PDA

View Full Version : 2007 was Tied for the Second Hottest Year on Record



Fraser
2008-Jan-19, 01:20 AM
You weren't imagining things, 2007 really was an unseasonably hot year. In fact, it was tied with 1998 for the second hottest year on record. All in all, the 8 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years since 1990. This mini-record was announced by NASA climatologists this week.

More... (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/universetoday/pYdq/~3/219142462/)

GOURDHEAD
2008-Jan-20, 06:57 PM
[From the linked article]
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. Seems to be rather glib treatment of data gathering rigor.


[NASA GISS data linked in the linked article]
The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability. What does the emboldened clause really mean in terms of quantitative germaneness.


The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999). In the first sentence, how "non-poor" was the data between 1880 and 1980? In the second emboldenment, amen to discerning the method and reliability of these earlier measurements" with special focus on aptly adjusting the data for local anomalies.

I find it appalling that the quantative aspects of the spatial and temporal sampling frequencies, techniques, and data accuracies are so glibly passed over.

Less some of you tag me as a non-global warming nut, I find the assertion that the globe is warming very plausible as I do that there is some contribution from increased levels of CO2. I am equally convinced that we can't yet be sure of the total cause of the effect, and until we are sure, we should tread cautiously as we decide what to do about it.

Jerry
2008-Jan-21, 04:37 AM
Tread lightly? Sucking hundreds of millions of metric tons of non-renewable hydrocarbons out of the outer crust and raising CO2 levels in measurable quantities annually is a rather heavy footprint.

Ari Jokimaki
2008-Jan-21, 06:08 AM
Cautious action in this case would be to stop dumping that stuff to the atmosphere, not to sit back and hope for the best. It's ridiculous to suggest that we shouldn't do anything before we know what causes it, we know that the stuff we dump there is not helping the situation either.

(It's middle of January, and we have no snow here in southern Finland and temperature is stuck above water freezing point, we had the same situation last winter too...)

Ronald Brak
2008-Jan-21, 08:50 AM
On the last day of 2007 it was 46 degrees celcius here in Adelaide, South Australia. That was a record breaker.


In the first sentence, how "non-poor" was the data between 1880 and 1980? In the second emboldenment, amen to discerning the method and reliability of these earlier measurements" with special focus on aptly adjusting the data for local anomalies.

I find it appalling that the quantative aspects of the spatial and temporal sampling frequencies, techniques, and data accuracies are so glibly passed over.

Very non poor. Funny thing was, the old British empire was kind of anal about things like this. Something to do with the weather affecting matters economic, millitary and marine. However, the measurements aren't perfect and there is lots of natural variation in temperature. That's why global warming figures contain a margin of error. The earth's temperature has risen by 0.74 +/- 0.18 degrees celcius. The margin for error is contained in that +/- 0.18 degrees. That means that after examining the data useing math they are 64.2% confident the temperature increase was between 0.56 and 0.92 degrees and 91.4% confident that the temperature increase was between 0.38 and 1.1 degrees. There is only a 4.3% chance that the warming was less than 0.38 degrees according to temperature records.