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.
Yes, isnt it strange how “global” warming avoids England and the US. How can it be global, when it avoids large continents?
Oh yes, thats right, “global” warming only hits where nobody lives. And where there are no thermometers.
Even with all the downward adjustments of the 1930s and the upward adjustments of recent years (and completeing ignoring UHI) 5 of the top 24 years are from the 1930s.
1934, 1931, 1939, 1938, 1933
Imagine where they would be if you used unmanipulated data and adjusted modern data downwards for UHI … and moved some of the thermometers away from airports.
BillD says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am
“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.”
Those were all daily records not all time state records.
Try this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13
How many thermometers were in the middle east in the 30’s?
Official World wide temperatures will continue to increase untill the snow and ice elevation at the north pole reaches 100 meters.
Latitude,
Why obviously it would have been much colder if not for the AGW…./sarc
Those who argue about “global” temperatures might consider that current SH temperatures are below the 1940 global peak.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/last:2400
Maybe the SH lagged the USA by a few years, but late 1930s to early 1940s were warmer than almost every year – and modern years are UHI contaminated.
Also, I have heard that global records were somewhat polluted during the Soviet era, the weather station readings in Siberia determined the fuel rations, thus Siberia read out VERY cold then. If these readings are still in use in the global database, there would be a definite warm bias built in since the 1990’s. Of course most of those stations have now been withdrawn, so no worries, we’ll just smear the stations on the edge of the Mongolian desert right up to the Arctic to compensate. What could go wrong…
Magnus says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:11 am
Green Acres says:
So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc.
__________________________________
I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but of course it matters if global temperatures are rapidly rising. A good skeptic should be concerned. What is unclear are issues such as “climate sensitvity” and factors other than man-made CO2 in driving climate. If gobal averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span, then we will of course have a great deal of problems. Skeptics don’t doubt this. What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbacks, naturally occuring variations etc.
Again, I’m kind of hoping you were joking.
I think (at least as far as the UK is concerned) that Green Acres is correct and I have for several years been making posts to that effect. As far as the UK is concerned, an increase in temperatures would be entirely beneficial with no significant downside.
The UK would enjoy longer food growing seasons, more food production, we could increase our wine industry (with many new job opportunities), the warmer and milder climate would benfit the old, people would spend less money on heating, there would be less winter accidents, there would be an increase in tourism (with yet more job opporunities) etc.
Therefore GW is in the UK’s own interest and this suggests that there is a strong argument for the UK government to pursue domestic and foreign policies that would encourage GW. The only argument against pursuing such policies is whether a country should be obliged to act in the best interests of others. A novel concept which to date has not been pursued by any country these past few thousand years.
As regards the moral question, can the UK do anything that would assist other countries? The short answer is No. The UK now has little in the way of industry and if the UK was to stop all its CO2 emissions, it would have all but no effect on the total global CO2 emissions and would therefore not achive any reduction in global temperatures if these temperatures are rising truly as a result of manmade CO2 emissions.
Given the above facts, can any government justify pursuing a harmful policy (ie., one that is not in the interests of its own citizens) in decarbonising the economy which will reek havoc and which force millions in to fuel poverty and will results in many thousands of deaths when that policy will be futile and will do nothing to save the world?
I would say No. Given the futility of the action, the UK government ought really be acting in the best interests of its citizens and should be pursuing policies that promote GW.
I accept that the position as far as the States is concerned may be different since the States is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions and can therefore in theory pursue policies that could achive a significant reduction in global CO2 emissions. However, even from the perspective of the States, this would be accademic unless developing countries such as China, India and Brazil also pursue policies that curb CO2 emissions. There is little point in the States pursuing policies which would be thwarted by an increase in CO2 emissions from developing countries.
Of course, on the top of this is the question as to whether Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having any significant bearing on global temperatures, and whether there is any problem at all if global temperatures were to increase by more than 2 deg C. I think that the answer to the first question is very probably not and the answer to the second question is very probably that a warmer world would benefit the majority of citizens (and other life forms) of the world and that GW would for the majority of life on earth be a good thing. I am of the firm view that the predicted disasters are wrong,
Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:43 am
The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.
=========================================================
Hi Roger.
Yes if you look at the longest temperature record for Central England the regression is similar but at 0.29 deg C per decade during same period but then flattens out after 1995 and becomes negative if 2010 temp is included.
But here’s the rub: 1695 to 1736 when there was no AGW, has a warming of 1.3 times greater than the “after 1970 period” at 0.39 Deg C per decade!!
Surprisingly an AP story yesterday did mention:
“In the U.S., it was the 23rd warmest year on record and the 14th year in a row with an annual temperature above the long-term average, according to NOAA’s preliminary analysis.”
Of course the story was more focused on all the hell breaking out because of AGW around the globe.
“But as we know, extreme events whether their cause is due to La Nina or El Nino or other factors, will be more intense in the era of climate change,” he added.”
Kevin MacDonald says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:08 am
On the other hand Kevin, Maybe the trend is NOT increasing
DaveE.
Erik Ramberg says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:21 am
Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave?
Erik, according to the ipcc Climate Scientists, the Siberian warming and fires is surely “weather not climate”; at least until it conveniently next became anthropogenic “climate disruption”; but in which case the Siberian warming and fires has to involve a new climate, since the old one has been effectively “disrupted” by an allegedly semi-permanent, constant or recurrent force – an allegedly ongoing anthropogenic force, to boot, which we can allegedly see bieng applied.
However, unfortuneately for its CS, now ipcc Climate Science has actually changed its definitions such that “weather” = “climate”! Hence, according to CS there is no longer any such thing as “climate” as distinguished from “weather”, and conversely, and it therefore can’t “change” except perhaps as being good old “weather”; but which then brings the ipcc Climate Science back to its first definition, where “weather is not climate”.
Regardless, the Siberian warming has not been proven by Climate Science to even be “unprecedented” – CS merely made the claim and hopes everyone will trustingly or dutifully repeat it as part of its Propaganda Op..
And the Siberian warming and fires isn’t unprecedented, according to an historic narrative presented right here at WUWT in comments. going back to around 1200. But regardless of the validity of that narrative, it’s still completely CS’s responsibility to prove its claim that the Siberian warming and fires is unprecedented – think MWP – and that it is due to CO2CAGW climate change or disruption!
But, even then, Climate Science’s CO2CAGW “climate change” or “disruption” would still have to face the first problem described above, which renders what it says complete non-sense; again, because now it says “weather” = “climate” when the two words can only have seperate meanings by being contrasted with each other as different! In fact, CS’s use of either word now makes what it says using either word functionally meaningless. But that never stops a Propaganda Op..
If one wanted to know where the supposed heating is occurring, and one doesn’t trust surface temperature data, one could consult the satellite tropospheric data
For 2010 (see the very bottom graph), we see that much of the hottest anomalies were indeed in the polar regions.
It’s an interesting exercise to visually compare the December month-long and year-long maps.
This article is written as a rebuttal, yet no one has claimed that 2010 was the hottest year in the United States… I’m a bit confused.
anomAlies, excuse me
Definitely not the warmest year in Australia
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi
Tim Folkerts says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“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…”
—————————————————————————————————-
Hey Tim,
My post was clear that since 99% of Canadians live a few hundered kilometers from the southern edge, this was the area relevant to them A “national average” includes vasts area that have little to no effect on Canada’s poulation. It may be mathematically correct, but at odds with everyone’s experience.
More importantly though was a demonstration of the seasonal and regional variance lost in a large average. Additionally, the post showed that Canada was not “hot” but rather “less cold,” an important distinction that the news release turns on its head.
I wasn’t trying to recalculate their average, just show how meaningless it is when you break it down into times and places.
Louise says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?
Makes a BIG difference
=============================================================
A quick look at the source data indicates that the ranking is coolest to warmest. Therefore the warmest year would be ranked 116. (2010 would rank 22 if warmest was ranked 1.) Incidently, NCDC ranks 1998 at 116 and 1934 at 114.
As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.
latitude
For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.
David L. says: January 14, 2011 at 6:53 am
I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute … from 1872 to present (49052 data points)
I only found data through 1999 there(around 46,000 points), which will make some minor differences…
Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
I fit the highs and lows separately
High temp: 0.000067 +/-0.00000655
Low Temp: -0.000011 +/- 0.00000592
Avg Temp: 0.000028 +/-0.00000615
My average is going up more slowly than yours and has a smaller uncertainty (both about 1/2 of what you get).
Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
Yearly avg: +0.009269 +/- 0.003287
Here I get a result of the opposite sign AND 10x bigger AND half the error you got. I get a slope that is the same sign as before. (I did throw out 1872 and 1873 since they have almost no temperature data and hence the yearly average is not accurate at all.)
Frankly this is what made me look at the numbers to begin with. I can’t imagine that the temperature every day would be sloping up, but the annual temps sloping down. Again, slight difference in the time period (skipping the first 2 years; skipping the last decade) will make some difference, but it should not be a huge effect.
Also, the daily slope * 365 should be ~ the annual slope. My results are close to this.
By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less)
p-values for testing significance are 0.000, 0.072, and 0.000 for the daily High, Low, and Average regression fits. The upward slope to High & Average is HIGHLY significant. The downward slope to Low is close to significant.
The p-value for the annual fit was 0.006 — again clearly a significant upward slope.
I didn’t try the since fit, so I can’t comment there.
RECAP:
* I disagree that the annual temp is going down in Philly.
* I disagree that the results are not statistically significant.
FrankK
Here’s the link if anyone wants to, though of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be much lower over such a small region when compared with the global data, so though one can make out a warming trend, it is far less clear than the global trend.
Here would be a good place to remind everybody that GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS only go back to about 1980; well that is credible GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures; whcih I believe is what GISSTemp purports to be; and maybe HADDrud as well.
Prior to that time frame; thereabouts, GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures for about 70% of the Total Global surface area; generally referred to as THE OCEANS was “inferred” not “measured”, and it was inferred by ASSUMING that the air Temperature, and the water Temperature were exactly the same thing. On land, we have these Owl Boxes, that measure the Temperature two metres (or so) above the Weber Grill; whereas out in the ocean where there are very few Weber Grills, they throw a bucket over the side, and gather water from some totally unknown water depth; and measure its Temperature while on the deck evaporating in the wind. Well eventually, they started taking the water from some unknown depth below the surface, via a cooling water intake, and the measured its Temperature probably down in a warm engine room somewhere without the howling wind.
Of course ocean water doesn’t stay in the same place; so you can go back to the exact same GPS co-ordinates in six months, and ocean current meandering will put you in entirely different waters from where you were last time.
So why would the ocean water; which maybe flows at a few knots, be the same Temperature as the air; that might go tens or hundreds of km per hour; so over Hawaii last week, and over the mainland USA this week.
Well John Christy et al, discovered all of this in about 2000 from about 20 years of ocean buoy studies of simultaneous lower Troposphere (+3 metres) and near surface Water (-1 metre) actual thermometric measurements of both at the same time.
They reported on this in Jan 2001, I believe in Geophysical Research Letters; and no; the water and air Temepratures are NOT the same; and also they are NOT correlated (why would they be?), so it is impossible to reconstruct any pre-1980 or so ocean lower Tropospheric Temperature data, prior to about 1980.
As I recall, they reported that the air Temperature change during those 20 years of buoy data collection, was 40% lower than the water Temperature change; or the air Temperature change was about 60% of the water temperature change; well those are near enough to the same thing within the IPCC 3:1 fudge factor.
So not I don’t believe proxy data for the whole globe prior to 1980; or even measured data.
The climate theory models might be spot on; but the data being fed to those models is itself garbage.
I’m not aware of ANY peer reviewed papers that refute what Christy et al reported in Jan 2001. Maybe it is there somewhere; as I said I am not aware of it; but then what do I know. I’m all ears to hear what contrarian data there is.
Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
latitude
So, in other words, you agree with him? You did not even attempt to address his statement that temperatures have flatlined, i.e., that they are no longer increasing so you must agree. There is hope yet.
Which is only true for i.i.d. noise and error distributions, particularly ones in which the distributions are stationary. I’d suggest you study up on how the law of large numbers actually works. Certainly not as you suggest. Oh, and sorry, simply pointing out that there are fewer wiggles does not mean what you think, either.
Mark
According to NASA GISS it was and according to NOAA it was joint warmest.
By the way, I don’t think any reputable climate scientist was saying for a fact that 2010 would be the warmest. That’s not how scientists talk. They may have said “it was on course to be”, or “it looked likely that it would be”.
Roger Otip says:
As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.
# (and later)
latitude
for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined
For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.
…—…—
OK.
So, ONLY if I throw out the (near-flat lining) early two decades of Hansen-GISS’s records, and throw out the last decade of Hansen’s-GISS temperture record, THEN I can get the 0.36 degrees per decade that Hansen wants to advertise for the “entire” period of 1950 through 2010.
Glad you clarified that. Thank you.
Can I simply things with century long REAL increase that is NOT politically and emotionally driven?
Or can I just use the the “entire” period of the temperature record, recognize that Hansen is a politician propagandizing his zealotry to destroy the energy industry, and scientifically see the actual double cycle of a short-term 60 year cycle imposed on a long-term natural rise from the Little Ice Age through the Modern Warming Period to a mid-2100 century peak and a 450 year decline to a Future Ice Age?