Thursday, January 15, 2009
The National Climatic Data Center annual report
The National Climatic Data Center posted its annual report on the global climate this evening. It is an interesting and accessible read with lots of interesting graphs and tables, and it invites at least as many questions as it answers, most of which I am too tired to ask and incompetent to answer. The ultra-short version of the report is that 2008 was the ninth warmest year since 1880 using all available data as adjusted by various experts. If, however, you rely exclusively on satellite readings (which do not suffer from the various shortcomings of the surface stations, such as changes in the landscape that might increase the ambient temperature), the picture changes markedly. Your own analysis is most welcome.
5 Comments:
By 
Georg Felis, at
Thu Jan 15, 12:16:00 AM:
How about "Climate experts will predict Global Warming disasters until the glaciers push them into the Gulf of Mexico"?
By JPMcT, at
Thu Jan 15, 07:33:00 AM:
It's an interesting display of tortured, extrapolated data over an infintesmally brief period of time.
We are looking at a clip of data an inch long on a data curve that extends back for MILES...and making fairly pompous predicitions. The Hubris is palpable!
I doubt that the conclusions would bear up under strict peer review...but it's not really about science, is it?
Meanwhile, do you think any of these guys can tell me if it's going to snow this weekend in Virginia??!!
I didn't think so...
By 
, at
Thu Jan 15, 10:40:00 AM:
The arctic sea ice extent graph for 2008 ends abruptly at the end of september conveniently prior to the rapid acceleration of the extent at the end of the year. This data is published daily so why are the final three months of 2008 missing? Was it that difficult to provide a current figure? If this data is so misleadingly misrepresented what about the rest of it?
ellert
By Brian, at
Thu Jan 15, 11:56:00 AM:
Satellite data interpretation isn't more accurate than surface measurements. Failure to consider orbital decay appropriately screwed up the measurements for over a decade, so Christy and Spencer's measurements showing no warming at all were trumpeted by skeptics until 2003. The skeptics should be embarrassed, but they aren't.
By joated, at
Thu Jan 15, 04:08:00 PM:
Brian, the number of surface stations located in very questionable sites (parking lots, rooftops, next to AC units, etc.) should embarrass the heck out of the proponents of AGW, but it doesn't.
Declaring something the "warmest ever" or the "highest levels ever" and failing to take into account levels that existed 2-300 years ago and more should embarrass the proponents of AGW, but it doesn't.
