Record Heat Hit Northeast U.S. in 2010

Five cities in the northeastern United States broke their own record of all-time hottest year in 2010, according to a report out Wednesday (Jan. 5).
For Boston, 2010 had the highest average temperature since records began being kept in 1872, when The Great Fire almost wiped the city off the map. The other four cities were: Providence, R.I.; Hartford, Conn.; Concord, N.H.; and Caribou, Maine.
The findings come from statistics released by the Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University.
The researchers looked at temperature data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at various sites in cities across the northeastern United States.

Data collected in cities by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seems to say it all really. I don’t suppose they thought about comparing the recorded temperatures in more rural locations around those record breaking cities just for a balanced approach.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/record-heat-northeast-cities-2010-110106.html

I have a guest post at Watts Up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/09/the-met-office-secret-prediction-and-the-political-implications/#comments

There was a bit of a cock up (most probably by me) as the wrong article got published before I'd finished it! Details in the comments, and I've added a missing bit about Boris in the comments (Anthony is no doubt in bed by now, so any further corections will have to wait.)

Let them eat bugs!

Scientists urge switch from meat to insect diet to save on greenhouse gases - http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014445

A leading professor and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proposed that nations need to end democracy in order to solve the theory of man made climate change.

David Shearman, an Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Adelaide, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences and Law School, has authored several books on climate change, one entitled The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. In this he declares that “…authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity”.

Professor Shearman was an Assessor for the UN’s IPCC 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports.

http://wideshut.co.uk/end-democracy-to-save-planet-says-ipcc/

Piers Corbyn on the MET Office forecasting/hindcasting method "this is bullshit, these people are not to be trusted with anything"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPMmCruPAWU&feature=player_embedded

Met don't appear to be shouting about 2010 being the "hottest" any longer.

The HadCRUT3 number for November 10 has finally been posted at +0.431C.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

On the site today 6th Jan 11 though the darlings have put an “updated” date of 20/12/2010!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Anyhow +0.431C gives +0.493C for 11 months. Doubtful that it will get near the +0.548C (funny I thought it was +0.52C) for 1998. Might not even get to 2005 – +0.482C.

Time will tell.

According to sourcewatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Montford

"Montford has a shaky grasp of objectivity at best. In a short Bishop Hill article Montford asks "Should we believe anything the Met Office says?" His concerns are based on nothing more than Chairman Robert Napier's CV.[4]

Andrew Montford, "A few months later he warms to the theme and claims Napier is an "environmental activist" (although he gives no evidence and does not even reference his point).[5]

I imagine being a senior representaive of the WWF, on the board of the Green Fiscal Commision, and the Carbon Disclosure Project, might not perhaps lead people to think, he campigns for the 'conensus' side.....

Sourcewatch look like nothing more than attempts to blacklist people....

Here's what the world looks like from the other side. Gavin from Realclimate in response to someone politely taking issue with him for suggesting that scientists aren't in fact afraid of losing grant or status if they dare to question the ‘consensus’.

Read Gavin's response. It's what the world looks like to someone in a position of unquestioning authority. where everyone he knows thinks the same.

"Ok, I'll respond anyway: No, I don't think that scientist never worry about their grants. For people on soft money, and for other scientists with post-docs and grad students to support, trying to maintain security of the funding is both stressful and time-consuming. The difference between the original statement and the imagined implication, is the reason why someone would be worried about there grants. This is usually a function of whether they've published enough, whether the data turned out to be interesting or not, etc. I know of no case and I have never heard it even raised among climate scientists that they are afraid that public discussion of climate or legitimate criticism of other scientists/science would cause them to be defunded. I have never been on a panel where someone's public comments on anything have influenced the funding decision. Whether you think I am 'credible' or not, that is the truth. You might imagine that there would be much more dis-consensus if grants were not on the line, but this is simply wishful thinking on your part. - gavin"

'However, December also turned out unusually sunny and dry, with less than half the expected amount of precipitation (snow and rain) falling, and with hours of sunlight nearly 40% above average.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Richard Black should get a job on the comedy circuit

Nice post over at RPJ on the lack of man made climate change signal in hurricanes data ( no surprise there, but still worth a look!)

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/signals-of-anthropogenic-climate-change.html