Yet another year of exceptional global warmth

[Stratos Ferric]

Yes, it is annoying how those few pesky hot summer days, or cold winter spells really spoil the symmetry of the plot:

Otherwise it would be quite easy to see the solar maxima and minima imposed on the annual variation!

Chris, it's not clear what that chart is showing. I'm assuming it's the max and min for each month is it, not the mean max and min? If the latter you need to recheck the data because it's a long time since Hadley came in with a month <3C. Certainly didn't happen in 2005, as that plot suggests, and we've had nothing remotely near frrezing for 20+ years. Check / clarify please.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Stratos Ferric

[Chris Knight]

Chris, it's not clear what that chart is showing. I'm assuming it's the max and min for each month is it, not the mean max and min? If the latter you need to recheck the data because it's a long time since Hadley came in with a month <3C. Certainly didn't happen in 2005, as that plot suggests, and we've had nothing remotely near frrezing for 20+ years. Check / clarify please.

Yes SF, it's the max and min for each month, not the means. Shows quite clearly that the minima, as you suggested, are on an upward trend as far as the winter months, and that the regularly warm summer maxima are going downward.

here's the source and data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetmaxm...8on_urbadj4.dat

1977 5.2 8.0 10.1 10.8 15.3 16.2 20.3 19.2 16.7 15.0 9.3 8.4 12.87

1978 5.9 5.4 10.2 10.0 16.3 17.8 18.7 18.8 18.0 15.5 11.5 6.5 12.88

1979 2.8 3.6 7.6 11.3 14.0 18.0 20.5 19.0 17.7 15.0 10.0 8.3 12.33

1980 5.0 8.8 7.8 13.1 16.3 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.4 12.4 9.1 8.5 12.96

1981 7.6 6.0 10.6 11.6 15.3 16.8 19.5 20.9 18.8 11.9 10.8 3.3 12.75

1982 5.6 7.7 9.8 12.9 16.7 19.7 21.0 19.6 18.6 13.2 10.5 7.3 13.54

1983 9.3 4.3 9.5 10.6 14.1 18.6 25.0 22.5 17.0 13.9 10.2 8.4 13.61

1984 6.6 6.2 7.6 13.3 14.6 19.0 22.6 22.8 17.0 14.4 10.5 8.0 13.54

1985 3.7 5.1 8.3 12.0 14.9 16.8 20.3 18.1 18.7 14.3 7.0 8.7 12.33

1986 6.1 1.2 8.6 9.3 15.0 19.5 19.8 17.4 16.0 14.6 10.9 9.1 12.29

1987 3.2 6.8 7.1 14.6 14.4 16.5 19.9 19.6 17.5 13.2 8.9 7.9 12.45

1988 7.8 7.7 9.4 12.2 16.6 18.6 18.1 19.5 16.9 13.7 9.0 9.8 13.28

1989 9.0 9.2 11.2 10.3 18.4 19.9 23.4 21.5 18.7 15.0 9.5 7.4 14.45

1990 9.3 10.2 12.0 12.9 18.3 17.6 22.6 23.0 17.4 15.0 9.5 6.9 14.56

1991 6.1 4.9 11.3 11.9 14.7 16.0 21.6 22.0 19.7 13.2 9.7 7.4 13.21

1992 6.1 8.7 10.6 12.5 19.0 20.8 20.1 19.2 16.9 10.9 10.5 6.3 13.47

1993 9.0 6.9 10.3 13.1 15.7 19.5 19.0 19.0 16.1 11.8 7.3 8.1 12.99

1994 8.0 6.1 10.7 11.9 14.5 18.8 23.2 20.1 16.1 13.8 12.5 9.4 13.76

1995 7.8 9.3 9.4 13.3 16.4 18.7 23.7 25.1 17.5 16.5 10.8 4.5 14.42

1996 6.0 5.5 7.4 12.8 13.4 19.7 21.4 21.1 17.7 15.0 9.1 5.4 12.87

1997 5.1 9.6 12.1 13.5 16.5 18.0 21.3 23.7 18.3 14.3 11.4 8.5 14.36

1998 7.9 10.7 11.2 11.4 17.9 17.9 19.4 20.7 18.6 13.7 9.1 8.7 13.93

1999 8.5 8.1 10.8 13.6 17.2 18.3 23.0 20.5 19.9 14.4 10.6 7.8 14.40

2000 7.8 9.5 11.0 11.7 16.5 19.4 19.7 21.3 18.5 13.5 9.9 7.9 13.90

2001 6.0 7.8 8.5 11.5 17.5 18.8 21.8 21.1 16.8 16.4 10.9 6.6 13.65

2002 8.6 10.1 11.5 14.2 15.9 18.7 20.4 21.1 18.8 13.8 11.3 7.7 14.33

2003 7.2 7.5 12.5 14.7 16.5 21.1 22.2 23.5 19.9 13.4 11.2 7.9 14.80

2004 8.0 8.1 10.2 13.4 16.6 19.8 20.2 21.8 18.8 13.6 10.1 8.2 14.08

2005 8.7 6.9 10.5 13.0 15.9 20.2 21.1 21.2 19.6 16.1 9.7 7.5 14.21

2006 6.6 6.3 8.2 12.5 16.5 21.0 25.6 19.9 20.9 16.3 11.5 8.8 14.52

2007 9.7 8.7 11.2 16.4 16.0 19.3 19.0 19.7 17.8 14.4 10.5 7.7 14.20

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetminm...8on_urbadj4.dat

1977 0.4 2.4 3.7 3.7 5.9 8.2 11.5 11.2 9.9 8.5 3.9 3.8 6.08

1978 0.8 0.2 3.2 3.0 7.0 9.6 11.0 11.3 10.5 8.3 5.5 1.4 5.98

1979 -3.5 -1.2 1.8 4.2 5.9 9.8 11.8 10.8 9.3 7.7 3.5 3.4 5.29

1980 -0.3 2.7 1.7 4.6 6.1 9.8 10.7 11.9 11.1 5.7 4.2 2.7 5.90

1981 2.2 -0.0 5.2 3.9 7.1 9.6 11.5 11.5 10.2 5.2 4.9 -2.7 5.72

1982 -0.3 1.9 2.4 4.2 6.5 11.4 12.0 11.7 9.7 6.9 5.4 1.5 6.10

1983 4.0 -1.0 3.2 2.9 6.6 10.2 14.0 12.1 10.4 7.0 4.9 2.8 6.44

1984 1.1 0.5 1.8 2.9 5.2 9.9 11.2 12.5 10.3 7.8 5.4 2.5 5.93

1985 -1.9 -1.0 1.0 4.6 6.9 8.5 12.0 11.1 10.6 7.6 1.1 3.9 5.37

1986 0.9 -3.4 1.3 2.2 7.1 10.0 11.9 10.0 6.6 7.4 4.6 3.4 5.17

1987 -1.5 0.3 1.0 6.0 5.8 9.1 12.0 11.6 9.6 6.2 4.2 3.3 5.63

1988 2.7 2.0 3.4 4.2 7.2 10.1 11.3 11.0 9.6 7.1 1.4 5.2 6.27

1989 3.3 2.6 3.7 2.9 7.6 9.2 13.1 11.6 10.6 8.4 2.9 2.4 6.52

1990 3.7 4.3 4.5 3.1 7.0 9.7 11.2 13.0 9.1 8.7 4.3 1.8 6.69

1991 0.5 -1.8 4.4 4.0 6.8 8.1 12.9 12.2 9.7 7.2 3.9 1.9 5.82

1992 1.2 2.1 4.4 4.9 8.2 10.6 12.2 11.4 9.8 4.7 4.3 0.8 6.22

1993 2.9 2.4 3.0 5.8 7.0 10.5 11.3 10.1 8.7 5.1 1.8 2.9 5.95

1994 2.6 0.4 4.6 4.3 6.8 10.1 12.8 11.8 9.4 6.6 7.7 3.4 6.70

1995 1.8 3.6 1.7 4.9 6.7 9.7 13.3 13.3 9.9 9.3 4.7 0.1 6.58

1996 2.7 -0.6 1.7 4.2 4.8 9.1 11.5 11.9 9.5 8.3 2.8 0.5 5.53

1997 -0.1 3.7 4.7 4.4 6.3 10.0 11.9 14.0 10.2 6.2 5.5 3.1 6.65

1998 2.4 3.8 4.6 4.1 8.2 10.5 11.7 11.2 11.2 7.6 3.2 2.4 6.75

1999 2.6 2.5 3.9 5.3 8.7 9.5 12.4 11.8 11.3 7.0 5.1 2.1 6.85

2000 1.9 3.0 4.3 3.8 7.6 10.8 11.2 12.0 11.0 7.1 4.1 3.7 6.70

2001 0.4 0.9 1.9 3.9 7.6 9.9 12.6 12.4 10.0 10.2 4.2 0.5 6.21

2002 2.4 3.9 3.6 4.5 7.8 10.2 11.6 12.8 9.9 6.4 5.8 3.8 6.88

2003 1.8 0.3 2.6 4.5 7.7 11.1 13.0 13.1 8.7 5.1 5.1 1.7 6.22

2004 2.5 2.6 2.8 5.3 7.5 10.9 11.4 13.4 11.0 7.4 5.3 2.6 6.89

2005 3.4 1.7 3.9 4.8 6.9 10.7 12.7 11.2 10.8 10.1 2.7 1.4 6.68

2006 2.1 1.1 1.6 4.6 8.1 10.7 13.9 12.2 12.8 9.8 4.7 4.2 7.12

2007 4.3 2.8 3.3 5.9 7.8 10.9 11.5 11.1 9.9 7.3 4.1 2.2 6.75

[noggin]

So, when whatever body says "it's been the hottest year ever/the 2nd hottest/3rd hottest/whatever", what figures do they actually use? Do they just use the "hot" temperatures on their own, or do they blend or balance them with the cold temperatures? Or does it vary, according to whichever body is doing the reporting?

It strikes me that there is quite a lot of room for manoeuvre (?sp) unless there is an absolutely rigid rule regarding how the temperature is to be calculated.

[Chris Knight]

So, when whatever body says "it's been the hottest year ever/the 2nd hottest/3rd hottest/whatever", what figures do they actually use? Do they just use the "hot" temperatures on their own, or do they blend or balance them with the cold temperatures? Or does it vary, according to whichever body is doing the reporting?

It strikes me that there is quite a lot of room for manoeuvre (?sp) unless there is an absolutely rigid rule regarding how the temperature is to be calculated.

There seem to be different recipes with slightly different ingredients, plus a few secret tricks of the trade to cooking the perfect temperature record - otherwise there would only be one version.

[noggin]

A bit like cooking the books, then! :o

[pottyprof]

Have removed the last 3 posts for obvious reasons if you were here at the time..

On with the show..

[noggin]

Have removed the last 3 posts for obvious reasons if you were here at the time..

On with the show..

I wondered what had happened!

Yes, I was rather startled by the first post. The second was very polite. I didn't see the third......perhaps it was just as well!

Just as an experiment, I shall google 2007 global temperature and see how many different figures I can come up with. Should be fun!

[noggin]

This is interesting, about calculating global temperatures;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70315101129.htm

I will carry on with my search.

PS Actually, this is taking longer than I had anticipated and I have to be off shortly, so I'll continue with it later!

Edited January 10, 2008 by noggin

[Chris Knight]

This is interesting, about calculating global temperatures;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70315101129.htm

I will carry on with my search.

PS Actually, this is taking longer than I had anticipated and I have to be off shortly, so I'll continue with it later! :lol:

Noggin, I have just posted two links to the Hadley and GISS methodologies in the peer reviewed section. I hope they are of use.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

La-Nina is supposed to fade in the spring. If we see it 'intensify/maintain' then I would very much suspect that my observations last year of a 'meltwater pulse' flowing out of the Ross Sea whose 'cold water upwelling' helped overthrow the then El-Nino were correct.

The break up of the El Nino pattern linkS exactly to the perturbation cycle TIMEWISE, it was forecast years ago by Landscheidt and it was spot on!?

BFTP

Edited January 11, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[noggin]

Noggin, I have just posted two links to the Hadley and GISS methodologies in the peer reviewed section. I hope they are of use.

Thank you, Sir. (Bet you haven't heard that one,before. )

Here is an article, re global temperatures for the past 7 years, with further links contained therein.

I don't know anymore if this is the right place to post it, but here goes....

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/

[Stratos Ferric]

This is interesting, about calculating global temperatures;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70315101129.htm

I will carry on with my search.

PS Actually, this is taking longer than I had anticipated and I have to be off shortly, so I'll continue with it later! B)

Noggin, there may be different views when comparing one set to another, but this is not unusual in assessment of anything massive. For instance, if one wnated to measure the state of the global economy thorough time there would be different bases used for assessment. The problem with repsect to temperature is that the earth is huge, and recording is recent across much of the surface, therefore establishing longitudinal (i.e. back through time) rigour (consistency and robustness of data) is hard.

What is more interesting is to take each data set as a view in its own right, and look at the trend in that data set in isolation, and then compare the trends. If all are trending the same way then variances in absolute "is now" is something of a mere bagatelle.

I do keep pointing out that irrespective of the issues with precise calibration and assessment, nature - which has unbending if undefined scale of its own - tends to send its won assessment of what's happening with respect to climate.

Thank you, Sir. (Bet you haven't heard that one,before. :lol: )

Here is an article, re global temperatures for the past 7 years, with further links contained therein.

I don't know anymore if this is the right place to post it, but here goes....

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/

To be honest the fit of the graph the article refers to looks pretty good to me. The individual temperature assessments rather neatly make my point (above): they are at different places on the temperature scale, but all behave pretty much the same i.e. they are trended upwards.

----

FOOTNOTE: anyone that can be bothered, folow the link to the article in NY Times and then read the comments below the article. An unusually measured and sensibel set of responses that a few on both sides of the AGW debate on here would do well to read and ponder.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Stratos Ferric