Far from being the warmest year on record…

Yes, Met Office again… There has been plenty of media coverage of claims that 2010 was the warmest, or close to the warmest year on record.

But while the Met Office has been focusing the attention of the media on the record cold December statistic with its right hand, its left hand has quietly confirmed that in the UK 2010 was the 12th coldest year since the ‘national series’ of weather recording started in 1910.

So which of these is the bigger story? The one that tells us we have just had our coldest winter month in 100 years? Or the one that, against a backdrop of a so called ‘consensus’ telling us that runaway global warming is transforming the planet, the UK has just experienced its 12th coldest year in the same period? Is this another example of attempts to ‘hide the decline’?

A record breaking month can be dismissed as an anomaly and fit with the global warming narrative. But a year-long record that shows temperatures have been warmer for 88 of the last 100 years calls the whole global warming hypothesis into question. Predictions made in the 1980s and 1990s of what would happen now are crumbling in the face of observation.

But the climate change wealth redistribution vehicle called the ‘money train‘ rolls on with the full support – including copious amounts of our money – of the government. In spite of the growing evidence that there is no crisis, the arrogant ignorance of the political class is telling. This is what David Cameron said in December 2009:

‘A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.’

It is not a very small number. No matter, accountability for the scandalous defrauding of the public that is being perpetrated can rest with Cameron too. It is no suprise this 12th coldest year fact has been played down to the extent that hardly anyone knows about it? Just whose interests are being served here? As if we don’t know.

14 Responses to “Far from being the warmest year on record…”


  1. 1 Tufty 07/01/2011 at 12:47 pm

    Sooner or later, even Cameron will have to take note of the cold weather. He doesn’t make policy and never will, events make policy.

  2. 2 jameshigham 07/01/2011 at 2:03 pm

    Hope it continues but I fear we’ll get only a little snow and then it will disappear.

  3. 3 Steve 07/01/2011 at 8:21 pm

    The UK covers a tiny fraction of the world. I haven’t seen the final stats but 2010 was, worldwide, in the top 3 warm years on record.

  4. 4 Rossa 07/01/2011 at 9:27 pm

    Steve clearly doesn’t read WUWT or he would have known that the data used is very suspect, if for no other reason than that they are only using about 1/3rd of the weather stations that they used to use so making any comparison null and void. And partly because of Anthony Watts successful project proving how inaccurate a lot of them were.

    And it is also to do with smoothing out the data in some parts of the world where the distance between weather stations is up to 1200km. So local to the weather station could easily show warmth when the overall temp in the area is a couple of degrees colder.

    Surely it is only common sense to question any such claim when data gets manipulated like this. The outcome is only as good as the data it is based on.

    But then it suits too many vested interests for that to happen.

    As to wealth redistribution AM, here’s George Soros on how there will be no wealth left to redistribute if he and his ilk get their way.

    Came from a blog for the Liberty movement in the US at:

    http://neithercorp.us/npress/

  5. 5 Autonomous Mind 07/01/2011 at 9:49 pm

    Thanks Steve. I have been waiting for someone to say that, so I can ask a question. How can the powers that be make any like for like comparison, up or down, and be confident of accurately monitoring temperature change when 62% of the monitoring stations have been decommissioned over the years? The picture is skewed. What possible reason could there be for removing stations so only 38% of what used to exist still measures temperature?

    Satellite temperatures monitored by Roy Spencer show a temperature decline to just +0.18C relative to a 30 year base period. And the battle of the Urban Heat Islands continues as evidence mounts that the UHI effect on temperature measurement is greater than the ‘consensus’ will admit.

    The fact is we are listening to hyperbole about global warming when the only movement has been statistically insignificant changes of tenths of a degree Celsius. Yet supposedly this has caused floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, rising seas and we need to spend £18bn per year for decades to stop it. Are you buying it?

  6. 6 orkneylad 07/01/2011 at 10:06 pm

    Love this post Sir.

    Going to go toast you with a peedia dram.

    best,
    OL

  7. 7 Steve 08/01/2011 at 3:22 pm

    OK. The original post was suggesting that a press release including a statement that UK had its 12th coldest year was somehow a downplay of that fact. But how come the UK data could be so cold if its observing stations had been fiddled?

    It is of course difficult to assess long term changes in temperature when not all the stations are under your control and when they weren’t designed and positioned with such a purpose in mind, but the land surface records align with the sea surface temperature changes, ocean heat content changes and with observed changes in the climate, so it is hard to doubt that, say, that it did warm substantially over the last 30 years. The data hasn’t been incorrectly fudged because if you follow Lucia’s rankexploits blog you will know that the raw data compares with the analysed data.

    If 62% of the stations have disappeared then that may not be a concern if they were replaced with satellite observations. If you are concerned, then you could reanalyse by ignoring these stations in the past too. The remaining stations tell roughly the same story.

    I do follow Watts’ blog occasionally and am awaiting publication of his rebuttal of the analysis done on his partial dataset that showed that “bad” surface stations were reporting similar trends to the “good” stations. This follows on from other analyses that tried to compare urban and rural sites, and that tried to compare trends of temperatures measured on windy days (when the urban effect might be less) with trends measured on calm days.

    Roy Spencer’s data measures temperatures higher up in the atmosphere. It shows a warming but with a lower trend than that of the surface and that of another satellite analysis (RSS). Noone yet knows why there is a difference, but it is not enough evidence to disprove the basic theory.

    Personally I am wary of claims linking the warmer temperatures with an increase in wild weather, but I think it will happen in the future. The world can afford to spend all these billions on strengthening its infrastructure. Note that the amount of money is a pittance compared with, say, the increase in the cost of oil over recent years.

  8. 8 Autonomous Mind 08/01/2011 at 3:52 pm

    I think you are conflating two different things Steve. I did not say UK stations had been fiddled. Elsewhere around the world, stations that were part of the global set have been discommissioned and others relocated. But as you read Watts you know this as you say, and know that there is a discrepancy between satellite data and ground stations, likely due to UHI. Spencer’s data suggests a cooling trend from a warm peak.

    Anyway, back to the core point. The Met Office have downplayed the 12th coldest year statistic. That is a fact. Where have you seen it leading the headlines? It has more relevance to our weather than a one month cold trough. All the news headlines focused on December because the 12th coldest year information was a one liner half way down the piece tucked in neatly between too graphs.

    It’s interesting you say the world can afford to spend billions. More and more people here are being forced into fuel poverty because of policies designed to harvest our cash for dispersement elsewhere. That shows we cannot afford it. Our energy is on track to be the most expensive in the developed world and it is impoverishing the poorest in our society. It is a scandal.

  9. 9 Steve 08/01/2011 at 5:01 pm

    There may be a discrepancy between satellites and ground stations, but they are not that different. They are measuring different things, and the different satellite groups are not agreeing with each other either.

    The view that the annual statistic was downplayed by the Met Office is a bit paranoid. Journalists are perfectly capable of reading and coming to their own conclusion as to whether their readership are interested in the annual statistic or the monthly statistic that relates to much recent havoc.

    People are being forced into fuel poverty through supply and demand, and much of the demand is wasteful. There would be less fuel poverty if, for example, we had a few more socialist policies to enforce better environmental standards for housing and vehicle emissions. Would you include such spending within your wasted billions figure?

  10. 10 Autonomous Mind 08/01/2011 at 7:27 pm

    But Steve, the Met Office’s press release I saw only mentions December. That isn’t paranoia.

    I’m afraid you have just lost all credibility with your comment on fuel poverty. We are being forced to pay more for our fuel because of government intervention which is driving prices up. The Renewables Obligation has added significant cost on our bills and the CO2 focus has forced energy providers to pay more money to operate and that cost is being passed on to us. To suggest it is a supply and demand issue is complete nonsense, sorry.

  11. 11 Steve 10/01/2011 at 1:50 pm

    I will take your judgement of my credibility with a pinch of salt if you don’t mind. By focussing on the small additional cost of renewable obligations etc. (some of which has been used to reduce fuel poverty of people I know) you are not seeing the wood for the trees.

  12. 12 Autonomous Mind 10/01/2011 at 2:08 pm

    No Steve, I don’t mind at all. Conversely if you think the RO is a small additional cost then perhaps you understand me calling your credibility into question again. At least we are civil and respectful about it. Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me the cost of the RO to energy providers, which is passed on to customers?

    I am trying to find the latest information I saw which put the current cost at around a £1bn annually, rising by up to five times that figure in the future.

    Update: Yup, here it is… from the TPA via EU Referendum… (link)

    ‘Of that, just over £1 billion was spent on the Renewables Obligation (£1,036,170,245) – up from £873,870,190 the previous year – mainly to finance the scourge of windmills that is disfiguring our countryside. Should the government succeed in reaching its wind generation targets, we have estimated that we are looking at an extra £6 billion a year, implementing a policy which again the Conservative Party also enthusiastically endorses.’

    Looking forward to your reply Steve.

  13. 13 Steve 13/01/2011 at 2:25 pm

    Final word as we’re so far off topic. I think you’ve made my point for me. A billion pounds is roughly £16 per person.

    Looking at personal transport alone, a typical motorist (10000 miles, 10 miles per litre) uses 1000 litres – roughly 6 barrels volume-wise. The inflation adjusted price of oil is now many 10s of dollars higher than the 1990s, so the extra “market forces” costs are significantly larger than the Renewable Obligations cost (essentially hypothecation of what they’d have taxed anyway, probably) even before we consider home and industry energy use.

    So far I’ve converted 5 of my friends and family to CFLs using cheap bulbs subsidised by electricity company obligations and resulting in significant savings. Admittedly the schemes are far from perfect, but there are energy reduction benefits to be had for those that seek them.

    I hope you are enjoying the remarkably warm (for January) minimum temperatures :-)


  1. 1 Not the warmest year on record « The Man With Many Chins Trackback on 07/01/2011 at 3:49 pm
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive