2010 to be hottest year on record......
Discussion
or possibly amongst the hottest, this means man made global warming 
So with the potential snow coming in November which is apparently due to climate change, could we be seeing the Met office sending out 'scientists' with a lighter to put under thermometers to prove that climate....sorry global warming is taking place? Or will they say that it's cooler due to climate change, but if it's hotter it's MMGW?
Website and article below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
This year is heading to be the hottest or second hottest on record, according to the Met Office.
It says the past 12 months are the warmest recorded by Nasa, and are second in the UK data set, HadCRUT3.
The Met Office says it is very confident that man-made global warming is forcing up temperatures.
Until now, the hottest year on record has been 1998, when temperatures were pushed up by a strong El Nino - a warming event in the Pacific.
This year saw a weaker El Nino, and that fizzled out to be replaced by a La Nina cooling event.
So scientists might have expected this year's temperatures to be substantially lower than 1998 - but they are not. Within the bounds of statistical error, the two years are likely to be the same.
"It's a sign that we've got man-made global warming," said Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate science advice at the Met Office.
Increase expected
The last decade was the hottest on record, and Dr Pope warns it will turn out to have been even hotter by about 0.03C when corrections are made to data taken from buoys at sea.
"A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there”
Dr Vicky Pope
Met Office
The buoys take temperature measurements a metre below the surface, where it is slightly cooler than on the surface itself. Measurements were previously taken mainly by ships.
Climate sceptics say that until now, warming has plateaued over the last decade. The Met Office agrees that the rate of warming has slowed - but it maintains that is due to natural variability, not because man-made warming has stopped.
They think factors in the slower warming may have been - a natural downturn in solar radiation; a small reduction in water vapour in the stratosphere; a possible increase in aerosol emissions from Asia; and the fact that strong warming in the Arctic is poorly represented in the way data is collected.
Dr Pope says the slowdown in temperature rise is consistent with projections from climate models. She also says she expects warming to increase in the next few years.
"The long-term warming trend is 0.16C," she says. "In the last 10 years the rate decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13.
"There are a number of things that are affecting short-term temperatures. A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there."
'No proof'
There is a question over how many times the Met Office has forecast a record previously. Dr Pope said they had not done so from her recollection.
But a Met Office press release shows a forecast that 2007 would probably beat 1998. And a BBC report implies that they made the same prediction for the other El Nino year of 2003.
Sceptics say this could prove the third time they have been wrong.
But it is impossible to be wrong with a probabilistic forecast unless the forecast is 100%. It would certainly have eased pressure on the Met Office, though, if their 2010 forecast had been seen to be spectacularly accurate.
Professor John Christy, a climate sceptic from the University of Alabama in Hunstville, said global temperature had plunged in the past two weeks, so 2010 was likely to remain in second place.
He challenged the Met Office conviction that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warmth.
"The cause of the warmth is speculation. There are numerous feedbacks at work (many of which are poorly modelled if at all), and it seems to me unimaginative to conclude that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause," he said.
"There is no proof of such a cause in classical scientific sense - so we end up with a lot of opinions on the matter. Evidence is strong that centuries in the past 10,000 years were warmer than today without influences from human-related greenhouse gases."
So with the potential snow coming in November which is apparently due to climate change, could we be seeing the Met office sending out 'scientists' with a lighter to put under thermometers to prove that climate....sorry global warming is taking place? Or will they say that it's cooler due to climate change, but if it's hotter it's MMGW?
Website and article below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
This year is heading to be the hottest or second hottest on record, according to the Met Office.
It says the past 12 months are the warmest recorded by Nasa, and are second in the UK data set, HadCRUT3.
The Met Office says it is very confident that man-made global warming is forcing up temperatures.
Until now, the hottest year on record has been 1998, when temperatures were pushed up by a strong El Nino - a warming event in the Pacific.
This year saw a weaker El Nino, and that fizzled out to be replaced by a La Nina cooling event.
So scientists might have expected this year's temperatures to be substantially lower than 1998 - but they are not. Within the bounds of statistical error, the two years are likely to be the same.
"It's a sign that we've got man-made global warming," said Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate science advice at the Met Office.
Increase expected
The last decade was the hottest on record, and Dr Pope warns it will turn out to have been even hotter by about 0.03C when corrections are made to data taken from buoys at sea.
"A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there”
Dr Vicky Pope
Met Office
The buoys take temperature measurements a metre below the surface, where it is slightly cooler than on the surface itself. Measurements were previously taken mainly by ships.
Climate sceptics say that until now, warming has plateaued over the last decade. The Met Office agrees that the rate of warming has slowed - but it maintains that is due to natural variability, not because man-made warming has stopped.
They think factors in the slower warming may have been - a natural downturn in solar radiation; a small reduction in water vapour in the stratosphere; a possible increase in aerosol emissions from Asia; and the fact that strong warming in the Arctic is poorly represented in the way data is collected.
Dr Pope says the slowdown in temperature rise is consistent with projections from climate models. She also says she expects warming to increase in the next few years.
"The long-term warming trend is 0.16C," she says. "In the last 10 years the rate decreased to between 0.05 and 0.13.
"There are a number of things that are affecting short-term temperatures. A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there."
'No proof'
There is a question over how many times the Met Office has forecast a record previously. Dr Pope said they had not done so from her recollection.
But a Met Office press release shows a forecast that 2007 would probably beat 1998. And a BBC report implies that they made the same prediction for the other El Nino year of 2003.
Sceptics say this could prove the third time they have been wrong.
But it is impossible to be wrong with a probabilistic forecast unless the forecast is 100%. It would certainly have eased pressure on the Met Office, though, if their 2010 forecast had been seen to be spectacularly accurate.
Professor John Christy, a climate sceptic from the University of Alabama in Hunstville, said global temperature had plunged in the past two weeks, so 2010 was likely to remain in second place.
He challenged the Met Office conviction that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warmth.
"The cause of the warmth is speculation. There are numerous feedbacks at work (many of which are poorly modelled if at all), and it seems to me unimaginative to conclude that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause," he said.
"There is no proof of such a cause in classical scientific sense - so we end up with a lot of opinions on the matter. Evidence is strong that centuries in the past 10,000 years were warmer than today without influences from human-related greenhouse gases."
Eric Mc said:
It was - apparently.
Second hottest seemingly, 'on record' is only the last 31 years of satellite measurements, and it relates to the lower troposphere temperatures. The cause was a natural phenomenon, El Nino.UK coldest winter for over 30 years
USA winter ranks as one of top 20 coldest on record
It's just the usual global warming propaganda bulls
t with no causality to humans anywhere, hot or cold.I recall upto March it barely got above freezing round here, we still had snow on the ground in April. Late April, May and June where very pleasant and then it started to rain, that was pretty much the pattern until September. September and October where a mixed bag and now there’s snow on the ground in November.
Yep got to be the hottest on record.
Yep got to be the hottest on record.
Global warming is a fact. After all its still heating up after the exit of the last ice age.
Man's contribution is irrelevant.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_...
"Estimates based on carbon isotope measurements (Raymo and others, 1992; 1996) indicate that Pliocene atmospheric CO2 levels were, at most, 100 ppm greater than today. Moreover, if we compare Pliocene and modern ocean heat transport distributions (Figure 5) we find that a poleward shift in the peak ocean heat convergence would have been necessary to balance the Pliocene SSTs regardless of the CO2 level. Thus, neither simulation results or data support the conclusion that Pliocene warming was caused entirely by a large increase in atmospheric CO2 content. "
The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 Ma–3 Ma) was 2–3°C higher than today
Man's contribution is irrelevant.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_...
"Estimates based on carbon isotope measurements (Raymo and others, 1992; 1996) indicate that Pliocene atmospheric CO2 levels were, at most, 100 ppm greater than today. Moreover, if we compare Pliocene and modern ocean heat transport distributions (Figure 5) we find that a poleward shift in the peak ocean heat convergence would have been necessary to balance the Pliocene SSTs regardless of the CO2 level. Thus, neither simulation results or data support the conclusion that Pliocene warming was caused entirely by a large increase in atmospheric CO2 content. "
The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 Ma–3 Ma) was 2–3°C higher than today
Tsippy said:
or possibly amongst the hottest, this means man made global warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
The last decade was the hottest on record, and Dr Pope warns it will turn out to have been even hotter by about 0.03C when corrections are made to data taken from buoys at sea.
"A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there”
SO when they have finished 'fixing' the figures it will be as warm as 12 years ago (even though we have produced significantly more CO2).http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841368
The last decade was the hottest on record, and Dr Pope warns it will turn out to have been even hotter by about 0.03C when corrections are made to data taken from buoys at sea.
"A lot of the heat could be distributed to the deep oceans and we don't know what's going on there”
And then they admit they don't know what the mechanisms really are but they are sure we are causing it.
Eric Mc said:
They are talking "global" rather than UK (or even Europe) - I still don't believe them, mind you.
Vicky Pope isn't...VP said:
'We are starting to see changes in the climate even in the UK which we can link to global warming. We're seeing more heatwaves and seeing fewer of these cold winters.'
We had -11 degrees of global warming outside Turbo Towers last night. As to NASA and the Mystic Met, to know what NASA scientists think as opposed to what they're told to say you have to wait until they resign, and their view is still a view not data or causal evidence. Mystic Met are already a laughing stock of a propaganda mouthpiece and need no further comment.
There was an awful lot of Global Warming falling across North America and China early this year, and the year appears to be ending with a flurry of global warming.......
2 really cold winters in a row down, one more to go and that should be enough for Joe Public to start to really call out the AGW lies.
2 really cold winters in a row down, one more to go and that should be enough for Joe Public to start to really call out the AGW lies.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Lots. The met office gets paid either way. NASA the same (Let's also not forget that NASA was banging on about man made global warming when they had a government in power that did no support the theory).It's also damn near impossible to fake temperature readings every single day. But of course don't let that interfere with unsupported accusations of the biggest conspiracy in human history.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The tropospheric temperatures in 2010 that skewed the global average were due to El Nino, a natural phenomenon, so this has fkall to do with manmadeup warming as is surely known already since it's been reiterated on PH in at least one CC thread quite recently. As with all the other ecohype pr guff about hottest this since then, it has no causality to humans and is meaningless except as propaganda.NASA
Chief Warmist James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Dr Theon Declares Himself a Skeptic and Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’ & Models ‘Useless’
Also: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_clima...
MYSTIC MET
Met Office manipulated Russian climate data says Russia
More: http://rt.com/news/climate-scandal-new-evidence/
Met Office rewards failure wityh our taxes
Met Office withholds station information aka doing a Phil Jones
Scottish Ski industry to disappear due to gloopal wombling says Mystic Met
Oops: http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/04/mystic-met-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff