While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)
Here’s the graph of USA mean annual temperature from 1895-2010 produced by NCDC’s interactive climate database and graph generator, which you can operate yourself here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added:
Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116.
Climate At A Glance
Year to Date (Jan – Dec) Temperature
Contiguous United States
Year |
Temperature(deg F) |
RankBased on the Time Period Selected (1895-2010)* |
RankBased on the Period of Record (1895-2010)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 55.08 | 116 | 116 |
| 2006 | 55.04 | 115 | 115 |
| 1934 | 54.83 | 114 | 114 |
| 1999 | 54.67 | 113 | 113 |
| 1921 | 54.53 | 112 | 112 |
| 2001 | 54.41 | 111 | 111 |
| 2007 | 54.38 | 110 | 110 |
| 2005 | 54.36 | 109 | 109 |
| 1990 | 54.29 | 108 | 108 |
| 1931 | 54.29 | 108 | 108 |
| 1953 | 54.16 | 106 | 106 |
| 1987 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 |
| 1954 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 |
| 1986 | 54.09 | 103 | 103 |
| 2003 | 54.02 | 102 | 102 |
| 1939 | 54.01 | 101 | 101 |
| 2000 | 54.00 | 100 | 100 |
| 2002 | 53.94 | 99 | 99 |
| 1938 | 53.94 | 99 | 99 |
| 1991 | 53.90 | 97 | 97 |
| 1981 | 53.90 | 97 | 97 |
| 2004 | 53.84 | 95 | 95 |
| 2010 | 53.76 | 94 | 94 |
| 1933 | 53.74 | 93 | 93 |
| 1946 | 53.72 | 92 | 92 |
| 1994 | 53.64 | 91 | 91 |
| 1900 | 53.53 | 90 | 90 |
*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.
Data used to calculate Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set.
Of course there is no mention of the USA temperature ranking in the recent press release from NOAA. The only mention of the USA in that PR that comes close is this:
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.
They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010? Apparently not.
“Monroe says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
According to the 2011 World Almanac:
22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”
1 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 2000′s and 1 record low during that decade.
6 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1990′s and 6 record lows during that decade.
So Climate disruption was 9 to 22 times more prevelant in the 30′s than the past decade. Consider the outcry if all those records were set this past decade.
Monroe:
Did the “decade of 2000’s” include 2010? Probably not. I remember reading about 12 new US State all time record highs during 2010, mostly in the East. Sorry, I couldn’t find the reference. Also, 19 countries set all time daily highs during 2010. Several of these were in the Middle East. Notable records (in degrees F) included Russia (112.7), Finland (99) and Pakistan (128.3). However, I think that global averages are more important that averages or highs for particular regions, countries or states. Perhaps if Anthony is more patient, NOAA will publish and analysis of the US temperature records for 2010.
2010 was joint warmest with 2005 according to NOAA and GISS, joint warmest with 1998 according to UAH, and whilst 1998 had the El Nino of the century, in 2010 a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July.
NASA GISS
[Since we are now only 1/2 degree C above the mid-1970 baseline, isn’t that less than 0.50 degrees C TOTAL over 5 decades (1960 through 2010) or about 0.10 degree per decade. Robt]
I don’t know whether 2011 will be warmer or cooler – I suspect the latter – but I predict that it will be the year of the troll . Thanks for nothing but the hits , guys (pushing 67 mil .)
Harold Pierce brings up an excellent point. What is the statistical significance of these fractional computed temperature anomalies based upon a record with such a large error range?
Dave in Canmore
From this map it looks like the major warm anomalies were in the north east of Canada, so perhaps in Canmore 2010 wasn’t particularly warm (or less cold).
Well from 1895-2010 you have about 115 years, or closing rapidly on four complete climate cycles of 30 years; well let’s be generous, and say at least three cycles.
And cyclic behavior is certainly apparent in that 115 year data.
So whose idea is that green “trend” line; and what is their justification for that. Do trend lines continue unbroken or bent all the way back to the PreCambrian of 600 million years ago; or what is the rule; to be used only by fully accredited climate scientists worthy of being colleagures of Dr Kevin Trneberth; rather than Charlatans; maybe they are just charlatans, not even deserving of capitalisation.
I think a cyclic fit to that 115 years of presumably real data, is a far more credible “Trend” that that green line is.
It is not just the U.S. Take a look at what is happening in England.
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/official-data-from-the-uk-mirrors-the-recent-cooling-trend-for-the-u-s/
“”””” Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”
That could be the strapline of this website, Dave.
[Reply: If you don’t like it here you are free to move on. ~dbs, mod.] “””””
I usually don’t like to poke my nose in where it doesn’t belong; particularly in somebody else’s play pen like Anthony has here; but Roger Otip seems to be just the latest of the warmista newbies to stumble in here; or maybe tipped off by some friend or “Colleague” to come over here, and set us all straight.
Well Roger, you are; as I said just the latest of a long line. Now we have quite a few truly serious supporters of the AGW thesis, who come here, and engage in debate; and offer data, and other information, along with their opinions; and they generally get their points across, and get seriously listened to and debated.
Purely as an example, I could mention Joel Shore; who participates, as a reasonable person; and one who is knowledgeable of what he discusses here.
So Roger, if you want to just come over, and toss all the furniture around; that goes over like a lead balloon; and a lot better than you have tried.
But if you want to contribute, and add to the science debate; well just present some of YOUR stuff like a rational and civilized person; and you too might find yourself getting listened to.
Yes we resort to comedy, and sarcasm; well we have to to keep our sanity at times; given some of the nutcakes (on both sides of the border); but when we do stick our nose to the grindstone; we can dig up all kinds of stuff, that you won’t find over at the star studded places like CR (did I get that the wrong way round); so you might enjoy yourself here. But I can tell you, as a bull in a China shop; you are a rank amateur.
Since I rigorously censor myself; and if I didn’t Chasmod would kick my arse; you probably don’t know that I can kick up more mud than even Mount Vesuvius knows how to sling; but then that isn’t civilised.
Apparently, a lot of that heat came from Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.html. We didn’t set any records in my region of Canada, but certainly it has been above average in others.
I have been curious about where UK’s 2010 ranked and had to do a lot of digging on the Met’s web site to finally find this story in the archives:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/cold-dec
If you plod through almost to the end of the 2010 stats you find: “In 2010 the UK recorded a provisional mean temperature of 8.0 °C, making it the 12th coldest year in the series, that goes back to 1910.”
I was annoyed to discover that the above was not linked in their 2010 archive section (I mean I REALLY had to dig to find this). In the archive section they are still highlighting this gem: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101202b.html
Remember this: “The preliminary figure for January to October 2010 is 0.52 °C above the long-term average on the Met Office – Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT3) dataset, placing it equal with the record-breaking 1998.”
The average person looking for 2010 stats will easily find this release, which omits data from rest of 2010, while the complete annual statistics are hidden elsewhere. Seems apparent this is an intentional effort to mislead the public.
BillD says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Monroe says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
According to the 2011 World Almanac:
“22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”
Speaking from personal experience, including careful monitoring of Wunderground for my local area(s), I find that this so-called data is just screamingly worthless. Identify for me the thermometers that were used to “record” the record high and I can identify another thermometer within six blocks of each whose inclusion would have yielded a record low. Isn’t this obvious from Wunderground.com?
Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:12 am
The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!…
(This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?
Imo, there are two kinds of “Conspiracy Theories”: the ones that can be proven or falsified, and the ones that can never be falsified, usually because their adherents won’t let them be falsified – their adherents perhaps never allow themselves to “feel falsified” [Kealey] so they will never admit to any significant doubt; therefore, the second kind of Conspiracy Theories don’t actually say anything at all, while the form of the statement or “theory” makes it look like it says something about objective reality. But since nothing can possibly falsify the apparent statement or theory, and it is therefore “consistent with” whatever exists or happens, it says exactly nothing.
The Climate Science CO2CAGW “theory” is actually the second kind of Conspiracy Theory itself, put into practice by its witting and unwitting Conspiracy type one conspirators: it actually says nothing. It’s purpose is solely propagandistic or “religious”.
George E. Smith says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:26 am
Good call! Let us have no one throwing around the furniture.
Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:36 am (Edit)
This is blatant cherry picking, a regional result in the USA need not have been mentioned at all. When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.
This is despite the claim that we should be in a cooling cycle and that solar activity is neutral or if anything is cooling at the moment. Obviously on a regional level things are getting more extreme while the extra water in the atmosphere and temp differentials between the land, ocean and atmosphere are increasing.
What “peer-reviewed” so-called climate scientists are claiming ” we should be in a cooling cycle”? Why are they making that claim?
The world’s climate has been heating up since 1750. Who is denying that?
Why, then, do you justify ANY flattening/cooling of ANY kind between 2000 and 2030? What “science” are you (any one, of any type, actually!) using to justify a ten year, twenty year, or thirty year “flat spot” in what “should be” according to EVERY global climate model a steady increase in temperature from 1970 through 2300?
OK, so you claim “weather” not “climate” for any short term deviation from your GCM’s heatup. Fine. So, how long need temperatures be “flat-lining” before the models are invalid and proved wrong by actual data?
5 years?
10 years?
15 years?
20 years?
25 years?
30 years?
Since GISS’s “worldwide” temperatures are based on 1200 km extrapolations from isolated Arctic single shore-based stations, what part of “isolated locations” (whole areas of un-instrumented square kilometers) can also be “eliminated” as “un-interesting” or un-important?
Can a skeptic also ignore any arbitrary 1.5% area of the globe that she wishes?
Are you denying that we are in a periodic 66 year short cycle of oscillating temperatures cycling around a 900-year long oscillating cycle?
As others have pointed out, Canada had its ‘warmest year ever’ and this will be incorporated into the GISS record and translated as ‘since their records began in 1880.
The trouble is that Nationwide Canadian records only started in 1948
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.htm
Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:08 am
latitude
Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.
And it was, globally.
No it was not, globally:
Global – Last 20 years
Roger Otip says:
“Isn’t the global temperature more interesting than the US segment?”
To say we have any idea of what global temperatures were 100 or even 50 years ago in places like Africa or Antarctica with a level of accuracy of less then a degree is a bit of a stretch. Together Africa and Antarctica make up 30% of the land mass.
The same is true for oceans temperatures. Ship captains make a point of avoiding bad weather, so whatever we think we know about historical ocean temperature is biased by that fact.
Global warming is supposed to make temperatures increase, right along with CO2 levels.
Since, for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined and gone down a little, when things get back to “global warming normal”, can we expect a huge jump in temperatures?
If not, how will global warming normal make up the difference?
Real data is not allowed for interpreting which years are most hot. The data must be “adjusted” and then “interpreted” only by “Climate Experts”. Real Data has no place in AGW “Science”.
This is where the 2010 mean yearly Central England temp sits from the 1659 to 2010 record using an Excel ranking. The same as 1659, 1676, 1754, 1902, and 1956.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
251 8.86 1836
252 8.86 1985
253 8.85 1864
254 8.84 1808
255 8.84 1907
256 8.83 1659
257 8.83 1676
258 8.83 1754
259 8.83 1902
260 8.83 1956
261 8.83 2010
I forgot to make a comment:
These drongos must be living on a different planet !!
An Inquirer says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:03 am
Yep! It is like the old joke of the 2 nation track meet as reported in Pravda: The Grand and Glorious People’s Republic of the USSR finished second! The dirty capitalistic imperialistic USA finished second to last.
Dave in Canmore says: January 14, 2011 at 8:57 am
It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year….
A quick glance show that all of your data comes from withing a few 100 km of the southern edge of Canada. My understanding is that the arctic regions are the sections showing the most warming, so it would not be surprising that your subset shows a different result than a true average for the whole area of Canada. Deliberately choosing a non-representative subset is almost guaranteed to give anomalous results.
Have you tried repeating your analysis using 8 sites that all fall within a few 100 km of the NORTHERN edge?
Magnus says:
“if global averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span…”
“What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbbacks, naturally occuring variations, etc.”
Magnus, you are missing the forest for the trees. Step back from the minutiae of this debate for a minute and look at the big picture. The hypothesis underlying AGW is that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. I emphasize, global warming, not warming in the Arctic, or the Antarctic Peninsula, but warming all over the globe. Is it not clear that this is not happening? Is it not clear that some parts of the globe are warming while some are cooling? And that next year the warming and cooling will be reversed for any given region. Further , is it not clear that the “average” warming the world has experienced say in the last 150 years has been trivial? Global average temperature is not “soaring upwards” in any time frame even if you accept the tortured statistics presented by “climate science”. And what is the real world utility of a global temperature average anyway? It is a totally artificial construct. The fact that it is 18 below zero in Dismal Seepage Alaska, rather than the “normal” 22 bleow, is meaningless to a person in Colorado, where it might be 4 degrees colder. And please, no lectures about the interconnectedness of everything, etc. You can debate feedbacks and the like all you want, but we have learned enough by now to know that the whole notion of CAGW is a non-starter.
94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?
Makes a BIG difference (not as this is USA and not Global)
Nolo Contendere says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
Reasonable debate from both sides are welcome here. Unfortunately your comment wasn’t.