{"id":231,"date":"2005-12-15T15:12:03","date_gmt":"2005-12-15T19:12:03","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=231"},"modified":"2019-10-01T21:42:03","modified_gmt":"2019-10-02T02:42:03","slug":"2005-temperatures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2005\/12\/2005-temperatures\/","title":{"rendered":"2005 temperatures Temp\u00e9ratures 2005<\/lang_fr>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Due to a historical quirk (of unknown origin), the World Meterological Organisation releases its summary for each year based on the Dec to Nov ‘meteorlogical year’ means (rather than the more usual calendar year). Anyway, the WMO summary<\/a> is now available, as is the NASA GISS analysis<\/a> and the CRU summary<\/a>. The point upon which all the analyses agree is that 2005 was exceptionally warm and that it continues the long term mean warming trend. All show record warmth in the Northern Hemisphere since 1860, while GISS gives 2005 as the warmest year globally as well (CRU\/WMO have it second after 1998). As the summaries indicate, the differences in ranking are on the order of a few hundredths of a degree (smaller than the accuracy of the analysis) and so a definitive ranking is not possible. Differences in how the separate analyses deal with missing data are responsible for most of the apparent variations. Note too that the convention for the base periods for the anomalies differ between the analyses (1961-1990 for CRU\/WMO, 1951-1980 for GISS), but this does not affect the rankings.<\/p>\n

Update 7pm:<\/strong> The GISS analysis curiously appears to have gone off line….
\nUpdate 8am 16 Dec:<\/strong> The GISS summation is still not back up, but the raw data and new figures do seem to be available http:\/\/data.giss.nasa.gov\/gistemp . Note that as pointed in comment #5, the WMO\/CRU\/Hadley Centre analysis is for Jan-Nov, and not for the met. year as stated above (though the GISS analysis is). Don’t ask us why!
\nFinal Update 11pm 16 Dec:<\/strong> The GISS analysis is back!<\/p>\n

En raison d’une incongruit\u00e9 historique (d’origine inconnue), l’Organisation M\u00e9t\u00e9orologique Mondiale<\/a> publie son compte-rendu annuel<\/a> bas\u00e9 sur les moyennes d\u2019une \u201cann\u00e9e m\u00e9t\u00e9orologique\u201d allant de d\u00e9cembre \u00e0 novembre (plut\u00f4t qu’une ann\u00e9e civile normale). Ce compte-rendu de l\u2019OMM est d\u00e9sormais disponible, ainsi que l’analyse du GISS-NASA<\/a> et celle du CRU<\/a>. Le point sur lequel toutes ces analyses convergent est que l\u2019ann\u00e9e 2005 \u00e9tait exceptionnellement chaude et qu’elle poursuit la tendance \u00e0 long terme d\u2019un r\u00e9chauffement moyen global. Toutes ces analyses montrent que 2005 correspond \u00e0 une temp\u00e9rature record dans l’h\u00e9misph\u00e8re nord depuis 1860, alors que le GISS donne 2005 comme l\u2019ann\u00e9e la plus chaude globalement (le CRU l’indique comme la seconde la plus chaude juste apr\u00e8s 1998). Comme ces analyses l\u2019indiquent, les diff\u00e9rences dans ces classements sont dues \u00e0 des diff\u00e9rences de quelques centi\u00e8mes de degr\u00e9 (inf\u00e9rieures \u00e0 la justesse de l’analyse). Les variations apparentes entre ces diff\u00e9rentes analyses r\u00e9sultent principalement de la mani\u00e8re par laquelle chaque analyse traite des donn\u00e9es manquantes. Un dernier point, la convention qui d\u00e9finit la p\u00e9riode de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour la d\u00e9termination des anomalies de temp\u00e9rature diff\u00e8re pour chaque analyse (1961-1990 pour le CRU, 1951-1980 pour le GISS), mais ceci n’affecte pas le classement.<\/lang_fr><\/p>\n

(traduit par T. de Garidel)<\/small><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Due to a historical quirk (of unknown origin), the World Meterological Organisation releases its summary for each year based on the Dec to Nov ‘meteorlogical year’ means (rather than the more usual calendar year). Anyway, the WMO summary is now available, as is the NASA GISS analysis and the CRU summary. The point upon which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"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":[1,9],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-231","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-instrumental-record","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231","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\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22734,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231\/revisions\/22734"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}