{"id":196,"date":"2005-10-13T07:54:55","date_gmt":"2005-10-13T11:54:55","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=196"},"modified":"2007-01-08T10:13:32","modified_gmt":"2007-01-08T15:13:32","slug":"global-warming-on-earth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2005\/10\/global-warming-on-earth\/","title":{"rendered":"Global warming on Earth R\u00e9chauffement global sur Terre ?<\/lang_fr>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Washington Post<\/a> picked up on the latest update to the 2005 temperature anomaly analysis from NASA GISS<\/a>. The 2005 Jan-Sep land data (which is<\/em> adjusted for urban biases) is higher than the previously warmest year (0.76\u00b0C compared to the 1998 anomaly of 0.75\u00b0C for the same months, and a 0.71\u00b0C anomaly for the whole year) , while the land-ocean temperature index (which includes sea surface temperature data) is trailing slightly behind (0.58\u00b0C compared to 0.60\u00b0C Jan-Sep, 0.56\u00b0C for the whole of 1998). The GISS team (of which I am not a part) had predicted<\/a> that it was likely the 2005 would exceed the 1998 record (when there was a very large El Ni\u00f1o at the beginning of that year) based on the long term trends in surface temperature and the estimated continuing large imbalance<\/a> in the Earth’s radiation budget. <\/p>\n

In 1998 the last three months of the year were relatively cool as the El Ni\u00f1o pattern had faded. For the 2005 global land-ocean index to exceed the annual 1998 record, the mean anomaly needs to stay above 0.51\u00b0C for the next three months. Since there was no El Ni\u00f1o this year, and the mean so far is significantly above that, this seems likely. <\/p>\n

Will a new record by a few hundredths of a degree really mean much? The important climate trends aren’t based on individual years, but on the underlying trends which have been solidly positive for decades. We still don’t expect each year to be warmer than the last due to the intrinsic variability (‘weather’) in global mean temperature (around 0.1 to 0.2\u00b0C), but at the current rate of global warming (~0.17\u00b0C\/decade), new records can be expected relatively frequently. Stay tuned for further stories on this…<\/p>\n

Update:<\/strong> The CRU\/Met Office numbers are slightly different from the GISS analysis, but one should be careful to compare like with like. The 2005 Jan-Aug land<\/i> anomaly from CRU is 0.81\u00b0C compared to 0.84\u00b0C for the same period in 1998. Their Sep update is due on the 26th, and so comparisons should become easier then. <\/p>\n

Le Washington Post<\/a> a choisi de se pencher sur la derniere mise a jour de l\u2019analyse des anomalies de temp\u00e9rature en 2005 d\u00e9velopp\u00e9es par le laboratoire GISS de la NASA<\/a>. La valeur de cette anomalie terrestre de janvier a septembre 2005 (ajust\u00e9e pour prendre en compte les biais urbains) est plus chaude que la pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente ann\u00e9e la plus chaude (0.76\u00b0C a comparer a l\u2019anomalie de 0.75\u00b0C pour les memes mois de l\u2019ann\u00e9e 1998, et une anomalie de 0.71\u00b0C pour l\u2019ann\u00e9e complete) , alors que l\u2019index terre-oc\u00e9an (qui prend en compte les temp\u00e9ratures de surface oc\u00e9aniques) est tres l\u00e9gerement inf\u00e9rieure (0.58\u00b0C a comparer a 0.60\u00b0C Jan-Sep 1998, et 0.56\u00b0C pour la moyenne annuelle 1998). L\u2019\u00e9quipe du GISS (dans laquelle je ne participe pas) a pr\u00e9dit<\/a> qu\u2019il \u00e9tait probable que 2005 allait d\u00e9passer le record de 1998 (quand avait eu lieu un large \u00e9v\u00e9nement El Ni\u00f1o au d\u00e9but de l\u2019ann\u00e9e) en se basant sur les tendances a long terme de la temp\u00e9rature de surface et la continuation d\u2019un d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre<\/a> persistant du bilan radiatif terrestre.<\/p>\n

En 1998 les trois derniers mois de l\u2019ann\u00e9e ont \u00e9t\u00e9 relativement froids en raison de la disparition progressive d\u2019El Ni\u00f1o. Pour que l\u2019index global terre-oc\u00e9an 2005 d\u00e9passe celui de l\u2019ann\u00e9e 1998, l\u2019anomalie moyenne doit rester sup\u00e9rieure a 0.51\u00b0C au cours des trois prochains mois. Comme il n\u2019y a pas eu d\u2019El Ni\u00f1o cette ann\u00e9e, et que la moyenne est, jusqu\u2019a maintenant, significativement au dessus de celle-ci, cette hypothese semble probable.<\/p>\n

Est-qu\u2019un nouveau record de quelques centiemes de degr\u00e9s signifie vraiment quelque chose ? Les tendances importantes du climat ne sont pas fond\u00e9es sur des ann\u00e9es sp\u00e9cifiques, mais sur les tendances sous-jacentes qui sont \u201crobustement\u201d positives au cours des dernieres d\u00e9cennies. Chaque nouvelle ann\u00e9e ne sera pas syst\u00e9matiquement plus chaude que la pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente en raison de la variabilit\u00e9 intrinseque (\u2018m\u00e9t\u00e9o\u2019) de la temp\u00e9rature globale moyenne (0.1 a 0.2\u00b0C), mais a la vitesse actuelle de r\u00e9chauffement global (~0.17\u00b0C\/d\u00e9cennie), de nouveaux records peuvent etre attendus assez fr\u00e9quemment. Restez en ligne pour de plus amples informations sur ce sujet\u2026<\/p>\n

Mise a Jour<\/strong>: Les chiffres fournis par le CRU\/Met Office numbers sont legerement diff\u00e9rent de ceux du GISS\/NASA, mais il faut faire attention a comparer des objets strictement similaires. L\u2019anomalie terrestre de Janvier a Aout 2005 Jan-du CRU est de 0.81\u00b0C par rapport a 0.84\u00b0C pour la meme p\u00e9riode en 1998.
\n<\/lang_fr><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Washington Post picked up on the latest update to the 2005 temperature anomaly analysis from NASA GISS. The 2005 Jan-Sep land data (which is adjusted for urban biases) is higher than the previously warmest year (0.76\u00b0C compared to the 1998 anomaly of 0.75\u00b0C for the same months, and a 0.71\u00b0C anomaly for the whole […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,27,9],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-196","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-el-nino","8":"category-instrumental-record","9":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}