2010: Will NOT be the hottest year.


While not official until the year is over, I am officially projecting that 1998 will retain the record for the hottest year.  Both years have many factors in common.  A strong AMO and El Nino were active at the beginning of each year.  It should have been a pretty easy thing for 2010 to take the record as 1996-1997 were cooler than 2008-2009.

1998 stands out in many ways.  It was a full 0.5 °C warmer than the 1996.  It was that massive El Nino in 1998 that really allowed the global warming idea to get popular traction.  It should be no surprise that the temperatures leading to 1998 looked like a hockey stick.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

Temperature's to 1998

The outlier that is 1998 was huge.  As 1998 will retain the record as the hottest year, it is likely that it will hold that record for a long time.  El Nino is a big trigger for these “warm” years.  If the time since 1998 is shown, the results are much less dramatic.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

The Individual Sets

The temperature trend since 1998 has been flat.  If 2010 had jumped up like 1998 had over 1996, the temperature anomaly would have almost reached 1 °C.  That would have really stood out, but it didn’t.

The last decade has been the warmest in the past 160 years, but as I have pointed out here, the average temperature for the past 20 years is only 0.257 °C.  That is well within the normal behavior for the past few thousand years.  Comparing a single year to the average of a decade is a common practice, but a poor one.  The simple fact is that there is nothing abnormal about the current warming.

The CO2 level in 1998 was 365 ppm.  In 2010 it is 390ppm.  According to the warmist model that is enough to have driven the temperature up almost 0.3 °C.  A strong El Nino with the warming should have driven the temperature well over 1.0 °C.  Instead, 2010 with the El Nino will fail to match 1998.  Next year will be colder than 2010 as a strong La Nina is now active.

What does this all mean?  It means that past 20 years have been warmer than the ones before.  It tells us nothing about what the future holds.  The Theory that CO2 causes temperatures to increase is a theory only.  It is based on past correlations, but as I have shown before, temperature changes in the past are the likely cause of the CO2 levels changing.  Far more importantly, CO2 levels have always been high when global temperatures have dropped, sometimes dramatically.

Posted in Anomaly and Fear and Misinformation by inconvenientskeptic on November 17th, 2010 at 10:52 am.

3 comments

This post has 3 comments

  1. Glenn Tamblyn Nov 18th 2010

    Some small points John

    With the 1998 El Nino, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) Peaked at -30 for the El Nino, followed by a peak of +20 for the La Nina following. Currently we have an El Nino that peaked at -15, followed by a la Nina that has peaked at +25 so far. So one was a strong El Nino, followed by a weak La Nina. This is a weak weak El Nino followed by a strong la Nina. And coming out of a much deeper and longer solar cycle than around 1998.

    And what on earth have arguments about any correlation between temperatures and CO2 over millenial timescales got to do with short term fluctuations over a decade or so??!!

    Doh man, that is drawing such a long bow that the string snapped.

    As for “The Theory that CO2 causes temperatures to increase is a theory only. It is based on past correlations”.

    John. It is time to stop shilly-shallying around, Understanding of the impacts of CO2 is based on very solid physics – just ask the US Department of Defence. They defend your country on the basis of this. So if you have something groundbreaking, lay it out.

    Messing about with temperature data is a distraction.

  2. inconvenientskeptic Nov 18th 2010

    Glenn,

    Part of the debate is the idea that CO2 has caused all the warming since the 1970’s. Yes the science of CO2 and RHT is the key, but I have to discuss other parts as well.

    I agree that the 2009-2010 El Nino was weaker, it was an odd one as well. Temperature is part of the debate, so I discuss it. I spend enough time putting together data that I deserve the occasional easy article. 😀

    Also, Robert Way was pointing out that Hadley shouldn’t be used with CRU. I am considering NCDC to replace Hadley. Any thoughts on that?

    Thanks,
    John

  3. Glenn,

    You’re right, the impacts of CO2 are based on solid physics. It absorbs radition logarithmically, and thus has little effect beyond the first 100 PPM.

    Without runaway positive feedback theory from water vapor and such, catastrophic AGW has little to none scientific basis. Observations keep showing that climate models are wrong in this regard, which is why discussing observations (like termperature here) is important.

    Keep up the good work John.

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity