Is the solar sector facing collapse?

In light of your post earlier this year (re having your own solar panels fitted), you must be gutted Paul! For once, I'm with Monbiot on this one, in that mass subsidy (by the many to the few) of solar is no solution at all - and that is assuming that we have a problem in the first place...

it's always dangerous to build an industry based off subsidies. This buble was always going to collapes, i, and many others have been saying this for years.



It's unaffordable, inefficient and frankly, highly polluting (the manufacture).



Ah well, there's always geothermal...

The principle of using solar to generate electricity is probably OK in a region where high summer temperatures cause people to run air conditioning when the weather is hot. Its pretty clear that the above does not apply in the UK, so the energy generated by solar is pointless since it doesn't cover peak demand periods especially when output is lower overall in winter when we need the most energy. The feed in tariffs were always little more than a false economic growth investment scam which increased the financial apartheid between rich and poor in the UK. Corporates renting poor people's roof was in particular an intellectually dishonest rip-off on consumers since at 3Kw its only just enough to boil a fast kettle. I suspect that the corporates were working on the theory that people would use little energy as they were out at work all day anyway.

"Alex Lockton, managing director of Freesource Energy, said: "We can live with a 50pc cut in the tariff but, if the December deadline is true, we urge the Government to reconsider the timing, which is going to cause short-term chaos across the solar industry."



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8856365/Renting-out-roof-to-solar-power-firms-could-make-your-home-harder-to-sell-surveyors-warn.html



What a mind blowing statement "We can live with a 50pc cut in the tariff", can't we all? Especially those who do not have a large south facing roof!



I can understand the FIT for householders who install at their own expense. But FITs to the "rent a roof" industry is just plain wrong and especially when local government jump on the wagon.



Apart from it being morally wrong the UK needs to direct all of its resource into base load generation, which at present is far from secure:-



"UK coal power stations set to close up to four years early"



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8797523/UK-coal-power-stations-set-to-close-up-to-four-years-early.html



Solar is not and never can be base load, fix the base load first.

This Govenment is supposed to generate free enterprise .. similar to the US . The U-turn in public using PV is absolute ROT .. the coal will not last : and nuclear energy has not taken off .

The wind farms off the coast .. the welds needs redoing .. the cost ... £millions .

The Government should listen to the pulic for a change

BooHoo!



You build an industry not on economics but on subsidies and then throw up your arms when they get taken away. You deserve everything you get; build a proper business based on sound economics rather than participating in reverse redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. All of these companies must have known it was unsustainable and should have had an exit plan.



When you get people appearing on Dragon's Den touting this, and see the glint of greed in the Dragon's eyes at the free money flowing into the system, you have to know it's wrong. It is not smart business sense to succeed in this kind of business, no more than any other method of getting money without providing any true value for it, like your average rogue trader.



That this was invented by the Labour Govt is just another testament to the disaster their 13 year reign precipitated on all of us.



It's about time is was stopped, now let's move on to subsidies for wind power.

perhaps the madness is finally starting to unravel. Please God this is just the first step to sanity being returned to energy policy in the UK



early stages, I know, but it has to start somewhere



and with Richard Betts from the Met Office starting to talk sense over at Bishop Hill's blog it could really be the beginning of the end

As far as energy is concerned the govt really need to take a strategic lead in energy supply - after all it is pretty fundamental to economic and social survival. The answer is simple - modern nuclear power is relatively clean and safe and instead of being constantly diverted by the 'know nothing but shout as if they do brigade' the government should simply get on with planning, siting, building and bringing into commission nuclear power stations asap and if necessary ignore the protestations of the ignorant.



I am not advocating the system which broke down in Japan earlier this year but modern safe plant.

There IS a valid reason for subsidies like this - it helps to boost a manufacturing industry to bring prices down to a more affordable level (due to better economies of scale). This has partially worked for solar panels. However, solar has never been a valid mainstream strategy for the UK, because of our latitude.

I'd like to know what this has to do with weather or climate.

I am all for green energy and it has to be sustainable. Labour wouldn't know the first thing about sustainability, they believe in taxing and bringing everybody down to a lower level, which they have just succeeded in again. At the same time the Conservatives are too worried about the bottom line. I dread to think what the Liberals view would be, if they are in power. If you want sensible policies, I suggest you vote UKIP.

Sheffield_city,

"I dread to think what the Liberals view would be, if they are in power."

I have got news for you, they are in power!

I agree about UKIP but they will never be popular enough to gain power.

Their only hope is to influence the major parties and there isn't even much chance of that.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9634000/9634597.stm

Quaesoveritas. The Liberals aren't really in power, but the influence they do have scares me. Isn't the Eu the one who believes in the Global warming by man, I thought children grew up and stopped being scared of monsters in dreams, that don't exist.

"grew up and stopped being scared of monsters in dreams, that don't exist"



Very few of us can truly say this. Picture yourself having just watched a particularly scary movie (exorcist?) and then having to walk home alone, taking a short cut through a dark and deserted graveyard. I reckon most people wouldn't fancy it much.

My friend, a psychologist, says that the 'belief' part of our brain is essential for normal everyday living for such things as walking down the street and believing that the brick wall next to you is not suddenly going to fall and crush you. All of us construct these fundamental beliefs uniquely, which is why some of us are scared of spiders and others are not.

Some of the time, the 'educated' aspect of the brain is fighting against the 'belief' aspect of the brain and as often as not, the belief side wins. In the above example, we might take a longer but better lit route home after the scary movie. We must then justify that to ourselves on the basis that we could have tripped over had we taken the short cut.



I'm pretty sure that my personal 'belief' that AGW is not a real problem, influences the way I assess much of what I read. Just being aware of this, doesn't actually change my behaviour dramatically - it can't. At least, not until the belief has been re-written in my head at a subconscious level.



I think that some of the AGW consensus followers need to look in the mirror a little more often. I should expect that scientists are, at least in part, trained to resolve these conflicts in order to avoid confirmation bias. That said, there must be plenty of scientists who are scared of spiders or have other irrational fears and beliefs.

I work in this field, and while it pays my wages I have to say its more about making money than saving the planet



We are currently installing heat reclaim coils in mainly government buildings, (you put a coil in the extract ductwork another coil in the supply air ductwork, pipe between them, put a pump in the middle and turn it on, warm extract air is transferred to cold supply air) the cost of the installations will take 50 years to be paid back from energy savings made, (best most optimistic estimate)the plant itself has a shelf life of just 20 years!



Result most expensive form of energy production ever but plenty of boxes ticked

It would appear that the eco-fascists have bombarded " Points of View " with complaints about last Monday's Panorama outlining the " green " energy policy scam, and in particular focussing on wind farms and the proposed carbon floor price as a carrot for companies to build nuclear power stations.



Just over nine minutes in, woman apparently insisting that low income people should freeze and starve to death to save the planet.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017929w/Points_of_View_2011_Episode_17/

#17. - brossen99 wrote:



"Just over nine minutes in, woman apparently insisting that low income people should freeze and starve to death to save the planet."



Did you mean 9 minutes into the "Points of View" programme?

I have watched it and I couldn't see anything which resembled the above.

Has it been removed from the iPlayer version?

A moments reflection will convince the sane that solar panels are not the answer to the zero problem.



Incoming solar energy at our latitude is about 180W/m2



Solar panels are 9% efficient, call it 10% for ease of calculation.



So for every square meter of panel you get 18 watts of power assuming the sun is shining of course and zero at night.



10 sq. m. will not give enough power for 2x100w conventional light bulbs. Use of CFBs is up to you if you don't care about the environment being contaminated with mercury.



So not to good for Blighty. Spain might be better but solar operators were making so little money that some installed diesel generators to give power at night, comical but true and eventually discovered by an eagle eyed civil servant. Spain has now delayed further solar panel installation.



The largest solar panel manufacturer in the USA has recently gone bankrupt with debts of $500m. Obama is not pleased.



The UK paid the highest FIT of all governments so it could not be too long a time before these were reduced. Nothing to do with more affordable panels more to do with incoming tax money failing to keep up with the profligacy of government. We can't afford it!

to lateintheday # 15 who wrote :



"I'm pretty sure that my personal belief that AGW is not a real problem influences the way I assess much of what I read".



I think you and your psychologist friend have hit upon a real nugget of truth here about the AGW issue. It seems to me that much of what is written on this blog, for example, is really about fondly held belief rather than fact - which explains why it is so difficult to change opinions and why comments sometimes border on the downright irrational.



Conversely I'm not sure why scientists, tediously measuring global temperature and CO2 levels, coming to the seemingly unavoidable conclusion that a rise in both can only be explained adequately if human activity is taken into account - could in itself either offend or confirm a cherished belief. (belief in what?)



It was not until the idea became more widely aired that emotion and "belief" came into the picture - followed by polarisation and implacable stubborness in some - as the implication of what the evidence implied gradually sank in.



Parallels could be drawn with Darwin's "Origin of Species". Darwin was forced to his conclusions by an inexorable tide of cold evidence - yet he was unwilling to publish for a long time because he was aware of the implications for people's belief systems. He knew it would cause a tumult -and sure enough, once published- the hot air,indignation and general outrage began (and still continues - which is a depressing thought).



However surely your comment that your belief can't change -"until the belief has been re written in my head at a subconcious level" - is unduely pessimistic of the human condition! Speaking as someone who used to be a "skeptic" I can assure you it is possible to change your view without undergoing hypnotism or a personality transplant.



For the non expert, understanding a complex scientific issue must inevitably be based on trust in the rationality of its proponents - rather than a suspicion of their potential corruption, venality or emotional succeptibilities, which is up to you to assess for yourself.



I would only advise - starting from a clean slate, if you can imagine it - why on earth would the original objective scientific idea itself of AGW possibly demand qualities of deceit and manipulation or even "belief" to get itself so widely accepted among other scientists who pride themselves on being rational- as far as it is humanly possible to be?



I am sure that if the balance of evidence changes views will also change. This

Despite Dr. Roy Spencer's forecast that "November will show another subtantial drop in global temperatures", in fact, the first 12 days of the month have shown an increase in the AQUA CH5 temperature of 0.175 degrees compared to October 31st.

The daily temperature for the 12th was back over the 2002-2010 average again, for the first time since October 20th, and is currently heading towards the 2010 values, which were falling rapidly this time last year.

So, will temperatures take a downward path again before the end of the month, and prove Dr. Spencer correct?

greensand,



I have been doing some comparison of the relative trends in HadSST2 and Crutem3 temperature anomalies, including 10 year moving averages and

10 year moving linear trends.



As you said in some of your earlier posts, the Crutem3 temperature does currently seem to be increasing more rapidly than the HadSST2 temperature and this is more pronounced in the N.H. than in the S.H.



I am still trying to interpret the significance of some of the trends, I have noticed the following:



While the global 10 year Crutem3 anomaly has risen more quickly than the HadSST2 anomaly since about 1977, I noticed that the divergence began

earlier in the N.H., i.e. about 1973 than in the S.H., i.e. about 1980.



Also, this is not the first time that the temperatures have diverged in this way. Between about 1893 and 1916, global Crutem3 also rose faster than HadSST2 and this also seems to have started earlier in the N.H. than in the S.H.



There have also been shorter periods when Crutem3 rose more quickly than HadSST2, notably between 1945 and 1956, although in that case the divergences seem to have started at the same time in the N.H. and the S.H.



Of course, these periods have been interspersed with periods when HadSST2 rose more quickly than Crutem3, which was generally the case between 1916 and 1976.



So while the current phase of land temperatures rising more quickly than sea surface temperatures is certainly the longest such period and the most extreme, it is not unprecedented and the obvious question arises, what would cause this change in the relative land and sea surface temperatures? It so happens that the current period of divergence has occurred during a period of temperature increases, but the one between 1893 and 1916 occurred when temperatures were generally falling, and the period between 1916 and 1945, which saw sea surface temperatures rising more quickly than land, was during a period when temperatures were generally rising.

(continued)



As I said earlier, I also looked at the changes in the 10 year linear trends for HadSST2 and Crutem3, globally, and for the N and S hemispheres, but I haven't yet looked at these in any detail. However, I can say that the trends are all currently negative:



HadSST2

Global = -0.0753c/decade

N.H. = -0.0588c/decade

S.H. = -0.0920c/decade



Crutem3

Global = -0.0464c/decade

N.H. = -0.0126c/decade

S.H. = -0.080c/decade



So despite the recent high Crutem3 temperatures the 10 year trend went negative in June 2011 for the first time since July 1997. Moreover, all of the above 10 year

linear trends have been falling since approximately 2002. In the case of the HadSST2 S.H., the trend has been negative since 2006.



The best way of looking at the changes in the 10 year linear trends is in graphical form, to get an impression of the overall pattern. When I have done that I will try to post any interesting facts which become apparent.

@19 John Marshall



By you figures the FIT schemme will not pay out much money anyway? Investers wont get the 10% returns currently estimated. Your example would be 0.18KWh at the most (max 4 hours a day in summer when you might get this 0.18 figure)?



Or you could have your figures wrong...



Or you could have

21. QuaesoVeritas:



November's Ch 5 is still currently the coolest 'to date' in the range (from 2002), so 'relatively' speaking Spencer might still be right about it. However, 'actual' temperatures do seem to be heading upwards just now. I don't know why Dr Spencer made such a confident assertion; but then there are lots of things about Dr Spencer that I don't understand.



22 & 23. QuaesoVeritas:



While ten year trends are of interest as indicators of short-term 'noise', no serious climate data analysis considers them as a long enough measure by which to judge climate trends.



Santer et al (2011) have suggested that a minimum of 17 years for discerning an AGW signal from continuous temperature data; WMO and UNEP recommend a minimum of 30 years (and have done so for decades).



There has been a lot of 'sceptical' commentary on these short term 'levelling/cooling' trends, most of which largely ignores or dismisses the longer term periods that are recommended, and indeed which are used by all the major data providers to set their anomaly reference values.



If you look at crutem3 vrs Hadsst2 over the last 30 years you should see a much closer correlation. (In fact the correlation coefficient is 0.982, which for n=30 is +99.5% confidence positive correlation.)



The same should apply to a 30 year running trend, though I haven't tried this yet.

QuaesoVeritas



Many thanks for the numbers, excellent work, not had chance to have a good look but will do.



Special thanks for the "early" data, I have really been concentrating on 1979 onwards, cross referencing with UAH. So will now take a longer view.



I did some awhile back just plotting CRUTEM minus HadSST, will have to look for it.



I have been watching Nov UAH and checking monthly averages, if the average stays as is I have a range of +0.09 to +0.16C so I agree so far not showing signs of Spencer's further substantial drop in Nov.



But again what do I know, very difficult to predict UAH.



Regards

https://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/ipcc-5ar-no-climate-change-for-next-20.html

#25. - newdwr54 wrote:

"While ten year trends are of interest as indicators of short-term 'noise', no serious climate data analysis considers them as a long enough measure by which to judge climate trends."

To suggest that 10 year trends are merely indicators of "short-term noise", is frankly ridiculous.

They are an early indicator of the way longer term trends are likely to behave.

I suspect that you would not be saying that if the trends were going up and not down.

I am well aware of the trends over longer periods and I don't ignore them and it would be just as bad to ignore the shorter-term trends because they don't fit in with your beliefs.

The correlation between Crutem3 and HadSST2 may well be closely correlated over a 30 year period, but that goes no way to explaining the differences over shorter periods. Or are you saying that such differences don't really exist?

#25. - newdwr54 wrote:

"November's Ch 5 is still currently the coolest 'to date' in the range (from 2002), so 'relatively' speaking Spencer might still be right about it."

That may be true, but it is entirely due to the rapid fall in October, not November, so I don't know how it could be construed as representing a "substantial drop" in November temperatures. That said, he may well yet be proven correct, since there is some way to go yet.

Regarding the solar panel issue : I think in principle they are a good idea.



However, another principle at the heart of the "Green Economy" in my opinion, must be fairness. It is surely deeply wrong, even immoral, that people, some of whom may barely be able to afford to keep themselves warm, should be paying to provide "incentives" to others (predominantly well off) to make it "worthwhile" installing solar units which would otherwise be seriously uneconomic.



Where subsidies to come from general taxation, on the other hand, then in theory at least, the better off would be paying most towards their own handouts.



In our own idealogically bankrupt political system, this seems never likely to happen- so wedded are they (all) to the idea that the only way to progress is to manipulate the "market" rather than take responsibility and provide real leadership.



At a stroke, not only do they demonstrate lack of commitment and vision towards the green economy but also that it is far less important an issue than keeping market ideology untainted by direct intervention.



Is carbon reduction really an important issue? Either this is worth doing properly (at great expense) or it is not! And for people to accept and co operate with change it needs to be based on a modicum of demonstrable fairness at the very least.



As for UKIP (the whinger's party) what is their policy -apart from if we left the EU - everything would be marvelous? You can promise anything when you are unlikely to have to deliver.

28.QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"To suggest that 10 year trends are merely indicators of "short-term noise", is frankly ridiculous. They are an early indicator of the way longer term trends are likely to behave."



But there have been several periods of levelling or slight cooling lasting around ten years, even within the past few decades of rapid warming, that did not herald the start of a long term cooling period. This GIF graph showing 'trends within trends' in the BEST data from skeptical science illustrates this point very clearly: https://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif



Differences in all temperature indicators over smaller periods certainly exist; they are expected to. AGW is not the only forcing acting on climate. Over the short term, global average surface temperatures are influenced by volcanic activity, aerosols, possibly clouds, and both solar and ocean cycles. If we use periods as short as a decade, or even less than 17 years (Santer, 2011), then we are unlikely to see the underlying long term trend.



I take your point that this should be applied equally to warming as well as cooling short term cycles.

The NCDC/NOAA temperature anomalies have now been published for October. These show global and hemispheric changes in the anomalies similar to those of NASA/GISS, but the situation is complicated by the fact that the anomalies have once again been retrospectively revised across the entire period of the series.

The actual October anomaly figures, compared with the revised and original September figures were as follows:



Global 0.5767c, compared to a revised Sept. figure of 0.5348c and an original figure of 0.5242c.

N.H. 0.7327c, compared to a revised Sept. figure of 0.6067c and an original figure of 0.5917c

S.H. 0.4165c, compared to a revised Sept. figure of 0.4661c and an original figure of 0.4602c



The above October anomalies are equivalent to 0.439c, 0.643c and 0.241c, after adjustment to the HadCRUT3 baseline of 1961-90.



I haven't looked at the breakdown between NCDC/NOAA sst and land temperatures in any detail, but the global sst figure shows a slight fall, similar to that

in HadSST2, and the land figure a larger increase. Since HadCRUT3 normally follows the NCDC/NOAA and NASA/GISS anomalies more closely than the satellite anomalies, this may suggest a likely October HadCRUT3 at the high end of my previous estimates, i.e. about 0.35c, or even a slight increase over last months figure of 0.371c.



In general, the retrospective revisions of the NCDC/NOAA anomaly figures show reductions of about 0.01c in the figures prior to 1920 and increases of about 0.008c from about 1920 to the present day. This would of course have the effect of slightly increasing the long-term temperature trend, although the shorter term trend over the last 10 years remains negative. So far, I have been unable to find any explanation for these revisions on the NCDC/NOAA web site.

#31. newdwr54 wrote:

"But there have been several periods of levelling or slight cooling lasting around ten years, even within the past few decades of rapid warming, that did not herald the start of a long term cooling period. This GIF graph showing 'trends within trends' in the BEST data from skeptical science illustrates this point very clearly: "

I haven't read the article behind this chart, but as far as I am aware, this is NOT the way "skeptics" (certainly not myself), view "global warming". The graph in question is a very crude representation of the situation and my own graphs show the continuous progress of the linear trend over time, which demonstrates that there are periods of rising temperatures and periods of cooling. I am not asserting that the long-term trend is down, but that we are currently in one of a number of periods of cooling, which would not be apparent without looking at the continuous evolution of the 10 year linear trend. Unlike the skeptical science graph, I haven't "cherry picked" the 10 year periods over which to calculate the trend.

On the other hand, the graph of the 50 year linear trend (which I am sure you would consider to be a long enough period to be significant), does indicate that we have already entered a 20 to 30 year period of cooling, which is not suggested in long-term predictions, such as those from the IPCC. You will be intrested to know that the 50 year trend does suggest that will be followed by a 20 to 30 year period of increased warming.

I have received the following explanation for the retrospective changes to the

data from NCDC/NOAA:



"The changes that you see throughout the data series are due to a dataset transition. On November 2011, the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) (the official global land surface mean temperature dataset) version 3.1.0 replaced version 3.0.0. Beginning with the October Global State of the Climate report, GHCN-M 3.1.0 will be used for NCDC climate monitoring activities."



There is a reference on the website to the change from version 1 to version 2 and I have suggested that they update that.

I don't know what the combined effect of both of these changes is but I suspect it is to make the older figures colder and the more recent figures warmer. The graphs of the changes look very similar.

Oops, that was the graph of the same data, so please ignore the last sentence.

https://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22704

33. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"...the graph of the 50 year linear trend (which I am sure you would consider to be a long enough period to be significant), does indicate that we have already entered a 20 to 30 year period of cooling..."



Assuming you're referring to HadCRUT3, I can't agree with your assessment that the graph shows we have entered a 20-30 year period of cooling. I find that the running 50 year linear trend is continuing to rise. I used monthly values *600. The last 12 values (Oct 2010-Sept 2011) show a steady rise, not a fall:



0.694

0.695

0.695

0.695

0.696

0.697

0.699

0.700

0.702

0.705

0.706

0.708



However, even if we assume that we are on the cusp of another natural cooling cycle, we have to bear in mind that trends are 'relative' and do not reflect real world temperatures.



If you run your graph again, only this time using running 50 year temperature averages instead of trends, you get a whole different perspective.



What this means is that even if there 'are' cyclical periods of natural warming and cooling, as there appear to be, in terms of absolute temperatures it doesn't really help us very much.



For instance average temperatures at the last peak in the 50 year running trend (c. 1953) were -0.035 C 'below' the 1961-1990 average. Assuming that we are presently at the current peak in the 50 year running trend, average temperatures (last 12 months) are +0.374 C 'above' the 1961-1990 average.



While there may be relative cooling in terms of trends that are explicable in terms of natural cycles, in absolute terms temperatures in the real world are rising sharply.

32. QuaesoVeritas:



NCDC/NOAA temperature anomalies for October also edges 2011 'year-to-date' (Jan-Oct) into the top 10 warmest in their 132 year record.

#37. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Assuming you're referring to HadCRUT3, I can't agree with your assessment that the graph shows we have entered a 20-30 year period of cooling. I find that the running 50 year linear trend is continuing to rise. I used monthly values *600. The last 12 values (Oct 2010-Sept 2011) show a steady rise, not a fall:"



I agree with your figures, although I have a few minor differences in the third decimal places.



However, I don't think the fact that the 50 year trend hasn't yet started to decline invalidates my statement that we have already entered a period of cooling. The 50 year trend is actually lagging behind the fall in temperatures which has taken place over the last 10 years and will not start to fall for several years. In a similar manner, it will continue to fall well into the period when temperatures start to rise again.



On the assumption that the 50 year trend will follow a similar pattern to that which it has done in the past, it is possible to calculate the likely annual temperature anomalies which would be consistent with such a curve, and it was on that basis that I first predicted an annual anomaly of 0.31c for 2011. The final figure looks like it might be around the 0.36c level, which makes my prediction out by about 0.05c, and more accurate than the UKMO prediction for the year of 0.44c. Now, why would a prediction based entirely on a statistical interpretation of past figures be more accurate than a figure based on sophisticated computer models based on AGW theory?



The UKMO also predicted in 2009 that 2010 would be warmer than 1998 and that there would be "renewed warming after 2010", and that "about half of the years to 2015", were likely to be warmer than 1998. and in a later press release, that "about half of the years 2010 to 2019" were likely to be warmer than 1998. They were wrong about 2010 and they will be wrong about 2011. As far as I am aware, the UKMO has not yet retracted the above predictions. Based on my calculations using the 50 year trend, it is unlikely that more than 1 year between 2010 and 2015 or 2 between 2010 and 2019, will be warmer than 1998.



This is the message hidden within the 50 year linear trend, which is not apparent using the 50 year m.a.

38.At 15:19 17th Nov 2011, newdwr54 wrote:

"NCDC/NOAA temperature anomalies for October also edges 2011 'year-to-date' (Jan-Oct) into the top 10 warmest in their 132 year record."



On the other hand, the 10 year linear trend has fallen from -0.0317c/decade to -0.0377c/ decade, despite the monthly rise.

And, incidentally, the NASA/GISS 10 year trend has gone from +0.0093c/decade to +0.0028c/decade and may well be negative by the end of the year.