The UK’s CRU has updated its HadCRUT3v temperatures. Global average anomalies for November and December 2007 are now present but are provisional for a few months in case late data arrives.
No wonder newspaper reports haven’t mentioned it – November’s global temperature anomaly of 0.258 was the lowest since October 2000’s 0.201 and December 2007 was 0.221. The annual global average anomaly for 2007 is currently shown as 0.398, or the coolest since year 2000.
The annual average for the Southern Hemisphere in 2007 was the lowest since 1996. November and December temperatures were the coolest since 1992.
The annual average for the Northern Hemisphere remained at the 2002-2006 level. A very warm start to the year offset the cooling late in the year.
Global data at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt.
Other data available via
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
(under “HadCRUT3v” in table about 50% down the page).
John McLean
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
When facts start to contradict your dogma, invent yet to be discovered causations which will explain these unexpected results.
AGW was, is and remains pseudoscience.
Australia has just experienced its hottest January on record and its second hottest (unbounded) month on record.
The relative lack of warming in the CRU data is partly explained by the non-inclusion of the Arctic in that set, but I’m guess people already know that. That is why the US products are so much warmer in recent years (the include the Arctic). When a whole ocean averages near 4C warmer than average for a year it has a big impact on the global average.
John, go and study statistics and then come back and tell us why everything you imply is unfounded.
Or even just read some of the Hadley Centre publications, they compile the data and they come to different conclusions. Why do you think that is?
David, are you saying that just one month with abnormally high temperatures (caused, as you well know, by winds from the heart of the continent) is proof of global warming?
Mr T, you demonstrate once again that some people posting here confuse the reporting of data with expressing an interpretation.
You’re not Luke or SJT under another name are you?
John, the title gives it away.
It wasn’t just the reporting of an ‘interesting’ fact it was being used as a demonstration that Global Warming isn’t happening.
Yes we are all one. We are Legion.
🙂
Mr T, it seems that you are assuming that I wrote the title/headline.
You’re not doing very well with your assumptions today.
Fear not climate alarmists, I have another potential post which includes the arctic. Strange how a heat wave is proof of a future climate catastrophe, and so is non-warming. Political advocacy has replaced science. Shame!
If only we had some global warming:
Food warnings amid China freeze
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7219092.stm
China is struggling to cope with its worst snowfall in decades, with officials warning of future food shortages as winter crops are wrecked.
Err does a cold wave tell us anything either?
Nope – tell Gore about the 2003 european heat wave – debunked by Pielke Sr, confirmed by the ‘Stoat.’
So we’re all none the wiser then.
Paul “Political advocacy has replaced science.”
this is rubbish.
Try reading the science. I think you are mistaking media reports of the science for the science.
Don’t read the media, just read the science.
Ignore Al Gore, he’s not a scientist.
John, I didn’t think you wrote the headline, I assumed Paul did.
The issue in China is about snow. It’s not an ice sheet yet
Snap!
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Snow/
compare the above to this
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Snow/Europe/2007/SNWeurope331_MOL.jpg
>David, are you saying that just one month with abnormally high temperatures (caused, as you well know, by winds from the heart of the continent) is proof of global warming?
With 2005 the warmest year in a century I don’t think there is a meaningful debate about global warming. We have been here before haven’t we. Back in 2004 you told me Australia had stopped warming then we smashed all records in 2005. Now you tell me the globe has stopped warming because its 2 years since the last record.
This isn’t a science debate. You are hiding behind weather noise and datasets which don’t include the fastest warming parts of the planet.
Perhaps David you should take off the blinkers and have a look at the natural reasons that explain variations in temperature instead of pontificating about the temperature in a single month.
You seem to be the one who is hiding behind weather noise, such as that caused by wind – and I notice you said nothing about my statement about it being a major cause of January’s high temperatures.
Apart from wind, have you bothered to look at variations in cloud cover over the last 6 years?
Here’s a little data for you. http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/current_flux.shtml
Here’s some analysis from CSA director Ken Tapping.
Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the Sun’s magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun’s magnetic activity a “stethoscope on the Sun”. In this case, however, it is the “doctor” whose health is directly affected by the readings.
This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.
Tapping, who was originally from Kent, says that “Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still haven’t gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down.”
Here’s some of the results. http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2008/01/heres-something-you-dont-see-every-day.html
King Abdullah has declaired a cold weather state of emergency for the Kingdom. At least 10 people and hundreds of animals have died as a result of unprecedented cold weather. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=105752&d=17&m=1&y=2008&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
On the lighter side, The snow level is as 7000 feet on Maui, road closures were ordered. I presume they would have just issued chain restrictions for any other place, but them Hawaiians aren’t use to this sort of thing.
The poor astronomers on Mauna Loa are trapped for a day or so.
http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/30/news/story01.html
Unprecedented colding inspite of ever increasing co2 content of the atmosphere. How to explain it?
Maybe it’s this. http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/community/2008/anomnight.1.28.2008.gif
James, have a look here:
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/31/current-status-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-coverage/
I think we can say with some confidence that the Antarctic is currently cooling the globe.
Well John – given you’re the advocate here and a renowned Australian climate data analyst I would have presumed you would have done the analysis and not leave it up to David?
James I really do despair at your antics.
(1) who says it’s unprecedented? It’s not.
(2) does greenhouse suddenly stop all climate variation – nope
(3) should we expect cold snaps in the future – yep
(4) fascinating that you post something that hints the Sun is putting out less output – well if it is you’ll also get less greenhouse effect. CO2 doesn’t work alone – does it – or perhaps that’s a bit advanced for you
(5) your Gif picture shows a well developed La Nina – will cool things down like a well developed 1998 El Nino warmed things up. Parts of Australia under the La Nina cliud blanket have had mild temperatures – areas outside the influence have been very hot.
As David says above – more weather and short term variation being fudged in as climate change denial.
The la nina and el nino explain the weather perfectly well.
So who needs co2 warming? Especially when the operating principle for AGW requires a thermodynamic miracle, violations of entropy and what not.
It’s not like this is an isolated occurance. We had unprecedented cold in Africa and South America during the unseasonably cool summer last.
Luke, this is the game. You call me a liar, then you show another report from days gone by where Arabs froze to death. Up until you produce such a report, you’e just talking smack.
Has there been a drop in TSI?
Flying pig alert. Luke is ascribing weather effects to solar influence. I’ll be sure and log this.
Might become relevant in the future
Read the report yourself goofball “The coastal city of Jeddah is preparing for the coldest weather in recent years” – does it say “unprecedented”. No !
So keep fibbing – your nose will grow longer.
No – I didn’t say there was a drop in the TSI – I’m saying following the implication of your article hinted at that, so log away – you’re a “entropy” gonzo ! ROTFL.
And of course weather events are caused by solar influence. What’s wrong with that?
And James, don’t forget to list all the places that were record hot last year too including some records in Australia. And what about that “off the scale” Artic melt hey.
So you can play weather games if it makes you feel good. Means not much. It’s long term trends that are the issue not whether today is hot or cold. It’s trends over longer periods of time.
You really think greenhouse should remove all climate variation don’t you and we should see a straight line up – what a gimp !
And no actually – La Nina and EL Nino don’t explain all the weather. Don’t you know there are neutral years. And these neutral years might have droughts and floods.
But we do know that the frequency of EL Nino events have increased and the Southern Oscillation has also changed. Maybe it’s climate change hey James … “ooooo”. Come in spinner.
And are you so utterly thick that you’re still on about entropy. See medical attention quickly.
finding entropy – beyond wiki
See “Searching for Order in this World of Entropy”
“capitalism (n) – The best entropy machine ever conceived
As long as the monetary cost of energy remains low, it will always make financial sense to manufacture and pollute in the developing world then ship the produced goods to the developed world
Centralization and Greed Creates Excessive Entropy
Centralized production of food and goods entails large transport distances and highly concentrated demand for energy and resources
Why we live in a “World of Entropy”
Critics often claim that reducing the rate of entropy means reducing the rate at which the economy is running”
http://cbll.net/ci/slogan
Actually is interesting to see what climate models say about cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html
Here’s the point – maybe it doesn’t apply specificly to Luke – but for the most part the people who refute solar driven climate change say that there wasn’t a big enough change to explain the observed warming.
Now we have a snow covered Middle East, and suddenly a tiny variation in sunshine makes all the difference.
Luke, that’s my link you are quoting.
Couldn’t find your own example of frozen Arabs, could you? Like I said, unprecedented.
Man up, and say your sorry.
Of course there’s not a big enough solar change to cause the current warming. Are you crazy?
As for frozen Arabs – well most died from smoke and it’s not up to me to disprove it’s unprecedented – you’re making the claim with NO evidence. Zip ! It is the NH winter you know. Things can get old. Very weak attempt James. Read my link above and learn something for once.
I always thought this would happen.
…”As David says above – more weather and short term variation being fudged in as climate change denial.”
Hysterical believers have always hounded and carried on when sceptical scientists have used the word variation for what we see in our climate.
Now, a little bit of variation is ok eh?
But hang on…. tahts what sceptics have argued all along – variation.
I see a little bit of having our cake and eating it as well.
Aplogies
The quote was from Luke not David
Sheesh – variation is the wiggle and waggle on the long term trend.
Issue is when does a waggle become a trend?
AGW does not imply that all wiggles and waggles will be removed and all trends converted into straight lines.
AGW dos not imply that cold outbreaks will not occur in the future.
Double sheeesh!
Q: How rare is snow in these parts?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2249290,00.html
Trends 2007
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html#gsnow
This issue is how much much time you base your trend on. You can make most sets of data do what you want – how long is a bit of trend? Not 10, 20, 100 years…. Thousands even, when dealing with this issue. Variation as you called it – the wiggles etc – occur over all time sets. What time should we use when arguing AGW. You can only use a very short time set, making the data much less certain.
Mick: The bottom line is sea levels not snow falls.
What a weener. Not man enough to admit when you are wrong.
I expected as much.
So we have a solar variation from the sun spot cycle – just a tiny insignificant .05% or so in TSI – and that is good enough to cause widespread global cooling during the little ice age. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt
But an increase of the same size in the opposite direction, that doesn’t effect climate at all. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg
Well here’s the TSI for the last few years. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Raise your hand when you see the trend.
All I can see are frozen Arabs.
You’re getting worse James – entropy was your last brain-wave (or was that road wreck).
Admit you’re wrong the MONSTROUS whopper.
A single cold outbreak may or may not be a record – your proof is? Nothing. And in any case it’s the trend not events that are the issue.
So what’s your TSI trend worth in terms of forcing – don’t just show me a graph mate.
And if the effect of TSI is anything significant – well it will feed back into the greenhouse forcing as solar is what drives the CO2 too. CO2 does not work alone in the absence of a Sun. I don’t think you understand that.
And what happens when the TSI goes up again?
And where’s your Little ice Age TSI equivalent number? Solar was what compared to today?
Come up with some science James and not anecdotes.
James – introduction to bogus correlations 101
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/langswitch_lang/wp#more-433
And it even quotes arch-sceptic Lindzen !
So we have it from the BoM that we’ve had the hottest Jan. and one month-any period ever, all caused by “Global Warming”. How does David explain massive areas of the NH experiencing a bitter winter with countless all time low temps being set? Such areas including the middle east, Asia right down to southern Asia and Arabia, China, Canada, USA, many areas of Europe as well as Greenland and Iceland. By David’s very arguement, such events must mean that we are suffering from “Global Cooling”!
Sadly the BoM (along with the CSIRO) has very little credibility these days, being driven by AGW ideology to such an extent that one must regard with suspicion any data they produce to support their cause. Support from the Government, the IPCC, (which also lacks any credibility), and indeed the whole global warming industry, (aided by a compliant media), has emboldened the Bureau leaders to pursue their reckless course.
One hears that there are officers in the BoM who don’t support this slant on AGW, but are afraid to speak up. Indeed a climate of fear seems to exist in the Bureau.
Afraid to speak up – how about Bill Kininmonth – one of David’s predecessors – ROTFL Sid. You’re such a card.
Now who says they’re low records anyway – proof is what? You guys had been saying the Chinese temperature records were all crap were you not – so how would we know?
Now Sid we know by now that you love to guild the lily such as the infamous climate change non-quote incident. So just to make sure – where is the quote that says “the hottest Jan. and one month-any period ever, all caused by “Global Warming””.
Just for the record Sid.
Never trust a denialist you know.
Furthermore I suggest you BoM climate of fear suggestion is a pure fabrication. Got any evidence or just what “you heard”.
Luke, stop drinking so much coffee. And take your meds. Move away from the computer. Face your front door. Go through it. Get out into the real world and start experiencing reality. Live! Learn! Breathe!
Cheers…..theoldhogger
Well Luke , try reading the front page of the SMH, friday…. Its all there mate, .. what David from the BoM said.
And isn’t it amazing that by the 1st Feb. the BoM can come out with such a definitave report on January! Just shows what an activist role they are playing for the AGW Industry. Instead of being a non-partisan government agency which they are.
David continues to promote the fib that 2005 was the hottest ever, when NASA-GISS data show that it is clearly not.
Sid the NASA-GIS temperatures show that 2005 was by far the warmest year on record – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
So do the NOAA/NCDC analyses. It is only the CRU data which does not include the Arctic which differs, but this will change as CRU moves to include the Arctic as well in the coming year or two.
As for timing, the great majority of Australian stations report temperatures electronically so we have the monthly numbers collated within hours. January 2008’s numbers are so far ahead of the previous record that we could have called the record a few days before the end of the month – http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/tmean/01/aus/latestsort.txt
As for the NH I wouldn’t get too carried away. The storm track is simply south of normal meaning that the mid latitudes are cold but the high latitudes are very warm http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop/td20080123-7.gif
This is weather and happens every day. The world hasn’t seen a below average monthly temperature since Feb 1994 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat). You can be pretty sure that Jan 2008 won’t change this.
Well Sid – I reckon you’re a whinger – BoM put out reports on all manner of things continuously. Cold and hot. Wet and dry. What’s wrong with the SMH article exactly? Undisputedly Australia has warmed – if not where is your alternative analysis (like the your missing never produced rainfall analysis) – or do you only have yarns and anecdotes? – An analysis is not a few cherry picks BTW.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/into-the-fire-last-month-hottest-january-so-far/2008/01/31/1201714150490.html
So Sid would like BoM to be NON-scientific and use denialist science which is little better than divining chooks guts for a living. In Sid’s world David would say “Yes here at BoM we reject most of the world’s science opinions on an ongoing basis. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able enjoy my lifetime pass to the Lavoisier Society. We’re real mavericks – the IPCC hate us but hey being way out on a limb is so thrilling”.
It’s hilarious Sid that you now want to ACTUALLY use NASA-GISS, (which you guys have told me for years is no good,) to dispute David Jones high quality analyses. You guys are veritable climate sluts – you’ll go with anything if it suits you. Amazing !
So if 2005 was not the hottest – what was Sid – where’s your alternative analysis – put up or shut up and apologise.
As for hogswash – startling contribution mate. Major addition to the debate. Onya bike.
Sid – “Sadly the BoM (along with the CSIRO) has very little credibility these days, being driven by AGW ideology to such an extent that one must regard with suspicion any data they produce to support their cause.”
When I worked at Amberley in Brisbane I followed the State of Origin Rugby League. At that time there was great controversy about a certain referee and his supposed NSW bias. For some reason every time Queensland lost the Queenslanders (I come from NSW) in the section used to scream blue murder that the ref was biased. However I used to find it funny that when Queensland won there was never a problem with the ref.
You will see the analogy. You complain that the BoM must be biased because it reports warming. However the BoM is just reporting what the numbers are showing. The fact that this does not fit in with your pre conceived ideas must mean that the BoM is infiltrated with lefty global warmers.
Imagine if however the BoM was the only department that reported cooling – how would your opinion of them change then. I can see the posts “Heroic BoM bucks the warming trend and reports the real numbers” despite the fact that it would be the same BoM with the same staff.
“Sadly the BoM (along with the CSIRO) has very little credibility these days, being driven by AGW ideology to such an extent that one must regard with suspicion any data they produce to support their cause.”
Sid: Who do we believe?
“It’s not so much a few places breaking records by large margins. It’s nearly the whole country being one to two degrees warmer than average”
http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/january_2008_hottest_on_on_record_539432
Must ask Jennifer sometime to run a post on “What is Climate Change”
David is quick to say that NH temp. (cold)extremes are only weather, while claiming that Aust.Jan. (hot) records are the result of global warming. This is of course, one of the normal spins from AGW believers.
Well David, your claims and references regarding 2005, are not very convincing. Three worldwide data gatherers just don’t support the BoM’s claim.
1. The CRU,s temp. anomoly maps clearly show 1998 to be warmer then 2005 in Aust.
2. NOAA satalite data on lower trophosphere, also show the same result. Using this data the University of Alabama, Huntsville produced maps which clearly show 1998 to be hotter than 2005 over Aust.
3.Even Hansen’s NASA-GISS can’t match the BoM’s bias, showing an Aust. wide temp. anomoly of 0.5 to 1; or over the most intense areas, of 1 to 1.5. The Bureau claiming a figure of 1.5 to 2. Most of the intense areas are plotted from stations in more remote areas of the country, and being so sparsly spaced, greatly enlarge these extreme readings in area, making them to appear to cover a much larger area of the land mass then in fact they do. It is interesting that most of the more settled areas of the country did not experience these high records. These NASA-GISS graphs clearly show that in fact, 2005 was clearly not Australias’ hotest year.
http://www.warickhughes.com/cool/cool15.htm
Hee hee – oh Sid – you’re a great laugh. So we’re now definitively quoting CRU and NASA-GISS and Warwick Hughes site (a laugh in itself) – which this blog, yourself and denialists have discredited as evidence, that now another analysis is discredited. Unreal. Are there no lengths that denialists will go to.
Sid to make it worse – your Hughes site that would normally beat a tom-tom about heat islands has the whole article saturated with dicussion on capital cities. What sort of story are you trying to peddle us?
And who knows what the creationists are measuring with satellites.
So you would prefer that David use heat islands in major cities, sytrangely your fav for a quick cherry pick.
And do we have an analysis from yourself with some solid comparisons. Of course not. Because you’ve have to do some work including maths. But you’re sure everyone else is wrong but on the other hand you really haven’t checked.
What whinging and a really lazy swipe. When do you apologise.
OK Luke, take away the ‘heat island’ effect from these graphs and 2005 moves even further away from being Australia’s hottest year ever.
Sid – you have provided no alternative analysis (on a large number of stations) – just a few homespun anecdotes. You have turned yourself into a logic pretzel with this one I’m afraid.
Very very tedious and not science. The end.
BTW – you have some “proof” of a city heat island effect, and a heat island effect that has changed between 1998 and 2005 do you? Wow.
Luke, the graphs are from all round the country, and in the centre. They show that in no way was 2005 the hottest year on record.
Your rantings just can’t disprove the fact.
Game, Set and Match.
No Sid you’ve cherry picked capital cities and a very poor spatial coverage to boot.
The mainland state capitals are not in the high quality network for obvious reasons so they’re eliminated. So Alice Springs gives you a single terrestrial inland station. SINGLE = ONE !
When you have analysed the remaining 93 stations in BoM’s carefully picked high quality network then report back.
That’s NINETY-THREE.
Cherry picking is NOT science.
When will you give your libellous activist role away?
You haven’t even arrived on the tennis court yet.
Luke.
Given the historic lack of any real coverage and methology for weather tracking outside of the main population centers wouldnt you expect to see the most reliable records from those population centers?
Paul – there are indeed some very good records in rural locations, often maintained with pride and enthusiasm locally.
Also a number of city locations have moved over the years e.g. CBD locations to airports which may be closer or further from the coast, changing temperature readings.
There is also some concern about heat island effects in large cities so one would avoid them as much as possible. So the Bureau have put a lot of work into a reference network useful for climate change work that avoids these issues as much as possible. Here at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
If Sid is fair dinkum he could obtain these records and undertake his own comprehensive analysis rather than cherry pick anecdotes.
The above graphs I posted do take into account historic movements in the capital cities to new sitings such as airports etc. and in these cases there are multi graphs shown at that particular city. Its all there; nothing hidden…..And they all tell a similar story…. 2005 was not the hottest year on record…And Paul above asks a very important question on this matter.
So why does the BoM disregard their own quality data? Data that even Hansen’s NASA-GISS is prepared to use.
And the Bureau’s 93 carefully selected sites! Selected for what? Why wasn’t,say, Alice Springs included?
It is quite apparent that the BoM management is clearly committed to an activist role in support of the promotion of AGW. Are they exceeding their charter?
Could it be that the Bureau is selecting sites, and data, and discarding others, in a way to enhance the result they believe to be correct?
In view of the fact that the Bureau, a publicly funded agency, refuses to use its own long term and detailed data, which doesn’t support the case it is promoting, one can only deem it reasonable to ask these questions.
Especially so when three other International Agencies have presented data that doesn’t support the Bureau’s claim that 2005 was the hottest year in Aust.
Come off it Sid – your nose is growing so long now it’s damn embarrassing.
You have rubbished all data sets and now you want to be choosy do you – no hypocrisy here.
NINETY THREE omissions Sid-nay ! NINETY THREE !!
The stations have been selected a priori so don’t bung on they picked them to suit an argument. That’s as crooked as you can get.
You have no alternative analysis nor will you ever attempt one – you’re just some crackpot whinger with religious zeal. NINETY THREE omissions from Sid’s analysis – holey doley !!!!
What a disgraceful tawdry account. We’ll just add that to the list of Sid ripping yarns and cherry picks.
BTW what is this station that seems to be in the reference network – do you even do the most minimal amount of homework Sid?
ALICE SPRINGS AIRPORT 015590 94326
Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)
-23.7951 133.889 546
Somewhere called Alice Springs. WTF !