2009's Place In History

[sunny starry skies]

So we're into 2010, and 2009 ended with much debate about the influence of cold weather patterns on global climate, and much chat about the significance (or otherwise) of a run of cooler years following record maxes in either 1998 or 2005, depending on which dataset you favour. "It's getting colder," some cried "It's weather, not climate" cried others. So what's the state of things, climatically-speaking, at the end of 2009? [by that I mean how does 2009 fit with longer-term trends?]

Well, RealClimate has released a note by James Hansen and others giving the viewpoint from a GISS perspective.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

They rank 2009 as a statistical tie for second place in the all-time list, along with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, down to the 1-sigma level. Additionally, Hansen provides some discussion about the discrepancies between GISS and HADCRUT3. GISS fills in gaps in the observational network, mostly in polar regions, with modelled data. As the polar regions have shown the greatest warming anomalies, this means GISS tends to be adding warmer anomalies to the dataset, taking its mean above HADCRUT3. Remove the modelled bits and the two dataset are basically the same. He also talks about the size of possible errors in ther data. December 2009 came in as 4th warmest of all time, despite the cold anomalies that were argued about on here - the Figure 5 shows neatly cold anomalies over UK, Siberia and USA, but also the Arctic warmth and warm anomalies elsewhere. You can argue about baselines, but #4 on the all-time list means you can't call December "cold"!

Tamino (tamino.wordpress.com) has done some other neat analyses of the data. I rather like his running mean figures as they show up annual-scale anomalies that are not necessarily correlated with Jan-Dec. The monthly data tends to show oscillations about the overall rising trend rather than the more jagged switches of the annual series.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/hottest-year/

Some good talking points from Tamino's graphs are that we still seem to be on a rising limb of the monthly running mean as we head into 2010 - presumably El Nino-related - but indicative of a high start for 2010's temperature anomalies, as 2009 was a high finish? Secondly, 2009 came in as the hottest year on record for the Southern Hemisphere. Once again the running mean is on the upward limb, presumably relating to the release of heat from the southern oceans.

Any thoughts? Sorry I can't post figures, think it's firefox stopping me, will try and fix. But I'd recommend people to look at the original sources over my interpretation anyway!

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

It's very funny if you Google global temps 00 to 09 as all you'll get are reports on how Global temps are falling???

For any 'casual' observer this must be very confusing.

[Solar Cycles]

So we're into 2010, and 2009 ended with much debate about the influence of cold weather patterns on global climate, and much chat about the significance (or otherwise) of a run of cooler years following record maxes in either 1998 or 2005, depending on which dataset you favour. "It's getting colder," some cried "It's weather, not climate" cried others. So what's the state of things, climatically-speaking, at the end of 2009? [by that I mean how does 2009 fit with longer-term trends?]

Well, RealClimate has released a note by James Hansen and others giving the viewpoint from a GISS perspective.

http://www.realclima...-by-jim-hansen/

They rank 2009 as a statistical tie for second place in the all-time list, along with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, down to the 1-sigma level. Additionally, Hansen provides some discussion about the discrepancies between GISS and HADCRUT3. GISS fills in gaps in the observational network, mostly in polar regions, with modelled data. As the polar regions have shown the greatest warming anomalies, this means GISS tends to be adding warmer anomalies to the dataset, taking its mean above HADCRUT3. Remove the modelled bits and the two dataset are basically the same. He also talks about the size of possible errors in ther data. December 2009 came in as 4th warmest of all time, despite the cold anomalies that were argued about on here - the Figure 5 shows neatly cold anomalies over UK, Siberia and USA, but also the Arctic warmth and warm anomalies elsewhere. You can argue about baselines, but #4 on the all-time list means you can't call December "cold"!

Tamino (tamino.wordpress.com) has done some other neat analyses of the data. I rather like his running mean figures as they show up annual-scale anomalies that are not necessarily correlated with Jan-Dec. The monthly data tends to show oscillations about the overall rising trend rather than the more jagged switches of the annual series.

http://tamino.wordpr...9/hottest-year/

Some good talking points from Tamino's graphs are that we still seem to be on a rising limb of the monthly running mean as we head into 2010 - presumably El Nino-related - but indicative of a high start for 2010's temperature anomalies, as 2009 was a high finish? Secondly, 2009 came in as the hottest year on record for the Southern Hemisphere. Once again the running mean is on the upward limb, presumably relating to the release of heat from the southern oceans.

Any thoughts? Sorry I can't post figures, think it's firefox stopping me, will try and fix. But I'd recommend people to look at the original sources over my interpretation anyway!

sss

Real Climate, James Hansen, and GISS, now anything that those three have to say, I takes with a huge dose of salt. Real data, that hasn't been manipulated would be nice!

[BUSHY]

Read this http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html. It may make the anomaly chart more clear.

[Devonian]

Read this http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html. It may make the anomaly chart more clear.

Let me quote the article:

"Bla bla blatant corruption bla bla fraudulently bla bla sleight-of-hand bla bla [this next bit is breathtaking because the author clearly doesn't understand the difference between an anomaly and an absolute temperature!] Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle bla bla data fraud bla bla duplicitous zealots..."

So there we have it. A load of conspiracy theory and some 'science' from people who think that the globe isn't warming because it's cold up in the mountains

Really, it's a joke

Edited January 23, 2010 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

I must admit I don't trust GISS as far as HadCRUT3 or NCDC (the latter tends to agree strongly with HadCRUT3) mainly because GISS has often tweaked the data quite a bit. However the point about modelling more of the anomalously warm Arctic is a good one and would indeed account for a stronger apparent degree of global warming.

But even if you take HadCRUT3 or NCDC as the baseline, 2009 comes out in the top five of globally warmest years, and all of the last 10 years have been within the top 15 warmest. Perhaps the most remarkable year was 2005, which was in the top three warmest on all datasets (1st warmest on GISS and NCDC) despite no pronounced El Nino- unusual warmth at high northern latitudes was a key factor.

The real test, to my mind, is whether or not we get a clear record-breaking warm year when we next get a year featuring a strong El Nino, and 2010 should, at the very least, provide us with a lot of clues. If the statistics throw up a record warm year, or a similarly warm year to 1998 despite a weaker El Nino, it will be safe to say that the underlying trend is still upward.

[Gray-Wolf]

I must admit I don't trust GISS as far as HadCRUT3 or NCDC (the latter tends to agree strongly with HadCRUT3) mainly because GISS has often tweaked the data quite a bit. However the point about modelling more of the anomalously warm Arctic is a good one and would indeed account for a stronger apparent degree of global warming.

But even if you take HadCRUT3 or NCDC as the baseline, 2009 comes out in the top five of globally warmest years, and all of the last 10 years have been within the top 15 warmest. Perhaps the most remarkable year was 2005, which was in the top three warmest on all datasets (1st warmest on GISS and NCDC) despite no pronounced El Nino- unusual warmth at high northern latitudes was a key factor.

The real test, to my mind, is whether or not we get a clear record-breaking warm year when we next get a year featuring a strong El Nino, and 2010 should, at the very least, provide us with a lot of clues. If the statistics throw up a record warm year, or a similarly warm year to 1998 despite a weaker El Nino, it will be safe to say that the underlying trend is still upward.

I'd agree with the 2010 take TWS, it should prove 'informative ' in the least!.

We have all had to hear of the temp plateau/cool down through the noughties and now the data is in the usual folk are not happy with it (where is the alternative to be found?).

The Arctic (unlike the ozone blighted Antarctic) was always heralded as the place where AGW would be most profoundly felt and so is now to be excluded from the data because it is generated by Sat. temps and not ground stations????

I'm sure that there are plenty of Alaskan/Siberian ground stations that would support the data we gain( and correlates the Sat. data as being trustworthy) from the sat.s and surely ,if we see a large positive anom there, it will skew the rest of the globes temps?

I find it akin to saying we'll only accept the temps that support our position (be it weather or climate) and refute all else. It does not make for a solid data base now does it?

Nobody wants what we are told is occurring (only a fool who thinks it's good for plants) but it is (as proven) occurring.

[sunny starry skies]

Real Climate, James Hansen, and GISS, now anything that those three have to say, I takes with a huge dose of salt. Real data, that hasn't been manipulated would be nice!

I had a feeling someone would say that. What index would you prefer? So far as I know, all the global-scale indices, whether from satellite or from ground-based meteorological stations show a warming trend.

e.g.: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/ Has data from several indices, including the upward trend in the deniers favourite - UAH.

Real data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

Care to demonstrate how the data has been manipulated so as to mistrepresent reality?

sss

[Bobby]

The last decade was the warmest decade ever so the idea we have been cooling since 1998 is misleading non-starter. We've been at a very low solar minimum lately as well, I expect as the Sun really gets going again over the next few years we'll get some very warm years and a very warm decade... highly likely the warmest decade ever I would think.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Barb-

[Gray-Wolf]

Well MetO, et al, did warn us that we may have a slow down as natural cycles planted their imprints on global temps for a few years (probs just the -ve PDO phase) before them kicking off big stylee after 2015ish.

If the last decade was their 'cooldown' then I do dread the proper warming that we have to come once 'natural variablity' starts to favour warming......