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.
BillyBob
I think the comment above by Travis S. explains this.
David L says: “The stats suggest zero slope. And if you believe there is a measurable slope, it’s on the order of 6e-6 meaning Philly will increase 6 degrees in 1 million years!”
The slope is of order 6E-5, not -6
And that is the fit for DAYS, not YEARS, so the slope is (6e-5 F/day) * (365 day/year) ~ 0.02 F/year.
Or 2 degrees F per century.
Or 6 degrees F in 300 years.
And again, a p-value of 0.000 suggests less than 1/1000 chance that the observed is due to random luck. So the stats definitely do NOT suggest a zero slope as you say. The regression either for individual days or averaged by year shows a statistically significant upward slope of 2 F per century.
Our numbers are clearly different, especially for the yearly averages.
* Did you use the first two years (1873 & 1873)? These years only have a handful of data points, which clearly would not give accurate yearly averages. These years should be dropped.
* Did you use this year (2011)? Since there are only a few days in January so far, this would give a wildly inaccurate values for the 2011 annual average. This year should be dropped.
“Roger, please answer me why there has been no warming in Philadelphia PA since 1874. Is it because CO2 avoids the city of brotherly love? ”
I think it is because you made an error in your annual analysis. Even your first result shows a positive slope 5x larger than the uncertainly, so your numbers there do show a warming.
Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.
But you didn’t. You fail.
“If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory
”
This displays a complete misunderstanding of the theory. The temperature rises gradually over time as an average on a global scale but because this changes the key determinants of weather, short term and regional effects become more unpredictable and extreme. Weather is the movement of air over different pressure areas due to the changing temperature differentials over the ocean, land and atmosphere and amplified by the increasing moisture due to evaporation, this predicts more floods in the model. This causes climates to shift and change. It does not mean that the temperature will change by .16 deg everywhere at once or that the weather will change the same way everywhere at once, it actually means the exact opposite.
Effects of a warming ocean acidification and increasing el ninos are coral bleaching, death of the algae reliant on them as well as disaster for the phytoplankton. Eventually the fish will struggle and so a large proportion of our food supply will be affected. Above ground you will get more drought, more floods from the extra moisture in prone areas, and shifting weather patterns as new jetstreams open etc.
If you are going to argue against the model at least try to understand it.
see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as they know a lot more than I do and only argue on the peer reviewed science.
“BillyBob says:
Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.
But you didn’t. You fail.”
He answered the question. CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, nobody says it is. The solar factor is well known for that period, it is also well known that it is stable or if anything cooling now. The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.
Michael says:
“The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.”
Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:
“We can’t imagine anything else that could cause the current [very mild] warming, so CO2 must be the reason.”
Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.
But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.
Worry away, my friend.
“Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:
Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.
But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.”
Ah the classic … (cannot say as the reciprocal to alarmist is not allowed) logical fallacy, because change has happened by nature in the past, it cannot be caused by humans now.
Yes CO2 is a harmless trace gas on its own, what has changed is mans pumping of billions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere in a short space of time. In nature the amount of CO2 produced compared to the amount absorbed is fairly balanced, but as can be seen by simple measurements and by checking the isotope of the atoms the CO2 produced by man is not being fully absorbed by the planet so the concentration in the atmosphere is rising. The extra greenhouse gas is causing a slight warming, which through feedback effects is increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere(also a greenhouse gas). Other effects follow, changes in temp effect the movement of air (weather) causing it to be more extreme and unpredictable, the extra water vapour increases flooding in flood prone areas etc etc.
You want to ignore the fact that anything (even harmless) in excess can have a harmful effect. That is not science, that is a belief that cannot be reconciled by logic.
Trying to be scary by citing “billions of tons” fails here. That is a minuscule amount of the atmosphere.
The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.
That is hardly “excess.”
Dave in Canmore
Or something is amok with your understanding of the theory. Global warming, as the name suggests, is an increase in the average surface temperature of the world. That overall warming is going to have an effect on winds and ocean currents which in turn will have different effects on different regions of the world. For instance, in northern Europe westerly winds tend to correspond to relatively mild weather whilst north-easterly winds, bringing cold air down from Siberia, tend to correspond to cold weather. If global warming were to alter the wind patterns around the Arctic such that northern Europe received more north-easterly winds than it did previously then northern Europe would quite probably cool, whilst the regions that used to get that cold Siberian air would most likely warm.
Perhaps a simpler way to look at this is to think of the fact that in Canada and most developed countries we often hear that people are living longer than they used to. Our average life expectancy is increasing. But if I were to then ask you, well, if we really are living longer how do you explain the fact that my cousin died when he was only 20?
I imagine you would have no trouble answering that, without needing to know any particular details about my cousin’s life or death. You would, I guess, just tell me that the fact that on average we’re living longer doesn’t mean every one of us will live to a ripe old age, and the fact that some people still die young in no way casts doubt on the assertion that the average person’s life expectancy has increased.
Smokey
Paleoclimatological studies show that there is a close correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, giving us an estimate of the climate’s sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels. A new study has shown that if global emissions continue to rise at their current rate then this could result in a temperature rise of 6 degrees C by the end of the century.
Smokey says:
January 16, 2011 at 9:14 am
Trying to be scary by citing “billions of tons” fails here. That is a minuscule amount of the atmosphere.
The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.
That is hardly “excess.”
Classic non-sequitur Smokey. Just because the atmospheric concentration of CO² is small it does not follow that increasing that concentration by 50% plus in not excessive; that would depend on the climates sensitivity to CO².
If you have a definitive answer on the climates sensitivity to CO², by all means, share it, but until then your objection is just another mindless repetition of an idiotic contrarian meme.
But it’s okay to call someone an alarmist or a warmist?
[Reply: “Denier” is a reference to Holocaust deniers, and as such violates site policy. Other than that restriction, moderation is done with a light touch to avoid the censorship common in warmist blogs. ~dbs, mod.]
Roger Otip says:
“Paleoclimatological studies show that there is a close correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature…”
Yes, thanks for posting that link with a graph that clearly shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Since effect cannot precede cause, the graph shows that changes in CO2 are a function of temperature – which is obvious to anyone who has ever opened a warm can of beer.
Kevin MacDonald,
There is nothing “non-sequitur” about showing the change in the atmosphere resulting from increased CO2. You just don’t like looking at the CO2 non-problem that way.
And if you want to see a ridiculous estimate of climate sensitivity, Roger Otip believes he has the answer. But of course if climate sensitivity were that high, changes in temperature would closely track changes in CO2. They don’t.
[Snip. Read the Policy page.]
Smokey
Pity you didn’t bother to read the text:
Roger Otip,
Ah, but I did read the text: “When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.”
That statement is flatly contradicted by the ice core record, which clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature. The writer is simply looking for some non-existent wiggle room.
If you would like more charts showing the same thing, just ask. Empirical facts trump model-based opinions. That’s why I prefer the ice core records.
[snip]
[Snipped ? OK. The mod’s can accept a self-snip too, if the writer so wishes to do that. Robt]
regarding the “Siberian warming” – some people here might find it worth revisiting the Finnish TV show on Climategate, that was available on youtube – I presume it’s still out there. In that program, Finnish climatologists showed a number of examples of lack of any overall trend in the 20th century in rural records. At the same time there were a number of upward trends (following inflections!) in urban areas, most of which could be associated with specific cases of development (e.g. factory installations).
Michael says:
January 16, 2011 at 6:44 am
Uh, no, you’re assuming something that was not said: that it cannot be caused by humans now. I suggest you go back to your logic books to figure out what you just did, but certainly it is not a logical fallacy to point out that a null hypothesis has not been refuted and thus remains the accepted behavior.
Funny, too, that you would attempt such a flip while committing your own error. Those that are the most arrogant and then wrong are the ones we laugh the most at.
Mark
Michael: “CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, nobody says it is. The solar factor is well known for that period, it is also well known that it is stable or if anything cooling now. ”
The “solar factor”?
There are 2 major warming periods (ignoring the good chance the miniscule recent warming was caused by UHI) in the last 100 years and 2 major periods of no change.
Please explain why you think natural cycles caused 2 no change periods and 1 major warming period and why only the 1990 to 1998 period was caused by CO2?
“The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.”
Smokey you are not measuring a plank of wood. In a building, being out by a minuscule % may not mean much, but when it comes to chemicals it is all about reaction and balance. The make up of your body also includes sulphur, phosphorous, chlorine, copper, lead, iron, uranium, thorium, mercury and arsenic, among many others. Arsenic for instance can be beneficial medically in tiny amounts, but add just a tiny bit more…I think you know where I am going with this.
The typical skeptic says “hey it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere or it is a tiny warming effect or it has happened millions of times without us etc”. None of these are relevant or really have any meaning when discussing whether the changing balance of the atmosphere can cause changes harmful to us or whether we are the ones causing it now. Negative arguments are not proof, they are beliefs. Beliefs that are not borne out in many areas of nature where small amounts can precipitate big reactions. Just look at the change of certain chemicals in your body that effect moods, heart rate etc. Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.
“That statement is flatly contradicted by the ice core record, which clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature. ”
That is also going on the assumption that CO2 is the only driver of Climate Change. Nobody says that, (see above) in the past their have been many events that have influenced the climate, 4 billion years is a long time and we likely started as a boiling sea of molten rock, our sun has also aged and changed and our planetary meanderings and wobbles are also not constant. The link between CO2 and temp is shown on the graph and that they feed each other but it does not mean CO2 started it, as I understand it these particular changes were precipitated by a planet wobble cycle.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
That does not make any difference to whether CO2 is causing the changes now and whether humans are the ones precipitating that change.
Michael says:
“Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.”
I am in total agreement. The effect of increased CO2 is apparent, and entirely beneficial:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Michael,
That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?
PS: when you’re back in that echo chamber, tell the cartoonist it is common courtesy to link WUWT, since WUWT links to them.
I don’t expect courtesy from those alarmist wackos, but it never hurts to ask.
Oh, and thanx for your cut ‘n’ paste comments on different threads. The added traffic is nice. Well over half a million comments, and counting.☺
[snip. You know why.]