& ENVIRO TRUTH NO 89
DECEMBER 11th 2005
The Hottest Year- yet again!
NZClimate Truth No 83, November 16th 2005 was
about the claim that 2005 is the "hottest year in the Northern
Hemisphere since records began", based, presumably, on only ten months'
data. I attached two maps showing temperature anomalies with respect to
the 1961-90 average for each 5°x5° box on the earth's
surface, which were available from the website of the Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.The first map,
which claimed to represent 2005, was at
It showed that most of the warming took place in
North America and Northern Europe. However, . Siberia, North Africa,
the Eastern Atlantic and the Southern Ovean all cooled. There were no
measurements on the Antarctic continent, but other evidence shows that
it also cooled. There were also no measurements around the North Pole,
but other evidence, summarised in Newsletter No 85, November 30th 2005
(originally mis-numbered No 84) shows that Arctic temperatures show a
strong correlation with solar radiation, but not with greenhouse gas
I also gave you the map from
which gives temeperature anomalies for the
months December/January/February for 2004/2005
I commented that the changes for the winter months
were very similar to those for the whole (?ten month?) year, indicating
that the warming was mainly in the winter months. Other evidence shows
that it was also mainly at night. This behaviour is incompatible with
an influence of increased greenhouse gase, and is best explained by
additional buildings, energy usage and agricultural change in developed
You have to ask why should anybody want to draw
such devastating conclusions from only ten months' data? The answer,
surely, is, that it a politically inspired campaign to influence
the recent meeting in Montreal to discuss the future of the Kyoto
Treaty. Normally, surely. the scientists would wait to some time
in February (as they state in the document) before they
pontificate about the temperature for 2005. We don't hear from people
measuring greenhouse gas emissions or concentrations in 2005 until
after they have happened. Indeed, since the concentration of
methane in the atmosphere may be falling, we may not hear what is
happening for several months.
The CRU have now produced a comprehensive Press
Release on "The Hottest Year" at
which must also have been a politically inspired
attempt to influence the Montreal Conference.
It is a very well illustrated scientific
document with references and would normally be considered
as a proper scientific paper, to be submitted to a Journal, and
subjected to peer review. It has no author
It contains a map of "temperature anomalies,
relative to the 1961-1990 mean, for the period January to November
2005". So they have added another month. But it is quite different from
the January to October map I sent to you, since, now, the warming in
the Northern Hemisphere takes place in Siberia and North Africa as well
as everywhere else. , So I went back to the first website given above,
and lo and behold, the map has cnanged. It still claims to be "2005",
but it was updated--- wait for it---- on December 25th 2005!. Do these
people always work on Christmas Day?
The new map, which I invite you to contemplate,
which now, presumably refers to 11 months, January to November,
has eliminated almost all the cooling regions in the Northern
Hemisphere. The cooling is all in the South. Indeed, in the Press
Release they give several gobal average anomaly plots. The
temperature in the Southern Hemisphere South of 30S has been cooling
since 1998. The Tropics have shown only a slight rise since 1998. Most
the warming took place North of 30N.
Now, the December/JanuaryFebruary map is out of
line with the (11 month) annual average. So November must have been
very warm in Siberia and North Africa. One wonders whether the cold
December weather, already evident in UK and USA, might change the
annual figures back again.
All of this is a bit baffling. These patterns
do not correspond with any climate model. The climate
models predict that warming should be greatest at BOTH poles, not just
at one. Also, for some time now the modellists have had to
moderate the rather extreme predictions of the models by feeding in
variable amounts of cooling aerosols, which are thought to be greatest
above the industrial nations of the Northern Hemisphere. So it
should get hotter in the Southern Hemisphere, not in the North.
Another feature of this Press Release is the claim
that the temperature change in the lower troposphere is now the same as
on the surface. This seems to go against my Newsletter of December 1st
where I attached the radiosonde results of Thorne et al (with a rather
poor diagram) which showed no change between 1958 and 2002 in the
Lower Troposphere. Well, the CRU Press Release has put all the
measurements on top of one another, so as to conceal individual
uncertainty bars, and it does seem that the radiosonde
measurements have gone up a bit between 2002 and (? 2005). But can you
rely on only three years?
If we agree that the troposphere warms the same as
the surface, then what has happened to the greenhouse effect, which was
supposed to be GREATEST in the lower troposphere.
To conclude, it is all very confusiing, but
regional temperature information seems to be completely incompatible
with the greenhouse theory. No wonder the Chapter on "Regional Climate
Change" in every IPCC Report, including the current Draft, always deals
entirely with models and never includes actual regional climate
Well, have a Happy 2006.
75 Silverstream Road
Phone/Fax 064 4 9735939
"It's not the things you don't know that fool you.
It's the things you do know that aint so"