Unlike UAH, RSS found 2016 to be a record breaking year, +0.17°C (0.31°F) warmer than 1998. (2010 is third warmest.)
"In addition, 9 out of 12 months for 2016 were the warmest of that
month ever recorded in the satellite record.....
"The record warmth was caused by long-term global warming combined with the strong El Niño event
that occurred in the winter and spring of 2015-2016. "
They're measuring slightly different regions -- RSS's number is for the Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT), whereas UAH's number is for the lower troposphere. And slightly different sections of the globe -- RSS's measurements go from a latitude of 80 south to 80 north, whereas UAH covers the entire globe, 90S-90N.
(to be continued)
Assume the 1998 and 2016 El Ninos to be equal, that is an 0.17C rise in 18 years, or about 0.1C per decade in the troposphere.
Not to the liking of those claiming (a bit desperately) that El Nino is behind the recent global temperature spike.
I agree, Toby. That rate of warming is also not to the liking of those claiming that disaster is imminent.
David in Cal:
UAH's total trend, from Dec 1978-present, is +0.12 C/decade.
Let's see your justification for extrapolating that over the entire 21st century.
David in Cal.
That was a pretty shabby attempt at a subject change. Not to mention your straw man.
Here's my justification, David. There is no reliable climate model. That's why the IPCC looks at so many different models, and doesn't trust any one of them. The models haven't worked well. Most of them show the troposphere warming faster than the surface, but the opposite has been the case so far. Forward predictions using various models have not proved to be terribly accurate at predicting future warming.
Without a reliable model, extrapolating the observed rate is pretty much all we have.
Of course, extrapolating is an undesirable method. It won't be surprising if the actual rate of future warming turns out to be quite different from the past trend. But, if I were still working as an actuary and had to estimate the rate of future warming, I would use the observed rate.
David in Cal,
Hang on a cotton-pickin minute, smart"ss, only 2% of the global warming goes into the atmosphere, and that is even before you get to orbital drift and allowing for differing atmospheric layers that make satellite estimates by far the less unreliable means of measurement. So 0.1C per decade is pretty crude, and as Carl Mears of RSS himself says, the surface (mand + ocean) measurement is more reliable.
And it still means the planet is inexorably warming.
But you have heard all that before, no doubt, but made sure it does penetrate the carapace preventing common sense from entering your brain.
Correction "less unreliable" should be "less reliable" in last post. :(
Toby -- I've seen others claim that the atmospheric measure is more reliable than land+ocean. In particular, I've read criticism of the measurement of ocean warming. But, I don't know enough to debate the issue. Maybe the land+ocean termperature is the most reliable. Anyhow, it's the one that matters most, because the surface of the planet is where we live.
I agree with you that the planet is inexorably warming. And, I agree that 0.1 degree per decade is a crude measure of the actual trend.
David in Cal, plenty of evidence that GCMs are doing OK. You were duped.
Post a Comment