UAH Confirms 2014 Was Not Hottest Year
By Paul Homewood
UAH have now released their global temperature data for December and, as with RSS, they confirm that 2014 was a long way from being the “hottest ever year”, much touted recently.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Whereas RSS have last year ranked only the 6th warmest, according to UAH it is 3rd. However, as Dr John Christy points out:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf
It is commonly claimed that satellite and surface datasets measure different things, and there is an element of truth in that.
Whereas surface sets, such as HADCRUT and GISS, only measure the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, the satellite sets of UAH and RSS measure it through the whole of the lower troposphere, and therefore must be regarded as much more comprehensive.
It is also argued that UAH do not measure sea surface temperatures. However, in terms of global heat balance, the temperature of the sea at the surface is almost irrelevant when compared to that of the entire volume of sea from top to bottom.
In any event, increased heat at the top of the sea will always tend to transfer into the atmosphere above it by evaporation, until equilibrium is found. While there is a short lag for this to happen, atmospheric temperature measurements do reflect these changes.
It is also worth pointing out that higher sea temperatures can only affect land ones after having also affected the atmosphere. Indeed, according to theory, the global troposphere should warm 1.2 times as fast as the surface.
Satellite coverage measures nearly every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis, apart from close to the poles, where of course there is virtually no surface coverage anyway. Satellites are also not affected by the well established issues that surface data has, such as UHI, bad siting, sparse coverage and endless adjustments.
The reality is that, despite El Nino conditions for most of the year, the long pause in global temperatures has continued for another year. With the MEI Index suggesting that last year’s El Nino is weakening, it seems likely that 2015 will be any different.
UPDATE
Please note the graph has been updated, as the original version did not include 2014!
Trackbacks
- UAH Confirms 2014 Was Not Hottest Year | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow
- UAH conferma che il 2014 non è stato l’anno più caldo | New Ice Age
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
there is no 2014 in the graph?
Woops!
I wondered who’d be the first to spot that!
which graph ? I see only one which includes a 2014 label?
it was fixed…
An average of the 20 months global UAH anomalies for 2014 gives 0.275 for the year. This is third to 1998 at 0.42 and 2010 at 0.40. It is not significantly different from 2005 at 0.26 or 2013 at 0.24.
Sorry that was supposed to be 12 months. So Corrected:
An average of the 12 months global UAH anomalies for 2014 gives 0.275 for the year. This is third to 1998 at 0.42 and 2010 at 0.40. It is not significantly different from 2005 at 0.26 or 2013 at 0.24.
Thanks, Paul. Good reporting; The stoppage continues.
The endless adjustments have made the surface thermometers impossible to trust.
The satellites are much more stable over time. Also, they are continuously calibrated, and the drift problems are being corrected. Once the REMSS and UAH data sets are better reconciled, they will be much closer.
there is no bar for the 2014 results?
in any case UAH is out of line with most other results?
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:2016/trend
If you know abou the calibration, I’d like to find out from you how they determine zero in space, when I say it is [probably] constantly changing [a bit}
Wonder which media org will be the first to make a retraction to their previous reporting ?
Exactly year 2014 was not the warmest.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Heads up local lefty bloggers, read this before posting stories about 2014 being the warmest year on record. Do not make yourself look foolish.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
.
.
Paul Homewood with analysis of the UAH dataset yearly update.
The climate models are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. This approach is a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.
The entire UNFCCC -IPCC circus is a farce- based, as it is, on the CAGW scenarios of the IPCC models which do not have even heuristic value. Satellite data shows that in about 2003 the earth entered a cooling trend which will possibly last for 600 years. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend.
For the amount and timing of the coming cooling and methods used see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
trend is down by ca. 0.1K since 1998….
my own results say it is -0.2K since 2000…..
Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Exactly as Black Pearl says – which of the ‘parrot’ media alarmists will post retracions first?
You’ve guessed… none of them. This is a regularly practised policy to make the public ‘aware’ of the dangers of AGW. Why on earth would they admit they’re wrong when they do this deliberately?
This policy works – many people I know have retorted that 2014 is the warmest year ever when I’ve tried telling them otherwise.
There you go.
JP
Hi Paul, and happy new year. I thought you might be interested in this view of RSS and UAH data. The comparison of the decade beginning 2001 and the decade beginning 2011. Best wishes, http://www.kiwithinker.com/2015/01/the-decadal-global-climate-bet-dec-2014-update-4-years-into-the-race/
UAH does not make sense when compared to other data sets, meaning it must have calibration issues (zero point>?)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
Henry, not sure I understand your point. I didn’t compare UAH with any other series. I averaged RSS and UAH, and compared two decades of these two data sources. Unless RSS or UAH recalibrated offsets part way through (and I believe they have not) their offsets will not affect the trend.
@nzrobin
UAH does not fit in, compared to 4 others and compared to my own data set.
That is 5 against 1.
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:2016/trend
There must be an error with UAH?
So, averaging UAH and RSS does not make sense.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980.1/to:2016/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/trend
in the graph above we see that the average all indices have a down trend from 2002,
UAH is in an “opposite” phase, i.e. the odd one out.
Thanks Henry, I will take a closer look.
Talking about bets,
I have a suspicion there is a concerted effort (especially some people involved with UAH) that want to “keep” the debate going, even when they really know there is no man made global warming. It is probably to do with advertising revenue on blogs.
A simple random test, sampling procedure conducted as prescribed here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2014/11/09/henryps-pool-tables-on-global-cooling/
shows of course there is no man made global warming…..
The proposed mechanism for AGW implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. It follows naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth. I found / you will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima at 0.034 : 0.012 : 0.004 in degrees C/annum. That is ca. 8:3:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
more specifically: I find the following trends in minimum temperature records over time: 0.004K/annum (from 1974), 0.007K/annum (from 1980), 0.004K/annum (from 1990) and -0.009K/annum (from 2000). Putting these values out against the time periods indicated, i.e. 40, 34, 24 and 14 years respectively, you get the acceleration/deceleration of warming. I was astonished to find an absolute perfect curve, a quadratic function, with Rsquare=1. That means 100% correlation. That means that at any point in the past 40 years I can tell you exactly what the speed of warming was, as far as minimum temperatures are concerned. If there were any man made warming at all, one would expect to see some chaos in that curve…..(i.e. somewhat less than 100% correlation). Note that the theory of AGW implies rising minimum temperatures, pushing up the mean average temperature.
Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
(note the last graph, underneath the last table)
It’s stated above that neither of these data sets is affected by UHI, is this really true? Urban heat islands must result in warming of the atmosphere above them and given the growth of urbanisation this may have an affect that is significant when compared to the very small differences discussed. Is it possible to detect UHI efftects in the data?
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.
Worrying about trivial variations in the global average temperature anomaly amounting to trivial fractions of a degree centigrade is not only bizarre, it is an obscenity. It is tantamount to an obsession of insanity.
@Mervyn
This is your own perception of reality. My wife also laughs at me when I mention the figure of -0.2K since 2000 and we note that the temp.difference between rooms in the house at any one day can be much bigger. However, don’t forget that we look at AVERAGE global temps.
In truth, we are globally cooling from the top latitudes down. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.55K per decade since 1998 (Average of ten weather stations).
That is almost one whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers up there that it is not going to get any better. NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
So, just remember that currently you do not see much change (in temperature) at the lower to middle latitudes simply because more water vapor will condense here, releasing energy into the immediate surroundings.
However, do not be tempted into believing that the climate is not changing, naturally…
it is!
There is a clear cycle, that becomes noticeable every 88 years or so.
Do the maths and realize where we are, and what is still coming. (Dust Bowl drought, food shortages, runaway inflation because of the food shortages, WW2, etc)
The alarmists can’t escape the fact that despite rising CO2, global temperature has plateaued. It has not disappeared into the deep ocean as they ridiculously claim. Firstly it has not been detected there, at least a temperature that accounts for the plateau.
Secondly they have not identified a mechanism that would cause the heat to suddenly decide to jump into the oceans bypassing the surface layers and violating the laws of thermodynamics.
true.