2008 Coolest Year Since 2000, But Global Temps Still Expected to Rise
EmailABC’s Clayton Sandell reports: NASA climate scientists released a new analysis today showing 2008 was the coolest year on record since 2000, but warned a new high temperature record could be broken in the next couple of years. “Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average,” said the report from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The low temperatures in the Pacific were blamed on strong La Nina conditions that brought cooler waters to the ocean surface. While the Pacific was cooler than average last year, a global map shows temperatures in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica were at least 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average (red and dark red areas.) Click on the map or chart to enlarge. The report said 2008 was likely the ninth-warmest year on record, and noted that the ten warmest years have all occurred since 1997. Scientists say they expect the Pacific to warm up again in 2009 or 2010, thanks to an El Nino cycle that churns up higher temperature waters. “It still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years,” the authors said. The NASA GISS report was authored by Maiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, and James Hansen. Hansen recently penned a letter to President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle calling for policies to address global warming, including a moratorium on coal-fired power plants and a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. 2008′s temperature analysis was delayed, the authors said, because of a new process of internally reviewing temperature reports before releasing them to the public. The procedure was put in place after flaws were found in some of the 2008 temperature data.
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
Steve Jobs' FBI File Released 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I don’t trust their numbers one bit. Here in South Central Wisconsin, we only broke 90 degrees twice in 2008. Normally we have around 20 days a year that are well into the nineties.
And has anyone seen some of the places they put their measuring instruments? Many are in parking lots that obviously weren’t there 50 years ago.
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
GISS and the IPCC crossed the fine line between “cherry picking” data and outright fraud years ago. Follow the money!
Posted by: Brian | January 14, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
More likely the report was delayed because of icy travel conditions.
Posted by: Dave | January 14, 2009, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
year 1960: Global cooling caused by CO2 emmissions will bring the planet into the next ice age!!
year 2000: Global cooling caused by CO2 emissions will turn the planet into a desert!!!
year 2020: Global cooling/warming caused by CO2 emissions from overpopulation has damaged leading scientists brains. Solution: eliminate 2 billion people to save the planet and the retarted scientists.
Posted by: adam | January 14, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm
Al Moron is still trying to sell his books! This is a living joke.
Posted by: bob | January 14, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
The entire concept that taking a snapshot in time and extrapolating the end of the world from it is a complete joke. Unfortunately Al Bore & his group of frauds have manged to scare enough people into believing it.
I wish these same people would give me their money and lives to bet in the stock market based on two hours of data coming off the Dow Jones.
Liberals yak all the time about how Bush has destoyed everything since the big bang, the real game being played is this foolishness about global warming, oops, now the PC term is “climate change”. The planet has undergone these kinds of changes many, mant times in the past.
I keep waiting to hear these clowns tell us the Model T emmisions created the Dust Bowl storms!
Posted by: Mike_C | January 14, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Algore! I don’t know how that has anything to do with the topic, but that’s usually the response to these kinds of stories.
Posted by: goodusername | January 14, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
Mike_C: “The entire concept that taking a snapshot in time and extrapolating the end of the world from it is a complete joke.”
No scientist has ever done that.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 14, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
adam: “Global cooling caused by CO2 emmissions will bring the planet into the next ice age”
No scientist ever said anything of the sort. When you put quotes around something, you are not supposed to have just made it up.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 14, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
“Scientists say last year was coolest since 2000, but temps still rising.” – What?
Posted by: Bill | January 14, 2009, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Bill
They are referring to different time-scales. “Climate” is usually defined as a long-term average, usually at least 20-30 years. That is because many of the year-to-year variations in temperature are due to various anomalies and random events, and are not indicative of “climate.”
The point is, whether this year was warmer or cooler than last, has very little to do with climate change.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 14, 2009, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm
“The planet has undergone these kinds of changes many, mant times in the past.”—-1) That’s about a stupid as saying man can’t cause forest fires because nature caused them long before there were humans. 2) How did these natural climate changes work out in the past for the creatures living at the time? Maybe we should ask the woolly mammoth or the sabre toothed tiger. Climate change, artificial or otherwise, will not wipe out life on earth. It’ll just make it VERY unpleasant for us.
Posted by: cicclinton | January 14, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
just listen to Rush Limbaugh, Professor at the Rush Limbaugh Center for Advanced Conservative Studies and get your biological and geological information. whatever you do, do NOT believe the people who have PhDs in fields relevant to global environment. if you got the chills this year, there’s no global worming, silly.
seriously, bury your head in the sands. just don’t take us down with you. some of us have hope for the earth because unlike many, we don’t plan on getting teleported away when end times or rapture comes.
your hatred of higher learning is astounding and no wonder why our nation’s education system is in its dismal state.
reason, rationalism and science are all the devil’s work. lol.
Posted by: Paul | January 14, 2009, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
jock59801: “No scientist ever said anything of the sort. When you put quotes around something, you are not supposed to have just made it up”
i find it funny that they are still talking about it, its a complete contradictary of the current theory
Posted by: adam | January 14, 2009, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
adam
Congratulations, you found a stupid scientist.
But the few scientists who speculated about an ice age in the 1970s were not talking about CO2, but rather particulates from air pollution.
Someone did a review of the scientific literature recently, and found that there were actually more scientists in the 1970s predicting warmer climates than cooler ones.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 14, 2009, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
We are lucky that we got a one year break from the horrors of global warming.
Just kidding…everyone knows global warming is a hoax.
Posted by: kevin | January 14, 2009, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Mr. Jock59801,
Do the terms “Interglacial”, “Pacific Decadal Oscillation”, Solar cycle 24″ and “El Nino Southern Oscillation” mean anything to you? Have you read the paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas demonstrating the link between solar activity, cosmic particles and cloud formation? Are you aware that the relation of temperature to CO2 is an inverse log function? The predictons of the IPCC’s GCM’s made only 10 years ago have diverged dramatically from observations. The game is up and the fraud has been exposed. Throw another log on the fire and do your homework.
Posted by: Brian | January 15, 2009, 2:08 am 2:08 am
Brian
Yes, I have heard of all of those things. They all affect the climate. So? So does CO2.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 15, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
Gore needs to travel more in his private jet. It is cold where I am. Maybe Al can heat up the place with his travels.
Posted by: Huh | January 15, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
Mr. Jock,
Terrific! Then you do understand the forces and mechanisms that determine climate on earth. Only one point remains.
CO2 is an insulator. The first 20ppm account for most of the insulation. Further increases have ever diminishing effects.
Similar to insulating your house, once you’ve achieved a certian value of insulation, adding more insulation will have no measurable effect.
At the current concentration of 380ppm, additional CO2 is irrelavent to temperature and climate as this data from PNAS clearly demonstrates.
My apologies for the referrence to doing your homework. You obviously have.
Posted by: Brian | January 15, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Brian
I will look at your reference, but I am sure that is an incorrect inference. That is not how CO2 works at all. Insulation works mostly by slowing conduction, and a greenhouse works mostly by slowing convection (trapping warm air). CO2 does neither. It directly absorbs energy radiation and then discharges it again. Since most of the energy comes from below, but the discharge goes in both directions, the net result is a warmer “below.”
Posted by: jock59801 | January 15, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
I find it strange that the global warming is something that is studied mostly by people with “Ph.D.” after their name, but debated mostly be by people with no experience or training in the field of climate study…
Posted by: Calis | January 15, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
I’ve worked directly for and with Ph.D’s for neary 14 years. Far too often I’ve seen the fudging of data pay big dividends. When you have 6 figure student loans to pay, you tell them what they want to hear.
“most of the energy comes from below” Huh? You mean to say the earth radiates more heat than the sun? It certainly does not take a Ph.D to know that is not the case. A pulse will do.
CO2 absorbs and radiates equally in all directions, but when a degree of relative saturation occurs, the point is moot.
Open minds debate, scientists publish and religious zealots exclaim “the debate is over” and launch ad homenim attacks.
Posted by: Brian | January 16, 2009, 2:14 am 2:14 am
I disbelieve in human activity causing significant global warming since hearing a radio report that US Scientists measured gases released during the eruption of Mt St Helens were so extensive, human activity during the industrial age from the begining of that age to the eruption would have to be 500 times more extensive to even match those amounts of pollutants released by Mt St helens in 1981.
Let’s cap the volcanos!!
Posted by: Lloyd | January 16, 2009, 6:04 am 6:04 am
Lloyd – That volcano story is completely false.
Brian – I was referring to the energy that is relevant to CO2 absorption. Incoming solar energy is not absorbed by CO2.
Posted by: jock59801 | January 16, 2009, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Calis
Dr. Roy Spencer does indeed have a Ph.D. after his name, so did the late Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge. In fact many skeptics are Ph.D. scientists. But the two mentioned above are specifically “climatologists”. I suggest that you look a little deeper into the subject.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Ned
Spencer has some good papers explaining what has been happening on his site. His work on CO2 sensitivity and the PDO are of particular interest.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
Lloyd
Volcanos can cause either cooling or heating depending on what gases are released, how much ashfall (change to albedo) etc. But one volcano does less than you think. The CAUSE of the volcano is what you shold look at. Plate Tectonics drive earthquakes and volcanos interactively. Plate Tectonics are considered to be the earths thermostat, and we entered an active phase with the onset of the last PDO that switched phases recently.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
Jock
I realize that your own field must keep you quite busy. But you really need to read up on a couple of the new ideas behind climate change. The IPCC ideas are over 30 years old and already outdated. It’s a failed hypothesis that they won’t let go.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
ps
That 20-30 year average can be just one complete PDO cycle (as it was in this case) or just one full solar cycle (as it was again in this case). The combination of a very active solar cycle (22-23 years) plus an extreme warm PDO cycle (20-30 years) occurring at the same time confused dome very smart people. Fortunately someone figured it out. Unfortunately the issue has become political and nobody is paying attention to the actual science anymore.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 7:04 pm 7:04 pm
dome s/b some – sorry
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
Brian
Jock is correct in that CO2 acts the way he said. But Jack still accepts the IPCC models as correct which do not take into account saturation scaling.
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 7:10 pm 7:10 pm
Jock
I also am prepared to offer you proof of Michael’s statement that I quoted recently. In a recent post at Skeptical Science the most ardent pro-AGW poster said (in one post) that equilibrium exists in planetary science (climatology) and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to living beings. Now what does that tell you about his beliefs?
Posted by: Quietman | January 18, 2009, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
Hey Paul,
Some simple advice my friend, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Just because someone has an advanced degree does not mean their data cannot be biased.
Also, there are just as many PHD’s who say this is just a crock as there are those who claim “we” are destroying the world.
Real World Example for you
Tobacco Products! I tihnk we all agree heavy smoking shortens your life. YET, it is legal to do so!!! WHY…FOLLOW THE MONEY! Tobacco is one of the heaviest taxed items we have. If we follow the logical path, we would simply BAN them. Doing that would dry up a very big government revenue stream though!
Posted by: Mike_C | January 20, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
I fully welcome a “return of science to its rightful place” and an age of openness and accountability. Let’s put James Hansen’s GISSTemp source code through a Department of Defense style peer review. Where is his DoD level requirements document? Where is his DoD quality detailed design document? Where are his DoD quality test cases? If we’re going to create a new economy out of thin air based on carbon emissions trading, in turn based solely on something like the graphs and images produced in this article then certainly we should all be comfortable with ensuring the accuracy and legitimacy of the code that produces said graphs and images. Let’s shine the bright light of disclosure on all the adjustments, extrapolations and modifications of past temperature in his code for all the world to see. Jock, wouldn’t you agree? Oh, happy day!
Posted by: Woody | January 21, 2009, 8:44 am 8:44 am
It’s sad to see the skeptics grasp at the notion that, It’s just a phase we are in and not a true crisis. We see evidence everywhere. It really does not matter if it’s man made CO2 or Solar cycles or deforestation, the truth is that sea levels are rising and the “free market” is going to lose BILLIONS on the real estate when our costal citys begin to flood. Sean Hanity will not be blamed, thats the beauty of being a nea sayer, you don’t carry any responsibility for the outcomes. They don’t want to spend the MONEY to save our planet. But they forget that someone must make the wind turbines and solar cell…jobs,jobs,jobs. We must help our planet keep this wonderful balance we have had for a few thousand years. Less CO2 in the air and much less in the oceans is much better for the planets health. Let America lead the way in converting away from fossil fuels and we will recapture the ideal that we can save the world.
Posted by: blackie | January 21, 2009, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
Quietman: “The IPCC ideas are over 30 years old and already outdated.”
Come on, you are better than that. As a blanket statement, that is both useless an obviously false. Which ideas? You are suggesting that the thousands of papers reviewed by the IPCC for their latest report (2007) are …what? Irrelevant? Lies?
Posted by: jock59801 | January 23, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
Jock
The IPCC was founded on the premise that AGW is both true and catastrophic.
It’s mission is not to look for alternates, but to determine what the effects/consequences would be. In that, they have done a wonderful job. They have shown us what could happen if the basic premise of the hypothesis was true and it reached it’s maximum capability. The problem skeptics have is the basic premise that is accepted by the IPCC as fact but by everyone else as a failed hypothesis.
Posted by: Quietman | January 24, 2009, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
ie. Irrelevant
Posted by: Quietman | January 24, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
pe
the thousands of papers reviewed by the IPCC for their latest report (2007) were cherry picked. (they lost some more scientists this year because of this political practice).
Posted by: Quietman | January 28, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm