Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year

Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year“. Anthony Watts kindly re-posts ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’ lobbyist David Whitehouse’s comical cherry-picking of evidence that 2010 wasn’t so warm after-all. Surprisingly, The Daily Mail is naturally taking our pet right-wing lobbyist at face value.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.

Hmmm. If you play the usual bogus denialist statistical mis-representation and ignore all the natural contributions that have been tending towards cooling. And then add in a comparison of individual months to cherry-picked years. This is eye-rollingly stupid/dishonest.

“No, no” say the commenters, “we’re on the cusp of an ice-age!” They also declare, standing with a dripping brush in their hand, that them durn climatologisters have painted themselves into a corner. Somehow.

20 thoughts on “Warmest year ever? – 2010: An Unexceptional El Nino Year

  1. I think that this is the sort of thing that makes WUWT so special. That it presents a media story taking place in the GISS data set, using HadCrut data.

    So now the deniers are challenging Webster’s dictionary. ‘Hottest’ no longer means having the highest temperature. By their new definition, its a hottest year only if there is a minimum number (>2) of hottest months. They don’t mention how many hottest days are required, in their hottest month.

    2010 seems about to become the hottest year, by the old scoring. With their new definition they can deny that. And continue their cooling spell.

    Tamino discusses this “rank trick”.

    [Tamino can be counted on to spank denialist statistical B.S. like no other. - Ben]

  2. You still here Benny, how was the freebie to Cancun, or don’t you rate highly enough to be on the gravy train.
    Enjoy your Christmas , its going to be a long cold one for such a warm year!

    [I'll let this entertaining troll through today. This is what passes for argument in the denialosphere. - Ben]

  3. Whitehouse makes the case that 2010 is not extreme compared to other years since 2000. Seems to be a very strong case that steady warming has been occuring during the past decade. It would be silly to expect that each or even most months would set records during a record warm year in the global record. I agree with Whitehouse and expect that most climate scientists do as well, that 2010 is not an “outlier years.” It’s just the warmest (or maybe second or third warmest) year in a strong warming trend. However, that was not his message.

    [Whitehouse's trying to make the opposite claim! He's just hoping to "fool some of the people some of the time." - Ben]

  4. Nothing wrong with what Whitehouse has said, if you actually read what he writes

    http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/2006-2010-an-even-more-unexceptional-year.html

    Its your uninformed and biased presentation of this article, which is climate science mainstream, that is wrong

    [Oh really? I suggest you rely on scientists rather than political operatives for your facts. Tamino, an actual climatology statistician, unwraps Whitehouse's lies quite nicely. - Ben]

  5. Lies, Lies – what an idiotic thing to say. Have you read the piece. It’s just a description of the data.

    Hpw would 2010 be warm – either many months would be warmer than average or a few months would be very much warmer. So how would you decide, well go and look at the data – which is what the article says.

    And Tamino seems as biased as you are, Why dont you read it.

    Accusing a distinguished, multi award winning, journalist ( http://www.davidwhitehouse.com ) of lying is a horrendous thing to do and says more about you than he.

    You are all that is wrong in the climate change debate.

    [From David's website (emphasis mine): "Whitehouse writes on all subjects with confidence and clarity." Just not with understanding. In this particular instance he is willfully misrepresenting statistics, cherry-picking instances that are well within the range of the obvious warming trend and claiming that they disprove it. But you'll believe what you want, won't you? - Ben]

    [Follow-up a day later: "just a description of data" huh? I stand by my assessment, but I just have to note this whopper that Whitehouse uses to try and use rounding to wipe away as much of the variation as possible: "These databases 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". He's either ignorant about absolutely basic statistics or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. We don't measure children to one decimal place do we? Yet somehow the population statistic is that the "average" family has 1.7 children. I encourage a perusal of the Wikipedia page for Average. - Ben]

  6. Now hes willfully misrepresenting – I hope he never sees this and is not of a litigious nature – not that he could easily follow that path as you make such accusations as lying but do not reveal your real name – shame on you.

    Could you look at the article and tell me what is actually wrong with it, and where in it is a comment and opinion other than a description of data.

    Saying October 2010 is cooler than other Octobers etc seems a nonpartisan decrription of the data to me – very useful information to know.

    and what will you do when 2010 is not the warmest year – will you apologise. probably not.

    I see Whitehouse has a PHD = I wonder what lies he had to tell to get that?

    [Whitehouse's PhD is in astronomy, not climatology or statistics. And yet he's being paid by climate deniers to argue about climate. The statements he has made about particular months in 2010 being cooler than the same month in a few recent previous years is deceptive and statistically dishonest. The reason he isn't arguing about the true trend is because he knows he has no argument. All he's got are half-truths and carefully phrased mis-statements. He's grabbed all the outliers that suit him and ignored everything else.

    Shame on me, eh? I expect to read your follow-up here in a month about whether or not 2010 is "the warmest year". We'll know who has to apologize, won't we. - Ben]

  7. You comment policy says you will discard anything insulting or deflamatory. Calling Whitehouse a liar is certainly that.
    I suggest you follow you own policy, or dont you stick to your principles,

  8. Ben, you should be more careful with your blog. It appears to have picked up a minor infestation. However, I wouldn’t worry too much. At the rate it is rattling through the standard denialist approaches, it will have exhausted itself quite soon.

  9. Ah, more of Anthony Watts basic equation of 2-1+1+W=2

    Saw this comment on ‘reddit’ seems very fitting some how:- “Was once a child without thought, I decided to begin finding my own ideas. Upon searching I found the world to be cold and hollow. Upon further research that world was behind a veil. Many have difficulty seeing through that veil because they lack the drive and desire to push through it.”

  10. A few weeks ago I was surprised to read a denier’s comment on another site saying “Just because the temperature is higher doesn’t mean it’s hotter.” It wasn’t on WUWT, but brought to mind the drivel over there :)

  11. ridiculous. even UAH shows 2010 was particularly warm, including a record 12 month mean value breaking in 2010.

    And this is 100% pap:
    “There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of warming seen in the global average annual temperatures seen in the last decade has changed.”

    The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the warming seen in recent decades has changed.

    Look how they’ve managed to spin that. Not only do they claim there is evidence of “no warming”. But they have the gall to pretend others are using their own fallacy.

  12. What a load of nonsense is posted here. I hardly know where to begin.

    Now that Nov data is in 2010 doesn’t look like the warmest year. We’ll have to look when Dec data arrives but it seems that 2010 will be by GISS and UAH just below 2005, and by NOAA below 2005 and 1998 and by HadCrut below 2009, 2007, 2005 and 1998. But in any case, we’ll see.

    Now to Whitehouse’s post. Nothing wrong with it. It’s one way to look at the data. Why shouldn’t one want to know if a particular month in 2010 was exceptional. Is 2010 warmer than usual because all months are warmer, or just a few of them? Good question. And because Whitehouse includes ALL the data its not cherry picking. Hasn’t James Hansen been doing the same thing all year?

    Go through the data yourself. Point out where Whitehouse has got the data wrong.

    If its not a useful question then I wonder why they bother publishing monthly data. I see that Whitehouse talks about the ‘trend’ in annual data elsewhere on the GWPF blog. Also you ought to read his comments about the perils of a running mean (looking at you Cthulhu)

    Looking at the science literature one can see many comments, including some from the Uk Met Office that state that the ‘trend’ in global temp since 2001 is flat. So Whitehouse saying that 2010 is probably going to be statistically identical to 2001 -2009 is merely consistent with what the Met Office has said and what NOAA has said every year for the past decade in its annual climate summaries.

    You seem, amazingly, to have come away with the OPPOSITE conclusion that Whitehouse states!

    FYI this decade is the warmest – warmer than the 90’s which was warmer than the 80’s but the temp stopped going up (for whatever reason) in 2001.

    Of course Whitehouse has a PHD in astrophysics. He seems to have used the giant Jodrell bank telescopes. In so doing he probably never had to do any statistics! And of course you have to be a climatologist to be able to analyse a 12 data point graph, with data taken every month! How stupid to think that any other scientist, let alone one more qualified than the anonymous owner of this blog, would be capable, or even allowed to look at such data without being a PHD in climatology!

    So many errors, scientific ignorance, and out of date science on this blog, one would think that the owner was willfully misrepresenting what Whitehouse has written as well as the science for his own alarmist reasons.

    What a low grade, crap site.

  13. We should try and understand Anthony’s situation. He has to try to prepare his followers for the possibility that 2010 will be globally the hottest year ever. And he must try any way, and every way, to make it seem undeserving.
    This is the first in a five-part (so far) series to address 2010 as the warmest year.

    “Warmest year ever? 2010, an Unexceptional El Nino Year” by David Whitehouse (WUWT,Dec6,2010)

    “Hansen feels the need to explain why GISS is high in the midst of frigid air.” (WUWT,Dec12,2010)

    “Tisdale K.O.e’s GISS’s latest ‘warmest-year nonsense'” by Bob Tisdale (WUWT,Dec12,2010)

    “Arctic Oscillation spoiling NASA GISS party” (WUWT,Dec15,2010)

    “How Germany’s weather team views the ‘hottest year ever'” (WUWT,Dec18,2010)

    For this latest in the series, bookends of cold and snowy weather (early and late in the year) in Germany during what probably will be the hottest year globally…..means ‘the beginning of a Little Ice Age’.

    What’s next?…..there’re twelve more days……

  14. and another thing. whats this nonsense about 1.7 children. That shows you dont understand statistics.

    The temp databases (hadcrut, giss etc) give the measured readings to a thousandth of a degree. But (look at the Met Office website) they say the errors mean its only accurate to 0.1 deg in the real world. This is just what Whitehouse said.

    Children are measured in units, obviously, and then a calculation is done post hoc of an average per household is to reveal 1.7. No one measures 1.7 children.

    Its a different calculation, and another example of your sloppyness.

    what an idiot.

  15. Nick, come back when you understand what statistical significance is and why it’s important when discussing trends.

  16. ‘NMott’ is such a troll, you need irony to deal with him.

    On an unrelated note, denialdepot.blogspot.com has a post on graph design.

  17. Bull,
    1. Acknowleded that oceans warming up from below from underwater volcanoes.
    2. Warmer water means water expands – duh! Also, means cooling temperature, more water vapor (a hot house gas), much more snow and rain.
    3. NASA knows no sunspots mean cooler temperatures. No way, earth can be warming:

    [Please, stick to the topic and no extensive, and sloppy, copy and pastes. Nils-Axel Morner's theories are already poorly received without your armchair interpretations! Undersea volcanoes produce far too little warming to discount modern temperature trends as merely natural. Why you think the modern warming can be explained away by sunspot minima, when they are actually associated with cooling is puzzling. - Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s