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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
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
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)
There was certainly no “global temperature record” 150 years ago. There isn’t one now.
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?
” 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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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/
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.
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/
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Don’t ask, don’t tell……the El Nino became La Niña (the boy became a girl) 🙂
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.
@ur momisugly 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! 🙂
@ur momisugly 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!