##### 09 December 2009

by Jack Rosebro

 Decadal temperature variations, based on instrumental readings, from long-term average, 1850-2009 Source: Met Office UK. Click to enlarge.

The United Kingdom’s Met (Meteorological) Office announced that the 2000-2009 decade “has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record”, and that 2009 is on track to become the fifth warmest year in the past 160 years, continuing the warming trend that has accelerated since the 1970s. 2009 has also been warmer than 2008, due in part to El Niño conditions in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

The Met Office also released data from more than 1,500 climate and weather station temperature records, making up about 30% of the HadCRUT record of global land surface temperature records.

The Met Office is currently negotiating with national meteorological and hydrological services that maintain the stations, and plan to release the remaining records as soon as they are legally able to do so. “As soon as possible, we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record,” they announced.

 Locations of climate and weather station used in global climate data analysis. Source: Met Office UK. Click to enlarge.

Separately, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) yesterday announced that 2009 is on track to become another record warming year, with a preliminary warming trend of 0.44 °C above the long-term average of 14.0 °C. “We are in a warming trend, we have no doubt about that,” said Michel Jarraud, WMO secretary general, at a press conference in Copenhagen. Although 2009 looks to be the fifth hottest year, Jarraud warned that “in large parts of southern Asia and of central Africa, it is likely to be the warmest ever on record.”

WMO findings are based on climate data from worldwide networks of land-based climate and weather stations, sea-based ships and buoys, and satellites. The data is collected by national meteorological and hydrological services representing 189 countries, as well as several collaborating research institutions.

Aggregate data is continuously fed to three separate global climate data and analysis centers. Each data center independently develops and maintains a global climate dataset on a monthly basis, using its own peer-reviewed methodologies. WMO global temperature analyses are based on all three complementary datasets, which can be compared to one another.

 Comparison of land surface temperature trends, as analyzed by HadCRUT, NCDC/NOAA, and GISS/NASA climate data models, using land, ocean, and satellite-based records. Source: WMO. Click to enlarge.

The datasets are maintained by:

• Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office in conjunction with the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

• US National Climatic Data Center, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

• Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Final updates and figures for 2009 will be published in March 2010 in the annual WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate.

NOAA: Global Surface Temperatures in 2009 Well Above Long Term Average

Separately, preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center found that global surface temperatures for 2009 will be well above the long-term average, while the annual temperature for the contiguous United States will likely be above the long-term average. The analysis is based on global records, which began in 1880 and US records beginning in 1895. Among the NCDC’s findings were:

• Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through October are the fifth warmest on record, at 1.01 °F (0.56 °C) above the long-term average.

• NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.

• The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 °F (0.53 °C) above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 °F (0.36 °C).

• Ocean surface temperatures (through October) were the sixth warmest on record, at 0.85 °F (0.47 °C) above the 20th century average.

• Land surface temperatures through October were the fifth warmest on record, at 1.44 °F (0.8 °C) above the 20th century average.

• Arctic sea ice extent reached its third smallest annual minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The past five years have produced the lowest sea ice extents on record.

Now they have released their data, we can rest assured the fraud will be exposed in short time.

An expert team will be appointed by commander-in-chief Christofer Monckton to do the analysis. They *will* find the smoking gun that was used to hide the decline.

And if we hear nothing from the team, then that is because those climate scientists have covered up their tracks so well.

Anne - Have you switched side?

The small graph is very indicative of the current trend.

Naysayers will not believe it until they are personally affected or switch ......something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

This pretty much tells us what to look for in underlying surface station data:

http://xrl.in/3yob

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Hadley/CRU Met Office now hopelessly compromised by their own obstinacy. With partners like Phil Jones - who would believe anything they've done up to now??

Two things:
The data begins from 1895, which was the END OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE. Which, of course, goes conveniently unmentioned in this PR release.

How about if we let some people do the work before we jump to a lot of conclusions based on a press release?

The CIO from GHCN has been recently inspecting the 'quality' of the historical surface record from the standpoint of what is reported where and when. When you have a data records that includes data from as many as few as several hundred sites, growing over time to peak at some 9000 sites at one time, declining to just over 1000 sites today, it is important to see what that implies.

It turns out that the analysis of all sites that reported for a similar period, like 100 years or only sites that reported for 75 years, or sites that reported for 50 years, or for 25 years, without co-mingling the data, there is little no warming pattern in the data.

But if you add in the sites together from 100 years and 75 years, or any other combined period where there is rapid change in the number and location of sites reporting, a warming pattern emerges in the historical record. This suggests to him a data gathering artifice is in effect, for certain uses of the data, such as climate research temperature averaging, for which it was never intended.

What he says all that reveals is that underdeveloped largely tropical and semitropical countries started to add data to the weather report network after 1920 or so and expanded then. As you could expect, averaging a data set with more tropical weather reports over time, would average to a higher temperature.

It appears to be an artifice of the pattern of data sites reporting.

There is an enormous spike when the sites reporting dropped precipitously form 9000 to around a few thousand around 1990. It is easy to attribute that to the collapse of the East bloc and all the Soviet stations in northern climes ceasing to file weather reports. If much of Siberia in no longer reporting, is it any wonder that the average composite temperatures of remaining sites, shows a higher average temperature?

In short the CIO is questioning the quality of the data for inappropriate uses of the historical weather data, such as climatic averaging, that has changed in large degree from where and when it was gathered.

The amazing thing is that until the CIO started this 'research' no one looked at something as elementary as this.

He also makes the observation that these weather reports vary in accuracy. Many historical weather reports are questionable in accuracy to a single degree of temperature. Averaging them together and determining tenths or hundredths of degree conclusion from such inaccurate basic weather reports is a basic data misuse mistake.

Harvey,

The Dark Side of The Force was too strong....

Harvey,

The Dark Side of The Force was too strong....

Henrik,

Or here

The deniers:

Call them naysayers, deniers, quibbers, contrarians or effective gatemakers, they are part of various denial machines within the growing denial industry.

They patterned what they did in support of the tobacco industry many years ago. They organize disinformation campaigns based on fear, uncertainity, doubt and propaganda.

They form Internet brigades to support and spread false conspiracies dictated by their financial supporters.

This growing denial industry have, many behind the scene and very much involved, financial supporters, as they did during the tobacco era.

What is grotesque about this industry is that many of their financial supporters use the $$B they get from the government (the public) to fight against what is in the best interests of the people (the public) and the country. In other words, we are indirectly and unknowingly supporting their negative propaganda campaigns. How could we effectively put an end to this type of misrepresentation? Should we start by cutting all incentives$$ to coal, oil and corn ethanol industries?

"They patterned what they did in support of the tobacco industry many years ago."

Many years ago? The same Heartland Institute that feeds climate mis-info has a similar stance on tobacco, ie, the science condemning it is wrong and the ill effects are over exaggerations. Seriously. It's too bizarre to make up. http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

drivin98 - Yes, the denial industry rarely or never makes use of the real financial supporters name. They use shell organizations with likeable names like Foundation for Healthier Climate, etc.

It is a very old trick used by propaganda machines many times before.

Unfortunately, too many still fall for this type of organized disinformation and even become supporters.

The human mind is very often too easy to sway.

Profiteers often use similar methods to realize major shabby schemes. USA and Canada had their lot in the last few months.

I am disappointed that the GM bashers are so tolerant of fraud, deception and shabby schemes by environmental scientists yet condemn GM for advertising big cars a(and “forcing” them to buy them - LOL).

Let’s make huge efforts to economically reduce oil imports and wait on costly punitive anti-CO2 stuff..

It’s a matter of common sense – bang for the buck vs. economic suicide - "There is no need to jump to conclusions".

Ok - "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" (Mark Twain).

This still doesn't explain the loss of glaciers. Stop by Glacier Park, Montana(now just some Rockies).. Alaska..

Try the snows of Kilimanjaro (~0) if you can swing it. Check Google maps and ice loss, North or South Pole..

Something's occurring faster than normal nature dudes..

Harvey,
Speaking of Healthy climates,
This comes close but only if you come as a sceptic (sic)
The Canadian site describes nuclear as zero emission (carbon) that is so nonsensical. (for a start)

http://www.ecolo.org/

So a bit why I might post this, being a skeptic it is not hard to find the clangers.

I like James Lovelock (Gaia) but he objects to wind generation farms as a blight on the landscape while insisting that There will be virtually no one left to see it in short time frame.

This reminds me of the economists who insist that climate change is real we are facing the biggest treat to existence but that mitigation is a waste of money?

Tom,

I'm not tolerant of fraud on any level, It is so damaging in many ways.

You can say the progressives on this site bash GM.
Any more than the denialist or climate or economic skeptics. I think not.

Healthy criticism taken on board may have been better utilised early on by GM and they could be offering a better market fit.

Proper science is the first casualty - the fastest falling object around when deceptive practices are used.

Science and reality are tied. Fantasy doesn't fly far.

I note that Stan Peterson didn't claim that the earth is cooling anymore, he only questions the quality of data. Wow what a progress ! that he tone down his imbecile arrogance of denier. Still he honored us of a boring 1000 words post that is unreadable and means absolutely nothing, proof that he is running short of argument this time...

"it is as hard for a Republican to accept AWG as for a Muslim to accept the Theory of Evolution, we just have to get use to it"

1. This is not fraud on different levels.
It is
a) tolerance of scientific fraud by scientists. - - Just the opposite of what they should be doing
b) Condemnation of a company for advertising and selling large sized, large profit margin vehicles. - - Exactly what they should be doing.

We wish their future was in small cars, but it is not, that's fantasy. They are highly unlikely to wrest much of the small car market from the Asian auto makers.

SUVs and trucks kept them in business while most other manufacturing went to Asia. Large vehicles - there was no better market fit for the US car makers.

GM continues to make SUVs and trucks - the new owners apparently believe there is still no better market fit. That’s reality.

..and GM's 'market fit' leads to bankruptcy. That's reality.

This report says nothing about what roll the sun plays in the global temperature increase.

Greenland was once green and if it returns to that state the Greenlanders welcome it. In fact according to a recent CBS News Report they are already planning for the day.

Of course there is the problem of western Greenland's ice having a nasty habit of growing...

http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN

TT: GMs best accomplishment was to convince many small 100 lbs ladies that they absolutely needed a 3-tonne Hummer to go shopping or to take the only child to school.

Even that festive accomplishment did not last very long and \$4+/gal gas put an end to that unbelievable fallacy.

GMs successes were based on false premises. It deserved to go Chapter 7.

The other two did not do much better. They also lost touch with common sense.

Mannstein:

"Greenland was once green..."

Science is split on that.

"...and if it returns to that state the Greenlanders welcome it."

You mean, like this?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1829365,00.html

Or this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602783_3.html

The folks in Greenland may welcome a return of green.

But will they welcome all the folks from submerged Florida who are looking for a new place to live?

The comments to this entry are closed.