.JPG)
Temperature anomalies still raise questions of accuracy
This report from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was a bit tongue in cheek. It stated that La Nina, or a cool phase, in the Pacific Ocean was primarily responsible.
Pick your headline
The second line of the article tried to diminish the cooling by noting, "2008 was the ninth warmest year on record."
Depending on who tells this story, you can get a different spin on the results. Which of the following is more important?
- The temperatures show a distinct cooling trend
- The temperatures are still warmer than the average.
While GISS claims to have continuous records dating back to 1880, we must ask, "how accurate is that data?" President Grant commissioned the United States Weather Bureau, which wasn't fully organized as a civilian agency until 1891. Are we to assume that accurate data and records for the rest of the planet already existed? Besides, the GISS director is James Hansen. This is the same man who turned off the air conditioning in the Capitol while speaking about Global Warming on a hot day in 1988. I wrote about his exposure of bad data for Russia just this last October. He used September data (a statistically warmer month) in place of cooler October data. This skewed the temperatures upward. That is why I placed a question mark over Russia in the map above. Was that region even 2.5-3.5 degrees above normal?
The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes it cooler than all the previous years this decade.
The statement above came directly from the report, which raises another question: If we have continuous records back to 1880, then why don't we at least compare a 100 year mean (1880-1980)? Does it have anything to do with the hot decade of the 1930s? The year 1934 still ranks as the hottest on record in the United States.
United States records show more cooling
When looking at temperature records for just the Unites States, the National Climatic Data Center shows a comparison for temperatures dating back to 1895. .jpg)
A larger view of this chart is in the slide show below.
I have highlighted the top 4 years showing the grouping spread out by 60 years. I have also circled the drop last year to near the mean of all of the records. NCDC stated that last year was the first year near 'normal' since 1997. Why was it reported as 53rd and not 59th coolest? It should be more important that temperatures were near normal as opposed to 'looking' for an extreme.
This chart shows the spikes of hot years in the 1930s clearly, and well as the cool down in the 1960s and 1970s. An upward trend above the mean is seen since 1980, but with wide variation each year.
I was educated with the assumption that the United Sates had the most elaborate and reliably structured weather records. While the US is a small part of the planet as a whole, do our broad range of climate regions give a good sample of what is really happening? With 20-25% of carbon dioxide emissions, shouldn't we be on the front lines of direct impact before the spreading of this greenhouse gas around the globe? Then why the dramatic cooling?
The GISS report does mention the solar cycle minimum as part of the reason for the cooler temperatures. Is the sun's role in global warming and cooling finally getting some recognition? Hansen did predict another record high temperature for the planet in 2010.
Climate Satellite Failed Today
Ironically, NASA just launched a $273+ million mission this morning to study and map carbon dioxide. The Taurus XL rocket lifted off this morning from California and failed, crashing into ocean waters near Antarctica. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to help pinpoint the key locations on our planet's surface where the gas is being emitted and absorbed. Launch video and a full story can be seen on the BBC. Was this a waste of taxpayers money in an era of economic scrutiny?
Check out the images in the slide show, and please share your thoughts in the comments section. For the record, there was an editing/technical issue which was why this article was down for a few hours today. It was not a conspiracy take down, but thanks for the supporting emails.
Comments
Significant errors in this post.
1) 1934 was NOT the warmest year on record in the U.S. -- 1998 and 2006 are #1 and #2. 1934 was warm, but the third warmest year. Source: NOAA National Climatic Data Center.
2) The 1930s were NOT the warmest decade in the U.S. The last 10 years were warmer. NCDC states the last 9 5-yr periods, were the warmest 5-yr periods on record "demonstrating the anomalous warmth of the last decade" (NOAA, NCDC). By the way, if you add the "not so warm" 2008 to the mix -- you learn the last 10 five-yr periods are the 10 warmest five-yr periods on record. I've done the analysis.
3)2008 was not 53 or even 59th coolest year on record in the U.S., but rather the 39th warmest. Admittedly, not unusually warm, but still above average. Source NOAA NCDC.
4) I know you know that CO2 is a globally well-mixed greenhouse gas and the location it's emitted from has absolutely NO bearing on the spatial distribution of warming (it's the general circulation of the atmosphere that determines this as well as a range of atmosphere/ocean/cryosphere feedbacks). Irrespective of this flawed argument, the U.S. HAS in fact warmed more than the global average in the last several decades. The decadal warming trend in the U.S. is 0.58 degrees F/decade vs 0.29 degrees F/decade since 1979 (Source NOAA NCDC).
Yes, natural variations are probably playing a big role in temporarily slowing down the warming. But the long term trends in temps are unequivocally up, both in the U.S. and globally.
BTW, I have links to show NOAA NCDC's analysis for all of the above, but Examiner doesn't allow linking. Really strange.
Pro Climate Analyst- NASA checked it's records in 2007 and found mistakes. 1934 did BUMP 1998 out of that spot. Besides, 1998 was tied with 2005 with GLOBAL records.
Do a search for LA Times in Aug. 15th 2007 for that story online. I can't post links either here. But perhaps you should check your own accuracy before attacking me for not having your opinion.
I still ponder the accuracy of global readings when nearly 2 thousand weather stations alone were lost in Russia after the fal of the USSR.
I can site at least a handful of US data records that show a warm bias since moving to ASOS! That is only the ones that have been identified. I have had countless issues with BWI showing a warm bias compared to WxBug, and NWS has had to recalibrate. But the old/warm numbers are still in the books!
As for 2008 rankings, NCDC stated 53rd warmest in their report!
As for CO2- I know it's a Global Greenhouse gas, but I wonder if you point that out when CBS (and others) run stories in the hot summer directly relating heat and pollution. That is the fault of non scientific journalism that I try to point out with some levity here. Perhaps you don't get my sarcasm, but there are a lot of people who have lost patience with one sided reporting.
Did you see my post about the arctic sea ice this past weekend? Why was underestimated ice not a major national news story? Wouldn't that be good news? It's stuff like that, that has made a lot of people skeptics.
Justin- Fair point on the NASA dataset showing 1934 as the coldest year for the U.S. I thought you were referring to NOAA's analysis, which has 1934 as #3.
Maybe we should all talk about both rather than picking one over the other.
Pro Clim Analyst: I think you meant that 1934 was the HOTTEST year. But I like that you have 'cold' on your mind. Unfortunately there is a large flow of data that can get spun either way, and it is important to engage in intellectual dialogue. It should also be important to showcase that many scientists with high credentials are still not convinced that our current warm period was created by human action. It has been warm over the past 20+ years. I don't doubt that. I do doubt how warm with so many flaws with instruments and data sets. I also hold the basic concept of patterns that are cyclical and natural. Humans 'may' have given a 'little' push to a combination of outside forces that are truly responsible for these cycles.
I welcome all comments and constructive, open minded debates on this and all topics.
Perhaps we are heading toward another ice-age, and this is a natural process for our planet? I'm not saying "global warming" isn't caused by humans, perhaps its just being enhanced a bit by human practices.
And also, I DONT think that that rocket was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Anything that takes us up to space for information is for the better (if it doesn't work, try again!). We should be doing more of it. After all, when the sun burns out, we all need to be living on a different planet in order to survive:).
The waste of money was $273+ Million scattered on the ocean floor now. It was the first failure for Orbital Sciences They have had 56 successful launches in 57 attempts. I am an explorer by nature, and do believe in the need to study all of the sciences. But the matter of fact is that that money is lost. It does raise the debate question: If the science has decided, then why study it? Instead spend the money to fix it...if 'they' really know how.
As for the human part... I have never ever ignored a small 'push' by humans. However, methane is more important to the GW issue than carbon dioxide. It has a much larger heat capacity, and can be harnessed for other purposes.
J- You're right-- meant to say hottest.
Just remember back in the 70's, climatologist were talking about "The great cool down" and the possibility of going into a mini ice age. Just follow the research money and you will see why these climotologist are claiming global warming (it is all politics both on the government and university levels)
If the year 2008 was one of the coolest years on record for the planet, why then were there so many storms & hurricanes in that year? Seems very strange to me.
You may reply to my emmail: ladyyoung72@hotmail.com
Thank you
EVERYONE IS ENCOURAGED TO PAY ATTENTION TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WHEN THEY COME TO YOUR DOORS. DON'T ALLOW ANY BIAS INDIVIDUAL TO STOP YOU FROM LISTENING. CHECK FOR YOURSELVES WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TEACH & COMPARE IT WITH THE SCRIPTURES IN YOUR OWN COPY OF THE BIBLE (KING JAMES OR ANY OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATION). YOU ARE SURE TO FIND THAT THEY TEACH THE TRUTH FROM THE BIBLE
YES. I DO AGREE. PEOPLE NEED TO BE MATURE ENOUGH TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TEACH THE SCRIPTURES.ACTS 28:22. DON'T BE A PUPPET, ALLOWING OTHERS TO INFLUENCE YOU INTO REJECTING THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THEIR TEACHINGS AND FOUND THEM FAR MORE REASONABLE AND SCRIPTURAL THAN THE TEACHINGS OF ANY OTHER RELIGION. YES. LISTEN TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!