UAH Confirms 2014 Was Not Hottest Year

Posted: January 9, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Paul Homewood with analysis of the UAH dataset yearly update.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

UAH have now released their global temperature data for December and, as with RSS, they confirm that 2014 was a long way from being the “hottest ever year”, much touted recently.

image

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Whereas RSS have last year ranked only the 6th warmest, according to UAH it is 3rd. However, as Dr John Christy points out:

image

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf

View original post 306 more words

Comments
  1. Exactly it was not even close to the hottest year.

  2. toto says:

    Should I understand you actually live in the troposphere? Can I meet your real estate agent?😉

  3. tchannon says:

    Explain toto how come there is a sudden differential?

  4. hunter says:

    Never let facts get in the way of a fanatic religious movement.

  5. michael hart says:

    Many carbon-hypocrites still go there by jet, Toto.

    Neurotics build castles in the troposphere.
    Psychotics live in them.
    Climate Scientists charge the rent.

  6. ren says:

    A sudden rise in temperature in the upper stratosphere.

  7. tallbloke says:

    ren: It looks like we are in for a cold snap here at the surface.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Historic Scotland says: ‘Around 3000 BC the climate in the Western Isles was warmer than it is today and the sea-level lower.’

    http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyoverview.htm?PropID=PL_051

  9. Arfur Bryant says:

    Ah, ok, so that’s what a “Super El-Nino like the one in 1997/8” looks like!🙂

  10. Roger Gough says:

    The BBC Radio 4 PM show today (Friday 16th Jan) says that it WAS the hottest year. But there was (as usual) no balance – no opposing view. Has anyone complained about the particular lack of balance when they cover this subject or am I coming to this argument a little late?

  11. tallbloke says:

    Roger G: Welcome. It is official BBC policy not to have balance in the climate debate. (yes really).
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/260164/Uproar-as-BBC-muzzles-climate-change-sceptics

  12. oldbrew says:

    Researchers find dodgy data problem in the US. What else is based on wrong numbers?

    ‘Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States’

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062803/abstract

  13. Brian H says:

    When AR4 announced that there was no test or data to provide ECS average or most likely figures, but that experts had 90% confidence in the one provided, and then AR5 upped the ante by failing to provide one because estimates were too broad and disparate, but expert consensus in warming had grown to 95%, a litmus test was established.

    Anyone who failed to howl in outrage at this perversion of science immediately disqualified themselves from having any scientific credibility or right to express an opinion on any scientific question and have it treated with respect. This is permanent; the irrefutable proof of lack of judgement and/or integrity is iron-clad.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Scute says on suggestions

    Anyone seen this Facebook post from Mann on the 16th January concerning the 2014 global temps?

    https://m.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/835141673208703

    The second sentence is a veritable spaghetti dish of spin. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy has taken it on trust and now the whole world thinks that according to NOAA, the 2014 temperature anomaly of 0.69 degrees is “statistically significant”. Anyone who hears that term in climate circles and on Phil Plait’s blog is going to think that the hike is greater than NOAA’s error bars which are 0.09 degrees C.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

    What NOAA actually mean is that 2014 was 48% likely to be the hottest year whereas 2005 and 2010 were ‘significantly’ less likely to
    have been (around 18 and 28%? maybe- it was in a recent WUWT post citing the relevant page at NOAA languishing in the depths of the website. I read it)

    It’s ironic that it’s 48%, “more unlikely than likely” in NOAA’s terminology yet Mann has now convinced the world that the 2014 rise is outside NOAA’s large temperature error bars, soaring up the scale. Thanks, mate.