It's official: 2010 NOT the hottest year on record

[Nederland]

Despite all the wishful thinking on the part of some people around here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x228692) 2010 failed to beat 1998 and become the hottest year on record. This is true if you look at the UAH dataset (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt) or the RSS dataset (http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt).

The fact that 2010 failed to surpass 1998 as the hottest year on record means that we now have gone 12 years without a new record year (as far as both satellite records are concerned. I believe one or two of the land based records have 2005 as the hottest year, but I'm not sure). To make matters worse for the CAGW crowd, 2010 was their best shot at breaking the record, at least for the next couple years. This is because there is a historically well established link between global temperatures and ENSO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation). El Nino years tend to drive up temperatures, while La Nina years tend to drive them down, and 2010 was an El Nino year. The end of 2010 saw the start of the La Nino phase, and as a result temperatures for the next couple years are unlikely to break any records either.

So, why was it so important for 2010 to become the hottest year on record?

The answer has to do with a post made by Gavin Schmidt of NASA at the well respected (at least among those that believe AGW will be catastrophic) website RealClimate several years ago, a post that he may someday regret ever creating. In this post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/) he explains why the cool weather of the first few years of this century does not invalidate the IPCC climate models, giving a long, detailed explanation of the statistics involved with the models and calculating their confidence intervals (CI). In this post, he quite clearly states that on average we should see a new record high every eight years, and a new unambiguous record (defined as at least 0.1C higher than the previous high) high every 18 years. Failure to see new records produced at this rate means that the computer models of the IPCC have unequivocally been scientifically invalidated by the empirical data.

So we have now gone 12 years without a record high despite the fact that we are supposed to be seeing them on average every 8 years. I will admit that this may not be statistically significant because of the inherent margin of error associated with the measurements, which is why Gavin also calculated the average number of years for an unambiguous record. However, every year that passes without an new unambiguous record has got to make Gavin a bit nervous. A temperature rise of 0.1C is fairly significant, and if the current La Nino phase writes off the next couple years for him, it means Gavin has to pray for big increases during the few more precious years he has left before running past his firm 18 year prediction.

Obviously only time will tell. Even if we do see a new unambiguous record sometime before the 18 years are up, it is quite clear that global warming is happening at a rate that is near the bottom of IPCC prediction range (1.6C per century) and nowhere near the top. We should adjust our level of concern appropriately.

[rfranklin]

1. I burned a gallon of diesel fuel to celebrate!

No problem with those hydrocarbons! Yay!

[stuntcat]

22. right on! way to "adjust your level of concern appropriately." !

most Americans still need a major adjustment in their concerns. That causes me an even worse "concern" that the science does.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. Bookmarking to view future discussion.

But reading the Schmidt blog post you linked, assuming I waded through the jargon correctly, it appears there is at least one source of temperature data that showed 2005 was warmer than 1998, which supports his assertion of an 8-year gap between record highs. True, there is at least one other set of data that says 2005 was not warmer than 1998, but I don't know by how much it fell short. If one says 2005 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, while the other says it was only 0.01C cooler, then I should expect the differing magnitudes would weigh more in favor of 2005 being warmer.

As to whether the IPCC models have "unequivocally been scientifically invalidated," I think that's like saying a person who says PI is equal to 3.1415926 and a person who says PI is 4 are equally wrong. You may be right, and I hope you are, that global warming is occurring at the bottom of the prediction range, but I don't think you can simply dismiss the IPCC models as "invalidated."

[joshcryer]

7. Yes, deniers tend to select the *coolest* datasets, GISS however, is the most reliable.

Because GISS uses verified extrapolations for the arctic/antarctic (the extrapolations are verified by other tests).

[Nederland]

10. There is no way to prove that

Saying that GISS is "the most reliable" assumes that you have know the actual "true" global temperature, compared to all the other temperature records out there, and found GISS to be the closest to it. Since we do not know what the actual "true" global temperature is (some on you side of the debate would even say the very idea is meaningless) you cannot perform that calculation.

[joshcryer]

11. CLARREO should verify it, but GISS is the most reliable because it leaves nothing out.

Nevermind the fact that of the records, the satellite record is the most anomalous compared to the rest of the records.

[Nederland]

13. Flat out wrong

For most time periods, the satellite records I'm using show more warming that the instrument records:



But hey, if you want to use GISS and end up with even less warming be my guest...

[joshcryer]

15. Shorter dataset showing more warming over the shorter period of time. Surprise.

GISS shows the highest overall warming. In fact, deniers use it to their advantage in arguments: http://www.google.com/search?q=giss+uah

[Nederland]

17. Again Josh, you are wrong

Sometimes the satellites show more warming, sometimes less, and there is no correlation to the period of time. Over the five year period the satellites show more warming. Over the ten year period they show less. Over the twenty and thirty year periods the satellites and GISS records are virtually identical.

[joshcryer]

19. Uh, you just verified what I said. The original graph goes to 10 years dude.

I am not wrong. The longer the data goes out the more they agree. GISS is averaged to 30 years (so even the year long average is being averaged out that long).

[joshcryer]

20. BTW, I chose GISS because it is the most comprehensive.

Not because it is the "warmest or not." (I find it hilarious that you think GISS is not the warmest though.)

[Nederland]

9. I'll be more specific

As to whether the IPCC models have "unequivocally been scientifically invalidated," I think that's like saying a person who says PI is equal to 3.1415926 and a person who says PI is 4 are equally wrong. You may be right, and I hope you are, that global warming is occurring at the bottom of the prediction range, but I don't think you can simply dismiss the IPCC models as "invalidated."

I guess I would disagree, but perhaps it would be helpful to be more specific. When Gavin said is this:

"The main result is that 95% of the time, a new record will be seen within 8 years, but that for an unambiguous record, you need to wait for 18 years to have a similar confidence."

The 95% confidence interval is the scientific standard used by most branches of science. If future empirical temperature data falls outside that interval, it means that the IPCC computer models have failed the most common test of validity used by scientists. That is what I mean by the phrase "unequivocally been scientifically invalidated". It does NOT mean that AGW is not real, it merely means that the people who created those models need to go back and work on their models to make them more accurate, because their usefulness as prediction tools is questionable at best.

[Mark Maker]

3. But wait, isn't that satellite records going all the way back to 1978?

What happens if you include the decade of the 1930's, how about those satellite records? And what about my personal observations in my back yard, huh?

Ever consider that?

[joshcryer]

8. It's fine to use satellite measurements, but one must consider that they don't pick up arctic...

...or antarctic temperatures. GISS shows that the arctic and antarctic is where the vast majority of the warming is taking place (as much as 10+ degrees C).

[Nederland]

14. Oh please Josh

It is true that the satellite records have a gap of 9° at each pole. Do you know how many stations GISS has in those regions? Three. One in the South Pole (AMUNDSEN-SCOT) and two in the North Pole (NORD ADS, ALERT,N.W.T.). Source for that data is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt

Also, you know as well as I do that the satellite records adjust for their admitted lack of polar data by interpolation. If you have a problem with that, please tell me why is it OK for instrument records to cover their gaps (which in the case of the poles and the Pacific Ocean, can be over 1200km) by interpolation but not the satellite records?

Hmmm?

[joshcryer]

16. Their extropolations (what you call interpolation) are accurate for Antarctica.

Atmospheric Variations as observed by IceCube: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0776

You can claim that the extrapolations are "wrong" for the arctic, but you'd have to establish how the homonginzation methods work for Antarctica but not the arctic.

IceCube validates the measurements. Period.

[Nederland]

21. You are missing the point

The bottom line is that is doesn't make a difference. Small differences between the records doesn't change the fact that NONE of the records show a temperature anomaly being 0.1C higher than their 1998 number. You want to use GISS? Fine, have at it. Post the numbers and show me how it makes a difference.

[joshcryer]

23. I didn't know 1998 was 18 years ago.

[Nederland]

28. It's not and I never said it was

What I said was this:

However, every year that passes without an new unambiguous record has got to make Gavin a bit nervous. A temperature rise of 0.1C is fairly significant, and if the current La Nino phase writes off the next couple years for him, it means Gavin has to pray for big increases during the few more precious years he has left before running past his firm 18 year prediction.

I'm not saying that the models have been dis-proven at this point in time. What I am saying is that every year that passes without significant increases makes it more and more likely that Gavin will have to admit the models have exaggerated future warming.

[joshcryer]

18. They're also accurate for the arctic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html

[jpak]

4. Yeah that's why Maine's governor made an emergency proclamation to open fishing season early

in March cuz the ice went out on many lakes at record early dates.

and the trees leafed out 3 weeks early

and maple syrup season was in February

and why temperatures were above freezing day and night last week.

and we all know the historic global temperature record is absolutely smooth

not

[Systematic Chaos]

25. Well, I have to give you this much:

You're completely on the right side of the warming debate.

:hi:

[Nederland]

31. Nice Graph

You could stretch out that Y-axis even further to make it look even more impressive.

After all, we wouldn't want it to look like this:




That's not nearly scary enough!

[jpak]

32. Yeah, that graph clearly shows global cooling!

:rofl:

[Nederland]

33. Are you blind?

The graph clearly shows global warming at a rate of around 1.0C per century.

[beardown]

5. So which is it?

First, you start out with 'important' in your ...

"So, why was it so important for 2010 to become the hottest year on record?

The answer has to do with a post made by Gavin Schmidt of NASA..."

Then, you do a 180 with ...

"So we have now gone 12 years without a record high despite the fact that we are supposed to be seeing them on average every 8 years. I will admit that this may not be statistically significant because of the inherent margin of error associated with the measurements,"

Let me know when you figure which side of your one man debate on understanding what 'average' means and get then back to us.

Yet another candidate for a guy that will drown trying to wade across a river that averages only two feet deep.

[Nederland]

12. Keep reading past the comma

...and I think it's pretty clear why 2010 needed to be the hottest year on record.

I fully understand what the word average means. The question is, do you understand what 95% confidence interval means.

[pscot]

24. You seem to be experiencing some gender confusion

La Niña got underway at the beginning of 2010 and strengthened over the course of the year resulting in cooler global temperatures. It was the basis for predictions of an active Atlantic hurricane season, which were born out. La Niña is expected to weaken over the next few months, but current conditions in the eastern Pacific show a classic LaNiña pattern. La Niña:cool El Niño:warm.

[joshcryer]

26. Oh yeah, El Nino peaked in Jan-Feb 2010.

Which is why the confidence I showed in the "warmest on satellite record" thread was so impressive, imho. You can pat me on the back if you want.

2010, low El Nino year, was as warm as 1998, extremely powerful El Nino year.

That shows how the trend is upwards.

And it's why many of the top ten hottest years on record have all happened in the last decade.

[Nederland]

29. Exactly, El Nino peaked in Jan-Feb 2010.

And the lag time between Pacific Ocean SSTs and global air temperatures explains why 2010 started out as an extremely warm year and then got very cool in the fall when La Nina kicked in.

[joshcryer]

30. 2010 was cooler in the beginning than 1998. El Nino ended in May of 2010, August of 1998.

This caused some clarifications in the thread I made that you linked. However, what makes 2010 special is that, unlike 1998, the first part of the year was roughly the same as the latter part of the year. 1998 was extremely, overwhelmingly warm in the first half, but cooled down quick in the latter half.

It helped that 1998 was also one of more active solar seasons, which only cements 2010 as temperature baseline and indicates that we'll see warmer years soon enough.

[Nederland]

27. I don't think you fully understand ENSO

The beginning of an El Nino or La Nina is determined by the value of the Oceanic Niño Index, which is the principal measure for monitoring, assessing, and predicting ENSO by NOAA. El Nino is defined by a positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5 C. La Nina is defined by a negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5 C. By historical standards, to be classified as a full-fledged El Niño
or La Niña episode, these thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons. All of these facts can be found in the Wikipedia link I provided and the NOAA website itself (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml).

According to these definitions, El Nino phase lasted through April of 2010, and the La Nina phase did not begin until June of 2010 and it is expected to peak this winter. More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, these definitions refer to Pacific Ocean Sea Surface measurements, and there is a measurable lag between the time when the ONI number goes negative at the start of a La Nina and when global air temperatures decline as a result (this lag is explained at RealClimate here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/). The combination of your mistaken assertion that La Nina got underway at the beginning of 2010 (instead of June, when it actually started) and the assumption that global air temperatures are affected immediately means that your conclusion regarding 2010 air temperatures is completely backwards. In reality, most of 2010 was being made warmer by El Nino, with the effect of La Nina only beginning to show up in global temperatures around October.

[pscot]

34. We've gone from a mild El Niño

to a strong La Niña. Much of the year was close to neutral, though La Niña has come on very quickly. While cyclical events like enso may partially mask what's happening to the planet's climate, they don't alter the underlying problem. NOAA explains it:

State of the Climate
Global Analysis
November 2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record.


•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for fall (September–November) 2010 was the sixth warmest on record for the season, 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).


•For the 2010 year-to-date (January–November), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average—the warmest such period since records began in 1880.


•The November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest November on record, while the Southern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest November on record.



•The November 2010 global land surface temperature was the warmest on record, at 1.52°C (2.74°F) above the 20th century average, while the November global ocean temperature tied with 1987 and 2008 as the tenth warmest on record, at 0.39°C (0.70°F) above average.



•The January–November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, while the Southern Hemisphere was the fourth warmest on record.

[joshcryer]

6. Wishful thinking? It is statistically tied with 1998 on UAH, Spencer admits this.

To be frank, I thought I did pretty fucking damn well, the trend was pretty remarkable all year.

[NickB79]

35. What was once an unheard-of event (1998) is now becoming commonplace

Until 1998, we had never recorded a year as hot globally as that. In the past decade, we've had 3 years come within a hair's breadth of it statistically.

The decade 2000-2010 was the hottest decade ever recorded, more than 1990-1999, 1990-1999 was hotter than 1980-1989, etc, etc.