Skip to content

RSS Confirm 2016 Is Tied With 1998 As Warmest Year

January 5, 2017

By Paul Homewood


RSS have also now released their temperature data for December, which, as with UAH, shows a big drop from the month before.

Annually, RSS come to the same conclusion as UAH, that 2016 was 0.02C warmer than 1998.


As Roy Spencer has pointed out, the margin of error is 0.1C, so statistically 2016 is tied with 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.

The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.

  1. CheshireRed permalink
    January 5, 2017 2:35 pm

    0.02C? Massive! That makes 2016 the Hottest Year Ever. Watch the screaming headlines roll out of the Guardian and BBC without further ado.

    The reality – no statistical difference to 1998 despite a further 18 years of human CO2 emissions, is desperately disappointing for alarmists, especially as both years were turbo-charged by entirely natural El Nino’s. These figures effectively signal a return of the hated Pause, now an undeniable 18 years long with a free run to hurtle past 20 years. They’re going to be absolutely furious.

    • January 5, 2017 3:08 pm

      The BBC and Grauniad will just report it as the hottest year ever. They won’t let a bit of uncertainty get in the way of the headline propaganda.

    • January 6, 2017 7:21 am


    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 6, 2017 7:34 am

      RSS is

      2016… 0.559
      1998… 0.550

      Third decimal place stuff.. ie NO WARMING

      Looking just at December data….

      In RSS December 2016 is NINTH place (1987 was one of the warmer Decembers)

      IN UAH December 2016 is in =5th place (1987 ditto)

      Big drops in USA since November for both RSS (-3.1ºC) and UAH USA48 (-1.85ºC)

    • Geoffrey Williams permalink
      January 10, 2017 1:03 am

      Great comment CheshireRed!

  2. Broadlands permalink
    January 5, 2017 3:14 pm

    And, now the “hiatus” has also disappeared, again?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 5, 2017 8:43 pm

      Interestingly, the ‘Science’ link to the Hausfather paper no longer works…

    • January 7, 2017 8:23 pm

      This is where the scientific process really breaks down. Evidence mounts and consensus develops in the view that there’s been a long pause in the preceding trend of GW. Then, the knee-jerk reaction is that teams of like-minded warmists get their panties in a wad and go 24/7 with nothing but an agenda to ‘find’ ways to prove them wrong.

  3. tom0mason permalink
    January 5, 2017 4:07 pm

    This event should be advertised on all government and public buildings, and municipal and public transport, especially in Canada, Germany, Siberia, and the northern states of the USA.
    Let them all know that after 3 decades this massive peak has made all the difference, and because of that all fossil fuels must be restricted to prevent catastrophic runaway global warming. Going with (highly subsidized) green energy is the only option that will (arguably) prevent 0.001°C (+/- 0.1°C) of additional warming.

  4. January 5, 2017 4:41 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. BLACK PEARL permalink
    January 5, 2017 5:54 pm

    Have watched BBC’s Yellowstone nature doc the last two nights and by all the innuendos it is in trouble due to unseasonably warm weather this year & has been milder for the last 10 years ?
    No mention of it being an El Nino year of coarse
    Lost count of how many times Extreme has been used throughout, building up to the climate change phrase towards the conclusion, then followed just after the end credits with a leader for a coming programme titled Climate Change & TRUMP
    These people have more sour grapes in their mouths than the American Democrats.
    I thinks its the last one tonight so will expect plenty of doom & gloom innuendos on the wildlife’s future demise due to climate change & rising temps as they sum all up !
    All very predictable with their subliminal messaging throughout
    I watch it for the photography but dont need the half truths & political propaganda

    • Mark Hodgson permalink
      January 5, 2017 6:50 pm

      I watched the first one and then gave up. The relentless climate propaganda was just too annoying. Mild winter made it bad for the wolves (no counter-balancing statement that it was therefore good for the elks that the wolves hunt etc). It was relentless.

    • mikewaite permalink
      January 5, 2017 9:00 pm

      I agree with the comments about the series , and I will not be watching the last one because it will be so predictable .
      What is so depressing is that it is so lacking in integrity . The main point being made is that AGW is causing a devastating change to the “normal” weather pattern , particularly in winter and spring , backed up by a 1 second view of a temperature chart for just 2 years , presumably 2015 and 2016 , but it was impossible to tell properly .
      So I tried to find some alternative source of data on, say , mean temperature for a Yellowstone station and came up with this source :
      (and you can cycle through the years and months and see min, max temps , snowfall, etc .
      I have absolutely no idea whether the data is accurate or reliable , but look at the data of mean temperature( degrees F) for just 4 winter months from 2016 back to 2006 (to nearest degree):

      December: 9,15,20,11.19,13,19, Not rec, 13, 14,16
      January: 19,18,16,12,18,24,18,15,11,10,19
      February: 24,26,16.20,18,11,20,18,20,23,15
      March: 30,33,27,26,32,28,31,25,22,33,25

      I suggest that any recent increase in temp , especially given El Nino influence , is masked by the large variability when a sufficiently large no of years is considered.
      I think that it was arguably deceitful of the producers and presenters not to mention this.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 5, 2017 9:08 pm

        No “arguable” about it.

        Just common or garden mendacity, as is SOP for the BBC nowadays.

  6. January 6, 2017 7:14 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.”

    2026 tied with 1998. Therefore if all things in the climate system are equal, this would suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero! Perhaps even negative considering a third of all human emissions since 1750 have been emitted over the past 18 years – with zero warming to show.

    Add to this, La Niña has not even kicked in yet. A rough 2017/18 ahead for the global warming faithful.

    • January 6, 2017 7:19 am


    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 6, 2017 7:36 am

      “A rough 2017/18 ahead for the global warming faithful.”

      Trumped ! 🙂

      Is it possible to be “double trumped”. ?

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 6, 2017 8:28 pm

        It is possible to be “over-trumped”.

  7. AndyG55 permalink
    January 6, 2017 7:32 am

    2016… 0.559
    1998… 0.550

    Looking just at December data….

    In RSS December 2016 is NINTH place (1987 was one of the warmer Decembers)

    IN UAH December 2016 is in =5th place (1987 ditto)

    Big drops in USA since November for both RSS (-3.1ºC) and UAH USA48 (-1.85ºC)

    Can anyone feel that warming ????

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 6, 2017 2:08 pm

      Yes, I was sure last year was warmer than 2015. Now I know it was two hundreths of one degree centigrade warmer my suspicion is confirmed. Yep, joking of course. I would put last year in my area as cooler than most recently.

  8. steve mcdonald permalink
    January 7, 2017 10:27 pm

    1917 the coldest year since 1963.
    Wait and see.

    • Duke Silver permalink
      January 8, 2017 6:28 pm

      2017? – I know it’s a typo but some warmista’s gonna scream……

  9. TonyFromCT permalink
    January 7, 2017 10:38 pm

    I find it amusing that whoever does these average global temperature calculations thinks that they can be accurate to (pick a number) of places to the right of the decimel . Furthermore, that any claims can be made about whatever number results is also questionable. Physicists and mathematicians have argued that no one has of yet presented a physical justification for the average calculation methodology as there are many ways to calculate an average that is dependent on the underlying physics of the system.. Worse, they also argue that no one has presented a convincing argument that there is any physical meaning at all to such a calculation on this highly complex and chaotic thermodynamic system that no one really understands very well.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 8, 2017 1:24 am

      The average global temperature is about as relevant as the average Global telephone number – and as useful.

      But don’t tell the climate “scientists”, it’ll only spoil their fun.

  10. January 8, 2017 7:37 am

    What is even more remarkable is that numerical analyses of actual temperature data clearly indicate a steady decrease in the rate of increase of the global mean surface temperature trendline for the past 20 years, and that trendline could have a negative slope in less that a decade. The slope could remain negative for decades.

    A growing body of scientists worldwide now predicts that the global temperature over the next several decades might decline, in which case, current policies would be diametrically opposite from the right policies. The government is on the verge of committing U.S. taxpayers to spend trillions of dollars over decades based on the mere suspicion that a future problem might occur and the belief that the problem could be mitigated by massive, globally coordinated efforts to control the environment of the planet.

    The only issue settled about climate science is that current climate models and databases are not adequate to guide policy decisions.

  11. Frank permalink
    January 8, 2017 3:19 pm

    Paul writes: “The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.”

    The fact that there has been roughly 0.5 K of warming in the last 17 or 19 years means that your observation is meaningless. Go to Nick Stokes trend view, look of linear regressions with confidence intervals (corrected for autocorrelation), and report something meaningful that hasn’t been cherry-picked. Note that the trend and confidence interval for 17, 18, and 19 years will not have changed dramatically!

    • January 8, 2017 5:22 pm

      You are comparing a La Nina year (1999) or a an ENSO neutral one (1997) with a big El Nino year (2016)

      Hardly scientfic!

      As for linear regressions, no serious statistician would read any significance into such a short time period.

      • January 8, 2017 10:57 pm

        Whether linear or something else, if one cannot predict changes in short time periods, why should I place any credence in long term predictions? The problem with long term predictions is that the prognosticators will no longer be living when their predictions can be tested.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 9, 2017 1:53 am

        “As for linear regressions…”

        Mother Nature doesn’t DO straight lines.

    • January 8, 2017 8:26 pm

      Deriving an average temperature with more precision than the raw data is something that would reward you with a fail grade in any high school science course worth its salt.

      Claiming a half a degree precision is a stretch for the temperature data from all of the weather stations I have seen, one tenth is ludicrous and one hundredth is fraud.

      As a local government Environmental Health Officer in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s I knew many people who supplied temperature and other data to Australia’s BOM as often it was the local council reading and maintaining the weather stations and I worked for several of them and knew surrounding areas as well.

      The thermometers I saw couldn’t be reliably read to much more than a degree accuracy – something verified by the daily weather report. Today was 19.54 to 32.78 °C is some thing I regularly see – yeah right.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 9, 2017 10:37 am

      “The fact that there has been roughly 0.5 K of warming in the last 17 or 19 years ”

      Is a MANIFEST LIE..

      There was a ZERO trend from 1997 to mid 2015.

      After the transient of the EL Nino, the temperature has now dropped to just below that zero trend line.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 9, 2017 10:38 am

      ” Nick Stokes trend view”

      Ahhh .. linear trends for brainless monkeys. !!

  12. 150 Main Street permalink
    January 8, 2017 7:14 pm

    Do you have a graph from, say, 1917 to 2017? Between El Nino years there is always a period of cooling, making a graph of intervening years look relatively flat (although here, 2016 is hotter than the hottest El Nino (1997/8) year ever, which is worrying). I would like to believe that there’s nothing to worry about, but your counter-evidence is very thin.

    • January 9, 2017 10:22 am

      2016 is only 0.02C warmer than 1998, so I suggest you stop worrying!

      • 150 Main Street permalink
        January 9, 2017 8:13 pm

        “It’s warmer this El Nino year than it was the last El Nino year” is not reassuring, since 1998 was off-the-charts-warm. And nobody took that 70’s Time magazine article seriously – the one about cooling. I’m looking for any genuine, evidence-based responses to the current consensus and you guys ain’t got em. Disappointing by to be expected. This is an echo chamber.

      • January 9, 2017 10:19 pm

        The 2016 El Nino was as big as the 1998 one, and 0.02C is not statistically significant.

        These are weather events.

        And if you really think the 1970s cooling scare was just a Time spoof, I seriously suggest you check out what real scientists such as HH Lamb said. It’s all tagged on my site if you’re really interested.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 9, 2017 10:38 pm

        150 Main Street: You want a peer reviewed paper on global cooling?

        Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.


        Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

        The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent .

        How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?

        We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

        However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

        Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

        Those results were bases on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.

        And I have plenty more where that came from.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 9, 2017 10:32 am

      Did you know that if you take the ZERO trend line from 1997 to mid 2015 , just before the El Nino.. and extend that line…..

      well, the RSS temperature is now BELOW that line.

      We are back to the same level as the last 20 years. minus the EL Nino

      And from current temperatures in Europe and USA, that temperature will continue to drop for

      • NeilC permalink
        January 9, 2017 11:07 am

        Andy, what does the chart look like taking El Nino years 1998, 2010 and 2016 out of the data? As we know they are naturally occuring phenomena. And to compensate taking 1999, and 2011 out as these are La Nina years.

      • AverageJon permalink
        January 9, 2017 3:29 pm

        Andy, It might be helpful to get a graph with an updated trend line.

        Yes, we are below the trend line now. That’s not surprising since we’re going to be below average half the time.

      • 150 Main Street permalink
        January 9, 2017 8:16 pm

        You’re saying that if we take the typical La Nina cooling trend and project it ahead for infinite time, we’ll be at minus 1000 degrees F by 3092? I’m stunned!

        This site is a joke. Please anyone with a REAL counter argument site to recommend.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        January 10, 2017 9:38 am

        Poor Main St junkie is high on hallucinogens.

        Where did anyone make the moronic statement that you dreamed up, you brainless moronic twerp !

  13. AverageJon permalink
    January 9, 2017 3:24 pm

    If there no warming in 18 years, how come the lines are trending upward?

    • January 9, 2017 7:50 pm

      I am talking about the year on year comparisons

      Linear trends over such a short period of time are pretty meaningless, but note that the RSS trend is only 0.004C/yr, way below any statistical significance

      You also have the out of date UAH V5

    • AndyG55 permalink
      January 10, 2017 9:40 am

      Mediocre Joe, or below average IQ Joe.. whichever

      They DO NOT trend upward unless you include the transient of the El Nino. !

      El Ninos are the ONLY warming you have, so you will have to keep using them, hey…

      …. but they are nothing to do with CO2.

  14. January 9, 2017 7:59 pm

    Which bit of ‘2016 same as 1998’ do these pathological climate nitwits not understand?


  1. Tony Thomas Earth Hour in 3D: Dim, Dark and Dopey | RUTHFULLY YOURS
  2. Earth Hour in 3D: Dim, Dark and Dopey | No B-S here (I hope)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: