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.
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
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.
WikiLeaks And Claim Of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30752
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
matt v. says:
December 6, 2010 at 10:30 am
Easy. They added them all up and got 6.
william says: (December 6, 2010 at 10:02 am)
William, sometimes I think you’re the only one who really gets me, you know?
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?
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.
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.
That’s because it’s a La Nina year.
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
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…
“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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.