2010 To Be Hottest Year On Record

While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.

The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.

Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.

Source: Washington Post

470 thoughts on “2010 To Be Hottest Year On Record”

  1. nobody says of biologists “They only study things that prove that DNA exists because if they proved it wrong they couldn’t get any government grants.” Do they?

    No they don’t, but then again we’re not talking biology here.

    I bet you this guy git grant money.

    The emissions of northern dinosaurs may have led to a warmer planet 70 million years ago, said a scientist attending the 2010 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in mid-December.

    He figured the output of one hadrosaur equaled that of about 10 cows, and then he extrapolated. Because there are published reports on how much methane wafts from the average cow pie, Fiorillo figured that the Alaska hadrosaurs might have contributed an impressive amount of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. In short, “hadrosaurs may have contributed to a warmer Arctic,” he said.

    Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner – Gaseous dinosaurs that ‘might have contributed’ to global warming

    http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/10721028/article-Gaseous-dinosaurs-that-%E2%80%98might-have-contributed%E2%80%99-to-global-warming?instance=home_features_bullets1

  2. Bdaman:

    first it was global warming and that was roundly debunked now its global climate change which I don’t think you disagree with.

    So now we have to prove the most probable cause of global climate change is the sun. Will these fools never cease?

    it’s getting hot in England but not because of Global Warming

    So let’s get this right. We paid for 90 per cent of the Met office’s £30 million computer; we also fund a hefty chunk of its annual £170 million running costs. And now the Met office tells us that it is incapable of providing the effective long range forecasts we could get for a fraction of the price from Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi?
    If this government were seriously minded to have its bonfire of the quangos, I think I know which useless outfit I’d be tossing onto the pyre next.
    Oh and in case you wondered why the Met Office has been getting it so badly wrong, here’s Bishop Hill on its chairman Robert Napier.
    Interesting fact: the Chairman of the Met Office board, Robert Napier, is or has been:
    • Chairman of the Green Fiscal Trust*
    • Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
    • a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
    • a director of the Carbon Group
    • Chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund UK
    Source
    He is also a member of the Green Alliance.
    If we are supposed to reject the views of scientists, like Richard Lindzen, on the grounds that they have given speeches at thinktanks that have accepted money from oil interests, then I think its fair to say that we can safely discount anything said by the Met Office forthwith.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069119/panic-and-fear-close-their-icy-tentacles-round-the-doomed-met-office/

  3. Gyges,

    You’re absolutely correct climate research spanning multiple fields, but judging from idiotic posts like this one:

    Get government out of science all they do is screw it up do to political considerations.

    Government service/funding-welfare for rich white screw-ups.

    I’m guessing that just because the argument has no merit whatsoever will have little effect as long as it has propaganda value…

  4. Everyone,

    So something has struck me.

    Do global warming deniers actually believe that there’s only one area in the realm of climatology to study?

    That’s a basic premise behind the argument that they only study things that prove their theory because otherwise they wouldn’t get grant money. I mean, nobody says of biologists “They only study things that prove that DNA exists because if they proved it wrong they couldn’t get any government grants.” Do they?

    If there wasn’t more than one area then the climatologists could just study other areas. It’s not like outside of climate change climates have no real effect on things, I’m sure there’d be plenty of government grants to study drought cycles and that sort of thing.

    I guess that’s the last we’ll hear of THAT particular worn out piece of propaganda.

  5. Climate Change CO2 Corruption Caravan Continues At Cancun, Commercially: You Must Pay For Your Sins

    How it was done

    Maurice Strong falsely identified CO2 as the Achilles Heel byproduct of industrial societies ideal for achieving the goal identified in his comment. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” He set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with deliberate restrictions on their investigations to lead them to CO2 as the cause. The definition of climate change was restricted to changes caused by humans, which limited the potential forcing agents. They were listed in Table 1 of the 1990 Report, but appeared as a Figure in the 1995 Report

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31287

  6. 19 Dec 10 – Snowfall in parts of the Sierra Nevada reached 2-5 feet through Sunday afternoon, with another 1 to 3 feet – or more – expected through Monday night.

    On top of Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort, at around 11,000 feet, snow levels measured 9 feet on Sunday morning.

    The all-time yearly snowfall record at the base is 139 inches, and through Sunday morning snowfall had already reached 107 inches this year.

    Officials may be forced to close the mountain passes, including I-80’s Donner Pass as the snow continues to pile up.

    Wintry weather can also be expected in the Cascades and northern Rockies today.

    Meanwhile, as much as a foot of snow will blanket higher elevations in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado through tonight.

    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/43221/california-mountains-face-crus-1.asp

  7. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

    Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

    He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

    Buddha, Bubba , Bobby Boucher what eva your name is, you should pick up where the article leaves off you might learn something other than complex system and tipping points.

  8. Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature

    Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: “Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.

    “The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”

    Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years

    Met Office, 1 March 2010: Provisional figures from the Met Office show that the UK winter has been the coldest since 1978/79. The mean UK temperature was 1.5 °C, the lowest since 1978/79 when it was 1.2 °C.

    Met Office July 2010: Climate Change Gradually But Steadily Reducing Probability Of Severe Winters In The UK

    Ross Clark, Daily Express, 3 December 2010: ONE of the first tasks for the team conducting the Department for Transport’s “urgent review” into the inability of our transport system to cope with snow and ice will be to interview the cocky public figure who assured breakfast TV viewers last month that “I am pretty confident we will be OK” at keeping Britain moving this winter. They were uttered by Transport secretary Philip Hammond himself, who just a fortnight later is already being forced to eat humble pie… If you want a laugh I recommend reading the Resilience Of England’s Transport Systems In Winter, an interim report by the DfT published last July. It is shockingly complacent. Rather than look for solutions to snow-induced gridlock the authors seem intent on avoiding the issue. The Met Office assured them “the effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK”.
    Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office

    Daily Express, 28 October 2010: IT’S a prediction that means this may be time to dig out the snow chains and thermal underwear. The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years… The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

    Reality Check: December 2010 “Almost Certain” To Be Coldest Since Records Began

    The Independent, 18 December 2010: December 2010 is “almost certain” to be the coldest since records began in 1910, according to the Met Office.

    Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys

    John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office’s problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren’t borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather’s always warmer than it really is, because it’s expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I’m afraid it deserves to be shown the door.

    A Frozen Britain Turns The Heat Up On The Met Office

    Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?

    A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office

    Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 10 January 2010: A period of humility and even silence would be particularly welcome from the Met Office, our leading institutional advocate of the perils of man-made global warming, which had promised a “barbecue summer” in 2009 and one of the “warmest winters on record”. In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”

  9. o let’s get this right. We paid for 90 per cent of the Met office’s £30 million computer; we also fund a hefty chunk of its annual £170 million running costs. And now the Met office tells us that it is incapable of providing the effective long range forecasts we could get for a fraction of the price from Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi?

    If this government were seriously minded to have its bonfire of the quangos, I think I know which useless outfit I’d be tossing onto the pyre next.

    Oh and in case you wondered why the Met Office has been getting it so badly wrong, here’s Bishop Hill on its chairman Robert Napier.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069119/panic-and-fear-close-their-icy-tentacles-round-the-doomed-met-office/

  10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

    The sun, its the sun, global warming/cooling/weather is the sun.

    Piers Corbyn knows and so does Michael Mann, Mann just wants government grants because he knows deep down he doesn’t know how to do real science. In fact most of these jerk-offs probably cant do real science and jumped on the grant wagon to be able to feed themselves.

    Get government out of science all they do is screw it up do to political considerations.

    Government service/funding-welfare for rich white screw-ups.

  11. I have previously told you about Piers Corbyn and his accuracy in predicting weather and extreme events well before anyone else.
    He is now being listened to more than ever.
    P.S. he doesn’t believe in AGW.

    The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
    Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8213058/The-man-who-repeatedly-beats-the-Met-Office-at-its-own-game.html

  12. The ten worst floods in history :

    1. Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1931 Death Toll: 1,000,000 to 3,700,000

    2. Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1887 Death Toll: 900,000 to 2,000,000

    3. Huang He (Yellow) River, China 1938
    Death Toll: 500,000 – 900,000

    4. Huang He (Yellow) River, China
    1642 Death Toll: 300,000

    5. Ru River, Banqiao Dam, China
    1975 Death Toll: 230,000

    6. Yangtze River, China
    1931 Death Toll: 145,000

    7. The Netherlands and England
    1099 Death Toll: 100,000

    8. The Netherlands
    1287 Death Toll: 50,000

    9. The Neva River, Russia
    1824 Death Toll: 10,000

    10. The Netherlands
    1421 Death Toll: 10,000

  13. “Nasa’s James Hansen is clear: ‘Would these events have happened if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million?’ His answer is ‘almost certainly not’.”

    Essentially, the sequence of events this year matches the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of “more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming”, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.

    the sequence of events this year matches the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Had these gone unchecked I’m sure somehow they would have matched as well.

    Until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm

    The IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim

    The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim

    The IPCC’s claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

    The IPCC’s claim that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

  14. James M:

    “I wonder how much overlap there is between those who deny climate change and evolution.”

    And I wonder how many partisan hack scientists who depend on government handouts are stroking themselves and the rest of us for government grant money?

    What is their political affiliation? So I will ask, I wonder how many scientists who promote man made global warming vote democrat and how many vote republican? I probably already know the answer.

    Since the best scientists are probably working for Bell Labs or some other private sector company like DOW it isn’t an idle question. We already know NASA scientists cant figure out simple bacteria.

    When science is funded by government it is not free thought and investigation. It is clouded with political considerations. Think Nazi scientists going to Nepal to look for Aryans. Science in service to the state can be deadly.

  15. Piers Corbyn’s new advances in his forecasting technique now make more detailed forecasts possible for the USA and his WeatherAction USA forecast for key developments & snow / cold blasts 15-31 Dec spells out some very grim weather on the way.

    Piers said (Dec 13th): “The midwest has already had tremendous snow deluges around 10-12 December but ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’ compared with what is going to hit NE USA including New York State in the period 25-31st December. This is likely to be one of the most significant snowfall/blizzard periods in NE & East USA for decades”.

    and here’s what he’s talking about
    Latest GFS forecast model day after Christmas.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150108519198949&set=a.10150108519188949.313741.109700318948#!/photo.php?fbid=10150108519498949&set=a.10150108519188949.313741.109700318948&pid=7585171&id=109700318948

  16. James M:

    anecdotal evidence may not have scientific weight to disprove a study but it could be used to provide a kick start to a new study and hypothesis which disproves the original.

    Anecdotal evidence can also raise doubt about a hypothesis which prompts an author to review/check his data.

Comments are closed.