Several people have emailed me a piece from the Washington post titled World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005 by Juliet Eilperin. The piece was published a couple of weeks ago (October 13, 2005) and evidently impressed many. It begins:
New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures.
Climatologists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998’s record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.
———————-
UPDATE MARCH 17, 2008
The year 2005 did not end up being particularly hot – 1998 is still the hottest year by far. Here is an updated temperature graph from the best available satellite data from January 1990 to February 2008:
from http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
So carbon dioxide levels are increasing, but not temperature? Why? You can read about Roy Spencer’s findings from NASA’s Aqua Satellite at my blog post of March 2008 ‘Global Warming for Dummies (Part 2)’.
And directly from Roy Spencer at www.weatherquestions.com.
[end of update]
——————————–
The piece published October 13, 2005, ends with this graph that doesn’t actually show any temperature data for 2005. Furthermore, it shows that 1998, rather than last year, is the hottest year on record.
(SOURCE: National Center for Atmospheric Research | *30-year period: 1961-1990)
Anyway, I thought I would do my own quick check this afternoon. I looked up the temperature records at the USA’s National Climatic Centre.
I found some values for the land and sea for 2005 and 1998 and plotted them. This is what the plots look like:
and
Looks to me like it might be anyone’s guess whether 2005 ends up hotter than 1998.
What I am prepared to bet on, is that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will be higher at the end of this year than they were at the end of 1998, View image (from Wikipedia).
……….
Update: 28th October, 10.40 am, added the ‘source’ reference under the first graph from the link as requested in a comment from David.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer – I think that is a sure bet.
1998 was a significant El Nino year – will make it warmer. You have to factor that in. 2005 was neutral (neither El Nino nor La Nina)
Jen,
Thanks for the two graphs, just what I was looking for.
Your first graph is a temperature anomaly graph, recognised by the fact that the Y axis is scaled from -0.6 to +0.6 Deg C.
Temperature anomalies are computed by computing the difference of a particular year’s mean temperature from the moving average based on a longer time period.
Displaying temperature in this format removes all the long term trends, and merely shows how temperature fluctuates around the longer trends.
It cannot show warming or cooling, merely variation around the mean trend which has been removed from the dataset.
Graph one is, if it purports to show global temperature trends, a fraud.
what utter drivel
Loius – 140 years seem to be pretty long term to me. How about you substantiate your claims with numbers.
BTW there are some pretty honest scientists that you are calling fraudulent here – maybe it is time you reached for your lawyers.
Noun: fraud
1. Intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
2. A person who makes deceitful pretences
3. Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
It’s drivel as it doesn’t use moving averages – just the 1961-1990 reference period which 30 seconds of source checking would have revealed. But why check source when you can rave on.
Graph 1 could just as easily show recovery from the Little Ice Age. If it went back a bit further it might give a different impression.
Anyway, there’s no point in arguing all this as the Federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, has declared the debate over. “-Australia must take urgent action to avoid environmental disaster.”
Good grief.
I’ve just read Louis’ explanation of the temperature anomaly graph and it seems perfectly clear and easy to understand. The temperature anomaly graph gives variations from an average value, in this case a moving average, without giving any information as to the trend of that average, whether rising or falling.
And the point about the later parts of the graph requiring “invented” data is also quite simple to understand.
So graph 1 could just as easily be a declining temperature with a flattening of the rate of decline towards the end, or a rising temperature with an increase in the rate of rise at the end.
Is there any readily available information on actual temperatures? It seems important.
Paul – what would be the drivers behind that ?
Who says it’s a moving average ??? check the source.
The temps are measured against a reference period of 30 years, not a moving average.
This is a silly discussion. This graph is extremely well known, and the rising temperature trend is common knowledge.
Phil/Ender. I sympathise. It took me almost 2 years to learn that it is best to just ignore Louis and let his posts speak for themselves. Stop taking the bait.
Paul – If you look at this page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/ you will see on the left the temperature data in 2 forms. One is the annual mean ie: the temperatures anomoly is compared to the mean temperature for that year. You will notice that it goes up and down as you would expect however the overall trend is clearly up. The other is the 5 year mean which smooths out the peaks and troughs to reveal the underlying trend. If you use a 30 year mean then this simply smooths the graph more. A 30 year mean is simply the standard most climatogists use.
Read this post and the discussion if you want to learn about some of the pro and cons.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=108#more-108
Paul,
if you look closely at the graph you will find that from 1860 to 1940 ALL the yearly means are below the 30 year mean. This is a range of 80 years.
It is totally impossible for all yearly means from 1860 to 1940 to be less than an aggregate mean computed from them, because 50% of the data must be greater than and 50% less than the computed mean.
To add insult to injury, just as the 30 average mean can only have an upper limit of 1989, (2004-15) but the lower end has to start from 1875, so the 30 global mean computed for 1860 includes fictious values for the years 1845 to 1860.
As I said elsewhere the graph is a sham.
Ender – Thanks for the reference. According to the Washington Post article, it looks as if they have taken the 30 year mean for 1961 – 1990, and plotted the variation in the yearly mean versus the 30 year mean. That seems different to what Louis had at his website, but I may have misunderstood. However, in the discussion at realclimate, they did talk of a 30 year moving average, which would make 1990 the last year that could be plotted (using that method).
What does the temperature trend mean, though. If the climate has been both warmer and colder in the past, and we’re 18,000 years out from the last ice age, surely 150 years or so isn’t enough to establish any meaningful trend?
Louis – Sorry, I missed your post while writing the one above. I think the graph above plots the variation of the yearly mean from the 1961 – 1990 30 year mean, rather than using a 30 year moving average. I’m not sure why that period was chosen, but I suppose it is irrelevant for the purpose of showing a rising temperature trend.
While I’m on a typing roll, the Goddard Institute graph referenced by Ender shows a temperature uptrend from 1910 – 1945, a level trend from 1945 – 1975, then a further uptrend to the present. At the same time, Jennifer’s CO2 reference shows a constant uptrend in CO2 levels. So CO2 is not the only factor involved, if at all.
Louis – keep going – its fascinating to watch … how long someone is prepared to go on without checking any source facts.
Thanks for advice Steve !
Paul – the 30 years is “recent climatology”. If you add the mean back on – you’d get the actual values – doesn’t affect the message. And CO2 isn’t the only factor involved for sure. But modelling of the issue with combined forcings does represent the curve quite well (solar, volcanic and greenhouse).
Huh?
If mean is not synonymous with moving average then what is it?
No Rog – go to Wiki – look up moving average. Then check out source of graph.
Anyway the 5 year and 30 year means are there simply to smooth out the peaks and troughs to reveal the underlying trend. Even with out the smoothing it is very obvious that the trend is upward.
Also there is more than just CO2. However as the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising it is becoming the more dominant forcing.
Note here NO-ONE has disputed the CO2 record as it is a instrument measurement. Also NO-ONE, except Louis, does not acknowledge that CO2 is a selective absorber of long wave radiation. We are seeing here clearly the result of the extra CO2 trapping more heat showing in higher average temperatures.
Where is the greenie religion here????
BTW does anyone know what qualifications Warwick Hughes has?
Guys – are we not looking at the annual average global temperatures from 1859 to 2004 minus the 1961 to 1990 mean temperature. No moving averages – although other represntations may have smoothed the temperature signal.
The individual years will be a combination of solar, volcanic, greenhouse and other forcings. El Nino years will be warmer. 2005 may likely be the warmest. Although one particular year of even a few years don’t amount to much. Most of the warmest years on record have been in the last 15 years.
The line is unambiguously up. This is supported by satellite measurements of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere. Also supported by worldwide glacial melt of most (but not all glaciers, movement of the Larsen ice shelf, diminishing Artic ice, speeding up Greenland glaciers, increased snowpack in upper and central Greenland. Species are moving and behaving differnetly as a result. Also supported by warming oceans and sea level from expanding warmer water.
In Australia there is a clear warming – especially in inland areas. Rainfall intensity has changed. Rainfall patterns across Australia have significant trends.
Other interesting sidelines are higher intensity hurricanes in all ocean basins, diminishing North Atlantic salinity, and the phenomenon of global dimming (reduction in radiation) whilst the temperature continues to rise.
Modelling of the basic warming trend is achieved by the models. A variety of models confirm the ocean warming (Barnett). Physical measurments of the increase in greenhouse flux have been made in Switzerland.
The radiation absorbing properties of water vapour, CO2, methane, NOx, CFCs and other gases (but not N2 and O2) are well known. Despite water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas it is too simplistic to go by percentage – CO2 is more like 9-26% of the greenhouse forcing.
It is likely that atmospheric CO2 is higher than in 650,000 years. Mann has not been dented despite a major persistent assault – alternative published reconstructions have verified the original paper’s broad findings of the current warming being exceptional.
This is a body of evidence – the fact that planet is warming is supported by an extensive worldwide variety of observations. The effect of carbon dioxide being a major player is the result of our best published science.
What else is there…?
Paul,
Point taken, so why is the graph labelled as such ? Labelled rather prominently too I might add.
I have noticed in other blogs that things tend to be referenced to a 1961 etc period.
Why not just publish the measured global mean temperature, however computed, over time?
This problem happens often in mineral exploration when statistically naive students approach a problem with a preconceived idea.
If the raw data show no cooling or warming, but you “know” that there is, then you will, probably, move heaven and earth to “prove” your hypothesis.
A moving average is explicitly defined, and as an average it must lie in between the max and min values of the data it is computed from.
Now your point, raised by Done et al, that everything was referenced to a specific range of data , 1961 to 1990, then that immediately raises questions which I won’t elaborate on here.
I am, as I am sure many are, perplexed by climate scientists need to refer to historical temperature measurements to a 1961-1990 period. Why not just publish the measured, incomplete as it often is, global mean temperature?
I suspect they don’t, because as we know in mining, reporting facts produces unwanted problems.
Louis – it’s VERY simple. You were wrong. And you don’t check sources. The graph was not the original was it !!!!!!! And all the data is there if you want it – so go get it ! Put that Mac to some use !
The problem
I am going to spend alot of time this weekend to crunch some hypothetical data to satisfy Phil Done with some numeric backup.
I might add that when I studied for my MSc, basically geostatistics, at WMC’s Kambalda operations, one very important task was to work out what the then, novel, ore reserve statistical method, based on Blais and Carlier, and Matheron, meant pratically,
Many hours of computing time on the Cyber 76 at WMC’s Belmont facility finally produced an answer.
We could not work out how Blais and Carlier produced their published graph, now universally known as the Variogram.
I do.
And I recognise the same statistically naive assumptions made in climate science.
Hey Phil, great advice (go to Wiki), the absolute in mumbo jumbo, try it yourself.
Then try this – moving average: a technical term meaning the average over a specified time period
Don’t bore us with lectures on kriging and nugget size ! Tell us about Laplacian splines instead.
Phil,
Laplacian Splines?
La Place noted, from memory, that when considering a 2 body mechanical system, fact fitted theory.
When a third body was introduced to the 2 body system, theory no longer could explain fact.
People,
Just post a link to raw temperature archived data? So we can indepently comment?
Rog – an average or arithmetic mean means add up the numbers in the interval e.g. 1961-1990 and divide by 30… what most people would think an average is. (incidentally not used a lot with rainfall – median more used – the middle of the distribution – 50th percentile – in Australia average rainfall is a lot higher than the median generally and is misleading).
A moving average keeps moving through the years with a 5 year window (or whatever size window you want) calculating a new mean as you go each time you move the window. And you’ll end up with less to graph because of the ends. You use or misuse them for smoothing data and making trends clearer …
http://www.investopedia.com/university/movingaverage/default.asp
Louis – being an aficionado on anti-AGW, a mate of Warwick’s, an erudite scientist of renown – surely you would have personally checked this out many moons ago ?
Phil, give it up you are wasting your time with Louis.
I mean, look at this whole thread. Arguing over a temperature trend that is extremely well known and understood.
Now Louis is asking you to produce a link to actual temperature data as though this is somehow not readily available.
I am at a loss to wonder why Loius would think that career climate scientists would be naive about statistics – or rather more naive that himself.
I agree about feeding trolls. In the year or so I have posted to this blog Louis is still spouting the same un-referenced psuedo science as when I started.
Steve – you are of course correct. We have been most foolish to argue.
Incredibly Louis has now published “The Sham” story on his web site and has not retracted it.
You have to analyse the motives of this:
– readers who accept his discussion at face value are being misled
– given the line of argument persists when clearly wrong – has he simply misunderstood the data being presented and not listened – or if one persists it seems political to me –
This is not scientific discussion nor reasonable jousting in debate. It’s straight out shrill anti-AGW campaigning at an “any means justifies the end” level. Indicative again is the totally uncritical list of ant-AGW rants at http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/lav-papers.html – it’s just about everything including the kitchen sink and fish and chip wrapping. A totally uncritical list. Just anything will do.
In my obviously biased opinion – it stands in contrast to the alternative style of argument – for example http://www.realclimate.org which at least advances a line of argument on a topic with references – then allows critical followup comment.
The reason this blog exists I understand is to debate whether evidence based science is being used to guide the politics of environmental debate (Editor/moderator’s opinion pls ??.
The topic we’re debating is the science of climate change in a percentage of the posts. It’s fascinating how the argument quickly runs from “if we concede AGW – then these commie greenie-perverts will destroy the national economy, ruin the world and stop life as we know it – and force us to walk around in sack cloth chanting Hare Krisna tunes”.
The link is without foundation. And a good many serious scientists’ work is pilloried and mocked with essentially sophistic arguments.
What to do about climate change is a very difficult issue. I think the scientists and greenies have been singularly unsuccessful in getting most governments to take the issue seriously.
We continue on the current course with some considerable risk. Over 6 billion people now on Earth – all exposed to risk everytime the climate turns sour.
It’s up to us. But let’s at least understand the basics of what we’re dealing with – at least a fair representation of the facts. And not a whole sophistic contrivance of specious argument.
It is inappopriate to use a running or moving average as the running average contains the signal you are trying to represent. The WMO has recommended the use of a 1961-90 standard for climatological purposes to allow standardisation across the world and this is what the graph uses. I notice the figure has a footnote indicated by a “*” which is not provided… prehaps this would be worth adding Jen?
I am gob smacked that pure nonesense is being promoted as evidence of a global conspiracy.
BTW Jen I would not attach yourself to closely to arguments about whether this year is the warmest or second warmest because:
1) there is emerging evidence that we have a slight cold bias in global temperatures over the past 5 years due to the increasing use of ocean buoys. When this bias is taken into account, 2002 appears warmer than 1998, and 2005 will be warmer again.
2) on current warming projections, by 2008 at least every second year will be warmer than the current record holder (1998).
3) 1998 was helped along by the El Nino of the century which contributed about 0.2C to the warmth that year. That we are now in danger of exceeding this record without an El Nino which is… interesting, and consistent with the background warming trend of 0.2C/decade we are now experiencing.
David
I suggest that these discussion would improve if we concentrated on evidence and extra sources of imformation like the last post. The discussion of contributers’ character get booring after a while.
David’s point about ocean buoy’s seems pretty important-thanks
d – you are correct of course. The ocean buoy point is valid and we always need more information. Only more data will clarify the position either for or against. This is exactly what makes AGW a science rather than the religion that anti-AGW people always resort to calling it when they are faced with their own lack of data.
Climate scientists ALWAYS want more data. Also there is not much that I would not give for all of them to be wrong. Global Warming is not something that anyone wants to he right about. Unfortunately the science facts are there and seem at this point in time to be correct. Time will tell if we are interpreting Nature correctly.
The subject of this thread is/was average global temperature trends, what has it do do with religion Ender + Done?
Another mean graph;
http://www.csiro.au/images/featureArticles/AustralianTemperatureTrends.gif
rog – because here and at other blogs belief in AGW has been compared to religious beliefs.
Rog – nice graph – illustrating the use of a 5 year moving average smoothing the trend too (notice how the red line stops before the end of the data – correct as a moving average) – was there anything else to it you were implying ?
Yep – nothing to do with religion – it’s either right or not.
Late comment from Mark, sent 10.30 am on Thursday 27th:
Hi Jennifer
I tried to post the following comment on your posting “Global Warming for Dummies”, but got an error:
Calm down people.
If the temperature anomalies in Jennifer’s land and sea temp graphs are relative to a moving reference value, then they aren’t really relevant to the question of whether 2005 will be hotter than 1998. If, as seems more likely, they are relative to a fixed reference, then they suggest 2005 will be marginally cooler than 1998.
The GISS people presumably wouldn’t stick their necks out without reason, so perhaps they are using slightly different data from that collated at NCDC.
Either way, it looks like 2005 will turn out to be a very warm year, like 1998.
Some skeptics say the data show the world has been cooling since 1998. To most of us, there is a rising trend with spikes above and below (eg 1998 warm and 2000 cool). No single year will settle this question, but it looks to me that the rising trend is still there.
Why not use a 100 year MA?
*I think the scientists and greenies have been singularly unsuccessful in getting most governments to take the issue seriously*
To what do you attribute this failure Phil?
Disbelief that going about our daily lives would be detrimental.
Cognitive dissonance
It’s complex – people don’t like complex
Might cost big bucks
Successful sceptics FUD campaign
Next generation problem
Not in my 3-4 year administration please
As Bernard Wooley of Yes Minister fame would have reacted
“Gosh”
all will be posted this weekend on my blog site. Unlike my critics, I have a full time job, so limited time to divert to intensive studies.
The greenies and scientists failure is not of their doing Phil – what happened to accountability?
So you’re now saying that greenies and scientists are “guilty” of why governments have done little on climate change (except spend vast amounts of time in gab-fests) ??
The scientist have spend 1000s of person-hours – much in their own time – communicating climate change and the public and government have generally shrugged (or tittered)…
And it’s difficult – if you’re too dogmatic or enthusiatic – you’ll be labelled as evangelical.
And if this thread shows anything one can spend vast amounts of time debating sheer mathematical nonsense. For all the explanation Louis still has the Sham file on his web site. He has not even accepted that he is mathematically in error (this is not debatable about what the graph means climatically) – he simply has the wrong end of the data stick. It’s maddening…. and we are led to believe in real life he is a somewhat useful geologist.
Rog the reason why a 100 year average is not used is because many stations have been open for 100 years. International comparison and consistency on climate works best if you pick a recent and not too long bench mark… hence 1961-1990.
BTW its not hard to see why the science has not been taken too seriously by many given the unscientific dribble that is popularised in papers like the Australian yesterday (does JCU actually have a Department of Paleoclimatology???). Funny the article failed to mention that the end Permian event (which had extremely high CO2 levels) also witnessed the greatest mass extinction in the fossil record. Perhaps it was good for plants, but animals took a beating… And that this year is kneck and kneck with 1998, or that 2002 was probably warmer than 1998, or that the linear trend since 1998 is actually up, or that the Vostok ice cores does not support imaginary extremely warm periods, or that the economic attacks on the IPCC failed to understand the compensatory effect of MER versus PPP and energy efficiency convergence….
To tell the truth, I suspect the tug of war over the public hearts and minds is irrelevant. The issue of product liability is much more important…
David
I see, the greens lack of success has been successful….do greens measure success by their failures?
At least Ender can maintain an a-political stance;
*Louis – there is absolutely nothing in the Global Warming debate that is a political play.
Only the Global Warming Skeptics can claim that one with their pathetic attempts to scuttle sound science in the name of Corporate profits.*
Rog – a 100 year MA would be really useful. One datum point would be a lot less to argue about – no trends…
Hmm.
Phil Dome must be a PS.
The problem is that I cannot access the raw data.
This is why Warwick Hughes and I are so critical.
Here is an interesting link that punctures one of Louis’s pet theories of oil.
http://www.geotimes.org/current/feature_abiogenicoil.html
I only post it here as Louis’s website does not allow comments or dissent. It goes to Loius’s credentials to participate in this thread. Perhaps Louis would rather open his blog to comments like everybody else.
BTW I found the raw data – perhaps you and Warwick should look harder
Message from Ender:
Can you post this link for Loius at the end of the Global Warming for Dummies post.
Loius this is the site for raw data.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datter
Your [Jennifer’s] site keeps rejecting it due to inappropriate content.
Thanks Jen,
but the data are not raw – essentially temp anomalies.
Warwick and I are looking for Mean Temperatures, not Temp. anomalies.
Thanks Jen
These data are known, they are temp anomalies and absolute data for the reference period,
Thanks Ender, your efforts are much appreciated
Loius – yes I saw that when I looked a bit harder at the data – sorry.
I think that some of the data is available but at a cost. I know that you can request from the BOM data for the cost of retrieval. Some climate data I requested cost $60.00 and was calculated on the time taken for the operator to extract the requested data.
The bottom line is humans are pumping crap into the atmosphere in greater quantities than ever before. We are also cutting down forest at faster rates than ever before. Don’t tell me this is some natural cycle. If it is, then I suppose death of most life forms here on planet earth (including humanoids) is an integral part of the cycle. Why don’t we all quit nagging over whether the greenhouse effect is genuine, and follow three simple steps for a more sustainable future; REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.
i dont like u
You People Act Like you are five
saying stuff like “I don’t like yuo”
But i am not here to make judgments
I am Doing a school power point on
“Golbal Warming”
Do any of you know any good websights or have very accurate informaniton?
I would be very grate full
My e-mail is
Shalie_is_rich@yahoo.com
Or
original_tear_drop@yahoo.com
I DONT GET IT?????????????????????
can you send me how to stop golbal warming, explain.bye thank you.mad people
how do you stop globAL WARMING??
Thanks Jennifer! I am sickened at the arrogance of the anthropogenic GW “scientists”. Not one can refute my basic objection, that being geologic proxies (relating CO2 conc. to temperature) are assumed to be evolutionary static. There are VERY FEW organisms that do not adapt/evolve to a changing niche.
Yes, that is a problem for all. But it poses much less of a problem for Intelligent Design than for the anthro. GW pharisees.