The World’s First State Of The Climate Survey Based on Observations Only
By Paul Homewood
London, 22 March: A report on the State of the Climate in 2016 which is based exclusively on observations rather than climate models is published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/03/State-of-the-climate-2016.pdf
Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (Norway), the new climate survey is in sharp contrast to the habitual alarmism of other reports that are mainly based on computer modelling and climate predictions.
Among the key findings of the survey are:
** While 2016 was one of the warmest years on record, global temperatures dropped back at the end of the year to levels prior to the strong 2015/16 El Niño. This fact suggests that much of the global 2015–16 temperature peak was caused by a one of the strongest El Niños on record.
** Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.
** Much of the heat given off during the 2015–16 El Niño appears to have been transported to the polar regions, especially to the Arctic, causing severe weather phenomena and unseasonably high air temperatures.
** Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived record suggests a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. This noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.
** Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extents since 1979 have developed in opposite directions, decreasing and increasing, respectively. In the Arctic, a 5.3-year periodic variation is important, while for the Antarctic a cycle of about 4.5 years duration is important. Both these variations reached their minima simultaneously in 2016, which explains the recent minimum in global sea-ice extent.
Prof Humlum said: “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.”
You can read the full report here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Observations! Data!
Old fashioned ‘failed’ science, whatever next?
Why am I reminded of those old tv ‘ads’ to stop drug abuse, anyone else remember them? You know:
OK so I use a model once in a while, I can stop anytime
I use models sometimes, I can stop anytime I want
Yeah I do models everyday but I can stop whenever I want
Models, I need models, please give me models….
“Models, I need models, please give me models….”
Tall slender dusky ones !!!!
0r
…Airfix (:-))
someone needs to deprogram you……….
😉
It will be interesting to see if the BBC report this and to hear what that Mr Harrabin says!
Yes indeed. I am still holding my breath from the last GWPF report that Harrabin hasn’t yet mentioned.
Models (aka simulations) are only credible if they can be validated against observed data. So now we need to see how the climate change model stacks up against actual data, without extensively massaging the data first.
“Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived record suggests a rise of more than 3 mm/yr. This noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.”
I presume land-based measurements use land as the datum, satellite measurements use the satellites altitude as the datum. Perhaps the land is rising ?
This all started quite early.
Data?
Nah, we don’t need no steekin data!
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
It’s a refreshing read from Prof’ Humlum, it will take a time to digest.
thanks for the heads up – boss.
Unfortunately Dr Ole Humlum sticks to the same climate memes as the alarmist thus his arguments are weak.
More observations Dr Ole Humlum!
Changes in humidity at different heights, wind and precipitation variability, oceanic changes, etc… Variations in solar activity. These are the areas that model catastrophically fail in, so they, IMO, should be highlighted.
These (and so many others) are the types of changes that truly affecting the climate – not the hogwash about CO2!
And the same old nonsense —
‘Since 2003, the global temperature estimate based on surface station measurements has consistently drifted away from the satellite-based estimate in a warm direction, and is now about 0.1◦C higher.’
0.1°C? With what accuracy and precision? None that doesn’t exist in this world!
‘Much of the heat given off during the 2015–16 El Niño appears to have been transported to the polar regions, especially to the Arctic, causing severe weather phenomena and unseasonably high air temperatures.’
‘causing severe weather phenomena’ ?? Just wild speculation. Solar variability has caused more real, measured effect over the same time period.
‘unseasonably high air temperatures.’ ?? They are all well within NATURAL bounds!
Is -10°C an unseasonably high temperature for Arctic in winter? Has this truly happened so rarely? Where’s the data? The Arctic has had a most normal ice build-up this season even in these so called ‘unseasonably high air temperatures.’
This is a most comprehensive paper by GWPF. It will take me a while to go through it in detail though.
While worldwide averages are of considerable interest I prefer to analyse data from individual stations as this avoids the problem of having to interpolate for the space between stations. In Europe or the USA stations are quite close, whereas in places like Australia or Siberia this is not so.
I have recently derived annual mean temperature trendlines at 257 stations worldwide. These are stations with largely unbroken long term records located in rural or small-town locations. Fifty of these stations (based on location and completeness of records – no cherry picking!) are presented at: briangunterblog.com/2017/02/17/world-50-temperatures
My analysis shows the variablitity (and also a lot of consistency) of long term annual temperature trends. Most stations have cyclical trendlines with gradually increasing temperature, but no alarm bells are apparent to me.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
What a relief that there is no model in sight