According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie

While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)

Here’s the graph of USA mean annual temperature from 1895-2010 produced by NCDC’s interactive climate database and graph generator, which you can operate yourself here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added:

Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116.

Climate At A Glance

Year to Date (Jan – Dec) Temperature
Contiguous United States

Year

Temperature
(deg F)

Rank
Based on the
Time Period Selected
(1895-2010)*

Rank
Based on the
Period of Record
(1895-2010)*

1998 55.08 116 116
2006 55.04 115 115
1934 54.83 114 114
1999 54.67 113 113
1921 54.53 112 112
2001 54.41 111 111
2007 54.38 110 110
2005 54.36 109 109
1990 54.29 108 108
1931 54.29 108 108
1953 54.16 106 106
1987 54.11 105 105
1954 54.11 105 105
1986 54.09 103 103
2003 54.02 102 102
1939 54.01 101 101
2000 54.00 100 100
2002 53.94 99 99
1938 53.94 99 99
1991 53.90 97 97
1981 53.90 97 97
2004 53.84 95 95
2010 53.76 94 94
1933 53.74 93 93
1946 53.72 92 92
1994 53.64 91 91
1900 53.53 90 90

*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.

Data used to calculate Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set.

Of course there is no mention of the USA temperature ranking in the recent press release from NOAA. The only mention of the USA in that PR that comes close is this:

In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.

They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010? Apparently not.

Advertisements

205 thoughts on “According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie

  1. US, Asia, Australia, land, pacific, arctic, antarctic, they all have varying weather conditions we can only study and puzzle how it all works. Some years colder some warmer, wetter or dryer and no one still has a clue how it all works. Average temperatures have risen since 1800, so what? As long as you have no solid evidence that there is a real threat for large groups of people stop spreading fear.

  2. There is data from actual measurements and the virtual world of the model which NASA seems to enjoy more than reality.

  3. Anthony, your 2 rightmost columns in the table are identical.

    REPLY: That’s the NCDC output as it was generated. – Anthony

  4. This is nothing less than an attempt to re-write history.

    It has long been a thorn in the AGW propagandists’ side to be asked the question why was the warmest year of the 20th century 1934 and not (say) 1995? It seems they have now figured out their answer, or rather two possible answers to this inconvenient quesiton:

    1.) Ignore and/or remove any and all references to the 1934 data.

    or

    2.) Use their massive computing power to “massage” the 1934 temperature downwards while “massaging” the 1998 (or some other year) upwards.

    – And Voilà! Now the data fits the theory!

  5. The use of the word “consecutive” in the NOAA press release is a blatant lie.

    con·sec·u·tive (k n-s k y -t v). adj. 1. Following one after another without interruption; successive

    From the data it is obvious that this is not so unless you twist the meaning to be consecutive in terms of temperature instead of in year order.

  6. HELP EU GETS CRAZY

    Cancún –and Beyond: Connie Hedegaard’s 2011 Jean Jacques Rousseau lecture

    Connie Hedegaard 2010 warmest year

    The Lisbon Council’s 2011 Eco-Innovation Summit convened on Thursday 13 January 2011 in Brussels under the timely theme of Cancún –and Beyond: Europe’s Next Steps on the Road to a Low-Carbon Economy and Sustainable Future.

    At the occasion of her first major speech after the COP16, Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action, delivered The 2011 Jean Jacques Rousseau Lecture and made a compelling call to redouble Europe’s efforts to lead the world towards a low-carbon future.

  7. ValoSnah says:
    January 14, 2011 at 3:30 am
    Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

    Yes but knowing what the regional figures are too is interesting, no warming in New Zealand, Australia, cooling in UK and numerous populated areas, warming in Siberia and Artic and other umpopulated areas.

    Its like a rubber band, it can only go on so long before it snaps, few more cold winters and non-barbecue summers is all it needs before the truth is out.

  8. This is, of course, all based on the altered adjusted USHCN Version 2 dataset, in which heroic efforts were make to make 1998 warmer than 1994, but not so much warmer that GISS couldn’t adjust the subsequent years to beat it. You can’t have global warming if you aren’t setting records.

  9. Those adjustments are scheduled for 2011. Look again next year, 2010 will be much higher on the liest. (pun intended).

  10. Just as a matter of interest, since 1934 has been mentioned – that year is one of the warmest in the continental USA, but where is it in a list of global temperatures over the last century-and-a-bit?

    Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

  11. “They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010?”

    That’s not so hard to fathom what with GISS/NASA, now officially due to James Hansen, apparently represents the idea that the one party communist “democracy” state of China is better suited to lead the way to battle geezer Hansen’s own imaginary modeled reality.

  12. According to the 2011 World Almanac:

    22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930’s and 9 record lows during that decade.

    1 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 2000’s and 1 record low during that decade.

    6 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1990’s and 6 record lows during that decade.

    So Climate disruption was 9 to 22 times more prevelant in the 30’s than the past decade. Consider the outcry if all those records were set this past decade.

  13. I find it funny is most of the hype of global warming come from either:

    a) an ability to measure temperature in finer and finer increment from what we could from the initial day of record. (tenths of a degree to now thousandths)

    b) an increase of sampling station globally it the past two decades due to improvements in technology making it possible to gather information from once isolated regions. (Africa, parts of South America and Siberia)

    c) A lack of sampling station in regions still too isolated for man to get there causing a need to “average” the reading between two stations way too far apart for even the “average” to be accurate. (Antarctica, parts of South America and Siberia)

    d) a reduction of samples use from available sampling locations to create higher course averages over lower fine actual. (USA and Europe)

  14. Is my memory playing tricks or is it true that we were told that 2010 was going to be the warmest ever last at the end of 2009, before it had even started, and they have been straining every sinew since to make their prediction come true.

    Is it also true that the places which have miraculously warmed in 2010 are where there are no weather stations and so their figures have been estimated based on the nearest airport?

  15. jimmi says:
    that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?
    —————————

    The Arctic region was warm.

  16. when I have seen people tell her before it’s just a waste of time using such a short period of time to get a meaningful result.

    Yeah, the bits where there are no thermometers or where people were too busy trying not to get purged to read thermometers in 1934.

  17. Jimmi
    The bits where there are no thermometers. Or rather where they use models to extrapolate rather than use the available thermometers.

  18. It would be interesting to see a global map indicating for every country what its ranking was for 2010. So: for the USA, 94th/116; UK xth/y; and so on. Is there anything like that and would it be meaningful?

  19. You mean press release no relation to facts?

    Remember the reporter floating in the canoe during the media’s Katrina float off, then a guy walks by ankle deep …

    Whose side do you thunk the media is on?

  20. The trend in the US has been adjusted up by about +0.77F, so maybe about half of the total increase is adjustments.

    If you want to see the numbers in a little more detail, this is a 12 month moving average of the monthly anomalies in degrees F – a 12 month moving average is required because there is too much variation. Trend is 0.068C per decade.

  21. Jimmi there are no bits, it was cold in South Africa , Australia, South America, Europe and the US, China got a mention also, regardless of the prophecies of the thermophobics the world is cooling, as it should with a quiet sun. Very natural and normal.

  22. CET data degrees C same period 1895-2010 (HADCET)

    1 2006 10.82
    2 1990 10.63
    3 1999 10.63
    4 1949 10.62
    5 2002 10.6
    6 1997 10.53
    7 1995 10.52
    8 1989 10.5
    9 2003 10.5
    10 1959 10.48
    11 2004 10.48
    12 2007 10.48
    13 1921 10.47
    14 2005 10.44
    15 1998 10.34
    16 2000 10.3
    17 1945 10.27
    18 1994 10.24
    19 1938 10.18
    20 2009 10.11
    21 1976 10.08
    22 1898 10.07
    23 1911 10.05
    24 1943 10.03
    25 1983 10.03
    26 1957 10.02
    27 1948 10.01
    28 1975 10
    29 1934 9.99
    30 2008 9.96
    31 1961 9.94
    32 2001 9.93
    33 1914 9.88
    34 1992 9.86
    35 1953 9.84
    36 1982 9.84
    37 1933 9.83
    38 1913 9.8
    39 1988 9.77
    40 1960 9.73
    41 1984 9.73
    42 1926 9.72
    43 1935 9.72
    44 1899 9.69
    45 1939 9.68
    46 1971 9.68
    47 1974 9.62
    48 1967 9.61
    49 1920 9.57
    50 1928 9.57
    51 1937 9.57
    52 1944 9.57
    53 1947 9.57
    54 1970 9.57
    55 1900 9.56
    56 1973 9.54
    57 1991 9.52
    58 1918 9.51
    59 1993 9.49
    60 1977 9.48
    61 1964 9.47
    62 1946 9.45
    63 1966 9.45
    64 1906 9.43
    65 1930 9.43
    66 1897 9.42
    67 1958 9.42
    68 1978 9.42
    69 1980 9.42
    70 1950 9.41
    71 1932 9.38
    72 1912 9.36
    73 1896 9.33
    74 1903 9.32
    75 1936 9.32
    76 1968 9.3
    77 1955 9.28
    78 1908 9.27
    79 1924 9.27
    80 1951 9.27
    81 1969 9.26
    82 1981 9.24
    83 1954 9.22
    84 1927 9.2
    85 1996 9.2
    86 1972 9.19
    87 1916 9.18
    88 1910 9.17
    89 1925 9.17
    90 1905 9.13
    91 1901 9.11
    92 1952 9.1
    93 1941 9.09
    94 1923 9.08
    95 1940 9.05
    96 1942 9.05
    97 1987 9.05
    98 1929 9.01
    99 1904 9
    100 1931 8.99
    101 1965 8.95
    102 1915 8.93
    103 1985 8.86
    104 1907 8.84
    105 2010 8.83 ——
    106 1902 8.83
    107 1956 8.83
    108 1979 8.81
    109 1986 8.74
    110 1922 8.67
    111 1895 8.65
    112 1962 8.59
    113 1909 8.55
    114 1917 8.51
    115 1919 8.48
    116 1963 8.47

  23. jimmi says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:28 am
    Just as a matter of interest, since 1934 has been mentioned – that year is one of the warmest in the continental USA, but where is it in a list of global temperatures over the last century-and-a-bit?

    Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

    A good question
    I think that you will find that the area around the poles outside most actual measurements were assessed by interpolation from distant observation sites as several degrees warmer.

    But it would be really useful to have a graph say of each degree of latitude and longitude – then their surface area and the atmospheric temperature at the surface in each.

    Not of course that temperature is the correct metric for heat content, but it would be useful to see the methodology used to create the ‘global average’.

  24. According to those data, the year in Holland was actually a cold year.
    But the world average temperature was highest. There will be regions where the year was far record warm, but there are none where it was record cold. In fact the past decennium was the first for Holland having a coldest year still above +9° C.

  25. NOAA serves the people in the same manner as the aliens in the famous Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man. “It’s a cookbook, it’s a cookbook!”

  26. Dan Maloney says:
    January 14, 2011 at 3:52 am
    The use of the word “consecutive” in the NOAA press release is a blatant lie.

    con·sec·u·tive (k n-s k y -t v). adj. 1. Following one after another without interruption; successive

    From the data it is obvious that this is not so unless you twist the meaning to be consecutive in terms of temperature instead of in year order.

    Look at the graph at the top of the post. The black line is the long-term average. The black dots are the annual figure. The last 14 black dots, that is 14 following one after another without interruption; successive are all above the black line. Making 2010 the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. So, not a lie, just another contrarian unable to comprehend facts.

  27. This data hasn’t been tortured enough.

    Wonder if they have tried water boarding the numbers? It works for Hansen/GISS.

  28. Frequent readers here will recognise a problem with the trend line in the graph – linear fit to a periodic function will more closely reflect the phase of start and end conditions rather than the underlying trend.

  29. Kate says:
    January 14, 2011 at 3:50 am
    2.) Use their massive computing power to “massage” the 1934 temperature downwards while “massaging” the 1998 (or some other year) upwards.
    =========================================================
    Kate, that’s obvious. When you follow the trail of the old press releases, 1934 was adjusted down each time.

    They are talking about 10th and 100th of a degree.
    It’s not possible to get those temperature measurements from 100 years ago,
    not even 50 years ago.

    It’s all a scam………

    They have had over 30 years to prove their “guess”..
    .. they haven’t been able to prove it

  30. This is probably because the USA uses more Air-Con that any other country, by a large margin, so it’s that much cooler.

  31. I am confident that if their calculations showed the USA temperature to be a record and the global temperature to be 94th out of the 116, then the press release would have been all about the national temperature. They have an agenda to push and will emphasize what supports their agenda.
    Speaking of the global temperature, the CAGW movement has frequently referred to the 2010 El Nino as a mild El Nino. This characterization is misleading. Not only was it a significant El Nino, its effect lasted an extraordinary time outside of the NINO 3.4 SST window.
    A request to Anthony or posters: when a temperature series is the main point of a post, it would be great to have a little reference on what adjustments are made to that series. For example, GISS has its adjustment for UHI and TOBS. NCDC is adjusted for TOBS, but not for UHI.

  32. Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

    Probably the parts that are 250km or more from a thermometer.

  33. jimmi

    All of these comparisons are made using wildly adjusted (read fudged or altered or faked) data sets. The entire warmth of 2010 is extremely questionable and largely isolated in the Hudson Bay area. It is not just the USA that is or has been cold.

    In addition the constant retroactive adjusting of the historical data makes all of these comparisons completely meaningless propaganda exercises. The last decade is not particularly warm compared to the prefudged data of the 1930s. Your statement that 1934 was only locally warm is unsupportable in light of the known bias and post hoc adjustments in the data sets

  34. rushmikey says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:03 am
    ….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

    about 1.5% of the total earth surface, about 6% of the total land surface

  35. The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!

    We live in the age of conspiracies while at the same time being socially engineered to ignore them through the use of crafty language. Words like “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are designed to make you feel bad about exploring deeper into the subject presented. You now instinctively turn away from the topic whenever you here these words out of someones mouth, as if you’ve been hypnotized to do so. No words will set your mind at ease and allow you to delve into the issue further. Through constant repetition of the feel bad words, you are very controlled. Not even when the words are corrected to indicate the true nature of the exercise with such words as “Conspiracy Researcher”, will your mind be put at ease. Continue reading at your own risk.

    Senator Barbara Boxer adds this hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax(trade) bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow cause us more war;
    “I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way.” National security experts? What do they know that we don’t? Ridiculous? Maybe not, if some people don’t get what they want.

    The awakening has arrived. Renaissance 2.0 has begun. The covers have been blown off one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the world. The entire planet had been sucked into the greatest scientific hoax of all time. The man-made global warming conspiracy theory was proven with help from the release of Climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia in England on November 20th 2009. To todays date, no one knows who the hackers are, but that’s beside the point. The blogosphere and alternative media crowd sourced the information at a rapid pace. It is one of the most researched conspiracies known to man.

    Most of the actors in the conspiracy were unwitting participants due to the compartmental nature of their duties, as most conspiracies are designed to work. They are eager participants and accessories to the conspiracy. The man-made global warming theory, also known as CAGW, was devised as a social engineering experiment to create the backbone of the one world government. It was to be a major component of the financing for the new world order.

    Accepters of the unproven AGW theory blindly accepted the notion well before many of the facts were in. They call me a denier. I am an accepter of the AGW conspiracy theory now that it has been proven, while I deny the theory of man-made global warming due to the flawed science behind it.

    The mainstream media is complicit in covering up the conspiracy for refusing to discuss the Climategate emails on prime time TV and promoting the theory as fact to the masses for their corporate overlords pocketbooks. They are the social engineers mouth pieces and co-conspirators with the upper echelon of players in this case.

    (This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?

  36. I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116”?

  37. the warmists pushing this pack of lies no longer care if it has any relationship to actual facts. I think they have found it quite liberating not to be tied to any actual numbers, now they are free to make up anything they want whenever they want.

    And that is all that comes out of them anymore. It is no longer possible for any honest, decent, person to buy into their idiocy. Which defines who is left.

  38. that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits? says jimmi.

    Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.

  39. “it didn’t meet that criteria”

    The singular of “criteria” is “criterion”. “those criteria” would be apropriate if there were actually more than one criterion referenced.

    “it didn’t meet that criterion”

  40. And to put a significantly important and note-worthy width of a hair’s touch to your article, you should have stated that Trenberth says this rank could have been much worse were it not for global warming. And more immensely globally policy importantly, the rank of 94 instead of 95 is proof of global warming. And even though it is less worse than we thought, it is proof that it is much worse than we thought. Don’cha know.

  41. While it may be that the US is a small part of the global land mass, it is also the portion with the most consistent and documented instrumentation (and even that documentation has problems). Much of the data for the rest of the world (Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand being exceptions) is simulated by statistically smearing the few sensors that exist over the land mass. So while it may be a small part of the globe, combined with the reliable sensors in western Europe and Australia and New Zealand, it gives a pretty reliable snapshot. If it is getting colder in US and western Europe, that gives a good idea of Northern Hemisphere activity. If it is getting cooler or staying fairly constant in New Zealand and Australia, that gives a good idea of the Southern Hemisphere. Now if we can work on getting the instrumentation more robust in the rest of the world, we will be able to make some good projections – and in about 1,000 years there will be enough reliable data to make some good time series statistics.

  42. This is blatant cherry picking, a regional result in the USA need not have been mentioned at all. When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

    This is despite the claim that we should be in a cooling cycle and that solar activity is neutral or if anything is cooling at the moment. Obviously on a regional level things are getting more extreme while the extra water in the atmosphere and temp differentials between the land, ocean and atmosphere are increasing.

  43. For those carping about noting that the US wasn’t particularly warm, of course it makes a difference. It’s supposed to be global warming, right? Well, clearly it isn’t global as the US and many other major populated areas were not warm. So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc. What’s the matter, doesn’t the killer CO2 work its evil ways in all parts of the globe? This would all be laughable if it had not advanced so far into the consciousness of so many people.

  44. The funny thing about conspiracies are, you don’t know it is an actual conspiracy till it’s exposed.

  45. >>Louise says: I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116″? <<

    Yeah, what she said…

  46. I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute going back to 1872. I plotted the daily minimum and daily maximum temperature (in deg F) as a function of day from 1872 to present (49052 data points) and fit to a line using linear regression. Slope was 0.000062 +/- 0.000011

    Next I averaged all data for a given year and plotted the average as a function of year and fit to a line: slope was -0.00085 +/- 0.0070

    Then I fit the entire daily temperature going back to 1872 with a sinusoidal wave. I subtrated this sinusoidal wave from the raw data and obtained the residual daily temperature as a function of day. I fit this data to a line an obtained a slope of -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050

    Linear Rgression Slope summary:
    Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
    Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
    Residuals: -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050 F

    Can I conclude that Philadelphia PA is showing absolutely no warming or cooling over the past 138 years? So if Philly isn’t warming, other places on the earth must be warming that much more to show an overall global average increase.

    By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less) One was positive and two were negative as well. This further proves my point that boiling down the entire globe’s temperature to a single yearly average and then fitting trends to this data is really not mathematically accurate

  47. I am the farthest thing from being an AGW proponent, but I’m 100% sure the NCDC’s “hottest year” designation for 2010 was for the entire planet, not the US. This is kind of a red herring. It is not a surprise to anyone who’s paying attention that 2010 was not a record breaker for the US with how cold Jan, Feb and Dec were across the country.

  48. nandheeswaran jothi says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:12 am
    rushmikey says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:03 am
    ….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

    about 1.5% of the total earth surface, about 6% of the total land surface

    but about 22% of the land surface at our latitude band AND a significant number (majority?) of the land temp stations, which is what they’re measuring for the global average.

  49. Pamela Gray says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:28 am
    Trenberth says this rank could have been much worse were it not for global warming
    =====================================================
    Is there anyone that didn’t see that one coming?

    Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.

    If they can’t even get it right a few months in advance……………………

  50. wayne Job says:
    January 14, 2011 at 5:17 am

    I concur; RSA (where I am) was most definitely cooler in 2010, together with every English speaking country in the world it appears. Perhaps the other (non – English) numbers are “lost in translation” LOL.

  51. jimmi says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:28 am
    “Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?”

    You have to ask? That would be all the places in the world where no actual temperature measurements are made. The Warmista have been reducing the number of measurement sites for years. Whenever they show a graph of temperature, such as the one above, they should also show a graph of declining measurement stations. If the Warmista used only the warmer areas where actual measurements are made, they could not arrive at the higher global temperature that they have published.

  52. Robert L says:
    January 14, 2011 at 5:50 am
    “Frequent readers here will recognise a problem with the trend line in the graph – linear fit to a periodic function will more closely reflect the phase of start and end conditions rather than the underlying trend.”

    You could use a series of trend lines that fall within the period. Not something that would catch on here though, it shows that the warming is accelerating.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/mean:25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:2010/trend

  53. Green Acres says:

    So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc.
    __________________________________

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but of course it matters if global temperatures are rapidly rising. A good skeptic should be concerned. What is unclear are issues such as “climate sensitvity” and factors other than man-made CO2 in driving climate. If gobal averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span, then we will of course have a great deal of problems. Skeptics don’t doubt this. What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbacks, naturally occuring variations etc.

    Again, I’m kind of hoping you were joking.

  54. Probably correct in stating that at least a mention of the U.S. temps for 2010 would have been in order– however irrelevent that would be to the global perspective. Along with that would be a mention that 37 U.S. states set night time HIGH temperature records during the summer of 2010– and as most of you should know, higher night time temperatures are stated to more indicative of general warming from GHG’s. (greater LW backradiation with greater GHG’s). See:

    http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/hottestsummer/

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/09/summer-set-records-for-night-time-temperatures/1

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/09/06/20100906phoenix-weather-summer.html

  55. Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave? In addition, the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies for the year. The global number is correct. Don’t think that these anomalies will go away or never affect the U.S.

  56. Not sure about some of the analysis here. All 14 of the last years have been above the long-term average displayed on the chart. So, yes, this was the 14th consecutive year with an average temperature above the long-term average.

    But there were also only 2 years since 1998 with a temperature *lower* than 2010. so it all depends on how you want to spin the numbers.

  57. Best be careful how loud you crow, Anthony. Although I believe we are heading for a definite period of global cooling on the decade scale, look again at those tables. 1934 was a hot year in the US, but 1933 ranked 93. 1998 was a hot year in the US, but 1997 ranked 76! So if 2010 ranked as very cool, there is a high probability that 2011 or 2012 will rank very warm! Then the AGW vultures will be eating your flesh for a whole year.

    Instead of giving the appearance in our speech that the world is becoming an ice cube, we should be focusing on the non-linear behavior of climate change. The only upward trend is the long-term thawing trend from the last ice age. Ice at the poles is the anomaly, it is not the norm for this planet. Natural thawing will occur because the planet is not meant to be this cold.

    In order for global warming theorists to be right, they need to peg CO2 levels to temperatures, which they cannot when the historical records are considered for the past millions of years.

  58. RE: Owen says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:35 am

    ** Now if we can work on getting the instrumentation more robust in the rest of the world, we will be able to make some good projections – and in about 1,000 years there will be enough reliable data to make some good time series statistics.**
    No, they already had observations and closed stations or deleted them from the list. It is easier and cheaper to fill-in, plus you get the desired result.

  59. 2010 not the warmest year in the USA??? {scratch head smile} So what? Another stellar thread …

    REPLY: Jack, thanks for making it clear you don’t care about the climate in the country you live in. – Anthony

  60. **Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.**

    Possibly, maybe even probably, true. The big problem with this statement being that we have in recent years seen excellent analyses showing that supposedly anomolously high temperatures in these regions we manufactured or mistaken.
    But I’m sure we can trust them all now.

  61. The US and Europe are the areas with the most intensive and presumably reliable temp data while the Arctic and the Middle East had the warmest year while having the least reliable and intensive temp data.

    So in effect this measurement of 2010 as a record warm year depends entirely on temp data from the least reliable parts of the planet measured to tenths of a degree and going back a century.

    Strange.

  62. Warmest ever? Not remotely in Britain. The temperature in 2010 at 8.83C was identical to the first year of the record in 1659.

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    We simply must stop accepting that we know the global temperature to tenths of a degree back to 1880-its complete hubris to believe that.

    Combining a SST back to the same date is nothing short of nonsensical, we have no idea whatsoever what the SST’s were, other than in a few shipping lanes, which even then were taken haphazardly in bizarre ways.

    Tonyb

  63. Since this is about the climate in the U.S. it should be mentioned that there is a large net migration from the north to the south in the U.S. People desire warmer climates not colder. Actions speak louder than words. While the climate boffins are trying to convince us that warming is bad people are actually relocating from colder regions to warmer ones.

    The bottom line for me isn’t whether or not the globe is warming but rather whether or not warming is desireable. All the evidence points to warming being desireable. Cold sucks.

  64. Why no option for a polynomial trend line, I wonder?

    A fairly obvious 60-year cycle in evidence there once more, with the most recent cycle at a slightly higher (perhaps 0.5F) level than the last one. I dare say that, between them, higher TSI in the second half of the 20th century and proven UHI contamination of surface readings can easily cover off that 0.5F.

    The contribution of anthropogenic (lovely word – so similar to pathogenic and carcinogenic in its imagery) emissions to the upward trend would appear, in the US at least, to be equivalent to that of Bigfoot flatulence…

  65. From the same site:

    Annual 1901 – 2000 Average = 52.79 degF
    Annual 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.94 degF / Decade

    Oh it’s getting warmer in the USA……

  66. RR Kampen says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:25 am
    Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.

    So that’s 1% of the surface stations then!

  67. Temperature is not measured to +/- 0.01 deg F. In the early records of the USHCN temperature data are reported to nearest whole degree F with an implied measurement error of +/- 1 deg F. Thus all of the temperature data below 1999 should be 54 deg F.

    Since measurement error is +/- 1 deg F, it is not possible to determine which is the hottest year. More importantly, the data show there has been no warming in the US since 1895!

    Since these so-called climate scientists do not know how to measure temperature and use the data properly, I have concluded these guys really don’t know what they are doing and can be ignored. No experimentalist would ever make these mistakes.

    I going print out the table, make an amended table, and send these with my comments to Premier Stephen Harper.

    You yanks should do this for the entire record and send hard copy of the data and your comments to your members of the Congress and to your state and local politticians.

    I have always said that temperature measurements are not that accurate and if data are rounded off to nearest whole degree, global warming vanishes.

  68. As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

    But as for the last year, it’s interesting how they carbon crowd can say that we’ve had record heating when many worldwide events say otherwise. Granted, a stationary high pressure area in Russia accounted for extremely high temperatures for a time last summer… and undoubtedly these temperatures were then extrapolated 1200km into the Arctic and used to help defend this new record anomaly. But what about the record cold temps in South America last July? How about the snow falling in Australia as summer was starting? Now the US is in a deep freeze as well as Europe for well over a month. Sorry… I don’t by this record or near-record crap.

    I won’t say off with their heads! I do say drag them before Issa’s House committee and have them testify under oath. They could probably sell tickets and pay down the debt! I for one would love to see these guys squirm as they are exposed for their charlatan behavior.

  69. ValoSnah

    Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

    But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.

  70. The topic of this post almost gets to the more important question. It’s not whether the US was not as hot, but which regions last year produced the preponderance of the abnormal warmth. Via this post, we know it wasn’t the US. I don’t recall Europe being overly hot. The Russian heat wave certainly added to the anomaly. The question is – how much of the extra heat is attributed to regions where the equipment is not well maintained, and the extra heat is more a result from one of the many “corrections”?

    Remember that the NASA / NOAA claim to be the warmest year is not in line with the other three data sets, which say it’s a pinch lower.

  71. Thanks to RRKampen and his warmist friends for coming onto these threads and providing comic relief. Your naivite and religious fervor for the AGW nonsense always provokes a hearty laugh. Anthony, is there some way to highlight these posts with a color so they’ll be easier to find? I’m always interested in the actual scientific discussion here, but sometimes you just need a chuckle (or maybe even a guffaw).

  72. Remember, 2010 has 76 years of population/cityr/UHI growth over 1934.

    Without a doubt 1934 is the wamest year and the 1930s are the warmest decade.

    Only through maniuplation and bogus papers setting UHI at .03C or some such stupid value is 1934 not the warmest year.

  73. Michael

    When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

    It is indeed desperate, but what can you expect from a site such as this? They have to desperately grab hold of what few remaining nuggets of truth can be twisted to appear to back up their increasingly way-out world view.

  74. As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

    That could be the strapline of this website, Dave.

    [Reply: If you don’t like it here you are free to move on. ~dbs, mod.]

  75. Louise says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:19 am
    “I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116″?

    This must be a spoof of Louise Gray of the UK Daily Telegraph! Even she could not be this stupid…..anyway – good spoof, keep it up and thanks for making me chuckle.

    Regards
    Michael

  76. Roger Otip says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:03 am
    ValoSnah

    “Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?”

    “But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.”

    “Joint warmest with 1998 with 1998 and 2010 both being El Nina shows that despite 12 years of CO2 increase we have had 12 years of no change temp wise Globally.”

    And that’s being generous, as the GISS data is the warmest temp record of them all.

  77. I bet if you drilled into the data you could possibly find a particular station for which 2010 was one of the coldest years on record, this would instantly prove that the idea of global warming is all a big scam!

    It’s only by cherry picking the globle as a whole that you can show there’s a warming trend! Don’t they know it’s only the US temperature that matters?!?

  78. Hey guys, as for the greatly under-instrumented Canadian Arctic. I have a serious question regarding the “warmest ever” claims. Does it matter at all that most of the “way above average” temperatures occurred in sub zero conditions?

    Here

    the DMI shows 2010 arctic temps, and they were pretty much above average for the entire “cold” period, Jan to April, Sept to Dec, but the “warm” period was almost entirely below average.

    Does this have any significance in how we can analyze the results?

    Thanks for your time.

  79. BillyBob says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Remember, 2010 has 76 years of population/cityr/UHI growth over 1934.

    Without a doubt 1934 is the wamest year and the 1930s are the warmest decade.

    Only through maniuplation and bogus papers setting UHI at .03C or some such stupid value is 1934 not the warmest year.

    Exactly, the likes of Roger Otip and Michael crack me up because they “have to desperately grab hold of what few remaining nuggets of truth can be twisted to appear to back up their increasingly way-out world view”.

  80. Roger Otip says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:03 am
    ValoSnah
    Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

    “But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.”

    Surely by now we all know that the burden of proof is on the Warmista to show that the “average global temperature,” as calculated by James Hansen and his followers, is not a total and complete fiction. We, meaning everybody, have some grip on average temperatures in the USA, though I do not believe for one minute that readings to tenths of a degree are meaningful, but a “global average temperature” is not reasonably tethered to actual measurements that might be used in criticism of the final, calculated result.

  81. Is it beyond the wit of man to actually measure temperatures in all the regions that are currently subject to “adjustment” and “extrapolation”? We managed to leave “weather stations” on the moon 40 years ago! Perhaps some of the “save the polar bear expeditions” could do something useful and leave weather stations on their travels that could be cheaply and easily monitored by satellite? And can we please standardise on weather stations that are outside of cities, and not at airports?

    I am neither a warmist nor a denier – but a scientist – and therefore a sceptic by definition!

  82. It would be interesting to learn which countries had one of their warmest ever years, which did not and which had one of their coldest.

    The UK had the coldest December since records began. January and February were also much colder than average, with unusually heavy snowfalls in the South. Much of the summer failed to materialise but I believe that Hadcrut managed to show that 2010 was a warm year in the UK despite CET records.

  83. According to the Norwegian MET Office, the average temperature for the country as a whole was 1 deg C below normal. This makes it the 10th coldest year on record for a series that goes back to the year 1900. You have to go back to 1941 to find a colder year. The coldest year in the series was 1915.

    What is interesting in the comments they give, is that a number of costal stations more or less surrounded by sea records 0.6 deg C below the normal, something that suggest lower sea temperatures. Also the western coastline had an average of 1.2 deg C below normal making it the 3rd coldest for this region. This part of the country is usually rather mild due to the Gulf current.

    They also state that the only stations showing higher than normal temperatures for the year were the arctic stations without breaking out the details. I guess the Longyearbyen airport must be one of them.

    Mainland Norway runs from about 58 deg North up to about 72.

    Details in Norwegian at http://met.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=7567

  84. “Monroe says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
    According to the 2011 World Almanac:

    22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”

    1 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 2000′s and 1 record low during that decade.

    6 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1990′s and 6 record lows during that decade.

    So Climate disruption was 9 to 22 times more prevelant in the 30′s than the past decade. Consider the outcry if all those records were set this past decade.

    Monroe:

    Did the “decade of 2000’s” include 2010? Probably not. I remember reading about 12 new US State all time record highs during 2010, mostly in the East. Sorry, I couldn’t find the reference. Also, 19 countries set all time daily highs during 2010. Several of these were in the Middle East. Notable records (in degrees F) included Russia (112.7), Finland (99) and Pakistan (128.3). However, I think that global averages are more important that averages or highs for particular regions, countries or states. Perhaps if Anthony is more patient, NOAA will publish and analysis of the US temperature records for 2010.

  85. Joint warmest with 1998 with 1998 and 2010 both being El Nina shows that despite 12 years of CO2 increase we have had 12 years of no change temp wise Globally.

    2010 was joint warmest with 2005 according to NOAA and GISS, joint warmest with 1998 according to UAH, and whilst 1998 had the El Nino of the century, in 2010 a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July.

    The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.

    NASA GISS

    [Since we are now only 1/2 degree C above the mid-1970 baseline, isn’t that less than 0.50 degrees C TOTAL over 5 decades (1960 through 2010) or about 0.10 degree per decade. Robt]

  86. I don’t know whether 2011 will be warmer or cooler – I suspect the latter – but I predict that it will be the year of the troll . Thanks for nothing but the hits , guys (pushing 67 mil .)

  87. Harold Pierce brings up an excellent point. What is the statistical significance of these fractional computed temperature anomalies based upon a record with such a large error range?

  88. Dave in Canmore

    It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year.

    I broke down temperature means by month across the country. Least cold would be more accurate than hottest.

    From this map it looks like the major warm anomalies were in the north east of Canada, so perhaps in Canmore 2010 wasn’t particularly warm (or less cold).

  89. Well from 1895-2010 you have about 115 years, or closing rapidly on four complete climate cycles of 30 years; well let’s be generous, and say at least three cycles.

    And cyclic behavior is certainly apparent in that 115 year data.

    So whose idea is that green “trend” line; and what is their justification for that. Do trend lines continue unbroken or bent all the way back to the PreCambrian of 600 million years ago; or what is the rule; to be used only by fully accredited climate scientists worthy of being colleagures of Dr Kevin Trneberth; rather than Charlatans; maybe they are just charlatans, not even deserving of capitalisation.

    I think a cyclic fit to that 115 years of presumably real data, is a far more credible “Trend” that that green line is.

  90. “”””” Roger Otip says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
    As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

    That could be the strapline of this website, Dave.

    [Reply: If you don’t like it here you are free to move on. ~dbs, mod.] “””””

    I usually don’t like to poke my nose in where it doesn’t belong; particularly in somebody else’s play pen like Anthony has here; but Roger Otip seems to be just the latest of the warmista newbies to stumble in here; or maybe tipped off by some friend or “Colleague” to come over here, and set us all straight.

    Well Roger, you are; as I said just the latest of a long line. Now we have quite a few truly serious supporters of the AGW thesis, who come here, and engage in debate; and offer data, and other information, along with their opinions; and they generally get their points across, and get seriously listened to and debated.
    Purely as an example, I could mention Joel Shore; who participates, as a reasonable person; and one who is knowledgeable of what he discusses here.

    So Roger, if you want to just come over, and toss all the furniture around; that goes over like a lead balloon; and a lot better than you have tried.

    But if you want to contribute, and add to the science debate; well just present some of YOUR stuff like a rational and civilized person; and you too might find yourself getting listened to.

    Yes we resort to comedy, and sarcasm; well we have to to keep our sanity at times; given some of the nutcakes (on both sides of the border); but when we do stick our nose to the grindstone; we can dig up all kinds of stuff, that you won’t find over at the star studded places like CR (did I get that the wrong way round); so you might enjoy yourself here. But I can tell you, as a bull in a China shop; you are a rank amateur.

    Since I rigorously censor myself; and if I didn’t Chasmod would kick my arse; you probably don’t know that I can kick up more mud than even Mount Vesuvius knows how to sling; but then that isn’t civilised.

  91. Apparently, a lot of that heat came from Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.html. We didn’t set any records in my region of Canada, but certainly it has been above average in others.

    I have been curious about where UK’s 2010 ranked and had to do a lot of digging on the Met’s web site to finally find this story in the archives:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/cold-dec

    If you plod through almost to the end of the 2010 stats you find: “In 2010 the UK recorded a provisional mean temperature of 8.0 °C, making it the 12th coldest year in the series, that goes back to 1910.”

    I was annoyed to discover that the above was not linked in their 2010 archive section (I mean I REALLY had to dig to find this). In the archive section they are still highlighting this gem: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101202b.html

    Remember this: “The preliminary figure for January to October 2010 is 0.52 °C above the long-term average on the Met Office – Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT3) dataset, placing it equal with the record-breaking 1998.”

    The average person looking for 2010 stats will easily find this release, which omits data from rest of 2010, while the complete annual statistics are hidden elsewhere. Seems apparent this is an intentional effort to mislead the public.

  92. BillD says:
    January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am
    “Monroe says:
    January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
    According to the 2011 World Almanac:

    “22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”

    Speaking from personal experience, including careful monitoring of Wunderground for my local area(s), I find that this so-called data is just screamingly worthless. Identify for me the thermometers that were used to “record” the record high and I can identify another thermometer within six blocks of each whose inclusion would have yielded a record low. Isn’t this obvious from Wunderground.com?

  93. Michael says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:12 am

    The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!…

    (This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?

    Imo, there are two kinds of “Conspiracy Theories”: the ones that can be proven or falsified, and the ones that can never be falsified, usually because their adherents won’t let them be falsified – their adherents perhaps never allow themselves to “feel falsified” [Kealey] so they will never admit to any significant doubt; therefore, the second kind of Conspiracy Theories don’t actually say anything at all, while the form of the statement or “theory” makes it look like it says something about objective reality. But since nothing can possibly falsify the apparent statement or theory, and it is therefore “consistent with” whatever exists or happens, it says exactly nothing.

    The Climate Science CO2CAGW “theory” is actually the second kind of Conspiracy Theory itself, put into practice by its witting and unwitting Conspiracy type one conspirators: it actually says nothing. It’s purpose is solely propagandistic or “religious”.

  94. George E. Smith says:
    January 14, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Good call! Let us have no one throwing around the furniture.

  95. Michael says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:36 am (Edit)

    This is blatant cherry picking, a regional result in the USA need not have been mentioned at all. When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

    This is despite the claim that we should be in a cooling cycle and that solar activity is neutral or if anything is cooling at the moment. Obviously on a regional level things are getting more extreme while the extra water in the atmosphere and temp differentials between the land, ocean and atmosphere are increasing.

    What “peer-reviewed” so-called climate scientists are claiming ” we should be in a cooling cycle”? Why are they making that claim?

    The world’s climate has been heating up since 1750. Who is denying that?

    Why, then, do you justify ANY flattening/cooling of ANY kind between 2000 and 2030? What “science” are you (any one, of any type, actually!) using to justify a ten year, twenty year, or thirty year “flat spot” in what “should be” according to EVERY global climate model a steady increase in temperature from 1970 through 2300?

    OK, so you claim “weather” not “climate” for any short term deviation from your GCM’s heatup. Fine. So, how long need temperatures be “flat-lining” before the models are invalid and proved wrong by actual data?
    5 years?
    10 years?
    15 years?
    20 years?
    25 years?
    30 years?

    Since GISS’s “worldwide” temperatures are based on 1200 km extrapolations from isolated Arctic single shore-based stations, what part of “isolated locations” (whole areas of un-instrumented square kilometers) can also be “eliminated” as “un-interesting” or un-important?

    Can a skeptic also ignore any arbitrary 1.5% area of the globe that she wishes?

    Are you denying that we are in a periodic 66 year short cycle of oscillating temperatures cycling around a 900-year long oscillating cycle?

  96. Roger Otip says:
    “Isn’t the global temperature more interesting than the US segment?”

    To say we have any idea of what global temperatures were 100 or even 50 years ago in places like Africa or Antarctica with a level of accuracy of less then a degree is a bit of a stretch. Together Africa and Antarctica make up 30% of the land mass.

    The same is true for oceans temperatures. Ship captains make a point of avoiding bad weather, so whatever we think we know about historical ocean temperature is biased by that fact.

  97. Global warming is supposed to make temperatures increase, right along with CO2 levels.

    Since, for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined and gone down a little, when things get back to “global warming normal”, can we expect a huge jump in temperatures?
    If not, how will global warming normal make up the difference?

  98. Real data is not allowed for interpreting which years are most hot. The data must be “adjusted” and then “interpreted” only by “Climate Experts”. Real Data has no place in AGW “Science”.

  99. This is where the 2010 mean yearly Central England temp sits from the 1659 to 2010 record using an Excel ranking. The same as 1659, 1676, 1754, 1902, and 1956.
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

    251 8.86 1836
    252 8.86 1985
    253 8.85 1864
    254 8.84 1808
    255 8.84 1907
    256 8.83 1659
    257 8.83 1676
    258 8.83 1754
    259 8.83 1902
    260 8.83 1956
    261 8.83 2010

  100. An Inquirer says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:03 am

    Yep! It is like the old joke of the 2 nation track meet as reported in Pravda: The Grand and Glorious People’s Republic of the USSR finished second! The dirty capitalistic imperialistic USA finished second to last.

  101. Dave in Canmore says: January 14, 2011 at 8:57 am

    It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year….

    A quick glance show that all of your data comes from withing a few 100 km of the southern edge of Canada. My understanding is that the arctic regions are the sections showing the most warming, so it would not be surprising that your subset shows a different result than a true average for the whole area of Canada. Deliberately choosing a non-representative subset is almost guaranteed to give anomalous results.

    Have you tried repeating your analysis using 8 sites that all fall within a few 100 km of the NORTHERN edge?

  102. Magnus says:
    “if global averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span…”
    “What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbbacks, naturally occuring variations, etc.”

    Magnus, you are missing the forest for the trees. Step back from the minutiae of this debate for a minute and look at the big picture. The hypothesis underlying AGW is that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. I emphasize, global warming, not warming in the Arctic, or the Antarctic Peninsula, but warming all over the globe. Is it not clear that this is not happening? Is it not clear that some parts of the globe are warming while some are cooling? And that next year the warming and cooling will be reversed for any given region. Further , is it not clear that the “average” warming the world has experienced say in the last 150 years has been trivial? Global average temperature is not “soaring upwards” in any time frame even if you accept the tortured statistics presented by “climate science”. And what is the real world utility of a global temperature average anyway? It is a totally artificial construct. The fact that it is 18 below zero in Dismal Seepage Alaska, rather than the “normal” 22 bleow, is meaningless to a person in Colorado, where it might be 4 degrees colder. And please, no lectures about the interconnectedness of everything, etc. You can debate feedbacks and the like all you want, but we have learned enough by now to know that the whole notion of CAGW is a non-starter.

  103. 94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?

    Makes a BIG difference (not as this is USA and not Global)

  104. Nolo Contendere says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
    Reasonable debate from both sides are welcome here. Unfortunately your comment wasn’t.

  105. Yes, isnt it strange how “global” warming avoids England and the US. How can it be global, when it avoids large continents?

    Oh yes, thats right, “global” warming only hits where nobody lives. And where there are no thermometers.

  106. Even with all the downward adjustments of the 1930s and the upward adjustments of recent years (and completeing ignoring UHI) 5 of the top 24 years are from the 1930s.

    1934, 1931, 1939, 1938, 1933

    Imagine where they would be if you used unmanipulated data and adjusted modern data downwards for UHI … and moved some of the thermometers away from airports.

  107. BillD says:
    January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am

    “Did the “decade of 2000′s” include 2010? Probably not. I remember reading about 12 new US State all time record highs during 2010, mostly in the East. Sorry, I couldn’t find the reference. Also, 19 countries set all time daily highs during 2010. Several of these were in the Middle East. Notable records (in degrees F) included Russia (112.7), Finland (99) and Pakistan (128.3). However, I think that global averages are more important that averages or highs for particular regions, countries or states. Perhaps if Anthony is more patient, NOAA will publish and analysis of the US temperature records for 2010.”

    Those were all daily records not all time state records.
    Try this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13

    How many thermometers were in the middle east in the 30’s?
    Official World wide temperatures will continue to increase untill the snow and ice elevation at the north pole reaches 100 meters.

  108. Also, I have heard that global records were somewhat polluted during the Soviet era, the weather station readings in Siberia determined the fuel rations, thus Siberia read out VERY cold then. If these readings are still in use in the global database, there would be a definite warm bias built in since the 1990’s. Of course most of those stations have now been withdrawn, so no worries, we’ll just smear the stations on the edge of the Mongolian desert right up to the Arctic to compensate. What could go wrong…

  109. Magnus says:
    January 14, 2011 at 7:11 am
    Green Acres says:

    So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc.
    __________________________________

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but of course it matters if global temperatures are rapidly rising. A good skeptic should be concerned. What is unclear are issues such as “climate sensitvity” and factors other than man-made CO2 in driving climate. If gobal averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span, then we will of course have a great deal of problems. Skeptics don’t doubt this. What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbacks, naturally occuring variations etc.

    Again, I’m kind of hoping you were joking.

    I think (at least as far as the UK is concerned) that Green Acres is correct and I have for several years been making posts to that effect. As far as the UK is concerned, an increase in temperatures would be entirely beneficial with no significant downside.
    The UK would enjoy longer food growing seasons, more food production, we could increase our wine industry (with many new job opportunities), the warmer and milder climate would benfit the old, people would spend less money on heating, there would be less winter accidents, there would be an increase in tourism (with yet more job opporunities) etc.

    Therefore GW is in the UK’s own interest and this suggests that there is a strong argument for the UK government to pursue domestic and foreign policies that would encourage GW. The only argument against pursuing such policies is whether a country should be obliged to act in the best interests of others. A novel concept which to date has not been pursued by any country these past few thousand years.

    As regards the moral question, can the UK do anything that would assist other countries? The short answer is No. The UK now has little in the way of industry and if the UK was to stop all its CO2 emissions, it would have all but no effect on the total global CO2 emissions and would therefore not achive any reduction in global temperatures if these temperatures are rising truly as a result of manmade CO2 emissions.

    Given the above facts, can any government justify pursuing a harmful policy (ie., one that is not in the interests of its own citizens) in decarbonising the economy which will reek havoc and which force millions in to fuel poverty and will results in many thousands of deaths when that policy will be futile and will do nothing to save the world?

    I would say No. Given the futility of the action, the UK government ought really be acting in the best interests of its citizens and should be pursuing policies that promote GW.

    I accept that the position as far as the States is concerned may be different since the States is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions and can therefore in theory pursue policies that could achive a significant reduction in global CO2 emissions. However, even from the perspective of the States, this would be accademic unless developing countries such as China, India and Brazil also pursue policies that curb CO2 emissions. There is little point in the States pursuing policies which would be thwarted by an increase in CO2 emissions from developing countries.

    Of course, on the top of this is the question as to whether Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having any significant bearing on global temperatures, and whether there is any problem at all if global temperatures were to increase by more than 2 deg C. I think that the answer to the first question is very probably not and the answer to the second question is very probably that a warmer world would benefit the majority of citizens (and other life forms) of the world and that GW would for the majority of life on earth be a good thing. I am of the firm view that the predicted disasters are wrong,

  110. Roger Otip says:
    January 14, 2011 at 9:43 am
    The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.
    =========================================================
    Hi Roger.
    Yes if you look at the longest temperature record for Central England the regression is similar but at 0.29 deg C per decade during same period but then flattens out after 1995 and becomes negative if 2010 temp is included.

    But here’s the rub: 1695 to 1736 when there was no AGW, has a warming of 1.3 times greater than the “after 1970 period” at 0.39 Deg C per decade!!

  111. Surprisingly an AP story yesterday did mention:

    “In the U.S., it was the 23rd warmest year on record and the 14th year in a row with an annual temperature above the long-term average, according to NOAA’s preliminary analysis.”

    Of course the story was more focused on all the hell breaking out because of AGW around the globe.

    “But as we know, extreme events whether their cause is due to La Nina or El Nino or other factors, will be more intense in the era of climate change,” he added.”

  112. Erik Ramberg says:
    January 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave?

    Erik, according to the ipcc Climate Scientists, the Siberian warming and fires is surely “weather not climate”; at least until it conveniently next became anthropogenic “climate disruption”; but in which case the Siberian warming and fires has to involve a new climate, since the old one has been effectively “disrupted” by an allegedly semi-permanent, constant or recurrent force – an allegedly ongoing anthropogenic force, to boot, which we can allegedly see bieng applied.

    However, unfortuneately for its CS, now ipcc Climate Science has actually changed its definitions such that “weather” = “climate”! Hence, according to CS there is no longer any such thing as “climate” as distinguished from “weather”, and conversely, and it therefore can’t “change” except perhaps as being good old “weather”; but which then brings the ipcc Climate Science back to its first definition, where “weather is not climate”.

    Regardless, the Siberian warming has not been proven by Climate Science to even be “unprecedented” – CS merely made the claim and hopes everyone will trustingly or dutifully repeat it as part of its Propaganda Op..

    And the Siberian warming and fires isn’t unprecedented, according to an historic narrative presented right here at WUWT in comments. going back to around 1200. But regardless of the validity of that narrative, it’s still completely CS’s responsibility to prove its claim that the Siberian warming and fires is unprecedented – think MWP – and that it is due to CO2CAGW climate change or disruption!

    But, even then, Climate Science’s CO2CAGW “climate change” or “disruption” would still have to face the first problem described above, which renders what it says complete non-sense; again, because now it says “weather” = “climate” when the two words can only have seperate meanings by being contrasted with each other as different! In fact, CS’s use of either word now makes what it says using either word functionally meaningless. But that never stops a Propaganda Op..

  113. If one wanted to know where the supposed heating is occurring, and one doesn’t trust surface temperature data, one could consult the satellite tropospheric data

    For 2010 (see the very bottom graph), we see that much of the hottest anomalies were indeed in the polar regions.

    It’s an interesting exercise to visually compare the December month-long and year-long maps.

  114. This article is written as a rebuttal, yet no one has claimed that 2010 was the hottest year in the United States… I’m a bit confused.

  115. Tim Folkerts says:
    January 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    “A quick glance show that all of your data comes from withing a few 100 km of the southern edge of Canada. My understanding is that the arctic regions are the sections showing the most warming…”
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Hey Tim,
    My post was clear that since 99% of Canadians live a few hundered kilometers from the southern edge, this was the area relevant to them A “national average” includes vasts area that have little to no effect on Canada’s poulation. It may be mathematically correct, but at odds with everyone’s experience.
    More importantly though was a demonstration of the seasonal and regional variance lost in a large average. Additionally, the post showed that Canada was not “hot” but rather “less cold,” an important distinction that the news release turns on its head.

    I wasn’t trying to recalculate their average, just show how meaningless it is when you break it down into times and places.

  116. Louise says:
    January 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?

    Makes a BIG difference
    =============================================================
    A quick look at the source data indicates that the ranking is coolest to warmest. Therefore the warmest year would be ranked 116. (2010 would rank 22 if warmest was ranked 1.) Incidently, NCDC ranks 1998 at 116 and 1934 at 114.

  117. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.

    NASA GISS

    [Since we are now only 1/2 degree C above the mid-1970 baseline, isn’t that less than 0.50 degrees C TOTAL over 5 decades (1960 through 2010) or about 0.10 degree per decade. Robt]

    As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.

  118. latitude

    for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

    For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

  119. David L. says: January 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

    I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute … from 1872 to present (49052 data points)
    I only found data through 1999 there(around 46,000 points), which will make some minor differences…

    Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
    I fit the highs and lows separately
    High temp: 0.000067 +/-0.00000655
    Low Temp: -0.000011 +/- 0.00000592
    Avg Temp: 0.000028 +/-0.00000615

    My average is going up more slowly than yours and has a smaller uncertainty (both about 1/2 of what you get).

    Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
    Yearly avg: +0.009269 +/- 0.003287
    Here I get a result of the opposite sign AND 10x bigger AND half the error you got. I get a slope that is the same sign as before. (I did throw out 1872 and 1873 since they have almost no temperature data and hence the yearly average is not accurate at all.)

    Frankly this is what made me look at the numbers to begin with. I can’t imagine that the temperature every day would be sloping up, but the annual temps sloping down. Again, slight difference in the time period (skipping the first 2 years; skipping the last decade) will make some difference, but it should not be a huge effect.

    Also, the daily slope * 365 should be ~ the annual slope. My results are close to this.

    By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less)

    p-values for testing significance are 0.000, 0.072, and 0.000 for the daily High, Low, and Average regression fits. The upward slope to High & Average is HIGHLY significant. The downward slope to Low is close to significant.

    The p-value for the annual fit was 0.006 — again clearly a significant upward slope.

    I didn’t try the since fit, so I can’t comment there.

    RECAP:
    * I disagree that the annual temp is going down in Philly.
    * I disagree that the results are not statistically significant.

  120. FrankK

    if you look at the longest temperature record for Central England

    Here’s the link if anyone wants to, though of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be much lower over such a small region when compared with the global data, so though one can make out a warming trend, it is far less clear than the global trend.

  121. Here would be a good place to remind everybody that GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS only go back to about 1980; well that is credible GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures; whcih I believe is what GISSTemp purports to be; and maybe HADDrud as well.

    Prior to that time frame; thereabouts, GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures for about 70% of the Total Global surface area; generally referred to as THE OCEANS was “inferred” not “measured”, and it was inferred by ASSUMING that the air Temperature, and the water Temperature were exactly the same thing. On land, we have these Owl Boxes, that measure the Temperature two metres (or so) above the Weber Grill; whereas out in the ocean where there are very few Weber Grills, they throw a bucket over the side, and gather water from some totally unknown water depth; and measure its Temperature while on the deck evaporating in the wind. Well eventually, they started taking the water from some unknown depth below the surface, via a cooling water intake, and the measured its Temperature probably down in a warm engine room somewhere without the howling wind.

    Of course ocean water doesn’t stay in the same place; so you can go back to the exact same GPS co-ordinates in six months, and ocean current meandering will put you in entirely different waters from where you were last time.

    So why would the ocean water; which maybe flows at a few knots, be the same Temperature as the air; that might go tens or hundreds of km per hour; so over Hawaii last week, and over the mainland USA this week.

    Well John Christy et al, discovered all of this in about 2000 from about 20 years of ocean buoy studies of simultaneous lower Troposphere (+3 metres) and near surface Water (-1 metre) actual thermometric measurements of both at the same time.

    They reported on this in Jan 2001, I believe in Geophysical Research Letters; and no; the water and air Temepratures are NOT the same; and also they are NOT correlated (why would they be?), so it is impossible to reconstruct any pre-1980 or so ocean lower Tropospheric Temperature data, prior to about 1980.
    As I recall, they reported that the air Temperature change during those 20 years of buoy data collection, was 40% lower than the water Temperature change; or the air Temperature change was about 60% of the water temperature change; well those are near enough to the same thing within the IPCC 3:1 fudge factor.

    So not I don’t believe proxy data for the whole globe prior to 1980; or even measured data.

    The climate theory models might be spot on; but the data being fed to those models is itself garbage.

    I’m not aware of ANY peer reviewed papers that refute what Christy et al reported in Jan 2001. Maybe it is there somewhere; as I said I am not aware of it; but then what do I know. I’m all ears to hear what contrarian data there is.

  122. Roger Otip says:
    January 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    latitude

    for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

    For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

    So, in other words, you agree with him? You did not even attempt to address his statement that temperatures have flatlined, i.e., that they are no longer increasing so you must agree. There is hope yet.

    though of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be much lower over such a small region when compared with the global data

    Which is only true for i.i.d. noise and error distributions, particularly ones in which the distributions are stationary. I’d suggest you study up on how the law of large numbers actually works. Certainly not as you suggest. Oh, and sorry, simply pointing out that there are fewer wiggles does not mean what you think, either.

    Mark

  123. Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.

    And it was, globally.

    No it was not, globally:

    According to NASA GISS it was and according to NOAA it was joint warmest.

    By the way, I don’t think any reputable climate scientist was saying for a fact that 2010 would be the warmest. That’s not how scientists talk. They may have said “it was on course to be”, or “it looked likely that it would be”.

  124. Roger Otip says:

    As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.
    #
    (and later)

    latitude

    for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

    For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

    …—…—
    OK.

    So, ONLY if I throw out the (near-flat lining) early two decades of Hansen-GISS’s records, and throw out the last decade of Hansen’s-GISS temperture record, THEN I can get the 0.36 degrees per decade that Hansen wants to advertise for the “entire” period of 1950 through 2010.

    Glad you clarified that. Thank you.

    Can I simply things with century long REAL increase that is NOT politically and emotionally driven?

    Or can I just use the the “entire” period of the temperature record, recognize that Hansen is a politician propagandizing his zealotry to destroy the energy industry, and scientifically see the actual double cycle of a short-term 60 year cycle imposed on a long-term natural rise from the Little Ice Age through the Modern Warming Period to a mid-2100 century peak and a 450 year decline to a Future Ice Age?

  125. Mark T

    for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

    For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

    So, in other words, you agree with him? You did not even attempt to address his statement that temperatures have flatlined

    Temperatures are increasing at a rate of about 0.2 degrees C per decade. That’s not flatlining. However, you cannot reliably measure a trend over just one decade, that’s too short a time span. It only becomes statistically significant when taken over several decades.

  126. MattN says:
    January 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

    I am the farthest thing from being an AGW proponent, but I’m 100% sure the NCDC’s “hottest year” designation for 2010 was for the entire planet, not the US. This is kind of a red herring.

    Not really, imo, because it re-emphasizes, by using the still not well known U.S. vs World temperature record disjunction, the fact that what the ipcc style Climate Science does not tell us continues to reflect the same way on what it does tell us.

    As I recall it, back when the fact of the failure of the U.S. to conform to Climate Sciences’s AGW was demonstrated about 4-5 yrs.[?] ago by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit, the warmists immediately started saying it didn’t matter, since the U.S. was “only about 2%” of the Earth’s surface, and that was all there was to it! They didn’t even mention that the U.S. comprises about 6% of the Earth’s land surface, which McIntyre’s blog instead quickly noted as part of its consideration of the disparity between the records.

    In other words, back then, the warmist scientists already seemed way too unscientifically interested in vigorously ignoring the possible greater problem that the U.S. temp. figures showed everyone else once Steve M. displayed them to the world: that the rest of the world’s [ROW] figures might in fact show the same kind of thing, once people start actually looking at them independently – for example, such as the CET record does show, which I think Tonyb was very instrumental in bringing to everyone’s attention here at WUWT; the second problem Steve’s work possibly implied was that the U.S. should have much more reliable records on average than the ROW.

    These considerations could certainly raise a valid question within any objective person as to whether we can we really trust Climate Science’s whole GMT.

    By now, imo, knowing even more about how ipcc style Climate Science does its “science” – it’s not – the validity of what the NCDC says is much more in doubt than it was back then. I don’t believe hardly anything official Climate Science says anymore, and certainly not its always hockeysticking “hottest year ever” claims.

    And I actually hope the “world” is in fact warming! Whereas, even more bizarrely, ipcc Climate Science desperately wants us to commit suicide, if it is warming, “before it’s too late”!

  127. racookpe1978

    a long-term natural rise from the Little Ice Age through the Modern Warming Period to a mid-2100 century peak and a 450 year decline to a Future Ice Age?

    If it’s not an enhanced greeenhouse effect, what physical process do you think is driving the current warming?

  128. Anybody can easily tell it was all a lie… The earth has been cooling for 12 years … Just plot a trend line over temp records since 1998.. Then tell me the earth is getting warmer…the slope obviously declines…. Its all government manipulation I yell ya..

  129. Roger Otip: “For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing.”

    It increased just as much from 1910 to 1940 … possibly more depending on manipulation/UHI. Yet CO2 is not considered factor in the 1910 to 1940 warming.

    Why not?

  130. If the world is not warming much in North America and Europe then how can we get a better understanding of the accuracy of measurements showing warming in Canada and the Antarctic?

  131. “While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA …”

    Nationalism run a muck.

  132. Anthony, exactly.

    And I can report that in my refrigerator, temperatures have in fact FALLEN dramatically since I installed it. I’d further note that at every moment during its use I’ve been using greenhouse gas-emitting natural gas to generate the electricity to power it.

    Take that, Hansen.

    This is the kind of clear thinking one gets here with Anthony “I take advantage of stupid people to fund my blog traffic and pay me thousands each month” Watts.

    [One hopes sincerely that temperatures did indeed fall dramatically … then rise and level off equally dramatically each time the door was opened and shut. Otherwise, the fridge would be useless in a short order. Robt]

  133. @kdkd January 14, 2011 at 3:50 am:

    And USA warming has what to do with global warming? Looks like clutching at straws to me.

    Let’s see, the US was the 13th warmest, while South America had about its coldest winter ever, Australia had one of its coldest winters AND summers, Europe had a very cool summer and a horrible blizzard-filled winter. And the SSTs were not at record levels, but dropping for the last 1/3 of the year, due to the oncoming La Niña.

    It SNOWED in Australia the day before their summer solstice, and not just in one place. No place in Australia that day averaged over 40°F – not even Darwin. Where was the snow? Some was almost exactly on the Tropic of Capricorn – the SH equivalent of Havana, Cuba. Can anyone here believe that if it snowed in Havana (or Miami) on June 20th that people wouldn’t be asking WTF about “hottest year” bullcrap? If it snows in Miami on DEC20th, it would be huge news, much less the day before official summer. (Yes, and now, kdkd, you will pull out the “weather isn’t climate” pap, as is done when it suits your purposes. . . )

    With all those places weighing in on the not hottest side of the ledger, just WHERE did all the heat come from? These are places mostly with the best coverage anywhere. There must have been SOME huge areas that had record highs. Where were they? And when you find them, then go look for how many places had record lows. THEN tell us they aren’t cooking the books.

    Some records were set in Russia and Pakistan – one period of a few weeks of big-time heat – and those are the only non-adjusted data out there that argue for 2010 being so hot. Frankly, I think the fudging is so rampant they think they can just keep adjusting and adjusting and everyone will buy it forever. When the UHI adjustments are done properly, all those climatologists are going to look like the biggest idiots on the planet – and no one will trust them with their data ever again.

  134. No mention of 2010 ranking for US temperature at all? How about in the first paragraph of the press release?

    Quote: “According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.”

    Note that last sentence. “23rd warmest” seems to imply some sort of ranking system to me. Plenty of room there for 1998, 1934, and whatever else you want to throw in there.

  135. Roger Otip: “For the past three decades temperatures have bee

    Roger, please answer me why there has been no warming in Philadelphia PA since 1874. Is it because CO2 avoids the city of brotherly love? If you can give me a rational answer as to how the globe can warm up due to CO2 but avoid Philly then I will believe the AGW meme.

  136. “Green Acres says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:39 am

    For those carping about noting that the US wasn’t particularly warm, of course it makes a difference. It’s supposed to be global warming, right? Well, clearly it isn’t global as the US and many other major populated areas were not warm. ”
    ————-
    Sorry but you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the issue. Climate change is about the effects on the planet as a whole. This does not mean that the warming is the same at every point on the globe, some parts will be hotter, colder, drier, wetter, calmer, stormier etc etc. This is called weather and as climate change increases will get more extreme and more unpredictable. The issue is that on a global scale the long term warming will shift and change the climate in ways that will be damaging for our way of life.

    It is a simplistic and unrealistic view of the issue to assume that the planet is so uniform and predictable that it is say 0.16 degree warmer everywhere at the same time.

  137. Tim Folkerts says:
    January 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
    David L. says: January 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Since the upper and lower confidence limits of my fits contain zero, it means there is no statistical confidence for any slope. I am not claiming a positive or negative slope. The stats suggest zero slope. And if you believe there is a measurable slope, it’s on the order of 6e-6 meaning Philly will increase 6 degrees in 1 million years!

  138. While I’m just beginning to understand the what I’m reading here at WUWT about how greenhouse gases are supposed to work, it seems to me that the US should be warmer than the rest of world, not colder.

    My understanding is that CO2 reflects some of the long wave radiation from the surface back to the surface, making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. It is also my understanding that this is a continuous process.

    Also, the US is second, behind China, in the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since it takes a finite time and distance for the CO2 to difuse, it stands to reason that CO2 should be higher over the US (although I have not seen CO2 readings for US) than over the ocean or other areas with lower CO2 emissions.

    Since CO2 is higher over the US the greenhouse effect should be more pronounced over the US, and the average yearly US temperature should be higher than the global average temperature. Wonder why it is not.

  139. Someone asked about where the hot spots were in 2010.

    The NOAA (the group claiming 2010 as tied for warmest on record) has a picture (link below) which shows their data for the parts of the planet that were either colder or warmer than average in 2010. These data show that the Eastern Pacific was colder than normal which I believe is expected during a La Nina event (we’re in one now). It looks like Greenland and parts of Eastern Canada win the “hotter-than-normal” award.

  140. Erik Ramberg says:
    January 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

    “Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave? In addition, the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies for the year. The global number is correct. Don’t think that these anomalies will go away or never affect the U.S.”

    Yes, the heat wave in western Russia lasted how long – 3 weeks? And the Arctic temperatures are modeled by DHI:

    As you can see, the Arctic was below average between day 140 and day 240 in 2010. The rest of the year was mostly above average, but nothing at all like the 5K you claim. Annual average according to DMI seems to be more in the order of 0.5-1K, ie about 1/5 to 1/10 of your claim.

    Where do you get your information from Erik, do you just make it up as you go along? And based on this nonsense you conclude that “The global number is correct.” ?

    Please substantiate your claim that “the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies” for the year (2010).

  141. RE: Ron C., January 15, 2011 at 8:52 am

    The tenths and hundredths can be meaningful, but only if the error interval is included in the analysis. NOAA has started making this more of a habit in their monthly climate reports, but GISS has not done so to my knowledge. If GISS started making this standard practice, I would put higher stock in their numbers because then we could have a better sense of how much fudging and estimating really IS going on in their analysis.

  142. “PSU-EMS-Alum says:
    January 14, 2011 at 6:08 am

    Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

    Probably the parts that are 250km or more from a thermometer.”

    For a good laugh, the posters here never disappoint!

  143. While EMS’ writeup is correct in general, there are a few minor errors and some other clarifications he should have added. The “Dominic” he debates is wrong for reasons beyond (in addition to) what EMS cites, too. He closed off comments so I cannot add these points.

    Mark

  144. Michael says:
    January 14, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    “Sorry but you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the issue. Climate change is about the effects on the planet as a whole….
    …It is a simplistic and unrealistic view of the issue to assume that the planet is so uniform and predictable that it is say 0.16 degree warmer everywhere at the same time.”

    I don’t mean to pick on you Michael but this idea seems odd. On the one hand we are to ignore a cold area because Global Warming is well, Global. But on the other hand the globe is not homogenous so it must be treated as parts (when it’s convenient.)

    Too often I see people trying to have their cake and eat it too. You can’t explain the hypothesis’s failure on a major land mass by claiming the hypothesis is only applicable at a larger scale. Then turn around and say that the effects at that scale don’t exist, they only exist at smaller scales. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

    If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory.

  145. RE: Dave in Canmore, January 15, 2011 at 11:21 am:

    Quote: “If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory.”

    I don’t think the theory says that CO2 only affects some areas and not others. To my understanding, it says that the effect will be global, but affect different regions in different ways at different times.

    Suppose the effect of warmer oceans and a warmer atmosphere was to change the position and amplitude of the jet stream. That would cause some places to be warmer than they were before and some to be cooler simply because the jet stream shifted positions. Similarly, it doesn’t guarantee that the same location will feel the same effect throughout the year. A change in ocean or atmospheric patterns may cause one location to be cooler during the summer but warmer during the winter. It’s this premise which keeps the claim that AGW will cause more droughts and more flooding from being complete nonsense.

    I may be wrong, but that’s my understanding of things.

  146. BillyBob

    “For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing.”

    It increased just as much from 1910 to 1940 … possibly more depending on manipulation/UHI. Yet CO2 is not considered factor in the 1910 to 1940 warming.

    Why not?

    CO2 is considered to be a factor in the early 20th century warming, but probably not the primary factor which is thought to be an increase in solar irradiance during that period. The differences between that period of warming and the warming over the last three decades are a) greenhouse gas emissions are much higher now, and b) solar irradiance has not been increasing.

  147. BillyBob

    If you can give me a rational answer as to how the globe can warm up due to CO2 but avoid Philly then I will believe the AGW meme.

    I think the comment above by Travis S. explains this.

  148. David L says: “The stats suggest zero slope. And if you believe there is a measurable slope, it’s on the order of 6e-6 meaning Philly will increase 6 degrees in 1 million years!”

    The slope is of order 6E-5, not -6

    And that is the fit for DAYS, not YEARS, so the slope is (6e-5 F/day) * (365 day/year) ~ 0.02 F/year.
    Or 2 degrees F per century.
    Or 6 degrees F in 300 years.

    And again, a p-value of 0.000 suggests less than 1/1000 chance that the observed is due to random luck. So the stats definitely do NOT suggest a zero slope as you say. The regression either for individual days or averaged by year shows a statistically significant upward slope of 2 F per century.

    Our numbers are clearly different, especially for the yearly averages.
    * Did you use the first two years (1873 & 1873)? These years only have a handful of data points, which clearly would not give accurate yearly averages. These years should be dropped.
    * Did you use this year (2011)? Since there are only a few days in January so far, this would give a wildly inaccurate values for the 2011 annual average. This year should be dropped.

    “Roger, please answer me why there has been no warming in Philadelphia PA since 1874. Is it because CO2 avoids the city of brotherly love? ”

    I think it is because you made an error in your annual analysis. Even your first result shows a positive slope 5x larger than the uncertainly, so your numbers there do show a warming.

  149. Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.

    But you didn’t. You fail.

  150. “If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory

    This displays a complete misunderstanding of the theory. The temperature rises gradually over time as an average on a global scale but because this changes the key determinants of weather, short term and regional effects become more unpredictable and extreme. Weather is the movement of air over different pressure areas due to the changing temperature differentials over the ocean, land and atmosphere and amplified by the increasing moisture due to evaporation, this predicts more floods in the model. This causes climates to shift and change. It does not mean that the temperature will change by .16 deg everywhere at once or that the weather will change the same way everywhere at once, it actually means the exact opposite.

    Effects of a warming ocean acidification and increasing el ninos are coral bleaching, death of the algae reliant on them as well as disaster for the phytoplankton. Eventually the fish will struggle and so a large proportion of our food supply will be affected. Above ground you will get more drought, more floods from the extra moisture in prone areas, and shifting weather patterns as new jetstreams open etc.

    If you are going to argue against the model at least try to understand it.
    see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as they know a lot more than I do and only argue on the peer reviewed science.

  151. “BillyBob says:
    Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.
    But you didn’t. You fail.”

    He answered the question. CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, nobody says it is. The solar factor is well known for that period, it is also well known that it is stable or if anything cooling now. The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.

  152. Michael says:

    “The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.”

    Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:

    “We can’t imagine anything else that could cause the current [very mild] warming, so CO2 must be the reason.”

    Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.

    But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.

    Worry away, my friend.

  153. “Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:

    Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.

    But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.”

    Ah the classic … (cannot say as the reciprocal to alarmist is not allowed) logical fallacy, because change has happened by nature in the past, it cannot be caused by humans now.

    Yes CO2 is a harmless trace gas on its own, what has changed is mans pumping of billions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere in a short space of time. In nature the amount of CO2 produced compared to the amount absorbed is fairly balanced, but as can be seen by simple measurements and by checking the isotope of the atoms the CO2 produced by man is not being fully absorbed by the planet so the concentration in the atmosphere is rising. The extra greenhouse gas is causing a slight warming, which through feedback effects is increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere(also a greenhouse gas). Other effects follow, changes in temp effect the movement of air (weather) causing it to be more extreme and unpredictable, the extra water vapour increases flooding in flood prone areas etc etc.

    You want to ignore the fact that anything (even harmless) in excess can have a harmful effect. That is not science, that is a belief that cannot be reconciled by logic.

  154. Trying to be scary by citing “billions of tons” fails here. That is a minuscule amount of the atmosphere.

    The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.

    That is hardly “excess.”

  155. Dave in Canmore

    If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory.

    Or something is amok with your understanding of the theory. Global warming, as the name suggests, is an increase in the average surface temperature of the world. That overall warming is going to have an effect on winds and ocean currents which in turn will have different effects on different regions of the world. For instance, in northern Europe westerly winds tend to correspond to relatively mild weather whilst north-easterly winds, bringing cold air down from Siberia, tend to correspond to cold weather. If global warming were to alter the wind patterns around the Arctic such that northern Europe received more north-easterly winds than it did previously then northern Europe would quite probably cool, whilst the regions that used to get that cold Siberian air would most likely warm.

    Perhaps a simpler way to look at this is to think of the fact that in Canada and most developed countries we often hear that people are living longer than they used to. Our average life expectancy is increasing. But if I were to then ask you, well, if we really are living longer how do you explain the fact that my cousin died when he was only 20?

    I imagine you would have no trouble answering that, without needing to know any particular details about my cousin’s life or death. You would, I guess, just tell me that the fact that on average we’re living longer doesn’t mean every one of us will live to a ripe old age, and the fact that some people still die young in no way casts doubt on the assertion that the average person’s life expectancy has increased.

  156. Smokey

    Trying to be scary by citing “billions of tons” fails here. That is a minuscule amount of the atmosphere.

    Paleoclimatological studies show that there is a close correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, giving us an estimate of the climate’s sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels. A new study has shown that if global emissions continue to rise at their current rate then this could result in a temperature rise of 6 degrees C by the end of the century.

  157. Smokey says:
    January 16, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Trying to be scary by citing “billions of tons” fails here. That is a minuscule amount of the atmosphere.

    The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.

    That is hardly “excess.”

    Classic non-sequitur Smokey. Just because the atmospheric concentration of CO² is small it does not follow that increasing that concentration by 50% plus in not excessive; that would depend on the climates sensitivity to CO².

    If you have a definitive answer on the climates sensitivity to CO², by all means, share it, but until then your objection is just another mindless repetition of an idiotic contrarian meme.

  158. Calling other commentators denialists violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.

    But it’s okay to call someone an alarmist or a warmist?

    [Reply: “Denier” is a reference to Holocaust deniers, and as such violates site policy. Other than that restriction, moderation is done with a light touch to avoid the censorship common in warmist blogs. ~dbs, mod.]

  159. Roger Otip says:

    “Paleoclimatological studies show that there is a close correspondence between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature…”

    Yes, thanks for posting that link with a graph that clearly shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Since effect cannot precede cause, the graph shows that changes in CO2 are a function of temperature – which is obvious to anyone who has ever opened a warm can of beer.

    Kevin MacDonald,

    There is nothing “non-sequitur” about showing the change in the atmosphere resulting from increased CO2. You just don’t like looking at the CO2 non-problem that way.

    And if you want to see a ridiculous estimate of climate sensitivity, Roger Otip believes he has the answer. But of course if climate sensitivity were that high, changes in temperature would closely track changes in CO2. They don’t.

  160. Smokey

    thanks for posting that link

    Pity you didn’t bother to read the text:

    When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult.

  161. Roger Otip,

    Ah, but I did read the text: “When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.”

    That statement is flatly contradicted by the ice core record, which clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature. The writer is simply looking for some non-existent wiggle room.

    If you would like more charts showing the same thing, just ask. Empirical facts trump model-based opinions. That’s why I prefer the ice core records.

  162. [snip]

    [Snipped ? OK. The mod’s can accept a self-snip too, if the writer so wishes to do that. Robt]

  163. regarding the “Siberian warming” – some people here might find it worth revisiting the Finnish TV show on Climategate, that was available on youtube – I presume it’s still out there. In that program, Finnish climatologists showed a number of examples of lack of any overall trend in the 20th century in rural records. At the same time there were a number of upward trends (following inflections!) in urban areas, most of which could be associated with specific cases of development (e.g. factory installations).

  164. Michael says:
    January 16, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Ah the classic … (cannot say as the reciprocal to alarmist is not allowed) logical fallacy, because change has happened by nature in the past, it cannot be caused by humans now.

    Uh, no, you’re assuming something that was not said: that it cannot be caused by humans now. I suggest you go back to your logic books to figure out what you just did, but certainly it is not a logical fallacy to point out that a null hypothesis has not been refuted and thus remains the accepted behavior.

    Funny, too, that you would attempt such a flip while committing your own error. Those that are the most arrogant and then wrong are the ones we laugh the most at.

    Mark

  165. Michael: “CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, nobody says it is. The solar factor is well known for that period, it is also well known that it is stable or if anything cooling now. ”

    The “solar factor”?

    There are 2 major warming periods (ignoring the good chance the miniscule recent warming was caused by UHI) in the last 100 years and 2 major periods of no change.

    Please explain why you think natural cycles caused 2 no change periods and 1 major warming period and why only the 1990 to 1998 period was caused by CO2?

  166. “The fact is that the total amount of CO2 has increased its fraction of the atmosphere by only .01%. When you start with a concentration of 0.00028 of the atmosphere and increase it to 0.00039, it’s a .01% increase in the atmosphere.”

    Smokey you are not measuring a plank of wood. In a building, being out by a minuscule % may not mean much, but when it comes to chemicals it is all about reaction and balance. The make up of your body also includes sulphur, phosphorous, chlorine, copper, lead, iron, uranium, thorium, mercury and arsenic, among many others. Arsenic for instance can be beneficial medically in tiny amounts, but add just a tiny bit more…I think you know where I am going with this.

    The typical skeptic says “hey it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere or it is a tiny warming effect or it has happened millions of times without us etc”. None of these are relevant or really have any meaning when discussing whether the changing balance of the atmosphere can cause changes harmful to us or whether we are the ones causing it now. Negative arguments are not proof, they are beliefs. Beliefs that are not borne out in many areas of nature where small amounts can precipitate big reactions. Just look at the change of certain chemicals in your body that effect moods, heart rate etc. Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.

  167. “That statement is flatly contradicted by the ice core record, which clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature. ”

    That is also going on the assumption that CO2 is the only driver of Climate Change. Nobody says that, (see above) in the past their have been many events that have influenced the climate, 4 billion years is a long time and we likely started as a boiling sea of molten rock, our sun has also aged and changed and our planetary meanderings and wobbles are also not constant. The link between CO2 and temp is shown on the graph and that they feed each other but it does not mean CO2 started it, as I understand it these particular changes were precipitated by a planet wobble cycle.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

    That does not make any difference to whether CO2 is causing the changes now and whether humans are the ones precipitating that change.

  168. Michael says:

    “Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.”

    I am in total agreement. The effect of increased CO2 is apparent, and entirely beneficial:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

  169. Michael,

    That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?

    PS: when you’re back in that echo chamber, tell the cartoonist it is common courtesy to link WUWT, since WUWT links to them.

    I don’t expect courtesy from those alarmist wackos, but it never hurts to ask.

    Oh, and thanx for your cut ‘n’ paste comments on different threads. The added traffic is nice. Well over half a million comments, and counting.☺

  170. “That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?”

    The planet has been here for 4+ billion years, those timescales are but a tick of the clock. Also interesting is your blind faith in data from one location, trapped for millenia being accurately measured and date stamped and representative of the globe as a whole, and being relevant to the current situation.

  171. Smokey says:

    There is nothing “non-sequitur” about showing the change in the atmosphere resulting from increased CO2. You just don’t like looking at the CO2 non-problem that way.

    No, there is not, and if I’d said there was you would have a point. As it is you’ve just replaced one logical fallacy with another, what chance the facts in the face of such rabid opacity?

  172. “a blog run by a cartoonist?”
    “I don’t expect courtesy from those alarmist wackos, but it never hurts to ask.”

    If you want some simple courtesy and respect it is customary to also show some.

  173. Smokey says:
    January 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?

    ———————————————–

    When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

  174. SteveE says: January 17, 2011 at 1:50 am

    Smokey says:
    January 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm
    That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?
    ———————————————–
    When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

    So when CO2 gets high enough, it causes the temperature to crash? Or there are forcing(s) at work that blow CO2 out of the water so-to-speak, and CO2 is a bit player in climate.

Comments are closed.