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

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

Anthony, your 2 rightmost columns in the table are identical.
REPLY: That’s the NCDC output as it was generated. – Anthony

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!

….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

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

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?

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.

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?

@jimmi
2010 won’t be 3rd for long. See @Michael D Smith

ooops. wrong paste from the clipboard!
Comment was meant for jimmi’s “bit” question.

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?

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.
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4255/usmonthlyanomfdec10.png

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

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.

The average warming trend given above for the USA is 0.12 degF/decade (0.75 degC/century), which is in close accord with the IPCC FAR (0.74 degC/century).

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.

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.

I just saw something to the effect that 2010 was the 12th coldest in the UK since 1890.

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.

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

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?

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.

“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”

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.

>>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…

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.

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……………………

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.

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.

How come the only places warming are the places that have the fewest thermometers? :-O

Dr. Spencer says global temps have gone down 0.7 F since this time last year.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/global-temperatures-have-dropped-0-5c-in-the-last-12-months/#comment-30820

Can someone explain to me why noted skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer’s global temperature calculation also shows 2010 to be so hot (the red line is the 13 month average)? Is he cooking the books too?

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

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.

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.

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……

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.

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.

latitude

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

And it was, globally.

The Met Office sorted list for Central England (CET) has 2010 ranked 98th overall when ranked from coldest to warmist
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt
When you look at actual data against the 61-90 WMO recommended anomaly it looks as if the anomaly is designed to deceive…

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.

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

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?!?

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. Here’s my results for any curious Canadians.
http://daviditron.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/canadian-monthly-temperature-anomalies-2010/

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.

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]

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.

“”””” 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.

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?

George E. Smith says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:26 am
Good call! Let us have no one throwing around the furniture.

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.

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”.

I forgot to make a comment:
These drongos must be living on a different planet !!

94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?
Makes a BIG difference (not as this is USA and not Global)

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.

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.

Those who argue about “global” temperatures might consider that current SH temperatures are below the 1940 global peak.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/last:2400
Maybe the SH lagged the USA by a few years, but late 1930s to early 1940s were warmer than almost every year – and modern years are UHI contaminated.

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,

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..

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.

Definitely not the warmest year in Australia
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi

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.

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.

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.

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

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”!

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..

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?

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]

@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.

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.

“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.

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.

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:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png
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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

“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.

[snip. You know why.]

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?

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.