NOTE: A second graph has been added. See below.
The RSS data for Dec 2010 is out and available here, and I’m second in publishing it. The honor for being first goes to Lucia at the Blackboard here.
I used the same RSS lower troposphere data, but used a different plotting program than she did, Dplot, which provides for an automatically generated moving average. She computed the annual average as the average over Jan-Dec of each year and plotted each annual average, where I used a built in moving average generator in Dplot, set the moving average generator interval to 12 months, and came up with similar results as she did. The annotated plot is below:
2010’s end moving 12 month average is .510°C at month 383 (Dec. 2010) The peak 12 month moving average value is .550°C at month 239, just after the red 1998 El Niño spike. So by the RSS satellite data, 2010 has not exceeded 1998. Lucia comes to the same conclusion: 2010 is not warmer than 1998, but is a close second. There’s still other year end data sets to be published. I would expect Dr. Roy Spencer to publish UAH soon and we’ll have that also.
Here’s the output from the Dplot program for the two curves above:
Curve 1 – Monthly Anomaly
Minimum = -0.458 at X = 68
Maximum = 0.858 at X = 231
Max – Min = 1.316
Mean = 0.09933333
Standard deviation = 0.2288476
Standard error = 0.1725063
Curve 2 – Moving average (prior), interval=12
Minimum = -0.2989167 at X = 79
Maximum = 0.5506667 at X = 239
Max – Min = 0.8495833
Mean = 0.09812891
Standard deviation = 0.1940199
Standard error = 0.1301371
The peak global monthly temperature anomaly in 1998 was .858°C while in 2010, the peak global monthly temperature anomaly was 0.652°C
Also, the December 2010 value at 0.251°C is down significantly from the peak value of 2010 which was 0.652°C in March. What a difference El Niño to La Niña makes.
UPDATE: I had some time later today after a busy post holiday Monday, so I decided to update this post. To better match the UAH data published today, which uses a 13 month moving central average, I’ve added this annotated plot:
Here’s the output from the Dplot program:
Curve 1 – Monthly Anomaly
Minimum = -0.458 at X = 68
Maximum = 0.858 at X = 231
Max – Min = 1.316
Mean = 0.09933333
Standard deviation = 0.2288476
Curve 2 – Moving average (central), interval=13
Minimum = -0.2908462 at X = 74
Maximum = 0.5316154 at X = 233
Max – Min = 0.8224615
Mean = 0.09751444
Standard deviation = 0.191728
The results are slightly different, and the conclusion remains unchanged. The central moving average is a more correctly representative since it encompasses the entire year, where a lagged average needs to additional data points into 2011 to properly show 2010.
The peaks of the 13 month central average are:
.531 month 233 (1998)
.507 month 374 (2010)
Well in the UK we’ve had the coldest year since the mid 1980’s.
In fact the average temperature has been in decline since April 2007 in the UK.
December was the coldest recorded since the UK national record started in 1910 and in London it was the coldest December since 1890 😮
What is of interest is that CET has been cold in the 2nd hottest satellite recorded year, so was the earth hotter when CET was recording cold in the past?
Unfortunately CET is the oldest record so we will never know, but on the second hottest year you’d expect CET to correlate.
I bet this data set will not reach MSM. It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.
12 years and no measurable increase in temperature?
That’s going to take some spinning.
That’s a hell of a big drop in December. Let’s hope it doesn’t continue to fall off the cliff.
No doubt the warmists will be trumpeting the 2010 figure and claiming that global warming has not gone away.
It will now be interesting to see how temperatures pan out during the early to mid part of 2011 and to compare these with 1999.
Certainly not the warmest here in Western Washington. We’ve been running 10+ degrees F below average now and most of 2010.
The alarmists have already written their headlines “2010 the _______ Warmest Year on Record” Fill in the blank.
In December 1998 temperature at El Niño 1+2 are was above 28 deg.Celsius, in 2010 it is around 22. That graph it is as true as the hockey stick. But the question is: Will your EPA punish YOU because of this?. You must know that these lies won’t affect anyone else in the whole world but you.
This can’t be right, I mean Al Gore and his buddies won’t let it be…
And the nonsensical claims that the rise in Global TLT anomalies are the result of AGW shall commence.
Can you explain what is meant by “warmest year”? Does that mean the greatest imbalance between energy received and energy radiated to space, or the year with the greatest amount of energy held in the atmosphere globally, or the year with the most days with average global temperatures above some value, or? In a year where the oceans are spewing stored energy into the atmosphere I’d kind of expect to see some warming, but I’d also expect it wouldn’t last long.
There does appear to be some global cooling underway based on ocean surface temperature delta over average. It will be interesting to see what the planetary average will be for 2011 and how the AGW aficionados explain a cooling planet.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.1.3.2011.gif
Well that settles the RSS data. I wonder how the GISS pans out?
GIGO
No doubt about it. It was almost worse than we thought. A few one hundredths of a degree would have tipped us into an inferno. Just be thankful for our moral and intellectual superiors in the
Gaia movementclimatology sciences for having clearly foretold of this near apocalypse. We must heed their warnings and do everything in our power to stop the climate from changing! Look what happened to the dinosaurs! They just wouldn’t listen, now look where they are…Seriously though, I hope you had a pleasant respite Mr Watts.
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
The latest AMSU-A near surface layer difference on 28 Dec. between 2009 and 2010 is no less than 0.49 degrees C. That is some plunge and could well herald a colder 2011 compared to 2010. The fall starts after 25 December so it could also be a malfunction, not corrected because of holidays.
Will we see all the watermelon scientists publicly retract all their comments about the “new warmest year”. Very much doubt it, they knew the way things were going which why they got the comment out early. Despicable.
According to Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress and the paper that preceded it, aren’t we supposed to be well over 1°C warmer than the late 20-th Century benchmark with an ice-free Arctic passage? Is there any statistical significance to a prediction that is off by factors of 3x, 4x, even 5x?
The press will wait until GISS comes out with their result and then vent on and on about the hottest year ever. But in the end, we are only talking about a few hundreths of a degree.
Now the question will be, “How low can it go?” Some models show the La Nina hanging tough clear through into 2012. The moving average might drop below zero.
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North
I think it’s better to center the moving average value on the midpoint of the range rather than at the end of the period. The 6-month offset is incorrect information.
Just to be precise,
would you make it a point to label the MSU plots with the
particular channel analysis?
In this case the ‘LT’ or ‘Lower Troposphere’ analysis.
The MT ( Middle Troposphere ) of course has a significantly different
trend ( over the MSU era ).
The MT is also not a multi channel analysis as the LT is.
Further, the MT roughly corresponds to the height of the
erroneously modeled tropical upper troposhperic hot spot.
While 2010 indicated a second most warm calendar year for the MT as well,
the MSU era trend from RSS is about 0.53 C per century.
That is a rate lower than not only the surface and LT analyses, but lower than the
IPCC significance level.
ahh … but those figures are surely unadjusted figures? 😉
Can somebody work out how to move some of this excess warmth to where people actually live? Last winter was cold, spring was a chilly washout, summer nothing special with occasional frosts, the autumn wet again, and now the winter is freezing cold again.
I’m surprised how fast it cooled from earlier highs in the year! It seemed the NH had to drop like a stone to make the mean less than 1998. Continuously amazed just how dynamic the system is sometimes.
Well I’m surprised that 2010 is as high as ‘second hottest year’, according to RSS!
Perhaps the algorithms which produce the temperature anomalies from the instrument readings don’t cope well with all the extra cloud and snow cover seen during 2010 – WUWT?
Just give it a couple of years…. 2010 will get warmer.
1998 will likely also retroactively cool.
Mr. Felton:
Nova Scotia has been unusually warm through the 2009/2010 winter, the 2010 spring, the 2010 summer, the 2010 fall and the first 2 weeks of this winter. Today it’s 38F, yesterday was 46F etc.
Guess what ; people live here. Not superior people of course, but people.
geronimo says: “Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?”
The RSS presents TLT data from 70S to 82N, so they basically have the Arctic covered. (The latitudes north of 82N represent less than 1% of the global surface area, if memory serves.) There is Antarctic TLT data south of 70S, but RSS elects not to publish it due to the elevation of much of Antarctica. And since the UAH TLT anomalies for the Antarctic have a negative trend, it’s exclusion by RSS could only lead to a positive bias.
Caleb says: “On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, ‘because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.'”
Two Novembers in one year? He must like Novembers.
It certainly is an interesting graph. For some reason I never noticed that the amplitude/length of the oscillations in the 2000’s was much smaller than the rest of the record. It looks like we may be moving back into the previous pattern though.
Like Mr. Mann, I viewed some tree rings from Douglas fir I converted to fire wood (last October). The trees were approximately 70 years old in a remote area (very remote). Interestingly, the younger growth rings for the past 12 years were significantly thinner by at least 1/2 those previous growth rings. The data has now been modified to ashes, never the less, take my work seriously, both the trees and I paid a price to once and for all end the argument: Those trees are (were) definitely deniers.
geronimo says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North>>
Significance is relative. On the one hand, we don’t much live in those zones, very little does, its just too cold to support life, travel through it, work in it, so who cares? Let’s focus on the parts of the planet that make a difference to us.
On the other hand, since the amount of energy flux required to cause a temperature change of (for example) one degree is much lower at cold temperatures than at high temperatures, we would expect that any fluctuations in earth temperatures will be much larger (both up and down) for any given time period in the coldest parts of the planet. Since GISS uses land based data and is just fine with a single weather station in the antarctic representing a 1200km radius, I’m sure they’ll have different results as a consequence. Well, unless of course they show even more cooling. In which case they’ll most likely declare a 1200 km radius from one weather station to be rediculous and eliminate it. Or adjust it. Or adjust everything except it downward first. Or just print a graph without saying where the data came from. Or substitute the temperature data with tree rings. From Siberia. Air freighted to the Antarctic and left to stand for one day to acclimatize, then cored, all 300 of them, the ones that are wrong burnt, and the 2 or 3 that have data that is RIGHT added to the temperature record. Its standard science to selectively choose data and splice different data together like that, the scientists said so at the climategate inquiries. I think they can also go the other way, which is to keep the wrong data, but flip it upside down. I know that one’s accepted because when they’re caught they just go “so?” and keep using it.
What was the question again?
Nigel (or ‘Lord’, if you prefer) Lawson has pointed out that if world population had stopped rising in 1995, and been constant for 15 years, there would heaps of comment in the MSM.
The actual point about all this ranking of 2010is that the AGW camp were forecasting a continued rise from 1995, and this has not happened. If a scientific theory makes untrue predictions it should be junked. Period.
The 5 Freeway in LA a major north/south freeway, was closed because of snow squalls last night/today . . . snowing in Los Angeles.
More Global Warming proof.
Tamino is pushing GISS pretty hard. I’m sure celebrations are in order over there. The Year 2010 was the hottest year since the Battle of Hastings! Oh Happy Day!
For all you solar enthusiasts, here is what you get when you add the sunspot to the graph: http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
[Thank you for the feedback. Robt]
Still, the hottest year on record doesn’t belong to this millennium, but the previous one.
😀
I wonder what the record would look like if the highest and lowest months were excluded from the averages.
Luboš Motl on ‘the reference frame’ post the same result.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/rss-2010-was-second-warmest-after-1998.html#more
@ Adam Gallon – January 3, 2011 at 7:17 am
Agreed!
My favourite guesses for the ‘spinning’ are:
“The warming is in the post…”
“It’s natural variation…”
“12 years is far too short to draw any conclusion…”
“Our computer models show close agreement with, er… something…”
“What do you know? We’re climate scientists…”
🙂
Two things. First off, with a strong El Nino, and all that nasty CO2 added to the atmosphere, shouldn’t this year easily have been hotter than 1998?
Second thing. Are these temperature anomolies being caused by higher highs, or lower lows, or some unknowable combination? When I plot local temps, I come up with a higher avg, but, actually, lower high temps. Nearly all the movement in the avg is on the low side.
the second hottest year in history (utter bs).
But even if it was the 2nd hottest year, were there any climate catastrophes associated with it?
So the average went from around 0°C anomaly in the 1980-1997 period to +0.25°C in the last decade. Given the error bars that means nothing. So Dec 2010 was the 2nd largest non-blip in the last 3 decades???? Given annual, seasonal, and daily temp ranges, this is nothing.
Where’s the microscopic alarm bell we should ring?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
For all you solar enthusiasts, here is what you get when you add the sunspot to the graph: http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
And for solar magnetic field enthusiasts I have added [green] the Heliospheric Magnetic Field [measured at Earth].
Jeroen says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:14 am
“I bet this data set will not reach MSM. It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.”
….. I’m quite happy to post on my next blog that it was the coldest UK December for 120 years. What’s the bother? It was. The air came straight down off the North Pole to us. It was extremely cold. You are not by any chance hoping to create a false impression of temperatures elsewhere – are you???
“up to us to post it on numerous sites”, eh? A call to the ranks, eh? Hey – I’ll save you the job, but I will continue to explore science and not muppetish propaganda.
Cheers – John
The temperatures in the canadian arctic have been between ten and twenty degrees warmer than average in december and still are.
Well, its the 4th Jan 2011 (Where I am ) and, so far, I’ve not heard the screams from the MSM that 2010 was “the hottest ever”. So, I guess, those powers that be are trying to spin it…with the NH as it is I suspect 2010 won’t be reported as the “hottest” on record somehow.
Oh hang on. Is that a DC9/10 in the sky?
Caleb wrote:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Please Oh Please send me a link to that… I SOOO want to use it!
So where does 1998 and 2010 end up at with the inclusion of the whole of both polar regions? Would those two years still be the warmest in the sat-era?
Or is it too weird to include the whole globe in a global average.
Honestly.
I’m very happy.
It’s one less problem. There is no free lunch.
Hansen (happy new year, try again)
Pofarmer says:
The El Nino this year was not nearly as strong an El Nino as 1998. This can be seen by both the ENSO indices and also by looking at how 1998 stood out from any previous years: Note that the 12-month average that year didn’t just beat any previous 12 month average by a little bit…It crushed it by a mile (about 0.4 C in the lower tropospheric temperatures). With such an outlier event, it is not surprising that it took a while until we actually equaled that temperature again. Note also how in the years since 1998, the 12-month-average temperature has spent the vast majority of its time above any peak 12-month average that occurred previous to 1998.
“The temperatures in the canadian arctic have been between ten and twenty degrees warmer than average in december and still are.”
JCL,
That is quite normal for a negative AO. And as a rule thumb, when looking at long range weather patterns, it is best to look at the oceans and not the land masses. The oceans absorb and transport huge amounts of kinetic energy versus the land masses.
Now we shall breathlessly await whatever proclamation shall come from NASA, as only the esteemed Dr. Hansen and GISS can properly extrapolate the global temperature effects of the Arctic lava fields.
Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Dec.’10: +0.18 deg. C [new base period])
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
UAH report same – 2010 second to 1998. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
I think it’s better to center the moving average value on the midpoint of the range rather than at the end of the period. The 6-month offset is incorrect information.
If you want the hottest calendar year ever, then you take January to December. All other 12 months periods are an entirely different average. Valid, sure, but not a calendar year.
In any event, all taking the average at the middle of the period does is move the dots 6 months left. If you want the middle period average, move all the dots 6 months left and then look at the last one there. Is that really that different?
De Bilt (Netherlands) has not shown any warming for the last 14 years:
http://www.klimaatgek.nl
geronimo said January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
Anthony REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North
———————–
Anthony, What’s your response to the second half of geronimo’s question?
Caleb says:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Well, if you look at the UAH Global Temperature graph, they use a running, centered 13-month average and November to November is 13 months.
“Warmest Year” is much ado about nothing and proves nothing. If the temperature record of the past century was reduced to a linear representation, every year would be slightly warmer than the previous. That is exactly what happens naturally, in this case after the LIA.
Where’s the dramatic hockey stick blade? All I see are seasonal cycles superimposed on a slowly undulating base. Yet in the 1990’s we were warned against the dramatic unstoppable rise. Is that still expected? What date are they predicting that to arrive now? Dec. 21 2012?
from the straight line trend shown in Leif’s plot of RSS data:
http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
slope= 0.016, ie 1.6C/century.
eyeball averaging form UAH data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
about 0.3 C in 30 years => 1C/century.
These are physically independent datasets (unlike the “independent” surface temperature records that rely largely on the same source data). In both cases the last 10 or 12 years is close to leveled off, most of the rise was pre-2000.
All of this with “business as usual” CO2 increase globally.
If there is a CO2 signal , it is a lot weaker than claimed by the IPCC based upon fictitious, unsubstantiated “climate sensitivity” fiddly factor.
I am confused. Dr. Spencer’s UAH site http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures seems to indicate an anomaly of +.18; a .2 degree drop from Nov. That would be very significant in at least two ways. First, it would indicate the rate of warming is < 1 degree C per century (I figured .579). Second, if January were to drop as much ALL warming since 1980 would be wiped out. Am I missing something?
Sonicfrog says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:31 am
Caleb wrote:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Please Oh Please send me a link to that… I SOOO want to use it!
You might want to snoop around “The Weather Channel” warmistas . They suffer acute warmistiosis with symptoms such as using the meteorological year along with their other warmista propaganda.
Typical problem with statistical analysis, where and what is used to paint the desired picture. But but but…. that is what we do, we start here, end there, chose this data, ignore/reject that data. That is why we enjoy fine Cognac with a good smoke (CO2 generator) – a distraction from hyper-hype.
Well, if you look at the UAH Global Temperature graph, they use a running, centered 13-month average and November to November is 13 months.
Can someone please quickly explain why almost all the rest of the world uses a 12 month moving average but climate science differs in using 13 months?
Doesn’t that just allow seasonal effects to be reintroduced?
I predict (jokingly) we are to see -0.25 anomaly within a year or less.
Anthony at least you fixed the smoothing issue a bit in your update. However the 2010 result us still sonnet because if edge efffects. The averaging window is having to fake data values that do not exist.
To do a proper job you have to wait another few months to get some real readings.
On the other hand I don’t think it’s going to affect the conclusion much. Its also not super important since records have more value as entertainment than as indicators of temperature. trends.
[I am glad you feel entertained. However, if you continue with contemptuous snark be prepared for your posts, containing nothing of value, to be eliminated from the review…. bl57~mod]
Caleb says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:08 am
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Strictly from Dec 1st to Nov 30th, but otherwise correct.
Ulick Stafford says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
UAH report same – 2010 second to 1998.
What Spencer actually said is: “As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
So evidently Ulick chose the latter option.
Well the plot indicates why it is that high frequency oscilloscopes should be banned.
You take a nice clean signal like that blue graph; and you run it through a high speed scope, and the damn thing adds all kinds of high frequency noise to the signal and you get that meaningless chaff shown in red.
If it was me, I would buy a newer scope that is maybe only one tenth of the bandwidth, and maybe you would get even cleaner signals than the blue graph.
Why is it that some “Scientists” feel it is not ok to report their actual results; but they seem to feel some urge to fabricate something false, from their real data, and try to pass that off as science.
Leave the damn data alone, as it was when you found it.
“”””” ← It’s such a cold December: 2010 ends on a chilly note where people liveCalifornia’s remarkable December weather →RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second
Posted on January 3, 2011 by Anthony Watts
NOTE: A second graph has been added. See below.
The RSS data for Dec 2010 is out and available here, and I’m second in publishing it. The honor for being first goes to Lucia at the Blackboard here.
I used the same RSS lower troposphere data, but used a different plotting program than she did, Dplot, which provides for an automatically generated moving average. She computed the annual average as the average over Jan-Dec of each year and plotted each annual average, where I used a built in moving average generator in Dplot, set the moving average generator interval to 12 months, and came up with similar results as she did. The annotated plot is below:
click to enlarge
2010′s end moving 12 month average is .510°C at month 383 (Dec. 2010) The peak 12 month moving average value is .550°C at month 239, just after the red 1998 El Niño spike. So by the RSS satellite data, 2010 has not exceeded 1998. Lucia comes to the same conclusion: 2010 is not warmer than 1998, but is a close second. There’s still other year end data sets to be published. I would expect Dr. Roy Spencer to publish UAH soon and we’ll have that also.
Here’s the output from the Dplot program for the two curves above:
Curve 1 – Monthly Anomaly
Minimum = -0.458 at X = 68
Maximum = 0.858 at X = 231
Max – Min = 1.316
Mean = 0.09933333
Standard deviation = 0.2288476
Standard error = 0.1725063
Curve 2 – Moving average (prior), interval=12
Minimum = -0.2989167 at X = 79
Maximum = 0.5506667 at X = 239
Max – Min = 0.8495833
Mean = 0.09812891
Standard deviation = 0.1940199
Standard error = 0.1301371
The peak global monthly temperature anomaly in 1998 was .858°C while in 2010, the peak global monthly temperature anomaly was 0.652°C
Also, the December 2010 value at 0.251°C is down significantly from the peak value of 2010 which was 0.652°C in March. What a difference El Niño to La Niña makes.
UPDATE: I had some time later today after a busy post holiday Monday, so I decided to update this post. To better match the UAH data published today, which uses a 13 month moving central average, I’ve added this annotated plot:
click to enlarge
Here’s the output from the Dplot program:
Curve 1 – Monthly Anomaly
Minimum = -0.458 at X = 68
Maximum = 0.858 at X = 231
Max – Min = 1.316
Mean = 0.09933333
Standard deviation = 0.2288476
Curve 2 – Moving average (central), interval=13
Minimum = -0.2908462 at X = 74
Maximum = 0.5316154 at X = 233
Max – Min = 0.8224615
Mean = 0.09751444
Standard deviation = 0.191728
The results are slightly different, and the conclusion remains unchanged. The central moving average is a more correctly representative since it encompasses the entire year, where a lagged average needs to additional data points into 2011 to properly show 2010.
The peaks of the 13 month central average are:
.531 month 233 (1998)
.507 month 374 (2010)
Share this: StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Email
——————————————————————————–
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Bias In Satellite Temperature Metrics
Satellite Temps Getting Closer
Does satellite data show warming?
This entry was posted in climate data and tagged climate, Roy Spencer, RSS. Bookmark the permalink.
← It’s such a cold December: 2010 ends on a chilly note where people liveCalifornia’s remarkable December weather →LikeBe the first to like this post.72 Responses to RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second
Byz says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:12 am
Well in the UK we’ve had the coldest year since the mid 1980′s.
In fact the average temperature has been in decline since April 2007 in the UK.
December was the coldest recorded since the UK national record started in 1910 and in London it was the coldest December since 1890 😮
What is of interest is that CET has been cold in the 2nd hottest satellite recorded year, so was the earth hotter when CET was recording cold in the past?
Unfortunately CET is the oldest record so we will never know, but on the second hottest year you’d expect CET to correlate.
Jeroen says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:14 am
I bet this data set will not reach MSM. It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.
Adam Gallon says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:17 am
12 years and no measurable increase in temperature?
That’s going to take some spinning.
Steeptown says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:25 am
That’s a hell of a big drop in December. Let’s hope it doesn’t continue to fall off the cliff.
richard verney says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:29 am
No doubt the warmists will be trumpeting the 2010 figure and claiming that global warming has not gone away.
It will now be interesting to see how temperatures pan out during the early to mid part of 2011 and to compare these with 1999.
Jeff Alberts says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:33 am
Certainly not the warmest here in Western Washington. We’ve been running 10+ degrees F below average now and most of 2010.
Joshua says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:36 am
The alarmists have already written their headlines “2010 the _______ Warmest Year on Record” Fill in the blank.
Enneagram says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:38 am
In December 1998 temperature at El Niño 1+2 are was above 28 deg.Celsius, in 2010 it is around 22. That graph it is as true as the hockey stick. But the question is: Will your EPA punish YOU because of this?. You must know that these lies won’t affect anyone else in the whole world but you.
Beesaman says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:50 am
This can’t be right, I mean Al Gore and his buddies won’t let it be…
Bob Tisdale says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:53 am
And the nonsensical claims that the rise in Global TLT anomalies are the result of AGW shall commence.
dp says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:54 am
Can you explain what is meant by “warmest year”? Does that mean the greatest imbalance between energy received and energy radiated to space, or the year with the greatest amount of energy held in the atmosphere globally, or the year with the most days with average global temperatures above some value, or? In a year where the oceans are spewing stored energy into the atmosphere I’d kind of expect to see some warming, but I’d also expect it wouldn’t last long.
William says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:59 am
There does appear to be some global cooling underway based on ocean surface temperature delta over average. It will be interesting to see what the planetary average will be for 2011 and how the AGW aficionados explain a cooling planet.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.1.3.2011.gif
Vince Causey says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:59 am
Well that settles the RSS data. I wonder how the GISS pans out?
ew-3 says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:03 am
GIGO
INGSOC says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:03 am
No doubt about it. It was almost worse than we thought. A few one hundredths of a degree would have tipped us into an inferno. Just be thankful for our moral and intellectual superiors in the Gaia movement climatology sciences for having clearly foretold of this near apocalypse. We must heed their warnings and do everything in our power to stop the climate from changing! Look what happened to the dinosaurs! They just wouldn’t listen, now look where they are…
Seriously though, I hope you had a pleasant respite Mr Watts.
Caleb says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:08 am
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
John Peter says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:09 am
The latest AMSU-A near surface layer difference on 28 Dec. between 2009 and 2010 is no less than 0.49 degrees C. That is some plunge and could well herald a colder 2011 compared to 2010. The fall starts after 25 December so it could also be a malfunction, not corrected because of holidays.
Pingo says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:10 am
Will we see all the watermelon scientists publicly retract all their comments about the “new warmest year”. Very much doubt it, they knew the way things were going which why they got the comment out early. Despicable.
P.F. says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:10 am
According to Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress and the paper that preceded it, aren’t we supposed to be well over 1°C warmer than the late 20-th Century benchmark with an ice-free Arctic passage? Is there any statistical significance to a prediction that is off by factors of 3x, 4x, even 5x?
P Gosselin says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:14 am
The press will wait until GISS comes out with their result and then vent on and on about the hottest year ever. But in the end, we are only talking about a few hundreths of a degree.
Caleb says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:14 am
Now the question will be, “How low can it go?” Some models show the La Nina hanging tough clear through into 2012. The moving average might drop below zero.
geronimo says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North
Gary says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
I think it’s better to center the moving average value on the midpoint of the range rather than at the end of the period. The 6-month offset is incorrect information.
ClimateWatcher says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:20 am
Just to be precise,
would you make it a point to label the MSU plots with the
particular channel analysis?
In this case the ‘LT’ or ‘Lower Troposphere’ analysis.
The MT ( Middle Troposphere ) of course has a significantly different
trend ( over the MSU era ).
The MT is also not a multi channel analysis as the LT is.
Further, the MT roughly corresponds to the height of the
erroneously modeled tropical upper troposhperic hot spot.
While 2010 indicated a second most warm calendar year for the MT as well,
the MSU era trend from RSS is about 0.53 C per century.
That is a rate lower than not only the surface and LT analyses, but lower than the
IPCC significance level.
matthu says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:21 am
ahh … but those figures are surely unadjusted figures? 😉
Bertram Felden says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:27 am
Can somebody work out how to move some of this excess warmth to where people actually live? Last winter was cold, spring was a chilly washout, summer nothing special with occasional frosts, the autumn wet again, and now the winter is freezing cold again.
Dave in Canmore says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:36 am
I’m surprised how fast it cooled from earlier highs in the year! It seemed the NH had to drop like a stone to make the mean less than 1998. Continuously amazed just how dynamic the system is sometimes.
Tenuc says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:42 am
Well I’m surprised that 2010 is as high as ‘second hottest year’, according to RSS!
Perhaps the algorithms which produce the temperature anomalies from the instrument readings don’t cope well with all the extra cloud and snow cover seen during 2010 – WUWT?
Elizabeth says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:43 am
Just give it a couple of years…. 2010 will get warmer.
1998 will likely also retroactively cool.
John McManus says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:45 am
Mr. Felton:
Nova Scotia has been unusually warm through the 2009/2010 winter, the 2010 spring, the 2010 summer, the 2010 fall and the first 2 weeks of this winter. Today it’s 38F, yesterday was 46F etc.
Guess what ; people live here. Not superior people of course, but people.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:53 am
geronimo says: “Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?”
The RSS presents TLT data from 70S to 82N, so they basically have the Arctic covered. (The latitudes north of 82N represent less than 1% of the global surface area, if memory serves.) There is Antarctic TLT data south of 70S, but RSS elects not to publish it due to the elevation of much of Antarctica. And since the UAH TLT anomalies for the Antarctic have a negative trend, it’s exclusion by RSS could only lead to a positive bias.
Bob Tisdale says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:55 am
Caleb says: “On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, ‘because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.’”
Two Novembers in one year? He must like Novembers.
thegoodlocust says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:59 am
It certainly is an interesting graph. For some reason I never noticed that the amplitude/length of the oscillations in the 2000′s was much smaller than the rest of the record. It looks like we may be moving back into the previous pattern though.
GARY KRAUSE says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:00 am
Like Mr. Mann, I viewed some tree rings from Douglas fir I converted to fire wood (last October). The trees were approximately 70 years old in a remote area (very remote). Interestingly, the younger growth rings for the past 12 years were significantly thinner by at least 1/2 those previous growth rings. The data has now been modified to ashes, never the less, take my work seriously, both the trees and I paid a price to once and for all end the argument: Those trees are (were) definitely deniers.
davidmhoffer says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:03 am
geronimo says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North>>
Significance is relative. On the one hand, we don’t much live in those zones, very little does, its just too cold to support life, travel through it, work in it, so who cares? Let’s focus on the parts of the planet that make a difference to us.
On the other hand, since the amount of energy flux required to cause a temperature change of (for example) one degree is much lower at cold temperatures than at high temperatures, we would expect that any fluctuations in earth temperatures will be much larger (both up and down) for any given time period in the coldest parts of the planet. Since GISS uses land based data and is just fine with a single weather station in the antarctic representing a 1200km radius, I’m sure they’ll have different results as a consequence. Well, unless of course they show even more cooling. In which case they’ll most likely declare a 1200 km radius from one weather station to be rediculous and eliminate it. Or adjust it. Or adjust everything except it downward first. Or just print a graph without saying where the data came from. Or substitute the temperature data with tree rings. From Siberia. Air freighted to the Antarctic and left to stand for one day to acclimatize, then cored, all 300 of them, the ones that are wrong burnt, and the 2 or 3 that have data that is RIGHT added to the temperature record. Its standard science to selectively choose data and splice different data together like that, the scientists said so at the climategate inquiries. I think they can also go the other way, which is to keep the wrong data, but flip it upside down. I know that one’s accepted because when they’re caught they just go “so?” and keep using it.
What was the question again?
TFN Johnson says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:05 am
Nigel (or ‘Lord’, if you prefer) Lawson has pointed out that if world population had stopped rising in 1995, and been constant for 15 years, there would heaps of comment in the MSM.
The actual point about all this ranking of 2010is that the AGW camp were forecasting a continued rise from 1995, and this has not happened. If a scientific theory makes untrue predictions it should be junked. Period.
Fred from Canuckistan says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:06 am
The 5 Freeway in LA a major north/south freeway, was closed because of snow squalls last night/today . . . snowing in Los Angeles.
More Global Warming proof.
JP says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:10 am
Tamino is pushing GISS pretty hard. I’m sure celebrations are in order over there. The Year 2010 was the hottest year since the Battle of Hastings! Oh Happy Day!
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
For all you solar enthusiasts, here is what you get when you add the sunspot to the graph: http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
[Thank you for the feedback. Robt]
Urederra says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:29 am
Still, the hottest year on record doesn’t belong to this millennium, but the previous one.
😀
Craig Moore says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:42 am
I wonder what the record would look like if the highest and lowest months were excluded from the averages.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:46 am
Luboš Motl on ‘the reference frame’ post the same result.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/rss-2010-was-second-warmest-after-1998.html#more
Arfur Bryant says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:54 am
@ Adam Gallon – January 3, 2011 at 7:17 am
Agreed!
My favourite guesses for the ‘spinning’ are:
“The warming is in the post…”
“It’s natural variation…”
“12 years is far too short to draw any conclusion…”
“Our computer models show close agreement with, er… something…”
“What do you know? We’re climate scientists…”
🙂
Pofarmer says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:57 am
Two things. First off, with a strong El Nino, and all that nasty CO2 added to the atmosphere, shouldn’t this year easily have been hotter than 1998?
Second thing. Are these temperature anomolies being caused by higher highs, or lower lows, or some unknowable combination? When I plot local temps, I come up with a higher avg, but, actually, lower high temps. Nearly all the movement in the avg is on the low side.
P Wilson says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:00 am
the second hottest year in history (utter bs).
But even if it was the 2nd hottest year, were there any climate catastrophes associated with it?
AJStrata says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:00 am
So the average went from around 0°C anomaly in the 1980-1997 period to +0.25°C in the last decade. Given the error bars that means nothing. So Dec 2010 was the 2nd largest non-blip in the last 3 decades???? Given annual, seasonal, and daily temp ranges, this is nothing.
Where’s the microscopic alarm bell we should ring?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:01 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
For all you solar enthusiasts, here is what you get when you add the sunspot to the graph: http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
And for solar magnetic field enthusiasts I have added [green] the Heliospheric Magnetic Field [measured at Earth].
John Mason says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:03 am
Jeroen says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:14 am
“I bet this data set will not reach MSM. It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.”
….. I’m quite happy to post on my next blog that it was the coldest UK December for 120 years. What’s the bother? It was. The air came straight down off the North Pole to us. It was extremely cold. You are not by any chance hoping to create a false impression of temperatures elsewhere – are you???
“up to us to post it on numerous sites”, eh? A call to the ranks, eh? Hey – I’ll save you the job, but I will continue to explore science and not muppetish propaganda.
Cheers – John
JCL says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:13 am
The temperatures in the canadian arctic have been between ten and twenty degrees warmer than average in december and still are.
Patrick Davis says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:31 am
Well, its the 4th Jan 2011 (Where I am ) and, so far, I’ve not heard the screams from the MSM that 2010 was “the hottest ever”. So, I guess, those powers that be are trying to spin it…with the NH as it is I suspect 2010 won’t be reported as the “hottest” on record somehow.
Oh hang on. Is that a DC9/10 in the sky?
Sonicfrog says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:31 am
Caleb wrote:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Please Oh Please send me a link to that… I SOOO want to use it!
1DandyTroll says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:33 am
So where does 1998 and 2010 end up at with the inclusion of the whole of both polar regions? Would those two years still be the warmest in the sat-era?
Or is it too weird to include the whole globe in a global average.
Fernando says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:36 am
Honestly.
I’m very happy.
It’s one less problem. There is no free lunch.
Hansen (happy new year, try again)
Joel Shore says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:06 am
Pofarmer says:
Two things. First off, with a strong El Nino, and all that nasty CO2 added to the atmosphere, shouldn’t this year easily have been hotter than 1998?
The El Nino this year was not nearly as strong an El Nino as 1998. This can be seen by both the ENSO indices and also by looking at how 1998 stood out from any previous years: Note that the 12-month average that year didn’t just beat any previous 12 month average by a little bit…It crushed it by a mile (about 0.4 C in the lower tropospheric temperatures). With such an outlier event, it is not surprising that it took a while until we actually equaled that temperature again. Note also how in the years since 1998, the 12-month-average temperature has spent the vast majority of its time above any peak 12-month average that occurred previous to 1998.
JP says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:22 am
“The temperatures in the canadian arctic have been between ten and twenty degrees warmer than average in december and still are.”
JCL,
That is quite normal for a negative AO. And as a rule thumb, when looking at long range weather patterns, it is best to look at the oceans and not the land masses. The oceans absorb and transport huge amounts of kinetic energy versus the land masses.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:24 am
Now we shall breathlessly await whatever proclamation shall come from NASA, as only the esteemed Dr. Hansen and GISS can properly extrapolate the global temperature effects of the Arctic lava fields.
Fernando says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:38 am
Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (Dec.’10: +0.18 deg. C [new base period])
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Ulick Stafford says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
UAH report same – 2010 second to 1998. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
Mooloo says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:49 am
I think it’s better to center the moving average value on the midpoint of the range rather than at the end of the period. The 6-month offset is incorrect information.
If you want the hottest calendar year ever, then you take January to December. All other 12 months periods are an entirely different average. Valid, sure, but not a calendar year.
In any event, all taking the average at the middle of the period does is move the dots 6 months left. If you want the middle period average, move all the dots 6 months left and then look at the last one there. Is that really that different?
Rob de Vos says:
January 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm
De Bilt (Netherlands) has not shown any warming for the last 14 years:
http://www.klimaatgek.nl
Jack Greer says:
January 3, 2011 at 12:49 pm
geronimo said January 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
Anthony, do the RSS satellites measure the temperatures in the polar regions, and if they don’t is that significant?
Anthony REPLY: -70 to 82.5 North
———————–
Anthony, What’s your response to the second half of geronimo’s question?
Katherine says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Caleb says:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Well, if you look at the UAH Global Temperature graph, they use a running, centered 13-month average and November to November is 13 months.
Sam Glasser says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm
“Warmest Year” is much ado about nothing and proves nothing. If the temperature record of the past century was reduced to a linear representation, every year would be slightly warmer than the previous. That is exactly what happens naturally, in this case after the LIA.
David L says:
January 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Where’s the dramatic hockey stick blade? All I see are seasonal cycles superimposed on a slowly undulating base. Yet in the 1990′s we were warned against the dramatic unstoppable rise. Is that still expected? What date are they predicting that to arrive now? Dec. 21 2012?
P. Solar says:
January 3, 2011 at 5:08 pm
from the straight line trend shown in Leif’s plot of RSS data:
http://www.leif.org/research/RSS-and-SSN.png
slope= 0.016, ie 1.6C/century.
eyeball averaging form UAH data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
about 0.3 C in 30 years => 1C/century.
These are physically independent datasets (unlike the “independent” surface temperature records that rely largely on the same source data). In both cases the last 10 or 12 years is close to leveled off, most of the rise was pre-2000.
All of this with “business as usual” CO2 increase globally.
If there is a CO2 signal , it is a lot weaker than claimed by the IPCC based upon fictitious, unsubstantiated “climate sensitivity” fiddly factor.
Gary Crough says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I am confused. Dr. Spencer’s UAH site http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures seems to indicate an anomaly of +.18; a .2 degree drop from Nov. That would be very significant in at least two ways. First, it would indicate the rate of warming is < 1 degree C per century (I figured .579). Second, if January were to drop as much ALL warming since 1980 would be wiped out. Am I missing something?
GARY KRAUSE says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Sonicfrog says:
January 3, 2011 at 10:31 am
Caleb wrote:
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Please Oh Please send me a link to that… I SOOO want to use it!
You might want to snoop around “The Weather Channel” warmistas . They suffer acute warmistiosis with symptoms such as using the meteorological year along with their other warmista propaganda.
Typical problem with statistical analysis, where and what is used to paint the desired picture. But but but…. that is what we do, we start here, end there, chose this data, ignore/reject that data. That is why we enjoy fine Cognac with a good smoke (CO2 generator) – a distraction from hyper-hype.
Mooloo says:
January 4, 2011 at 12:48 am
Well, if you look at the UAH Global Temperature graph, they use a running, centered 13-month average and November to November is 13 months.
Can someone please quickly explain why almost all the rest of the world uses a 12 month moving average but climate science differs in using 13 months?
Doesn’t that just allow seasonal effects to be reintroduced?
coturnix19 says:
January 4, 2011 at 2:14 am
I predict (jokingly) we are to see -0.25 anomaly within a year or less.
LazyTeenager says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:22 am
Anthony at least you fixed the smoothing issue a bit in your update. However the 2010 result us still sonnet because if edge efffects. The averaging window is having to fake data values that do not exist.
To do a proper job you have to wait another few months to get some real readings.
On the other hand I don’t think it’s going to affect the conclusion much. Its also not super important since records have more value as entertainment than as indicators of temperature. trends.
[I am glad you feel entertained. However, if you continue with contemptuous snark be prepared for your posts, containing nothing of value, to be eliminated from the review…. bl57~mod]
Phil. says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:44 am
Caleb says:
January 3, 2011 at 8:08 am
On another site I lurked and overheard an Alarmist inform someone that 2010 was warmest, “because a meteorological year runs from November to November; everyone knows that; it’s always been that way.”
Strictly from Dec 1st to Nov 30th, but otherwise correct.
Phil. says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:49 am
Ulick Stafford says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
UAH report same – 2010 second to 1998.
What Spencer actually said is: “As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
So evidently Ulick chose the latter option. """""
I thought that Dr Spencer was quite clear in his admonition; there isn't a widow's mite of difference in it, so don't try to make something that isn't there.
“””””
Phil. says:
January 4, 2011 at 8:49 am
Ulick Stafford says:
January 3, 2011 at 11:40 am
UAH report same – 2010 second to 1998.
What Spencer actually said is: “As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.”
So evidently Ulick chose the latter option. “””””
I thought that Dr Spencer was quite clear in his admonition; there isn’t a widow’s mite of difference in it, so don’t try to make something that isn’t there.
Wowie !!
I hope it wasn’t me that appended all that predata to my two liner observation of Dr Roy’s exposition. Sometimes that click and drag can be a bummer; and grab more stuff than it is supposed to. I’m not going to tell you who made the mouse that did that without my asking; but it is turning out to be a pretty lousy mouse; and the left click switch sucks; it takes three of four clicks to connect sometimes. No I did NOT design any Optics for that one.