Monday, January 30, 2012 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

HadCRUT3: 2011 was 12th warmest year

The dataset produced at the center of the Climategate scandals, HadCRUT3 (weather stations), differs from UAH AMSU (satellites), RSS AMSU (satellites), and GISS (weather stations).

If you click at the previous links, you will see that unusual coalitions have developed: both GISS (weather stations) and UAH AMSU (satellites) saw 2011 as the 9th warmest year while both HadCRUT3 (weather stations) and RSS AMSU (satellites) decided that the right climate ranking for the previous year was at the 12th spot.




In some more detail, HadCRUT3 classifies 162 years, 1850-2011. Among them, as you can calculate, the hitparade looks like this:

  1. {1998, 0.548}, 
  2. {2005, 0.482}, 
  3. {2010, 0.478}, 
  4. {2003, 0.475}, 
  5. {2002, 0.465}, 
  6. {2004, 0.447}, 
  7. {2009, 0.443}, 
  8. {2006, 0.425}, 
  9. {2001, 0.408}, 
  10. {2007, 0.402}, 
  11. {1997, 0.352}, 
  12. {2011, 0.340}, 
  13. {2008, 0.325}, 
  14. {1999, 0.297}, 
  15. {1995, 0.275}, 
  16. {2000, 0.270}, 
  17. {1990, 0.255}, 
  18. {1991, 0.213}, 
  19. {1988, 0.180}, 
  20. {1987, 0.179}, 
  21. {1983, 0.177}, 
  22. {1994, 0.172}, 
  23. {1996, 0.137}, 
  24. {1944, 0.121}, 
  25. {1981, 0.120}, 
  26. {1993, 0.106}, 
  27. {1989, 0.102}, 
  28. {1941, 0.078}, 
  29. {1973, 0.077}, 
  30. {1980, 0.076}, 
  31. {1992, 0.062}, 
  32. {1979, 0.049}, 
  33. {1986, 0.030}, 
  34. {1878, 0.028}, 
  35. {1940, 0.02}, 
  36. {1977, 0.017}, 
  37. {1982, 0.01}, 
  38. {1938, 0.009}, 
  39. {1963, 0.002}, 
  40. {1939, 0.001}, 
  41. {1945, -0.007},
The temperature anomalies are expressed in Celsius degrees.

Here are the trends in °C/century obtained from linear regression of the annual mean temperature anomalies for the periods YYYY-2011 where YYYY (the "from" year) is listed below. Note that for the very short periods (i.e. YYYY close to 2011), we get numbers with huge absolute values because most of the "trend" is due to indisputable "noise".
  • {2010, -13.8}, 
  • {2009, -5.15}, 
  • {2008, 0.8}, 
  • {2007, 0.29}, 
  • {2006, -0.23}, 
  • {2005, -1.}, 
  • {2004, -0.94}, 
  • {2003, -1.04}, 
  • {2002, -0.98}, 
  • {2001, -0.64}, 
  • {2000, 0.11}, 
  • {1999, 0.47}, 
  • {1998, -0.04}, 
  • {1997, 0.13}, 
  • {1996, 0.71}, 
  • {1995, 0.82}, 
  • {1994, 1.07}, 
  • {1993, 1.33}, 
  • {1992, 1.57}, 
  • {1991, 1.53}, 
  • {1990, 1.43}, 
  • {1989, 1.5}, 
  • {1988, 1.47}, 
  • {1987, 1.43}, 
  • {1986, 1.51}, 
  • {1985, 1.62}, 
  • {1984, 1.68}, 
  • {1983, 1.58}, 
  • {1982, 1.6}, 
  • {1981, 1.54}, 
  • {1980, 1.51}, 
  • {1979, 1.48}, 
  • {1978, 1.52}, 
  • {1977, 1.5}, 
  • {1976, 1.59}, 
  • {1975, 1.64}, 
  • {1974, 1.68}, 
  • {1973, 1.6}, 
  • {1972, 1.58}, 
  • {1971, 1.6}, 
  • {1970, 1.57}, 
  • {1969, 1.52}, 
  • {1968, 1.52}, 
  • {1967, 1.51}, 
  • {1966, 1.5}, 
  • {1965, 1.5}, 
  • {1964, 1.52}, 
  • {1963, 1.46}, 
  • {1962, 1.41}, 
  • {1961, 1.36}, 
  • {1960, 1.34}, 
  • {1959, 1.31}, 
  • {1958, 1.26}, 
  • {1957, 1.23}, 
  • {1956, 1.25}, 
  • {1955, 1.26}, 
  • {1954, 1.25}, 
  • {1953, 1.21}, 
  • {1952, 1.18}, 
  • {1951, 1.16}, 
  • {1950, 1.16}, 
  • {1949, 1.15}, 
  • {1948, 1.14}, 
  • {1947, 1.12}, 
  • {1946, 1.11}, 
  • {1945, 1.07}, 
  • {1944, 1.01}, 
  • {1943, 0.98}, 
  • {1942, 0.95}, 
  • {1941, 0.91}, 
  • {1940, 0.87}, 
  • {1939, 0.84}, 
  • {1938, 0.82}, 
  • {1937, 0.79}, 
  • {1936, 0.78}, 
  • {1935, 0.78}, 
  • {1934, 0.77}, 
  • {1933, 0.77}, 
  • {1932, 0.76}, 
  • {1931, 0.75}, 
  • {1930, 0.74}, 
  • {1929, 0.74}, 
  • {1928, 0.74}, 
  • {1927, 0.74}, 
  • {1926, 0.73}, 
  • {1925, 0.73}, 
  • {1924, 0.73}, 
  • {1923, 0.73}, 
  • {1922, 0.74}, 
  • {1921, 0.73}, 
  • {1920, 0.73}, 
  • {1919, 0.73}, 
  • {1918, 0.73}, 
  • {1917, 0.74}, 
  • {1916, 0.75}, 
  • {1915, 0.74}, 
  • {1914, 0.73}, 
  • {1913, 0.74}, 
  • {1912, 0.74}, 
  • {1911, 0.75}, 
  • {1910, 0.76}, 
  • {1909, 0.77}, 
  • {1908, 0.77}, 
  • {1907, 0.77}, 
  • {1906, 0.77}, 
  • {1905, 0.76}, 
  • {1904, 0.77}, 
  • {1903, 0.77}, 
  • {1902, 0.77}, 
  • {1901, 0.76}, 
  • {1900, 0.74}, 
  • {1899, 0.73}, 
  • {1898, 0.73}, 
  • {1897, 0.72}, 
  • {1896, 0.71}, 
  • {1895, 0.7}, 
  • {1894, 0.7}, 
  • {1893, 0.7}, 
  • {1892, 0.7}, 
  • {1891, 0.69}, 
  • {1890, 0.69}, 
  • {1889, 0.68}, 
  • {1888, 0.67}, 
  • {1887, 0.66}, 
  • {1886, 0.65}, 
  • {1885, 0.65}, 
  • {1884, 0.64}, 
  • {1883, 0.63}, 
  • {1882, 0.62}, 
  • {1881, 0.61}, 
  • {1880, 0.61}, 
  • {1879, 0.6}, 
  • {1878, 0.58}, 
  • {1877, 0.56}, 
  • {1876, 0.56}, 
  • {1875, 0.56}, 
  • {1874, 0.55}, 
  • {1873, 0.55}, 
  • {1872, 0.54}, 
  • {1871, 0.54}, 
  • {1870, 0.53}, 
  • {1869, 0.52}, 
  • {1868, 0.52}, 
  • {1867, 0.51}, 
  • {1866, 0.5}, 
  • {1865, 0.5}, 
  • {1864, 0.5}, 
  • {1863, 0.49}, 
  • {1862, 0.49}, 
  • {1861, 0.49}, 
  • {1860, 0.49}, 
  • {1859, 0.48}, 
  • {1858, 0.48}, 
  • {1857, 0.48}, 
  • {1856, 0.48}, 
  • {1855, 0.47}, 
  • {1854, 0.47}, 
  • {1853, 0.46}, 
  • {1852, 0.46}, 
  • {1851, 0.45}, 
  • {1850, 0.45}.
I hope you have enjoyed the reading. :-) I also hope you have noticed that the trends from 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2010 have been negative. If you haven't, you must read the numbers above again (and memorize them)! :-)

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (6) :


reader Haydn CJ said...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature Check this out I don't see how you can both be right!!


reader Luboš Motl said...

Could you please specify what's the exact contradiction?


reader haydn cj said...

Not sure what objectivity your seeking - my question stands how do you reconcile this blog with the current met office figures?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature


reader Luboš Motl said...

I am surely looking for objectivity - and guess that you have probably confused objectivity with an objective.


You have confused everything else, too. If you suggest that there is any inaccuracy in my text, and you seem to do so, could you please provide me with at least a tiny glimpse of evidence for your accusations?


reader haydncj said...

Disappointing that you cannot see the anomaly that has led to MPs quoting that temperature has been falling for the last sixteen years on the basis of your blog while the current figures paint a different picture.

Table of global temperatures

The table shows global average temperature anomalies for the past 25 years from the three major global temperature datasets. Anomalies have been calculated relative to the average for the period 1961-1990. Original data sources can be found at these locations: HadCRUT4, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC. More information about the HadCRUT3 data can be found on the HadCRUT4 page.Global average temperature anomaliesYearHadCRUT4 in°C (95% confidence range)HadCRUT3 in °C (95% confidence range)NCDC in °CGISS in °C20120.45 (0.35 to 0.55)0.40 (0.30 to 0.49)0.460.4720110.41 (0.31 to 0.50)0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44)0.410.4620100.55 (0.46 to 0.64)0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59)0.540.5820090.49 (0.40 to 0.59)0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54)0.470.5020080.39 (0.30 to 0.48)0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41)0.390.4020070.48 (0.40 to 0.57)0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50)0.470.5420060.50 (0.41 to 0.59)0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53)0.480.5020050.54 (0.45 to 0.63)0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58)0.530.5720040.44 (0.35 to 0.54)0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53)0.460.4320030.50 (0.41 to 0.60)0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56)0.500.5120020.49 (0.40 to 0.59)0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55)0.490.5320010.44 (0.35 to 0.53)0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50)0.430.4420000.29 (0.20 to 0.38)0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33)0.310.3119990.30 (0.21 to 0.39)0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36)0.330.3119980.53 (0.44 to 0.62)0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61)0.510.5219970.39 (0.31 to 0.48)0.36 ( 0.26 to 0.45)0.390.3719960.18 (0.09 to 0.27)0.12 ( 0.03 to 0.22)0.200.2419950.32 (0.23 to 0.41)0.28 ( 0.18 to 0.37)0.330.3419940.20 (0.12 to 0.29)0.17 ( 0.07 to 0.26)0.200.2019930.14 (0.05 to 0.23)0.10 ( 0.01 to 0.19)0.140.1219920.10 (0.01 to 0.19)0.06 (-0.03 to 0.15)0.110.1019910.25 (0.17 to 0.34)0.20 ( 0.11 to 0.29)0.250.2919900.29 (0.21 to 0.38)0.25 ( 0.16 to 0.33)0.270.3019890.12 (0.04 to 0.21)0.09 ( 0.01 to 0.18)0.140.1519880.20 (0.12 to 0.28)0.16 ( 0.08 to 0.25)0.220.2719870.19 (0.10 to 0.27)0.17 ( 0.08 to 0.25)0.200.20

Last Updated: 14 August 2013


reader Luboš Motl said...

I already told you that I had just copied the figures from the HadCRUT3 website. If they have fudged the figures again, it's their fault and I would recommend a life in prison for them. I am surely not going to update every 2-year-old blog entry whenever some assholes fudges his data again.

If you question that there's been a negative temperature trend in the last 16-17 years, then you are in a complete denial of the reality.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/08/rss-negative-temperature-trend-in-1667.html?m=1