Skip to content

CET Stats For 2016

January 2, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html

 

The provisional CET numbers are now out for last year, with an annual mean temperature of 10.34C, almost exactly the same as 2015.

A look at the trend line suggests that temperatures have effectively flatlined for at least twenty years now.

A closer look at the period since 1980 seems to confirm this.

 

image

 

 

The Met Office graph clearly shows a step up in temperatures in the late 1980s. But since then very little has changed.

Sure, we a record high in 2014, but this was just a combination of  weather events, just as in the cold year of 2010.

With a step up to a new plateau, and given the natural ups and downs, statistically we are inevitable going to see new highs from time to time.

A good way to look at it is to compare annual temperatures with the average since 1990:

 

image

 

 

We find that five of the last ten years have been below that average. Indeed, the average for the last ten years is 10.11C, which is lower than the 1990-2016 mean of 10.21C.

With the AMO due to turn cold in the 2020s, there is little evidence that England’s climate will get warmer anytime soon.

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. January 2, 2017 7:42 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    January 2, 2017 7:47 pm

    What is the 20th Century mean for CET? The contiguous US value is 11.12°C (1949).

  3. The Old Bloke permalink
    January 2, 2017 7:48 pm

    And this with record levels of man made Co2.

  4. Mr GrimNasty permalink
    January 2, 2017 7:50 pm

    Just odd the step up probably coincides with the introduction of electronic instruments.
    (And a lot of other factors no doubt).

  5. CheshireRed permalink
    January 2, 2017 8:09 pm

    O/T but another Green Miracle for you to pull apart, Paul.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4081766/18million-tidal-energy-scheme-stops-working-just-three-months.html

    • January 2, 2017 10:14 pm

      It appears that the sonar stopped working, meant to detect marine mammals, I’ve never understood why they don’t just put a wire cage around the turbine, like on air fans.

      Tidal energy is bonkers because it cannot be used worldwide, and is merely a 1-dimensional technology that can only form lines around some coastlines, unlike solar which is 2-dimensional, and wind which (heaven forbid) could be 3-dimensional by building upwards.

      • Joe Public permalink
        January 3, 2017 12:28 pm

        A wire cage would probably trap the likes of seaweed, and that then would severely interfere with water flow.

  6. Tom Dowter permalink
    January 2, 2017 8:59 pm

    One of the more interesting aspects of the CET series is the apparent rate of warming over any 30 year period. To be sure, the top spot is taken by the period 1978-2007 – but the second most rapid warming was much earlier: from 1691-1720!

    Worth remembering when climate alarmists cherry pick CET to illustrate some spurious point.

  7. January 2, 2017 9:33 pm

    Global warming. Just another term for nice weather.

  8. darpem@aol.com permalink
    January 2, 2017 11:28 pm

    Have you seen the scary report on Sky News just now?

  9. January 3, 2017 10:21 am

    The missing heat’s supposed to be at the bottom of the sea these days 😉

  10. Max Sawyer permalink
    January 3, 2017 11:35 am

    Surely some mistake (as the saying is). Otherwise our government would not not be spending so much of our money on “green crap”. Would they? Rhetorical, of course – we know the answer. Oh for some political courage.

  11. Edmonton Al permalink
    January 3, 2017 12:30 pm

    Has the UHI effect been factored in??

    • Matthew permalink
      January 3, 2017 1:37 pm

      Similar question Paul, how much adjusting has gone on with these numbers. Are they reliable or do they bear no resemblance to raw data?

    • January 3, 2017 5:43 pm

      They allow 0.2C for UHI prior to 1970, ie add to all temperatures prior

      Does not sound much

      • david permalink
        January 4, 2017 6:24 pm

        or take 0.2 C off the more recent. Not quite sure which way they do it.

  12. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 3, 2017 1:04 pm

    I wonder why the mean datum of 1961-90 was chosen. Do other 30-year means show a different set of anomalies – that perhaps, tell a different story?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: