NOAA says 2010 tied with 2005 for warmest year in the surface temperature record

Press release: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

This preliminary analysis is prepared by scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

2010 Global Climate Highlights:

  • Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*
  • The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record at 1.80 F (1.00 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the land surface temperature is +/- 0.20 F (+/- 0.11 C).
  • Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).
  • In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which influences global temperature and precipitation patterns — when a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.
  • According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation. As with any year, precipitation patterns were highly variable from region to region.
  • The 2010 Pacific hurricane season had seven named storms and three hurricanes, the fewest on record since the mid-1960s when scientists started using satellite observations. By contrast, the Atlantic season was extremely active, with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes. The year tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively.
  • The Arctic sea ice extent had a record long growing season, with the annual maximum occurring at the latest date, March 31, since records began in 1979. Despite the shorter-than-normal melting season, the Arctic still reached its third smallest annual sea ice minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The Antarctic sea ice extent reached its eighth smallest annual maximum extent in March, while in September, the Antarctic sea ice rapidly expanded to its third largest extent on record.
  • A negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) in January and February helped usher in very cold Arctic air to much of the Northern Hemisphere. Record cold and major snowstorms with heavy accumulations occurred across much of eastern North America, Europe and Asia. The February AO index reached -4.266, the largest negative anomaly since records began in 1950.
  • From mid-June to mid-August, an unusually strong jet stream shifted northward of western Russia while plunging southward into Pakistan. The jet stream remained locked in place for weeks, bringing an unprecedented two-month heat wave to Russia and contributing to devastating floods in Pakistan at the end of July.

U.S. Climate Highlights:

  • In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
  • Precipitation across the contiguous United States in 2010 was 1.02 inches (2.59 cm) above the long-term average. Like temperature, precipitation patterns are influenced by climate processes such as ENSO. A persistent storm track brought prolific summer rain to the northern Plains and upper Midwest. Wisconsin had its wettest summer on record, and many surrounding states had much above-normal precipitation. Since the start of records in the U.S. in 1895, precipitation across the United States is increasing at an average rate of approximately 0.18 inches per decade.
  • The year began with extremely cold winter temperatures and snowfall amounts that broke monthly and seasonal records at many U.S. locations. Seasonal snowfall records fell in several cities, including Washington; Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia; Wilmington, Del.; and Atlantic City, N.J. Several NOAA studies established that this winter pattern was made more likely by the combined states of El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation.
  • Twelve states, mainly in the Southeast, but extending northward into New England, experienced a record warm June-August. Several cities broke summer temperature records including New York (Central Park); Philadelphia; Trenton, N.J.; and Wilmington, Del.
  • Preliminary totals indicate there were 1,302 U.S. tornadoes during 2010. The year will rank among the 10 busiest for tornadoes since records began in 1950. An active storm pattern across the Northern Plains during the summer contributed to a state-record 104 confirmed tornadoes in Minnesota in 2010, making Minnesota the national tornado leader for the first time.
  • During 2010, substantial precipitation fell in many drought-stricken regions. The U.S. footprint of drought reached its smallest extent during July when less than eight percent of the country was experiencing drought conditions. The increased precipitation and eradication of drought limited the acres burned and number of wildfires during 2010. Hawaii had near-record dryness occurring in some areas for most of the year.

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world’s climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers‘ critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us online at www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.

###

About these ads

191 thoughts on “NOAA says 2010 tied with 2005 for warmest year in the surface temperature record

  1. All of course based on raw data and data “adjustments” they won’t release to the taxpayors who fund their operations.

  2. It’s global warming… that’s why it freezing cold everywhere. One can ask, “But where did the heat go?”

    /sarc off

  3. It’s a little like sitting on a little hillock and having some small kid stand on a big stone and say: “I must be the highest person in the world” … well they are the highest person they can see so why not let them enjoy the moment!

  4. In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average.

    Without mentioning that they are probably talking about a 30 year average, so we would expect there to be 15 years with “above average temperatures”.

    In the same bullet, the apparently unrelated:

    Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

    Which presumably is included to make one think that they are talking about an average from 1895. Also no mention that this same temperature rise (or higher) has been seen for the last few thousand years (since the last ice age).

  5. If as reported on this site a few days ago that the UHI effect as measured by satelite can average 7 degrees between the outskirts and centre of a big city, this being so I cannot see how this ever-changing microclimates in towns and cities, or near airports and factories, can ever be correctly estimated or adjusted for. For instance what is the UHI difference between the soot filled smoggy London city centre in 1900 and modern car jammed London in 2000? The two Cities are so unlike each other it is impossible to knowingly compare a temperature reading in Hyde Park in 1900 to one taken in the same location in 2000.

    I saw that Phil Jones in one of the CRU emails estimated the change in UHI in London between 1900 and 2000 to be zero, with no adjustment made either way. This must be a guesstimate.

    Unless they are comparing like for like, ie data from temperature stations that are in isolated locations well away from human habitation, we cannot know if the globe is warming or cooling.

    I am not a scientist but this is what makes common sense to me. Am I wrong?

  6. A simple request to governments worldwide:

    If mankind really can change the climate, then it’s high time you lot got together and standardised the whole damned thing.

    Us lesser mortals just can’t be doing with all this variability – it just ain’t natural!!

  7. According to the Norwegian meteorological institute 2010 was the coldest year in Norway since 1941. However, how this national temperature is calculated is a bit of a mystery. I think all these national or global averages should be taken cum grano salis maximo.

  8. NOAA’s entire depiction of 2010 lacks a crucial qualifier–the temperatures are measured largely at urban sites throughout the world and are adjusted upward in the case of small-town American records. Unbiased estimates show 1994 as the last year below the 20th-century average globally and 1997 in the continental USA. In each case, the consecutive years presently above that average correspond roughly to the runs entirely below it from the late fifties to the late seventies.

  9. This is how I recall the past year of 2010. It was FRIGID during January and February. The freezing temps chipped my concrete drive. March was about normal. Spring was cool. The early Summer was cool but turned very hot (I live in the South USA, so, duh). Autumn came and was a bit of a mixed bag. The Summer seemed a bit slow to disperse, but, brother, when it did! It got cold fast and Winter came early. We haven’t had much freezing precipitation as of yet, but it got into the single digits very early on, and that is absolutely abnormal (read: anomaly).

    Yes, yes, weather not climate. I ain’t no scientist. I don’t care about climate. All I care about is weather. Climate didn’t chip my driveway. Climate didn’t bust my radiator. Climate didn’t cause me to bust my heinie on the ice yesterday. Sorry, folks, I understand that there are many astute scientifically minded people at this forum, and you are all assuredly interested in the study and manifestation of climate. I’m a regular joe. I’m only interested in when my dogs will want venture back outside. Right now they run out, turn around, and run right back inside. That is a more accurate gauge of temperature than any thermometer I own. My dogs? Avoiding outside? That means it is cold.

    Tonight’s forecast? NOAA says 6F. Local weather stations are saying 0F. For my European friends, 0F is much different than 0C. Trust me. Y’all stay warm!

  10. The key point is not that one particular year is higher or lower than the previous. The real evidence for warming comes from NOAA’s data showing that the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred from 1998 to 2010. That is, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was by far the warmest decade of the last 180 years. This does not say why the global climate is warming, but it does support the idea of substantial warming since the turn of the centry. The observations that 2010 ties for the warmest year suggests that the warming is continuing into the new decade.

  11. According to NCDC for CONUS temperatures since 1998 are still falling at -0.94F per decade. That is a rate of nearly 10 degrees/century in CONUS.

    Go here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

    Enter “most recent 12-month period” for “period” from the pick list (might have to scroll it down, its the last option) (or you can select “annual” as the last month in the database is December)

    Enter 1998 as “First Year to Display”

    Submit

  12. Hawaii’s “dryness” is no where close to any records. It was unusually dry on Oahu. The other islands experienced the normal drought associated with El Nino. Hardest hit were the usual areas on Maui and the Big Island. I personally have experienced far worst droughts on both islands. The drought is now broken, with heavy rains since December on all islands, including the normally dry Niihau.

  13. Like a bikini, what is concealed is more important that what is revealed. Left out was . . .
    Record low total cyclonic energy
    Near record sea ice extent for the Antarctic
    Arctic summer temps pervasively below the 20th century benchmark (according to DMI)
    Exaggerated/biased smoothing of Arctic temps by GISS (filling in the gaps)
    Failure to archive original raw data
    Perpetual reworking of historic weather data with a bias to the downside
    And on and on.

  14. PJP wrote:
    Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

    Which presumably is included to make one think that they are talking about an average from 1895. Also no mention that this same temperature rise (or higher) has been seen for the last few thousand years (since the last ice age).

    PJP, were your statement true, this implies that temperatures have increased 24 F in the last 2000 years. This is completely contradicted by all available evidence.

  15. They mention the Artic sea ice but no mention of the 30 year record Antarctic sea ice in the same year.

    Biased !!!!

  16. BillD says:
    “The key point is not that one particular year is higher or lower than the previous. The real evidence for warming comes from NOAA’s data showing that the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred from 1998 to 2010. That is, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was by far the warmest decade of the last 180 years.”

    Bill, would you also be surprised that the highest waves are at high tide?

    What does it tell you when you have one decade out of 15 which is high? It tells you that there’s an amazing 1 in 15 chance of it happening again next decade which really is making me tremble in my boots!

    Global temperatures have varied by around 0.1C/decade up and down in the 150 (not 180) years of worldwide records, and not doubt next decade will be like all the rest … 0.1C higher or lower or perhaps even the same and that will be perfectly normal for the climate

  17. Comparing a year with a strong El Ninos with a year without is not very informative. Taking out El Nino and La Nina effects, temperatures peaked in 2005 and the generally insignificant trends you may get around this top between 1998 and 2010 depends on the selection of start and end points.

  18. It’s amazing how easy it is to gin up the surface-temperature results you want with the help of a little interpolation, homogenization and UHI manipulation. Presto! “Tie for the warmest year.”

    The government-funded science charlatans at NCDC and GISS don’t know when to stop. They’ve become a laughingstock.

    Another Little Ice Age may be just around the corner, and these tax-subsidized Cassandras are still sounding the global warming alarm. They all should be fired tomorrow.

  19. Well it didn’t take my tax payer funded CBC to jump all over this:

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.html

    Sure would be interesting to see if these land based temperature records in Canada compensated for UHI and if so, how much.

    I can tell you right now that as a resident of Calgary, Alberta it was definitely one of the coolest summers/years I can remember. I have no way of proving it, but it sure felt like it anyway.

  20. “average annual temperature was above normal”
    The average sure didn’t mean anything last January and February when we set record cold temps. Again, you can have a day where the high is 80 and the low is 60 with an average lower than a day that hovered around 71 – 72. The higher average doesn’t mean it was warmer. They ought to quit reporting meaningless averages. They have nothing to do with REALITY.

  21. Are they still missing Siberia and the NW territories? Did they report any better on higher altitudes???

  22. To Steinar Midtskogen: “According to the Norwegian meteorological institute 2010 was the coldest year in Norway since 1941. However, how this national temperature is calculated is a bit of a mystery. I think all these national or global averages should be taken cum grano salis maximo.”
    I think they (climate departement) are somewhat unwilling to expose the selected stations that are used for temperature averages. I asked them once, and got a “blurry” answer…
    The blocking cold has for time being collapsed, and the westernly, mild winds are back. Wonder if the cold returns?

  23. “the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred from 1998 to 2010″

    After “adjustment”. I wonder what the unadjusted record shows.

  24. Gary my Springer isn’t happy until he’s out in 0F munching on a beef bone, he will lay for hours as it snows on him. Dog’s got antifreeze in him. His favorite thing is wait until I’m settled in jammies and slippers fire roaring and he wants to go for a walkie in a howling blizzard….
    BTW we are expecting a “Pineapple Clipper” in the Pac NW US. I predict that will bring out the local warmists to scream: “Repent ye sinners! give up, thy SUV by a Prious ,er Pious er,Prius. and sin no more!” then it will turn cold and snow again…

  25. Lemme see…we are in an interglacial period, coming out of the little ice age. It’s continuing to warm up. And these dolts are going ballistic. Yup. SNAFU.

  26. PJP says:
    January 12, 2011 at 9:52 am
    Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
    Which presumably is included to make one think that they are talking about an average from 1895. Also no mention that this same temperature rise (or higher) has been seen for the last few thousand years (since the last ice age).

    Now that I find funny. Ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, that being 1000 decades x 0.12 F per decade means we are, yowsa, 120 degrees warmer now!!!

  27. In 2007, Science Magazine ran an article stating that there had been a sea change in the attitudes of scientists about AGW. At the beginning of that year5, most scientists believed in it. At the end of the year, the majority did not. One major reason for the change was the failure of the 199-2006 climate to warm up.

    Now all of a sudden, 2005 is tied with 2010 for hottest year on record.

    WUWT readers know how that happened–FRAUD.

    Since this fraud harms the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars AND harms the biosphere, the guilty parties need to be searched out and JAILED.

  28. Well this obviously biases NASA claim could well be their undoing – and the end of the CAGW scam.

    Cold year all across most of the NH – cold year in many places in the SH – equatorial temps normal. Looks like all the warming happened at the poles where ther are few thermometers and very few people to observe and refute their claims. Can’t wait for the sceptical scientists to get there hand on this data!

  29. Enneagram says:
    January 12, 2011 at 9:14 am
    “No Observation At All !!
    Hey buddies, just look through the window!”

    Hmm? It is 2011 outside my window.

  30. BillD says:
    January 12, 2011 at 10:09 am

    “The key point is not that one particular year is higher or lower than the previous. The real evidence for warming comes from NOAA’s data showing that the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred from 1998 to 2010. That is, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was by far the warmest decade of the last 180 years. This does not say why the global climate is warming, but it does support the idea of substantial warming since the turn of the centry. The observations that 2010 ties for the warmest year suggests that the warming is continuing into the new decade.”

    Bill, you have to understand that many of the temperature records for the past have been adjusted to make the past appear colder then it was, the 1930s were much warmer then NOAA would have you believe, and warmer then the past decade.

  31. @Gary

    Don’t feel you are on your own, there are plenty of us non scientists here trying to get a handle on this. I still can’t grasp a global average temperature when the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere are so different land mass wise and in opposite seasons. All I care about is what is happening regionally at the moment, that I can prepare for and that is what I will respond to. Anything else is just b******* politics and a means to get more money out of me.

  32. Are they really purporting to claim that they can measure temperatures to hundreths of degrees and the variation is so low that the 95% CI is in hundredths of degrees? I don’t know much about the mechanics of measuring global temperatures, but I’d laugh anyone who brought me two decimal place average temperatures for those operations I can tightly control. My first bit of skepticism came about when I looked at the absolute precision and accuracy inferred by these folks.

  33. As a resident of Asheville, a small part of the irony in this release is that it was a colder than usual winter last year and a milder summer than any I have experienced since moving here. Last winter was the best snow skiing in years.

    I would suggest the guys at NCDC need to step outside for a bit, but I know many of them are really into the outdoors. Biking and hiking are huge here.

    I am certain at some point last summer one of them said to another, “It’s really interesting that our data is telling us that the rest of the world is experiencing one of the warmest years recorded, but it’s so nice outside let’s go for a ride.”

  34. “In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which influences global temperature and precipitation patterns — when a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.”

    They somehow forget to mention the warming effects of a strong El Nino.

    But, they’re all to eager to explain the cold weather as a function of standard climate features…

    “The year began with extremely cold winter temperatures and snowfall amounts that broke monthly and seasonal records at many U.S. locations. Seasonal snowfall records fell in several cities, including Washington; Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia; Wilmington, Del.; and Atlantic City, N.J. Several NOAA studies established that this winter pattern was made more likely by the combined states of El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation.”

  35. BillD says:
    January 12, 2011 at 10:09 am

    The key point is not that one particular year is higher or lower than the previous. The real evidence for warming comes from NOAA’s data showing that the 10 warmest years globally have all occurred from 1998 to 2010. That is, the decade from 2000 to 2009 was by far the warmest decade of the last 180 years. This does not say why the global climate is warming, but it does support the idea of substantial warming since the turn of the centry.

    Or it could mean there was a step change upward in 1998 and it’s been flat on average since.

  36. Proving you can fake anything with enough ‘adjustments’.

    It’s sad when government scientists lie, to try and dupe ignorant people into paying more taxes for an obvious hoax. But they have been doing this for some time.

  37. Is Climatic Data Center, pretty much the same thing as Climactic Data Center. Seems like these guys peddle more of the latter, than the former; just an observation on my part.

  38. This is truely remarkable. 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year despite a moderate El Niño, a very strong La Niña and the lowest solar minimum in a long time. I suspect 2012 might be off the charts, when the sun picks up again and La Niña has gone, barring a massive volacno erruption.

    As to the UHI, there’s no such thing in the troposphere. RSS and UAH show the same warming trend, and Dr.Spencer has confirmed that 2010 is on par with 1998 (warmest year in the satellite based data set).

  39. Is it just me(and the voices in my head) or does US government appear to be a total con?

    The Treasury sells debt and the Fed buys it back a month later paying stiff comissions.

    Warmest year ever? You, NOAA, lie.

  40. To Billd: Look at any, or all of the temperature records and show me where there has been any “substantial warming” since the turn of the centry (sic)? It pays to look at the data before drawing a conclusion.

  41. Is this like saying that some of the highest altitudes on planet earth can be found up in the mountains. ? If we have just come through a short period; (since the coming ice age scare of the late 1970s) of global warming; which seems to have about stalled around 1995, so we seem to be at some sort of local maximum; would one not expect higher Temperatures to be clustered around such a maximum.
    Isn’t it likely, that when we reach the next era of coming ice age scare with “unprecedented” (lately) low Temperatures; that government (taxpayer) granted researchers will note the clustering of low Temperatures about that next minimum ??

  42. The UAH data are far more reliable than NCDC data.

    Can anybody examine the UAH data and conclude that it would be a good idea to waste $45 TRILLION in an utterly futile effort to micromanage climate change?

    Didn’t Kyoto quantify the abject folly of that nonsense? We can spend all the money in the world and never even be able to measure the warming (allegedly) prevented.

  43. Here is an “inconvenient truth” which the government employees at NOAA will never publicize:

    Both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend wherein the latest warming is proven to be not even close to being outside the bounds of natural variation.

    The citation links and more details are found here and here.

  44. I dont know how many people have bothered to check the original data from NCDC. Something distinctly fishey is going on. We do not have the data for December from NCDC yet, but we have an annual report. I wonder why.

    Typically NCDC data comes out on or about the 15th of the next month; e.g. December’s data is expected around 15th January. This is only the 12th. Last month we did not get November’s data until after Christmas. If we read the NCDC data carefully, the average for 2010 from Jan to Nov is 0.64 C. The average for the whole of 2010 is given as 0.62 C. If these figures are right, it implies that Decemeber’s value is 0.40 C!! If this is true, then this represents a considerable reduction from all other months in 2010.

    So it appears that NCDC are playing politics. They are releasing this ANNUAL report, BEFORE they issue the December report, because they know that when the December report comes out it will show that global temperatures are starting the expected drop; we are in a La Nina year.

    It will be interesting to see when NCDC releases the Decemebr data. It ought to be late this week, or early next week. Maybe we wont see it until late in January, so as to give maximum coverage to the idea that 2010 waa the warmest on record, and not reveal that December’s data indicates that global temperatures are starting to fall significantly

  45. Meanwhile Australia especially Queensland is experiencing catastrophic flooding courtesy of a strong La Nina. Weather is not climate; but still it is not reassuring that our own climate mavens confidently predicted more drought in future. Not in this part of it.

  46. The measure in tenths and report in hundredths (violation of math rule #1). The temperature will continue to rise while the world freezes because:

    #1 – they hide the data
    #2 – they own the “adjustments”

    Most people will realize that cold is cold – no matter how hot they want to “adjust” the temperature to.

  47. Even if we accept that 2010 is the joint warmest year in the surface temperature record, it is a mere 1.02C (0.3% in absolute terms) warmer than the coldest year (1907).

    Is that even statistically significant?

  48. I wonder why there are people around who think it is important for us mortals to believe that the earth is still warming up.
    If it does, then all is well and good, but only the most gullible will take that as proof that CO2 is causing that warming.
    Or even of any cooling, which is very likely to follow next.

  49. I have come more and more to appreciate Dr Kevin Trenberth’s official NOAA/NASA/NCDC “Global Energy Budget” cartoon graph with its gaudy colors.

    Too bad it is not all inclusive, since it doesn’t say word one about either thermal conduction or convection in the earth’s oceans; which after all, are the d(r)epositoty of most of the earth’s energy receipts from the sun; but that issue aside, it is at least a listing of a whole host of important thermal energy transport processes, that are involved in the earth’s weather, and climate phenomena.

    Trenberth should update his drawing to separate those myriad energy transport processes into their two natural super groups, that are of interest to scientists and governments all around the globe; and the subject of endless talk and haranguing.

    Those two groups, are the group of processes that are the cause and bailiwick of Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption; and the far less important group of processes that have NO connection to Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption whatsoever.

    The first, most important group, involves ONLY the Non-Condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2, O3, CH4, and many others too numerous to mention.

    This group is also very special, in that the ONLY energy transport processes that are involved in Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption is Long Wave Electromagnetic Radiation in the spectral range from a minimum of about 4.0 microns wavelength, (and more likely 4.5 to 5.0 microns) up to about 80 microns or 100 microns tops.

    No other energy transport processes are caused by, or contribute significantly to Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption. In particular since none of the evil members of this terror gases category are “condensing”; and we know CO2 isn’t since we already did that dry ice snow fiasco, way back when; until Phil disabused us of that silly idea; then we need not mention ever again “LATENT HEAT”, which is a property only of condensing atmospheric gases such as H2O for example; which also happens to differ from CO2, in that whereas CO2 persists in the atmosphere for around 200 years; although some say for as much as 1000 years; H2O is a permanent component of the earth’s atmosphere, and is always present everywhere in the atmosphere; and virtually always in amounts far in excess of the CO2 abundance.

    One thing we can be comfortable with as regards the theory of “Black Body Radiation”, is that NO material, can radiate at a higher spectral radiant emittance; at any wavelength, than can a “black Body” at the same Temperature.

    Since a 288 K BB has its spectral peak emittance at about 10.1 microns, then a 333 K BB (+60 deg C / 140 deg F) peaks at about 8.7 microns. Half of that is 4.35 microns; so we can be quite confident, that considerably less than 1% of all of the Long Wave Thermal Infra-Red radiation that interracts with the Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption non-condensing culprits lies at less than 4.35 microns wavelength.

    This is important, because CO2 has important IR absorption bands at 2.7 microns, and lower, as well as a 4.0 micron region band and we can be quite confident, that the only significant source of EM radiant energy in those bands, is the sun; almost none is emitted from the earth surface, or the atmosphere.

    So to the extent, that CO2 absorbs EM radiant energy at around 4.0 microns, and below, that energy has to be original raw incoming solar radiation, and its capture by CO2 results in LESS solar energy reaching earth’s surface; so for that range of energy wavelengths, CO2 like condensing H2O, is a COOLING influence on the earth, instead of a Man-MadeGreenhouse Gas CausedGlobal WarmingClimateChangeCatastrophic Climate Disruption influence.

    I just thought you would find that interesting.

  50. Dear NOAA

    Your “confidence intervals” are total BS.

    When can we expect NOAA to start gathering and reporting actual unfudged data?

    It may be the warmest year on your planet but that isn’t what we experienced here on Earth.

  51. Who is in charge of NOAA ? Who choose her to be in that position ? Did she need to make socalled commitments , promises , to get this job ? Was it that 2010 needed to be the hottest year on record ? When was that trumpeted around ? May , april 2010 or even earlier ? Why do not they give proof of their statements to the taxpayer who is paying them ? What did Somerset Maughan remark about statements lacking details ? Why did Winston Churchill not trust statistics ? The US congress should be putting these and more questions to the NOAA burocracy probably asking for more subsidies for next season before disaster happens . From my point of view shit only happens .

  52. The stories in newspapers should be “No Global Warming – For the last 16 years there has been no statistical increase in global temperatures. This is consistent with the growing perception that climate models predicting increased temperatures as a result of growing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are inaccurate.”

    But I bet no one prints that.

  53. I do believe that the recent years since 1998 include the warmest on record. The cause of these very warm years really is global warming but it isn’t what they think it is. Satellite records show a step warming that started with the super El Nino of 1998, raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years, and then stopped. Its cause was not any greenhouse effect but the huge amount of warm water brought over by the super El Nino. A third of a degree is fully half of what has been allotted to the entire twentieth century so it should show up as a noticeable warming of the climate. The warming itself was over by 2002 and was followed by a six year warm period I call the twenty-first century high. Nothing happened because the warm water lingered and suppressed a La Nina that should have appeared about 2004. When warm water had partly dissipated the 2008 La Nina cooling arrived and caused much puzzlement at CRU as Climategate emails showed. Carbon dioxide had been going up and computer predictions of warming had been going up during this period but nothing happened. And then a sudden cooling. Trenbertth called it a travesty that they could not understand this cooling. But if you understand something about ENSO you would know that the cooling simply signified the resumption of ENSO oscillations that the arrival of the 1998 super El Nino had disrupted. It has since been followed by the 2010 El Nino and the next La Nina is already well on the way. Expect such alternation of El Ninos and La Ninas indefinitely into the future and do not expect any anthropogenic temperature rise whatsoever. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown that the optical thickness of the atmosphere in the infrared band (where carbon dioxide absorbs) has been constant for the last 61 years. This means that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for all these years has had no effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Or, to put it in other words, the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide is simply missing. Do not expect it to warm up the world. This explains why satellite temperature measurements show that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties until the super El Nino arrived. And why the twenty-first century high was a warm period but there was no additional warming as Trenberth expected. There was no such additional warming because it was made impossible by Miskolczy’s observations.

  54. Does anyone have the original before any adjustments 1934 temps?
    If you do, how does 2010 really compare?

  55. The AGW or no AGW, most of us here in London welcome our ‘local’ GW in the last few days. Tonight night temperature is predicted to be +11C equalling the average for the June’s night time temperatures.
    Hooray!

  56. [George E. Smith says: January 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm]

    I’m sorry, but I don’t quite follow the point that Mr. Smith is making.

    True, the CO2 absorption bands at 2.7 and 4 microns would interact only with solar radiation. But these absorption windows are saturated, insensitive to current CO2 concentration. Their effect on insolation is essentially constant. As a result, there is no “cooling” effect, since an equilibrium temperature would be reached and would not change. (In any case, the term “cooling” should be reserved for processes that transport heat from the Earth into space.)

    However, the CO2 absorption bands at longer wavelengths (notably 10 microns) are not saturated, and it is arguable that increases in CO2 concentration could shift the temperature equilibrium upwards, ever so infinitesimally. I don’t personally accept that this theoretical effect has a conclusive signature in the data. (And I personally believe that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is completely determined by the gas chemistry balance with the oceans. Nothing we can do will alter what that equilibrium is. Human combustion of carbonaceous fuels is irrelevant; Le Chatlier’s Principle will drive the process in whatever direction it needs to go, in order to preserve the equilibrium.)

    Finally, I continue to be puzzled why anyone dwells on the subject of latent heat of water. Yes, the thermodynamics of water evaporation and condensation controls heat transport within the atmosphere, from region to region, and altitude to altitude. But it has no meaning in the question of radiative balance of the Earth, between insolation from the Sun and radiation to outer space. Radiation will always transport through the atmosphere far faster than convective processes (compare the speed of light to the speed of sound, which is a good proxy for the mean thermal speed of air molecules), even if it has to follow an indirect path upward.

    We all know this to be true from personal experience. If I walk from indoors into broad summer daylight, my sunward side heats up fast, regardless of air temperature. Similarly, if I am in the desert on a very sunny winter day, and step into shadow, I get an instant chill all over. It is the Earth that heats the air, not the other way around, and the Sun that heats the Earth.

  57. Dominic Bernardin (January 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm):

    1) “this has got to be the most ill-informed, mislead, and outright stupid message board i have ever seen.”

    Why? Because we have the audacity to question purely political propaganda? What ever happened to the slogan “dissent is patriotic”? Oh, yeah… that was Leftist dissent.

    2) “actually study the real raw data”

    I have. Here’s what I found:

    A) Peer reviewed science demonstrates said data to have “an estimated warm bias of about 30%”.

    B) Peer reviewed science shows that both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend wherein the latest warming is proven to be not even close to being outside the bounds of natural variation.

    The citation links and more details are found here and here.

    3) “look up the atmospheric composition of Venus”

    A) Yeah, click here and let’s explore the science instead of the propaganda.

    B) Of greater interest is the closely correlated warming trend on Mars. That warming trend began shortly after we landed a spacecraft on Mars — so, I guess humans are to blame, eh?

    4) “[Dominic thinks we believe] CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”

    A) Well, “greenhouse gas” is an utterly misleading description, but nobody denies the physics.

    B) The problem is that everybody admits CO2 alone could NEVER generate enough warming to cause ANY concern. That’s why the purely political propagandists at the IPCC had to ASSUME water vapor would respond in such a way as to create runaway global warming.

    Unfortunately (for the propagandists) more and more peer reviewed science is demonstrating this ASSUMPTION to be not merely incorrect, but entirely upside down.

    5) Dominic, take a little advice…
    When selecting a “message board” to pollute with your purely political propaganda, you’re better off selecting one less frequented by actual scientists.

    Click here for some basic climate change science.
    Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

  58. Still waiting for the disapperance of cold, snow winters (something the Alarmists have been predicting for almost 10 years). Last Friday through Monday broke all records in South Bend Indiana for 4 day snow falls (39 inches -almost all Lake Effect snows). Since the 2007 IPCC publications, our winters are slowly, but steadily becoming colder and snowier.

  59. Dashiell

    This is truely remarkable. 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year despite a moderate El Niño, a very strong La Niña and the lowest solar minimum in a long time.

    I find it remarkable how people on this site are able to continue denying in the face of such evidence.

  60. “Or look up the atmospheric composition of Venus, and its temperatures, note how the side that is in darkness for about a year is still so warm, then say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”

    _____________________________________________________________

    Aha! Some warmist dumbass trotting out the old “Yes, but look at what has happened on Venus BS”.

    FYI, Venus’ atmosphere is composed of 95% CO2 (the Earth is 0,04%), is nearly 1000% thicker than the Earth’s and it receives over 50% more solar radiation than the Earth.

    Other than that, it’s a really good comparison.

  61. SBVOR

    “this has got to be the most ill-informed, mislead, and outright stupid message board i have ever seen.”

    Why?

    Comments like

    Hey buddies, just look through the window!

    appear to be all too common here, and they go unchallenged. What difference does it make what this poster sees out of his or her window, wherever that window might be?

  62. Arno Arrak

    I do believe that the recent years since 1998 include the warmest on record.

    Indeed, the last decade was the warmest ever recorded, according to all of the major temperature records, beating the record set by the previous decade (that beat the record set by the decade before that). This warming trend is significant and it is undeniable.

  63. Roger Otip sez:

    “I find it remarkable how people on this site are able to continue denying in the face of such evidence.”

    1) I thought you alarmists were fond of lecturing us on climate vs. weather. Was 2010 climate or weather? What about 2008?

    2) In my view, climate can only be assessed by examining — at the very least — 10,000 year trends. Personally, I prefer to examine trends over the last 423,000 years.

    Click here and here and do both. Then, come back and tell me what the “evidence” has to say.

    Who’s the denier now?

  64. I don’t know much about the mechanics of measuring global temperatures

    Best leave it to those who do then, Bob.

  65. Hottest year ever? Leave to an American government agency to come up with that, and with how to word an alarming as possbile list of global warming horror.

  66. I believe that there are a lot of entries in this blog that reveal minimal knowledge of the various temperature series. NOAA is not GISS — although GISS takes data from NOAA. NOAA does not have the same adjustments as GISS. If my memory serves me correctly, NOAA is adjusted for TOBS (time of observation), but not for UHI. The TOBS adjustment adds an increasing trend to the raw data. Theoretically, a sound UHI adjustment would insert a decreasing trend to raw data. Therefore, we would expect the NOAA trend to be ta higher than one adjusted for UHI. I trust that worthy individuals will correct my memory if it is wrong.

  67. Dominic Bernardin says: January 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    this has got to be the most ill-informed, mislead, and outright stupid message board i have ever seen. Go get an education, actually study the real raw data, stop making assumptions about the reports, study the real data, then see what you have to say. Or look up the atmospheric composition of Venus, and its temperatures, note how the side that is in darkness for about a year is still so warm, then say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

    You’re looking at yourself in a mirror Dominic. I’ll leave others to answer the data accusations you make. As to Venus, it emits more energy than it absorbs… Think, if you can. If Venus emits more energy than it absorbs, it has to have an internal source of heat … so of course the atmosphere is hot… so of course it is also hot on its night side. Doesn’t implicate CO2 at all because all CO2 does is modulate heat, it is not a source of heat. Stupid Hansen not to grasp the implications of this information when it became available. And you?

  68. What is so odd about having above (or below) average years in a row? What would be odd would be having a much above average years and much below average years going back and forth.

  69. The idea that we have a reliable ‘global’ temperature back to 1880 that can be parsed to tenths of a degree is nonsensical. The idea that we have a global sea surface temperature back to 1880 that we can parse to tenths of a degree is simply laughable.

    tonyb

  70. Pity 2010 wasn’t the clear-cut winner. How much hotter was it than the previous hottest year ever? How much CO2 have we put in the air since the previous hottest year ever? Divide one number by the other, and we have the rate at which CO2 is disrupting the climate. Is this number alarming?

    I’ll bet sea level must have risen like crazy, during the hottest year ever! Right?

    Best,
    Frank

  71. Roger Otip says to Julian in Wales

    Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

    Roger, that’s John Cook’s website geared to only showing evidence favouring AGW. Therefore it’s not true science, which has to show all relevant evidence – at least, good representative evidence from all sides.

    First, Cook says “The skeptic argument says: A paper by Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph, and Patrick Michaels, an environmental studies professor at the University of Virginia, concludes that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by Urban Heat Island. (McKitrick & Michaels)

    But Cook doesn’t even rebut this argument, he simply ignores it and refers to the infamous Jones-Wang paper. FYI there is a longstanding dispute from skeptics over the data used in this paper – data from Wang from China – which you can read about at Climate Audit and other places, if you care to.

    In addition, several studies (unofficial & non-funded as well as McKitrick & Michaels) show clearly that UHI has risen over time and that urban centres show drastic temperature rises where their truly rural neighbours show no change at all. Search WUWT.

    Also check out McKitrick and Michaels direct – again, here, for starters.

  72. I’d like to see a graph or two, simple visuals, like Joe d’Aleo’s updated (updating overdue, Joe?), or maybe all four records, or maybe what all four records said ten/twenty years ago overlaying what they say right now: have they rewritten history as well as cocked a snoot at the multiple causes of data degradation tending to show too much heat? Do we have graphs done ten/twenty years ago, to put GISS to the test? Remember those beautiful urban/rural pairs that that kid did here?

  73. Michael J. Dunn says January 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Finally, I continue to be puzzled why anyone dwells on the subject of latent heat of water … if I am in the desert on a very sunny winter day, and step into shadow, I get an instant chill all over. It is the Earth that heats the air, not the other way around, and the Sun that heats the Earth.

    And if in the same desert you emerge from a swimming pool and stand in full sunlight at 140 degrees F and zero humidity you will also get an instant and far greater chill. Try it sometime, you might learn something.

  74. “”””” Michael J. Dunn says:
    January 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    [George E. Smith says: January 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm]

    I’m sorry, but I don’t quite follow the point that Mr. Smith is making.

    True, the CO2 absorption bands at 2.7 and 4 microns would interact only with solar radiation. But these absorption windows are saturated, insensitive to current CO2 concentration. Their effect on insolation is essentially constant. As a result, there is no “cooling” effect, since an equilibrium temperature would be reached and would not change. (In any case, the term “cooling” should be reserved for processes that transport heat from the Earth into space.)

    However, the CO2 absorption bands at longer wavelengths (notably 10 microns) are not saturated, and it is arguable that increases in CO2 concentration could shift the temperature equilibrium upwards, ever so infinitesimally.

    Well Michael, you shouldn’t blame ME for YOUR lack of following.

    Take THIS comment you wrote:- “”””” (In any case, the term “cooling” should be reserved for processes that transport heat from the Earth into space.) “””””

    Now follow me carefully here Michael; I have nothing hidden up my sleeve. CO2 (and you admit this is true) in the atmosphere can absorb only SOLAR ENERGY, in the 2.7 and 4.0 micron spectral regions. Well Just for you, I looked it up, and found CO2 absorption bands at 1.3-1.5, 1.8-1.95, 2.25-3.0 microns as well as the 4 micron band. All of those shorter CO2 bands also are water absorption bands, so it is not easy to separate from measured data.
    But there is NO IR radiation anywhere near those bands as a consequence of the earth’s surface or atmospheric Temperatures.

    So the energy that CO2 absorbs FROM THE SUN at those near IR wavelengths, does NOT reach the surface at solar spectrum wavelengths; where it mostly would be deposited in the deep oceans if it did. So LESS sunlight reaches the surface as a result of that CO2. THAT is a surface cooling effect.
    True it also IS an atmospheric WARMING effect. As a result of that atmospheric warming effect, the amosphere radiates ISOTROPICALLY in the LWIR region centered at about 10.1 microns; corresponding to a mean earth Temperature of 288 K (15 deg C or 57 deg F).

    As a consequence of that isotropic thermal radiation from the atmosphere ONLY HALF of that increased atmospheric energy, reaches the surface; the other half, “”””” transport(s) heat from the Earth into space “””””

    So even by YOUR definition of cooling, that IS a cooling effect; which is exactly what I said.

    ANYTHING which interrupts incoming solar spectrum radiant energy in the atmosphere, reduces the ground level insolation so it results in a cooling of the SURFACE.

    The concept of an isotropic radiation causing a cooling loss of energy from the earth surface to outer space, can be visualized by ANYONE who has ever flown commercially in daylight hours.

    If you are flying at 36,000 feet down to Hawaii, in daylight, you will find that looking down, you DO NOT see the ocean. What you do see is the BLUE SKY due to Raleigh scattering by the atmosphere; it looks about the same looking down, as looking up. Looking up in daylight you do not see the black sky or the sun bright stars; you see blue Raleigh scattered sunlight. Looking down in daylight you do not see the black ocean, nor the bright “stars” either which consist of sunlit wind blown white caps, which are too small to be resolved by eye as anything other than bright points of light. They too are washed out by the blue Raleigh scattered sunlight. The view is nearly identical in either direction; and if you invoke the standard climatists 3:1 fudge factor range; the up/down skylight is well within that ratio.

    So don’t waste your time trying to argue that thermal radiation from the warm or warmer atmosphere does not split about equally between up and down. If anything; that split actually favors the upward escape route to the downward return to earth direction.

    I’m not even going to waste everybody else’s time explaining to you why that is so. Look up Doppler and Pressure Broadening, and the Wien Displacement Law; and figure it out for yourself.

    And why do you invoke a “saturation” argument to claim that increases in CO2 do not result in increases in solar energy “entrapment”. The mean free path between molecular collisions near ground level (lower troposphere) is such that a solar excited CO2 molecule does not remain so, for long; that captured energy is promptly thermalized (and thereby warms the air) leaving the CO2 molecule ready willing and able to capture some more solar energy. The band is never saturated; just like the 15 micron CO2 bending mode band is never saturated. And there is NO CO2 10 micron band. There is a somewhat narrow O3 absorption band at about 9.6 microns, and H2O starts absorbing strongly at longer than about 10 microns, but below that is the so-called atmospheric window.

    And as surface temperatures get hotter in the afternoon sun, (maybe +60 deg C or more), the surface thermal spectrum peak moves from about 10.1 down to 8.7 microns per Wien Displacement Law, and that results in the effect of CO2 15 micron absorption being even less significant.

    The key point of my former post was simply that the whole man made global warming hualabaloo involves ONLY the Radiation Physics effects; and CO2 variations play absolutely no significant part in any oither thermal process on earth.

    Although the miniscule 390 ppm of atmospheric CO2 “”””” IS “”””” a significant contributor to Atmospheric warming via the capture of 15 micron band thermal emissions; there is no way that that amount of CO2 measurably affects the thermal capacity, or thermal conductivity; or any other thermal process metric of earth’s atmosphere.

    So most of the processes of climate or weather are unrelated to CO2 or any other non-condensing GHG in the atmosphere; only thermal EM radiation, and molecular absorption spectroscopy, show any influence of CO2, and that influence is on the ATMOSPHERE ONLY. Nobody has measured any effect of CO2 in the ocean or soil having an influence on the ocean or soil Temperature, as a result of changes in thermal conductivity or specific heat or any other non radiation physics phenomenon.

  75. Roger Otip:

    Tell me, Roger…
    Is a 71 year USA cooling trend for the month of December climate or weather?

    Or, is it merely galactically “inconvenient” to purely political propagandists such as yourself?

  76. So with all the homogenising, adjusting, UHI, weather station culls, extrapolations and interpolations, and other tricks, the cli-myth transvesitites (eco-nuts dressed up in lab coats) have failed to push up 2010 to the status of the warmest year ever.
    But not to worry, they equated it with 2005, just to impress the idiots, but not me. I can see through the scam, not that I’m some intelligent guy, but its just that the scam is so stupid. Everyone is seeing through it except for the king and his minions, (=the presidents/prime ministers, parliamentarians and journalists).

    And so, after all the efforts by the cli-myth transvestites to artificially push up the temperature records for 2010, still they failed miserably; so it must have gone really and truly cold out there for the real climate to have neutralised and even beat the global warming scammers’ manipulated temps for 2010.

  77. SBVOR,

    Can we put the 45 trillion in a little perspective as it sounds like a lot of money.

    45 trillion over 40 years

    We, in the US currently spend 500 billion on coal fired electricity and 1.6 trillion per year on oil.

  78. Bob sez:

    “45 trillion… sounds like a lot of money”

    Earth to Bob:
    1) $45 trillion IS a lot of money!

    2) It IS a lot of money to utterly WASTE on Kyoto, Act II. Kyoto was — by ALL accounts — a miserable WASTE OF MONEY!

    Hell, even the New York Times admits that.

    3) Whatever we (consumers) voluntarily spend on coal and oil (figures you failed to even attempt to substantiate), that is money voluntarily spent on something which is enormously PRODUCTIVE!

    4) You and your ilk want to hold a gun to our collective heads and FORCE US to utterly WASTE $45 trillion. Are you NUTS or merely tyrannical (or both)?

  79. 34th consecutive year with global temperature above the 20th century average”

    Great. Cold sucks. It won’t be warm enough for me until the planet is green from pole to pole. I just can’t understand the rationale of the ice huggers. We should be so lucky as to never have to deal with an ice age again. The beltway denizens would have a whole different outlook with a mile of ice covering everything north of Washington, D.C. as it has 90% of the time in the last 3 million years and as it was just a scant 12,000 years ago. But what can you expect from a bunch of dolts who can’t see past the next election cycle to say nothing of past the end of the interglacial period.

    They forget to mention that up until two years ago there had been 34 consecutive years with solar activity (sunspot count) far higher than the average of the last 400 years. In fact it’s the highest sustained level since records began.

    Climate boffins are too willing to credit the warming on what humans are doing and too slow to credit it on what the solar furnace is doing.

  80. A collection of numbers and meaningless stats. Means nothing. I tire of this drivel.

    Imagine you’re a bug and your life span is a year. You’re born in early May and you start observing your climate. By the end of the summer you are making projections that the world just keeps getting hotter and hotter. You fit the temperature data to a line because that’s the only function you know. You find the end of August is the 5th warmest week and the 10th driest since June. In fact, most of August is warmer by 1.1423532C than 84.3% of the previous 31day run, averaged by a 5 point rolling average. Then an early snow flurry hits in October but that doesn’t fall on your linear projection, so it’s weather and doesn’t count. Yet its obvious your children’s children don’t stand a chance.

  81. SBVOR says:

    January 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    Bob sez:

    “45 trillion… sounds like a lot of money”

    “4) You and your ilk want to hold a gun to our collective heads and FORCE US to utterly WASTE $45 trillion. Are you NUTS or merely tyrannical (or both)?”

    Definitely NUTS. Off the deep end. Not playing with a full deck. Has a few screws loose. Not playing with all his marbles. A few sandwiches short of a picnic. And so on and so forth. The tyrannical use their real names because, well, you need to know who your new bosses are.

  82. Roger Otip says:
    January 12, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    Dashiell

    This is truely remarkable. 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year despite a moderate El Niño, a very strong La Niña and the lowest solar minimum in a long time.

    I find it remarkable how people on this site are able to continue denying in the face of such evidence.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Straw man arguement yet again.

    Some of the posts maybe a bit over the top here, but with good reasons because people have little trust with the adjusting of raw data.

    Thanks both of you for pointing out to us that you both don’t understand the timing of ENSO events with global temperatures and even what the strength of them is.

    Error 1) The La Nina currently is weaker then the El Nino during 2009/2010, yet described this a moderate versus a very strong event.
    Error 2) The El Nino was a strong event in 2009/2010 with the ONI peaking 1.8 and the event for La Nina so far is moderate with ONI peaking 1.4 so far. (should become strong soon)
    Error 3) The delay in ENSO to Global temperatures has only just recently started to affect global temperatures and cooling will occur further this year for at least 6 months.
    Error 4) 2005 started with a weak El Nino ending with a peak ONI 0.9 and the rest of the year was generally neutral. 2010’s El Nino didn’t finish until May but quickly La Nina set in by July. The La Nina didn’t start affecting global temperatures until November with the expected delay. With a stronger El Nino then 2004/2005 with this data set it would be expected to have higher temperatures than 2005, not equal them to maintain any warming.
    Error 5) An extended solar minimum takes time to affect global temperatures with the energy content of the oceans. El Ninos warm the atmosphere, but hide the energy lost from the ocean with the solar minimum. Here is the difference between temperature and heat, where the energy loss from the water is the rise in atmospheric temperature.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    What are actually people denying?

    Generally all accept AGW having some role, but none expect it to be a problem for later decades because there is no evidence to support a dangerous climate change. (with no long term change in hurricanes, floods, droughts etc) The current rate of global temperatures is no higher then 1c per century so what are the people on here denying? The rate is no different from the early 20th century
    and the concern for dangerous climate is for values more than 3c per century which are only from the worst case senarios of climate models.

  83. 45 trillion is $7,500 from every man, woman, and child alive today.

    Global average income is $7000.

    How long does it take “Bob” to save an amount of money equal to one year of his wages?

    This is what is being asked of the world by a delusional few to pay for something that will, in any honest evaluation, cause far more harm than good because everyone with a lick of sense knows that warm seasons and climates with lots of actively growing green plants are preferable to snow and ice and living things struggling to survive until it gets warm again.

    Incredible. The phrase “over my dead body” comes to mind.

  84. Roger Otip says:
    January 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    Arno Arrak

    I do believe that the recent years since 1998 include the warmest on record.

    Indeed, the last decade was the warmest ever recorded, according to all of the major temperature records, beating the record set by the previous decade (that beat the record set by the decade before that). This warming trend is significant and it is undeniable.”

    Okay. You win. It’s warmer. So what? Who cares? Why is it so important to you? Are you absolutely sure 1) anthropomorphic CO2 is to blame and 2) it’s actually a problem? Humans are mammals. We like warmth. We need warmth. Plants need CO2. Can you guarantee that the climate isn’t on a thousand or ten thousand year cycle and it will cool again? No, you can’t. No one can. It’s all speculative BS. Designed up generate more taxes for the politicians and more funding for the researches. How do I know? Because I was an academic researcher years ago. I know how the game goes. Don’t be a naive fool.

  85. SBVOR

    In my view, climate can only be assessed by examining — at the very least — 10,000 year trends. Personally, I prefer to examine trends over the last 423,000 years.

    You can examine what you like and if you’re a scientist you can get your findings peer-reviewed and published in a journal. If not, you’ll have to content yourself with posting on denialist blogs.

    As to the definition of the word climate:

    whereas weather describes conditions as measured in hours, days or weeks, the climate is average weather conditions measured over the longer term: months, years or decades.

  86. Bob says:

    “We, in the US currently spend 500 billion on coal fired electricity and 1.6 trillion per year on oil.”

    Yes. And we get excellent value for the money spent.

    Furthermore, no government force is required; people willingly pay for the benefits of fossil fuels, without any government coercion. But if Bob wants to do without the benefits of fossil fuels, he is free to do so [but of course he won’t].

    SBVOR is spot on in his response to Bob.

  87. “”””” SBVOR says:
    January 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    Bob sez:

    “45 trillion… sounds like a lot of money”

    Earth to Bob:
    1) $45 trillion IS a lot of money! “””””

    Well !! Not exactly.

    45 Trillion IS a fairly big number; but $$$ is basically not real money any more. Now if it was gold backed it might be worth something; but you should see some Zimbabwe bank notes to see what really big money is.

    In the early 1920s, you could pay off the entire National Debt of Germany, with a single red American cent; and get change back. I believe the German currency was inflated about 1.6 Trillion times, in about a year and a half. Don’t hold me to those numbers; they are strictly from memory; and I don’t really recall much from that period in my life. So look it up; I believe it fits within the standard climatism 3:1 fudge factor ratio.

  88. Gary,

    “This is how I recall the past year of 2010.’

    The way I recall the year in Brisbane is cool Summer, cold Autumn, much colder than usual (for Brisbane) Winter, cool rainy Spring, cool and damned wet Summer.

    But, hey, we should always ignore our own experience if it conflicts with the pronouncements of experts.

  89. “David A. Evans says: Did I miss the new dust bowl?”

    We’ve got it right here in rural Queensland. It’s just West of the mountains, under that water.

  90. Roger Otip,

    You can use the hugely biased Guardian’s pseudo-science definition of climate. But in reality, the word has been perverted to now mean the entire planet’s temperature.

    The dictionary definition of climate has always been local. For example: “They live in a cold climate, which has been getting colder over the past century, and because of that the tree line is getting lower.”

    The dictionary definition:

    climate |ˈklīmit|
    noun

    • the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period : our cold, wet climate | agricultural development is constrained by climate.

    • a region with particular prevailing weather conditions : vacationing in a warm climate.

    Until the mid-60’s, the word climate referred to a region.

  91. In Oregon, I had more mice, more bats, more worms, more insects, and more owls in 2005. Since then, every year I see less mice, fewer bats, fewer worms, fewer insects, and fewer owls. These creatures all love warm soil, warm air, and warm on the ground temperatures as early in the Spring as possible. Hate to break it to you, but regionally (which is the ONLY way to measure weather pattern variation change) we are getting colder. I keep saying it here, again and again, while the researchers pour over the global temperature, they will miss the onset of cooling so dramatically and obviously, they will never see the light of day inside a peer reviewed journal again and will be relegated to basement level floor sweeping.

  92. David L

    Okay. You win. It’s warmer. So what? Who cares? Why is it so important to you? Are you absolutely sure 1) anthropomorphic CO2 is to blame and 2) it’s actually a problem?

    1) The IPCC, in their 2007 report, concluded that it was very likely (ie. more than 90% certain) that human activity was the cause of most of the warming over the past half century.

    2) The vast majority of scientists agree that increases in atmospheric CO2 above 450ppmv or temperature increases of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels are likely to have serious detrimental impacts on human societies: water shortages and droughts in some areas, leading to crop failures, increasingly severe floods in other areas, desertification, rising sea levels, an increase in extreme weather events etc..

    irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon
    dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts
    per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the
    coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in
    several regions comparable to those of the ‘‘dust bowl’’ era and
    inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean
    provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average
    sea level rise of at least 0.4 –1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations
    exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6 –1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations
    exceeding 1,000 ppmv.

    Solomon, 2009

  93. My cherry picked data said exactly what I wanted it to as well. when I found a measurement site that was colder I just eliminated it so only the warming sites would be the data I use.

    Instead we need to look elsewhere to find the heartbeat of the ice ages. the milankovich cycle ice and ocean core data show clearly what is coming, global warming is for the useful idiots we want to tax, and kill. global cooling is the reality and it will catch them with their pants down and millions will die from starvation as planned. we will own all the useful land and make slaves of the remaining population.

  94. Sorry NASA and Hanson, but 1934 was warmest, and the fact you adjusted it down can’t change the fact.

    I knew a man who grew up in Kansas during the Dust Bowl, (which he called the “dirt storms,”) and the tales he told of the heat are like nothing we’ve experienced recently. Since I met him, back in 1984, I keep coming across other accounts, from other parts of the country, where 1934 stands out.

    I would like to read an account of the “adjustments” that were made to 1934, which shrank it’s temperature below 1998. I wonder if it would stand up to scientific scrutiny. Is the data “lost?” Has McIntyre ever had a chance to go over it properly?

    One thing the old Kansas farmer told me that I remember is that he thought “dirt storms” were just the way the world was. When Kansas grew green in the early 1940’s he couldn’t believe his eyes. Because of World War Two he, (and other farmers who survived and didn’t lose their farms and become homeless “Oakies,”) became rich. He would drive at a high rate of speed over his frozen fields in a Cadillac, towing his children in a sled.

  95. Roger Otip sez:

    1) “if you’re a scientist you can get your findings peer-reviewed and published in a journal”

    No need (although I am a scientist)…
    All the data sources I cite are already peer reviewed and published and I provided direct links to all the source data (most of it downloaded from NOAA). If you had bothered to examine my evidence, you would know that.

    Or, perhaps you did examine the evidence and — finding said evidence far too “inconvenient” to even attempt to refute — chose the traditional alarmist diversionary tactic of attacking the messenger instead.

    2) “whereas weather describes conditions as measured in hours, days or weeks, the climate is average weather conditions measured over the longer term: months, years or decades.”

    A) You cite an unattributed article published in the purely political Far Left Guardian as your supreme authority for the definition of “climate”? ROTFLMFAO! You really are a purely political propagandist!

    B) The purely political Guardian prefers that their victims look back no further than a few “decades” because looking back only as far as the 1930’s serves to completely demolish their propaganda.

    Now, go back and address the evidence I previously submitted (we know you can’t).

  96. Roger Otip says:

    “The IPCC, in their 2007 report, concluded that it was very likely (ie. more than 90% certain) that human activity was the cause of most of the warming over the past half century.”

    The IPCC report writers consist of well under a hundred paid propagandists, whose remit was to find that human activity is responsible for global warming. Since their pay and benfits depended on it, that’s exactly what they found.

    But it was based on pseudo-science, such as Michael Mann’s repeatedly debunked Hokey Stick chart, which attempted to erase the MWP and the LIA. Alarmists constantly accuse scientific skeptics of not accepting climate change, when Mann’s chart shows no change until the industrial revolution.

    Skeptics have always known that the climate constantly changes, and that current changes are well within long term parameters. In other words, nothing unusual is happening. What we observe are natural fluctuations.

    In his recent article, Bob Tisdale debunked the alarmist notion that humans are primarily responsible for natural fluctuations. If you want to learn something, pay attention to his analysis and graphs.

    Next, you say: “The vast majority of scientists agree that increases in atmospheric CO2 above 450ppmv or temperature increases of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels are likely to have serious detrimental impacts on human societies: water shortages and droughts in some areas, leading to crop failures, increasingly severe floods in other areas, desertification, rising sea levels, an increase in extreme weather events etc.”

    Horse manure. Fabrication. Scare tactics. And your “vast majority of scientists” is an opium pipe dream.

    The voluntary OISM Petition has already been signed by over thirty thousand degreed professionals, all in the hard sciences – over 9,000 of them with PhDs.

    The Petition they co-signed reads:

    “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” [my emphasis]

    I suggest you stop posting alarmist misinformation. We’ve been through this many times before, here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. We have the facts, and realclimate propaganda is impotent here.

  97. Roger Otip sez:

    “The vast majority of scientists agree that… [blah, blah, blah]”

    1) The National Academy of Sciences long ago lost any and all credibility (right along with NOAA, GISS, et al). NAS is just another propaganda arm for an utterly out of control federal government providing an endless monetary gravy train to anybody willing to pimp for their purely political agenda.

    2) You can file this bunk right alongside the rest of the fully debunked claptrap from the entirely discredited IPCC.

    3) As for your mythical scientific consensus, click here and destroy the biggest lie of all.

  98. Quoting PhD Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.:
    “Our [peer reviewed] paper… has clearly documented an estimated warm bias of about 30% in the IPCC reported surface temperature trends. This bias also brings into question the claim that 11 of the 12 years in the period 1995 to 2006 were the warmest on record. Moreover, despite the claim in the IPCC (2007) report, the tropospheric and surface temperature trends have not NOT reconciled…

    The lack of news coverage on this documented bias which has appeared in the peer reviewed literature on the Klotzbach et al (2009) paper is another clear example of the failure of most of the journalism community to cover news that conflicts with the IPCC (2007) perspective.”
    The cited peer reviewed science is:
    Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere.

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D21102, 8 PP., 2009
    doi:10.1029/2009JD011841

    An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere

    An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere
    Philip J. Klotzbach

    Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

    Roger A. Pielke Sr.

    CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    John R. Christy

    Earth Science System Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

    Richard T. McNider

    Earth Science System Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

    This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

    Received 2 February 2009; accepted 10 August 2009; published 4 November 2009.

    Citation: Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke Sr., R. A. Pielke Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2009), An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.

  99. Roger Otip says:
    January 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    “You can examine what you like and if you’re a scientist you can get your findings peer-reviewed and published in a journal. If not, you’ll have to content yourself with posting on denialist blogs.”

    You can get your findings peer-reviewed all you want but if you want to set public policy you can put your name on a ballot and get elected to public office.

    Got that?

  100. SBVOR

    If you had bothered to examine my evidence, you would know that.

    Your evidence? You just keep linking to some ignorant blog covered in right wing adverts. That’s merely evidence of your own political bias.

  101. Brazenly dishonest propagandist Roger Otip sez:

    “Your evidence? You just keep linking to some ignorant blog covered in right wing adverts.”

    1) That’s my blog and there is NO ADVERTISING! I am an entirely unpaid volunteer.

    2) Unlike your Guardian propaganda, my blog entries directly cite peer reviewed science and offer direct links to the associated data (primarily downloaded from NOAA).

    3) So, let me summarize just two essential blog entries which you are obviously too terrified to address:

    In my view, climate can only be assessed by examining — at the very least — 10,000 year trends. Personally, I prefer to examine trends over the last 423,000 years.

    Click here and here and do both. Then come back and tell me what the directly cited peer reviewed science has to say.

    What is obvious is that you are repeatedly avoiding addressing the FACTS as revealed by directly cited peer reviewed science because you know as well as I do that your purely political mythology can NOT stand up to even the SLIGHTEST little bit of scientific scrutiny.

  102. Caleb says:
    January 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    Sorry NASA and Hanson, but 1934 was warmest, and the fact you adjusted it down can’t change the fact.

    I don’t know who Hanson is but Hansen said the following:
    “The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.”

  103. Sorry NASA and Hanson, but 1934 was warmest

    1934 was only the warmest year in the contiguous 48 United States, which covers a mere 2 percent of the Earth’s surface. Globally, 1934 does not even rank in the top ten warmest years; not in NASA’s record, not in NOAA’s record and not in the entirely independent HadCRUT / UK Met Office record. In fact, 1934 doesn’t even get into the top 40. Sorry, Caleb.

  104. SBVOR, enjoyed your site, particularly when you helped Appell put on his ass-hat. Reading between the lines, it seemed that he was just trying to waste your time. I could also sense the bead of sweat running down his temple. They know we are standing right behind them.

  105. Artful Dodger. Roger Otip sez:

    “1934 was only the warmest year in the contiguous 48 United States, which covers a mere 2 percent of the Earth’s surface. Globally, 1934 does not even rank in the top ten warmest years”

    PhD Climatologist Roger Pielke sez:

    “Our [peer reviewed] paper… has clearly documented an estimated warm bias of about 30% in the IPCC reported surface temperature trends. This bias also brings into question the claim that 11 of the 12 years in the period 1995 to 2006 were the warmest on record. Moreover, despite the claim in the IPCC (2007) report, the tropospheric and surface temperature trends have not NOT reconciled…

    The lack of news coverage on this documented bias which has appeared in the peer reviewed literature on the Klotzbach et al (2009) paper is another clear example of the failure of most of the journalism community to cover news that conflicts with the IPCC (2007) perspective.”

    The cited peer reviewed science is:
    Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere.

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D21102, 8 PP., 2009
    doi:10.1029/2009JD011841

    Click here and examine the rest of the evidence, including the directly cited peer reviewed science.

  106. RE: According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year …
    This preliminary analysis is prepared by scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

    I get the feeling this is the sound bite to be given to the news media. At a later date, they’ll issue a statement, “After careful analysis, we changed our rankings…” This will be followed by some sound bite like, “Even with the changes, we find GLOBAL WARMING is still occurring…”

  107. The US has been warming at .12 F a decade since 1897 according to NOAA… I wonder how much of that is from urbanization, and an expandning human population in the US, versus actual globe warming in that same time frame. I think that the human impact from growing. expanding, and building roads is a lot of that

  108. What happened to all that Global Warming?
    It went on a Carnival Cruise to Space.
    Pacific Northwest – summer late, winter early opens barn door to an icy New Year.
    Southern Winter 2010 – Antarctic blast crosses Equator.
    And who was it that said 1998 was the warmest ever, and now it’s 2005?
    GISS overdose @ 180 proof.
    Winter 2010/11 – Northern Hemisphere looks more like a planet that got hit by an ice cream comet.
    Everything looks warm & fuzzy when you’re falling down drunk. I suppose.

  109. David Ball (January 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm),

    I’m happy to hear you enjoyed my blog. David Appell is one of the least formidable CAGW alarmists I’ve ever faced. But, then again — just like Appell — they all run and hide. What else can they do? They know they don’t have the science on their side and their purely political propaganda is paper thin and crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.

  110. Yes, ahem, well…

    See! 2005 and 2010 are tied as the
    warmest years this century !

    Go forth and spread the hubris.

  111. I love these press releases, they are almost timed perfectly to support ( To their minds scientifically ) the incoherent ramblings of the big news media: NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc… Was NOAA is saying basically is…. “Who are going to believe? Us or your lying eyes”or maybe ” Pay no attention to the man behind the Curtain “

  112. Roger Otip says:
    January 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    David L

    Okay. You win. It’s warmer. So what? Who cares? Why is it so important to you? Are you absolutely sure 1) anthropomorphic CO2 is to blame and 2) it’s actually a problem?

    1) The IPCC, in their 2007 report, concluded that it was very likely (ie. more than 90% certain) that human activity was the cause of most of the warming over the past half century.”

    And as a professional scientist, I say they are wrong. My research indicates they are incorrect.

    All I can say is, don’t believe everything you read. Human history is filled with wrong beliefs. For how many decades was there mass hysteria over UFOs? People even had evidence, published books, ran TV programs, governments put together groups to look into it.

  113. Ray says:
    January 12, 2011 at 9:38 am
    It’s global warming… that’s why it freezing cold everywhere. One can ask, “But where did the heat go?”

    /sarc off

    ———————-

    Living in Oxfordshire it’s 12 degrees C today, which is 5 degrees above the mean maximum of 6.6 degrees C.

    I guess that’s just weather for you, probably what you’re experiencing too.

  114. rbateman

    who was it that said 1998 was the warmest ever, and now it’s 2005?

    In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.

    Winter 2010/11 – Northern Hemisphere looks more like a planet that got hit by an ice cream comet.

    If you look at this tempature analysis map for December, where the blues denote cooler than average tempertures and the reds warmer than average (brown denotes much warmer than average temperatures) then you can see that the most heavily populated areas of the northern hemisphere, the eastern US and Europe, are shown in blue but you still have very large regions of the northern hemisphere in red or brown: north-eastern Canada, Greenland and eastern Siberia. These warmer than average areas, though large, are sparsely populated so their unusual warmth has not been very widely reported.

  115. “rbateman

    who was it that said 1998 was the warmest ever, and now it’s 2005?

    In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.”

    That was before Hansen got hold of it!

  116. Roger Otip,

    It’s clear you wandered in here from an alarmist blog like realclimate, or climate progress, or similar. That’s good. We’re here to show you what’s really going on. Those blogs censor different points of view, so you only get their echo chamber opinions; what they want you to see. That’s bad business.

    So as you are probably unaware, GISS manipulates the raw data to show either higher current temperatures, or lower pas temperatures, in order to show a faster, scarier rise.

    And GISS isn’t the only one to do it; the problem is endemic to all government climate science, both here and abroad:

    click1 [blink gif]
    click2 [GISS “adjustment”]
    click3 [temp is ALWAYS adjusted upward]
    click4 [both hemispheres show decline – but CRU shows global warming]
    click5 [actual urban heat island effect]
    click6 [again, temps are always adjusted upward]
    click7 [NOAA blink gif]
    click8 [USHCN “adjustments”]
    click9 [a local GISS adjustment. Upward, as always]
    click10 [more upward “adjustments” from the raw data]
    click11 [Briffa’s Yamal adjustments]
    click12 [rural vs urban adjustments]
    click13 [Michael Mann’s “adjustments”]

    There are many more examples like these. And they all show upward temperature adjustments, or lower past temps, indicating an alarming rise. But their figures are fudged.

    Government/university/UN/IPCC all have the same motive to manipulate the data: money. And lots of it.

    By and large, the folks who post articles here are independent scientists like Willis Eschenbach and Bob Tisdale, who are not paid for their research. They do it out of true scientifc curiosity. They have no motive to misrepresent the data.

    It’s up to you which ones to believe. But the evidence of manipulation is right here. Are you going to believe GISS? Or your lyin’ eyes?

  117. Just to CMA! on this thread I said Venus emits more energy than it absorbs and for once did not have NASA-level of source to refer to. I still suspect that this statement is correct and that it is NOT being publicised because wham! it demolishes Hansen’s runaway GHG. However, I remembered my remark at this point was only assertion and have dug it out to qualify it hereby. I shall however be seeking out the data…

  118. Roger Otip says:
    January 13, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Roger – #1 HOW did 2005 (and now 2010) surpass 1998 as the warmest years (2 points if you actually get it right)?
    #2 What was the anomoly for 1998 in 1999, 2003, and 2005?

  119. PhilJourdan

    HOW did 2005 (and now 2010) surpass 1998 as the warmest years (2 points if you actually get it right)?

    In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.

  120. Smokey

    The voluntary OISM Petition has already been signed by over thirty thousand degreed professionals

    There are 10.6 million similarly qualified people in the US, so that 30,000 only represents 0.3 percent of them, leaving 99.7 percent who have not signed this petition. And how many of those 30,000 are practising climate scientists with peer-reviewed research to their names?

    You can disagree with them all you want, but you can’t duck the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists accept the consensus view that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary driver of this warming.

  121. Roger Otip says:
    January 13, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Roger, you did not answer my questions. I did not ask who had what, I asked how and when. Please address the questions.

  122. I wish I could be around by the year 2500 because if the planet has been warming by .12 degrees per decade since 1895 then in 2500 it will be 7.26 degrees warmer where I live-I can only imagine Winters that actually reach an average high of 37.26 degrees in January, start up the barbie, put my flip-flops on, and watch bikini-clad beauties strolling by.

  123. Here is how the past has changed with Hansen et al at the helm:

    Notice how the start drops .2-.25°. Notice the changing relationship between 1950 and the mid 60s, inverting over time.
    Then, one must delete those pesky rural measurements that don’t have enough UHI.

    This shows a major monitoring station drop from 1965-85. Combined with the introduction of the MMTS about 1980, short cables compounded the UHI bias.
    Here is GISS 1980 in the same chart with Giss 2010 and the satellite temp for 2009. http://i51.tinypic.com/30tlz7s.jpg
    I can’t wait to see the bias from Anthony’s Surface Station Project paper. Looking at atmospheric and ocean trends, and the obviously overblown NASA temps, I suspect the actual warming is zero or less and is going more negative.

  124. Roger Otip,

    You can take every alarmist petition [and there are several of them], add up the signatures, and you will come nowhere near 30,000; not even close to a third of that number. Claiming that an editorial board of a journal speaks for its rank-and-file members is an apple/orange comparison. The only credible comparison is signature to signature — and there your false claim of “consensus” fails miserably.

    It is typical of those mendaciously arguing that GISS, HadCRU, USHCN, NOAA, the UN/IPCC and others do not all “adjust” the temperature record upward — never downward — to show excessive warming. What are the odds of that, eh?

    Attempting to re-frame the argument by raising the issue of “conspiracy” [which I never mentioned] is a typical tactic of those who don’t have the facts to support their failed assertions.

    I provided verifiable links to those self-serving organizations, which all re-adjust the temperature record upward. Cognitive dissonance does not allow you to accept that fact, just as Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot accept that the world will not end on a particular date.

    Your reaction to everyone here is the usual alarmist true believer response. You simply do not want to hear anything that debunks your repeatedly falsified world view.

  125. Roger Otip (alarmist cliché bot) inaccurately asserts:

    “the vast majority of climate scientists accept the consensus view that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary driver of this warming”.

    1) The statements cited are all over the map and not all assert that “human activity is the primary driver of this warming”.

    Furthermore, such an assertion could mean that they believe human activity is responsible for 0.36C of the 0.7C of warming over the last century (as determined by data demonstrated to contain “an estimated warm bias of about 30%””).

    2) The bureaucrats who “lead” these organizations demonstrably do NOT represent the majority of their membership!

    An article in Vol. 90, Issue 10 (October, 2009) of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society demonstrates that only 24% of Meteorologists surveyed agreed with the AMS statement cited by Roger’s faulty Wikipedia page.

    Click here and examine the facts.

    3) The IPCC computer models which misled the gullible into believing human activities were the primary driver have been invalidated by none other than Phil Jones.

    4) Owing to the corrupting influence of the $100 billion government gravy train (and counting), those scientist who are NOT publishing climatologists are arguably FAR better qualified to assess the state of climate science.

    Click here to more comprehensively debunk the biggest lie of all (the alleged scientific consensus).

  126. Roger Otip says:
    January 13, 2011 at 4:40 am

    rbateman

    who was it that said 1998 was the warmest ever, and now it’s 2005?

    In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.

    Winter 2010/11 – Northern Hemisphere looks more like a planet that got hit by an ice cream comet.

    If you look at this tempature analysis map for December, where the blues denote cooler than average tempertures and the reds warmer than average (brown denotes much warmer than average temperatures) then you can see that the most heavily populated areas of the northern hemisphere, the eastern US and Europe, are shown in blue but you still have very large regions of the northern hemisphere in red or brown: north-eastern Canada, Greenland and eastern Siberia. These warmer than average areas, though large, are sparsely populated so their unusual warmth has not been very widely reported.

    More importantly those “large areas” in the north are in that map projection highly distorted for area, look on a real globe (you know that spherical object in the library) and you will find the land area that they show as Brown is much smaller than the area with normal or below normal temperatures. Also important is that that area is also sparsely populated it has almost no data. That large blob of brown disappears if you remove the 1200 km spreading of temperatures from single stations.

    Those areas of the world have almost no temperature measuring stations and everyone of those that do exist are immersed in a local heat island created by a small number of people expending a lot of energy to keep warm in bitter cold conditions.

    That warming presented by the brown blob is about as real as if you said you could predict the temperature in Chicago by taking the temperature reading in Cheyenne Wyoming, and smearing it over the map to include the great lakes region.

    Larry

  127. They’ve got it wrong. 1998 was warmer than either 2005 or 2010. If anyone doubts that all they have to do is to pull down the satellite record from UAH MSU.

  128. David L

    The IPCC, in their 2007 report, concluded that it was very likely (ie. more than 90% certain) that human activity was the cause of most of the warming over the past half century.”

    And as a professional scientist, I say they are wrong. My research indicates they are incorrect.

    Can you provide us with a link to your professional peer-reviewed scientific research?

  129. Er…mod?

    Someone posted a report from New Zealand, citing the fact that it contradicted climate change science. When I pointed out that the same report indicated that a strong warming trend had been observed between 1900 and 2009 in New Zealand, both the previous comment and mine were removed.

    Is this normal?

    REPLY: I haven’t seen it, but other moderators may have done something with it if it didn’t meet site policy or used banned words. Feel free to resubmit. – Anthony

  130. Lucy Skywalker says: (January 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm)

    As to Venus, it emits more energy than it absorbs… Think, if you can. If Venus emits more energy than it absorbs, it has to have an internal source of heat … so of course the atmosphere is hot… so of course it is also hot on its night side. Doesn’t implicate CO2 at all because all CO2 does is modulate heat, it is not a source of heat. Stupid Hansen not to grasp the implications of this information when it became available.

    Thinking… thinking… thinking…

    ALL planets and moons are hot on the inside, Lucy. This heat is a combination of leftover gravitational energy from when they condensed plus heat generated from the decay of radioactive elements. Our own moon, which seems so cold and lifeless on the surface, is so hot on the inside that it has a fluid outer core. The heat flow from the surface of the moon was measured by the Heat Flow Experiment on Apollo 15 and 17.

    But compare the extreme temperatures on the moon (which includes one of the coldest locations in the solar system) to the much more homogenous temperatures on Venus and explain this without relying on the greenhouse effect.

    As for whether Venus currently emits more energy than it absorbs, I doubt you will find any evidence of that. Of course, it is true for any new planet or moon, but over time, the internal temperature lowers until the energy emitted equals the energy absorbed and the planet reaches equilibrium. I would guess that Venus has reached equilibrium by now.

    Back on Earth, it is the addition of greenhouse gases that is moving our planet out of equilibrium and raising the temperature.

    As an aside, isn’t it amusing how whenever someone learns a new fact, they immediately assume that no one else knew it either?

  131. RE: Phil. says:
    January 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Thanks for the info. However it is not merely that small adjustment by Hansen that bugs me. It is a whole sequence of small adjustments, one after another.

    The shift from my stance from Alarmist to Skeptic dated from this Climate Audit post, which now makes an interesting historical document:

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/

    I wish I had the time to put together a history of all Hansen’s adjustments, readjustments, re-readjustments, and so on, for I think it would make a good story.

    As far as the recent El Nino being a sign of warming goes, I wish it was. I like warming, as I live up north in New Hampshire. Unfortunately I have an uneasy feeling the warming may have occurred because the ENSO may have been jarred by cooling, and postulate it may actually be cooling which sets off oversized El Nino’s.

    I know that sounds backwards, but I keep reading that a delayed reaction to big, tropical volcanic eruptions is an El Nino. In other words, the initial cooling of ash in the atmosphere, after a lag, triggers a warming El Nino.

    Of course, there hasn’t been that sort of eruption recently. So why am I uneasy? I guess it is because there HAS been a quiet sun. Perhaps a quiet sun has the same effect as ash in the atmosphere: A cooling that, after a lag-time, triggers an El Nino.

    I theorize the eruption of El Chichón in the early 1980’s might have triggered an El Nino all by itself, but Pinatubo blew up at the perfect time to delay El Chiton’s El Nino, and the eventual 1998 El Nino was the combined result of not one but two volcanoes.

    In case you wonder how cooling can trigger a warm El Nino, consider how much energy is used up hauling cold water from the depths, in a La Nina. Imagine you had to pay the electric bill to pump all that heavy, dense, cold water up, and spread it out over the top of the Pacific. Then imagine something pulled the plug on all your pumps. You wouldn’t have to pay that energy bill any more, and the ocean would warm.

    In essence a La Nina is an air-conditioner. More energy is used running that tropical air-conditioner than in shutting it off. More energy is involved in a La Nina than an El Nino. Cut off the “power,” (whether it be with volcanic ash or a quiet sun, ) and the tropical ocean isn’t “air-conditioned,” and warms.

    OK. I have expressed my audacious idea. Now give me a few moments to put on a helmet and get into my bomb shelter, before you respond.

  132. Arno Arrak says:
    January 13, 2011 at 9:38 am
    They’ve got it wrong. 1998 was warmer than either 2005 or 2010. If anyone doubts that all they have to do is to pull down the satellite record from UAH MSU.

    However Spencer says that UAH MSU shows a tie between 2010 and 1998.

  133. With a margin of error of + or – .7 the top 8 years are all statisctically tied with 2005 and 2008.

    In fact all of the top years shown are within the margin of error of 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 and the differences are statistically insignificant.

    Since 1998 there is really no statistically significant trend.

  134. Roger Otip,

    Glad you brought up that US only being 2% of the Earth’s surface meme.

    Pray tell me then how a few trees (BCPS) in a tiny, tiny area of that 2% can somehow be claimed to teleconnect to the rest of the world and thus provide proof for Mann’s hockey stick?

  135. Mac said..
    “Someone posted a report from New Zealand, citing the fact that it contradicted climate change science. When I pointed out that the same report indicated that a strong warming trend had been observed between 1900 and 2009 in New Zealand, both the previous comment and mine were removed.”
    ————————————————————————————
    Anthony
    Thought that NIWA had to go to court and it was shown that they had falsified the temp record and it showed now warming for the last 60 years in New Zealand??
    or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

  136. “You can disagree with them all you want, but you can’t duck the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists accept the consensus view that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary driver of this warming.”
    -Doesn’t automatically make them right, does it?

  137. I am no editor, but shouldn’t the title be ’16th consecutive year of no statistically significant warming’?

  138. B. Ch. E.

    I thought 1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century–or was that only in the USA?

    1934 was I believe the warmest year for the 48 contiguous United States, but globally it doesn’t even rank in the top ten. In fact, it doesn’t even rank in the top 40. Globally, the 10 warmest years all fall within the past 13 years.

  139. Roger (the alarmist cliché bot) Otip sez:

    “Globally, the 10 warmest years all fall within the past 13 years.”

    Only if you willfully ignore the peer reviewed science which says otherwise (and ignore the last 600 million years of temperature data in favor of the least reliable dataset of all — the last 150 years).

    Click here for some basic climate change science.
    Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

  140. Anonymous Howard says: January 13, 2011 at 10:20 am

    ALL planets and moons are hot on the inside, Lucy. This heat is a combination of leftover gravitational energy from when they condensed plus heat generated from the decay of radioactive elements. Our own moon, which seems so cold and lifeless on the surface, is so hot on the inside that it has a fluid outer core. The heat flow from the surface of the moon was measured by the Heat Flow Experiment on Apollo 15 and 17.

    But compare the extreme temperatures on the moon (which includes one of the coldest locations in the solar system) to the much more homogenous temperatures on Venus and explain this without relying on the greenhouse effect.

    As for whether Venus currently emits more energy than it absorbs, I doubt you will find any evidence of that.

    (1) I know about the Moon. Heck, WUWT this week.
    (2) HERE is the source of evidence that Venus emits so much heat that it immediately explains the atmospheric homogeneity, and disqualifies the GHG effect as driver of that heat. To quote:

    Several other papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the planet than is being received from the Sun. Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate that Venus is radiating 153 + 13 watts/meter while absorbing only 132 + 13 watts/meter from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21 watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet. Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer (LIR) on the large
    probe, designed to detect visible and near infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km) to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased unreasonably”.

    Thus independent measurements on five vehicles, one measuring the energy emitted into space from the cloud tops, and four measuring some component of the up-welling or net (up-welling minus down-welling) energy flux in the atmosphere at completely different geographic locations, are consistent and indicate that Venus is radiating an enormously larger amount of energy than it receives from the Sun.

  141. … however, checking as I do, I find Trenberth (of all people today!) says insolation here is 342 w/m^2 which means by the inverse square law, Venus 2/3 AU from Sun, its insolation should be ~2.2 times ours. WUWT? Story not over. Shall investigate further.

  142. [AJB says: January 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm]

    Ha, ha, very amusing! You probably overlooked the part of my comment where I said “Yes, the thermodynamics of water evaporation and condensation controls heat transport within the atmosphere, from region to region, and altitude to altitude.” For example, where I live, I look forward to winter rain because the condensation of water will release heat into the lower atmosphere and raise the air temperature away from freezing. Just like steam heat. Works every time.

    Nevertheless, it is still true that this “has no meaning in the question of radiative balance of the Earth, between insolation from the Sun and radiation to outer space.”

    Yes, I know all about getting a chill from emerging from water. What would be your point? That the Earth is cooled by evaporation? The only applicable evaporation would be the loss of helium into space from the upper atmosphere, along with the rare hydrogen molecule. This heat loss is so miniscule as to be neglected in any calculations.

    The point of my example was to illustrate how rapidly radiative heat transfer works, compared to conductive heat transfer to air.

    [George E. Smith says: January 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm]

    Sorry, George, for the tardy response, but some of us cannot hover over the Internet. And you deserve a thoughtful reply.

    As to whether CO2 absorbs/reradiates infrared radiation from the Earth: It does. A handy reference is the graph of spectral transmittance of the atmosphere, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric.transmittance.IR.jpg. It shows the bands at 1.3-1.5, 1.8-1.95, 2.25-3.0, and ~4 microns that you mentioned. It also shows bands at 9.4, 10.6, 12.5, and 15 microns in the far infrared. To confirm all this, I made reference to the NIST database on molecular absorption for CO2 (ref. http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1). You have to decipher from wavenumbers, but the spectral range presented is roughly from 2.5 to 18 microns. There are three major bands: 2.67-2.85 and 4.18-4.50 microns as you have mentioned, and, according to you, a non-existent band at 13.1-16.9 microns. There is a fourth feature of this absorption spectrum: a low absorptivity all across the entire spectral range, with particular lines at 9.4 and 10.6 microns. Why would I know about them? They are the working stuff of CO2 lasers. I have seen a 10-watt CO2 laser heat a piece of firebrick to incandescence, so there is simply no question that CO2 absorbs and reradiates at this wavelength.

    All this is rather fatal to your contention that CO2 does not absorb anything from the Earth IR emission band.

    Now, as to “cooling”: In science, it is necessary to be precise and literal in our meaning. You are using “cooling” in the same sense that modern politicians, in arriving at a budget increase less than an otherwise larger increase, refer to the result as a “budget cut.” Reduced warming is not “cooling.” One mustn’t confuse descriptions of process (heating, cooling) with movement of an equilibrium point (higher or lower temperature). As I have mentioned in an earlier post on another topic (unfortunately in the blog environment, this might as well be in “a universe long ago and far, far away”), the equilibrium temperature of a planet is proportional to the fourth root of the ratio of its absorption coefficient to its emission coefficient. Tinkering with that ratio will result in the planetary temperature finding a higher or lower equilibrium, but one still has to make a distinction between more or less heating (absorption) and more or less cooling (emission).

    As to the atmosphere radiating at 57F: Mostly, the atmosphere is just a transmission medium for radiation upwelling from the Earth surface. It doesn’t take much gain in altitude to find that the atmospheric temperature becomes drastically lower.

    As to whether re-radiation (or scattering) evenly splits up or down: Of course it does. As I said nothing on this subject in my original post, I have no idea who you are arguing with, so I will waste no one’s time further on this.

    As to saturated solar absorption: Just look at the transmittance. The bands you mentioned (2.7 and 4.0) bottom out at zero, with some actual bandwidth at zero. Now, this does not mean that the radiation has just gotten “soaked up” by the CO2; it means that when the bolometer is pointed at the sun, all the radiation at those wavelengths has been scattered off the line of sight. It is now part of the background radiation of the sky (along with the visible Rayleigh scattering). This is a condition where the atmosphere (by virtue of the CO2 present) is optically “thick.” The absorption / re-emission is so effective, that all the radiation is being re-emitted isotropically. The situation is “saturated”, in that further additions of CO2 will not change this condition. In fact, slight reductions in CO2 will probably not change this condition. When something is “saturated,” further additions produce no change.

    All the talk about mean free paths and so forth is, frankly, hokum. Every CO2 molecule is ready to either absorb at that band or emit. There is no reservoir of freshly-“emptied” CO2 molecules; they are being filled up again by their brother molecules as fast as they are shedding photons. And their brother molecules are being replenished in energy by the thermal mass of the rest of the atmosphere. (Your understanding of the science on this point is discredited by your claim that a 10.6-micron CO2 band does not exist. I’ve had skin blown off the back of my hand by a CO2 laser operating at that nonexistent band.)

    As to insolation vs. Earth emission: Think about the fact that Earth is in radiative balance; the infrared power radiated to space must equal the insolation (making allowances for small changes in thermal reservoirs such as the oceans). But all of the Earth’s emission takes place in the long-wave infrared, whereas most of the insolation takes place in the ultraviolet, visible, and short-wave infrared. This means that far more upwards radiative flux is moving through the atmosphere in the long-wave IR than insolation is moving downward in the short-wave IR. Just a point to keep in mind.

    Your final paragraphs are truisms. Handy for an argument. Who is going to argue against them?

    I suggest relaxing, George. There is no reason for you to leap at my throat over the points I raised, especially when you were striking mortal blows at contentions I hadn’t made. I’ve had a long career in the physics of laser weapons, so I am passably acquainted with what happens when radiation interacts with the air. A little more civility and patience could benefit us all.

  143. Lucy Skywalker says: (January 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm)

    HERE is the source of evidence that Venus emits so much heat that it immediately explains the atmospheric homogeneity, and disqualifies the GHG effect as driver of that heat.

    Consider the quality of your source. Let’s follow the trail.

    You link to a blog article that begins with the statement, “The greenhouse effect is based on the idea that greenhouse gases impede radiation out to space, so that what comes in, doesn’t all get out,” which is not at all what the greenhouse effect theory says. With such a bad beginning, why read further? Strike one.

    That blog then links to a “paper” on a website that defends Velikovskyism and proposes that Venus is only 6,000 years old. (A large positive heat flux from the planet is said to support this idea.) Strike two.

    That “paper” then quotes data from the Pioneer Venus mission, which you reproduce in your comment. Continuing to follow the trail, let’s look at the paper that published those data: The Thermal Balance of Venus in Light of the Pioneer Venus Mission by Tomasko, et. al., 1980. The abstract says (emphasis added):

    Estimates based on orbiter measurements place the effective radiating temperature of Venus at 228 ± 5 K, corresponding to an emission of 153 ± 13 W/m², and the bolometric Bond albedo at 0.80 ± 0.02, corresponding to a solar energy absorption of 132 ± 13 W/m². Uncertainties in these preliminary values are too large to interpret the flux difference as a true energy imbalance.

    Pretty shaky basing your conclusions on a paper that immediately contradicts you! Strike three.

    (As an aside, the abstract then goes on to say, “Comparison of the measured solar flux profile with thermal fluxes computed from the measured temperature structure and composition shows that the greenhouse mechanism explains essentially all of the 500 K difference between the surface and radiating temperatures of Venus.” Hmm.)

    But what to make of this huge difference between the energy emitted and absorbed? It turns out to be nothing more exciting than measurement error.

    Current estimates of the heat flux from the surface of Venus are in the range of 10–30 mW/m², not much different from that on the surface of Mars, and much less than Earth’s.

Comments are closed.