# Warmest year(s) on records **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 28, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248 "2009-11-28T17:10:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/1 "2009-11-28T17:10:52Z")
I was watching something on the Science Channel last night, and they mentioned that 2009 was (to paraphrase) one of the warmest years on record. My questions are…how does 2009 rate to other years and how are they determining what years are warmest (presumably this is some kind of global average)? How did they determine it in the past (i.e. how many data points did they have, over what area, how accurate were they, etc etc)? Over what period of time are they probably talking about (i.e. how far back could/would the ‘record’ go)? What were the other ‘warmest years’? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/2 "2009-11-28T17:38:20Z")
I don’t want to turn this into a political contretemps but conveniently Sean Hannity has been proclaiming on his show that this is was one of the coldest years ever, so the refutations are numerous and easy to Google for. (It’s cooler than normal in the U.S., but globally it’s one of the warmest years that have been measured.) This isn’t a complete answer to your question, but there are [a number of graphs and links](http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250020) that talk about the current year and lead to the original sources that lay out their data collection. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/3 "2009-11-28T19:39:57Z")
So, assuming I understood all that, it was the 4th coldest October on record in the US, but over all (for the year and averaged across the entire globe) it was the 5th warmest on record for the past 130 years? How do they compile temperatures today…and 130 years ago? I imagine it’s a LOT more precise today than it was then, but I seem to recall that the Royal Navy used to have every captain keep detailed records of all kinds of stuff (presumably temperature as well) in their ships logs. Is that how they used to do it, along with some kind of weather keeping in the major cities? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Voluble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/4af34b/32.png) [@Voluble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voluble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/4 "2009-11-29T19:47:07Z")
The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is responsible for gathering data from weather stations around the world. They collect, correlate and “adjust” it, ostensibly to account for different measurement methods. The scientists there also play the largest role in issuing the IPCC reports, including the infamous and ultimately discredited “hockey stick.” Part of the reason you may have difficulty finding an authoritative source for temperature information is that the CRU just admitted that they destroyed all of their raw (unadjusted) data. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) Some of the internal correspondence between these “scientists” at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was just released and it was revealed that there was widespread destruction of information subject to freedom of information requests along with evidence of everything from tax fraud to attempts to stack peer review journals with friendly faces and control the outcome of the debate. They couldn’t even reproduce their own results, using their own adjusted data run through their own computer programs. So in short… we have no way to know one way or the other which years are warmest and it is doubtful such a measure would have an agreed upon meaning anyway. Which measuring stations will you use? Do you use satellite, thermometer or proxy data? Do you use sea temperatures, or atmospheric, or land measurements and how do you combine the different types etc… The hockey stick for instance was the result of cherry picking from amongst a set of proxy data (tree rings). Not only was the data cherry picked from this subset but it was then arbitrarily combined with an entirely different set of measurements to generate the uptick at the end we are so familiar with. BTW, the notes from the programmer in charge of trying to reproduce what has been published in peer review journals are quite funny. The guy was literally pulling out his hair and eventually had to give up the effort. Not to overstate the case but when you have putative scientists who refuse to release their data and describe their methods so that their results can be reproduced and on top of that you have widespread destruction of the original readings you aren’t really dealing with science. That is not to take sides in any debate just to state the facts as currently known. If warming is occurring it would be nice to know but it is hard to find a reliable source on which to make any claims at all. This problem is not contained to just the CRU. Similar problems exist with researchers in New Zealand and elsewhere for instance. They apparently adjusted their data upwards as well and have yet to release a full explanation as to why. Then this data was sent to the CRU and adjusted yet again. Phil Jones, one of the alleged conspirators at the CRU sums up his view when responding to a fellow scientist’s request for data in one of the e-mails thusly; > [@](#): > > Subject: Re: WMO non respondo > … Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. … > Cheers Phil Such a response is the very essence of the scientific method is it not? ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/5 "2009-11-29T19:59:40Z")
Sorry, but data is not kept indefinitely in any science lab. If someone were to ask for my data from two years ago, they would be SOL. Data takes up space and formats change. Your characterization of motives and intent for climate scientists is just plain wrong, as is your claim that this data is not made available. It’s doubtful that you have spent any time whatsoever doing scientific research for publications. The thread for discussing the hacking into the CRU computers is [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=541297). ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/6 "2009-11-29T20:18:46Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > Sorry, but data is not kept indefinitely in any science lab. Interesting. So you are saying that we run our casino better than your lab is run\*? How long do you keep the data for \*\*ongoing \*\*projects? If someone wishes to replicate the results but the data is gone, what do you do? How is it science if no one can replicate the results or check the data for errors since the data is gone? Slee - I do IT in a casino. I can go pull data from the opening of the original casino which was a long time ago. It’d take some work but I can still pull it. T ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/7 "2009-11-29T20:20:18Z")
> [@Voluble](#): > > The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is responsible for gathering data from weather stations around the world. They collect, correlate and “adjust” it, ostensibly to account for different measurement methods. The scientists there also play the largest role in issuing the IPCC reports, including the infamous and ultimately discredited “hockey stick.” Part of the reason you may have difficulty finding an authoritative source for temperature information is that the CRU just admitted that they destroyed all of their raw (unadjusted) data. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) > > Some of the internal correspondence between these “scientists” at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was just released and it was revealed that there was widespread destruction of information subject to freedom of information requests along with evidence of everything from tax fraud to attempts to stack peer review journals with friendly faces and control the outcome of the debate. They couldn’t even reproduce their own results, using their own adjusted data run through their own computer programs. So in short… we have no way to know one way or the other which years are warmest and it is doubtful such a measure would have an agreed upon meaning anyway. Which measuring stations will you use? Do you use satellite, thermometer or proxy data? Do you use sea temperatures, or atmospheric, or land measurements and how do you combine the different types etc… The hockey stick for instance was the result of cherry picking from amongst a set of proxy data (tree rings). Not only was the data cherry picked from this subset but it was then arbitrarily combined with an entirely different set of measurements to generate the uptick at the end we are so familiar with. > > BTW, the notes from the programmer in charge of trying to reproduce what has been published in peer review journals are quite funny. The guy was literally pulling out his hair and eventually had to give up the effort. > > Not to overstate the case but when you have putative scientists who refuse to release their data and describe their methods so that their results can be reproduced and on top of that you have widespread destruction of the original readings you aren’t really dealing with science. That is not to take sides in any debate just to state the facts as currently known. If warming is occurring it would be nice to know but it is hard to find a reliable source on which to make any claims at all. This problem is not contained to just the CRU. Similar problems exist with researchers in New Zealand and elsewhere for instance. They apparently adjusted their data upwards as well and have yet to release a full explanation as to why. Then this data was sent to the CRU and adjusted yet again. > > Phil Jones, one of the alleged conspirators at the CRU sums up his view when responding to a fellow scientist’s request for data in one of the e-mails thusly; Incredible. > [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > Sorry, but data is not kept indefinitely in any science lab. If someone were to ask for my data from two years ago, they would be SOL. Oh, so scientists everywhere are unscientific? Makes me feel better. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/8 "2009-11-29T20:26:42Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Oh, so scientists everywhere are unscientific? Makes me feel better. If you want to have labs equipped with bureaucrats, then write your representative and suggest a grant to supply the necessary funds. Bureaucrats make horrible researchers as they spend very little time experimenting and a whole lot of time organizing and recording. Your definition of what is unscientific, may be a bit unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/9 "2009-11-29T20:30:35Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > If you want to have labs equipped with bureaucrats, then write your representative and suggest a grant to supply the necessary funds. Bureaucrats make horrible researchers as they spend very little time experimenting and a whole lot of time organizing and recording. Your definition of what is unscientific, may be a bit unscientific. Beaurocratic realities aside, don’t call “preserving data” unscientific. Seriously? Data should be discarded? I think that scientists’ opinions, their journal articles, their conclusions, all of that is worthless. The data that they gathered is the only thing of solid value. The CRU researchers threw theirs out because they’d rather have people pay attention to their opinions, journal articles, and conclusions. I wonder what motivation you have. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/10 "2009-11-29T21:57:13Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > If you want to have labs equipped with bureaucrats, then write your representative and suggest a grant to supply the necessary funds. Bureaucrats make horrible researchers as they spend very little time experimenting and a whole lot of time organizing and recording. Your definition of what is unscientific, may be a bit unscientific. So, just to make sure I understand, you are claiming that keeping data from experiments and/or sensors is unscientific? You sure about that? Slee ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/11 "2009-11-29T21:58:59Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Beaurocratic realities aside, don’t call “preserving data” unscientific. Seriously? Data should be discarded? I think that scientists’ opinions, their journal articles, their conclusions, all of that is worthless. The data that they gathered is the only thing of solid value. > > **The CRU researchers threw theirs out because they’d rather have people pay attention to their opinions, journal articles, and conclusions.** I wonder what motivation you have. Sorry, but this is General Questions, I need to see a big supported with evidence cite for the bolded part. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/12 "2009-11-29T22:14:37Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I was watching something on the Science Channel last night, and they mentioned that 2009 was (to paraphrase) one of the warmest years on record. My questions are…how does 2009 rate to other years and how are they determining what years are warmest (presumably this is some kind of global average)? How did they determine it in the past (i.e. how many data points did they have, over what area, how accurate were they, etc etc)? Over what period of time are they probably talking about (i.e. how far back could/would the ‘record’ go)? > > What were the other ‘warmest years’? > > -XT Many should notice that many of the posts referring to the CRU hack do not deal with the question at hand. [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html) > [@](#): > > After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability — despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade. > > Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level. > > In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature — but that doesn’t mean climate change has stopped, it’s just another part of natural variability. > [@](#): > > In 1998 El Niño was at a 20th-century peak, which contributed to record global temperatures seen that year. Many climate sceptics point to the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record, and say that because no year has topped that since, there must have been global cooling. However, to look at one year in isolation is effectively seizing on an extreme of natural variability and using that to judge long-term climate. It’s the underlying trend that is important, which is why you can only make judgements over longer periods of time. > [@](#): > > Our decadal forecast predicts an end to this period of relative stability after 2010. We project at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than the 1998 record. Climate researchers are, therefore, reinforcing the message that the case for tackling global warming remains strong. If we concentrate just in England, I can see where is the 2009 was called one of the warmest: > **[BBC News - This year 'in top five warmest'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8377128.stm)** > > This year will be in the top five warmest years globally since records began, according to the UK Met Office. > [@](#): > > This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office. > > The UK’s weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year. > > Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so. > > That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth. > > But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record. > > Other sources say it could even be the third warmest. > > The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average. Globally speaking, I guess we will have to wait a month or so to be sure regarding 2009 ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/13 "2009-11-29T22:42:47Z")
> [@Voluble](#): > > The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is responsible for gathering data from weather stations around the world. They collect, correlate and “adjust” it, ostensibly to account for different measurement methods. The scientists there also play the largest role in issuing the IPCC reports, including the infamous and ultimately discredited “hockey stick.” Part of the reason you may have difficulty finding an authoritative source for temperature information is that the CRU just admitted that they destroyed all of their raw (unadjusted) data. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) > > Some of the internal correspondence between these “scientists” at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was just released and it was revealed that there was widespread destruction of information subject to freedom of information requests along with evidence of everything from tax fraud to attempts to stack peer review journals with friendly faces and control the outcome of the debate. They couldn’t even reproduce their own results, using their own adjusted data run through their own computer programs. So in short… we have no way to know one way or the other which years are warmest and it is doubtful such a measure would have an agreed upon meaning anyway. Which measuring stations will you use? Do you use satellite, thermometer or proxy data? Do you use sea temperatures, or atmospheric, or land measurements and how do you combine the different types etc… The hockey stick for instance was the result of cherry picking from amongst a set of proxy data (tree rings). Not only was the data cherry picked from this subset but it was then arbitrarily combined with an entirely different set of measurements to generate the uptick at the end we are so familiar with. > > BTW, the notes from the programmer in charge of trying to reproduce what has been published in peer review journals are quite funny. The guy was literally pulling out his hair and eventually had to give up the effort. > > Not to overstate the case but when you have putative scientists who refuse to release their data and describe their methods so that their results can be reproduced and on top of that you have widespread destruction of the original readings you aren’t really dealing with science. That is not to take sides in any debate just to state the facts as currently known. If warming is occurring it would be nice to know but it is hard to find a reliable source on which to make any claims at all. This problem is not contained to just the CRU. Similar problems exist with researchers in New Zealand and elsewhere for instance. They apparently adjusted their data upwards as well and have yet to release a full explanation as to why. Then this data was sent to the CRU and adjusted yet again. > > Phil Jones, one of the alleged conspirators at the CRU sums up his view when responding to a fellow scientist’s request for data in one of the e-mails thusly; > > Such a response is the very essence of the scientific method is it not? **Voluble** – You’re side-tracking the OP here. If you can answer it with cites as to where the information can be found, well and good. If all you want to do is interject the politics behind the current controversy, then start or join a thread about it in the BBQ Pit. This is General Questions. **samclem** Moderator, General Questions. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warmest-year-s-on-records/519248/14 "2009-11-29T23:14:55Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > So, just to make sure I understand, you are claiming that keeping data from experiments and/or sensors is unscientific? > > You sure about that? > > Slee Data written with Lotus123 on a few hundred 5 1/4 inch floppy disks is as good as gone. Formats change. Scientists, particularly grad students, aren’t paid to keep data they are no longer working with accessible. This is less of a problem in industry, where they do indeed pay people to do just that, and they also don’t turn over their employees every four years. My personal data is mostly inaccessible, because I no longer work there and am not about to hunt it down from across the country without being paid. In short, no you do not understand. Keeping track of old raw data you aren’t using for current research just isn’t often done. If you want it done, then you should fund these research projects with grants specifically to hire a long term bureaucrat. Despite what **Alex** claims, the raw data is the least useful part of the data. Very few people in the world want to look at the FID from a new compound. They want the modified and transformed NMR spectrum.