Image Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center IUP Bremen
From Live Science:
Months before Hurricane Sandy hurled the Atlantic Ocean into houses and cities along the East Coast, another record-breaking cyclone battered North America, helping push this year’s Arctic sea ice to a record low, a new study finds.
Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades, reaching a record low in September 2007 and hitting that record again in 2012.
“The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012” arose in Siberia on Aug. 2 and crossed the Arctic Ocean to Canada, lasting an unusually long 13 days. The cyclone hit a pressure minimum of 966 millibars on Aug. 6, the lowest ever recorded for an Arctic storm, professors Ian Simmonds and Irina Rudeva of the University of Melbourne in Australia report in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The pressure reading is only 26 mb higher than Hurricane Sandy’s record low of 940 mb. (A typical low-pressure system usually hits around 1,000 mb.)
“This pressure minimum and cyclone longevity are very atypical of Arctic storms, particularly in August,” the authors write in the study. “We conclude that [the storm] was the most extreme August Arctic cyclone.”
In terms of key properties, including pressure and radius, the Arctic cyclone ranks 13 out of all 19,625 Arctic storms on record since 1979, Simmonds and Rudeva report. “This storm truly deserves the title of ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012’,” they said.
Impact on sea ice
Simmonds and Rudeva report that the storm greatly affected the record low sea ice in the Arctic this September.
“[A]nalyses we have conducted indicate [the storm] caused the dispersion and separation of a significant amount of ice, while its removal left the main pack more exposed to wind and waves associated with [the storm], facilitating the further decay of the main pack,” they write in their report. Read More
Here’s the paper, the abstract follows:
Key Points
– Analysis and diagnosis is performed on the dramatic Arctic storm of August 2012
– Storm’s evolution and longevity tied to baroclinicity and a tropopause vortex
– Storm is the most intense Arctic August system in the record (since 1979)
On 2 August 2012 a dramatic storm formed over Siberia, moved into the Arctic, and died in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on 14 August. During its lifetime its central pressure dropped to 966 hPa, leading it to be dubbed ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012’. This cyclone occurred during a period when the sea ice extent was on the way to reaching a new satellite-era low, and its intense behavior was related to baroclinicity and a tropopause polar vortex. The pressure of the storm was the lowest of all Arctic August storms over our record starting in 1979, and the system was also the most extreme when a combination of key cyclone properties was considered. Even though, climatologically, summer is a ‘quiet’ time in the Arctic, when compared with all Arctic storms across the period it came in as the 13th most extreme storm, warranting the attribution of ‘Great’.
Gerald Machnee says:
Actually, tamino shows reconstructions of data from two different sources. And, what the one source (Walsh and Chapman http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html ) does say about using caution with regard to the data is more limited in time period than what you have implied: “Please note that large portions of the pre-1953, and almost all of the pre-1900 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care (see “Expert user guidance”, below).”
As I have noted, proving anything in science is a fool’s errand. I can’t prove that an apple will fall down the next time I drop it either. Most people don’t take that as a compelling reason to base public policy on the notion that we have no idea whether or not gravity exists.
And, tamino has dealt with world sea ice before, as in this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/how-fake-skeptics-fool-themselves-part-infinity-sea-ice-version/ Yes, global sea ice is also declining because the very large decrease in Arctic sea ice outbalances the statistically-significant but much smaller increase in Antarctic sea ice.
joeldshore says:
December 31, 2012 at 7:32 am
D Boehm says:
Sixteen years of no global warming, and counting…
No…It is 16 years of warming for which the warming is not statistically-significant at the 95% level.
See my post at 2:01 P.M. December 29.
3. For the part below, I went to the following site and determined the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This indicates for how long the warming is not significant at the 95% level. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
joeldshore says: December 31, 2012 at 7:32 am
As I have noted, proving anything in science is a fool’s errand. I can’t prove that an apple will fall down the next time I drop it either.
================================================
Talk about a fool’s errand: trying to convince this over-warmed zealot that the last warming trend ended sixteen years ago. If you think to enlighten him, you labels you as anti-science, as above.
How about joeldshore, did you know that the green house effect makes no contribution to SST? This fact alone sinks your cherished AGW.
justthefactswuwt says:
December 30, 2012 at 9:51 pm
so I would lead with that, i.e). 2, 3, 1.
I will send you this version then. But before I do, just a couple of things. The following was awkwardly worded above:
“The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can either be found at Lubos Motl’s site. Either go to http://motls.blogspot.ca/#uds-search-results
Alternatively, they can be deduced at the following respectively:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found athttp://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html”
I have changed that to:
“The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html (Others may also be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/#uds-search-results)”
The second is with an introduction and then just RSS for now. If you like the second format
I am thinking of including the RSS overview at the bottom of the crowdsourcing article and using it as a vehicle to see if people prefer that format and to ask if there are any additional data points or analyses that people think make be interesting or worthwhile.
Sounds Good! There is a bit of a difference when I do RSS alone. For example with RSS alone, I showed:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
But when I showed all 7, I just showed the lines as follows as I thought it would look too cluttered if I showed all data points as well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
The very cluttered version is here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2004.75
So which is best? 1. Just the 7 lines, or 2. The very cluttered version or 3. Have 7 different graphs, one for each data set as was done for RSS alone?
better, I can finish it off this way for the other data sets.
I’d hold off until we crowdsource it, to see if readers find it valuable.
Should we then ask about which version they would like of the above 3 or would you like to make the call?
I am inclined to include it in the crowdsourcing exercise, but also to call extra attention to it. Maybe somebody knows of another more reliable source, or we can spur someone to create one.
That sounds good!
justthefactswuwt says:
December 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm
“Here’s a sneak peek:
11,000 years GISP2 Temperature Since 10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC”
That would be excellent.
Something which could be added as well is the following, figure 2 in Kirkby’s 2007 paper, which combines an exceptional number of good illustrations in one image:
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing
where the source paper can be seen in full at
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS134/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/more/Kirkby_cosmic_rays_and_climate_2007.pdf
The Kirby paper says:
“The key to further progress on the cosmic ray–cloud–climate question is to understand the
nature of the physical mechanism”
I have previously proposed that changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun alter the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (principally by altering ozone amounts differentially at different levels) so as to change the vertical temperature profile differentially between equator and poles enabling latitudinal climate zone and jet stream shifting which then results in changes in global cloudiness and the amount of energy able to enter the oceans.
I am not currently aware of any more plausible mechanism having been proposed.
Werner Brozek says: December 31, 2012 at 9:42 am
Hey, please take a look at the draft article below and let me know what changes you’d like to make. Thanks.
Title: Crowdsourcing a Temperature Trend Analysis
(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)
By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building the a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present and expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should images or images should instead be graphs, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—
Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:
Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.
Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)
Section 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found at here)
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November).
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts
I just noticed the 11,000 yr. Greenland summit temperature is shown again instead of 110,000 yr.
justthefactswuwtsays:
January 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm
It looks good!
Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3) it seems worthwhile to
Is it worthwhile to find a #4 from:
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/clips-from-last-night-bill-nye-vs-marc-morano-on-global-warming-newt-gingrich-on-the-fiscal-cliff/
The above is very patchy so see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/marc-morano-vs-bill-nye-on-cnn-tonight/
Go to the 1:18 point where Marc also mentions the 16 years of no warming.
However some things seemed to be awkwardly worded. Keep in mind my degree was in engineering and not English, so I could be wrong here, but here is how I see things.
Your help is needed in building the a regular temperature…
Delete “the”
As such, we would like to present and expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular.
Change “and” to “an”. Should there be a word after “regular” such as updates or something like that?
if you think certain links should images or images should instead be graphs
“if you think certain links should be? images or images should instead be graphs”
Section 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.
Perhaps it is me, but the first sentence sounds awkward and repetitious with respect to the second sentence. How about just:
“For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
When I sent this, I noticed the space between the RSS and the UAH data but my poor computer skills did not enable me to fix it so all spacings are the same.
Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far.
Did you decide not to have all the bolding that I had in the post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/#comment-1185452
This is obviously a judgement call. If you decide there should be no bolding at all, then the second sentence above needs to be deleted. I am thinking that if you do not like all the bolding I had, if at least the highest anomaly for the year so far and the present ranking were bolded, then people who are in a rush would see this right away.
(Others may also be found at here) Delete “at”?
You had mentioned putting this up at 2:00 P.M. Mountain time on Sunday. Hadsst2 for November still has not come out, so if the posting were to come out tomorrow, it would still be up to date, but if you wait until Sunday, then perhaps an extra month of Hadsst2, UAH and RSS could be available and things would need to be redone to be current. Of course that would not stop me from giving an update in the comments if it were posted. I am available for the next several days if you wish to post this sooner. And I can give any updates that come along below this present post so they can be incorporated if you wait until Sunday. Will the above then be a WUWT post at the usual place? Thank you for all of your work!
Hello “Just the facts”,
Since UAH for December has now come out, there would need to be a few minor tweaks to the article. Below, I will show the line in question in ital, then I will show the line in bold how it should be. Then I will explain if necessary.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
Since the last point for UAH is virtually right on the level slope line, we can add a month. It will definitely still start where it has, but it will go another month. As for RSS, with the negative slope it had to November, there could have been an increase of about 0.15 and it still would have made it to 16 years with December’s number. But with UAH going down 0.08, there is no way RSS is going to go up 0.15. The only question in my mind right now is whether RSS could go 16 years and 1 month, going back to December 1996, but for now, we are certainly not being careless to say it is an even 16 years to the end of December, even without knowing the exact number.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
From the earlier email, if you agree
Section 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The latest rankings for UAH are given at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
From the earlier email if you agree
(Others may also be found at here)
(Others may also be found here)
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th.
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November).
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
Werner Brozek says: January 1, 2013 at 9:19 pm
All changes made below, as we as a couple responses before.
Did you decide not to have all the bolding that I had in the post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/#comment-1185452
This is obviously a judgement call. If you decide there should be no bolding at all, then the second sentence above needs to be deleted. I am thinking that if you do not like all the bolding I had, if at least the highest anomaly for the year so far and the present ranking were bolded, then people who are in a rush would see this right away.
No, I just skipped the bolding because I wasn’t sure if anything would change/have to be updated with year-end data. I’ve added the bolding into the version below.
You had mentioned putting this up at 2:00 P.M. Mountain time on Sunday. Hadsst2 for November still has not come out, so if the posting were to come out tomorrow, it would still be up to date, but if you wait until Sunday, then perhaps an extra month of Hadsst2, UAH and RSS could be available and things would need to be redone to be current. Of course that would not stop me from giving an update in the comments if it were posted.
Your call on what you want to update. I’ll be available for a bit tomorrow/Fri night and then for an hour or so before 2:00 PM MT on Sunday, so just drop any additions/replacements you’d like in this thread and I’ll incorporate them before I post it.
I am available for the next several days if you wish to post this sooner. And I can give any updates that come along below this present post so they can be incorporated if you wait until Sunday.
I have essentially 3 jobs at the moment, and hike to do on Sat, so Sunday is the first day that I’ll have time to dedicate to supporting a crowdsourcing thread, and to provide argumentative support as needed. In the future, reproducing this article should be pretty turnkey, i.e. you send the article via email, thread or Submit Story and we can post it when you want.
Will the above then be a WUWT post at the usual place?
Yep, it will appear on the front page, just like any other WUWT post.
Thank you for all of your work!
No problem, this has gone quite smoothly and you’ve done most of the heavy lifting. Once we run through the crowdsourcing exercise, we can use that thread to tweak the format as desired and prep the article template so that you can do this essentially autonomously moving forwards.
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The latest rankings for UAH are given at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
Probably better to use a permalink (versus an article/link that will need to be updated monthly) if we can, so it is more turnkey in the the future, but updated as proposed in the version below.
Revised Article (Please let me know if you’d like to make any additional mods):
(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)
By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3, 4) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just such an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present an expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular updates. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should be images or images should instead be links, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—
Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:
Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.
Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The latest rankings for UAH can be found here.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found here)
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). See:
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See here.
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts
justthefactswuwt says:
January 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Your call on what you want to update.
Of course that will depend on whether or not RSS for December and Hadsst2 for November come out by Sunday. And if it does, but time pressures prevent you from incorporating the changes, it is no big deal. I will just update early in the thread what needs updating.
i.e. you send the article via email, thread or Submit Story and we can post it when you want.
There are real advantages to actually seeing the bold before submitting it so I may miss something if I send it by email. As for timing, I am tempted to say once all data is in for each data set each month, but Hadsst2 is still not out for November on January 3 so that idea may not work.
I’ll be available for a bit tomorrow/Fri night and then for an hour or so before 2:00 PM MT on Sunday, so just drop any additions/replacements you’d like in this thread and I’ll incorporate them before I post it.
If new data comes, it gets updated on WFT at 8:00 P.M.MT so you should not expect anything after 10:00 P.M.MT on Saturday.
Probably better to use a permalink (versus an article/link that will need to be updated monthly) if we can
I see no reason not to make this link permanent.
RSS is 191/204
should now be RSS is 192/204
(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16.
Sorry I goofed in an earlier post here. Just the 0.339 should be bolded to read:
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). See:
Change to: 2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). See:
Thanks!
justthefactswuwt says: December 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I am glad I can help, and I appreciate that you’ve helped spur me to build out more of the WUWT Global Paleoclimate Reference Page, which should be live in the coming weeks. Here’s a sneak peek:
——————————————
thanks again, nice collection of graphs, will study them;
Werner Brozek says: January 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
There are real advantages to actually seeing the bold before submitting it so I may miss something if I send it by email. As for timing, I am tempted to say once all data is in for each data set each month, but Hadsst2 is still not out for November on January 3 so that idea may not work.
We’ll figure out something
(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.
Not noted, what am I missing?
justthefactswuwt says:
January 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm
(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.
Not noted, what am I missing?
A very minor detail, but see below. Note the ( ). This is how it appeared:
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Should be:
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?)
Or
Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Thanks for fixing the UAH so fast!
Werner Brozek says: January 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm
A very minor detail, but see below. Note the ( ). This is how it appeared:
Got it. Corrected, I added the other half.
Thanks for fixing the UAH so fast!
I will be around for the next 5 – 6 hours and will be able to make updates readily. I will be offline for most of tomorrow, but tomorrow night I will check in and make additional updates, same for the rest of the week..