Data shows last month was hottest January on record

Fri, 2007-02-16 10:51Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture

Data shows last month was hottest January on record

The record-setting January was spurred on by unusually warm Siberia, Canada, northern Asia and Europe, said scientists, who went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we're seeing was real.”

“From one standpoint it is not unusual to have a new record because we've become accustomed to having records broken,” said Jay Lawrimore, climate monitoring branch chief. But January, he said, was a bigger jump than the world has seen in about 10 years.

The temperature of the world's land and water combined - the most effective measurement - was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, breaking the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn't set a record.

Want to hear more about DeSmogBlog? Sign up for our weekly newsletter here and have it delivered right to your inbox 

Previous Comments

Okay, it’s been a moderate El Nino. Good. But it’s been an El Nino nevertheless. As far as I understand it, this phenomenon has to do with the warming of the Pacific. For the land to be at record temperature in part due to El Nino, and for the ocean temperatures to not show much, well… this makes me wonder what’s up with the model of global temperature. I’m not too worried about it (at least I’m not as worried as those who think the temperatures of the past are being recalculated to purposefully remove the warmth from the 1930s/1940s), but I’m starting to re-think my opposition to ATOC from back in the mid-90’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Thermometry_of_Ocean_Climate
On the other hand, googling the only cetacean biologist I know of who made a stink about it brings this from 1997, which is less optimistic than the wikipedia article.
 http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lw/lwcb.htm
If they are saying the hottest month ever then el nino is irrelevant. El nino’s have always occurred so they are a null in the conclusion. Unless of course this was the warmest el nino ever, which I don’t believe it was. Any deniers out there that care to refute? I’m all ears, for once you might provide some relevant information.

Unless you can submit information saying that El Nino effects are linear then it is hardly irrelevant. I would imagine that they are not (but IANA Climate Scientist).

Ocean temp-wise 1998 (also an El Nino event), 2005 and 2004 were hotter in January than this year.
Land temp-wise it is a record for January at 1.89 vs 1.44 in 2002 and 1.17 in 2003. So we are talking a land-temp record. Given that Dec-Feb effects of an El Nino event are almost all “warmer” effects over land this is hardly surprising.
For December, Ocean high is 1997 followed by 2006.
Land high is 4th following 1939, 2003 and 1999.

I find it annoying that when an anti-agw points out something like, say, a *low* month or point to the terrific snow in NA currently, they are blasted as being ignorant, idiotic “deniers”. Yet when a single month high (land) temp happens, it’s big news and more power to the gospel according to the IPCC. Whatever happened to GW being a longer term trend vs. short term effects I wonder?

Hey, really I’m surprised that 1998 wasn’t the warmest ocean year for December.

Regarding pointing to specific events, though, gets worse if you remember even the groundhog activities being interpreted as “sure signs of global warming.” I think it was okay not to get worked up about it, however. Two things to consider in this case are: 1. it smashed the record rather than barely beat it, and 2. given the long-term trend into uncharted climates we should see a lot of really weird local (spatially and temporally) stuff going forward. Also, precipitation should increase (in some areas) with AGW. It will be interesting to see if the models predict which areas with any accuracy!

That El Nino event was actually 1997-98 and Dec 97 is the ocean record. I can’t say why this year’s Jan ocean temp is so low (ranks 47th going back to 1880) but what I have noticed is that the the temperature increase of land vs. ocean swapped sometime in the 1960’s (Ocean now at a lesser rate than land). No idea why.

4th, I think, as noted in a prior comment. In combination with the spectacular land temps that was enough to break the record by a considerable amount. Note that most new monthly records are set by a few hundredths of a degree. If this year continues the trend and sets a new annual record, I look forward to the instant conversion of all the denialists who kept repeating the scientifically absurd notion that global warming ended with the last record high year in 1998.
Well HOT DAMN! A January thaw in Saskatchewan. Gotta love it. Of course, that once-in-a-decade blizzard towards the end of the month took the bloom off of the warm spell, but it was sure as hell nice while it lasted. Saved a lot of fuel oil and natural gas too. Isn’t that supposed to slow down global warming? Oh hell, warm or cool, keep the old furnace cranked up and generate lots of that great carbon dioxide.
The name of this blog implies that CO2 is smog, which it isn’t. Sounds like spin to me. As for “scientific consensus” … first of all there is no scientific consensus. There are scientists on both sides of the issue, but on one side of the debate the spinmeisters are much, much louder and more obnoxious. Witness Mr. Suzuki’s little tantrum at the radio station recently. Even if there was a consensus, this is not proof of anything as there have been many times when the correct scientific opinion has been ignored, disbelieved and even ridiculed by the vast majority of scientists. As for a warm January in certain regions of the earth … which regions have had an unusually cold winter? (Ask the Governator) Ignoring inconvenient facts is the hallmark of bad science and of bad government.

Did you actually read the article, it is a value across the entire earth, then broken down in hemispheres not a single region, or in reference to a single location. Also note it mentions the largest amount of warm in the northern hemisphere, minor amount in the southern. The rest of your comments are as nonsensical as the one just addressed.

I listened to that radio talk you refer to as “Mr. Suzuki’s little tantrum at the radio station recently.” That was no temper tantrum; that was an intelligent man arguing passionately to counteract the ignorance, lies and confusion sown by the deniers like yourself.

Your own little temper tantrum in print here looks pretty smoggy to me.

So??? The weather is the weather, it is warm and it is cold. Our records only go back about 100 years. The Earth has been around about 4.5 Billion. Draw your own conclusion. Suzuki just wants his name in the paper and you just get paid to make sure it happens. Love the way you want to smear people reputations(we will investigate their credentials and report back). Sounds like something out of the Communist era of the 30’s and 40’s. When will you have your mass tribunals and set up the Gulags for the Global Warming deniers.
All assertion and no substance. The most poignant thing you wrote is that the name desmogblog was a less than optimal choice. Look up definitions for things like consensus, read the articles that are being discussed, cite examples of ideas the majority of scientists ridiculed before having to eat their words, stop ‘smearing’ Suzuki or anyone else with no ties to the article being discussed, sign as somebody besides the default, and maybe you’ll find your comments to be considered more seriously.

Steve, it is actually a very good name. Since “smog” is a fog made worse by smoke, to “desmog” would mean to lessen the effects of the clouds of misinformation (fogginess) and to deflect the effects of the smoke (and mirrors) used by the AGW deniers.

The rest of your post is perfectly correct.

I also found the name to be appropriate. My assumption of desmog was to clear up the smog of or pollution of disinformation.

O.K. I’m convinced. In order to punish Evil Exxon, I’ve started taking public transit to work. It means leaving for work 3/4 of an hour earlier and getting home 3/4 of an hour later, but my house is so cold now that I don’t want to spend much time in it anyway. I shut off my furnace a couple of weeks ago and wear lots of clothes. Anything to save the world and prove that I’m not a smarmy hypocrite like globe-trotting Suzuki. Of course, with no heat in the house, my plumbing froze and the pipes burst with the last big cold snap, so we’re melting snow in the fireplace for drinking water and shitting in the back yard. My neighbours don’t like that very much but, I’ve explained them we’re doing it for the environment. As soon as the ground thaws in April, I’ll dig a pit and build a crapper over it. I can hardly wait to sentimentally relive the days of my childhood on the farm before we had nasty electricity from coal-fired Sask Power plants. I’m sure that all of Hoggan’s heros will be rushing to join me back in the good ol’ days by getting rid of their big modern houses and moving into more appropriate, environment-friendly accomodations. EARTH FIRST!
I live in an apartment building, ride my bike to work, and eat far less meat than I used to, turn off lights I’m not using, dry some clothes on a line or rack, try to waste less heat (why not just turn your thermostat down to 15 C or get a thermostat with a timer?), try to fly a little less when I travel, and support initiatives of others to use less energy/fuel. I sometimes drive somewhere and I sometimes take a long shower, so I’m no climate saint; on the other hand my standard of living is pretty much what it would be otherwise. I just wish I could avoid wasting so much time on the internet – I wonder if there’s a filter so I only read things that are honest?

then you’re a moron, ZOG. It’s 2007. I’ve managed to halve my hydro usage, and I’m living better than I’ve ever done.

This pattern may be familiar: you’ve bought in to a convenient, stereotyped, and totally wrong image of “envrionmentalism”.

BUt more to the point, you may have noticed that no one on this site has ever to my knowledge advocated composting toilets or even a policy of “EARTH FIRST”. This website is about clearing up dishonesty in the climate debate, which is something completely different. You’re talking about (highly imaginative) consequences, DSB is talking about FACTS.

In fact, your little switcheroo is classic ad hominem (are you reading, Johan?). It goes like this: “Your arguments about the climate are invalid, because you advocate a lifestyle I find unpalatable.” In fact, your line of reasoning contains both a logical fallacy and a falsehood.

It’s this style of arguing, and the inability of the deniers to produce anything more credible, that makes a really good case for AGW.

‘Fraid that I couldn’t cut my hydro bill in half. Not being of the yuppie (or is it post-yuppie?) generation I learned about conservation and frugality before I started shaving. Your reference to “composting” toilets proves that you’ve never lived in a pre-industrial society but, if you folks get your way and manage to trigger a major economic collapse with your silly bullshit, you may learn the facts of life. Having spent almost 1/2 of my life either in pre-electric rural Canada or in unelectrified, roadless third world boondocks, I won’t suffer much. Been there, done that.
BTW, I’m not a nature-hater. In fact, I love to get out of Tim Horton’s range for a few days of listening to meadowlarks and coyotes. I especially like coyotes because, although they yap a lot, they never yap about high-tech astrological predictions of AGW.

J I K, time you took a junior level course in physics then read a little about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere then you would find out that cooling of the stratosphere is predicted for increased levels of CO2.

You do understand the differences in the terms, atmosphere, troposphere and stratosphere, don’t you? The figure you refer to shows cooling in the lower stratosphere.

Did you find that reference all by yourself or was it sent to you on the list of talking points for AGW deniers?

Of course JIK knows – he has to, because he said elsewhere that he agrees the earth is warming. “Nobody denies the warming, just the mechanism,” I think I heard him say, “that’s why it’s so offensive to use phrases like ‘climate change denier’.”

My physics competence is only slightly better than David Suzuki’s. Since you didn’t like that reference, how about this one regarding “49th warmest January on record (1895-2007)” (continental USA), here with some per state numbers: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/jan/01Statewidetrank_....

Big deal. One will always see months which are not in the top 10 warmest for a given region even if the region is experiencing significant warming.

What we are to be concerned with is global rather than regional temperatures. (“Think globally, act/live locally” ring a bell?) In this case, January 2007 was the warmest January on record.

is the problem, perhaps. E.g. the data points for Greenland and Antarctica are basically non-existent, reducing the value of these estimates. Further, data coverage is very different from year to year, with some stations only having 10 years of data. In 1880 the number of stations were only approx 500, very likely concentrated to populated areas, which then further reduces the accuracy of the calculated global mean temperatures, certainly for the early part of the “record”. Finally, there is no attempt (here) to compare this Jan with that of, say, the year 1050, i.e. it is only a very recent time span which comprise this particular “record”.
deniers are welcome to move to the stratosphere
Such brilliant repartee! Typical unfortunately of global warming enthusiasts.

inkcsqbr

[x]

For more than a year, oil giant BP has waged a massive public relations battle to convince Americans that the company has been bamboozled by the oil spill claims process relating to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout.

This BP PR campaign has involved full-page newspaper ads paid for...

read more