fired for being an AGW skeptic.
No doubt they would put plenty of pressure on any journal that would consider publishing a paper that further undercuts their AGW hypothesis. They’ve already shown that they are ready, willing and able to engage in the most reprehensible, unethical activity regarding skeptical scientists.