Global Temperature Trend Update—December 7, 2009

|

Just as they do every month and just in  time for the opening of the United Nations' Copenhagen climate change conference, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer are reporting the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through November, 2009.

Latest Global Temperatures

Spencer notes:

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly rebounded from +0.29 deg. C in October to +0.50 deg. C in November (emphasis his.) Both hemispheres, as well as the tropics, contributed to this warmth. The global anomaly for November of +0.50 deg. C is a period record for November (since 1979); the previous November high was +0.40 deg C. in 2005.

Go here for the data on which the above chart is based. The global average temperature is increasing at +0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. The northern hemisphere is warming at +0.19 degrees per decade and the southern hemisphere is warming at +0.06 degrees per decade. Interestingly, the satellites show that the north polar region is warming at +0.43 degrees per decade and the south polar region is cooling at -0.06 degrees per decade.

NEXT: Matt Welch Debates The Nation's Christopher Hayes on Afghanistan, Public Opinion on Climate Change, "Green Jobs," and China

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This can’t be right! Where’s the catastrophic rise that’s supposed to be on the right edge of the graph?

    1. It’s there. You just have to zoom way way way in.

  2. Still look just like the earlier El Nino, to me. And we are having an El Nino this year.

    1. What does that tell you about the 30 year trend?

      1. Nothing. As pointed out below, nothing in nature is linear. Further, 30 years is a pretty short time when you are talking about climate. Further, those 30 years only mean something, to the extent it can, in comparison to older temperatures. And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures is one step above phrenology.

        1. “And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures is one step above phrenology.”

          The science of phrenology is settled.

        2. I’d like to know what happened in between 83 and 86 to account for cooling on par with Pinatubo.

      2. That we seem to be in a rather mild warming period, depending on when you start your trend.

        Or in a rather mild cooling period, depending on when you start your trend.

        Of course, at this point we lack any trustworthy data on long-term temperature trends. So its anybody’s game.

        1. RC…what’s with all the “depending upon where you start your trend” in response to a question about the 30 year trend using a 30 year long data set?

          1. I was merely pointing out that you can get either a mild cooling or warming trend by picking your start date. What’s so magical about 30 years?

            1. It’s the term of a Treasury bond. Duh.

            2. What’s so magical about 30 years?

              There were not to many satellites measuring temperatures before 1979.

              If fact if you look closely at the start of the graph it looks sort of funny. My guess is that there we not enough satellites in orbit with the right kind of equipment before 1979 to do the kind of analysis that is being done to construct the above graph.

      3. Essentially flat from 1979-2000 (modulo Pinatubo and El Nino). From 2000-2002 a statistically significant warming (assuming the underlying data are not subject to systematic effects), a drop back to the flat portion extrapolated from the 79-00 time frame, followed by an increase that looks like its probably the El Nino again. Certainly no systematic increase in the last 30 years. Not that a 30 year time period is enough to account for systematic changes not due to the effects of the hypothesis that warming is man-made.
        -K

        1. What’s so magical about 30 years?

          Nothing. It is just the length of the presented data. Your comments act as if their results are dependent upon start date, but their results use the whole data set. It seems like such an odd response for that reason.

          1. It doesn’t matter whether it’s an intentionally partial picture or a partial picture because we don’t have a choice. Either way it’s a woefully small time frame to make anything more than preliminary judgments on the matter.

            I wish we could just un-ring the bell and go back to trying to find out what the hell is really going on, but that seems impossible in the current turf war climate.

            It seems to me if this were my field, I’d want to know the effects of sun activity and ocean cycles because knowing that would help you better dial in the AGW aspect of the temperature curve.

      4. What does that tell you about the 30 year trend?

        It tells me that the trend is far lower then what AGW predicts.

  3. Yeah I think People are clearly blowing this global warming thing WAY out of proportion!

    RT
    http://www.be-anonymous.bg.tc

    1. Someone needs to get whacked with the Banhammer

  4. Interestingly, the satellites show that the north polar region is warming at +0.43 degrees per decade and the south polar region is cooling at -0.06 degrees per decade.

    So the polar bears are still screwed but the penguins will be ok, right?

    1. Only until that first pair of polar bears makes the long swim south.

      😉

    2. The population of polar bears has exploded in recent decades. They’re doing fine.

      1. Yes, but we’re prepared for that. We’ve lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on polar bear meat.

        1. But then we’ll be overrun with Gorillas!
          -That’s the beauty of it, the gorillas will just freeze in the winter and die!

    3. The polar bears will be able to afford commercial air conditioners from their Coke commercial royalties.

    4. So the polar bears are still screwed but the penguins will be ok, right?

      What is interesting is that the same thing happened during the Medieval Warming Period and is why Mann calls the MWP a regional phenomena. How he gets away with calling half the globe regional and not called an idiot is beyond me.

      Of course it is worse that he calls the MWP regional but current warming global.

      1. What an unfunny addition to the Penguin Gorilla wars thread.

  5. So, at this rate, 1.3 over the next century?

    1. Yeah, because nothing in nature is non-linear.

  6. . . . liars, damn liars, and statisticians.

    1. Interestingly enough, the more proper quote used at around the same time was fibbers, liars and experts.

  7. The global average temperature is increasing at +0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.

    This imp(lies) a linear relationship. A cursory look at the graph shows nothing of the sort is happening — it’s fluctuating around a mean with no apparent pattern.

    1. I mean, just because statisticians are used to performing analyses that draw a straight line of best fit through a set of data, doesn’t mean that natural processes are obligated to behave in that linear manner.

      1. This graph is a perfect example of chaos theory. The idea that no matter what the scale, the same random patterns appear.

        1. “the same random patterns”? isn’t that a little oxymoronic?

    2. This also is dependent on what time frame you choose to examine. If you look at the last ten years, that artificial straight line shows a cooling trend. If we had reliable satellite data over a longer period, yet a different number would appear.

    3. “The global average temperature is increasing at +0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. ”

      if you want to be seen as a legitimate reporter instead of a propagandist for climate alarmist(as you outed yourself when you fell for their stupid pro-co2 tax and trade scam last year), then you would say that “global average temperature increased by .13 degree celsius over x-decade”…sayign that it is “increasing by x amount per y years” implies that it has gotten warmer over the last 10 years…when it has not.

      1. Gabe, I am pretty sure Ron is quoting Christy and/or Watts…both of which are no where even close to “propagandist for climate alarmist”

  8. cooling at -0.06 degrees per decade.

    will someone please tell me why this does not mean “warming at 0.06 degrees per decade.”?

    1. because all of the warming trends are shown as positive numbers and cooling trends are shown negative numbers.

      1. so it’s not to be read as “- at (-0.006)” ?

    2. will someone please tell me why this does not mean “warming at 0.06 degrees per decade.”?

      Cooling is not a negative.

      1. WAIT!!

        Damn you to hell!!

  9. is that avg. based on data that is still in existence?

    1. Or on data that can be accessed by other people who might want to take a skeptical look at how the data was gathered and processed, and scrutinize for the chart generated for methodology used and replicatability, without having to submit a FOIA request that will be stonewalled?

      1. state secret. sorry.

      2. Or on data that can be accessed by other people who might want to take a skeptical look at how the data was gathered and processed, and scrutinize for the chart generated for methodology used and replicatability, without having to submit a FOIA request that will be stonewalled?

        Mann and Briffa and Jones call John Christy and Roy Spencer skeptics and deniers. I have no idea if they actually are.

        The data and methodology used is open archived and readily accessible to anyone.

        Watts at watts up with that and Climate audit and many other skeptical blogs have very good relations with Christy and Spencer and often correspond with them over items dealing with the work done to produce the above graph.

        Warmers and skeptics do not contest the data and methodology used to produce the graph displayed above. In fact the graph above is an actual example of how climate work should be done.
        The methodology and data is open archived and readily available to all who want to look. there is no firewall or gatekeepers. It is no wonder that when warmer climatologist and Al Gore produce graphs to push their agenda that they rarely use the graph displayed above.

    2. See the “Go here” linked in Ron’s post.

      1. i see it NM… did CRU compile these numbers? i’m not trying to be flippant. i’m simply trying to underscore the problem we now have.

        1. Ok.
          Could you elaborate.
          I seem to be missing the connection.

          1. we can see all the numbers, years, locations etc. but there is no way to determine the er.. “legacy” of the data. where does it come from? how was it collected. has it been normalized? massaged? is it value added? who did the work? seemingly unnecessary questions up until a short time ago…


            As of 2008, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

            this sounds a lot like “our methods and tech are improving”. and if so, has the older data been corrected? and if not, why? and if our new methods are better, how can we look at a thirty year trend and say that fluctuations of 00.5 degrees are relative to anything more than our observational method?

            1. Yes ransom, all data and research in the world is now probably bogus.

              I’m looking forward to applying this to all those minimum wage studies whose results I don’t like!

              1. thanks for the wholly unrelated comparison.

            2. I believe the satellite data is “value-added” but you can retrieve the raw data and perform your own transformations. Wikipedia has info on the adjustments that were made.

            3. How dare you question any of this ransom147. This was done by scientists – that is all you need to know. Do not question the methods. Science is not about asking questions. Science is beleiving what the scientist tells you.

    3. These numbers are compiled By John Christy from open, archived and readily available satellite data. They have no relation to CRU data.

  10. http://www.countercurrents.org/hahnel150409.htm

    I just ran across this. I liked it.

    John,
    Nothing.
    Check.

    As pointed out below, nothing in nature is linear. Further, 30 years is a pretty short time when you are talking about climate.
    Yep.

    Further, those 30 years only mean something, to the extent it can, in comparison to older temperatures. And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures is one step above phrenology.

    You were doing so good up until this point. It is the hard part of the problem, but it is rooted in well understood principles in the hard sciences.

    A nice review.

    http://www.grida.no/publicatio…..g1/068.htm

    1. I just love it when the Black Swans get paraded around.

    2. Further, those 30 years only mean something, to the extent it can, in comparison to older temperatures. And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures is one step above phrenology.

      You were doing so good up until this point. It is the hard part of the problem, but it is rooted in well understood principles in the hard sciences.

      Actually John is 100% right. The data that was used for the construction of the above graph is, as i mentioned, Open archived and readily available to anyone. The data used for the CRU hardcut3 is closed unarchived and lost.

      Furthermore the methodology for how the data was used to construct the above graph is open, archived and readily available to anyone while the methodology for hardcut3 and virtually all of Mann’s Briffa’s and Jones proxy reconstructions are Closed, unarchived and lost.

      You cannot say that the hard science is being used when the data and methodology being used is closed, unarchived and lost.

      I guess john is not 100% right. The reconstructions of past temperature are not a step above phrenology, they are a step below.

      1. [sigh]

        Well, I’ll give ya this…you’ve got tenacity. Really, do you actually believe the stuff you repeat endlessly, or is it a calculated tactic to make sure the misinformation is read by as many eyes as possible.

        1. I wonder if Joshua and find the error in his post. Does he recognize how off topic it is?

          1. I wonder if Joshua and find the error in his post. Does he recognize how off topic it is?

            You are an asshole and stupid and been proven wrong repeatedly.

            See i can make claims with providing no evidence as well. Anyone can play this game.

            John’s statment:

            Further, those 30 years only mean something, to the extent it can, in comparison to older temperatures. And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures is one step above phrenology.

            Directly compares the state of Proxy constructions of past temperature and satellite data and analysis.

            I pointed out how the data and analysis of the satellite data is Open, archived and available, while the proxy data and instrument data used in hardcut3 is closed, unarchived and lost.

            1. SOOOOO the answer is, no, he doesn’t see it.

              Here’s the hint: And our ability to reconstruct past temperatures

              You’ve got a false equivalency in your response.

                1. Anyone who wants to dig further into our ability to reconstruct past climate could start here…

                  http://www.clim-past.net/volumes_and_issues.html

                2. Here is a pdf explaining the data set.

                  http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ha…..cepted.pdf

                  1. Hmmm. That posted in the wrong place.
                    That pdf is for the HADcru3 data.

            2. For those who want to go beyond HadCRU3
              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

              1. An archived version of 2001 HadCrut

                http://www.john-daly.com/hadcrut.zip
                http://www.john-daly.com/tavegl.dat

                They did a really bad job of locking this stuff down.

                1. Neu Mejican|12.7.09 @ 8:40PM|#

                  An archived version of 2001 HadCrut

                  http://www.john-daly.com/hadcrut.zip
                  http://www.john-daly.com/tavegl.dat

                  They did a really bad job of locking this stuff down.

                  The raw data and the methodology that produces the hardcrut data. Not what the “blackbox” spits out.

                  You really are an idiot.

                  What is even funnier is you could not even find the Hardcrut3 numbers. You had to get the 2001 package from john daly’s website. Who is a skeptic!

                  Hey Neu why can’t you provide a link from the CRU (you know the place where they actually produce these numbers) that has the most recent numbers from Hardcru3?

                  1. Joshua.
                    What are you babbling about? That link is the first one in the list of links.

                    We can again go over the fact that there is no scientific reason to worry about the issues you are worrying about. Nothing of import is lost, locked down, and the important archives are still available. The best way to refute their work would be to run a replication study. This would NOT require the data that Steve M is obsessed with…it would simply require the raw data numbers that are held by other agencies.

                    The idea that the “science can’t be checked” because they threw out some of their files is a red herring. The best check on science is an independent replication using the methods they describe in their publications. Run an independent replication and if it doesn’t work out…the ball is back in their court to demonstrate that they weren’t just faking it the whole time.

                    The only thing more fascinating to me about this whole thing than the weird Steve M cult that obsesses over his compulsion to check other people’s math is the way that his obsession with a few specific players makes his readers think these guys are the only game in town and if they can be shown to be less than squeaky clean, then the whole enterprise is just so much phrenology.

                    (The new phrenology, btw, is not climate science…cuz it don’t use fMRI and fMRI is the new phrenology).

                    1. Steve M cult that obsesses over his compulsion to check other people’s math

                      John Christy and Roy Spencer show their math and funny thing is no one, skeptic or warmist or other wise question their work.

                      Hmmm i wonder why Mann and Jones and Briffa were so obsessed with keeping their math from Steve M and others?

                      The Spencer and Christy example clearly show if you show your work you don’t end up at the wrong end of congressional hearings, investigations, and criminal and civil suits.

                      Plus there is the simple fact that if the science of calculating past temperatures before there were instrument measurement had to use proxies that diverge so dramatically from the 20th century instrument data they would have done it.

                      By the way i did not say they could not check the science because they threw out the data. I said they can’t replicate their results because they lost their data.

                      One thing that is interesting is that you said they threw out their data. Jones did say he would rather delete it then show it to the public. There is an investigation. Might be fun to watch and see if he threw it out or lost it.

                    2. We’ve been over this.
                      Yes, it is best for everyone to be as transparent as possible.

                      I think this is a pretty good take on these issues (Hans Von Storch)

                      Related to this, the e-mails and datasets hacked in England mentioned at the beginning may be of interest. Are the allegations made to the climate scientists concerning the published material valid?

                      There is one thing we can already say: there was no real fabrication. The numbers were not twisted and there was no data massage. The people involved have indeed formed a cartel, and prominently among them are authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis – for example Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf. A cartel to push the views of its members. And that is highly unscientific, because science must be open and the ‘business model’ we have here is irreconcilable with that.

                      So the data should indeed have been made accessible for others.

                      Understandably, one does not immediately provide new data to other scientists as one wants to valorize them first oneself. After some time however they should come into the open so that others can work on them – even when these others are hostile and just want to find errors. But we all make errors ? as well as we make many judgments that could be done differently and that may have big consequences.

                      I am convinced that the skeptics would only find a few minor errors when the CRU would release the complete data base. But the overall picture that the climate is changing would not be different. That this recompilation has not yet been done is a bit like a Rumpelstiltskin reaction or of a recalcitrant child: one does not want certain people to have the material because in the past these people had been critical of one’s own.

                      http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/

  11. Things to consider:

    1. Flashing your PhD means you didn’t deserve one.
    2. He also believes that ID is a better explanation of observed reality.

    Ron: I wouldn’t touch anything this guy publishes with a ten-foot pole.

  12. The problem, as I see it, is that Modern Man* is way smarter than his Neanderthal cousins (who just dressed up in warmer skins when it got colder and got on with their lives) and therefore has convinced himself that he can Do Something about the weather.

    *Modern Western Man, I should say. The East does not appear to be worried. There’s plenty of coal, Christmas is right around the corner, and there are cheap and deadly toys to be made.

    1. I am the Modern Man.

  13. South polar region: -0.06
    Southern hemisphere: +0.06
    Northern hemisphere: +0.19
    North polar region: +0.43

    Is this latitudinal trend statistically significant? If so, are there any explanatory theories?

    1. umm, my theory centers around the fact that cold air sinks and it’s making the south pole colder.

    2. I would assume there are plenty of theories, some of them mutually contradictory. But I’m also sure that none of these touted computer climate models predicted this in advance, or can accurately predict the next ten years’ worth of weather.

      1. I’m also sure that none of these touted computer climate models predicted this in advance, or can accurately predict the next ten years’ worth of weather.

        Or the next century, which is what the Hockey Team pretends they can do.

        -jcr

    3. There is evidence that there is heat upwelling from the the earth under the arctic ocean, but the extant and relation to the warming is unexamined. I have my doubts anyone could have gotten a paper published on the subject with the climatstazi watchdogs blackballing anyone who even thought about trying to.

      1. They must be pretty powerful men.

        1. “They” seem to think so.

          Here is an email from Michael Schlesinger threatening Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

          Andy:

          Copenhagen prostitutes? Climate prostitutes?

          Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.

          The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.

          Copenhagen prostitutes? Unbelievable and unacceptable.

          What are you doing and why?

          Michael

          I get the feeling that this is not the first time climate scientists have threatened the press or even other scientists before.

          How about you Neu? Does this read like a one time deal?

          By the way this is not one of the email’s from cliamtegate. This was written after climategate.

          1. What does that have to do with keeping scientific research out of peer-reviewed journals?

            Really…stay on topic.

  14. Oh, and as for this 30 year average, note that it contains a period of cooling due to the Pinatubo eruption. Since that was a one-time event, if that time period was removed from the data, the overall average for thirty years would be pushed up, thus showing the recent average as being closer to zero.

    El Nino warmings, on the other hand, are a recurring phenomenon.

    1. Volcanoes are a recurring phenomenon too, just far more random than El Ni?o.

      -jcr

    2. Paleontological temp ‘estimates’ – warmest vs coolest times – put us basically in the middle temp ranges… My only concern about gw, is how much of my limited resources are going to be transferred to others in the cockamamie schemes that are currently on the table to stop something that we aren’t going to be able to influence anyway. All so we can Do SOMETHING! At a time when the planet supported animals the size of three story buildings there were no icecaps I’m pretty sure the human race will survive, and more likely thrive if the temp is a few degrees higher…

      1. You might consider that most of our infrastructure was designed for the conditions present in the 19th and 20th centuries, so big changes (even if they are perfectly normal on long time scales) could be costly.

        I worry most of all about dams. If the climate changes, some of them will doubtless be under-designed for the new precipitation conditions in their catch basins.

        And won’t that be swell.

        No idea how abatement compares to climate engineering in cost, but I think we know what were doing with abatement, and am much less sure of our ability to understand the effects of any our geoengineering attempts.

  15. That graph looks to me like the vertical scale is quite exaggerated. I’d like to see it plotted on a scale with the seasonal extremes, or the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded visible on the Y axis, and something to indicate the range of human habitability.

    -jcr

  16. I’d like to see the solar activity graph on this page…

    1. Along with the hurricane acitivty plotted along with the OMFG! post-Katrina hurricane predictions.

    2. Including solar magnetic activity.

  17. “Oh, and as for this 30 year average, note that it contains a period of cooling due to the Pinatubo eruption. Since that was a one-time event”

    I am the last valcano.

    1. So when do you predict the next Pinatubo-sized volcanic eruption will occur?

      Are you saying that eruptions of that magnitude are typical for any given 30 year period?

      1. no but there have been bigger eruptions in the past and will be in the future… none of which will we have any control over

      2. Are you saying that eruptions of that magnitude are typical for any given 30 year period?

        Of course not. Volcanic eruptions are Black Swans [tm], and so can be safely ignored.

      3. Never. I and no other volcano will ever erupt again. How do I know this? Because random eruption isn’t included in the warmist’s climate models.

  18. So we ignone Mt. Pinatubo. Fine. What’s the explanation for that ’84-’87 cool spell?

    1. I left the back door at the mansion open and the air conditioner went into overdrive. Sorry about that.

  19. Interestingly, the satellites show that the north polar region is warming at +0.43 degrees per decade and the south polar region is cooling at -0.06 degrees per decade.

    If one hemisphere is warming and the other is cooling, this can only mean one thing: THE EARTH IS GONNA SPLIT IN HALF!

    1. Bullshit.

  20. So let me get this straight. Renowned climate change skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy claim that this is a record warmest November temperature, yet most of the climate skeptic journalists are trying to tell us that the earth is cooling? (Example: See “Pouring cold water on global warming” by Terri Jackson).

    Could it at all be possible that these journalists are pulling stats out of their noses?

  21. Oh sweet Jesus this is too good to be true. All the deniers here that were furious with my intelligent design troll seem to not know this guy is an IDer! Evolution and AGW, both hoaxes!

    http://www.uncommondescent.com…..nt-design/

  22. Check out the Copenhagen Document leaks, this knowledge may save your life! Do what you can with your Government Reps in your country to have these infringements on your life eliminated! You will literally be fighting for your and your family’s existence, Click the videos below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAqqAnUxACY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0

    Request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca

    Sign the petition to protest the Inaccurate Science measurements that are being used to base the Copenhagen Treaty off of: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

  23. 1. Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  24. 1. Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  25. Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  26. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at http://www.RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.