The data I'm reading doesn't support yesterday's claim that the first half of 2006 was the warmest first-half of the year on record. According to NASA GISS statistics, 1H06 was +0.65°C above the long-term (1951-1980) average. That's only fourth compared to, in order of hottest, 2005/2002 (+0.78°C) and 1998 (+0.77°C). Of course, it's awkward to argue about a few hundredths of a degree amidst a vast global network of thermometers. Sure, it's hot, and 5-year, 10-year, and 25-year moving averages are all at record levels. But I don't really see 1H06 as the warmest 1H given NASA GISS data. Maybe the National Climatic Data Center has different numbers.
UPDATE: Here is the NCDC data. They peg the Jan-June'06 average temperature for the contiguous United States at 11.0°C. They are basing their conclusions on the contiguous U.S. (U.S. minus Alaska and Hawaii) temperature, whereas NASA GISS is taking the global view. I think NASA GISS's view is more comprehensive and more reliable as a global indicator.
I don't think there was any confusion in the information put out by the vaious agencies, but unsurprisingly there were some U.S. press stories that conflated the U.S. record with the global one. This would all be neither here nor there except for the fact that U.S. temps (from memory here) were tracking below the global average for much of the last decade, resulting in all kinds of snarking from denialists like our friends the Idsos. There is some educational benefit to this turning of the worm, especially when considered in light of such things as the new study on western wildfires.
ReplyDelete