Record Running Mean Temperature

Usually global temperatures are discussed in terms of a calendar year, January to December. There are many other ways of defining a year, for example March 2009 to February 2010, or May 2009 to April 2010; average temperatures for years defined in this way are called running means. The climate system is not effected by our arbitary decision to start the year on January 1^st and finish it on December 31^st.

Recently NASA (which runs the GISS global temperature series) announced in this document, on page 17, that:

• the 12-month running mean global temperature in the GISS analysis has reached a new record in 2010

This record was for the May 2009 to April 2010 period. It is important to check claims that are made, no matter how reliable the source, so I decided to conduct my own analysis.

Like all of the five groups calculating a global temperature, GISS releases its temperature values every month. The data can be found at this site. I store the data from all five groups in a file on my computer (called All_temp_groups.csv).

I wrote a script in the statistical programming language R to calculate the GISS running averages. The script can be found at the bottom of this post. The script produces two files, one in chronological order and the other sorted by average temperature.

The following is output for the ten hottest running years. The first line contains the column heads. The first column contains the number of months since the beginning of the time series (January 1979). The second column is the year and month. Note that the months are in a decimal format. This is to ensure that the months are evenly spread out, so that charts are accurate and clear. Conseauently 2009.375 is May 2009 and 2009.292 is April 2009. The third column contains the average (mean) temperature for the 12 months following (and including) the date in the second column.

It is clear that my analysis supports the NASA claim, in fact in GISS data May 2009 to April 2010 is the warmest and March 2009 to April 2010 is the second warmest yearly period. As well, March 2009 to February 2010 is the tenth warmest year, ie in the top 3% of running years.

"","years","averages"
"365",2009.375,0.658333333333333
"364",2009.292,0.6375
"313",2005.042,0.62
"332",2006.625,0.615833333333333
"311",2004.875,0.613333333333333
"333",2006.708,0.613333333333333
"312",2004.958,0.611666666666667
"334",2006.792,0.608333333333333
"330",2006.458,0.606666666666667
"363",2009.208,0.606666666666667

The temperature values might seem confusing. They are anomalies not absolute temperatures. They compare current temperatures with the average temperature over a defined base period. This post gives some details of temperature anomalies.

UPATE: 12^th June 2010. The May value has been released by GISS and my program places the latest running year, June 2009 to May 2010 as the warmest with an average temperature anomaly of 0.665833333333333.

The question arises though, how does the GISS data compare to the other temperature series?

In the Hadley data the first 2009 month appears at position 18 which is in the top 5% of the data

The first 2009 month in NOAA comes in at position 21 in the top 6%

For RSS the first 2009 is at 11 in top 3%

For UAH first 2009 at 7 top 2%

Any claim that the last 12 months was the warmest on record should explicitly mention GISS, but it has been quite a warm year as well according to the other temperature measurement groups.

NASA also provide a plot of the running mean data shown below:



The blue line is the running means charted. Note that it starts in 1950. There is a clear increasing trend. At the bottom you can see the ENSO cycle. It is clear that the warmest years correspond to El Nino years and that cooler years correspond to La Nina years. The effect of major eruptions is also clear with cooler temperatures for the next year or so.

My R script also plots the data which can be seen below:



My data starts in 1979. Note that my chart from 1979 is very similar to the official one.

The chart of the UAH data is also interesting. UAH is the poster boy of the climate "skeptics" as it usually shows the smallest temperature rise. The following chart does not show as much warming as GISS, but the strong warming at the end should put the claim that the globe is cooling to bed for a while.

From Climate

_____________________________________________________________

R Script

#### Calculate 12 month running temp averages for GISS ########
#Written by Stephen Spencer, Tarneit, 3rd June 2010

## STEP 1: LINK TO DATA
par(las=1)
link <- "C:\\Learn_R\\All_temp_groups.csv"

## STEP 2: READ DATA
my_data <- read.table(link,
sep = ",", dec=".", skip = 0,
row.names = NULL, header = T,
colClasses = rep("numeric", 2),
na.strings = c("", "*", "-", -99.99,99.9, 999.9),
col.names = c("yr","GISS","RSS","NOAA","UAH","HAD","UAH_53"))

## STEP 3: MANIPULATE DATA
Title <- "GISS Yearly Running Averages" #Main title used in plot command
giss <-(my_data$GISS) #Extract GISS data from file and store it in variable giss
yr <- (my_data$yr) #Extract year data and store it in variable yr
row <- 1 #Initialize counting variable
years <- 0 #Initialize years variable
averages <- 0 #Intiialize averages variable
#Calculate running 12 month averages using While loop
while ((row + 11) <= length(giss)){
years[row] <-(yr[row]) #Put year data into years variable
averages[row] <-(mean(giss[row:(row+11)])) #Put current 12 month mean into variable averages
row <- row + 1} #Increment counting variable, bottom of loop

## Step 4: DISPLAY DATA
#Convert variables to a data frame
yr_aves <-data.frame(years, averages)
#Sort dataframe according to reverse order of averages
O <- order(-yr_aves$averages)
averages.sorted <- yr_aves[O,]

## STEP 5: SAVE DATA TO FILE
#Write text file to R working directory on disk in
#Data in order of year from 1979 on
write.csv (yr_aves, file="GISS 12 month running averages_unsorted.csv")
#Data sorted by largest 12 monthly averages
write.csv(averages.sorted, file="GISS 12 month running averages_sorted.csv")

## STEP 6: PLOT DATA
plot(averages ~ years, data = yr_aves, type="l", xlim = c(1979,2010 ), ylim = c(-0.4,0.7 ), col = "red", xlab = "year", main = Title, ylab = "temp")

Lost Generation Palindrome

Here is a truely inspirational video.

Listen to the whole thing before forming a conclusion.



It is a palindrome, meaning that it can be read both forwards and backwards, but with the added sense that when read backwards the meaning is exactly opposite to when it is read forwards.

What a brilliant idea, and it must have taken considerable effort to write.


  I am part of a lost generation

  and I refuse to believe that

  I can change the world

  I realize this may be a shock but

  “Happiness comes from within.”

  is a lie, and

  “Money will make me happy.”

  So in 30 years I will tell my children

  they are not the most important thing in my life

  My employer will know that

  I have my priorities straight because

  work

  is more important than

  family

  I tell you this

  Once upon a time

  Families stayed together

  but this will not be true in my era

  This is a quick fix society

  Experts tell me

  30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce

  I do not concede that

  I will live in a country of my own making

  In the future

  Environmental destruction will be the norm

  No longer can it be said that

  My peers and I care about this earth

  It will be evident that

  My generation is apathetic and lethargic

  It is foolish to presume that

  There is hope.

Scientists hit back

There are many absurd attacks on Climate Science and some shocking personal abuse of Climate Scientists. See this post for some examples.

It is important that Climate Scientists make clear to the general public the urgency of reducing CO² emissions and in reducing our impact on the globe.

Today 250 scientists have released a statement explaining the facts and decrying the irrational and immoral tactics of the deniers.

I have reproduced the statement below:

"CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE

Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010

From 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.



The names of the 255 scientists can be found at this link.

In normal times signing this type of document would be unexceptional in a western democracy, but with the personal abuse and legal threats aimed at climate scientists, the scientists are showing considerable personal bravery.

James Randi takes down psychic fraudsters

Randi is an icon of rationality. Here is a passionate attack on the psychics, detailing the fraudulent ways that they decieve their victims.

How we wrecked the ocean

Here is a disturbing TED talk by coral reef ecologist Jeremy Jackson. The introductory comment below is from Climate Shifts:

In this bracing talk, coral reef ecologist Jeremy Jackson lays out the shocking state of the ocean today: overfished, overheated, polluted, with indicators that things will get much worse. Astonishing photos and stats make the case.

Jeremy Jackson is the Ritter Professor of Oceanography and Director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Painting pictures of changing marine environments, particularly coral reefs and the Isthmus of Panama, Jackson’s research captures the extreme environmental decline of the oceans that has accelerated in the past 200 years.

Jackson’s current work focuses on the future of the world’s oceans, given overfishing, habitat destruction and ocean warming, which have fundamentally changed marine ecosystems and led to “the rise of slime.” Although Jackson’s work describes grim circumstances, even garnering him the nickname Dr. Doom, he believes that successful management and conservation strategies can renew the ocean’s health.

Biodiversity and human health

Dr Aaron Bersnstin spoke at the Lowy Wednesday lunch on the human health implications of biodiversity loss.

The talk can be downloaded here.

Bernstein made three major points:

1. The living world is crucially important to our health

2. We generally undervalue the importance living world to our health

3. We need to do a better job of valuing the natural world

We know little about life on Earth, we know perhaps one in five of all species alive today. The most rich and diverse group of organisms we cannon directly see - the microbial world. We are losing species today at a rate not seen in 65 million years. The asteroid impact 65 million years age meant that 50% of all species went extince at that time, it took several million years for those species to come back. Today we are losing species at the same rate. By the most conservative of estimates we expect to lose between 1/3 to 1/2 of all species by the end of this century. The two leading drivers of the species loss are habitat loss and climate change. We are clearly doing very little to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss.

Our health in every concievable way depends on the health of the living world.

How does our health depend on nature?

Drugs

Two thirds of new drugs come from natural sources, one third are synthesised in the baboratory. Of the 100 most preoscribed drugs in the world, 50 are derived from natural products.

One instructive example is the Pacific Yew tree. This tree had been seen as totally worthless and was felled and discarded by loggers in their desire to get at the pine trees in northern forests. Taxol, a very important anti-cancer drug was found in Pacific Yew tree leaves and bark in a study designed to find bioactive molecules. Taxol is very difficult to synthesise in the laboratory. We still use Yew tree needles to create Taxol in a proces that combines natural and




UN Report on Biodiversity

Extinction Drivers

Pollinator Declines

Ecosystem functions and climate change

Brooke on biodiversity and climate