Globe cools slightly in December 2010: 11th - 17th warmest on record
December 2010 was the globe's 17th warmest December on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2010 the 11th warmest December on record. December 2010 global ocean temperatures were the 10th warmest on record, and land temperatures were the 30th warmest on record. Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were the 7th warmest on record, according to both Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The global cool-down from November, which was the warmest November on record for the globe, was due in large part to the on-going moderate strength La Niña episode in the Eastern Pacific. The large amount of cold water that upwells to the surface during a La Niña typically causes a substantial cool-down in global temperatures. Still, December 2010 temperatures were warm enough to make 2010 tied with 2005 as Earth's warmest year in history, as I reported in yesterday's post.
For those interested, NCDC has a page of notable weather highlights from December 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for December 2010. Eastern Canada and Greenland were very warm, relative to average, and much of Siberia and Europe were abnormally cold. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
An average December for the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., December was near-average in temperature, ranking as the 44th coldest December in the 116-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The year 2010 was the 23rd warmest on record. A strong "Arctic Oscillation" pattern allowed cold air to spill southward over the Southeast U.S., resulting in the coldest December on record in Florida and Georgia. Nine other states in the Southeast U.S. had top-ten coldest Decembers. Five states in the Southwest U.S. had top-ten warmest Decembers. A series of major snowstorms brought the 7th-largest December snow cover to the U.S. as a whole. December 2010 precipitation in the contiguous U.S. was also near average, ranking 54th driest in the 116-year record. Montana and Utah had their wettest Decembers on record, and six other states had top-ten wettest Decembers--Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Maine, and California. Six states had top-ten driest Decembers--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, and Delaware.
La Niña in the "moderate" to "strong" category
The equatorial Eastern Pacific Ocean is currently experiencing moderate to strong La Niña conditions. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) over the tropical Eastern Pacific in the area 5°N - 5°S, 120°W - 170°W, also called the "Niña 3.4 region", were 1.5°C below average as of January 10, according to NOAA. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology put this number at 1.45°C below average (as of January 9.) Moderate La Niña conditions are defined as occurring when this number is 1.0°C - 1.5°C below average. Temperatures colder than 1.5°C below average qualify as strong La Niña conditions. NOAA is maintaining its La Niña advisory, and expects La Niña conditions to last through through spring.
Both El Niño and La Niña events have major impacts on regional and global weather patterns. La Niña typically causes warm, dry winters over the southern portion of the U.S., with cooler and wetter than average conditions over the Pacific Northwest. The Ohio and Mississippi Valleys states typically have wetter winters than usual during La Niña events.
December 2010 Arctic sea ice extent lowest on record
Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent in December 2010 was the lowest in the 31-year satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ice volume in December was also the lowest on record for this time of year, according to University of Washington Polar Ice Center. At the end of December, the eastern portion of Canada's Hudson Bay remained unfrozen, the first time in recorded history that Hudson Bay has not been completely frozen over at the end of the year. The unusual amount of open water led to temperatures that averaged 20°C (36°F) above normal over a region larger than Texas during the first ten days of January.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index
The Arctic regions are warming as the cold Arctic air was sent into the Eastern USA last month.
Compliments of La Nina :O)!! Welcome to World Climate 101!!!
A) Count the red dots.
B) Count the blue dots.
C) Repeat steps A & B for every month of 2010.
D) Repeat steps A, B, & C for every year of the decade.
E) Repeat steps A, B, C, & D for every decade of the past five or six.
F) Come back here and ask that again.
hahahahahahahahaha!
:)
The rise in temperature globally is about 0.6 °C
If some areas show a rise of 5 °C, it is obvious that some other areas have to go down in order to end up with an average of 0.6
Of course, this might be too much mathematics for somebody out of the US secondary school system
"These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. "
If those bolded words don't set off a red flag in the world of data, then you don't know the world of data.
It might be available, and I haven't nor do I care to take the time to look, but if someone can point me to the documentation on what exactly was done with the data at all of those bolded words from above (and those steps don't involve anything questionable), then I'll go ahead and jump on board with Nea, JFLORIDA, et. al...
With that much reducing, combining, and otherwise truncating raw data, it wouldn't be very hard to fabricate a .6 increase in global temps.
Here is a link to the California billion dollar storm scenario that has been floating around the popular press lately:
Overview of the ARkStorm Scenario
My purple hippo is ready to go.... just waiting for a mate.... she's been looking on Match.com....
It's easy to highlight those words and make them out to be something sinister, and the more paranoid one is, the more sinister they are likely to seem. But those words you highlighted, and the process they outline, are a standard and mundane part of rigorous science (and, for that matter, accounting). Allow me:
supplemented: That is, multiple data points are used.
processed: That is, fed into a computer.
examined: That is, studied in fine detail.
combined: That is, added to other data points to get an overall view.
produced: That is, checked against data sets produced by others using different methods.
remove measurement errors: That is, spurious data is rejected.
So, no, they do not raise red flags. The red flags for me would be if such disclaimers disappeared.
Ask yourself this: if scientists really were involved in such an evil plot, why would they bother announcing it to the world?
Nea, those are your definitions of those terms. The broader community has majorly varying definitions of them, and those definitions are not enforced anywhere. Exactly defining my point.
I'm sorry, but I have to heavily disagree with your short, self-proclaimed, definitions. 12 years in this field have shown me otherwise. As a matter of fact, when trying to shape ones opinion, it's almost a matter of practice to use terms like these to obscure things.
Look, man...I don't disagree with your points or that AGW is happening. I'm just overly critical of how data is presented. I've been asked\told, many times, to make things look a certain way. And many of those times it was to secure additional funding for our programs.
I'm at like 95%... I get these data questions answered by NOAA, IPCC, etc... and the answers make me feel ok, then I'll jump that last 5%.
This is what is keeping me back from being all in. That is all.
So...altering and falsifying data is okay as long as you say that in a disclaimer?
Wow.
Weather science has really stooped to a new low.
The world according to the Lords of AGW.
How sad.
You heard it here folks.
It is okay to alter and falsify data as long as you provide a disclaimer admitting to it.
In so doing, it then becomes true and accurate.
Just ask the Lords of AGW.
To secure additional funding for their research.
"Oh there's this horrible thing going on with the climate, that I can prove with these statistics, but I don't really know what's going to happen, so I need more money to research"
I really hope this isn't going on with the climate research, but this is the sad reality of our world and the way grants are handed out by our government.
I assume you have not worked for, in, or around a government agency that does research, or you wouldn't have asked that.
Why not use dictionary.com?
sup·ple·ment
[n. suhp-luh-muhnt; v. suhp-luh-ment] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
2.
a part added to a book, document, etc., to supply additional or later information, correct errors, or the like.
3.
a part, usually of special character, issued as an additional feature of a newspaper or other periodical.
4.
Geometry . the quantity by which an angle or an arc falls short of 180° or a semicircle.
–verb (used with object)
5.
to complete, add to, or extend by a supplement.
6.
to form a supplement or addition to.
7.
to supply (a deficiency).
proc·ess
[pros-es; especially Brit. proh-ses] Show IPA
noun, plural proc·ess·es
[pros-es-iz, ‐uh-siz, ‐uh-seez or, especially Brit., proh-ses‐, proh-suh‐] Show IPA
, verb, adjective
–noun
1.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end: to devise a process for homogenizing milk.
2.
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner: the process of decay.
3.
Law .
a.
the summons, mandate, or writ by which a defendant or thing is brought before court for litigation.
b.
the whole course of the proceedings in an action at law.
4.
Photography . photomechanical or photoengraving methods collectively.
5.
Biology, Anatomy . a natural outgrowth, projection, or appendage: a process of a bone.
6.
the action of going forward or on.
7.
the condition of being carried on.
8.
course or lapse, as of time.
9.
conk4 ( defs. 1, 2 ) .
–verb (used with object)
10.
to treat or prepare by some particular process, as in manufacturing.
11.
to handle (papers, records, etc.) by systematically organizing them, recording or making notations on them, following up with appropriate action, or the like: to process mail.
12.
to require (someone) to answer questionnaires, perform various tasks, and sometimes to undergo physical and aptitude classification examinations before the beginning or termination of a period of service: The army processes all personnel entering or leaving the service.
13.
to convert (an agricultural commodity) into marketable form by a special process, as pasteurization.
14.
to institute a legal process against.
15.
to serve a process or summons on.
16.
Computers . to carry out operations on (data or programs).
17.
conk4 ( def. 3 ) .
and I think examine, produce, and combine are very well known...
What an inept analysis of how the financial world operates.
In the world according to AGW
Cap & Trade... Billions, if not trillion of dollars there.
Taxes on gasoline and fuel products all paid by the consumers...Billions, if not trillions of dollars there.
Each middle man taking his share.
The final amount reaching the actual producers...10 to 20 percent of each dollar collected.
80 percent to the middle men?
Do you really believe that oil companies are not, as we speak, working to put themselves in that money stream?
Do you really believe that scientists don't also see that huge wallet of money, ripe for the picking, and look for ways they might feed on it as well?
If that is the case, then maybe you need to study up on reality and how the financial world really works.
Like someone said before...
Just think how cold the ice would be without global warming.
I counted 3 times.......the reds outnumber the blues.Maybe in the next Sunday paper Marilyn vos Savant can help us out. I was always amazed the Einstein is not included in the top geniuses in our times...
I wonder wher Dr. Irwin Corey fits in.
How can I repeat step C for every year of the decade, since step C is specifically for 2010.
Sounds like "processed" data to me.
I hope you are conscious when you vote your conscience
Their methods are published and explained. If you actually cared about the information you would have pulled that information and assessed it reasonably and in a referenced manner.
Hmmm, I thought the University was not complying with the FOIA regarding the data.
Isn't that a huge red flag?
Or maybe a blue flag indicating less warming than actually presented...
Science is not about shaping opinion, it is about presenting facts. Shaping opinion is what the media does.
You make very bold accusations that the data is being manipulated, yet provide no evidence. The data isn't being hidden. The methods are not being obscured. Read the IPCC report and follow the references, if the explanation in the report doesn't satisfy you.
And seriously, if you think you have discovered a mass distortion of science then by all means back it up with solid evidence and publish it.
Paranoid attacks on character or specious arguments do nothing to forward the discussion.
EDIT---
Another point about scientific funding. Scientific does NOT come from presenting a result. Scientific funding comes from asking questions. If you can make an argument that your question deserves funding THEN you get funding.
People are under the impression that scientists get funding by saying "I can show warming, give me money.". That is about as far from the truth as it gets. For funding from NASA or NOAA, you go before a board of scientists and present WHY the research you want to do should be funded, not the RESULT. Then you get dragged over the coals. If you survive, then it gets put into a pile with all the others that make it through screening. Upon further review, if the questions your asking are deemed any merit and are better than the others, you get funding (or partial funding).
Funding is not determined on your end result. It is determined by the research you did to get there. And if you want to have any future funding you better make damn sure you aren't making stuff up, because if you get caught or can't get a paper through peer review without it getting ripped to shreds, you won't get any more funding. Ever.
The funding world is not some utopia where money grows on trees and people just happily give out to whoever wants it. It can be quite nasty, and you'll need thick skin. If you put up a stupid idea, they will tell you in no uncertain terms that it is stupid. If they think your research is worthless, the will make sure you know it's worthless. And if you keep submitting worthless and/or stupid proposals, they'll just toss them in the trash.
SQUAWK!!!!!
When I publish something with data elements, and any kind of processing was done on those data elements, my narrative accutely explains the mathematical equation and all variables involved in determining the new, calculated, or adjusted values.
This is what set me off about a lot of the data that was posted! It does none of this, and then they use the MOST ambiguous terms available to describe many instances of data manipulation along the way to their final product.
You processed the data? Umm, into what? cheese?
Another thing that is a slight of hand or data presentation trick that I see rampantly in AGW data. The Y axis of almost every graph is the temperature, and is set at a ridiculously small scale to make the graph jump up drastically for only a small increase in temperature.
If I didn't see all of these things that data analysts use to manipulate the presentation of the data, I'd be less inclined to think something shady was going on.
For now, I'll keep wearing my tinfoil hat.
The more mistrusting one is, the more one is likely to see patterns of manipulation. I question all hypotheses; I challenge all data. But I'm not mistrusting, so I don't see the level of manipulation others are convinced they do.
If someone who works with data is being continually asked to manipulate that data, that could be because that person has gained the reputation for having the willingness to do so. I've been in IT and data management for years--included working in the regulated industries, where millions of medical dollars were at stake--and I can tell you that I have never intentionally manipulated a single piece of data either on my own or at the urging of others.
If you're being asked to do any data diddling for any governmental entity, I'd suggest you cover yourself with the Whistleblower Protection Act as much as possible and let people know what's happening.
Where was my attack on anyone? I just disagree based on my own life experiences.
I said I was 95% of the way there, and seeing the exact data manipulation methods is what would take me the remaining 5%.
I'm sorry that I work in reverese. I need to see exactly what they did to manipulate the data throughout their process before I believe it. I'm not going to blindly believe a chart or graph, especially with my background.
I never attacked anyone or said that what is being presented is a scam, mass distortion, etc. I said I need more proof before I belief it. Very specific proof for me, and identified what I need to see.
And until I see it, I remain with the same opinion.
There is too much data to support this for it not to be something.
And, I see that we see about the same things, WRT the long-term temperature analyses out there.
These guys around here never talk about some of the finer details. Such as just how is "spurious data" defined, by whom, and what exactly is done to exclude it? If no asks, that could be the conducted subjectively, rather than objectively. That part, in fact, is difficult to objectively define. Is dependent on the application and conclusion attempting to be drawn. A single station 10 C too high? Yeah, toss it. One instrument at multiple stations over 20 years that consistently read 0.5 C too high or low or in some erratic fashion? Who knows? We could debate a long time about whether or not to keep that set...
(cheese? *howl* I love it.)
Thanks, JFL
I'll take a closer look a little bit later.
Fun chatting, and provoking critical thinking with everyone today.
"You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything!"
Well if you want it so bad why don't you go and find it? The IPCC report is pretty explicit about what was done. Research papers explain clearly what was done to attain the results. Really, the information you are looking for is a Google search away.
You are indirectly claiming there is some undisclosed magical data manipulation going on, but you don't say what nor offer evidence. At the same time you allege that these methods are hidden and not explained. You're propagating unsubstantiated claims.
Seriously, it is not hard to find the information you are looking for. Go get it. Analyze it. And if you find it lacking then by all means point it out. Better yet, write a paper and get it published.
What do you think about sea level-not-rise? Will that cooling coincide with a 1mm drop in average sea level? Is pointing that way...2010's peak being the extreme and the following year not living up to it seems likely.
(I think this is through August of last year, only, though)
I guess that would depend most on the behavior of upper level ocean heat changes. (not just sst)
Looking at your spelling of the word "gross" I see you have the same affliction as i do so you can't be all bad...I also have Dyslexia, 5 out of 4 people have it
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 — Blog Index