December 3rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2010 1 0.648 0.860 0.436 0.681
2010 2 0.603 0.720 0.486 0.791
2010 3 0.653 0.850 0.455 0.726
2010 4 0.501 0.799 0.203 0.633
2010 5 0.534 0.775 0.292 0.708
2010 6 0.436 0.550 0.323 0.476
2010 7 0.489 0.635 0.342 0.420
2010 8 0.511 0.674 0.347 0.364
2010 9 0.603 0.555 0.650 0.285
2010 10 0.426 0.370 0.482 0.156
2010 11 0.381 0.513 0.249 -0.071
The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October, 2010.
2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year.
Read the rest of the story here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:23 am
I’m sorry, what exactly don’t you understand about the term “within the next 10-20 years” in the context of a quote dating from 2002?
“Tenuc says:
December 4, 2010 at 6:14 am
Currently our orbit is taking us ever further from the quiet sun.”
The reverse is actually true. See:
http://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-comes-closest-to-sun-every-year-in-early-january
“In 2011, Earth will be closest to the sun on Monday, January 3 at 19 hours Universal Time (1 p.m. Central Time).
Earth is closest to the sun every year in early January, when it’s winter for the northern hemisphere. We’re farthest away from the sun in early July, during our northern hemisphere summer.
Earth is about 5 million kilometers – or 3 million miles – closer to the sun in early January than it will be in early July.”
It is not the distance to the sun that is most important. It is the angle that the sun’s rays strike various parts of Earth and the albedo of those parts.
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 4:07 am
Sea levels? Try discussing your lack of concern with the Dutch for starters.
http://www.wur.nl/UK/newsagenda/archive/news/2008/Second_Delta_Committee_features.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/climate_change/netherlands_en.pdf
Too funny. Coming on WUWT and citing some bureaucrats as a data source.
Hate to spoil your party, so don’t let actual data get in your way.
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/#ref-verkeerenwaterstaat Tim Clar
When the GLOBAL food supply runs dry the last MAN(N) standing will cry…I am cold, why?
Bob Tisdale
Have a pre-christmas gift laptop here and couldn’t post on your website.
Just wanted to thank you for the compilations you do on your website.
Thanks for the invitation Eadler but no, this ‘simple’ person will remain a skeptic.
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:59 am
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 9:23 am
I’m sorry, what exactly don’t you understand about the term “within the next 10-20 years” in the context of a quote dating from 2002?
=====================================
Hmmm lets see: 2011 – 2002 = 9
Now class, “9” is almost “10”. Right?
Let me put it another way:
It has almost been a decade, or “10 years” since that quote was made by Professor Curran….his 10 to 20 years.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
???
Since when does Peter Hearnden EVER post anything that would even remotely challenge CAGW dogma? Either we have another Peter Hearnden (which is clearly possible,) or this is the same old same old pulling everybody’s collective legs with a bit of snark having a laugh at the expense of all those that keep quoting him.
Read through the old CA posts and you’ll see what I mean.
Mark
James Allison says:
December 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
eadler just doesn’t want to admit directly that he/she is a simple person too requiring others to join in the same bandwagon to justify his/her position on the basis of sheer numbers. The more people that join in, obviously, the more likely his/her position is correct. This also solves the nasty insomnia problem when a person is unsure of him/herself regarding such a major life choice, one that requires a willingness to accept anything that supports the bandwagon.
It is not “simple” to wish to be a skeptic. On the contrary, it is wise.
Mark
Tim Clark says:
December 4, 2010 at 10:29 am
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
This is what’s known as putting money where your mouth is and I believe its entirely pertinent to point out how Holland views the state of the science about sea level rise.
Thanks for your link but as my Dutch isn’t up to much I find it incomprehensible.
The IPCC were it seems far too conservative in their senarios….
http://planetsave.com/2008/09/10/new-studies-conclude-the-ipcc-sea-level-rise-projections-are-too-conservative/
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Some people say they see the climate changing already. But certainly within the next 10-20 years we are really going to start noticing it.”
So, snow in Europe nine years after this statement and you’re triumphantly Charlie Brown laughing in the belief that Prof Curran has been proven to be wrong? Strange.
That should of course read 1.6 Billion Euros p.a.
1.6€ will no doubt cause much merriment in the peanut gallery.
Where, I wonder, were those early ‘temperature measuring stations’ located? Their recorded readings are, after all, the base upon which the claim that ‘global temperature between the years 1850 & 1998 went up by (approx.) 0.8 °C is built.
The UK, somebody thought, was my little back yard out from which I could not see the wider picture. -Just because, they went on, the UK is freezing now did not mean that the rest of the world was. -That, of course may be true, but if this (the UK) is one of the major places where the temperatures were measured from the year of our Lord 1850 onwards and is sited for global warming, then this is one of the places that should be taken into consideration when the Globe is cooling is looming.
I mean to claim now that the UK, USA, Europe and Russia (which are a bit too cold for comfort just now, and were last year) do not count as they are “only our small back yards” seems a bit odd to say the least
.
Oh and, by the way, who can measure 0.39 °C on a mercury thermometer?
Sssssssssssorry for the gremlins above.- is looming – must be adjusted to mean something else, or, maybe nothing
What is the difference between the methodologies of the UAH index and the RSS one, as the first went down Oct-> Nov and the latter went up? Are they measuring different areas? Or does this just show that one month’s figure does not matter?
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
How much do they spend every year now to protect a country with 25% below sea level? And how long will it take at currently estimated 1mm/yr to cause problems?
Are you going to come back here and inform us how much is actually spent. Is your thesis really based on promises from a bureacrat? Do you see how foolish that is? Did you vote for Obama? His promises working out for ya?
eadler says:
December 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
DonS says:
December 4, 2010 at 6:41 am
DonS in my estimation has it. For all your arrogance & your superiority complex, you’re too frickin’ stupid to recognise when someone’s taking the pee.
DaveE.
“2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year.”
Correction;
“2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year of the past 31 yrs”.
There, that’s better.
DirkH says:
December 4, 2010 at 8:30 am
it is mainly the effect of ocean losing heat. When oceans lose heat they heat the lower atmosphere. When the sun gives off less radiation the oceans emit heat, as opposed to absorbing heat during an active solar period.
That means, for example, in the UK at the moment, ground temperatures are very cold but the lower troposphere is fairly normal in the temperature range.
That means that the coming years will be cooler than this El Nino year
Poor old Eadler. Like so many of the faithful he can only exhort us simpletons to ‘listen to the Climate Scientists’. His basic position is, ‘I believe, so should you’.
And it’s not just Eadler. Has anyone else noticed how the Skeptical sites are filled with information: graphs, data, maps, photos, theories, open discussion, conflicting positions etc whilst the Warmist sites (at least the ones I’ve checked) tend to simply ‘loudly agree with the Climate scientists’?
Aside from making these sites rather boring I think this tells us something about the warmist mindset. In my experience the most strident believers tend to come from non science backgrounds.
I am very much reminded of the historical difference between Catholicism, with its Dogma and Infallible Priesthood who interpret the Sacred Texts for the masses (i.e. passive acceptance of the Word); and Protestantism with its emphasis on direct access to Sacred Texts, personal study, Biblical Exegesis etc.
Let’s hope that no-one gets ‘burnt at the stake’ over any of this eh?
Tim Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
So, snow in Europe nine years after this statement and you’re triumphantly Charlie Brown laughing in the belief that Prof Curran has been proven to be wrong? Strange.
===========================================
You can manipulate my point and recreate it in your own design all you want my friend. I could really care less. The irony is not lost for all who care to look at the actual facts.
And no, two or three severe winters in a row for Europe since he confidently announced we would be feeling the effects of “climate change” in 10 to 20 years, does not prove poor Curran and his ilk wrong.
Its just funny. Damn funny.
Like I said….Mother Nature has a banging sense of humor.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
im Williams says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Well, the point is, some ‘bureaucrats’ from a country that faces the very real concern about sea level rises have been persuaded enough by the science to recommended their government invest 1.6€ per year every year until 2050 to protect its land.
This is what’s known as putting money where your mouth is and I believe its entirely pertinent to point out how Holland views the state of the science about sea level rise.
===============================
Wrong term. Not “sea level rise”. 1
More correctly: “Land level sink.”
The Netherlands is subsiding as the land to their north is rebounding from the last glaciation. The Dutch have been geo-engineering this problem for 1000 years.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tim Clark says:
December 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm
How much do they spend every year now to protect a country with 25% below sea level? And how long will it take at currently estimated 1mm/yr to cause problems?
Are you going to come back here and inform us how much is actually spent. Is your thesis really based on promises from a bureacrat? Do you see how foolish that is? Did you vote for Obama? His promises working out for ya?
Well they think you’re wrong about the 1mm/yr. Very wrong in fact.
They believe that “Rising sea levels
Since 1900, the sea level of the North Sea has risen by 19 cm,
an average of 1.9 mm a year (see figure 3). This is comparable
to the global average.”
Whats more they believe “• In the long term, the KNMI expects a sea level rise between
35 and 85 cm by 2100 (compared with 1990). This is the
most likely range.” http://www.deltacommissaris.nl/english/Images/Deltaprogramma_ENG1_tcm310-286802.pdf
So they braodly agree with Rharmsdorfs assessment (which you haven’t read or seem to reject) .http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
They are counting on spending “at least 1 billion euros every year from 2020 onward”. It’s not my thesis at all by the way, instead it’s real money being spent by real ‘bureacrats’ as a sensible response to the best science available.
Tim Williams. Why don’t you contact the world’s preeminent sea level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner?
I’ve got his email, and he is great about replying.
He will set the record straight for you. The 1 mm/year rise was in the first half of the 2oth century. Then it fell a bit. And now it is essentially stable.
The issues are with subsiding and sinking land, the glacial “forebulge” regions, such as those around the North Sea, and those where I live on the east coast of the USA.
If you have an issue with the subject….you should take it up with him. I dare ya.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Does anybody have an up-to-date link to an 11 year running average of global temperatures? This would help cut out all the noise of El Ninos and La Ninas, etc.
savethesharks says:
December 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Gosh; I’m surprised that the Dutch government don’t take him more seriously, it could save them a small fortune at what is a very difficult time . To waste that amount of money on dams and things, money that could equally be spent on tax sweeteners, hospitals and education. Could it possibly be because Morners maverick views haven’t actually gained any at all traction within the scientific community?