See update below: New comparison graph of US temperatures in 1999 to present added – quite an eye opener – Anthony
There’s been a lot of buzz and conflicting reports over what the BEST data actually says, especially about the last decade where we have dueling opinions on a “slowing down”, “leveling off”, “standstill”, or “slight rise” (depending on whose pronouncements you read) of global warming.
Here’s some media quotes that have been thrown about recently about the BEST preliminary data and preliminary results:
“‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.” – Dr. Richard Muller
In The Sunday Mail Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties:
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ – Dr. Judith Curry in The Sunday Mail
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:
“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. He adds: “Both records are in reasonable agreement about the length of time without a significant warming trend. In the CRU record it is 15.0 years. In the University of Alabama MSU it is 13.9, and in the Remote Sensing Systems version of the MSU it is 15.6 years. “
In the middle of all those quotes being bandied about, I get an email from Burt Rutan (yes THAT Burt Rutan) with a PDF slideshow titled Winter Trends in the United States in the Last Decade citing NCDC’s “climate at a glance” data. This is using the USHCN2 data, which we are told is the “best”, no pun intended. It had this interesting map of the USA for Winter Temperatures (December-February) by climate region on the first slide:
Hmmm, that’s a bit of a surprise for the steepness of those trend numbers. So I decided to expand and enhance that slide show by combining trend graphs and the map together, while also looking at other data (summer, annual). Here’s a breakdown for CONUS by region for Winter, Summer, and Annual comparisons. Click each image to enlarge to full size to view the graphs.
Winter temperatures and trends °F, 2001-2011. Note that every region has a negative trend:
Summer temperatures and trends °F, 2001-2011. Note that 5 of 9 regions have a negative summertime trend:
And finally here is the Annual yearly mean temperature trend for the last decade. Since 2011 is not yet complete for annual data (though is for Winter and Summer data), I’ve plotted the last decade available, from 2000-2010:
Only 1 of 9 regions has a positive decadal trend for the Annual mean temperature, the Northeast.
This data is from USHCN2, from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Note that I have not adjusted it or even self plotted it in any way. The output graphs and trend numbers are from NCDC’s publicly available “Climate At A Glance” database interface, and these can be fully replicated by anyone easily simply by going here and choosing “regions”:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
I find the fact that summer temperatures were negative in five of 9 regions interesting. But most importantly, the trend for the CONUS for the past 10 years is not flat, but cooling.
The trend line for the contiguous lower 48 states looks like this for the same period when we plot the Annual mean temperature data for 2001-2010 (we can’t plot 2011 yet since the year isn’t complete):

And if we back it up a year, to 2000, so that we get ten full years, we get this:
So according the the National Climatic Data Center, it seems clear that for at least the last 10 years, there has been a cooling trend in the Annual mean temperature of the contiguous United States. Pat Michaels in his GWPF essay talks about 1996 :
A significant trend since these periods began is not going to emerge anytime soon. MSU temperatures are plummeting and are now below where they were at this time of the year in the 2008 La Nina. NOAA is predicting an extreme La Nina low in 2012. If the 1976-98 warming trend is re-established in 2013, post-1996 warming would not become significant until 2021.
So when you run the NCDC “climate at a glance” plotter from 1996 for the USA on Annual mean temperature data for the contiguous United States for 15 years of data, you get this, flatness:
Warming, for the USA seems pretty “stalled” to me in the last 10-15 years. Bear in mind that BEST uses the same data source for the USA, the USCHN2 data. Granted, this isn’t a standard 30 year climatology period we are examining, but the question about the last 10 years is still valid. “Aerosol masking” has been the reason given by the Team. Blame China.
For the inevitable whining and claims of cherry picking that will come in comments, here’s the complete data set from NCDC plotted from 1895. I added the 1934 reference line in blue:
Interestingly, we’ve had only two years that exceeded 1934 for Annual mean temperature in the United States and they were El Niño related. 1998 and 2006 both had El Niño events.
While the United States is not the world, it does have some of the best weather data available, no pun intended. Given the NCDC data for CONUS, it certainly seems to me that warming has stalled for the United States in the last decade.
UPDATE: 11/06/2011 8AM PST
When I wrote the post above, I had concerns that the 1998 and 2006 peaks might not have actually exceeded 1934. I didn’t have the energy to explore the issue last night. This morning looking anew, I recalled the GISS Y2K debacle and recovered the graphs from Hansen’s 1999 press release. This was originally part of “Lights Out Upstairs” a guest post by Steve McIntyre on my old original blog. Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in 1999 than it is now. Much of this can be attributed to NCDC’s USHCN2 adjustments.
=============================================================
Steve wrote then:
In the NASA press release in 1999 , Hansen was very strongly for 1934. He said then:
The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability.Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
This was illustrated with the following depiction of US temperature history, showing that 1934 was almost 0.6 deg C warmer than 1998.

From a Hansen 1999 News Release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
However within only two years, this relationship had changed dramatically. In Hansen et al 2001 (referred to in the Lights On letter), 1934 and 1998 were in a virtual dead heat with 1934 in a slight lead. Hansen et al 2001 said
The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6)… the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree.

From Hansen et al 2001 Plate 2. Note the change in relationship between 1934 and 1998.
Between 2001 and 2007, for some reason, as noted above, the ranks changed slightly with 1998 creeping into a slight lead.
The main reason for the changes were the incorporation of an additional layer of USHCN adjustments by Karl et al overlaying the time-of-observation adjustments already incorporated into Hansen et al 1999. Indeed, the validity and statistical justification of these USHCN adjustments is an important outstanding issue.
============================================================
I’ve prepared a before and after graph using the CONUS values from GISS in 1999 and in 2011 (today).
GISS writes now of the bottom figure:
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States
Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth’s surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]
Also available as PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
So clearly, the two graphs are linked, and 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the “warmest year”. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C.
And they wonder why we don’t trust the surface temperature data.
In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. As Steve McIntyre often says: “You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys”.
============================================================
UPDATE2: 10:30AM PST 11/07/2011 – Dr. Pat Michaels writes in with an update.
Anthony–
The post on Muller is a little long in the tooth but I do need to correct something.
The comment was that I said NOAA was predicting an “extreme” La Nina in 2012. That was true when I wrote it, but since then the October 31 forecast has come out and I used that in my most recent posting on this at the Cato site:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13827
Here’s the relevant portion from the text:
We are currently experiencing another — for now — moderate La Niña, or the cold phase of El Niño. Satellite temperatures, as of this writing, have dropped below where they were in the previous La Niña of 2008, so 2011 isn’t going to be particularly warm compared to the average of the last 15 years.
In addition, the latest forecast from the Department of Commerce’s Climate Prediction Center is for the current La Niña to become stronger and persist through at least the first half of 2012:

Consequently, 2012, like 2011, is not likely to be particularly warm when compared to the last 15 years.









+1
Becky says:
November 7, 2011 at 7:43 am
I’m an avid gardener in Colorado. I normally get piles of zucchini and yellow squash, but this year it was a pittance. The only thing that grew well was cool season stuff – greens, peas and root vegetables. I got lots of turnips and carrots. *sigh*
Becky… it sounds like you had your soil pH off and that is why you didn’t get squash. I really doubt that the temps have much to do with it since squash is a much faster growing plant than peas and root veggies.
It’s abundantly clear that the biggest challenge that climatology faces as a science (besides inherent dishonesty amongst it’s practitioners) is one of engineering…namely measurement.
By the way, will somebody please send some cool, wet summer weather our way in Central TX? I had to grow tomatoes and peppers in containers this year because I couldn’t afford to keep my garden watered!
All tomato growers should be classified as CAGW-deniers and sent to a CO2-gulag for re-education or until their mental illness has been cured
This jibes with my perceptions.
Aw, crap. Back to the Coming Ice Age.
Comments from failed the UK tomato growers are very interesting. I bet your ancestors were saying the same thing about grapes when Medieval Warm Period ended.
How long before we are told that the science is settled, that to forestall an ice age, we must control CO2?
Take that! , Al Gore….Ha!
Re: averaging period for climate.
I have determined that the appropriate averaging period for climate attribution to CO2 is 30 years. This is because 30 years is the average time it takes for a researcher/scientist to enter the field of climate science, produce papers, press releases, and presentations warning of impending climate DOOM, collect six figure annual salaries with generous medical benefits and retirement packages, then retire before people realize they (the scientists) were wrong…the joke, of course, is on the taxpayers…
“‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.” – Dr. Richard Muller
This is simple to explain. If there was no real warming trend before, then new evidence showing no warming trend indicates no evidence of the (non-existent) trend slowing. This comment is only endorsement of the AGW position if one assumes it is predicated upon previous evidence of AGW.
Ha!
And all of this is in spite of the weather stations being relocated into heat sink areas of the cities, near buildings, paved parking lots and other items that skew the temperatures up from the adjacent natural ambient temperature.
Six months ago I compiled a graph from data gleaned off of the Weather Channel web page for my local area (Pacific Northwest.) It covered a period from 1975 to the present and used the high and low data, as no median data was available (it was just an exercise in curiosity.) I was expecting a measurable decline (as temperatures had seemed to be dropping off) but ended up with a nearly flat line (if I remember correctly I think that there was a minute rise out to quite a few decimal places, or in other words, well inside the margin of error.) So I find it quite interesting that your investigation very nearly corroborates my own, with the difference being the time period involved. Isn’t this what they used to call ‘science’?
It looks to me we have no choice but to start driving more powerful gasoline powered cars and to increase the size of our SUVs. Before it’s too late! If you care about our planet and the future of crop development, START DRIVING NOW!!!!
Oh, and by the way, if anyone tells you about the co2 levels in our upper atmosphere, tell them to “pack sand” because co2 is heavier than air and sinks to the oceans where it is absorbed until the sun releases it again, a natural process.
Now calculate how much this hoax has and will cost you in dollars and add that directly too Al Gore’s bank account. PISSED YET?!!!! Al Gore and his ilk have walked into your home and lifted many dollars from your possession. PISSED YET?!!!!! So, if you see AL Gore….punch him square in the nose for all of us!!!!
I assume Anthony knows already: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds linked to this analysis today.
Can’t wait until those in the AGW cult looks at this data and with a straight face claim global warming models predicted these kind of cooling “anomalies”. You know, just like their earlier global warming models predicted that there would be more numerous and more viscious hurricanes hitting America after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 devastated New Orleans … oh wait, there would be LESS hurricanes … yeah, that’s the ticket! Frauds and liars. I have more respect for snake oil salesmen, at least they’re honest about wanting to scalp you for your money.
Wellington, you beat me to it.
Anthony, protocol has it that you thank Instapundit for an “Instalanche,” providing, of course, you got a spike in traffic from the link!
Best,
Mike
Oh, crap! Actually, it’s AGC, not AGW!!!
I’m always suspicious of anything that the only cure for it is more taxes and government power and socialist programs.
Also at the same time it was warmer on Earth it was warmer on Mars. hmmm. What do they have in common? Mars rovers? SUVS? Fossil fuels? Ohhh the SUN!
Now we are into global cooling, they now call it climate change, which happens every day when the sun comes up, very easy to prove; did the temp change today? Why yes it did, well that my friend is climate change!
We should be much more afraid of global cooling because crops don’t grow too well in the snow and ice fields of a mini ice age. But the world has survived it the many times it has happened all without mans intervention, ether causing it or curing it.
I live in Northern England and have managed to grow tomatoes in the open air. They haven’t all ripened but most of them did. Our garden is sheltered but even so.
Several of the 1995 – 2010 charts show average temperature lines completely below the actual temperature lines. How does that happen?
A late comment 🙂
The massive change in NCEP/CFS forecasts happened the night between 25 and 26 oct, i tracked it, see update latest in the article.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/is-a-historic-super-la-nina-is-just-few-months-ahead-243.php
As I write, there appears to be no significant change in SOI or deep water temps happening overnigth then ,so it points to a manual decided change of predictions?
K.R. Frank
Follow the money and you will find that lots of people have gotten very rich from GW hype. Grant approval is a cinch if you can link your study somehow to GW, so there is too much money and prestige at stake for the warmistas to ever admit failure.