2005 Possibly the Second Warmest Year on Record Globally

[P.K.]

Press release from the Met Office today:

The global climate - 2005

15 December 2005

Provisional figures for 2005 compiled by the Met Office's Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia (UEA) show that the northern hemisphere is experiencing its warmest ever year.

To the end of November mean-sea temperature and land temperature is currently 0.65 °C above the long-term average.

The temperature anomaly in the southern hemisphere of 0.32 °C is the fourth warmest - globally the year to date is the second warmest in a record dating back to 1861. This continues the recent trend of increasing global temperature, and the ten warmest years have all occurred in the last 11 years.

Satellite observations of Arctic sea ice in September revealed that the ice has dropped to its lowest recorded summer extent since these began in the 1970s. However, there has been little change around Antarctica during the year, continuing the trend of the last 20 years.

In the UK, 2005 has been yet another warm year. The current anomaly of the Central England Temperature (CET) is 1.07 °C above normal and within the top 10 warmest years in the 347-year record.

Adam Scaife, a Climate Variability scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "These figures show that global warming is continuing and are consistent with what we expect to occur from our research into greenhouse gas emissions".
http://www.meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2005/pr20051215.html

The provisional data used for this can be found at http://www.meto.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2005/climate_2005.pdf

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

This is very good news....The earth is starting to cool off now we are only second! Thank GOD!!!

[P.K.]

This is showing a warming not a cooling.....

Looking at the CET figures it certainly shows a warming.

[sponger]

Of course it is the warmest in 350 years. Very midleading as 350 ago puts us smack in the middle of the mini ice age. I love biased scientists spouting a direct link between this years temps and global warming. These guys will be funded for life!

Lets not forget the loss of life and suffering the cooling period caused. I say we should throw a party!

[x-y-no]

NOAA has this press release:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2548.htm

Here's the introduction:

NOAA REPORTS WARMER 2005 FOR THE UNITED STATES, NEAR-RECORD WARMTH GLOBALLY HURRICANES, FLOODS, SNOW AND WILDFIRES ALL NOTABLE

Dec. 15, 2005 — After a record-breaking hurricane season, blistering heat waves, lingering drought and a crippling Northeast blizzard, 2005 is ending as a warm year in the United States. It will come close to the all-time high global annual average temperature, based on preliminary data gathered by scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

[x-y-no]

Of course it is the warmest in 350 years. Very midleading as 350 ago puts us smack in the middle of the mini ice age. I love biased scientists spouting a direct link between this years temps and global warming. These guys will be funded for life!

Could we possibly discuss facts without spewing libelous accusations? Just once?

Lets not forget the loss of life and suffering the cooling period caused. I say we should throw a party!

The potential economic impact of rapid climate change (and how that might be mitigated) is indeed an important issue. I'd say the fundamental independent variable driving that is not the absolute temperature (at least until one gets to extraordinary extremes like a full-blown ice age) but rather the rate of change - because it takes time for species and societies to adapt, and if climate change outruns that capacity to adapt (either warming or cooling) then the cost becomes high.

But this is a curious issue for you to bring up - since your focus seems to be on claiming that all of climate science is one giant hoax, a plot to extort research funds through fraudulent science. This ridiculous and insulting claim is patently false, but it serves well to keep the discussion away from the serious issue of how best to adapt to climate change (something which can only be done once we have some reasonable consensus on the likely rate and magnitude of change we are facing).

If you're concerned about bias - may I suggest to take a careful look in the mirror.

[x-y-no]

NASA GISS has published their 2005 data now. They put 2005 as the warmest year on record - but note that actually the differences between recent years are within the range of statistical error.

The 10 warmest years on record have occured in the last 11 years.

--------

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

An excerpt:

-------

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation


Figure 1: (Left) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Error bars are estimated 2σ (95% confidence) uncertainty. (Right) Temperature anomaly for 2005 meteorological year (December 2004 through November 2005).


The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 meteorological year (December 2004 through November 2005) in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year. The same conclusion should apply to the calendar year, as differences between meteorological year and calendar year are usually negligible.

Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3). Our estimated error (2σ, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05°C in recent years to 0.1°C at the beginning of the 20th century. Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems (4).

Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The 1998 meteorological year, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More accurately, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).

The map shows that current warmth is nearly ubiquitous and largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Our ranking of 2005 as warmer than 1998 is a result mainly of the large positive Arctic anomaly. Excluding the region north of 75N, 1998 is warmer than 2005. If the entire Arctic Ocean were excluded, the ranking of 2005 may be even lower.

Our analysis differs from others by including estimated temperatures up to 1200 km from the nearest measurement station (7). The resulting spatial extrapolations and interpolations are accurate for temperature anomalies at seasonal and longer time scales at middle and high latitudes, where the spatial scale of anomalies is set by Rossby waves (7). Thus we believe that the remarkable Arctic warmth of 2005 is real, but our rank of 2005 as the warmest year depends upon that assumption. Other characteristics of our analysis method are summarized in footnote (8)

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

The following illustration of a rudimentary
principle of debate/scientific ethics applies
to everyone, and is directed at no one in particular.

I just did a debate on this and will illustrate a
couple of my most significant contentions.

Contrary to pervasive political misconception,
global warming scientists that participate in
extensive climatological research are not
"biased" for the sake of funding.

The distortion and mischaracterization of pivotal
scientific findings as "biased" is a calumniating
traducement of impartial scientific research.

If one wishes to disagree with assumptions or
assertions, one ought to do so without asseverating
sladerous or vituperative allegations. This
rudimentary principle of debate/scientific ethics applies
to everyone, and is directed at no one in particular.

[P.K.]

Of course it is the warmest in 350 years. Very midleading as 350 ago puts us smack in the middle of the mini ice age.

I only posted that image as I was a bit confused about the post from Matt saying this showed the Earth was cooling. The actual report on global temperatures only goes back to 1861 rather than the CET which goes back 350 years.

[P.K.]

NASA GISS has published their 2005 data now. They put 2005 as the warmest year on record - but note that actually the differences between recent years are within the range of statistical error.

The 10 warmest years on record have occured in the last 11 years.

Interesting as there is a similar pattern to the CET figures, the highest twenty values are (In descending order up to 2004 with the last 11 years in bold) 1990, 1999, 1949, 2002, 1997, 1995, 2004, 1989, 2003, 1959, 1733, 1834, 1921, 1779, 1868, 2000, 1945, 1994, 1781, 1938

Using provisional figures up to yesterday this year would be 4th on that list.

[sponger]

Yuo can call it bias or bad science. Saying with certainty the warmer temps are casued by warming as fact is false. The truth is, we have no idea of mans influence on climate.

Now I agree, studing ways of adapting to climate change makes good sense. But saying we are have a good handle of causation of warming is false and misleading the public intentionally.
Global warming advocates want the population to believe that man is changing our climate. The verdict is not in. The chart from 1865 to present is my favorite as it documents the change from the end of the mini ice age. You could say it is the warmest in 10,000, that may be relevant. As I understand the period around 1100 ad was quite warm as well.

[x-y-no]

Yuo can call it bias or bad science. Saying with certainty the warmer temps are casued by warming as fact is false.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.. Isn't this kind of like saying we don't know rain is caused by falling water?

The truth is, we have no idea of mans influence on climate.

That's simply false. We have a pretty fair understanding of man's influence on climate by now - an understanding which has improved dramatically over the last three decades.

Now I agree, studing ways of adapting to climate change makes good sense.

What's the point if you've already predetermined that the whole field is a fraud?

But saying we are have a good handle of causation of warming is false and misleading the public intentionally.

Perhapse if you set some absurdly high standard for what "good" means in this context you can get away with this statement. But by any normal usage of "good", this statement is absolutely false. I leave it to the reader as to whether it's "intentional" or not. I'm not the one claiming a massive fraud.

Global warming advocates want the population to believe that man is changing our climate.

Funny ... but all I've ever cared about is the truth. Now it happens to be true that man is changing climate, a conclusion I reached a little over a decade ago after having watched the development of this field since the early '70s. So in an indirect way, this statement is true. But I don't see that it's any more nefarious than, say, astronomers "wanting the population to believe" that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The verdict is not in.

Oh, but it is. The real scientific questions now concern how big the effect will be, and what the regional and local impacts will be.

The chart from 1865 to present is my favorite as it documents the change from the end of the mini ice age. You could say it is the warmest in 10,000, that may be relevant. As I understand the period around 1100 ad was quite warm as well.

You use the data you have - and the surface temperature record before 1850 becomes quite rapidly sparse and unreliable.

There is some significant question whether the Little Ice Age and the Medieval War Period were even global events or whether they were primarily regional phenomena in NE North America and Northern Europe. But granting for the sake of argument that they really were global, they still do not account for the unprecedentedly rapid change we are seeing over the last couple of decades, and do not yeild any indication of a time in the past thousand years (including the MWP) where the global mean temperature was as high as toda, despide a higher solar forcing at that time.

[P.K.]

You use the data you have - and the surface temperature record before 1850 becomes quite rapidly sparse and unreliable.

How far back to measurements go in the USA?

I've decided to actually have a look through the Quarterly Met Journal article from 1974 where the CET figures up to 1973 came from and yes there are some big problems with them pre 1760 especially but they are better than nothing.

[x-y-no]

How far back to measurements go in the USA?

The US HCN: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/newushcn.html

has some east coast stations going back to the beginning of the 19th century at least, but it really only has comprehensive data going back a century or so.

Since this is a data set is selected to minimize errors and biases, I expect there's a lot more out there, but offhand I don't know where to get it.

[Jim Hughes]

There is some significant question whether the Little Ice Age and the Medieval War Period were even global events or whether they were primarily regional phenomena in NE North America and Northern Europe. But granting for the sake of argument that they really were global, they still do not account for the unprecedentedly rapid change we are seeing over the last couple of decades, and do not yeild any indication of a time in the past thousand years (including the MWP) where the global mean temperature was as high as toda, despide a higher solar forcing at that time.

It is very misleading, in a debate like this, to say that there was a higher solar forcing back then , compared to the prior 50 years or so. The space weather activity level has been much higher since the 1950's. You can disregard the relationship, without the proper cause and effect right now, but lets not skew the facts.


Jim

[x-y-no]

There is some significant question whether the Little Ice Age and the Medieval War Period were even global events or whether they were primarily regional phenomena in NE North America and Northern Europe. But granting for the sake of argument that they really were global, they still do not account for the unprecedentedly rapid change we are seeing over the last couple of decades, and do not yeild any indication of a time in the past thousand years (including the MWP) where the global mean temperature was as high as toda, despide a higher solar forcing at that time.

It is very misleading, in a debate like this, to say that there was a higher solar forcing back then , compared to the prior 50 years or so. The space weather activity level has been much higher since the 1950's. You can disregard the relationship, without the proper cause and effect right now, but lets not skew the facts.


Jim

It was my understanding that due to orbital mechanics, insolation was slightly higher at that time. See, for instance:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradle ... y2000b.pdf

Even if that's in error, my basic point remains that there is sparse evidence at best that the Medieval Warm Period was a global event and not a regional one.

[KWT]

Just a quick note regrads to this:

In the UK, 2005 has been yet another warm year. The current anomaly of the Central England Temperature (CET) is 1.07 °C above normal and within the top 10 warmest years in the 347-year record.

Well Dec's CET has apperently come out at 4.3, which if correct would place 2005 14th place...looks like UKMO was abit to quick of the mark, and not for the first time, they did the exact same thing last year before a cold snap reduced the CET to apoint where it longer was true what UKMO were saying.

[P.K.]

I made it the 8th warmest year using Phillip Eden's figure of 4.6C but I see the Met Office have released an official figure of 4.3C which does bring this down to 14th.

[AussieMark]

across Australia 2005 was a warm year

In Sydney

Temperatures: In 2005 Sydney (Observatory Hill) experienced its equal warmest year since records commenced in 1859. The annual mean temperature for the year (average of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures) was 19.1°C or 1°C above the historic average*, and the same as 2004. The next warmest year on record was 1988 with an annual mean temperature of 19.0°C. Eight out of the top 10 warmest years have now occurred since 1988. Day-time maximum temperatures for the year were also the equal warmest on record with an average maximum temperature of 23.4°C or 1.3°C above the historic average and the same as 2004. Night-time temperatures were also warmer than average though not a record with an average minimum temperature of 14.8°C, or 0.6°C above the historic average. There were 48 days during the year when the temperature did not drop below 20°C overnight (the historic average is 25 days).

for Canberra

Temperature: The overall mean daily temperature for 2005 was 14.2 degrees Celcius, well above the long-term average of 13.0 °C and the highest on record. The mean annual daytime maximum temperature of 21.0 °C was above the average of 19.6 °C while the mean annual nighttime temperature of 7.2 °C was also above the average of 6.5 °C.

This is also the ninth consecutive year that the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures for Canberra have either been average or above average. The warmest month was January (average daily temperature 21.5 °C) and the coldest was July (average daily temperature 7.1 °C).

for Melbourne

Melbourne’s maximum and minimum temperatures for 2005 were both above average, the mean maximum for the year of 21.4 deg C being the equal highest on record (normal 19.9 degC) ... 21.4 deg C also occurred in 1961. The mean minimum for the year was 11.8 deg C (normal 11.0 degC). Meanwhile rainfall was slightly below normal with 589.8 mm compared to the average of 638.8 mm.

for Adelaide

Adelaide had an annual mean temperature of 17.6°, 0.6°C above the normal of 17°C and the 10th warmest year on record. The warmest annual mean temperature of 18.1°C occurred in 1914 and 1921.