UAH Results For 2016
By Paul Homewood
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
UAH temperature anomalies dropped sharply in December, from 0.45C to 0.24C, and are now back to December 2014 levels.
This means that 2016 ended up only 0.021C warmer than 1998, an insignificant amount, but one which makes last year technically the warmest in the satellite record beginning in 1979:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
If a temperature rise of just 0.021C in 18 years was projected over a century, it would mean a rise of only 0.116C.
Such an inconsequential rise would not only be miles below anything forecast by computer models, it would almost certainly be beneficial.
It certainly would not justify the climate policies being forced on the world.
![GL_MT_2015[1879102]](https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/gl_mt_20151879102_thumb.png?w=704&h=482 "GL_MT_2015[1879102]")
Climate sceptics have been regularly taken to task for cherry picking 1998 as a start point, when highlighting the standstill in global temperatures.
Unfortunately for warmists, this argument can no longer be employed, as comparing 1998 with 2016 is comparing like for like.
Arguably the 2015/16 El Nino was even stronger than 1997/98. The latter may have peaked slightly higher, but last year’s lasted much longer. In 1997/98, El Nino conditions existed for 16 months, compared to 23 months this time.
Furthermore, La Nina conditions began in August 1998, depressing temperatures in November/December. Currently we are still waiting for La Nina to start.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html
RSS data will be available in the next few days, but I would anticipate very similar results.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Alarmists are not shy about cherry picking their start points. In their case, 1979 appears constantly as their start point, almost obsessively. It just so happens that 1979 was one of the coldest years on record, at the end of a cooling period that lasted around 40 years.
It was not exactly that we don’t have good records going back 100 years or more before 1979.
Perhaps the computer model forecasts V the actuals graph should be sent to the BBC; for that is an organisation that really needs a shake up where climate matters are concerned.
The models obviously fail to take into account the hydro cycle which operates as a Rankine cycle and pumps some 600 Watt/sq.m. up into the atmosphere for every kilogram of water evaporated from the surface.
All you have to do to calculate this is to look at the steam tables and deduct the energy of returning rain/ice etc. from the energy required to evaporate the water in the first case.
A fair proportion of this energy is dissipated up at the top of the Troposphere in the Cirrus clouds, way beyond the clutches of pesky CO2.
It is really quite simple:- The Earth sweats, just like you and I to keep cool and is the prime thermostat. All thanks to Rankine.
I think you would encounter ‘constructive ignorance’ in trying to change the BBC view.
Just to show what the AMSU satellite and balloon data implies, lets take the third graph. From 1979 to 2016 the actual global temperature anomaly has risen from +0.06 C to about +0.35 C.
In that time the global pCO2 has risen from about 336 ppmV to about 405 ppmV.
To determine 2XCO2, assuming all the warming in that time is due to CO2, you only need these numbers.
2XCO2 = (0.35 – 0.06) x log 2 / (log 405 – log 336) = 1.08 C/doubling
What does this mean?
Well we’ve arguably added about 125 ppmV of CO2 to the atmosphere since humankind invented fire. To increase the global temperature by 2.16 C from today’s temperature, which is pretty nice here in the eastern Australia today (commiserations to UKers for the cold weather this week), you would have to therefore increase pCO2 from 406 to 1,624 ppmV. Two doublings. That increase of 1,218 ppmV is just less than 10 times the amount of CO2 we’ve generated in all of history.
If we are already near to “peak oil” how, exactly, are we going to emit ten times more CO2? And while I took 2.16 C as the number for convenience, there’s nothing to say a further rise of that magnitude would even be harmful. And even the amount of CO2 we’d have to emit to reach the IPCC’s insanely low 1.5 C limit is so huge it can never happen. There isn’t enough burnable carbon on Earth to do that.
All this is without assuming any other causes for the temperature rise, like the ocean cycles and the Sun.
It’s crazy.
The met office “weather programme” informed us quite clearly with graphic that, “we are in a La Nina cooling phase” or summat.
Now then, who to believe?
Not yet – probably.
Conditions are ENSO neutral or very weak La Nina. It is a bit fluctuating.
True, very true, we await La Nina – with not very much enthusiasm at all, Australia usually suffers very badly.
Currently La Nina is having a slow start, however the cold has swept into the Northern hemisphere this winter. How much colder will it get when the La Nina really gets going?
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
It would be good if the uncertainty and the statistical significance of the data were discussed on “More or Less”. But the BBC wouldn’t allow that to happen as the “wrong” message cannot be allowed to be broadcast. Cardinal Harrabin would be apoplectic.
Paul and Phillip Bratby, New Year greetings to you all.
Seeing as you brought up the execrable Woger Harriden of Biased BBC fame, he had a programme on radio 4 last night. Yes you guessed it “it’s worse than we thought” and once the climate realistic PROTOS takes over in Washington we are all doomed.
The error of the data is 0.1C so it is not possible to be certain that 2016 was the warmest year in their record.
As is there is such a thing as avg annual temp for a planet.
All that counts is local climatic conditions
And whether the potatoes will grow.
Local climate varies over centuries just like a rivers path varies.
If there isnt a global catastrophic feedback loop we can always adapt.