Skeptic Setback? 'New' CRU data says world has warmed since 1998

But not in a statistically significant way.

Gerard Wynn writes at Reuters:

Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which for years maintained that 1998 was the hottest year, has published new data showing warmer years since, further undermining a sceptic view of stalled global warming.

The findings could helpfully move the focus from whether the world is warming due to human activities – it almost certainly is – to more pressing research areas, especially about the scale and urgency of human impacts.

After adding new data, the CRU team working alongside Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre said on Monday that the hottest two years in a 150-year data record were 2005 and 2010 – previously they had said the record was 1998.

None of these findings are statistically significant given the temperature differences between the three years were and remain far smaller than the uncertainties in temperature readings…

9 thoughts on “Skeptic Setback? 'New' CRU data says world has warmed since 1998”

  1. Every Time they pull one of these stunts they are spending a little bit of whatever credibility they have left. CAGW is on the ropes, desperately praying for a miracle.

  2. … prehaps it is actually climate “science” that is the cause of global warming….all that hot air & computers for speculation processing.. ( well it can hardly be called data processing can it?)

  3. When they mean it’s getting warmer, they mean it in retrospect, after each new adjustment.

  4. How is this news if the results are not statistically significant? Or do people not know what that means? Once you take that into account what they are saying is: News flash – global temperature has not increased since 1998!

  5. I suspect they took August readings in the Arctic and called them December. Can someone look at what was done. NASA a few years back, I think 2009, used September readings from Russia and called them Ocober readings. There was a big difference and they were able to show global warming.
    I think HadCRU use the same trick to produce the rise. This is analogous to “hide the decline:.

  6. “… further undermining a sceptic view of stalled global warming.” Further? What was the previous undermining of the skeptic view? Climategate? Fakegate? BEST? Stable temps while carbon increased?. CERN? No tropspheric hot spot? CO2 following temperature? Proof after peer-reviewed proof of the MWP? … Caution: Alarmist Narrative at Work.

    ” … insignificantly undermining and consistent with a skeptic view of stalled global warming.” How’s that for a fact-check correction?

  7. The New Data is Russian Arctic stuff. Everybody should be able to understand that if the world goes back to warming only by including new Arctic data, then of course we should be talking of an Arctic warming not Global.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.