By Dr. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Now that the relevant data for the temperature of the Earth’s surface for the past year are available, it is instructive to examine the claims made by some that it was the hottest year ever, and claims made by others that it was in second place.
One way of looking at the year’s data we have used before is to see how the individual months fare. This is only one way of interpreting the data, there are others, but this way will show if any record temperature is a result of a general yearlong rise or just a few exceptional months.
These five temperature databases I examine give the monthly temperature to thousandths of a degree which is superfluous. When rounded up to a more physically sensible 0.1 deg almost all of the differences between the years of the past decade go away, but that is another story, and not the subject of this post.
2010 was an El Nino year. Before I examine the monthly temperature for the year I thought it would be instructive to see what an El Nino year looks like. In this case the strongest El Nino on record.
1998
Data from Hadcrut3 produced by the Climatic Research Unit.
January; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 07, 04, 03, 02.
February; warmest on record.
March; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 10, 02.
April; warmest on record.
May; warmest on record.
June; warmest on record.
July; warmest on record.
August; warmest on record.
September; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01.
October; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 97.
November; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 10, 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 97.
December; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 06, 03, 97.
The data shows just how exceptional was 1998 (and 1997). Nine months broke a record, and the other three were close. The warm Spring is typical of El Nino.
The subsequent warm decade has altered things somewhat. We see that even for the hottest year on record, by most global temperature datasets, half of the months of the year were unexceptional in the context of the recent (and warmest) decade. 1998 now has the top 4 of the warmest months on record, and another entry in the top ten. Curiously, in the top ten warmest months, only two are after 2002 (Jan 07 in 6th place and March 10 in 10th.)
For comparison consider a non-El Nino year.
January; cooler that 07, 02.
February; cooler than 10, 07, 06, 04, 02, 99, 98.
March; cooler than 10, 08, 07, 05, 04, 02, 01, 98.
April; cooler than 10, 07, 05, 04, 02, 01, 00, 98.
May; cooler than 10, 05, 02, 98.
June; cooler than 10, 09, 05, 02, 98.
July; cooler than 10, 09, 06, 05, 02, 98.
August; 09,98.
September; warmest on record.
October; warmest on record.
November; 10, 09, 08, 05, 04, 01, 97.
December; cooler than 97.
The differences are clear.
Moving onto 2010 there are five temperature databases to examine.
Dataset: Crut3v
January; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 00, 99.
February; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 03, 01, 00.
March; warmest on record.
April; cooler than 07, 05.
May; cooler than 03, 98.
June; warmest on record.
July; cooler than 06, 05, 98.
August; cooler than 09, 01, 98.
September; cooler than 09, 07, 05.
October; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98.
November; cooler than 05, 04.
December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 96, 94, 93, 90, 89, 88, 87, 81, 79, 39,1852.
Note: Two record months, though not statistically significant. El Nino warmth in Spring. La Nina cooling later in the year.
2010 overall; cooler than 2005, 1998.
Dataset: Hadcrut3 from CRU
January; cooler than 07, 04, 03, 02.
February; cooler than 07, 02, 99, 98.
March; cooler than 02.
April; cooler than 98.
May; cooler than 98.
June; cooler than 98.
July; cooler than 05, 98.
August; cooler than 06, 05, 03, 01, 98.
September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98,97.
October; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98, 97.
November; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 04, 01, 97.
December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 92, 87, 79.
Note: No single month broke a record. Warm Spring evidence of El Nino.
2010 overall; cooler than 2005, 1998, equivalent to 2003.
“Met Office” Hadcrut3
(the Met Office also has a database it calls Hadcrut3 which it calculates a different way from CRU)
Jan; cooler that 07, 04, 03, 02, 98.
Feb; cooler than 07, 04, 02, 99, 98.
March; cooler than 02.
April; cooler than 98.
May; cooler than 98.
June; cooler than 98.
July; cooler than 98.
August; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03, 01, 98.
September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 98.
October; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98.
November; cooler than 05, 04, 01.
December; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97.
Note 5 warm months in the Northern Hemisphere Spring – sign of a strong El Nino. No single month broke a record.
2010 overall; cooler than 1998.
Dataset: NOAA
January; cooler than 07, 03, 02.
February; cooler than 04, 02, 99, 98.
March; warmest on record.
April; warmest on record.
May; warmest on record.
June; cooler than 05.
July; cooler than 05, 98.
August; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03,02.
September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 98.
October; cooler than 09, 08, 06. 05, 04, 03, 02.
November; cooler than 04.
December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 94, 90, 87, 82, 79.
Note: Three record months, though not statistically significant. Evidence of El Nino warmth in Spring.
The NOAA Press Release said 2010 tied with 2005. However, the quoted errors are +/- 0.07 which means that 2010 is statistically equivalent to 09,08,07,06,05,04,03,02,01,98.
Note that in the NOAA dataset 2010 is 2nd warmest land temperature and 3rd warmest ocean temperature.
Dataset: NasaGiss
January; cooler than 07, 05, 02.
February; cooler than 98.
March; cooler than 02.
April; warmest on record.
May; cooler 98.
June; cooler than 09, 05, 98.
July; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 05, 02, 01, 98.
August; cooler than 09, 01, 98.
September; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03, 98.
October; cooler than 05, 03.
November; warmest on record.
December; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 01, 99, 97.
Note: Evidence of warm El Nino Spring. Record warmest months not statistically significant.
According to NasaGiss 2010 set a record with only two record months.
A NASA Press Release said 2010 tied with 2005 which at a temperature anomaly of 0.63 was 0.01 above 2005. The Press Release went on to say that 1998 was in third place with 09,07,06,03 and 02. However, the reality is that 1998 and the other years are statistically equivalent being spread over a range of 0.03 deg C within the errors of 2010 and 2005. NasaGiss is thus statistically equivalent to no change since 1998 (note that in 2005 NasaGiss announced that 2005 was a dead heat with 1998. In 2007 they put 1998 behind 2005.)
Many press reports said that 2010 was a near-record breaking year despite the cooling influence of a La Nina later in the year. What was omitted however was mention of the fact that the reason why the year was marginally warmer than previous years was because of the warming El Nino.
Contrary to press reports the evidence is that 2010 was a year no different from all of the years 2001-2009 with the exception of a moderate to strong El Nino that elevated temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring, and a cooling La Nina later in the year. The standstill seen in global temperatures since 2001 continues.
Finally, the temperature anomalies for the past 13 years.
| Year | Met Office Hadcrut | CRU Hadcrut | CRUTem | Giss | NOAA |
| 2010 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.62 |
| 2009 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.56 |
| 2008 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 0.44 | 0.48 |
| 2007 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.68 | 0.58 | 0.55 |
| 2006 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.67 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| 2005 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.75 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| 2004 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.61 | 0.48 | 0.54 |
| 2003 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.58 |
| 2002 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.58 |
| 2001 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.52 |
| 2000 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.33 | 0.39 |
| 1999 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 0.32 | 0.42 |
| 1998 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.56 | 0.60 |
Note; Met Office Hadcrut, CRU Hadcrut and CRUTem are all with respect to 1961–90. Giss is 1951-80. NOAA 1901-2000.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
February 3, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Why is it big news that today’s temperatures are a few hundreths or tenths of a degree warmer than last year or last decade
================================================
Charles, odds are that today’s temperatures are colder….
Facts are:
Old glass thermometers can account for all of the recorded warming – glass shrinks
UHI is adjusted up, not down
Stations have been dropped
Past historical temps have been adjusted down
Recent temperatures have been adjusted up
With all that adjusting, and still admitting temps have flat lined, actually decreased, in over a decade…
….odds are that temps have actually gone down
These sorts of “global” temperature 10th of a degree comparisons are a bit irrelevant when the Central England temperature record (the longest available) from 1659 shows that 2010 was the 2nd COLDEST in the record and the same as it was in 1659 when there was no man-made CO2 levels to speak of.
Oh I forgot 1659 was during the “little Ice Age”
The leaders of the warm conjecture depend for their leadership status on their claims remaining at the centre of the orthodox doctrine. When and if they or their supporters accept the facts of global temperatures their status, research grants and jobs at the top of academe will be undermined and liable to vanish.
Just imagine how it would feel to face ignominy and loss on that scale. Its that rather than the statistical significance of 0.1˚C, or belief in dodgy tree-rings that stands in the way of a facts-based view of climate.
Sunspot cycle undercutting the Dalton Minimum but no word from the news media or government at all about it. Why? Because if it gets out, they lose money and the global warming debacle is done. If the sun doesn’t come to life soon we could very well be heading into another little ice age over the next 50 or so years.
“rob m says:
February 3, 2011 at 5:58 pm
How would yearly temp data compare if one used data from Oct 1 to Sept 30?”
I have not calculated that, but it would be easy enough to do by taking the 12 values and dividing by 12. Then it depends on which data set you use. There are just too many Hadcrut3 for my liking. Could they not give different data sets different names so there is no constant confusion as to which one is meant? But as for your question, the following shows 1998 to have a value of 0.548.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
This compares to a much lower value of 0.475 for 2010. However the value from September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998 is 0.577. So if anyone wants to claim that a different 12 month period other than January 1 to December 31 is warmest, then two can play this game.
By judicious juggling of data, Hansen is able to present a constantly rising temperature series compatible with the monotonic rising CO2 as opposed to the discontinuous UAH and even HADCRUT3 (post-2000) series:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:13/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:13
It will be interesting to watch how he deals with the current La niña.
Mike says: “The past decade was the [hottest] on record. 2010 was, on average, tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.”
This is an artefact of the short record. Had the record been longer by, say, 4,000 years, then we would be saying that 2005 and 2010 are nowhere near the warmest, which were over 3,000 years ago.
It appears that the natural temperature cycles have already started to head downwards again, and that no amount of CO2 can override them. If we cannot find alternative ways of warming the planet, then we had better prepare for cooler times.
It would be more useful to know what the energy budget was over those 13 years. Did the planet gain or lose net energy?
“2010 was an El Nino year.”
Really????
Here is a little chuckle just in from the “Windmill State”, Texas:
MEXICO CITY — Mexico said Thursday it was temporarily suspending an offer to provide electricity to Texas to help the U.S. state weather an ice storm that forced rolling blackouts, because of severe cold in Mexico’s own territory.
Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission had said Wednesday it had agreed to transmit 280 megawatts of electricity to Texas.
But on Thursday, the commission said it was temporarily suspending the transfer because below-freezing temperatures in northern Mexico had affected the generating capacity of some its own plants, causing a reduction of about 1,000 megawatts in generation.
We are in for some serious irony in the years ahead. The “Team” will get to the end of their temperature “adjustment” rope any time soon.
Even temperatures in the great El Nino year of 1998 are not outside the normal range so Null Hypothesis applies, “that in the absence of evidence of change it has to be assumed that there has been no change.”
We will see what comes of crops around the globe. Maybe a better measure of climate than the constant minipulation of data crunching statistical bias.
Opinions requested:
Back over at the recent BBC article, the esteemed Prof. Phil Jones’ “statistically-significant” line is being thrashed out. Again. The non-statistically-significant period was 1995 to 2009.
“barry” says the warming trend for 1995 to 2010 is statistically-significant, and provides a link to a blog post providing “proof” here. I will not dignify that post with the reposting of the URL here for reasons I’ll give below.
I can follow that post enough to see the careful selection of a significance test, fitting of models to tweak out statistical significance from the models, and also that the author must think more decimal places makes the results more impressive thus the whole concept of “significant digits” may be freely ignored. It’s the sort of “numerological fog” that a more statistically well-versed person like E.M. Smith or Willis Eschenbach could blow away in under five minutes, which is where the “opinions requested” comes in, if whomever is willing to check doesn’t mind giving that site a hit.
It’s one I hadn’t been aware of, “Brave New Climate,” like if something had really changed from our Bored Old Climate. “Consider the source” is in full effect. The “blogroll” features pro-(C)AGW sites known for simple misdirection to deceit and “mis-truths” to just-avoiding-being-legally-actionable libel and slander. But no WUWT, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, etc. You know the routine: the science is settled, there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus, so why mention the opposition, if there was any scientifically-credible opposition that could be mentioned, or opposition not funded by Big Oil and Big Pollution.
Clicking the mundane-looking “Sceptics” link up top reveals (highlighting added):
Thus I will not dignify that post with a traceable reposting of the address, and consign that site to my list of Places Not Worth Visiting as they are not interested in a balanced presentation let alone the real (scientific, statistical, or otherwise) truth.
George E. Smith said
“…When the humidity is up, you are going to feel warm regardless of whether the temperature is high or not. You body is trying to get rid of excess heat after your big breakfast and quick workout; but because of the humidity, your evaporative cooling system just doesn’t work.
The subjective feeling of warmth, is no indication of increased temperatures. It is almost a certainty that the early morning Temperature is well down from what it was the night before at sundown, yet you still think it is hot.”
———————————–
Without disagreeing with the general thrust of your comment, I would take issue with your observation that high humidity will make you feel warmer in all circumstances.
Perspiration is obviously a cooling mechanism, but it doesn’t occur until it’s necessary.
It may be that living in California has spoiled you (you do, don’t you?) but since we only have Global Warming and not, regrettaby, Canadian Warming, many of us have to rely on vigourous activity to induce sweating.
Below the perspiration threshold ( a lamentably protracted period in these climes) all we need to do to avoid overheating is step outside, remove one layer of down-filled clothing or dilate the blood vessels close to the surface of our skin. The efficacy of this last measure is greatly enhanced with the ingestion of ethanol.
It’s my contention that we humans are not immediately sensitive to atmospheric humidity, although, with prolonged exposure to very dry air, mucous membrane of lips and nose may feel effects.
We don’t have nerve endings that can differentiate one atmospheric gas from another, and even liquid water at the same temperature as our skin is only detected as mild pressure.
It’s common to hear people declare, as they step into a toasty, wood-heated house from outside conditions of 5C and 90% humidity, how humid it is inside, because their glasses fog up.
Right on Foley, and I think we’re heading towards something resembling this. Hopefully not perturbed as long.
Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change
http://m.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full
Paul Martin Feb 3rd 5:12pm-
“I wonder if this Dr David Whitehouse is the noted astronomer and former BBC science correspondent.”
Yes he is. From the GWPF Academic Advisory Council webpage –
Dr David Whitehouse
David Whitehouse, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, was successively BBC Science Correspondent and Science Editor BBC News Online. He is the author of a number of books on solar system astronomy and the history of astronomy.
The idea that there is a valid concept to the notion that there is a valid gobal temperature must be challenged. And the idea that we know what it is to hundredths of a degree is sheer hubris.
As for the notiion that we have a worthwhile sea surface temperature component for any of these data sets…These are historically derived from people throwing buckets from a ship and then eventually getting round to shoving a thermometer in the water that was subsequently sitting round on the shiops deck…
Much of the raw data being used by the modellers does not bear scrutiny.
tonyb
The public doesn’t understand data sets, but quickly figures out how many times the driveway fills with snow.
Our blue-bird winters in SWFL have turned to overcast fog, near everyday … the Gulf is below normal.
[snip]
Yes this is the Dr David Whitehouse, science PhD, who used to be the BBC science correspondent in the days when it mattered that science correspondents knew something about science.
Nowadays the BBC no longer regards this as important – Roger Harrabin’s degree was in English and David Shukman’s was in Geography. But they both believe in global warming, and that’s what matters.
PeterT says:
February 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm
“2010 was an El Nino year.”
Really????
ABSOLUTELY. Don’t forget the system lag.
The warmest year on record thing gets two reactions out of me.
1. Well, its been warming up for several centuries now, its SUPPOSED to be the warmest. Unless of course the warming has ceased and we’re at a peak which would be signified by a decade or so of flat temps followed by… an ice age! panic! panic! Its the 1970’s again!
2. Its the warmest by how much? Let’s scale that down to something humans can relate to. Let’s say it is late spring and the warmest day got to a high of 20 degrees. Then the next day it was even warmer, 20.1 degrees. And the day after that, even WARMER, 20.13 degrees. OH MY GOSH! And then the next day… 20.134 degrees, catastrophe! Warmest day so far by 00.004 degrees! Can’t you people see what’s happening here? Are you stupid? Don’t you know what all those decimal places MEAN? We might be at FOUR decimal places in just one more day! Yes! We could hit 20.1344 degrees within the next 24 hours! Do we have to get to FIVE decimal places before you oil company bought propogandists with all your error bars and statistics and demands for actual measurements and actual science finaly get the message? Have you not seen what is happening to the decimal places? They are increasing by one a day! We’re all gonna die! The death rate could very well hit 1.000000 per person! Why can you morons not see what is happening here? Decimal places ARE science you blithering idiots!
sarc/off
OK, I feel much better now.
@Tim, who says: February 3, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“Here’s a quick hypothetical question;
Why shouldn’t the AGW proponents simply say whatever they wish? What are the actual negative consequences for doing so, when they’ll still have legions of followers hanging on every word?
“This post is about science, and math, and the attempt to pin down some facts as best we can. But the AGW debate doesn’t particularly seem to revolve around science, math, or facts.”
Tim, the negative consequences for allowing the CAGW proponents to continue their programmes unchallenged will soon be felt in yours and everybody else’s pockets. You (should) know that the UK Government is committed to spending the equivalent of TWO Olympic Games PER YEAR for the next 30 years or so purely on the say-so of these proponents.
So you see, doing nothing is not an option. And that’s not a hypothetical position.
“Finally, the temperature anomalies for the past 13 years”
should be like this after rounding:
Year–Met Office Hadcrut– CRUHadcrut– CRUTem–Giss– NOAA.
2010–0.5–0.5–0.7–0.6–0.6.
2009–0.4–0.4–0.6–0.6–0.6.
2008–0.3–0.3–0.5–0.4–0.5.
2007–0.4–0.4–0.7–0.6–0.6.
2006–0.4–0.4–0.7–0.6–0.6.
2005–0.4–0.5–0.8–0.6–0.6.
2004–0.4–0.4–0.6–0.5–0.5.
2003–0.5–0.5–0.6–0.6–0.6.
2002–0.5–0.5–0.7–0.6–0.6.
2001–0.4–0.4–0.5–0.5–0.5.
2000–0.2–0.3–0.4–0.3–0.4.
1999–0.3–0.3–0.5–0.3–0.4.
1998–0.5–0.5–0.8–0.6–0.6.
Do these numbers say there has been no global warming since 1998?
Note some unusual higher values (e.g., 0.7 and 0.8) under CRUTem.