The World’s First State Of The Climate Survey Based on Observations Only 

Posted: March 22, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, Natural Variation
Tags: ,

Image credit: garrisoninstitute.org

Needless to say Dr Ole Humlum’s survey is unlikely to be popular in climate alarm circles.

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). 

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.”

Source: The World’s First State Of The Climate Survey Based on Observations Only | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
– – –
Full GWPF report (49 pages) — The State of the Climate in 2016 (PDF)

Comments
  1. Gamecock says:

    I’m not impressed by the good doctor’s declarations.

    ‘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’

    Gross speculation.

    ‘unseasonably high air temperatures.’

    Undefined. -10°C can be unseasonably high for Arctic. Arctic has had a strong ice buildup this season, in ‘unseasonably high air temperatures.’

    ‘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 implies precision that doesn’t exist.

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    A climate report based on real-world observations, not UN IPCC overheated climate models!

    What is “science” coming to?!

  3. edwardt says:

    Something has likely changed in the climate system though. We have a divergence in the force…

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1997/plot/uah5/from:1997/offset:-0.0

  4. ivan says:

    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.

    Don’t tell me that they have started ‘massaging’ the satellite measurements to try and keep the CAGW scam going.

  5. suricat says:

    Hi oldbrew, I’ve no doubt that ‘computational climate prediction’ doesn’t agree with ‘climate progressive observation’.

    For years now I’ve ‘whined’ about climate models not having enough ‘resolution’ in the ‘convective latent aspect’. ‘Convection,per se’ is misrepresented in all climate models and ‘latency’ is misunderstood’.

    ‘Latency, per se’ is determined by ‘vapour pressure’, which again is dependant upon ‘temperature and atmospheric pressure’, and when climate models can’t accurately model ‘convection, per se’ (not a great enough ‘definition’) there isn’t a hope for the survival of a snowball in a hot place to represent ‘latency, per se’.

    This is why most ‘warmers’ shun a discussion on ‘clouds’. its part of the system that’s the least known, but most energetic in ‘Earth’s cooling’ (both in ‘Solar shielding’ of insolation, and the major contributor to ‘surface cooling’ by way of ‘latent energy/heat transfer’ to an altitude that permits a direct ‘radiation to space’ of heat/energy).

    ‘Computer models’ suck!

    Best regards, Ray.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/why-the-science-of-clouds-is-still-cloudy/

    NASA: Cloud Remote Sensing and Modeling
    ‘Global changes in surface temperature are highly sensitive to cloud amount and type, it is therefore not surprising that the largest uncertainty in model estimates of global warming is due to clouds.’

    ‘Climate models and remote sensing techniques almost always employ a “plane-parallel” cloud approximation, i.e., clouds are assumed to be flat, homogeneous, infinite slabs. CRL scientists study the impacts of this unrealistic approximation in a variety of ways and for a variety of applications.’ [bold added]
    http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/index.php?section=134

    ‘the largest uncertainty’ – so not the only one by any means.

  7. Stephen Richards says:

    ivan says:
    March 22, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    RSS have under Meier.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Popcorn time says Judith Curry…

    House Science Committee Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method
    Posted on March 22, 2017

    Witnesses: John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.

    The hearing will be held next week, March 29. The announcement for the Hearing is [here].

    I’ve completed my written testimony, I will post it Wednesday once the Hearing has commenced.

    This Hearing is interesting on several fronts:

    It includes 3 of the Grijalva 7.
    It is the first time I will be on the same panel as Michael Mann.
    This should be high theater for climate geeks.

    Get your popcorn ready.

    http://judithcurry.com/2017/03/22/house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-the-scientific-method/
    – – –
    Popcorn indeed.
    In the chair: Lamar Smith.
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/rep-lamar-smith-has-valid-reasons-for-investigating-noaa/

    Grijalva 7
    http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8103/full/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s