Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year

by David Whitehouse of the GWPF

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 3 December 2010

If the media headlines are to be believed 2010 is heading to be either the warmest or in the top three warmest years since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago, and proof that the world is getting ever warmer. But looking more closely at the data reveals a different picture.

2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature.

With November and December¹s data still to come in (that will account for 16% of the year¹s data) the UK Met Office estimates the temperature anomaly (with respect to the end of the 19th century) for 2010 so far as 0.756 deg C. As it has been cooling for the past 4 months we can expect that figure to decline below the 2005 0.747 deg C level and the El Nino influenced 1998 of 0.820 deg C.

2010 will therefore be no higher than the third warmest year, possibly lower.

Warm Spring

What has made 2010 warm is March and June due to El Nino, a short-term natural effect and nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

January was cooler than January in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 1998.

February was cooler than February in 2007, 2004, 2002, and 1998.

March was exceptionally warm at a temperature anomaly of 0.971. However it was, given the errors, statistically comparable with March 2008 (0.907) and March 1990 (0.910).

April was cooler than April 2007, 2005, and 1998.

May was cooler than May 2003 and 1998.

June was exceptionally warm at 0.827 deg C though statistically identical to June 2005 (0.825) and 1998.

July, when things started to cool, was cooler than July 2006, 2005 and 1998.

August was cooler than August 2009, about the same as 2005, and cooler than 2001 and 1998.

September was cooler than September 2009, 2007, 2005, 2001 and 1998.

October ­ the last month for which there are records ­ was cooler than October 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 1998.

The pattern is therefore of an unexceptional year except for a Spring/early summer El Nino that elevated temperatures.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.

Check the figures for yourself here.

Advertisements

170 thoughts on “Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year

  1. Warm spring? Not in Aus matey…and “summer” is looking pants too! Humid yes, stupid humidity, ~95+, horrid. Fortunately we have temps at ~27c where I am.

  2. Thanks for an interesting post. In the CRUTEM 3GL file, what is the second row for each year? An admittedly-quick google doesn’t seem to turn up any documentation of this file. I thought at first that they were the number of days that contributed to each monthly average – but then there are quite a few samples where this number is higher than the number of days in the month.

  3. Have to share this one which I have just heard on Radio Scotland – after another night of sub-zero temperatures Scotland has had another band of snow sweep over this morning, so Edinburgh airport and many main roads and motorways all over the central belt are closed again. However, the airport on Barra Airport is now open – after they managed to break the ice off the famous beach runway. (Barra is the only airport in the world where scheduled flight timetable is set by the tides). So now even the usually mild Atlantic Ocean is beginning to freeze!

  4. Of course, it’s possible that the frequency of El Nino years is changing due to global warming. And, furthermore, you’re comparing individual months with cherrypicked years. Of course you’re going to find warmer years for several months.

  5. As Bastardi and Romm are in the news together, I thought you all might like reminding of this….
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/accuweather%E2%80%99s-joe-bastardi-admits-earth-continues-warmest-winter-since-satellite-measurements-started-and-feb-should-be-warmest-on-record/
    Which contains the following from Joe Romm:
    Oh, and for the record, Bastardi predicts (in early February, I think):
    “I think that 2010 will not be the hottest year on record for the earth, at least not by Satellite measurements as cooling is already starting”
    I’ll take that bet.

  6. Ah I notice that the best temperature record is now the CRU one and coincidentally the coolest. I guess all the complaints about UHI, station placement, adjustments etc are no longer a concern.
    I remember a few years back when the satellite records the best when they were the coolest.
    In any event this method of analysis is quite odd. It simply lists a month-by-month basis which previous months were hotter with no attempt to discern a trend or pattern.
    If 2010 is an unexceptional year in an unexceptional decade (as far as warming is concerned) we might expect more references to the 90s or even 80s. Instead the only years each month is cooler than are in the 2000s or strong El-Nino year of 1998. This makes it very difficult to support the argument that warming stopped in either 1995 or 1998.

  7. So January 2010 had a POSITIVE temperature anomaly? Are they joking?
    I also remember back to last winter, there were some figures released that said Jan 2010 was the warmest January in the Northern hemisphere on record. No-one even seemed to challenge this.

  8. Wow, the BBC had headlines on teletext that this year has been the warmest or at least second warmest ever and the Met office are confident that this is due to human induced rises in C02! I beleive them, they ARE THE BBC (not really). It’s NOT worse than we thought. Sorry it had to be said!

  9. Wouter says:
    December 6, 2010 at 4:27 am
    Of course, it’s possible that the frequency of El Nino years is changing due to global warming.
    =================================================
    I wonder if you realize that if we don’t know this, then we don’t know enough to do
    climate computer models at all………

  10. This is why we shouldn’t use “annual averages”. It does not give a real picture of what actually happened.

  11. Funny as all warmists now embrace satellite data, since troposphere is known to be overreacting on positive ENSO events.
    There is a good chance even for multiyear La Nina event. “Warmest evah” will remain far away.
    Check the rate of cooling, already visible at NH extratropics record.
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_30-90N_na.png
    Simultaneously negative PDO, AMO, NAO/AO and sun activity is a pretty much recipe for unprecedented downhill.

  12. Wouter,
    “Of course, it’s possible that the frequency of El Nino years is changing due to global warming.”
    Possible? Does that mean very likely, more likely than not or somwhat likely?
    ” And, furthermore, you’re comparing individual months with cherrypicked years. Of course you’re going to find warmer years for several months.”
    The point is that only 2 months of the year constituted record temperatures. People might ask how a record year can result from only 2 record months, if all the other months have precedents. How is that cherry picking? It is simply a fact. You are free to make of it what you will.

  13. Wouter says:
    December 6, 2010 at 4:27 am
    Of course, it’s possible that the frequency of El Nino years is changing due to global warming.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ..possibly…possibly….possibly….. it’s all based on this word. Global warmist are always predicting, but they have never ever got one right. We were supposed to not to know what snow is by now, but it turn out that we know what snow is, meters high. We were supposed to be noticing ocean rises, but nothing, zero. We were suppose to see Antarctica melting, but its freezing more. We were supposed to see Greenland melting, bit the ice there continues to get more weight. Glaciers melting, not really with some growing back.
    ..possibly possibly possibly… this is not science, it’s alchemy.

  14. I’m surprised they waited so long before releasing the results for this “year”. After all, with each passing day the average drops precipitously. Think it has something to do with the shindig going on in Mexico? Just like the global financial “crisis” cropping up at the same time as the Nopenhagen failure. Governments figured they had it made 5 or 6 years ago on the carbon tax front, and started spending the money before they had it, as usual, and the failure of these taxes to yet materialise has caught them with their pants down.

  15. November and December data still to come in (actually 16.67% to be picky, David) – and the ‘scientists’ (I use the term loosely) are already predicting ‘one of the warmest on record..??
    Blimey – they’re taking a chance, aren’t they..? No doubt we’ll get something like: ‘One of the warmest on record – except for November and December’.
    Yeah, right…

  16. Tom, the second row of data in the file is the percentage of the globe that the data covers. To find this information, follow Davids link and then delete the file name to go up one folder. Note that this percentage number has fallen quite a bit since the 1980s.
    Also, the data that David Whitehouse uses and links to is for CRUTEM, this is the one based on land data only. The one that includes sea temperature data is HADCRUT3. But looking at 2010 and 1998 for HADCRUT3 gives a similar story. The monthly numbers for 1998 were
    0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444
    with a year-average of 0.548.
    The monthly data for 2010 so far are
    0.498 0.491 0.587 0.579 0.511 0.533 0.534 0.475 0.389 0.392
    with a ten-month average of 0.499.
    Of the 10 months so far, 2010 has beaten 1998 only in Jan and Mar.
    To beat 1998, the 2010 HADCRUT3 anomalies for Nov and Dec would have to be up around 0.8 which is pretty unlikely give the current La Nina.
    I have posted the numbers here, and saved a copy of the data files, just in case the numbers in the files mysteriously increase at the end of the year.

  17. wow, is this what passes for blog analysis these days? Should be titled “the art of cherry picking”? Shouldn’t the obvious point be that just another ‘el nino year’ can now give rise to one of the top 3 warmest on record?

  18. This year was not impressive other than the fact that it was an El Nino year. The 1998 one was the real beast to compare to. Without the power El Nino there were none of the other effects of global warming to panic about.
    This winter will be a cold one…

  19. This is awesome — global warming is total fiction!
    2010 is ONLY the third warmest year on record! Those AGW alarmists are surely hanging their heads in shame having predicted 2010 would be in the top one or two!
    It’s obvious now that any record high temperatures are merely caused by unexceptional El Ninos. Unexceptional El Ninos happen all the time, which is why record temperatures happen all the time, which is why record temperatures are booorrring!
    Why, January was the COLDEST January this DECADE, not counting 2001, 2006, 2007 & 2008. March was NOT the coldest March ever: it was statistically tied with two others this decade! Every other month this year set similar records for LOW temperatures when compared to a small list of very recent years.
    These are surely signs of the coming ice age.

  20. Once again folks get into “back and forths” over the average telephone book number. What a dumb statistic and a dumb argument for or against it. Somewhere on Earth, temps were warmer, and somewhere on Earth, temps were cooler. The regional-based picture is far more instructive than the global telephone book number.
    Were the discussion parametrized by region, we could all have an intelligent and instructive discussion related to drivers. But having discourse over this single number is just senseless and devoid of intellectual content.

  21. Whilst in the UK, apart from June and July, this has been a cold year, I consider that the comparisons set out in this post tells us nothing as to whether 2010 globably as a whole was a particularly warm year. As Wouter notes, it is an invalid exercise making a comparisoon with cherry picked months all from different years.
    I myself do not believe the data sets in view of the homogenisations/adjustments made and given the unreliability of the data sets, it is impossible to know which years were truly the warmest years experienced and hence I take these proclamations as to the warmest this or that with a pinch of salt.

  22. @Anonymous Howard
    “Why, January was the COLDEST January this DECADE, not counting 2001, 2006, 2007 & 2008.”
    Err so 1 out of 10 was the coldest (all caps) if you exclude 4 out of 10? So January was something like the 5th out of 10 in terms of coldness?

  23. The same news release from Cancun cherry picked Canadian weather as well as having a record warm winter and commented on the globally warm decade.What the WMO conveniently neglected to mention in their latest news clippings about Canadian weather is that the main reason for the anticipated record temperatures in Canada during 2010 and the warm 2010 winter is the 2009/2010 El Nino . Also we have had 4 El Nino’s during the last 7 years .This is more frequent than in the past when they happened once every 4-7 years. Eight of the last 10 years have been affected by the natural occurring El Nino to some degree. Thus the prime reason for the warm decade and the warm the 2010 winter in Canada is the El Nino. This has very little to do with global warming or increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
    Despite the record 2010 warm winter in Canada , if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003,2005, 2007 ,and 2010 the Canadian winter temperature departure [ anomaly] from the 1948-2010 norm has actually been dropping during the last 10 years since 2000 from 2.5 C in 2000 to 0.3C in 2009, the last very cold winter. Some regions like the Prairie Provinces and Northwestern region have seen as much as 7.1 C drop in winter temperatures from the 2006 to 2009 winter .The warm El Nino’s greatly warm Canadian winters because of the close proximity to the warmer Pacific Ocean .The 2009/2010 El Nino is what accounted for the record 2010 warm winter and why there was less snow during the last Olympics, not due to global warming as many alarmists claimed. The snow prediction for the 2011 winter in my region [Ontario] is for 130 -160 cm of snow over this winter. That is about 4-5 feet. So there is no unusual warming taking place in our winters despite the isolated warm past winter. I expect our winters to continue to cool to the late 1970′s and early 1980′s levels during the next several decades

  24. Whether or not we’ve broken any records this year, what is the average global temperature SUPPOSED to be with the business as usual emissions of CO2?
    I mean, a teensy weensy bit higher in a period when we’re supposed to be warming naturally anyway?

  25. Here is a nice chart which clearly demonstrates that an El Nino or La Nina has to be taken into account when one is trying to talk about temperature trends.
    The UAH/RSS satellite average for the Tropics and the Global versus the ENSO lagged 3 months. This is probably the clearest, self-explanatory chart you will see.
    http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/931/ensol3vsrssuahtropgloba.png
    I didn’t hear any climate scientists talking about the warmest year ever in the spring of 2008 when the La Nina had dropped temperatures below average. But when temperatures drop to normal or below in the spring of 2011, you can expect them to continue talking about the warm year of 2010 over and over again without mentioning the low spring temperatures that will occur.

  26. “Warmest Year Ever”? Look, for the past 4 million years my family has seen some pretty hot and cold times and I wouldn’t say 2010 was anything but average, very average, for an Interglacial Year on good old planet Earth. I don’t know what planet these people are from but it must be just as wierd as they are.

  27. Anonymous Howard says:
    This is awesome — global warming is total fiction! …Why, January was the COLDEST January this DECADE, not counting 2001, 2006, 2007 & 2008. March was NOT the coldest March ever:…Every other month this year set similar records for LOW temperatures when compared to a small list of very recent years.
    As the global warmers used to say: “weather is not climate”, and so you should be comparing decades with decades.
    There have been 15 decades of reliable-ish records, so we have 15 decades to compare with each other
    Three of these decades appeared to show warming of around 0.1C/decade … a run which is perfectly within the normal expectation when decades show around 0.1C warming and cooling as “normal”. Yet for the last decade we’ve had idiot trying to say that three decades of warming trend are unusual, and that somehow one or other of the decades was “unusually warm”
    … isn’t it nice when the tables are turned and the global warmers have to go eat snow!

  28. Yes, this is all very well and it may well turn out to be an unexceptional year. But what the majority of people the world over will be the statement “globally third warmest year” on record. Then what can be argued is – it’s a local effect and your memory which makes you think that it was cold in the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand etc – just look at the fires in Russia and Israel, the droughts/floods/hurricanes here there and everywhere you just can’t deny it any longer.
    Probably a case of get your retaliation in early by the Met Office amongst others.
    Just a thought

  29. Anonymous Howered,
    Let me see if I understand your point:
    It used to take big el ninos to cause global temps to be this high (eg 1998). Now only unexceptional el ninos are needed. Therefore, in formal terms we can write –
    Temp(big el nino + lower co2) = Temp(unexceptional el nino + higher co2). This must be true because everybody knows that temperatures are controlled solely by el ninos and co2 forcing. Therefore, the fact that temperatures haven’t got any higher in 12 years is proof of manmade global warming.
    Have I got that right?

  30. Models can be right….as long as nothing out there inconveniently changes. It is time to begin dealing with reality, to analyze the current Solar Minimum, how is it going compared to Dalton Minimum or Maunder Minimum.
    Have anyone of you felt colder than usual lately, or may be warmer?

  31. I meant to say there have been 4 El Nino’s in the last 9 years [2002 -2010]not in the last 7 years. Sorry for my typo error. During that time there was only one La Nina. The second one just got underway in the middle of 9th year

  32. Didn’t Met O announce they were going to make large adjustments to HadCRUT data because they agree with Hansen’s method, or something to that affect?

  33. S. Geiger says:
    December 6, 2010 at 6:01 am (Edit)
    wow, is this what passes for blog analysis these days? Should be titled “the art of cherry picking”? Shouldn’t the obvious point be that just another ‘el nino year’ can now give rise to one of the top 3 warmest on record?

    Actually, it was quite a big and long sustained el nino. However, there are a few points to note:
    Unlike the ’98 el nino, this one won’t be followed by a rapidly rising solar cycle headed for a historically maximum. This means the ocean heat content released by the el nino isn’t going to be replenished. This means we are in for one big la nina.
    Brace for a very cold N.H. winter. I just chopped enough wood to keep me warm until march if the gas supply in the UK gets cut. I advise others to do the same.

  34. “2010 will therefore be no higher than the third warmest year, possibly lower.”
    You forget these people are experts at data manipulation.

  35. I must say, this isn’t exactly the best analysis i’ve seen.
    It’s interesting as perhaps a ‘coffee table piece’, but it does seem a bit weak so far.
    As someone mentioned, it appears the el ninio was weaker in 2010 than 1998, yet the temperatures are similar (so far) – even as a ‘skeptic’ this would suggest that something else is shoring the temperatures up (not saying it’s co2, but it would seem that something ahs to be acting on temp).

  36. ATTN: PaulM
    Temperature is not measured to +/- 0.001 deg C.
    “The monthly numbers for 1998 were:
    0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444
    with a year-average of 0.548”
    should be:
    0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 o.4 0.4 0.4
    with mean (+/- avg. deviation): 0.5 +/- 0.1
    “The monthly data for 2010 so far are:
    0.498 0.491 0.587 0.579 0.511 0.533 0.534 0.475 0.389 0.392
    with a ten-month average of 0.499.”
    should be:
    0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 o.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
    with mean (+/- avg. deviation): 0.5 +/- 0.0
    It is most likely that 1998 vs 2010 will be a draw.
    I suspect that temperature measurements are not all that accurate. In Canada temperature in weather station records is now reported to +/- 0.5 deg C.
    If you round temperature measurements to the nearest whole deg C, global warming vanishes.

  37. sharper00 says: (December 6, 2010 at 6:14 am)

    @Anonymous Howard

    “Why, January was the COLDEST January this DECADE, not counting 2001, 2006, 2007 & 2008.”

    Err so 1 out of 10 was the coldest (all caps) if you exclude 4 out of 10? So January was something like the 5th out of 10 in terms of coldness?

    Actually, I believe that makes it the 4th coldest year on record, not counting the 120-odd years prior to this decade. And they certainly were odd; I’m guessing an extended La Nina event caused them all to be below normal temperatures.
    Fortunately, this decade has returned to normal, proving that El Nino events are unexceptional and that whenever they happen, they cause record high temperatures. Which is why record high temperatures prove that global warming is false!

  38. Western Australia’s monopoly daily newspaper, The West Australian, showed no restraint on December 1, 2010, when describing the heat of the spring months just past.
    “… the State sweltered its way through the hottest spring on record.”
    See http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/west-australian-newspaper-1-12-2010.gif
    Trouble is, it wasn’t the hottest spring on record.
    To quote the Bureau of Meteorology seasonal statement for the state of WA (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/wa/summary.shtml) …
    “When averaged over the whole state, spring 2010 was near average.”
    November was above average but the seasonal average had to overcome the 7th lowest maximum (and the third wettest) September recorded across WA since records began.
    Ongoing drought in the lower south-west may have caused the highest temperatures recorded since 1950, but the remaining two million square kilometres of WA were below or well below average. However, the press has stated that WA had its hottest spring on record so the dye is cast.
    Australia’s BoM doesn’t need to exaggerate temperature trends when the media can turn average seasons into sweltering records.

  39. Matt says: “I just read that they say it will also be the warmest decade yet – any word on that?
    In 2001 I read the CRU saying: “in a few years time children just won’t know what snow is”.
    I think the same word applies CR*P!
    Snow is as they say like a guest … fun for the first few days, but any longer and you just want them to leave. But these last two years, we’ve had unwelcome visitors for weeks on end and all I can say is thank goodness for the internet, because I don’t know how on earth I would have kept our children entertained .
    … THEY ARE BORED OF THE SNOW, BORED, BORED, BORED, FORGET “NOT KNOWING WHAT SNOW IS” … there’s only so much fun children can have with snow and they’ve had it!
    PS. I’m grumpy because (according to the Met Office “forecast”) we were supposed to be getting “fog”, but instead we got inches of snow, the schools are off and even if they weren’t I couldn’t do anything because I couldn’t drive anywhere today.

  40. All of this has a huge propaganda value for the warmists but in the real world on a statistical level it’s insignificant.
    And the propaganda value will be short lived as the hyped temperatures will make a deep fall as the real cooling has set in.
    I have read the comments from many warmist publications lately and most of the postings make clear the warmists have lost the argument.
    Nobody believes them anymore.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/12/uah-december-anomaly-above-042-c-would.html

  41. LabMunkey says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:19 am
    I must say, this isn’t exactly the best analysis i’ve seen.
    It’s interesting as perhaps a ‘coffee table piece’, but it does seem a bit weak so far.
    As someone mentioned, it appears the el ninio was weaker in 2010 than 1998, yet the temperatures are similar (so far) – even as a ‘skeptic’ this would suggest that something else is shoring the temperatures up (not saying it’s co2, but it would seem that something ahs to be acting on temp).
    ========================================================
    tallbloke says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:18 am
    Unlike the ’98 el nino, this one won’t be followed by a rapidly rising solar cycle headed for a historically maximum. This means the ocean heat content released by the el nino isn’t going to be replenished. This means we are in for one big la nina.

  42. Bill Illis
    You said “I didn’t hear any climate scientists talking about the warmest year ever in the spring of 2008 when the La Nina had dropped temperatures below average. ”
    You are right on, Bill. This lack of impartiality in climate news and constant unjustified alarmism is wearing thin and the public are starting to see the very biased game that is being played here .Imagine if we only heard stock market news when the stock market is up only . One can see how twisted and unbalanced the climate science news has become .I think it is damaging to science as a whole as the public may soon no longer trust any scientists to tell like it really is. We need less ” one hand” news and more “on the other hand” news as well to get the complete and real story . Thank goodness for blogs like Anthony’s WUWT

  43. I think folks are confusing Anonymous Howard’s sarcasm for his actual view.
    Read what he said again but look for the irony this time (Doh)

  44. If the media headlines are to be believed 2010 is heading to be either the warmest or in the top three warmest years since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago, and proof that the world is getting ever warmer.

    There was certainly no “global temperature record” 150 years ago. There isn’t one now.

  45. How does an El Nino or La Nina raise or lower temps? Don’t they just move energy around the system, so that heat that wasn’t near thermometers before now is?

  46. ” matt v. says:
    December 6, 2010 at 6:15 am ”
    “Despite the record 2010 warm winter in Canada” ?????
    You’re talking about Eastern Canada! Don’t let the fact that they disassembled most of our weather stations here on the prairies fool you. I can show you three places in Saskatchewan, not a hill nor body of water larger than a dugout in between them and within 80km km of each other that fluctuate wildly as compared to the one station used for our area’s temp. As a whole, any 100km smoothing done here in Western Canada would be almost telling a fib but anything larger than 200km, an outright lie. Want to paint an alarmist’s picture of Canadian temps, its merely a matter of location. Remember that while Ontario and Quebec contain the vast majority of unemployed Canadians and members of the politico, Western Canada and The Territories account for the same in Canada’s landmass and we’ve fewer weather stations than the Toronto to Montreal run.

  47. This decade is the hottest only because NASA, and the other keepers of the official temperature records, adjusted the 1930s downward. It’s the hottest, sure, when they play with the temperatures in the past and keep adjusting them downward.
    One would think that once temperature is measured, it is recorded and stays.
    If this type of activity were performed in a criminal case, the perpetrators would be indicted for tampering with evidence, or obstruction of justice. However, because this is climate “science” it is perfectly acceptable to modify, change, make up data, adjust downward, historical data.
    Just don’t expect Mother Nature to play along. She is dropping snow and cold temperatures all around just to show how wrong the scientists are.
    Has anyone seen the forecast for Florida, today and tonight? A hard freeze warning is in effect.
    In Florida.
    The Sunshine State.
    Where oranges are grown year-round.

  48. 2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature.
    What average – that of the top six warmest months respectively??

  49. lattitude- that may be- but it doesn’t explain how the temperatures got so high in the first place, from a ‘unexceptional’ el ninio. It doesn’t make sense.

  50. But Professor, on the first test I did better then Bill and he is getting a B. On the second test I did better than Jane and she is getting a C. On the third I did better than Martin and he is getting a B+. So, why am I getting a D? It is not fair! I’m better than Bill, Jane and Martin!
    I am sorry. You are right, it is not fair to give you D. You now have an F.

  51. Jeff Alberts says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:50 am (Edit)
    How does an El Nino or La Nina raise or lower temps? Don’t they just move energy around the system, so that heat that wasn’t near thermometers before now is?

    Well, yes and no.
    Yes in the short term, but in the longer term, it depends on how the oceans are going about their business of storing and releasing solar energy. If my model is correct, the oceans have been gaining energy since around 1930, so we could get quite a few more el nino events even if the sun stays quiet for a couple of cycles. In fact, they are more likely, because the ocean releases heat when solar activity is low, but as the total ocean heat content diminishes, each successive el nino will be followed by a deep la nina which will leave the surface temperature lower than it was before. This is the opposite process to what we have seen over the last 30 years, since the brief halt in ocean heat increase during the low solar cycle in the 70’s.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

  52. Anthony Watts said,
    “There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.”
    Sorry but there is evidence. The year 1998 had a strong El Nino, almost reaching the record of 1982. The El Nino cycle has a strong effect on global temperature. In addition, the solar cycle for 1998 was half way between the trough and the peak.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
    The year 2010 saw a La Nina and the lowest trough in the solar cycle in recent years. The fact that it is shaping up to be the third warmest in the modern record doesn’t show that cooling is on the way. The solar cycle is likely to climb out of its trough soon, and the La Nina conditions can’t continue indefinitely.
    It is clear that other factors have made 2010 a warm year. This indicates that global warming due to greenhouse gases, which is a continuing effect is indeed operating, and when El Nino and the Solar Cycle become factors which cause warming rather than cooling as they inevitably will, there will be record warm years in the near future.

  53. The end of the last Little Ice Age was in 1850.160 years ago, which means that in conjunction with the current prolonged solar minimum, increased rainfall, increased seismic and volcanic activity, and slowing of the Gulf Stream are right on time for the start of one of these new stages of cooling.
    This could probably be the winter where this phase will officially begin.

    http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/

  54. David Whitehouse said,
    “There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.”
    Sorry but there is evidence. The year 1998 had a strong El Nino, almost reaching the record of 1982. The El Nino cycle has a strong effect on global temperature. In addition, the solar cycle for 1998 was half way between the trough and the peak.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
    The year 2010 saw a La Nina and the lowest trough in the solar cycle in recent years. The fact that it is shaping up to be the third warmest in the modern record doesn’t show that cooling is on the way. The solar cycle is likely to climb out of its trough soon, and the La Nina conditions can’t continue indefinitely.
    It is clear that other factors have made 2010 a warm year. This indicates that global warming due to greenhouse gases, which is a continuing effect is indeed operating, and when El Nino and the Solar Cycle become factors which cause warming rather than cooling as they inevitably will, there will be record warm years in the near future.

  55. LabMunkey says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:57 am
    lattitude- that may be- but it doesn’t explain how the temperatures got so high in the first place, from a ‘unexceptional’ el ninio. It doesn’t make sense.

    Temperatures were already historically high before the recent el nino. Higher than just before the big ’98 el nino. The ‘spike’ of this latest el nino isn’t as impressive as the ’98 el nino, but there are a couple of reasons for that. The ’98 el nino was dominated by a ‘pacific warm pool’ heat release event, which caused a big rise in tropical humidity over the pacific. This retained heat in the atmosphere which spread worldwide. The most recent el nino was partly feled by the pacific, but also heat has been generally rising up and escaping from the ocean since the sun went quiet in 2003. This is why ocean heat content has been falling, but atmospheric temps have remained high. But the heat is escaping to space more easily than it was in ’98, because humidity has dropped with ocean heat content and so outgoing longwave radiation is at a high, around 2W/m^2 more than in ’98. This means the ocean will cool more rapidly this time around, and we’ll get a deep la nina bounce before the next upwelling of long held ocean heat causes another (smaller) el nino possibly towards the end of 2013.

  56. Louise says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:36 am
    “think folks are confusing Anonymous Howard’s sarcasm for his actual view.
    Read what he said again but look for the irony this time (Doh)”
    Have you not considered that the replies to Howard’s ‘irony’ are themselves ironic?

  57. Does anyone know where I can download an excel file with the temperature anomalies dating back to 1850? I would prefer a downloadable file rather than entering the data by hand. 160 years x 14 columns = bound to make a mistake upon entering.

  58. tallbloke: Thanks for taking the time to explain. Must admit I’d been pondering the apparent contradictions re the El Nino events and the high temps but your posts helped clarify a lot of this for me.

  59. Roger Sowell says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Then you should change your: In Florida.
    The Sunshine State.
    Where oranges are grown year-round.

    To:
    In Florida.
    The Sunshine reverberating on the snow State.
    Where oranges used to grow all the year round.

  60. @Jeff Alberts
    “How does an El Nino or La Nina raise or lower temps? Don’t they just move energy around the system, so that heat that wasn’t near thermometers before now is?”
    You’re quite right, what we call natural variability is simply energy moving from one place to another via various mechanisms. Sometimes either the to or from is somewhere we currently don’t monitor so we’re left to try and make guesses.
    I suggest reading Kevin Trenberth’s An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy and Skepticalscience’s summary for a better overview.

  61. I think using temperature to determine energy balance is like using wave height to measure the tide.
    If the temperature goes up because the earth is retaining more heat and releasing less then we have a problem. If circumstances cause already absorbed heat to be released we have a phenomenon but not a problem. In fact ocean heat released to the atmosphere by El Niño should cause a lowering of temperatures globally once that heat has radiated to space.
    Over a period of time a certain amount of energy arrives at Earth and over that same period a certain amount leaves Earth. The rates have been in balance for a long time. Because of complex absorption schemes the balance can be irregular – we have weather. When we average out the bumps we have climate. El Niño is a bump.
    Orbital geometry, solar and galactic variations, and atmospheric composition are climate changers. In this group of climate changers some are cyclic and the math is easily understood one is affected by feedbacks. We don’t understand those feedbacks probably because we spend too much time and money looking at silly things like bumps in the search for climate change. Because we don’t understand those feedbacks CAGW is just an interesting theory looking for a proof. They won’t find it in models.

  62. @ tallbloke.
    Ok- i’m either being particularly dense here (it’s been a long day!) or my question still remains.
    I get that it will cool quicker, i get that the current el ninio was less significant than the last one and i understand that the temperatures prior to the recent el ninio were higher than the pre 1998 ones, but the question remains as to why the temperatures WERE higher prior to the recent il ninio?? I could be missing something really simple here- so don’t think i’m being difficult for the sake of it! 🙂

  63. @ tallboke- just re-read your post and i think i get it now.
    The sun went quiet at 2003, but the latent heat was still ‘warming’ the earth slightly, hence the higher temps.
    The el ninio was less significant, but due to the higher background heat, it has nudged 2010 to a similar temp to 1998. However, the low solar activity SHOULD result in a far quicker cooling- leading to (potentially) plummeting temperatures.
    I getcha- i WAS being dense…
    Interesting theory- we’ll find out in the next year i guess!

  64. ALAN F
    You said “You’re talking about Eastern Canada! ” No Alan, I was talking about Canada taken as a whole rather than any individual region . You are right about many parts of Canada like the west did not have a record warm winter . All the 11 regions being monitored by Enviornment Canada , 10 were above the 1948-2010 trend line but only 4 had record warm temperatures. The Prairie provinces were right on the trend line with 0 degrees departure . The reason for Canada as a whole having the record warm winter was the EL Nino warming mostly in the Mackenzie District, N.BC mountains and Yukon and the various regions of the Arctic which were from 4.7 to 5.4 above average . Northwestern Forest region was 2.8 C above norm . So the prime reason for the record Canadian winter warming of 4 C during the 2010 winter was clearly the North and Arctic parts of Canada only . I don’t know what weight they received but it must be significant as they occupy a vast area.The topic of whether the current Enviornment Canada measurements are accurate and fair , I can not comment on here. That topic has been blogged on WUWT previously

  65. LabMunkey says:
    December 6, 2010 at 8:45 am
    @ tallbloke.
    the question remains as to why the temperatures WERE higher prior to the recent il ninio??

    In a nutshell:
    Because the the sun was more active than it had been for thousands of years between 1930 and 2003, according to Sami Solanki, the chief solar physicist at the Max Planck Institute. The accumulated ocean heat escaped via el nino’s, which circulated warm surface water around and then recharged in the pacific warm pool under relatively clear skies. Less tropical cloud cover 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. The ocean sets the temperature of the atmosphere, because it has so much more heat capacity.
    If you visit Bob Tisdales site there are some great posts on el nino and la nina and the rise in C20th temps. Bob is a careful researcher, and doesn’t speculate about the cause behind ENSO, but I think my solar analysis holds up well.
    For a great read about the ocean, and why its importance was neglected by climate scientists, check my repost of John Daly’s brilliant essay The Deep Blue Sea
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/john-l-daly-the-deep-blue-sea/

  66. Every time I see the word “ever” in a title, I don’t read the piece for it starts on a major nonsense.

  67. I believe that the MET office year runs from September to October – why it should I have no idea. Autumn equinox?

  68. If it were not for cherry-picking, eadler and kampen wouldn’t have much to say.
    Let’s look at an apples-to-apples comparison of December temperatures: click
    If they can show the percentage of warming due to the increase in CO2 compared with the climate’s natural variability, they will be the first to be able to do so. But since the null hypothesis of natural variability has never been falsified, the CO2=CAGW conjecture must be tested against the null. So far, CAGW fails. Of course that doesn’t matter to true believers, any more than the scientific method matters to them.
    I especially enjoyed Adler’s know-it-all belief system:

    It is clear that other factors have made 2010 a warm year. This indicates that global warming due to greenhouse gases, which is a continuing effect is indeed operating, and when El Nino and the Solar Cycle become factors which cause warming rather than cooling as they inevitably will, there will be record warm years in the near future.

    A total non-sequitur, which is typical of Al Gore’s acolytes. If CO2 had a significant effect on temperature, then temperature would closely track the rise in CO2. But it doesn’t. There is no “continuing effect” as Adler claims. CO2 is such a minor player that its effect is too small to be empirically measured, thus debunking the CAGW conjecture.

  69. Patrick Davis says:
    December 6, 2010 at 4:13 am
    Warm spring? Not in Aus matey…and “summer” is looking pants too! Humid yes, stupid humidity, ~95+, horrid. Fortunately we have temps at ~27c where I am.
    Looks like you may be saved by rain on the final day of the Test Match too…

  70. Doug Obach says:
    December 6, 2010 at 8:29 am
    Does anyone know where I can download an excel file with the temperature anomalies dating back to 1850? I would prefer a downloadable file rather than entering the data by hand. 160 years x 14 columns = bound to make a mistake upon entering.
    ========================================================
    Doug,
    The way I do it, is the old tried but true “copy and paste” method. In the case as a .txt file such as the one provided in the link, simply “save as” a text file, open with excel and do a “text to columns” step. The actual process is different, depending upon the version of excel. I believe one can also accomplish this using Open Office’s spread sheet prog.

  71. sharper00 says:
    Ah I notice that the best temperature record is now the CRU one and coincidentally the coolest. I guess all the complaints about UHI, station placement, adjustments etc are no longer a concern.

    You work with what you’ve got. As GHCN is going through a rewrite update and have rebuggered improved all their numbers, and changed all the station IDs, they are a bit of a pain right now. GIStemp depends on GHCN…
    While I’ve not added the latest changes to this report, it gives an overview of the kinds of things that are done to bugger “improve” the data:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
    So the choices are a bit limited. Then we have a couple of satellite series that are diverging… what to do what to do…

    In any event this method of analysis is quite odd. It simply lists a month-by-month basis which previous months were hotter with no attempt to discern a trend or pattern.

    You don’t want to “go there” if you are a “warmer”… I’ve DONE the by month analysis, and it shows some months warming while other months cool. Kind of “puts the lie” to the notion of “Global Warming” when it isn’t even consistently warming by month…
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/dmtdm-a-northern-view/
    More at:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
    As near as I can tell, it’s all just a ‘splice artifact’ of the way most of the thermometers are now at Airports, and Tarmac is hotter in the sun than grass and trees. So we get sunny months showing a rise, and cloudy / rainy ones not so much, in peak temps. Then in winter the airports are full of snow removal, jet exhaust, cars and trucks, deicing, etc so the lows get clipped. In one case in South America there is a nice peak right on top of spring break IIRC… For Marble Bar Australia, we’ve got a ‘never exceeded record’ in a place where GISS shows a constant warming anomaly. What I find is that it’s a splice artifact from changing where the thermometers are located:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/mysterious-marble-bar/
    And globally, there is a great deal of “instrument change” going on in the GHCN. Warmers claim it doesn’t matter, I claim it is a central problem. But I could be wrong.
    I mean, it’s not like we have a peer reviewed paper that looks at the selection bias in thermometers in a country and finds cooling if you use all the thermometers… Oh, wait, we do:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/lets-talk-turkey/#comment-3840
    Well, maybe I’m not so wrong after all…
    So looking at the ‘trend’ in individual months is HIGHLY productive, from a skeptics point of view. As is the impact of Airports Percentage.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/airports-a-tarmac-tale/

  72. World May Post Hottest Year in 2010, UN Agency Says
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/world-may-post-hottest-year-in-2010-un-agency-says.html
    from the article:
    The worldwide average temperature in 2010 through part of November was 0.55 degree Celsius hotter than the long-term average of 14 degrees (57 degrees Fahrenheit), the WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud said.
    “The long-term trend is a trend of very significant warming,” Jarraud said today in Cancun, Mexico, where envoys from 194 nations are working on a treaty curb climate change. “We are very concerned. You cannot dispute the warming.”

  73. Harold Pierce Jr says:
    ATTN: PaulM
    Temperature is not measured to +/- 0.001 deg C.
    “The monthly numbers for 1998 were:
    […]
    I suspect that temperature measurements are not all that accurate. In Canada temperature in weather station records is now reported to +/- 0.5 deg C.
    If you round temperature measurements to the nearest whole deg C, global warming vanishes.

    MONTHLY temperatures are not reported. Daily temperatures are reported. The monthly is calculated via an average. As temperature is an intensive variable, that makes the monthly average exactly meaningless… but we ignore that. And temperature is not heat, so it says nothing about gaining or losing heat. But we ignore that.
    In the USA, temps are reported in WHOLE DEGREES F (though the ASOS gear at airports also has a WHOLE degrees C spigot…) In Europe I don’t know what they do, but it’s averaged to make a monthly average number in the GHCN that’s in 1/10 C. Whatever an average of a bunch of temperatures might mean.
    Except at the airports, where the EU ASOS looks like they also report in whole degrees C. Rounded UP, I might add… just like we round up at ASOS in the USA.
    But there is also a 1/10 C spigot on the ASOS, so we hope that’s what the local met offices use to calculate the “monthly average”…
    @PaulM: Good luck on that whole 1/100 C precision out of thin air thing…

  74. I’m afraid Howard’s response to this analysis (despite its obnoxious manner) is probably as much as the piece actually merits. In fact, had I encountered this article without any context or identifying information, I may have guessed it to be an unusually dry bit of satire from the CAGW blogosphere.
    Either…a) plenty of good examples of warmer months exist throughout the full range of the instrumental period, but for some reason the author happened to focus exclusively on very recent years in making his monthly comparisons; or b) such examples could only be found during the last decade or so.
    If a, then the article ought to be revised immediately to reverse this focus…but I’m inclined to rule out a (unless this article was, in fact, a satire). And if b, then the most salient argument which jumps out at me from this piece is that the last decade has been the warmest on the instrumental record.
    I’d like to think I’m missing something here…?

  75. tallbloke says:
    December 6, 2010 at 8:58 am
    In a nutshell:
    Because the the sun was more active than it had been for thousands of years between 1930 and 2003,
    ========================================
    thanks tallbloke

  76. Marginally off-topic, but a few notes about that dreadful stuff, CO2.
    Firstly, as we all know (on this side of the great divide, anyway) – it is the lifeblood of plants. If you go onto the internet there’s a very detailed paper on raising tomatoes – and guess what..? The writers recommend pumping CO2 into your polytunnels to a concentration of 800-1000ppm…! Scary, eh..?? Surely all the workers will be dropping like flies – and the poor old tomato plants will be wilting and dying. Obviously not – they will thrive and fruit prodigiously..
    Secondly – what do you suppose the limit for CO2 concentration in a submarine is..? 400ppm..? 1000ppm..?? Actually its 8000ppm – and to the best of my knowledge no submariners have conked out due to an excess of carbon dioxide in their cramped workplace..
    SO…. CO2 at 390ppm..? Ye gods – what are we to do..? Rejoice at how well our crops are doing, I shouldn’t wonder..!

  77. E.M.Smith says:
    December 6, 2010 at 10:01 am
    Harold Pierce Jr says:
    ATTN: PaulM
    =======================================================
    You guys are all wrong! See, what happens is that we take a tree ring, or a clam shell, (whatever’s handiest) and compare them to the actual thermometer readings. As you stated, obviously, thermometers aren’t calibrated well enough to report in the thousandth’s, but as we all know, tree rings and the like are! So, we just calibrate the thermometers to the tree rings, and, voila, accuracy to the 1/1000 of a degree! (Works for all scales of temperature!) I think this is where Mann went wrong, he should have talked to Hansen first before he tried to strike out on his own. </sarc
    My way of saying, "well said". Thanks.

  78. Having read through all this, the most notable trend that I can see is with the comments of our Troll chums.
    More deliberately obtuse. More pathetic. More desperate.
    They must be getting really nervous that their grants will be cut.

  79. Roger Sowell says:
    Has anyone seen the forecast for Florida, today and tonight? A hard freeze warning is in effect.
    In Florida.
    The Sunshine State.
    Where oranges are grown were grown year-round.

    There, fixed it for you. The northern limit of commercial orange groves in Florida has been moving south for several years… due to increasing frost losses…
    Watch the crops. They don’t lie. They are saying 2010 was a cold year.

  80. I really don’t have a problem with the “highest on record” comments, as long as the duration of the “record” is stated in the document – right up at the front, along with the measuring method, and error bands one sigma and three sigma. That is precisely what we don’t get from the warmists.
    Anomalous anomalies, error bands a multiple of the resolution of the dataset, projections based on wishful thinking – as if the world really operated in linear fashion – non-science, non-think, new-speak is the order of the day.
    Keep the battle up, and continue taking it to their side. WE WILL WIN!
    We’re not trying to fake reality for profit or fame, just trying to understand a small part of the universe.

  81. Call it cherry picking… WHATEVER. If I’m going to buy extreme AGW warm-mongering, you’ve got to show me 2010 was the hottest… period. Not 2nd – or 3rd – or a tie. This El Nino gave us the best shot at warmest evah. That’s 12 years of Co2 (how much ppm increase over 12 years… does anyone know?), and we can’t even statistically tie 1998?
    It’s unfortunate that most climate experts have painted themselves into a corner by down-playing solar activity. Otherwise, I’d give them some credit there. But then we’d have to adjust our models, wouldn’t we.

  82. David, I would like to draw your attention to the (UAH AMSU daily temps) link on WUWT. When you plot the AQUA channel 5 for 2010 (recommended by Dr. Spencer) + the average temp curve + the record temp curve, you will see that for approximately ten months in 2010, this years temp consistently plots 0.2 to 0.5deg C higher than the average temp curve (I think this average temp is for the 2002 to 2009 period?). The satellite derived temp this year ran close to, or exceeded the record high temp curve, several times during 2010. It has recently fallen rapidly down to the average trend line. We need at least another 5 to 10 years of data to see if the temps are going to continue to flat line, or begin to trend up or down. In conclusion the Met office/CRU data is not my favorite data series for the current era and year to year changes in global temp, while interesting, are weather variations at best.
    Regards,
    Lorne

  83. Harold Pierce and EM Smith – you are quite right of course, measuring the average temperature of the earth to 0.001 degrees is absurd.
    Don’t blame me – blame Phil Jones.
    Whenever people talk about a temperature rise of 0.7 degrees in the century, and try to claim that it’s a lot, it’s good to ask if they would even notice if tomorrow was 0.7 degrees warmer than today.

  84. If these headline are based on land based temps alone… the jetstream seemed to be on the US/ Canadian border most of the summer, if not up into Canada, from the Midwest to the east coast, letting a lot of tropical heat up through the US. It would be interesting to plot the Jetstream path in “warm” years vs “normal” vs “cool” years. Just on observation from someone that does not have a Degree in science… so according to the Gorebull warmists, I am not permitted to make such an observation. I suspect though that in “normal” and “cool” year the jetstream has a path cutting through the US. Because we all know it has nothing to do with the sun..”Sarc off”.

  85. It ia all about the difference in the Smoothing Radius
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
    250 km radius
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=10&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
    or
    1200km radius
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=10&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
    So if you know the temperature in Madrid you know the temperature in London. Don´t think so. Look at the 250km radius and you see that where GISS tells us it´s getting warmer is where they have less data.
    Compare also GISS and DMI Polar temperature.

  86. Here is what was reported by WMO at Cancun about Canada’s record 2010 winter temperatures
    “Canada had its warmest winter on record, with national temperatures 4 degrees C above the long- term average,” said the WMO.
    “Winter temperatures were 6 degrees C or more above normal in parts of [Canada’s ]North”
    Here are the actual Canadian 2010 winter temperature DEPARTURES [ IN DEGREES C] FROM 1948-2010 TREND as reported by Environment Canada for the 11 regions of Canada. The figure in brackets is the ranking from its regional warmest winter
    LOWER CANADA [ roughly BELOW 60N]
    ATLANTIC COAST + 2.5[3rd]
    GREAT LAKES AND ST LAWRENCE + 2.1[9th]
    NORTHEASTERN FOREST +4.2 [1st]*
    NORTHWESTERN FOREST +2.8 [17th]
    PRAIRIES +0 [40th]
    SOUTH BC MOUNTAINS PACIFIC COAST +1.8[20th]
    PACIFIC COAST +1.7[11TH]
    NORTHERN CANADA [ roughly NORTH of 60N]
    YUKON/ NORTH BC MTS +5 [10TH]
    MACKENZIE DISTICT +4.7 [[5TH]
    ARCTIC TUNDRA +5.4 [1st]*
    ARCTIC MTS & FIORDS + 5.3[1st]*
    NATIONAL CANADA +4 [1st]* Previous record was in 2006 at 3.9C
    Not a single region was +6 C above normal. True new temperature records [shown as *] were only set in 3 of the 11 regions. You be the judge if there was fair reporting or explanation by WMO of what really happened in Canada during the winter of 2010

  87. I’ve just had a text mesage from my brother Pete who is now only on his second pint in Aberfeldy after a longer than usual trip from work over the hills to Crieff. The greater than normal amount of man-made-global-warming, from which the UK is suffering at the moment, is clearly to blame.
    The road used to be clear all the way until they started cutting down the trees I planted 30 years ago in order to make a bloody windfarm.

  88. Thanks for the explanation PaulM
    I didn’t understand the difference between HadCRUT and HadCRUT3
    I can’t understand where the Met.Office have got their figure of 0.52 from
    This is quoted on their web site as the mean for 1998 and 2010 to date
    I have E-mailed them asking for an explation, but as yet have not received a reply

  89. william says: (December 6, 2010 at 10:02 am)

    I’m afraid Howard’s response to this analysis (despite its obnoxious manner) is probably as much as the piece actually merits.

    William, sometimes I think you’re the only one who really gets me, you know?

  90. We keep hearing that this year’s El Nino is moderate compared to the big 1998 event.
    Certainly it is true that 1998 peaked higher, but it also declined much more quicker.
    Therefore over the full year isn’t it true that this year’s El Nino has had a similar effect on average temps?

  91. Yes, this year is the warmists’ year.
    Warmists, this year’s for you! Enjoy it while you can, because the next few will be for the coolists.

  92. A few days or even a year, such as 2010, don’t make much difference. The interesting finding is that except for the outlier year of 1998, most of the warmest years since around 1850 have occurred since 2000. That seems to suggest that 2000 to 2009 was a warm decade. The average temperature of 2010 does not go against the idea that the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be the warmer still but we need to wait a few years to find out. For sure, any objective analysis of the data goes against the idea that warming stopped in 1998. If that were true, one would hardly expect that 2000-2009 would be so much warmer than 1990-1999. Kind of reminds me of the frog that was cooked in a pot of slowly warming water.

  93. E.M.Smith says: at 10:18 am & others
    Watch the crops. They don’t lie. They are saying 2010 was a cold year.
    My tomatoes told me the same thing – so I chopped them to bits and threw them in the compost pile. Then there are the grapes (always well documented by growers and vintners alike):
    Harvest time in the vineyard is based on (among other things) the accumulation of heat by wine grapes over the summer. Harvest time and grape quality are great ways of summarizing, or integrating, weather with respect to long term expectations – especially that of the vines. That said, in central Washington State’s vineyards the 2010 summer was underwhelming.
    http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2010/09/19/grape-harvest-is-a-bit-later-than-usual-this-year

  94. It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years. Entertaining in a sad and pathetic sort of way…

  95. “For sure, any objective analysis of the data goes against the idea that warming stopped in 1998. If that were true, one would hardly expect that 2000-2009 would be so much warmer than 1990-1999.”
    I don’t see that. If there were a rising trend up to 1998 (or 1995 as per Phil Jones), then a plateau before the descent becomes established, then the decade of the plateau would obviously be warmer than the decade leading up to it.

  96. Jason S. says: at 10:20 am
    “. . . of Co2 (how much ppm increase over 12 years… does anyone know?)
    The number you are asking for – if printed – will likely generate more comments than any of us want to read. If you want to have a go at it, try this site:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    Note the link to annual mean. Read carefully.
    Also, search WUWT over the last year for posts and comments and read them before making any comments. Please.

  97. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years.
    ========================================================
    lol, kinda like watching a warmista claim increases of atmospheric CO2 causes warming and try to explain why it isn’t. Here, compare (using even sat. data) the 30 year trend to the last 10. According to the trend line, we quit increasing our CO2 emissions in 2001! BTW this includes this “hottest year evuh!” or second or third or what ever label you want to put on it.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1981/plot/rss/from:1981/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

  98. How much of the anomaly number or the change since 1900 (that .756 number) from the Met office is due to the failure to acount for UHI and land use changes and the inserted “corrections” that go the wrong direction? All of it? Or just the vast majority?

  99. Jimmy Haigh says:
    December 6, 2010 at 10:38 am
    I’ve just had a text mesage from my brother Pete who is now only on his second pint in Aberfeldy after a longer than usual trip from work over the hills to Crieff. The greater than normal amount of man-made-global-warming, from which the UK is suffering at the moment, is clearly to blame.
    The road used to be clear all the way until they started cutting down the trees I planted 30 years ago in order to make a bloody windfarm.

    Jimmy – your brother was lucky to get home. The Central Belt shut down today, airports closed, buses trains, thousands of cars stuck on main roads and motorways. People had mass snowball fights and built snowmen on the A80. There are still drivers stuck in cars on the M74 and A80, some up to 7 hours after setting off. Think the M8 is much the same. Amazingly they re-opened most schools again today (kids have been off for a week). But don’t talk to me about that fecking Griffin wind farm – 68 120m high turbines which will produce diddly squat when we need it most. UK demand reached 59.9GW at 5.55pm today – broke last winter’s record peak by 2GW – and we still have most of the winter to go. All it will take is Longannet or a big station in England to go down and brownouts and blackouts will follow.

  100. James Sexton says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:49 am
    R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years.
    ========================================================
    lol, kinda like watching a warmista claim increases of atmospheric CO2 causes warming and try to explain why it isn’t. Here, compare (using even sat. data) the 30 year trend to the last 10. According to the trend line, we quit increasing our CO2 emissions in 2001! BTW this includes this “hottest year evuh!” or second or third or what ever label you want to put on it.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1981/plot/rss/from:1981/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
    ______
    It is a long since warn out and tired statement by AGW skeptics that the effects of CO2 increases must be seen in some linear fashion, and that any effects would be seen exlcusive of all other natural variability. The primary reason we saw a leveling off in the increases to temps in the last decade as the prolonged and deep solar minimum, and even with the once in a century solar minimum, we only saw a leveling in the temperature increases and not a plunge. Now we are headed back to a solar max in 2013 or so, and even if it is a modest solar max, temperatures will be rising once more.

  101. People, please all take a deep breath! Interesting as all the comments may be, there is a certain tendency to overlook the forest for all the trees obscuring the view.
    First, whether or not 2010 was warmest ‘evah’ (or at least since the MWP) is irrelevant. If we accept, as most here do, that the planet has been gradually warming since about 1700, it is statistically inevitable that some random year or decade must be a ‘record’ warm, and that will remain true until we start into the next Little Ice Age.
    And when might that occur? We don’t know, but there are some hints. If the warmest point of the MWP was around 1100 CE, and the peak of the Roman Optimum came around 100 BCE, we see a cycle of about 1200 yrs; that would place the peak of the Minoan warm at about 1300 BCE and the next peak should be expected about 2300, nearly 200 yrs. in our present future. If the warming trend seen since 1700 contiunes till then, we might reach the highs of the MWP. But probably won’t, since the trend of interglacials is to reach an early peak temperature followed by a gradual overall cooling until the beginning of dthe next real ice age.
    Overlain on this 1200 year cycle are smaller cycles of about 60 yrs. which is mostly what we argue about on these blogs. Where are we on the level? Probably on the cooling slope since about 2000 which means the warmists are out of business for the next twenty years when they may again have something to get alarmed over. Notably absent in these trends, large and small, is any connection to CO2 concentration. Just something to think about…. L

  102. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years. Entertaining in a sad and pathetic sort of way…
    What does the data really say and do you trust the raw data anymore let alone the adjusted data?
    The southern hemisphere from south America to Australia has just gone gone through its coldest winter in many years, minimum temperatures in many places setting records, if you live in those parts of the world then the claims of a hot earth will be greeted with scepticism.
    In fact there is no such thing as an average global temperature, while the southern hemisphere is in winter and the northern in summer and vice versa what real meaning does an average between the two have plus of course there is the difference between day and night. Does this supposed global average take the average between day and night? It means nothing and signifies nothing in reality because some places are warmer while others are cooler, add the margin of error and the usual bias toward built up areas and what do you have?
    The climate in the south is opposite to the climate in the north, the weather patterns are opposite so why is there an average of both? The truth is that the false construct of global average temperatures only serves the purpose of allowing a multitude of different temperatures to be manipulated in order to prop up a failing theory.
    Take a reading from the north pole and the south pole at midday and midnight and then find the average of those four readings, what does it tell you? It tells you nothing of interest whatsoever. Its like the 2.2 kids routine, I have yet to see a couple out with two whole children and 0.2 of a child.
    This I think is the root of the fraud, there is no average global temperature because the climate is so very different all over the planet from north to south and day to night. BTW I do not want to be entertained, I just want the truth.

  103. So, let me get this straight…
    If I climb a very steep pinnacled mountain in 1998 to an altitude of, say, 20,000 ft and then climb a plateaued mountain in 2010 to an altitude of, say 15,000 ft but spend a longer time walking across the plateau before descending, I will be justified in claiming that I was ‘higher’ in 2010 than I was in 1998?
    Cool. This means that the Nazca plateau in Peru is as high as, if not higher than, Mount Everest!

  104. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    James Sexton says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:49 am
    R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years.
    ========================================================
    lol, kinda like watching a warmista claim increases of atmospheric CO2 causes warming and try to explain why it isn’t. Here, compare (using even sat. data) the 30 year trend to the last 10. According to the trend line, we quit increasing our CO2 emissions in 2001! BTW this includes this “hottest year evuh!” or second or third or what ever label you want to put on it.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1981/plot/rss/from:1981/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
    ______
    It is a long since warn out and tired statement by AGW skeptics that the effects of CO2 increases must be seen in some linear fashion, and that any effects would be seen exlcusive of all other natural variability. The primary reason we saw a leveling off in the increases to temps in the last decade as the prolonged and deep solar minimum, and even with the once in a century solar minimum, we only saw a leveling in the temperature increases and not a plunge. Now we are headed back to a solar max in 2013 or so, and even if it is a modest solar max, temperatures will be rising once more.
    =======================================================
    Just so I’m clear, you seem to be stating, ‘when it gets hotter, that’s man’s interference with nature via CO2 emissions. But when it stops getting hotter or cools, that’s natural variation. Is that it? Oh, and trends only matter when it shows warming? OK, got that.

  105. Paul H, contributing on 6 Dec at 5.58 provided some data, which I believe are from HadCrut3, giving monthly temperature values. He also provided a brief analysis.
    For those who are familiar with statistical methods but who’ve not had time to do the sums, here’s a rundown on what the classic Student’s t test has to say on these values. They can be looked at as straightforward means (of 12 and 10 values for 1998 and 2010 respectively). What follows is part of the output from a stats package. Please, someone, check it out. You’ll find the same outcome as I did, I am sure 🙂
    Please note that I have used the original data multiplied by 100.
    *******************************
    Univariate (Single Column) Statistics – Population Estimates.
    Std Dev, etc are based on N-1 Degrees of Freedom.
    Name Mean Std Dev Min Max N Std Err Total Coeff. of Var
    1998 547.583 126.789 351 756 12 36.6009 6571 23.2
    2010 498.9 67.3786 389 587 10 21.307 4989 13.5
    Student’s t test for Means for 1998 against 2010
    Difference = 48.6833
    Assuming EQUAL variances, Standard error of the difference = 44.6709
    ‘t’ = 1.09 with 20 DF.
    The 2-sided probability of the observed (or a more extreme) outcome,
    GIVEN that H0 (no difference) is true, is 0.2887
    95% Confidence interval for the difference = -44.5002 to 141.867
    Assuming UNEQUAL variances, Standard error of difference = 42.3511
    ‘t’ = 1.15 with 17.292 DF.
    The 2-sided probability of the observed (or a more extreme) outcome,
    GIVEN that H0 (no difference) is true, is 0.2663
    95% Confidence interval for the difference = -40.5504 to 137.917
    F ratio for the variances = 3.54096, probability 0.0339384 (11 and 9 DF)
    If you suspect that the distributions of your data are far removed from Normal
    you should consider using the Mann-Whitney test (Not available in 1stL)
    Student’s t test for the PAIRED data 1998 and 2010
    These have means 577.6 and 498.9 respectively.
    There are 10 data pairs available – thus 9 degrees of freedom.
    The Mean Difference between pairs = 78.7
    Standard Error of the mean difference = 29.093
    The 95% Confidence interval for the difference is 12.8917 to 144.508
    t = 2.705
    The 2-sided probability of the observed (or more extreme outcome),
    GIVEN that H0 (no difference) is true is 0.02419
    If you suspect that your distributions are far removed from Normal
    you should consider using the Mann-Whitney test (Not available in 1stL)
    ********************
    So there you have it. The overall means are NOT significantly different – but remember that the 2010 data are incomplete.
    If you compare the data month by month – a paired comparison over ten months – the difference between 1998 and 2010 can be said (roughly) to be significant at around the 98% level.
    Remember that t tests presume that the underlying data are roughly normally distributed, but are also remarkably robust against deviations from this ideal situation. As the output suggests, you could try the Mann-Whitney test if this assumption troubles you.
    Any questions?

  106. R. Gates says:
    “It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years. ”
    May be or may be not… this year however the sea was frozen about one month earlier than usual on the shores of my home country. That is very unusual. Natural cycles as we know them seem to againts warming at the moment. All of this happening despite the record amounts of CO2 released to athmosphere by mankind.
    Of course the warmist have changed their rhetorics from horror warming to showcasing the “extreme climate events” around the world. The cold 2011 winter will be fine example of this.

  107. According to UAH 2010 will have the same temperature as 1998. But according to IPCC temperatures are going up by at least 0.2°C per decade. So the warmists are obviously wrong.

  108. “Doug Obach says:
    December 6, 2010 at 8:29 am
    Does anyone know where I can download an excel file with the temperature anomalies dating back to 1850?”
    If you have a txt.-file (like UAH), copy the whole thing into Word. There you can mark (with the alt-key) and delete everything you do not need. Then you can copy the rest (nothing but the temperatures) into Excel.

  109. Wondering Aloud says: December 6, 2010 at 11:54 am
    How much of the anomaly number or the change since 1900 (that .756 number) from the Met office is due to the failure to account for UHI and land use changes and the inserted “corrections” that go the wrong direction? All of it? Or just the vast majority?

    Be very careful with that number, if one starts taking away from it, it might become less than nothing.

  110. “John F. Hultquist says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:22 am
    E.M.Smith says: at 10:18 am & others
    “Watch the crops. They don’t lie. They are saying 2010 was a cold year.”
    My tomatoes told me the same thing – so I chopped them to bits and threw them in the compost pile. Then there are the grapes (always well documented by growers and vintners alike):”
    John and others:
    I live in the Mid West (USA) and my tomotoes ripened three weeks earlier than usual. This is the first year that hardly any green tomotoes were left by early September. Tomatoes were usually early due to the hot spring weather which continued into the summer. This is shame, because the first killing frost was late this year. So, maybe neither Washington State nor Indiana is sufficient to say much about global trends or averages.

  111. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    What I like about R Gates comments is that he does set out clearly what he thinks the position is and will be. This is always helpful. So I can tell later if he was right. I hope. (AGW not easily falsifiable it seems, with all the masking and non linearity of the warming.)
    I trust Mr Gates knows the lag between solar variations and global temps, as modulated/delayed by ocean and cloud effects, and heat transport to the poles etc, so he can be sure the temp “plunge” he mentions would have happened by now. I don’t know the delays/interactions via the different oceanic cycles, etc, sorry. No sarcasm.

  112. James Sexton says: (December 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm)

    Just so I’m clear, you seem to be stating, ‘when it gets hotter, that’s man’s interference with nature via CO2 emissions. But when it stops getting hotter or cools, that’s natural variation. Is that it? Oh, and trends only matter when it shows warming? OK, got that.

    N0, no, no. Read David Whitehouse’s article again. When temperatures rise for a century, that’s natural variation. When temperatures remain at that same (record-high) level for about a decade or less, that’s evidence it was all “a short-term natural effect and nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.”
    How many times do we have to say it? Record high temperatures are unexceptional

  113. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    “The primary reason we saw a leveling off in the increases to temps in the last decade as the prolonged and deep solar minimum, and even with the once in a century solar minimum, we only saw a leveling in the temperature increases and not a plunge. Now we are headed back to a solar max in 2013 or so, and even if it is a modest solar max, temperatures will be rising once more.”
    Really, you are so quick to jump on a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature as “the primary reason” for a lack of temp increases? What exactly is the physical process that leads to both lower sunspots and lower global temperatures here on Earth? I like the theory, but I don’t know of anyone who has nailed down the physics to the point that they can claim a “primary reason” so assuredly.
    Your theory will have to show how we could have had a statistically low number of sunspots for a mere 3 years and yet already have the temperature effects you are claiming. That’s right, the low sunspot count has not been nearly as prolonged as you imply. See this graph of the count since 1750.
    http://global-warming.accuweather.com/sunspot_cycle-1-thumb.gif
    As of about 2005 you could say that we were just beginning the “prolonged and deep solar minimum”. The sunspot count would have fallen to near zero in 2005 as part of it’s natural cycle anyway, so it really didn’t reach statistically low counts until a couple of years later. The count for the next couple of decades is predicted to eventually look like the 1800 to 1820 section of the graph.
    So if you think a mere 3 years of statistically low sunspots has thrown off the IPCC models that much, you’ve got another 17 years to go. “Prolonged and deep” solar minimum is just getting started!

  114. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    It is a long since warn out and tired statement by AGW skeptics that the effects of CO2 increases must be seen in some linear fashion
    ============================================================
    James Sexton says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    Just so I’m clear, you seem to be stating, ‘when it gets hotter, that’s man’s interference with nature via CO2 emissions. But when it stops getting hotter or cools, that’s natural variation
    ===========================================================
    James, I believe he was trying to say that it would have been a lot colder,
    if not for global warming………………………;-)
    I’m expecting a .3 degree jump in temps any minute now……..

  115. If Dr. James “Thumbs On The Temperature Scale” Hansen is permitted sole access to cooking the temperature books at NASA GISS, we can be assured that every new year will be the warmest on record.

  116. I’m not sure why this merits a blog post. From the satellite record (I assume it’s calibrated correctly), the general trend is increasing. The question is whether that increase is significant and/or inside of the range of natural variation. Clearly the answer to the first question is NO and the answer to the second question is YES.
    Endlessly debating whether year X was the warmest on record is totally moot given that larger fluctuations on time-scales far longer than the instrumental or satellite records are the norm. If Vicky Pope says it’s the warmest on record, then she just comes across as ridiculous to anyone with a brain, as we know it’s a totally meaningless fact to hang your thesis on.
    Please, be sensible!

  117. Anonymous Howard says:
    December 6, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    “….When temperatures remain at that same (record-high) level for about a decade or less, that’s evidence it was all “a short-term natural effect and nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
    How many times do we have to say it? Record high temperatures are unexceptional”
    ======================================================
    Hmm, lol, record high temps! Well, if we’re going by sat data, I guess you’re right! We’ve record a decade high in all of the 3 decades we’ve been measuring! OTOH, I’m not sure the 2000 decade was exceptional, the ’30s used to be until an algorerythym lowered the previous high temps. Of course, we can’t be sure that the same algorerythym won’t attack this year, and thus the whole decade. So, while I’m sure this year will be the hottest evuh, we’ve a pretty good chance that it won’t reach the highs established in the 30’s, 90’s or even this decade, well, if those highs existed today.
    All that aside, doesn’t the current climate alarmism thinking go something like ‘an increase in atmospheric CO2 cause an general increase in earth’s temps’?
    You see, I’m a bit confused. We saw an increase in the earth’s temps in the decade of the ’80s, and upon that decade, we decided we needed to do something, so in 1990 we had our very first IPCC report! The correlation was obvious! Man’s increased CO2 output! But, the decade of the 2000s didn’t see an increase.(depending upon data sources, but either way, either a decrease, or an insignificant increase). So did mankind stop increasing CO2 emissions? Or did the correlation cease? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:1991/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1981
    Hmm, seems there really isn’t a correlation. Or it may be, as has been posited, we’ve hit the top end of the logarithmic curve CO2 presents. Either way, all of the hand waving, record breaking,(btw, Steve Goddard has many examples of the hottest year evuh in action! http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com ) ,relative temps doesn’t seem to ebb the tidal wave of skepticism/realism.
    Howard, I hate to break this to you and Mr. Gates, but its dead guys. Temps and CO2 aren’t corresponding anymore. Scientists are wandering off the reservation. The town criers’ arguments are circular and contradictory, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/hansen-global-warming-unabated-met-office-global-warming-has-slowed/
    Nature isn’t cooperating. And no one is buying the snake oil anymore. Meanwhile, some people in G.B. are dealing with real climatic issues, that have the poor riding buses all day to stay warm, the elderly freezing to death and now they’ve got MPs doing a modern day Marie Antoinette in suggesting the government step in and raise the price of energy!

  118. “since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago”? That’s a joke, right?

  119. Jason S. says:
    December 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
    “Call it cherry picking… WHATEVER. If I’m going to buy extreme AGW warm-mongering, you’ve got to show me 2010 was the hottest… period. Not 2nd – or 3rd – or a tie. This El Nino gave us the best shot at warmest evah. That’s 12 years of Co2 (how much ppm increase over 12 years… does anyone know?), and we can’t even statistically tie 1998?
    It’s unfortunate that most climate experts have painted themselves into a corner by down-playing solar activity. Otherwise, I’d give them some credit there. But then we’d have to adjust our models, wouldn’t we.”
    Sorry but your facts are wrong. There was a mild El Nino in the first 3 months of the year, but the balance of the year saw a strong La Nina. The impact of the El Nino cycle was a slight net cooling effect on the global surface temperature.
    If you look at the temperature trend, it is evident that the El Nino of 1998 made the global temperature about 0.2C than it would otherwise have been based on the temperature trend.
    http://theartofstart.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-earths-temperature-is-changing-past.html
    Solar activity in 2010 was at a low for all of 2010, as the new solar cycle is slow to start up. So incident solar radiation was below average. The estimated difference in temperature associated with the solar cycle is about 0.2C, so that if we were at the top of a solar cycle the global average temperature would have been a modern record.

  120. @ E.M. Smith and
    @ Enneagram, both re oranges in Florida, and the year-round problem.
    Fellas, ya got it all wrong! Let me try to “explain” this.
    CO2 from man’s activities warms the Earth, and therefore tropical conditions are moving North-ward, out of Florida and into Georgia. Orange groves are being expanded and moving into southern Georgia. Soon, they will also reach northern Georgia, and eventually into South Carolina and Tennessee. This is all according to the IPCC, that august and authoritative international organization that strives to prevent all manner of horrors due to the Earth’s over-heating.
    Please, do not introduce facts obtained from observation into the discussion. In particular, no facts such as freezes that damaged or destroyed the citrus crop in Florida in recent years; domestic water pipes bursting due to freezing temperatures in Florida; and certainly not the news/weather predictions such as in this link:
    excerpted quote: “Another hard freeze is expected Wednesday morning (12/8/2010) — a forecast low of 22 — which would break a record set in 1984. Thursday morning’s forecast is for a 23 degree low, which would also break a record for the date.”
    http://www.news4jax.com/news/26031471/detail.html
    Please, fellas, stick with the program. It’s getting warmer, everyone knows this, the science is settled, and the fact is that orange trees just aren’t as tough as they used to be.
    Sheesh…
    (sarc off now… boy, that was fun!! )
    Here’s a fascinating, and perhaps accurate, timeline on major Florida freezes that impacted the citrus industry:
    http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/industry-issues/weather/freeze_timeline.aspx
    The list ends in 1989, however. It would be quite instructive to have the major freezes since 1989 added to the list. Perhaps there have been no freezes since 1989, due to global warming….. oh, wait… in January 2010 there was a rather big one. In December 2010 apparently another one — right about now.

  121. Reminds me of a classic statement in statistics. If you put one foot in a bucket of ice water and one foot in a bucket of boiling water, you should feel fine since the average between the two is a nice luke warm. The people pushing CAGW consistently misuse numbers and statistics.

  122. Steve says:
    December 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    “The primary reason we saw a leveling off in the increases to temps in the last decade as the prolonged and deep solar minimum, and even with the once in a century solar minimum, we only saw a leveling in the temperature increases and not a plunge. Now we are headed back to a solar max in 2013 or so, and even if it is a modest solar max, temperatures will be rising once more.”
    Really, you are so quick to jump on a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature as “the primary reason” for a lack of temp increases? What exactly is the physical process that leads to both lower sunspots and lower global temperatures here on Earth? I like the theory, but I don’t know of anyone who has nailed down the physics to the point that they can claim a “primary reason” so assuredly.
    ______
    Steve, low sunspot numbers and cooling periods on earth have been studied for decades. The mechanism is undoubtedly multi-faceted, involving Total Solar Irradiance, reduction of the solar wind, increases in galactic cosmic rays hitting earth, etc. What should be most remarkable to AGW skeptics is that the prolonged and deep solar minimum did not take the temperatures down even more, and, for example, Arctic Sea Ice did not even get back to its running 30 year average. Now indeed, we may be in for a prolonged period of low solar activity, perhaps much like the Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum, but my guess is that the 40% greater amount of CO2 that we have in the atmosphere now versus during those periods will mitigate a great deal of the cooling effects of an such an extended solar minimum. Furthermore, though some forecasters such as Joe Bastardi would call for a cooling period based on cycles in the PDO, NAO, or AMO, the big assumption here is that the 40% increase in CO2 has not affected the ocean currents in such as way that the character of these natural ocean cycles has been affected.

  123. Dr. Whitehhouse speaks for the highly respected and revered Global Warming Propaganda, er, Policy Foundation. If he chooses to completely ignore Roy Spencer’s satellite data, we should probably all do it too. Spencer must surely be some raving alarmist socialist. And let’s not have anyone out there accusing the august Dr. Whitehouse (of Whitehouse Cherry Ice Cream fame?) of selectively picking the little red fruits.

  124. The current IPCC global warming theory would have the November 2010 anomaly at +0.907C.
    Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B prediction has 2010 at +1.035C.
    So, uhmm, yeah the theory is off a little so far.
    The problem is the pro-AGW set never actually checks how their theory’s predictions are doing.

  125. “PaulM says:
    December 6, 2010 at 5:58 am
    To beat 1998, the 2010 HADCRUT3 anomalies for Nov and Dec would have to be up around 0.8 which is pretty unlikely give the current La Nina.”
    This is very true. The number for November 2009 was 0.448. And check out the daily values at Dr. Spencer’s site at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/
    Compare the sea surface and near surface layer for November 2009 with November 2010 and it is obvious that November 2010 will be quite a bit lower than 0.448. And the first 5 days in December also show no signs of warming.

  126. OT but I have to say it: Weather Channel has reduced the forcast low for the western Florida Panhandle down to 18 F for tonight. Definately another record low.

  127. Anonymous Howard says: December 6, 2010 at 1:38 pm
    “How many times do we have to say it? Record high temperatures are unexceptional.”
    Howard, record high temperatures are a certain sign of impending fall. Climate is composed of an infinite number of cycles all of which are about to descend whenever a report of increasing average temperature is released. This is especially true during solar minima and IPCC meetings. Nothing is better than quality data but tree rings are better than nothing, so it follows conclusively that tree rings are better than quality data and that an ice age is on the way.

  128. @ Tallbloke-
    Thanks- knew i was missing something simple. Also, thanks for the link. I’ll try devour that in the next day or two.

  129. Correction: subtract 1.9°C. The 1.6 number was an eyeball estimate. I just did the actual arithmetic. You will note that this demotes 1998 to about the 123rd warmest year. Give or take.

  130. BillD says:
    December 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    I live in the Mid West (USA) and my tomotoes ripened three weeks earlier than usual. This is the first year that hardly any green tomotoes were left by early September. Tomatoes were usually early due to the hot spring weather which continued into the summer. This is shame, because the first killing frost was late this year. So, maybe neither Washington State nor Indiana is sufficient to say much about global trends or averages.

    Unless you’ve got a greenhouse in Western Washington, your tomatoes won’t do well at all.
    Where I live, on Whidbey Island, and west of the Cascades this year, it’s been colder than average most of the year (notice I didn’t say “normal”, since there is no “normal”). I had to wear sweatshirts and light jackets outside during June, July, most of August, etc. And two weeks ago we had temps into the teens F, along with a couple inches of snow. Snow before Xmas is extremely rare here, much less before Thanksgiving.
    My point is, there is no “global climate”. You have regional climates that are disconnected from each other. So averaging temps from Washington State along with Viet Nam, Russia, Tierra Del Fuego, etc, is just an exercise in futility (that goes for the satellite measurements too). If some places cool, some places remain relatively static, and others warm, that says nothing about anything “global”. And with the preponderance of the thermometers placed so poorly, I can honestly say I have no confidence in an average of the surface record, even if obtaining such an average had any meaning in the first place.

  131. I agree that 2010 is not an exceptional year in comparison to the past decade. Looking at NASA’s data, we can learn, as of 2009, “that each of the last 13 years was one of the 14 warmest years in the global recored. By the end of this month just about every agrees that we can say: “each of the last 14 years was one of the 15th warmest on record. Clearly the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest decade in the instrumental record. However, we still need to wait 9 more years to see whether the prediction that “the decade from 2010 to 2019 will be the warmest on record. The question is whether the steady warming over the last 30 years is just natural variation, or do climate scientists know what they are talking and writing about. The next nine years should be interesting.

  132. Jeff Alberts said:
    “…my point is, there is no “global climate”. You have regional climates that are disconnected from each other…”
    ___
    Uh, no. You might want to go back a do quite a bit more studying before making such a broad and very incorrect assertion. Regional climates are part of the complex global climate and though different regions display different reactions to changes in the global climate, they are all very much connected. A perfect example in the ENSO cycle, where Australia gets one kind of weather and South America gets another, and though they are different, they are quite connected.

  133. R. Gates says:
    December 7, 2010 at 10:54 am
    Jeff Alberts said:
    “…my point is, there is no “global climate”. You have regional climates that are disconnected from each other…”
    ___
    Uh, no. You might want to go back a do quite a bit more studying before making such a broad and very incorrect assertion. Regional climates are part of the complex global climate and though different regions display different reactions to changes in the global climate, they are all very much connected. A perfect example in the ENSO cycle, where Australia gets one kind of weather and South America gets another, and though they are different, they are quite connected.
    Uh – yes actually R. You might like to check a dictionary – a well established one such as the Oxford:
    Climate
    the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period:
    “our cold, wet climate”.
    [mass noun] :
    “agricultural development is constrained by climate”, “a region with a particular climate: he had grown up in a hot climate.”
    Origin:
    late Middle English: from Old French climat or late Latin clima, climat-, from Greek klima ‘slope, zone’, from klinein ‘to slope’. The term originally denoted a zone of the earth between two lines of latitude, then any region of the earth, and later, a region considered with reference to its atmospheric conditions. Compare with CLIME.
    This point has been made repeatedly here e.g. by Pamela Gray. The original meaning of “climate” is indeed the integrated general weather experienced in a particular geographic region. So Jeff Alberts ogirinal point is valid. Climate in its original sense is a local parameter.
    Of course no-one will argue that, globally, climates are not linked, and the usage of the word in scientific research has morphed in the direction of global time-integrated weather. But here again you give a very nice example of AGW double-speak. When faced with inconvenient factual evidence for – for instance – the medieval warm period, then it suits the CAGW narrative for the MWP to be a local phenomenon, not global – thus climate is regionalised when necessary. But here in this thread you now find it more expedient to emphasise the global fashion of the word climate. Your characteristic intellectual flexibility takes on an eel-like nature.

  134. phlogiston says:
    December 7, 2010 at 11:35 am
    “This point has been made repeatedly here e.g. by Pamela Gray. The original meaning of “climate” is indeed the integrated general weather experienced in a particular geographic region. So Jeff Alberts ogirinal point is valid. Climate in its original sense is a local parameter.”
    That’s because the original users of the word didn’t have access to global data collected over centuries, so of course their use of climate was geographically regional! Why would they invent a word to describe temperature trends over an entire planet that they hadn’t even finished exploring yet?
    Jeff stated that there is no global climate whatsoever, which is a completely invalid point regardless of the meaning of “climate” 500 years ago. The phenomenon of planet wide weather data over time (climate) exists, and the majority of the users of the English language (a living language) who study this phenomenon have decided that “global climate” is the best descriptor for it. If Jeff doesn’t like it then he can suggest a different word – maybe it will catch on.
    “Global climate” is technically a regional term, by the way, in which the entire surface of the planet is the region. The surfaces of Earth and Venus are different regions with different global climates.
    “…But here again you give a very nice example of AGW double-speak. When faced with inconvenient factual evidence for – for instance – the medieval warm period, then it suits the CAGW narrative for the MWP to be a local phenomenon, not global – thus climate is regionalised when necessary.”
    Claiming that the MWP was a regional (e.g. European) instead of global warming of the climate, while simultaneously stating that both regional and global climate exists, is not double speak in any sense. It would be wrong, but not doublespeak (there is ample evidence that the MWP was a global climate phenomenon – http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php).

  135. phlogiston says:
    December 7, 2010 at 11:35 am
    R. Gates says:
    December 7, 2010 at 10:54 am
    Jeff Alberts said:
    “…my point is, there is no “global climate”. You have regional climates that are disconnected from each other…”
    ___
    Uh, no. You might want to go back a do quite a bit more studying before making such a broad and very incorrect assertion. Regional climates are part of the complex global climate and though different regions display different reactions to changes in the global climate, they are all very much connected. A perfect example in the ENSO cycle, where Australia gets one kind of weather and South America gets another, and though they are different, they are quite connected.
    Uh – yes actually R. You might like to check a dictionary – a well established one such as the Oxford:
    Climate
    the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period:
    “our cold, wet climate”.
    ______
    Thanks for the layman’s dictionary definition but from a scientific perspective it is pretty meaningless. I can talk about the “climate” control mechanism in my house as well. Fortunately smart men and women (yes, those dreaded “climate” scientists) are working hard every day to find those global connections between regional climates that all add up to the global climate. During the period when the earth was going through it’s snowball phases and there was ice all the way to the equator, it would be absurd to think that regions of ice just happened to have come together (unconnected in causation) to form the snowball earth. The whole push and effort of climate science, and indeed, science in general, is to find those connections between seemingly unconnected events. From Milankovitch cycles to CO2 levels, there are causes that do indeed affect the whole globe. Discovering those causes and the mechanisms behind their effects is way human scientific knowledge progresses…

  136. R. Gates says:
    December 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    It will grow increasingly entertaining to watch all the AGW skeptics come up with the reasons why “it isn’t really as hot as the data says” over the next few years. Entertaining in a sad and pathetic sort of way…
    ===============================
    “Entertaining in a sad and pathetic sort of way…”
    Dude you wrote the book on that one long long ago.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  137. R. Gates says:
    December 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    Discovering those causes and the mechanisms behind their effects is way human scientific knowledge progresses…
    =====================================
    And weeding out the weak conjectures and theories on the subject (and the equally weak automatons who tirelessly try to advance them) is ALSO the way human scientific knowledge progresses.
    Unfortunately for the scam of CAGW (but fortunately for the rest of us), the Scientific Method is quite Darwinian in nature.
    And even though the money-mad, powerful, lumbering 800 pound CAGW gorilla in the room might try to stamp out everything else it sees that dares to challenge it…it seems to know its days are numbered.
    Natural Selection will take care of the primitive, bumbling Creature soon enough.
    Blind belief and assumptions by you and your ilk, is the equivalent of feeding the Creature twinkies, so you are assisting Mother Nature in hastening the process by giving it a premature heart attack.
    For that, R, I am grateful.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  138. R. Gates says:
    December 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    Fortunately smart men and women (yes, those dreaded “climate” scientists) are working hard every day to find those global connections between regional climates that all add up to the global climate.
    To see just how hard they are working – you only need to read the contents of the “harry read me.txt” file from the CRU Climategate files.

  139. savethesharks says: (December 7, 2010 at 8:18 pm)

    “Entertaining in a sad and pathetic sort of way…”
    Dude you wrote the book on that one long long ago.

    Ooh, total burn! I nominate for comment of the year!

  140. Jeff Alberts says:
    December 7, 2010 at 6:07 pm
    “So why is there no “global warming” everywhere then? If it’s not global, it isn’t global warming.”
    Have you ever heard of a thing called an interglacial, that portion of an ice age between glacial periods? (Hint: we are in one right now!) It is considered a global climate phenomenon in which the entire planet has warmed.
    The fact that global warming/cooling occurs, or that such a thing as global climate can be discussed, is not in dispute by anyone with half a scientific mind. The reasonable dispute is weather the combined force of the entire human race, over a century or more, can cause any degree of global warming, and to what degree that warming has been or will be. (pun intended)

  141. MACK1 says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    That is an excellent graph – now it just needs to be expanded with the max and mins for each year of the Hadcrut record to see how many record lows and mins have occured in which years.
    Taking the current year 2010 – there are only a couple of peaks above the 95 percentile limits – so how can this be a ‘warmest’ year? Surely, a warmest year would be one where most of the max’s would be above the 95%ile values?

  142. For me, as a UK citizen, the importance of these figures is that the UK Met Office claims this year is a record hot one. They also forecast a warm winter as little as six weeks ago, but the Central England Temperature record, the oldest in the world, showed the fortnight covering the end of November and start of December as the coldest ever since the daily record began in 1772.
    Regardless of the fact that these figures only apply to the UK, if the world famous Met Office can be so wrong (yet again) how can anyone accept their views on “global warming?”

  143. Warm here in Nova Scotia , Canada. The tropical storm blew power lines down. severed fiber optics cables and blew our highspeed receivers out of allignment. 70 mph winds from the south, 55F temperatures a week from Christmas; hurricane weather at this time of the year?
    Our lilacs have green leaves emerging, the blueberry buds are red, the maple branches blown down yesterday haveed buds bursting and I saw poussywillows out. Spring is here and the ice age is awful.

Comments are closed.