Skip to content

Hottest Year Ever?

October 14, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

There has been a concerted effort in recent months to project this year as heading towards the hottest on record.

 

Joe Romm is the latest in the propaganda drive, claiming:

“Projections by NOAA make clear 2014 is taking aim at hottest year on record.”

 

Unfortunately, the satellite data does not agree.

 

image

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

 

As at the end of September, RSS is only ranking 7th hottest since 1998, and UAH tie 3rd. On both datasets, 1998 and 2010 were much, much warmer, and in both cases this year’s temperature is barely above last year’s (0.01C and 0.02C for RSS and UAH respectively).

 

The whole idea that we can measure global temperatures by any method to such small margins is, of course, a nonsense. Nevertheless, satellite monitoring does not have the substantial issues of UHI and minimal coverage which surface datasets have.

I find it astonishing that the supposedly objective experts from NOAA and NASA totally ignore this satellite data, and that the MSM seem blissfully unaware that it even exists.

from → Global Temperature Updates
8 Comments
  1. moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP permalink
    October 14, 2014 12:53 pm

    So, I am asking:
    which of the 5 data sets shown below

    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/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/none

    do not fit in with the general picture of global cooling since the beginning of the new millennium?

    In fact we can make it 6 data sets, if we include my own, of which I can say that it is properly balanced; [the other data sets are not properly balanced]
    (table for means, in the middle,

    Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    which is showing that is earth is cooling at an average rate of about -0.015K since 2000.

    Now ask yourself: why is UAH the odd one out?

  2. Sage Vals permalink
    October 14, 2014 1:03 pm

    The ‘warmists’ need a boost to keep the public interested and the grant cash flowing. I expect them, aided by the Guardian etc, to go all out on the predictions of high annual temps well before the year end just to grab some headlines. Once the final numbers are out, expect either silence or fiddling the figures.

  3. moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP permalink
    October 14, 2014 1:58 pm

    henry said
    which is showing that is earth is cooling at an average rate of about -0.015K since 2000.

    henry says
    sorry, that should read:
    which is showing that earth is cooling at an average ANNUAL rate of about -0.015K since 2000.

  4. Andres Valencia permalink
    October 14, 2014 3:43 pm

    Thanks, Paul. Yes, alarmists are failing to alarm us, so they are trying harder.

  5. David permalink
    October 14, 2014 6:27 pm

    Is it realistic to compare short term changes in surface data with satellite data, given that satellite data reflect changes throughout the lower troposphere?

    A lot depends on convection; the rate at which surface heat transfers above the near ground level. For that reason, satellite data tends to be slower to detect the onset of El Nino/La Nina conditions than does surface data.

    I’d expect to see a continued temperature rise in satellite data for the next few months, though I could be wrong (it has been known).

  6. moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP permalink
    October 14, 2014 6:45 pm

    @david
    My investigations show we are cooling from the top latitudes downward and as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
    At the lower latitudes more condensation energy is coming free, giving you the illusion [as some data sets show] of no change.
    Although my personal opinion on UAH is more sinister. From my experience I think both sides of the debate [around CO2 emission] want the controversy to continue [as long as possible]. Hence it shows: no change

  7. moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP permalink
    October 14, 2014 6:56 pm

    e.g.

    I confronted Roy Spencer [UAH] directly with my results and that of the other data sets [as reported earlier] and did not get any reply. That is strange in view of a previous contact I had with him when I was still busy with my investigations.
    It looks like both sides of the debate have realised that it is profitable for them that the controversy continues.
    This is of course my own personal opinion.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: