Skip to content

BBC Ignore The Satellite Record

January 18, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

Temperature data for 2016 shows it is likely to have edged ahead of 2015 as the world’s warmest year.

Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were about 0.07 degrees Celsius above the 2015 mark.

Although the Met Office increase was within the margin of error, Nasa says that 2016 was the third year in a row to break the record.

The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists, but the main factor was human emissions of CO2.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38652746

 

There must be something wrong with my old eyes, as I can’t seem to find any mention of the satellite record, which shows no such thing.

To recap, both UAH and RSS say that atmospheric temperatures for 2016 statistically tied with 1998, at just 0.02C higher.

Neither 2014 or 2015 were anywhere near being a record.

 

image_thumb8

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

 

image_thumb21

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

 

Satellite measurements of global temperatures are regarded as much more comprehensive, accurate and unaffected by UHI, as Roy Spencer explained in 2014.

 

The BBC shows the map provided by NOAA, with lots of red on it to convince us how hot it has been.

 

_93646662_fe098573-c3a8-4186-8183-4a4d68bfd590

 

 

However, if they were more honest, they might have showed the Land-Only map, which underlines the fact that most of the world’s land mass has no thermometer coverage at all.

 

201601-201612

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38652746

 

Of course, there might be good reasons why the satellite record has diverged from the surface data in recent years, but is it not the job of the BBC to provide us with all the facts, and not just the ones that suit its political agenda?

Advertisements
48 Comments
  1. January 18, 2017 7:40 pm

    But the BBC has Reality Check – so surely that will put this right?

    Not going to hold my breath.

    • January 18, 2017 8:04 pm

      But we all know the BBC is against fake news.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 18, 2017 8:52 pm

        Phillip, I’ve been reading Stokes and Mosher at WUWT banging on about it all being ‘surface’ temps, which are more relevant/accurate/preferred than satellite. But I’d lay odds that if the satellite temp record started to overtake the BEST records ie: showed more warming, they would be lauding satellites to the heavens. (cough)

      • January 18, 2017 8:57 pm

        HP, the GHE is supposed to happen in the atmosphere, not at the surface.

      • Hivemind permalink
        January 19, 2017 1:13 am

        “But we all know the BBC is against fake news.”

        Of course it is. Except when it is spreading it.

  2. aviary99 permalink
    January 18, 2017 7:54 pm

    I also notice the blue bits in S America China and W Australia actually disappear and become pink or white.

  3. January 18, 2017 7:54 pm

    The BBC only has one policy on AGW and that is supporting AGW.

  4. January 18, 2017 8:00 pm

    Well, it will take circumstances people actually experience to clue them in. Ex. Al Gore said hurricanes were going to be more frequent (the poster for his documentary had factory smoke curling to form the satellite image of a hurricane) but we’ve had a real pause in occurrences. Obama blamed the Southwestern drought on climate change, now there’s flooding. So, the message from the progressive media and entrenched establishment scientists will continue to be who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?

  5. Ava permalink
    January 18, 2017 8:03 pm

    Great picture from their climate’s cam. An illusion of someone walking on water.

  6. January 18, 2017 8:09 pm

    If you think the BBC is bad, you should have seen Tom Clarke on the Channel 4 news. We had top climate scientists like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Governor Gerry Brown and lots of other experts telling us we only had 4 years before Armageddon. I don’t think the phrase “climate denier” appeared more than a dozen times.

    • January 18, 2017 10:52 pm

      What did 1998 and 2015-16 have in common climate-wise? That would be El Niño, but it seems to go right over the heads of these clowns. It’s been around a lot longer than their so-called industrial-era ‘climate change’.

      ‘El Niño was originally named El Niño de Navidad by Peruvian fishermen in the 1600s. This name was used for the tendency of the phenomenon to arrive around Christmas. Climate records of El Niño go back millions of years, with evidence of the cycle found in ice cores, deep sea muds, coral, caves and tree rings.’
      http://www.livescience.com/3650-el-nino.html

  7. Edward Rooth permalink
    January 18, 2017 8:17 pm

    ‘Human emissions of CO2’. Whatever next?

    • tom0mason permalink
      January 18, 2017 11:11 pm

      See from the graphic two things

      1. CO2 makes no difference to temperatures.
      2. No matter how high CO2 has been run-away global warming has never happened.

    • Hivemind permalink
      January 19, 2017 1:18 am

      I think I understand what you’re trying to say. By carefully cherrypicking the start year, you have been able to create a large warming slope that doesn’t actually exist in the data.

      • January 19, 2017 9:35 am

        What else did you expect?

        Given the data and the program you can make anything prove anything.

        The important thing is to keep working till you find a slope that gives you a nice warm feeling. The fact that there are contradictory slopes in there is irrelevant. The fact that that slope itself is meaningless in that it covers 37 years out of several millon is supremely unimportant or that it ends at a point expected to be high because of a climatic phenomenon knkwn to produce elevated temperatures …

      • 1saveenergy permalink
        January 19, 2017 11:40 am

        Have a look at the 2nd chart on this page
        http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/temperatures/uk-temperature/
        Yellow line is the gradual warming from 1659-2015 [356yrs] (0.028°C/decade).

        Green line is the rapid acceleration (attributed to CO2 ) from 1966-2015 (0.197°C/decade).

        SO…What caused the even more rapid acceleration from 1695-1734 (0.45°C/decade).??
        Clue – It’s Not CO2

    • tom0mason permalink
      January 19, 2017 5:21 am

      Usual garbage from the usual suspects.

      Steven Mosher get the message — human effect on climate is negligible. Weather station coverage of the planet is rubbish and the homogenization is just a trick thought up by political advocates — it is not science!

      In 600million years the planet has never had experienced run-away global warming – never happened. Even with CO2 levels at 7000ppm! And it is not going to now just because one animal on the surface burns some fossil fuels.
      Ice-core data indicate that just before a major glaciation massive (natural) conflagrations happened as there is an ash-line in the ice-cores. I strongly suggest to you that considerably more CO2 was released then but still the ice-age arrived.

      It’s it about time some of you scaremongering advocates got on with some work, or even (if you’re able) some real science!
      I know you are wrong, most people here know you are wrong, a lot of the world knows you are wrong, so give it a rest, as you and your arguments are not credible.
      Clear out the way and let the real engineers really improve peoples lives and the natural world, and clear-out all the dross you and your kind have foisted on the world.

      • John Palmer permalink
        January 19, 2017 10:43 am

        +10 – Spot-on!

    • January 19, 2017 11:08 am

      WOW!!

      0.004C per year – that’s really scary.(And I won’t even get into margins of error)

      But that is not what the post is about, if you had bothered to read it.

      The question I am asking is “why has the licence fee funded BBC not mentioned the fact that 2016 was no warmer than 1998 on the satellite record?”

  8. Athelstan permalink
    January 18, 2017 8:36 pm

    Warmest? warmest what? There is no signal, other than a pause in background gentle, welcome rise and all of that is natural, at that.

    Ah but! Then, there is, the beeb and the tick box culture with its agendas;

    we hate Trump even before we’ve seen what he can do! Alack we still want and love Hillary even if we know she’d still carry on with Barry’s ‘we hate the west’ deconstruction – ticked.

    Interview anyone but……………….. a denier, a realist, at least someone who knows of what he is about – box ticked.

    We love the EU and all who ride the gravy train, we regale your noble ideals and even if it will trigger economic catastrophe – ticked.

    The EU and the wonderful single market, single currency is better than all the rest, even if it is relentlessly grinding the ‘club Med’ into the dust and inclusive of France, we are singing lalalala and we won’t even hear of any naysaying! – ticked.

    Multiculti and nation destruction allied to the corporate blob smashing the cohesion of the western world – FANTASTIC – box ticked.

    The Antarctic, Arctic ‘s all de same innit? – whatev prince chuckles say it may melt early next week – box ticked.

    NOAA, GISS uncle tom cobbley of Penn State says it’s the warmest evah! – box ticked.

    Seesh, but, you get the feeling though, that, the audience has gone to sleep, crying wolf has had its day and the global warblers in the corridors of the beeb, act as a dying man, raging at the dying light as they walk off into the night [with sincerest apologies to Dylan Thomas one of our greatest]…………………….

    We ordinary Britons though, herald the new, we are at long last on our way OUT [of the EU], WE welcome Mr. Donald Trump, we spit on the beeboids – boxes all gladly ticked.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      January 18, 2017 10:03 pm

      You forgot the
      More Extreme Weather – Tick
      Solar is good – Tick
      Wind Power is good – Tick
      All flooding caused by AGW – Tick

  9. Jackington permalink
    January 18, 2017 8:36 pm

    I heard a short piece this morning on “Today” Humphrys interviewing a trilling woman from Reading University telling us all about this news as though it had quasi-religious status . Why are these people so happy about what should be, to them, bad news?

  10. BLACK PEARL permalink
    January 18, 2017 8:57 pm

    Its not just the BBC Sky made it headlines this afternoon
    Running a Breaking News Banner continually along the bottom of the screen followed up a news report quoting WMO and then finishing with that Trump doubts climate change
    Must be full of lefty radicalised programme producers who just cant get over Brexit & Trump
    Their ‘world’ must be imploding Shame EH !

    So thats CNN, BBC & Sky off the new Pres, media invites ?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 19, 2017 12:50 am

      CNN were already as he outed them as Clinton supporters in a pre-election day speech.

  11. January 18, 2017 9:04 pm

    Of course one can’t expect too much from Matt McGrath, but this is what his coverage at BBC News seems to say:

    2016 was 0.07C warmer than 2015
    (Anyone know what the uncertainty on that one is? The IPCC SPMs used to give that kind of essential information, but the recent one I glanced at this evening didn’t)
    El Nino was not the cause of this ‘record’
    El Nino contributed 0.2C to the global average temperature.
    (Wait a minute, if 2016 was 0.07 warmer than 2015 and El Nino … )
    2016 was 1.1C above the 20th century average
    (so what has this got to do with 2016 being a record year other than an attempt to make a non-story sound like a story?)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38652746

    Most of this disinformation seems to have come from Gavin Schmitt who, of course, has form for claiming records when the difference between the data is not statistically significant.

    Am I right that one of Trump’s election promises was to stop NASA spending money on climate research? Oh! Just the thought of Gavin contemplating that P45 in his in-tray!

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 18, 2017 9:19 pm

      If, Mr. Schmidt was told to ‘collect his cards’?

      Then, surely a man of his reputation, world renown and stature, he must be confident of finding a new role outside in the real world, a vacancy as perhaps in, a bin man, snake oil pedlar, double glazing window rep, insurance scam artist or, how low can it get – as a pol?

      The world would be at his beck…………?

      • January 18, 2017 9:28 pm

        No doubt Gavin will stroll into a well paid post as a ‘science communication’ wonk with one of the major NGO’s, and as he’s a Brit by birth, we may be welcoming him home.

      • Athelstan permalink
        January 18, 2017 9:41 pm

        Hmm, “welcome” not the word that I would use and besides gav’ will not surely lower himself, as you see, his self regard knows no bounds.

        Mind you, having said that, with Mr. Trump in charge, and the ground shifting………………perhaps even the Ivy League may well think twice about employing such an egregious propagandist such as schmidt.

        Though, HRH reight charlie could employ him on his estate, somewhere and writing new Ladybird nursery stories?

  12. RogerJC permalink
    January 18, 2017 9:42 pm

    BBC has a Have You Say on this article. I suggest that people leave a few relevant comments.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      January 18, 2017 10:15 pm

      Any sensible or neutral comments are voted down, only comments screaming denier are voted up. Seems populated by 97% uneducated morons, talk about rabble rousing, is that what we pay our license fee for,

  13. BLACK PEARL permalink
    January 18, 2017 11:09 pm

    Gave up on HYS when they wanted your post code to re-register (information gathering)+ its not worth the effort when your amongst the cult mindset.
    Same with Question Time. Haven’t watched their rigged shows for years now.
    Can anyone recommend a best practice method on not paying the TV tax ?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 19, 2017 12:53 am

      Yes, don’t pay. Don’t make contact. Ignore letters. Don’t be in when they call. They stop after two visits. And make sure it can’t be seen or heard from any public access.

  14. tom0mason permalink
    January 18, 2017 11:25 pm

    BBC ‘Have Your Say’ while we gather data about you!
    Trust the BBC? NO!

    Alternatively there’s http://www.geopostcodes.com/uk to find a postcode, any postcode.

  15. Charles Johnston permalink
    January 19, 2017 12:13 am

    Ah, facts. Those troublesome things that don’t follow the agenda. Well actual science and facts are troublesome to the AGW crowd . . best be ignored.

  16. Ross King permalink
    January 19, 2017 2:11 am

    You say: “…but is it not the job of the BBC to provide us with all the facts, and not just the ones that suit its political agenda?”
    PR 101 …. “Minimize the -ve language!”. So, might I suggest a re-write thus:
    ” ….but the job of the BBC is to provide us with all the facts, and not just the ones that suit its political agenda?”
    We sophisticated & educated followers of this excellent blog can follow-along with convoluted expression worthy of a Shakespeare, but spare a thought for the market *we* are selling our message into, which is comprised of those who are impressionable AND have a vote!

  17. January 19, 2017 3:47 am

    Hhmm, 0.07C and yet the UKMO have a short term forecast tolerance of +/- 2.0C.

    Pontifications about a fraction of a degree can set national policy strategy and increase my power bill but public wage bonuses paid from my tax’s are determined within a range of whole degrees.

    Anyone care to allay my feeling of being ripped off? Perhaps one if these days I can start removing some hands from my pockets.

    Let’s start with BREXIT and then continue…..

  18. January 19, 2017 7:33 am

    Professor Richard Lindzen (and there’s lots more):

    ‘The hysteria over this issue is truly bizarre’.

    ‘To imply that a rise of temperature of a tenth of a degree is proof that the world is coming to an end has to take one back to the dark ages.’

    ‘As long as you can get people excited as to whether it’s a tenth of a degree warmer or cooler, then you don’t have to think, you can assume everyone who is listening to you is an idiot.’

    ‘The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything.’

    ‘What they don’t mention is there has been a big El Nino in 2016 and in recent months the temperature has been dropping back into a zero trend level.’

    ‘It gives you something to believe in. It’s a religion.’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/18/mit-climate-scientist-on-hottest-year-the-hysteria-over-this-issue-is-truly-bizarre-warns-of-return-back-to-the-dark-ages/

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 19, 2017 9:15 am

      Ah Doctor Lindzen, with a brain the size of an aircraft hanger and a pithy way with words into the bargain, the man is a tower in a world full of pygmies.

  19. CheshireRed permalink
    January 19, 2017 10:35 am

    ristvan
    January 18, 2017 8:57 pm

    HP, the GHE is supposed to happen in the atmosphere, not at the surface.

    **********************************

    There’s the nub of the issue. If the vaunted GHE really IS an issue then ‘they’ would present the facts that support the GHE and by definition that includes the precise place where the GHE is supposed to most impact; earth’s atmosphere. They don’t, instead they wilfully use hugely inferior (not to mention sparse land-based) surface data, which is NOT where atmospheric warming from greenhouse gasses is supposed to be, according to agw theory. That tells any objective observer all they need to know.

  20. CheshireRed permalink
    January 19, 2017 10:43 am

    These claims expect us to believe that the recent warming spike was all man made but the already falling cooling temperatures are entirely natural and almost nothing to do with El Nino at all. Yeah, sure. Whatever.

  21. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 19, 2017 11:31 am

    Paul, the more I look at the histograms of the anomalies the more I need to clear up something that troubles me: If they are anomalies then the measurements are off-sets from a given datum, are they not? If that is the case, the charts seems to indicate that the datum was -0.2 C. But I find that hard to take in. I would assume an anomaly chart would be better represented as a washing line histogram with the +/- points plotted around the datum.

    • January 19, 2017 2:03 pm

      UAH anomalies are based against a baseline of 1981-2010.

      RSS are against 1979-98.

      As the RSS period is colder, their anomalies appear slightly greater

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        January 19, 2017 2:12 pm

        Thank you, Paul.

  22. Bitter&twisted permalink
    January 19, 2017 11:46 am

    Another letter to the BBC pointing out their omission?

  23. Alan Hewitt permalink
    January 19, 2017 2:01 pm

    Listening to the BBC Radio 4 news last night, I began to wonder how many lies you can tell in 2 minutes, viz:
    1. 2016 was the hottest year ever.
    2, El Nino had very little to do with it and “environmental scientists agree” that 90% of the warming was due to CO2 emissions.
    3. The warming was therefore man-made.
    4. There has been no pause in warming since the 1970’s
    5.. Sea ice is at its lowest level ever.
    6.. Sea levels are at their highest levels ever.
    7. We are all doomed unless we adopt the usual Greenie crackpot measures (which will bankrupt and doom us anyway).
    There may have been others, although at least the polar bears were not trotted out.
    And of course the same tripe is recycled today in the newspapers by lazy journalists.

    • Athelstan permalink
      January 19, 2017 2:30 pm

      “2, El Nino had very little to do with it and “environmental scientists agree” that 90% of the warming was due to CO2 emissions.”

      God must have told them, maybe?

  24. 1saveenergy permalink
    January 19, 2017 3:10 pm

    Remove ‘environ’ & you get a true statement.

    “2, El Nino had very little to do with it and “mental scientists agree” that 90% of the warming was due to CO2 emissions.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: