<div>Gavin Schmidt's Bio:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46</a></div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/#more-632">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/#more-632</a></div>
<div>
<h2>16 December 2008</h2>
<div class="post">
<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-632">2008 temperature summaries and spin</h3>
<div class="meta">Filed under:
<ul class="post-categories">
<li><a title="View all posts in Instrumental Record" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/" rel="category tag"><font size="2">Instrumental Record</font></a><font size="2"> </font>
<li><a title="View all posts in Climate Science" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/" rel="category tag"><font size="2">Climate Science</font></a></li></li></ul> gavin @ 1:56 PM </div>
<div class="storycontent">
<p>The great thing about complex data is that one can basically come up with any number of headlines describing it - all of which can be literally true - but that give very different impressions. Thus we are sure that you will soon read that 2008 was warmer than any year in the 20th Century (with the exception of 1998), that is was the coolest year this century (starting from 2001), and that 7 or 8 of the 9 warmest years have occurred since 2000. There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; 2008 is not the coolest year this decade (that was 2000), global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO<sub>2</sub> continues to be a greenhouse gas, and such variability is indeed predicted by climate models. Today's post is therefore dedicated to cutting through the hype and looking at the bigger picture.<br>
<span id="more-632"></span></p>
<p>As is usual, today marks the release of the 'meteorological year' averages for the surface temperature records (<a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp"><font color="#66aa55">GISTEMP</font></a>, <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow"><font color="#66aa55">HadCRU</font></a>, <a href="http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#anomalies"><font color="#66aa55">NCDC</font></a>). This time period runs from December last year through to the end of November this year and is so-called because of the fact that it is easier to dice into seasons than the calendar year. That is, the met year consists of the average of the DJF (winter), MAM (spring), JJA (summer) and SON (autumn) periods (using the standard shorthand for the month names). This makes a little more sense than including the JF from one winter and the D from another as you do in the calendar year calculation. But since the correlation between the D-N and J-D averages is very high (r=0.997), it makes little practical difference. Annual numbers are a little more useful than monthly anomalies for determining long term trends, but are still quite noisy.</p>
<p>The bottom line: In the GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC analyses D-N 2008 were at 0.43, 0.42 and 0.47ēC above the 1951-1980 baseline (respectively). In GISTEMP both October and November came in quite warm (0.58ēC), the former edging up slightly on last month's estimate as more data came in. This puts 2008 at #9 (or #8) in the yearly rankings, but given the uncertainty in the estimates, the real ranking could be anywhere between #6 or #15. More robustly, the most recent 5-year averages are all significantly higher than any in the last century. The last decade is by far the warmest decade globally in the record. These big picture conclusions are the same if you look at any of the data sets, though the actual numbers are slightly different (relating principally to the data extrapolation - particularly <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/"><font color="#66aa55">in the Arctic</font></a>). </p>
<p>So what to make of the latest year's data? First off, we <em>expect</em> that there will be oscillations in the global mean temperature. No climate model has ever shown a year-on-year increase in temperatures because of the currently expected amount of global warming. A big factor in those oscillations is <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/"><font color="#66aa55">ENSO</font></a> - whether there is a a warm El Niņo event, or a cool La Niņa event makes an appreciable difference in the global mean anomalies - about 0.1 to 0.2ēC for significant events. There <em>was</em> a significant <a href="http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/"><font color="#66aa55">La Niņa</font></a> at the beginning of this year (and that is fully included in the D-N annual mean), and that undoubtedly played a role in this year's relative coolness. It's worth pointing out that 2000 also had a similarly sized La Niņa but was notably cooler than this last year. </p>
<p>While ENSO is one factor in the annual variability, it is not the only one. There are both other sources of internal variability and external forcings. The other internal variations can be a little difficult to characterise (it isn't as simple as just a super-position of all the climate acronyms you ever heard of NAO+SAM+PDO+AMO+MJO etc.), but the external (natural) forcings are a little easier. The two main ones are volcanic variability and solar forcing. There have been no climatically significant volcanoes since 1991, and so that is not a factor. However, we are at a <a href="http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2_d41_61_0810.png"><font color="#66aa55">solar minimum</font></a>. The impacts of the solar cycle on the surface temperature record are somewhat disputed, but it might be as large as 0.1ēC from solar min to solar max, with a lag of a year or two. Thus for 2008, one might expect a deviation below trend (the difference between mean solar and solar min, and expecting the impact to not yet be fully felt) of up to 0.05ēC. Not a very big signal, and not one that would shift the rankings significantly. </p>
<p>There were a number of rather overheated <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm"><font color="#66aa55">claims</font></a> earlier this year that 'all the global warming had been erased' by the La Niņa-related anomaly. This was always ridiculous, and now that most of that anomaly has passed, we aren't holding our breath waiting for the 'global warming is now back' headlines from the same sources.</p>
<p>Taking a longer perspective, the 30 year mean trends aren't greatly affected by a single year (GISTEMP: 1978-2007 0.17+/-0.04ēC/dec; 1979-2008 0.16+/-0.04 - OLS trends, annual data, 95% CI, no correction for auto-correlation; identical for HadCRU); they are still solidly upwards. The match of the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/"><font color="#66aa55">Hansen et al 1988</font></a> scenario B projections are similarly little affected (GISTEMP 1984-2008 0.19+/-0.05 (LO-index) 0.22+/-0.07 (Met-station index); HansenB 1984-2008 0.25+/-0.05 ēC/dec) - the projections run slightly warmer as one would expect given the slightly greater (~10%) forcing in the projection then occurred in reality. This year's data then don't really change our expectations much. </p>
<p>Finally, as we've discussed <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/"><font color="#66aa55">before</font></a>, what climate models did or did not predict is available for all to <a href="http://climexp.knmi.nl/"><font color="#66aa55">see</font></a>. Despite many cautions about using short-term changes to imply something about the long-term trend, these comparisons will still be made. So just for fun, here is a comparison of the observations with the model projections from 1999 to 2008 using 1999 as a baseline. The answer might be surprising for some:</p>
<p><img alt="1999-2008 model and data trends" src="http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1999.jpg"></p>
<p>You can get slightly different pictures if you pick the start year differently, and so this isn't something profound. Picking <em>any</em> single year as a starting point is somewhat subjective and causes the visual aspect to vary - looking at the trends is more robust. However, this figure does show that in models, as in data, some years will be above trend, and some will be below trend. Anyone who expresses shock at this is either naive or
well, you know.</p>
<p>As for the next few years, our expectations are not much changed. This coming winter is predicted to be ENSO neutral, so on that basis one would expect a warmer year next year than this year (though probably not quite record breaking). Barring any large volcanic eruption, I don't see any reason for the decadal trends to depart much from the anticipated ~0.2ēC/decade.</p>
<p><strong>Update:</strong> Just FYI, the same figure as above baselined to <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1990.jpg" target="_blank"><font color="#66aa55">1990</font></a>, and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/2008_from1979.jpg" target="_blank"><font color="#66aa55">1979</font></a>.</p>
<p>-----------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div></div></div>