Second warmest Autumn on record

November's warm spell was climate, last December's was weather.

Paul writes: "More importantly the much hyped extreme cold and snowy weather, forecast by several private weather companies for December, seems as far away as ever."



Whether you're trying to predict the weather through probablistics, a la Met Office, or historic patterns, a la Piers, the inherently chaotic nature of the climate and our fundamental lack of understanding of its condition and drivers will always mean that, in the absence of anything material to depend upon, every mid/long-range forecaster is at the mercy of *luck*. Nobody makes a successful long term forecast of this chaotic system through good management more than they do through good fortune, no matter what they claim.

More meridional jets giving periods of anomalous warmth AND anomalous cold in close succession are in my view a sign of a generally cooling globe because that pattern involves faster and larger equator to pole energy transfers.



For a novel general climate overview and description please see here:



https://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723&linkbox=true&position=6



"CO2 or Sun ?"

Yes, a remarkable season.



A friend at Stillingfleet (S of York), told me they had their first frost of the season this morning.



Worth adding Paul, I believe it was the joint warmest autumn in Ireland and Wales and the very warmest in Scotland.



Drought also showing its effects all over the East Riding. Lakes shrinking, springs failing, Driffield Beck, among others, dwindling to a meagre flow with fish crowding into deep pools. If we get a dry winter, this could become quite serious.



Finally - to anyone out there who still falls for the yarns of these private forecasters - how much longer are you going to allow yourself to be taken for a complete mug?

So from known records it has been the warmest November for 351 years. I ask this everytime these statistics are published, could any express,as a percentage,what 351 years would be in the overall time that climate change has been taking place.Or put it another way, they are meaningless!

Hudsonfan, if you believe that historical data is meaningless then why are you so interested in a weather blog that so oft relies on it? Is it because they show trends that you would rather not accept or hope to disappear?



Do you hold the same contempt for other historical records? Decline or increase of disease? World population? Fossil record? etc

Autumn has yet to finish. Regardless of BBC wishes, or those of the Met Office, we have 18 days to go to the Winter Solstice which is when winter starts and autumn ends. So a few more days to get a more representative autumn temperature figure. Or are we just cooking the books again?

The Met Office have spoken:-



UK Outlook for Saturday 17 Dec 2011 to Saturday 31 Dec 2011:



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_forecast_weather.html



3-month outlook December 2011 - February 2012:



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publicsector/contingency-planners



"The probability that mean UK temperature for December-January-February will fall into the coldest of our five categories is about 15%, whilst the probability that it will fall into the warmest of our five categories is about 25% (the climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%)."



H/T Richard Betts at Bishop Hill:-



https://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/



Dr Richard Betts is Head of the Climate Impacts at the Met Office.



Leads Climate Impacts area, specialising in ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions but also overseeing work on urban, health, industry and finance.

QV if you are about, I will stick my head over the parapet re UAH Nov numbers.



Oct I had a range of +0.04 to +0.15 and it came in +0.11 provisional revised to +0.12. First time inside my range so track record not good.



Using the same "guessing techniques" I have +0.05 to +0.12 so if I am anywhere near there should not be much change Oct to Nov? Though I do have an outlier at -0.05 but cannot see that happening.



Time will tell.



Have fun

#9. - greensand wrote:

"QV if you are about, I will stick my head over the parapet re UAH Nov numbers."



"Using the same "guessing techniques" I have +0.05 to +0.12 so if I am anywhere near there should not be much change Oct to Nov? Though I do have an outlier at -0.05 but cannot see that happening."





Based on the final AQUA CH5 temperature, the UAH figure should be +0.101c, but the actual figure could be 0.1c lower or 0.07c higher.

My estimate for October was almost spot on, but I think that was a fluke.

1. cmdocker wrote:



"November's warm spell was climate, last December's was weather."



No, every month's temperature value is weather. The change in the average November temperature over the last 30 years is climate.

2. Simon H:



Piers Morgan claims to be able to precisely predict weather weeks in advance because of 'solar influences'. He refuses to disclose his methods for scientific peer review.



People spend money on this man's claims.



His claims are that the future can be accurately predicted by observing the behaviour of a star. This is also known as 'astrology'.



I expect that Piers' predictions are every bit as reliable as those of other astrologers.

7. John Marshall wrote:



"...we have 18 days to go to the Winter Solstice which is when winter starts and autumn ends."



That's the astronomical end of autumn/start of winter. That's *not* the measure by which the records quoted above by Paul Hudson are gauged.



The records above are all based on the widely accepted meteorological season of autumn (September- November).

@12 newdwr54



It's Piers Corbyn.... :-)

14.john_cogger wrote:



"It's Piers Corbyn.... :-)"



Thanks John. It's also Xmas party season... hic! ...



(Maybe Morgan/Corbyn won't be able to sue me if I use the wrong name?)

15. newdwr54



Is that your first experience of "piers review"

#12. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Piers Morgan claims to be able to precisely predict weather weeks in advance because of 'solar influences'. He refuses to disclose his methods for scientific peer review."

I'm pleased that I am not the only one who gets names wrong occasionally!



"His claims are that the future can be accurately predicted by observing the behaviour of a star. This is also known as 'astrology'.

I expect that Piers' predictions are every bit as reliable as those of other astrologers."



I am surprised that you have adopted this argument, since you must be aware that astrology is based entirely on the position of objects in the solar system relative to a notional zodiac of 12 constellations and that there is no physical mechanism for the alleged influence of those objects.

On the other hand, I believe that Corbyn's predictions are in part based on the effects of electro-magnetic radiation from the sun.

So while I am myself sceptical about Corbyn's ability to predict the weather using his methods, I do think that they have a much stronger scientific basis than astrology.

QV - I agree. I believe he also includes the moons gravitational pull in some way which again, is not an impossible connection. That said, he's going to have to up his game in order to gain widespread acceptance.

Interestingly, I'm sure that I've read that there is a correlation with temps and length of day (LOD) which is extremely puzzling. Changes in LOD are minute(milliseconds) and the causes are not well understood. Plenty of theories about ocean atmosphere/moon/earth core magnetism etc however.

"November's warm spell was climate, last December's was weather."



The UKs weather is weather, whichever year you quote; only globally is it climate. 2010 tied with 1998 to be the warmest year on record, that is globally.

#19. - Morley-press wrote:

"The UKs weather is weather, whichever year you quote; only globally is it climate. 2010 tied with 1998 to be the warmest year on record, that is globally."



On what basis do you say that 2010 tied with 1998?

According to the CRU, the annual HadCRUT3 anomaly for 1998 was 0.548c and that for 2010 was 0.478c, i.e. 0.07c lower. In fact, by this measure, 2010 was only the third warmest year, after 2005 with 0.482c.

Even the MO "provisional" figure, issued in January 2011 made it the second warmest.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2010-global-temperature

Also, you seem to be saying that individual nations or regions cannot have climates, but the planet has long been divided into various climatic types, including the Temperate climate, which includes the UK.

One definition of climate is "The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region", so the climate of the UK would be defined by the long-term averages of these conditions.

For the purposes of measuring "climate change", the period over which the averages are calculated seems to be 30 years, but IMHO, that is too short.

Also, there can be large variations in the weather within the average climate, which do not constitute "climate change".

17. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"... while I am myself sceptical about Corbyn's ability to predict the weather using his methods, I do think that they have a much stronger scientific basis than astrology."



Thanks QV. I've recovered somewhat since the work's party yesterday evening. (There 'is' a Piers Morgan somewhere, isn't there?)



On the astrology thing: the idea of linking Corbyn's methods with astrology struck me at an unsteady moment, you might say. But I don't think it's too outrageous.



Classical astrology might be based on zodiacal planes, etc , but at least part of its interpretation has always been to presume to be able to predict the distant future by interpreting 'signs' allegedly coming from the stars. We can forgive this notion in ancient cultures. But what about modern ones?



The truth is we don't know the scientific basis of Corbyn's claims, because they remain unpublished. So when he predicts weather with pinpoint precision (but not necessarily with pinpoint accuracy) weeks in advance, is he making a scientifically-based claim or is he star gazing?



The person we hear most often praising Corbyns' success rate is Corbyn. He claims on his site that his predictions have been refereed in the scientific peer reviewed literature, but I can't find any links there (though I find links to many other things, such as subscription offers).



Perhaps I've underestimated him though. Maybe tonight's snow skiff where I live is just the leading edge of the month-long reign of cold and heavy snow that was supposed to start the best part of a week ago. Or maybe it's just a brief December cold spell?

Whilst we're on the subject of how the sun could influence weather a la Piers Corbyn's theories, this graph looks remarkably similar to the global warming graphs. Could there be a link?



https://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/420-year-graph-of-annual-magnetic-pole-shift.jpg

I woke up to see the first snow on the ground in South Sheffield. Did anybody in Yorkshire have any substantial snow last night. It is funny how quickly the weather can change and we now seem to be a cold phase of weather. It is a same global warming stopped a long time ago, the heating bills are going to be high for many this winter on top of all the stupid tariffs we have for Carbon reduction. I am more bothered about the decimation of the Amazon rain forest etc, than C02.

#21. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Classical astrology might be based on zodiacal planes, etc , but at least part of its interpretation has always been to presume to be able to predict the distant future by interpreting 'signs' allegedly coming from the stars. We can forgive this notion in ancient cultures. But what about modern ones?"

As far as I am aware, astrological predictions are based entirely on the relative positions of the planets (and possibly other phenomena such as comets), in relation to a notional zodiacal constellations (not the actual constellations), and doesn't involve the stars themselves. As far as I am aware, no physical force has ever been specified which causes the influence of the planets. So I still think that whatever method is used by Piers Corbyn, it would be wrong to compare his methods with astrology.



"Perhaps I've underestimated him though. Maybe tonight's snow skiff where I live is just the leading edge of the month-long reign of cold and heavy snow that was supposed to start the best part of a week ago. Or maybe it's just a brief December cold spell?"



Sheer coincidence IMO. Snowfall in winter isn't such an unusual thing, although I admit that until a few years ago it had become less frequent.

#22. - Mateybass wrote:

"Whilst we're on the subject of how the sun could influence weather a la Piers Corbyn's theories, this graph looks remarkably similar to the global warming graphs. Could there be a link? "

Again, just coincidence I think.

However, since a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields is now overdue, if that were to occur, it would put the theory to a test. However, I suspect that there may be other effects with greater impacts.

#23. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"It is funny how quickly the weather can change and we now seem to be a cold phase of weather. "

It demonstrates how quickly things can change in the British Isles, simply as a result of a variation in atmospheric pressure patterns.



"I am more bothered about the decimation of the Amazon rain forest etc, than C02."

One thing which has annoyed me recently is that prevention of "climate change" has been the main reason put forward for not destroying the rain forests. The implication is that were it not for "climage change", destroying the forests would be o.k. As you imply, I think that preserving the forests and the habitats the contain should be an end in itself and shouldn't rely on the implications for the climate.

QuaesoVeritas I totally agree, that we should be focusing all our efforts on ensuring that the Amazon forest etc isn't damaged any further and that it is allowed to grow back into land cleared. In the early part of last century, the UK had 5% of covering by trees, that is now closer to 10%. Global warming by man is a big distraction and on par with creating a single currency in Europe, doomed.

There is a very interesting post at Climate Etc by Tony Brown:-



"The long, slow thaw?"



https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/



If you have an interest in CET this is a must read, lots of background and history for all to enjoy. It is long but well worth a read.

#13, newdwr54 wrote that my winter was based on the astronomical seasons. Unfortunately out seasons are based on astronomical events, like our solar orbit and planetary tilt etc., so we must follow those seasons. Moving it all one month early will create the impression that the seasons are getting warmer which is not true for the planet Earth.



Should we be trying to stop the use of trees from the Amazon forest? Trees have a limited life, 200-400 years or so, but the Amazon forest has been in situ for millions of years. It is subject to natural devastation like wildfires, floods, landslides, etc and recovers without our input. In fact our input might not be the best thing for the forest since we still do not understand the area very well. It is also a resource that the local peoples can use to earn a living to feed themselves and families. A renewable resource which the likes of WWF and Greenpeace want to be a political hot potato to get some people to give them money for the 'fight'

John Marshall . . .

I understood that once cleared through logging, Rainforest in particular, has a very hard time re-establishing itself even with our 'help'. Something to do with the soil changing its unique character once it loses the protection of the canopy. If this is the case, then I doubt that the large scale commercial enterprises really are renewable. Others I'm sure, will know better.

@newdwr54 I was being sarcastic mate...

RSS have beaten UAH to the November anomaly figures.

The global anomaly is 0.033c, compared to 0.089c for October.

The NH anomaly is 0.083c, compared to 0.205c for October.

The SH anomaly is -0.019c, compared to -0.032c for October.

All of the above are the lowest RSS November anomalies since the year 2000.

The November anomalies are equivalent to 0.18c, 0.244c and 0.118c after adjustment to 1961-90.

I'm quite surprised at the further fall in the global anomaly, since RSS was already well below the other anomalies last month.

It is also interesting that the +60 to +82.5 degree anomaly is down from 0.632c to 0.605c and the -60 to -70 degree anomaly is down from +0.13c to -0.016c.

Also, the Continental USA anomaly is up from -0.077c to +0.327c, i.e. a rise of 0.526c relative to the NH as a whole. This seems to point to a continuation in the rise of land temperatures relative to sea temperatures.

32. QV,



Many thanks for the numbers, especially revising them to the 1961-90 norms.



I have not done any work with RSS, maybe I should, as you say land still appears to be increasing relative to SST and more pronounced in NH?



UAH overdue?

greensand,

I wouldn't say overdue.

A bit later than recently, possibly due to the weekend.

The conversion to 1961-90 is a bit controversial, and some would argue that it is not possible to do that accurately, since the satellite records don't start until 1979.

The base period for RSS is 1979-98, which has a zero mean anomaly (as you would expect), and the mean HadCRUT3 anomaly for that period is about 0.147c, so I add that to the RSS to get the equivalent HadCRUT3 figure, but it may not be completely accurate.

Incidentally, did you know that the mean HadCRUT3 anomaly for 1961-90 is approximately -0.0277c, the mean HadSST2 is -0.0375c, and the mean CRUTEM3 is +0.00367c, when they should in theory all be zero?

In theory, you have to adjust the current anomaly figures by the above figures, in order to get the true anomaly relative to 1961-90.

The difference in the case of the HadCRUT3 anomaly is equivalent to an individual month being 10c too low, or an individual year being 0.8c too low.

The 30 year period over which the HadCRUT3 anomaly has a near zero mean is actually December 1964 to November 1994. When I pointed out the discrepancy in the HadCRUT3 figure to the MO, and pointed out that the mean NCDC and GISS anomalies over their base periods was zero, I received the following reply:

"NCDC and GISS both use a certain amount of data interpolation in order to estimate temperatures in areas where no observations were made. In producing HadCRUT3 we do not do this. The data coverage changes from month to month and from year to year. This has two effects. The first is that it that there are uncertainties in the climatological average particularly in data sparse regions. The second effect is that the changing coverage combined with changes in the climate during the climatology period mean that the average of the anomalies is not exactly equal to zero."

Personally I don't find this a satisfactory or verifiable explanation.

@ Paul Hudson



interesting as always Paul but as we know when it is unusually warm in one part of the world it is inevitably unusually cold in some other part of the world. As QV mentions above it appears that globally temperatures are continuing to fall so can you identify those parts of the world that were unusually cold in Autumn?



Not that the temperature of the earth can be measured in any meaningfull way....

Spanglerboy,



There used to be a global temperature anomaly map provided by Dr Ryan Maue at the following location, but the link no longer works:

https://www.coaps.fsu.edu/%7Emaue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp.html

Unfortunately before the link went down, the anomalies displayed became unreliable, so that is possibly why it is no longer available.

If anyone has a new link to this map, or something similar, it would be most useful.

Lazarus @ 6. I am saying that "historical" data is both meaningless and pointless in the context of the millions of years that climate change has been occuring.As I have said before,man's tenure of the planet is so brief and most of the dramatic previous changes were when we weren't even here!

Can anyone explain the logic of this recent article on "Open Mind":

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/johnnys-growth/

It seems to me that the analogy used is simplistic and false, since a child's growth can only be positive and also it seems that the error, caused by the shoes are always one way.

If, as is assumed, what caused the apparent fall in the child's height of 6cm in the final measurement? Presumably in the previous measurements, the child was wearing platform shoes!

The second paragraph should have read:



If, as is assumed, the shoe sole thickness was only 2cm, what caused the apparent fall in the child's height of 6cm in the final measurement? Presumably in the previous measurements, the child was wearing platform shoes!

It's a stupid, stupid analogy.

37. Hudsonfan wrote:



"....man's tenure of the planet is so brief and most of the dramatic previous changes were when we weren't even here!"



While that's certainly true it doesn't offer any explanation for the changes observed over the past few decades. Climate changes only when it is 'forced' to do so.



There are viable explanations for what these forces were in the past, including changes is solar output, convergence of warm/cold configurations in earth's long-term orbital cycles, the weathering of silicates due to mountain formation, volcanic activity, meteor impact, increases in vegetation, decreases in vegetation, changes in ocean circulation due to tectonic movements, etc, etc...



It's not as though all these things haven't been considered as explanations for the recent observed warming. They have. They don't fit the evidence; at least not by themselves. Increased CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel combustion, combined some of these other forcings fits the long-term evidence very well. That is the conclusion of every major national scientific academy on earth.



It doesn't mean there isn't some other forcing that is as yet un-described. It just means it is considered, by over 95% of scientists currently publishing in this field, to be the best explanation currently available.

39. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"If, as is assumed, the shoe sole thickness was only 2cm, what caused the apparent fall in the child's height of 6cm in the final measurement?"



The wife in the analogy clearly identifies that the last data point is a 'typo' mistake by the husband.



"You can see that the final number isn’t right. You must have written it down wrong — it’s simply an error... [she] enlarges her latest photo (she has all the digital images) and is able to read the correct height from the image — those Nikon cameras are awesome! She corrects the final data point."



She corrects the final data point *then* subtracts 2 cm from each measurement for which the child wore shoes.



I'd say Tamino is referring to the GWPF graph that purports to show no warming in the "last 10 years" of the BEST data.



As Tamino and others showed, the last two data points on the graph the GWPF published had very low confidence values and should have been ignored. They also used a period of several months less than 10 full years, which also reduced the slope of their linear trend.



I agree it's not a perfect analogy, but none are. Yes, the child will only ever grow at that age (hopefully). And if the shoes represent warm periods like El Ninos, then there should also rightly be a little trough for the child to stand in occasionally to represent La Ninas.



But I think it's ok, and I think if you re-read it you should see the context of the final data point discrepancy.

What happened to global warming?



By Paul Hudson

Climate correspondent, BBC News

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm



"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.



And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

Oops, too many blogs open at once!

#42. - newdwr54 wrote:

"The wife in the analogy clearly identifies that the last data point is a 'typo' mistake by the husband."

Thanks, I must wait until I wake up in the morning before reading such articles.



"I'd say Tamino is referring to the GWPF graph that purports to show no warming in the "last 10 years" of the BEST data.

As Tamino and others showed, the last two data points on the graph the GWPF published had very low confidence values and should have been ignored. They also used a period of several months less than 10 full years, which also reduced the slope of their linear trend."

So because the latest figures are low, they must be ignored?

Just because a figure has "low confidence", does that make it wrong and too low?

Surely it is just as likely to be too high?

43. ukpahonta wrote:



I can only repeat what I and several others have repeated here many times: since 1988 at least the WMO have been recommending the use of 30 years of continuous temperature data to identify underlying climate trends.



When you look at the last 30 years of data in all five of the global data sets, which includes satellites, the trend in all of them is +0.17C per decade warming, +/- 0.01C.



It has been repeatedly shown that decade-long periods of stasis or even reduced temperature trends can occur within long term periods of warming: https://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif



This might be the start of a period of cooling, or it might just be yet another one of those periods of stasis.

I have now had a reply from the MO about whether half of the years between 2010 and 2015 and between 2010 and 2019 will be warmer than 1998.



The reply said that "half of the years in this decade will be warmer globally than 1998", but didn't refer to the years 2010-2015.



I have sent a reply requesting clarification on whether that prediction still applies.

45. At 09:27 7th Dec 2011, QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"So because the latest figures are low, they must be ignored?

Just because a figure has "low confidence", does that make it wrong and too low?

Surely it is just as likely to be too high?"



Firstly, do you accept the logic of the analogy, i.e. that the end data point was a typo, rather than a problem with the shoes?



Second, the BEST data for April and May 2010 disagrees strongly with the land data from all the other providers: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2008/offset:-0.6/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2008/to:2010.42/offset:-0.4/plot/uah-land/from:2008/to:2010.42/offset/plot/rss-land/from:2008/to:2010.42/offset:-0.14



Tamino pointed out that the confidence values BEST attached to the data for these two months was ten time lower than the lowest confidence value attached to any other single month in their entire series.



They should not have been published. But they suit the GWPF case so they used them happily without so much as mentioning their low confidence rating.



They also referred to their graph as "the last 10 years" when it fell several months short of a full ten year period.

45. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"Thanks, I must wait until I wake up in the morning before reading such articles."



Sorry I missed this in my first reading of 45.



I've got the opposite excuse - I haven't been to bed yet after a night shift!



Apologies again.

#48. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Firstly, do you accept the logic of the analogy, i.e. that the end data point was a typo, rather than a problem with the shoes?"

Not really, unless the anomalous temperature figure can also be proven to be a typo, although I admit that one figure (April?) does look odd.

I am afraid that I haven't really being paying much attention to the "BEST" data situation.

Where did that April 2010 figure come from? I thought that "BEST" were using data which was available from other sources.

newdwr54,

Incidentally does "Woodfortrees" only provide the variance adjusted version of HadCRUt3?

It seems at least that sceptics are winning the argument over "climate change" with the British public:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/07/public-support-climate-change-declines

I am afraid that the AGW alarmists only have themselves to blame, for making exaggerated claims.

#49. - newdwr54 wrote:

"Sorry I missed this in my first reading of 45."



No need for apologies - thanks for explaining the background, even though

I don't agree with the analogy.

newdwr54 @ #48



Just briefly, as I'm supposed to be doing something else (!), I seem to remember that the last two months' data from BEST that you are referring to were actually only based on a small number of stations rather than the complete global data set. This explains both the much lower confidence limits and the sudden apparent drop in temperature. You are certainly correct to say that they shouldn't have been published in that form.



Paul

Actually, I agree that if the figures were based on incomplete data, then they shouldn't have been published, that's just confusing.

Under the circumstances, I don't think that the GWPF were being deliberately misleading.

mmm . . . my impression was that it was simply tit-for-tat, as the GWPF was exaggerating their claims in response to the over zealous welcome the pre-report received from the consensus side. Has it been peer reviewed and published yet or are we still looking at the pre-report?

I seem to remember that at the time of the release, BEST were suggesting that the record would change (cool) once the sea area was included. Moreover, the Watts issue still hasn't been fully resolved so I'm sure he will have more to say on that. I see that Mosher and Co have recently put a paper together dealing with UHI and the like. It's not getting much attention due to the emails I guess.

LitD



BEST is still in review. I'd expect the last two data points to be removed by review, but we'll see.



Good luck in the impending wind storm everyone in the north and west!

QuaesoVeritas wrote:



On what basis do you say that 2010 tied with 1998?



On the figures from NASA and NOAA, both organisations have 2005 as the second warmest, not 1998.

#58. - Morley-press wrote:

58.At 19:11 7th Dec 2011, Morley-press wrote:

"On what basis do you say that 2010 tied with 1998?

On the figures from NASA and NOAA, both organisations have 2005 as the second warmest, not 1998."

Yes, but according to NASA, the mean anomaly for 1998 was 0.56c, that for 2010 was 0.63c, and that for 2005 was also 0.63c, so 2010 tied with 2005, not 1998.

Also, according to NOAA, 1998 was 0.6217c, that for 2010 was 0.6435c, and that for 2005 was 0.6413c, so while 2010 was almost identical to 2005, it didn't tie with 1998.

By saying that 2010 tied with 1998, making it the warmest year, you were sort of implying that you were referring to HadCRUT3 which had 1998 as the warmest year. If 2010 had tied with 1998 based on NASA & NOAA, it wouldn't have been the warmest year by those series.







On the figures from NASA and NOAA, both organisations have 2005 as the second warmest, not 1998.

Morley-press,



Sorry, the last paragraph shouldn't have been in my post.

Still no sign of the UAH anomaly.

Maybe Dr. Spencer is thinking up an excuse for the lack of a substantial drop in the November temperatures.

So far in December, the AQUA CH5 anomaly is back up above the "average" for this time of year, the figure at the end of November and even that for the end of October.

The cumulative December temp. so far is equivalent to a UAH anomaly of about 0.12c

61. QV



Maybe he is just putting his Santa suit on?



Have to admit that I am just way out of time at present, hence so late. Thanks for the HadCRUT3 anom thoughts, will take some time to work through.



Hopefully will talk later when time is back with me.

2010 was one of the warmest years on record, so say all three organisations. But why is PH saying low solar output is responsible for cold winters in our local weather conditions, when globally it is warmer.

Not that fussed if it was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd; it was warm in 2010!