This year is on track to be about the 10th warmest globally since records began in 1850 but gaps in Arctic data mean the world may be slightly underestimating global warming, a leading scientist said. A natural cooling of the Pacific Ocean known as La Nina kept a lid on temperatures in 2008 despite an underlying warming trend, said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.
“This year is about 10th,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview. “La Nina in the Pacific lasted longer than we envisaged.” Jones’s unit is one of the main sources of global climate data for the United Nations. The warmest year on record was 1998, followed by 2005 and 2003, with other years this century closely bunched. Tenth place would make 2008 the least warm since 1999. The update marginally cools an estimate from January, when Jones’s unit and the British Met Office (Britain’s meteorological service) estimated that 2008 would be “another top 10 year,” near the bottom of the ranking.
The U.N. Climate Panel says human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are blanketing the planet. Rising temperatures will bring more floods, heatwaves, more powerful storms and rising sea levels, it says.
Jones said temperature records may fractionally underestimate warming because of gaps in measurements in the Arctic for 1961-90, the benchmark years for judging change, and problems in verifying ocean temperatures. “The world is probably a little warmer than we are measuring,” he said.
Icecap Note: Recall it was Jones early in January 2007 who warned 2007 would be the warmest year on record and 2008 would surely end up top ten. At the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney, did you ever notice how [global warming advocates] are always trying to find more warmth by finding proof that the high tropical atmosphere or ocean temperatures were measured wrong or find surrogates that prove it was cooler before and warmer now. How about looking at the known warm biases that dwarf these adjustments like a 66% station dropout, tenfold increase in missing data, little or no urbanization or land use change adjustment based on flawed science and bad siting. Even here in the US, recall Anthony Watts’ band of volunteers have found only 4% of the nearly 600 stations surveyed thus far met the government’s standards for ideal siting and 69% were poorly or very poorly sited. Why isn’t the same kind of attention paid to finding and correcting those errors.
The answer to that rhetorical question is that like at least half a dozen peer reviewed papers have shown, that the warming is up to 50% exaggerated and that this might only be a top 20 or 30 warmest year. NOAA and NASA GISS are no better. Only the satellite data can be trusted but unfortunately it only goes back to 1979. NOAA (Karl and Petersen), NASA (Hansen and Schmidt), Hadley (Jones) have thrived on budgets fattened by the global warming issue. They have won the lottery and will do whatever it takes to keep the annuity checks coming.
Jones blamed El Nino and La Nina and a quiet sun for the cooling. A big step forward. But what he doesn’t realize that given the switch to a cool PDO, there will be more cooling La Ninas which with a sun going into a 200 year Dalton Minimum like slumber, will ensure the cooling continues.
Oscar note: Jones specifically states "There's nothing wrong with land (temperature) measurements". Nothing could be further from the truth. As Joe D'Aleo mentioned, there are numerous and significant problems with land temperature measurements. First, water covers about 70% of the earth, and until satellites starting taking water temperature readings in the late 1970s, oceans were grossly underestimated in temperature records until then. Land measurements mostly now come from sites that originally were in cooler open areas but with time have become surrounded by heat absorbing concrete, asphalt and buildings that have increased the readings. Then, many sites in the Soviet Union (a huge land mass) were adandoned with the fall of communism in the early 1990s. Recently, several other sites have been found to have missing data that was replaced with the previous month data that was warmer, thus rendering the results with a warm bias. Of a more serious note, there has been recent evidence of actually changing or eliminating temperature data that showed cooler temperatures. In other words, unlike true scientific investigations where you gather facts then perform an analysis to form an unbiased theory, some of these global warming advocates are 'cherry picking' (only using data that fits their predetermined research) datasets to promote what they have already decided is the 'truth'. More and more scientists, young and old, are discovering this underlying corruption and are speaking out.q