WMO: 2010 warmest, but no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998

See below for an interview from Dr. Bob Carter.

Press Release No. 906

For use of the information media

Not an official record

2010 equals record for world’s warmest year

Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) – The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998.

In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data.

These statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometres, 1.35 million square kilometres below the 1979-2000 average for December. This follows the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September.

“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F)   above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. Recent warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic, with many subregions registering temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C (2.2 to 2.5°F) above the long-term average.

2010 was an exceptionally warm year over much of Africa and southern and western Asia, and in Greenland and Arctic Canada, with many parts of these regions having their hottest years on record.

Over land few parts of the world were significantly cooler than average in 2010, the most notable being parts of northern Europe and central and eastern Australia.

December 2010 was exceptionally warm in eastern Canada and Greenland. It was abnormally cold through large parts of northern and western Europe, with monthly mean temperatures as much as 10°C below normal at some locations in Norway and Sweden. Many places in Scandinavia had their coldest December on record.  December in Central England was the coldest since 1890. Heavy snowfalls severely disrupted transport in many parts of Europe. It was also colder than average in large parts of the Russian Federation and in the eastern United States, where snow also severely disrupted transport.

Recent significant weather and climate events

The year 2010 was characterized by a high number of extreme weather events, including the heatwave in Russia and the devastating monsoonal floods in Pakistan. These were described in WMO’s provisional statement on the status of the global climate issued December 2010 (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html)

There have been many major weather and climate events in late 2010 and early 2011. These include:

  • In early January floods affected more than 800 000 people in Sri Lanka according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The Philippines were also severely affected by floods and mudslides during January.
  • Flash floods in the mountain areas near the city of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil in the second week of January resulted in more than 700 deaths, many of them in mudslides. This is one of the highest death tolls due to a single natural disaster in Brazilian history.
  • Severe flooding occurred in eastern Australia in December and the first half of January, associated with the continuing strong La Niña event.  The most extensive damage was in the city of Brisbane, which had its second-highest flood of the last 100 years after that of January 1974. In financial terms it is expected to be the most costly natural disaster in Australia’s history. Previous strong La Niña events have also been associated with severe and widespread flooding in eastern Australia, notably in 1974 and 1955.

Notes to Editors:

Background to data used in this statement

The information for 2010 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus principally based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The updated data complements the Provisional Statement on the Status of the Global Climate 2010 published by WMO on 3 Dec. 2010 (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html).

The final Statement will be published in March 2011.

2010_dataset

WMO website: www.wmo.int

h/t to WUWT reader GeorgeGr

==========================================================

Via Tom Nelson, from an interview today on Australian radio AM-2010:

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: He also noted that last year was characterised by a number of extreme weather events like the heatwave in Russia and the floods in Pakistan.

MICHEL JARRAUD: With the global warming, some of these events will become more frequent, or more intense. So let me take for example, the Russian heat wave. You cannot say uniquely it’s due to global warming, but what you can say is that what is right now totally exceptional will happen more frequently in the future.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Geologist Bob Carter from James Cook University says Mr Jerraud has no evidence for that.

BOB CARTER: Lots of scientists have been looking for that evidence but to date there is nothing in the scientific literature which says we have more climatic emergency events at the moment than in the past or that these are more frequent or more dangerous. There is no scientific evidence for that.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says it’s not surprising that last year was one of the warmest, but says that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are the blame.

Dr. BOB CARTER: The question is not whether it causes warming, the question is how much warming? Since 1998 we’ve had three warm years – 1998, 2005 and 2010 – and each of those years is associated with an El Nino event which causes or is related to the warming. Okay, but there’s no trend, 2010 is not significantly warmer in any way than 1998.

So we have a warm period over a period of 12 years. Over those same 12 years we have a five per cent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is supposed to cause more warming. Well this data that we’ve just discussed tells you that human carbon dioxide emissions are not causing dangerous global warming, indeed they’re not causing any warming at all at the moment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dp
January 20, 2011 10:43 pm

So is the heat of 2010 the result of new trapped heat fresh from Sol or fossil heat released from the oceans, passing through the atmosphere, and now headed for the black void of space? If the latter then it’s going to be a cold 2011. If the former, why did it happen? CO2 levels over 2009 are not that much changed.

David L
January 20, 2011 10:48 pm

Rather than saying it’s a third tied record going back to 1998, why not say the warming trend has leveled off? Further proof of the leveling-off is many parts of the world have experienced record cold.

JinOH
January 20, 2011 11:01 pm

OK – and this means what exactly? It’s cold as hell (oh wait – weather doesn’t equal climate or whateva – except when it ‘does’) here – I’ve been keeping my own records & it’s not tracking along with this this alarmist BS.
Once again – reality is ignored. Love it.
Gotta toss another CO2 emitting log on the fire.

Russell
January 20, 2011 11:04 pm

Interesting that all the exceptionally warm regions are those with little monitoring, whereas the exceptionally cold areas are the ones with lots of weather stations…

Baa Humbug
January 20, 2011 11:08 pm

So we have data released by ‘data destroyers’, ‘data distorters’, and ‘data hiders’ and I’m supposed to believe anything this data tells me?
No thanks, find another sucker to sell your bridge to.

el gordo
January 20, 2011 11:14 pm

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Professor Carter says the last 150 years have been among the coolest in the past 10,000 years of the Earth’s history.
That should get their attention!
The other important point, we are surprised the ABC newsroom is showing reasonable balance. On second thoughts, not so surprising in the light of a possible defamation case involving two leading lights in the debate, which has also embroiled the ABC.

Layne Blanchard
January 20, 2011 11:19 pm

Why not point out that neither 1998, 2005, or 2010 was TRULY known to be warmer than the 30’s? The entire discussion is bubkus.

tokyoboy
January 20, 2011 11:23 pm

Is the UAH satellite temp for Dec 2010 to be released soon?

GAL
January 20, 2011 11:24 pm

As a chartist I would say that it looks like a “head and shoulders top” – go long woollen underwear.

Crispin in Waterloo
January 20, 2011 11:26 pm

To review, we have had 30 years of cooling (1945-1975), then 20 years of warming (1975-1995), then 15 years of stasis (1995-2010) with more cooling on the horizon.
Is there any controversey about this? If the surface stations are fixed up and properly observed, there may be a decline here and there.
OK. Now, how does this in any way relate to CO2 rapidly forcing up global temperatures in an accelerated fashion over this same time period. It is not there, is it? No.
In 2008 http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/fall09.cfm we have a letter from Patrick Frank pointing out that the claims about temperature anomalies exceed the physics claimed to support them.
“WG1 Chapter 8 Supplemental Figures S8.5 and S8.14, among other figures, show model errors far greater than the ~2.7 W/m2 GHG forcing the same models are purported to detect.”
It is not as if there is a special branch of physics for the climate that evades scientific norms. There is a clear difference between precision and accuracy.
Why then all the excitement?

R. de Haan
January 20, 2011 11:33 pm

In the previous posting from Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA
UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE INDEX: A REPRESENTATIVE LOWER LIMIT
It was concluded that:
“The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable”.
We have spend endless time and effort to discuss the forcing of CO2 in our climate system but we can’t find any any evidence for that.
The Global Warming Doctrine, the illusion of pending climate disaster, saw the light in Germany for the first time in 1986, during a dramatic press conference organized by the German Physics Society. Now 25 years later, 25 UN Climate Conferences with nothing to show for and billions of dollars of wasted tax funding, we are still waiting for the announced climate disaster to strike. The Climate armageddon of unprecedented rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, super storms, expanding deserts, collapsing eco systems and mass migration of climate refugees only exists in the UN climate propaganda pushed by our MSM and the faulty climate models from a few activist scientists, see ClimateGate and WUWT. In the real world our ice caps are doing fine, ocean levels are slightly sinking, temperatures are normal since 1880, we still have our winters, accumulated cyclonic energy is low, deserts have not expanded and we haven’t seen any climate refugees from collapsing eco systems other than those driven from their lands to make place for palm oil farms.
The unbiased science says ZERO, the propaganda says UNPRECEDENTED.
The concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is less than a storm in a glass of water.
We are waiting for 25 years now for the climate armageddon to strike and we’re still waiting.
Maybe it’s time to sew the German Physical Society.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/19/dr-wolgang-thune-slams-climate-policy-efforts-to-steer-climate-are-utopian-pipe-dreams/

Mike Jowsey
January 20, 2011 11:35 pm

@JinOH
LOL – you have become my Facebook quote of the week.

LUC DE WAEN
January 20, 2011 11:44 pm

IT IS CLEAR THAT FRAUDE IS BEEN USED TO MISGUIDE..AND EVEN MORE,,;
RAPE REALITY IN ORDER TO MAKE MO MONEY…..EVEN IF IT COSTS DEAR LIVES….IT IS A NEW DICTATORSHIP….BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE…..AND PEOPLE ARE LEFT IN THE COLD….WHILE PAYING GLOBAL WAMING TAXES…

Beth Cooper
January 20, 2011 11:44 pm

Baa Humbug is on the money;-)

Grimwig
January 20, 2011 11:48 pm

I’m not clear, are these three datasets “homogenised” or raw data?

Dan Cummings
January 21, 2011 12:20 am

Given that we can’t trust their means of measurement, especially as compared to historic locations and means of measurement, given that measurement locations have been invented, wildly off-base measurements have been trotted out in past (Lake Michigan at hundreds of degrees), and measurements are more likely taken terrestrially near built-up areas rather free from interference in the wide open, I find it hard to accept any of their pronouncements any more. If satellites were used we’ll find out about calibration issues, compensatory algorithims, or not. And we can’t double-check because they own the satellites. It’s not been warm where I live in Canada on northeastern edge of Lake Ontario, it’s not been warm in southern U.S. (49 of 50 states had snow last week), and reports indicate it’s been pretty cold throughout Europe. La Nina’s cold ocean waters are causing rain and floods in Brazil and Australia, and no useful explanation of the La Nina/El Nino oscillation phenomenon appears to be extant. Is the earth’s core cooling? Is there any relationship to the movement of the magnetic north pole (showing the earth’s insides may be moving in a differnt direction to its surface)? Are earthquakes/volcanic activity accelerating? Or are we just able to measure and monitor different things differently enough to get worried?

Haralds R.
January 21, 2011 12:29 am

In my opinion one of the most reliable measure of global atmospheric temperature is sea level. Easy to measure. Hard to manipulate. Inert to short scale atmospheric processes. The global temperature is interesting when it is used in conjunction with other global phenomena (large scale athmosferic/ocean circulation patterns, …). Global temperature is of minor importance in terms of local climate. And on local climate have minor impact on global climate.
Since in Arctic region is very few stations then we can’t not judge about arctic climate as whole.

Peter Plail
January 21, 2011 12:32 am

It’s good to know that the increase in CO2 is having so little effect on global temperatures.
It is also interesting to note that the severe temperatures in summer over Russia (I am assuming this is the Western Asia high temperature that is mentioned in the article) was an artefact of weather not climate so is likely to have skewed the result.

Pete H
January 21, 2011 12:35 am

WMO…..= Hottest
M.O. …..= Coldest!!!!!!!!! Hey! Do not blame me! It our Louise cutting and pasting again!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8272195/2010-was-coldest-year-since-1986-says-Met-Office.html

sHx
January 21, 2011 1:00 am

“tokyoboy says:
January 20, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Is the UAH satellite temp for Dec 2010 to be released soon?”

Oh, boy! That was the first to released!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/

January 21, 2011 1:18 am

[snip]
[ I WILL NOT approve any posts containing vulgar abusive personal attacks. NONE. .. bl57~mod]
[me either . . b.mod]
[ Nor I. ModE.]

John
January 21, 2011 1:22 am

Cherry picking one month of arctic sea ice cover:
“The trend also helped to melt Arctic sea ice cover to a record low for December last month, the WMO said in a statement.”
Arctic sea ice at low as 2010 the warmest year on record: UN
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/arctic-sea-ice-at-low-as-2010-the-warmest-year-on-record-un/story-e6frg8y6-1225992318616
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cherrypicking.jpg?w=450&h=400

John Marshall
January 21, 2011 1:42 am

NCDC said that 2010 was cooler than 1998 by some margin. Have they changed their tune?
I find it amazing that a so called anomaly of 0.53C is held to be significant when temperature measurement is such a precarious affair. On average, somewhere on earth, there will be a high of +50C and a low of -80C and these are not extremes of those measured. To get and average of anything when all surfaces are not actually measured at the same time, which does not happen even with satellite data collection, will not produce any meaningful figure.
Sorry but reliance on these nefarious figures as proof of AGW is not science.

Andrew
January 21, 2011 1:48 am

If you record temperatures with an accuracy of 0.5C normally and 0.2C at best, how can you report an average temperature for the entire planet to 0.01C? The figures quoted by the WMO are are pretty meaningless when you take into account the usual definitions of accuracy and precision in scientific measurement. The same goes for things such as sea level. Do you honestly believe that you can measure the trend in global sea levels to the nearest 0.1mm, the thickness of 1 sheet of paper?
GIGWO – Garbage In Global Warming Out.

January 21, 2011 1:48 am

The studies I collected show that if you look at rural temperature records, there is strong evidence of no significant warming at all over the last century – where there is warming, it is all easily within natural limits. Recent rises just fall away like that loss of excess belly fat we see advertised everywhere.

1 2 3