The hottest years on record have occurred since...when?

Question

One answerer recently claimed that the East Anglia CRU said the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1989. We see other such statements flung all over this and other websites.

How does this reconcile with Phil Jones's interview with the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

(exact working pasted in quotation marks)

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."


2. How can we be sure of recent satellite recordings? When were the satellite devices last calibrated?

3. How can we be assured that datasets recorded on earth are accurate?

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Answer 1

The notion that the 10 hottest years have all occurred since 1998, not 1989 is a lie used by the pseudo scientific historical cherry pickers. We have been cooling off for the last 65 million years!



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Answer 2

Dana provided the NASA records, here's Jones' HadCRUT set:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt



The 10 warmest years on record in that set are all 1997 or later (1997 is currently 10th warmest, after this year it will be 11th)



This is consistent with Phil Jones' statement, once you have an idea of the scale of noise int he temperature record and do a little reading up on what 'statistical significance' means.

Answer 3

1) How does this reconcile with Phil Jones ...



It is entirely consistent with Jones. "significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."



There is significant year-to-year variabilty. We know that. Jones said that. The data shows that. You have to look at the longer trend. That 2010 will be the warmest year ever recorded is not much more important the was 1998. 2010 is much warmer -- almost half a degree in just one year! -- than 2009 because of the shift from the La Nina pattern to the El Nino. What it does say is that the know-nothings can stop with the idiotic short-term analyses and stop saying we are not still warming. Comparing 2010 to 2009 is a deceiving comparison, but we can insightfully compare 2010 to 1998 and see that we have warmed more despite not having the severe El Nino of 1998 and despite being in a solar minimum. No longer do lay-people have to take the word of climatologists the the warming only appears to have stopped because of ENSO fluctuations -- it is now easy to see that global warming is continuing and that it is not due to sun cycles and it is not temporary. That is what Jones was saying, that year-to-year fluctions mask the trend in the short-run but over a longer period the observations are undeniable (and why no climatologist denies it).



2. How can we be sure of satellite recordings?



They are consistent with the weather balloons and the ship-based ocean measurements. The various ways of measuring differ in the minutia but agree overall. There is no questioning the data. Everyone who produces data comes to the same conclusion which nobody disputes.



3. Assured that datasets are accurate?



Same answer as above. All measures are getting the same results. There is no data that disputes global warming.

Answer 4

El ninos and l. a. ninas are relative to a minimum of one yet another, so the final temperature for a cycle ought to boost, yet interior of that cycle the l. a. nina years would be cooler than the el nino years. The relevance for international warming is that we are getting greater suitable, greater tumultuous activities interior of those cycles and that they are occurring greater often, each 2 to 3 years particularly than each 3 to seven. properly worth examining up on in case you're attracted to those issues. It explains a number of our stranger summers.

Answer 5

They are comparing apples to oranges. The old data had far more data sites. They shifted to a grid system after the 1980's. They filled in data from more "reliable" stations. That in itself would add a bias against cold stations. Higher altitude and rural stations aren't typically where the best data is kept. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt which they probably don't deserve since those that prepare the data sets have a bias if not an agenda to show warming. They are comparing data that used to include mountain communities in Ca to what is now Los Angeles and San Francisco to give an example of the bias.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf



http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

.

Answer 6

It is incredible how the alarmists continue to use this data after all of the scandals around procedures, records and the data. Global Warming is a misdirection as the so called warming is so infinitesimally small, in-line with natural cooling/warming that has been going on for centuries and most importantly doesn't follow the steady record of CO2 increases!



Moreover everybody knows that accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree Fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from ground station readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

Answer 7

.

So don't you find it a bit strange that they say that global temperature records are all in the last ten years or so, and yet all the temperature records for individual countries were set decades ago.



If you believe the pabulum spooned out by people like Hansen, then you really must be a bit simple.

.

Answer 8

Did you know that measurements of temperature over the last 20 years have been prdominantly with thermometers based in highly populated areas. ie.Cities. It can be freezing in the countryside yet + temperatures in the city. Therefore these measurements are corrupt.

Answer 9

1934 is the hottest year. World has been in a cold spell since 1998 .

CO2 has no affect on climate or weather . Plants love CO2 .

Answer 10

The "record" dates back to 1880 and the temperatures have flatlined since 1998 despite rising CO2 emissions.

Answer 11

The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, not 1989. In order:



2005

2009

2007

1998

2002

2003

2006

2004

2001

2008

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



This is completely consistent with Phil Jones' statements. If you think otherwise, you don't understand basic statistics.



If you think both satellites and surface stations just happen to be wrong by the same amount, you're in severe denial.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0408_gtr.jpg



*edit* ah yes bravozulu chimes in with the old strategy - when the data proves you wrong, attack the data (or the scientist analyzing it). Unfortuately his attack is nothing more than a typical debunked denier myth.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100216110553AAnhfHy

Answer 12

It's well known the the dinosaurs liked it cold. er... then again, perhaps not.

Answer 13

10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1989



temperatures still rose, just a bit more slowly than in the last decade.



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/