“Hottest Year” Update
November 15, 2014
By Paul Homewood
While NASA and NOAA proclaim we are headed towards the “hottest year on record”,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
what do the more accurate satellite systems tell us?
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
According to RSS, the YTD anomaly ranks a very ordinary 7th warmest since 1998. UAH make it tie 3rd.
Both are well below the two hottest years in 1998 and 2010.
We have been continually told that the satellite data will catch up with the surface data after a lag, but it has stubbornly refused to do so.
There is absolutely no way this year will get anywhere those record years on the satellite datasets, which is precisely why we will hear nothing about it from NASA, NOAA or the MSM.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
the overall trend is still down from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I’m wondering if these folks are measuring the same thing?
The Gov. sites claim “Land & Ocean” anomalies. Are land temps. taken from ASOS units (& earlier from Stevenson Screens)? Is this reported with or without an adjustment for airport and urban heating? How to the temps. above oceans fit into this? With ~71% of the surface ocean, the measurement system is important. It is confused, I think.
The Total Lower Troposphere (TLT) is easier to accept as being a similar measurement from place to place. That RSS and UAH have an identical pattern (not exactly the same numbers) suggests they have some technical issues – but not a concept problem.
Everyone should remember, even if gets warmer (or colder) – warmer is better. And, carbon dioxide and other gas emissions appear to have a minor, and decreasing, role. This last thing is why those of the alarmist agenda are jumping to the pH of ocean water as a guilt-inducing issue. They are as clueless about ocean chemistry as they are about atmospheric physics.
True. The sample of stations must be properly balanced by latitude and 70-30 @sea and inland. There is only one data set who got it right: mine
Unfortunately Obama is proudly spouting that this is the hottest year on record at every opportunity. He did so yesterday at his G20 speech at the Queenslands University of Technology so his words will be what catches the headlines, even though he is blatantly wrong.
If you take the right kind of sample, as specified by me here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2014/11/09/henryps-pool-tables-on-global-cooling/
you will find that earth is cooling down, as confirmed by other data sets
However, it looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940’s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
This is all such nonsense…
Earth makes 166 gigatons of CO2 every year. Most of it is from the decomposition of limestone and from 1,000 volcanoes that errupt every year Some is from the decay of dead plants and animals. Man produces six gigatons, 3.22% and of that the US makes 20%, 0.0065% of the total, but with it we make 50% of Earth’s fuel, fiber and food. Three billion would starve if we quit.
Earth is not a “greenhouse.” They have covers made of transparent matterial with two surfaces. Surfaces can only exist on solids and liquids where molecules are in contact. They are not in sufficient contact in gases. There is no “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere.
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat as CO2 or 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all.
The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases followed temperature increases by 800 years 19 times over 440,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative,” and know.
John F. Hultquist PERMALINK
November 15, 2014 7:07 pm
I think John (above) has it right: the satellite systems are measuring a different thing from the temp measurements (and adjustments) 2m above the ground (or water).
The question is, why? Perhaps it IS cloud cover/sunshine. The surface temperature is very, very sensitive to the SI that reaches the ground (as any outdoorsy person knows), but if the satellites measure the clear air above most clouds, then the SI changes is unaffected by cloud cover.
Perhaps what the cross-plot of satellite measurements and Global land + sea measurements reflects cloud cover …..
If SST’s are higher, this heat should find its way into the atmosphere sooner or later.
Moreover, heat from the oceans cannot affect land temps, without first going through the atmosphere.
Hey Paul…..your megaphone must be running low on battery power. The Daily Toryrag hasn’t heard you…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11269830/Climate-change-means-2014-could-be-warmest-year-ever-but-London-can-cope.html
Shout a bit louder will ya!
Yz
Dave
ground temp data is a farce-
Africa , one fifth of the world’s land mass-
WMO-
“Because the data with respect to in-situ surface
air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear regional assessment for Africa could not
be based on any of the three standard global
surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4 Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology
Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
Research Laboratory was used to estimate
surface air temperature patterns.
I love estimations , you can make up what you want.