People send me stuff. Strange, what could be so wrong or threatening about this story headline that it simply had to “vanish” without so much as a correction or a note as to why? Fortunately the Internet has a memory. This screencap below is from Google cache:
But if you go to Paul Hudson’s BBC blog right now…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/
or to the original URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/coldest-december-day-on-record.shtml
You won’t find this headline. Instead, you’ll find this one:
Note the post time of 17:14 matches on the two stories, suggesting this has been a headline rewrite. Though, the article says:
So its been the equal coldest December day in the Vale of York since records began in 1932.
and
Scampton in Lincolnshire has experienced its coldest December day on record with minus 5.5C. Records here go back to the early 1950’s.
So, with those sentences, the headline would still be valid.
The story headline still exists in Google search findings, which is how I located the cached copy.
Note the headline was originally on the BBC home page according to the top link. I guess somebody didn’t like the original headline and decided it must be changed. h/t to WUWT reader “Pingo” for noticing.
On a related note, have a look at this headline right below the newly revised BBC story:
Ummm, sadly no. A “dead heat” is defined as:
dead heat
a race in which two or more contestants reach the finish line at exactly the same time; tie
The problem is that we have not yet reached “the finish line” for 2010, and compared to 1998, 2010 certainly doesn’t look like a “tie” to me. Here’s Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH plot with some lines in purple I added comparing peaks of 1998 and 2010, and comparing the 13 month running average peaks of 1998 and 2010 in red:
Clearly, the peak temperatures between 1998 and 2010 are significantly different as shown by the gap in the two magenta lines.
But, what Mr. Hudson is focusing on with his “dead heat” statement is the red 13 month running average line, which “could” be said to be in a tie with 1998 at this moment. There’s only one problem, which becomes clear when we magnify Dr. Spencer’s UAH graph:
As indicated by my red arrow in the magnified view above, the 13 month running average stops in June, 2010, and the months of July, August, September, October, and November apparently aren’t included in it.
If they were, the red plot line would extend to the end of the graph. What’s comical about all this is that the 13 month running average was added by Dr. Spencer in response to complaints that the 25 month running average he had been using “hid the increase”. Read his explanation here: Is Spencer Hiding the Increase? We Report, You Decide
Since the temperature continue to drop, when we do finally get the completed 13 month running average for 2010 that includes all temperatures for 2010, Mr. Hudson will discover that red peak in 2010 will have dropped, and is nowhere close to a “dead heat” when the finish line is actually reached.
But since everyone wants to “close out 2010 early”, so as to help those partiers down in Cancun reach some sort of consensus and action, such stories claiming 2010 will be equal to or warmer than 1998, or the “hottest year on record” or in the “top three hottest years on record” seem to be the overreaching norm for media these days.
Since BBC is interested in correcting headlines, I’m sure our UK readers will want to point out this error to the BBC so that they can change it right away.
Place your bets now.
For those that might want to run their own plots to compare, here’s the actual UAH data for 1998:
ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH TRPC NO.DAYS GLOBAL NH SH TRPC DAYS 1998 1 0.582 0.612 0.552 1.097 31. 0.103 0.149 0.056 0.213 365. 1998 2 0.753 0.857 0.649 1.291 28. 0.160 0.211 0.109 0.330 365. 1998 3 0.528 0.655 0.401 1.025 31. 0.207 0.263 0.152 0.442 365. 1998 4 0.770 1.014 0.525 1.059 30. 0.287 0.358 0.217 0.563 365. 1998 5 0.645 0.685 0.606 0.885 31. 0.347 0.419 0.274 0.653 365. 1998 6 0.562 0.635 0.490 0.536 30. 0.394 0.469 0.318 0.702 365. 1998 7 0.510 0.659 0.362 0.442 31. 0.430 0.511 0.348 0.706 365. 1998 8 0.518 0.544 0.492 0.447 31. 0.465 0.539 0.392 0.715 365. 1998 9 0.458 0.571 0.345 0.312 30. 0.495 0.563 0.427 0.708 365. 1998 10 0.416 0.519 0.312 0.339 31. 0.519 0.592 0.445 0.711 365. 1998 11 0.192 0.272 0.113 0.130 30. 0.519 0.606 0.431 0.688 365. 1998 12 0.277 0.416 0.138 0.073 31. 0.516 0.618 0.414 0.632 365.
and 2010:
ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN YEAR MON GLOBAL NH SH TRPC NO.DAYS GLOBAL NH SH TRPC DAYS 2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681 31. 0.313 0.363 0.263 0.286 365. 2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791 28. 0.340 0.375 0.306 0.351 365. 2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726 31. 0.380 0.419 0.340 0.426 365. 2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633 30. 0.408 0.459 0.356 0.477 365. 2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708 31. 0.441 0.511 0.371 0.542 365. 2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476 30. 0.473 0.558 0.389 0.573 365. 2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420 31. 0.479 0.596 0.361 0.565 365. 2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364 31. 0.501 0.633 0.369 0.562 365. 2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285 30. 0.509 0.630 0.389 0.536 365. 2010 10 0.419 0.365 0.473 0.152 31. 0.514 0.633 0.396 0.517 365.
Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3
Update: Dr. Roy Spencer uses the term “dead heat” in the posting here.
Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C
Which I’ll have to say, I didn’t read, since that day I was attending to my wife in the hospital. Charles the Moderator posted the story for me (on WUWT). So this is where Mr. Hudson got the term, and I’m in error in assuming it was his term.
My point about the year not being finished, and average line in 2010 dropping with time, and the comparison of absolute peaks remains valid though.
1998 1 0.582 0.612 0.552 1.096 31. 0.103 0.149 0.056 0.213 365. 1998 2 0.753 0.857 0.649 1.291 28. 0.160 0.211 0.109 0.330 365. 1998 3 0.528 0.655 0.401 1.025 31. 0.208 0.263 0.152 0.442 365. 1998 4 0.770 1.014 0.525 1.059 30. 0.288 0.358 0.218 0.563 365. 1998 5 0.645 0.685 0.606 0.885 31. 0.347 0.419 0.275 0.653 365. 1998 6 0.562 0.634 0.490 0.536 30. 0.394 0.469 0.319 0.702 365. 1998 7 0.510 0.659 0.362 0.442 31. 0.430 0.511 0.348 0.706 365. 1998 8 0.513 0.555 0.470 0.456 31. 0.465 0.540 0.390 0.715 365. 1998 9 0.432 0.564 0.300 0.284 30. 0.493 0.564 0.422 0.706 365. 1998 10 0.394 0.512 0.276 0.324 31. 0.514 0.592 0.437 0.708 365. 1998 11 0.190 0.265 0.116 0.134 30. 0.514 0.605 0.423 0.685 365. 1998 12 0.289 0.415 0.164 0.086 31. 0.512 0.617 0.408 0.631 365.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder when the full record for 2010 is in , if this year falls short of what some are hopping for , will we lots of artciles in the News etc telling us so ?
I once claimed about a climate scare article on the BBC website. I suggested the story was so factually incorrect that it should be removed from the site. The response I got back was a note saying that it was BBC’s policy not to remove any article once it appears on the website. I wonder how editing an article fits in?
I am still amazed after a year since climategate at how some people will cheat to prove their point.
The Swedes are also ‘disappearing’ uncomfortable facts by simple academic censorship:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6793
‘Breaking news: University Bans Professor for Discussing Global Warming Skepticism by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists’
The profiles for 1998 and 2010 are different. 1998 was a steeper peek and quick fall off while 2010 has been a more gradual rise. It was not as warm but was warm for a longer period of time.
“Ummm, sadly no. A “dead heat” is defined as:”
Definition number 2 at your own link is:
“A political campaign or other contest that is so close that it is impossible to predict the winner.”
If a word has more than one definition you pick the one that’s closest to the context in which it’s being used. You don’t pick a different meaning and then claim the other person isn’t using the word properly.
Also you may not be aware but Dr Spencer used the term “dead heat” on his own blog post.
There is a PR problem in trying to sell these stories to westerners sitting in mid to northern latitudes since their experience is telling them that for the main 2010 was not a particlarly warm year and had a very cold start and a very cold end.
In the UK only the very gullible would believe anything that the BBC has to say about climate. It has too many vested self interests (not least its pension arrangements)and a left wing agenda to sell to provide objective reporting on this area.
Aren’t they just centering the 13-month average, so that the value plotted is for the given month, the 6 previous months, and the 6 following months? In that case, the values of July-November are included in the last data point.
LOL “WUWT disappears 2010 composite storm image”
REPLY: The text was fouled up in formatting, I’m fixing it. – Anthony
I asked Paul in the comments why he and the rest of the BBC so frequently misuse the term cold snap\spell. No response. Of course the answer is the AGW overlords at the BBC demand it, but Paul can’t speak on the issue. Richard Black would have him sacked!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/worst-snow-since-dec-1981—wi.shtml#comments
No, Anthony, the “dead heat” comment originated from Spencer’s own comment on his site and refers to the first 11 months of each year, not the running 13 mo. average. Dr Roy further comments that there is no statistically significant difference between 2010 and 1998 data. I believe he says that because of the inherent error margins of the measuring devices involved.
REPLY: yes I’m in error, see the update. – Anthony
“Since the temperature continue to drop, when we do finally get the completed 13 month running average for 2010 that inlcudes all temperatures for 2010, Mr. Hudson will discover that red peak in 2010 will have dropped…”
I believe this is inaccurate, that peak will remain exactly as high as it is now. The reason the average doesn’t extend to November is because you need a total of 6 months before, the month itself, and 6 months after to get your 13 month average. Subsequent months will not effect the level of the running average at May, and the colder november is already taken into account for the average for May.
Re KnR says:
December 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“I wonder when the full record for 2010 is in , if this year falls short of what some are hopping for , will we lots of artciles in the News etc telling us so ?”
Certainly you jest, for the media it will be on to the next “projected ” fact that can skew the public perception. This has of course been going on for decades with CAGW.
I think you are being a bit harsh on Mr Hudson. He is, after all, in the Lion’s den.
I’ve just discovered Paul Hudson, and I reckon that he’s a straight-talking no-nonsense rational journalist. Whatever the detail of this apparent revisionism – whether ‘his’ website is being leaned on by the BBC’s doctrinaire Global Warming believers – my hope is that he will supplant the BBC’s Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, an English graduate who has recently discovered scientific uncertainty and embarked on a project to illustrate it. Too little too late, Rodge!
Paul Hudson has the courage to contrast the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the IPCC with common experience. If somebody’s mucking about with reality here, I doubt that it’s Paul Hudson himself.
The BBC is a sham and should be ignored! – objective reporting on climate has never been one of their strengths – which on its own would be intolerable – but because of the exposure of AGW as much of a muchnesss and a politially motivated campaign, this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the BBC has NOT remained impartial, contrary to its own charter. Ergo, what does this mean about the rest of its reporting?
One a liar is exposed, he can almost NEVER be believed again. Trust is something that takes years to earn and seconds to lose.
Is there a trustworthy media ‘station’ out there? – somehow, I doubt it – yes its an idealogy to believe so – all stations will have their ‘stance’ – but blatant propaganda is intolerable.
Anthony said: REPLY: yes I’m in error, see the update. – Anthony
Sorry, I didn’t see the update. No matter which year ends up the “data” winner, both are very warm years and will likely be “statistical twins”. I see you value peaks more than breadth of warmth … I can’t imagine why …
Best wishes on a matter of actual importance, your wife’s full recovery.
I suspect the changing of the headline is either just a regular result of a sub-editor’s whim or, more likely, an obvious reaction to new information. The five blog posts before the two you report on above all use the word “record”:
“Winter temperature records tumble across Yorkshire”
“New December temperature record at Leeming”
“Record breaking Sheffield”
“Deepest December snow since 1981” (OK, this one doesn’t but it means the same)
“Records tumble as winter tightens its grip”
In the light of these, changing “Coldest December Day on record for some sites” to “Record cold continues” seems harmless enough, particularly as Paul notes in the updated / edited body of the text:
“Other records may have been set, but we will have to wait for the 24 hour data . . . to confirm this . . . Thanks to the Met Office Observer at Dishforth for clarifying this with me this evening!”.
This suggests that the original claims he made, while probably correct, were a little premature and, when gently corrected, he updated his blog to reflect that. In that circumstance, that specific change of headline would be appropriate.
OK so let them call it a ‘dead heat’ – then ask them why after 12 years of continually rising CO2 we are only at the same temperature as in 1998 _and_ with cooler oceans.
Surely this is a falsification of the AGW hypothesis?
Why a 13 month running average is used (or a 25-month one, for that matter)? As temperatures vary with seasons in a 12 month cycle, the natural averaging period should be 12 months, to cancel out seasonal variability. A 13 month cycle is prone to create bias by adding a further month to the current season (for instance, the 13 months from November 2009 to November 2010 includes two Novembers). The bias would reduce or increase the average temperature depending on the season involved. It is perhaps usual meteorological usage, but I wonder.
On the other hand, running means are usually centred, and this could be a reason for using 13 months: you have 6 months before the centre month, and six afterwards. In that case, however, the 13-month period ending in November 2010 is centred in May, not June. And the table provided by you, Anthony, includes a 12 month (not 13) running average. Thus I keep wondering.
sharper00 says: “…A “dead heat” is defined as…“A political campaign or other contest that is so close that it is impossible to predict the winner.”
Quite so, sharperoo! This ‘highest temperature on record’ farrago is, as you so rightly point out, a political campaign, and the term ‘dead heat’ would apply. Thank you so much for reminding us once again that this has nothing to do with science and is all about politics.
Did I not read a thread on WUWT half a year ago or more that said Troposphere temps lag surface temps? Maybe Roy Spencer could enlighten us on this. If so, with snow and animals and fishes dying of the cold in Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, etc, with cold sleety days at the world cup soccer in S Africa, cold and wet in OZ and now record breaking cold in Europe and Russia during 2010, maybe things on the ground are a hell of a lot colder than up in the sky.
It’s, it’s, it’s… a tidal wave of stupidity
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/tidal-wave-of-stupidity.html
It doesn’t matter, since these months are part of the calculation for the red line. The 13 month running average last point is the average of all months starting from november 2009 till nov 2010. When December gets calculated, a new point in the red line will be calculated from dec 2009 to dec 2010 and it will be rendered to the right of the last red point rendered in the graph shown by you.
Meaning, the peak of 2010 red line will not change much from what it already is. The best it can do is to go down henceforth.
“I guess somebody didn’t like the original headline and decided it must be changed.”
This is a political correctness, Anthony 😉 The British are more crazy about it than the Germans.