This is the order of the ten most warm years according to the latest HADCRUT4 record and that given for the lower troposphere by the UAH satellite record

This table gives the order of the ten warmest years since 1850.

Top ten warmest years according to the HADCRUT4 data set and the UAH satellite set

Anomalies in °C

1        

1

2014

0.565

1998

0.420

2

2010

0.555

2010

0.400

3

2005

0.543

2014

0.271

4

1998

0.535

2005

0.262

5

2003

0.507

2013

0.236

6

2006

0.505

2002

0.220

7

2009

0.504

2009

0.213

8

2002

0.495

2007

0.208

9

2007

0.493

2006

0.188

10

2013

0.492

2003

0.188

The data for 2014 are now available and show that 2014 was the warmest year on record according to the terrestrial record.

The lowest HADCRUT4 value was −0.613 in 1862, the satellite data are from 1979 only.

The two data sets have different origins, so the actual differences between them are of no other significance. The UAH data are for the lowest 3 km of the troposphere, the HADCRUT4 data are for the global surface.

Christopher Brooker has some severe criticisms of the HADCRUT4 data, but seems much happier about the UAH data, both sets giving very similar results. The range of the HADCRUT4 data is only 0.073 C and that of the satellite data is 0.25 C. It is not surprising that there are differences in the order, but there is general agreement.

 

Last week's claims that 2014 is set to be 'the hottest year ever' are frankly a load of nonsense, says Christopher Booker.

Led by the BBC, the usual media suspects were quick to trumpet last week's claims by the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organisation that 2014 is set to be "the hottest year ever". It's funny that the rest of us hadn't noticed; least of all those citizens of North America and Russia whose lives were lately disrupted by record snowfalls. It is true that the temperature records compiled by the avid warmists of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the one formerly run by climate activist James Hansen) have managed to show this year squeaking just ahead of 2010 as "the hottest year since records began". But the much more comprehensive and reliable satellite records agree that 2014 is way down the list, with six of the past 16 years ahead of it.

JB: This is a typical disparaging reaction from a prejudiced non-scientist. There is a media-driven song-and-dance about the HADCRUT4 record showing that the global mean temperature for 2014 is likely to be the warmest ever recorded. It's true that 'one swallow does make a summer' and any one point in a record has little significance, but the data from the HADCRUT4 and those from the Satellite record show that nine of the top ten warmest years are those from this century and the other one is 1998; the exceptional El Niño year. The satellite record shows 2014 to be the third warmest. The correlation between the various records amounts to around 93% and they show much the same pattern of warming. Disparagement of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute records by CB is to be contasted with his acceptance of the Satellite record when they really correlate highly with each other.

The reason for this excitement just now, even before the final 2014 data are in, is that it is timed to coincide with yet another two-week UN climate conference in Lima, where thousands of officials and activists are gathered to whip up support for next year's planned "universal climate treaty" in Paris.

What worries them more than anything is the unavoidable evidence that global temperatures have shown no significant rise for 18 years, making ever more nonsense of all those scary computer model predictions relied on by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

JB: The almost zero trend in global temperature since 1998 does not worry climate scientists, nor does it 'make nonsense' of the climate models. The temperature record since 1850 shows a general upward trend that is due almost entirely to our emissions of CO2resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Superimposed upon this trend are several natural cycles that either enhance or enfeeble it. The present almost zero trend should be compared with the weak negative trend that occurred between 1942 and 1976, that period being the last time that the natural cycles cancelled out the warming due to the increasing CO2concentration.

            The climate models do have their faults and most of them produce exaggersted values for the future warming, but that is because they do not include the effects of the natural cycles.

But so carried away are they by their quasi-religious belief system that, when it was again proposed in Lima that richer nations should pay poor countries $100 billion a year to protect them from runaway global warming, the UN's chief spokesman, Christiana Figueres, dismissed this as "a very, very small sum". What is needed to decarbonise the global economy, she said, is "$90 trillion over the next 15 years". It makes the £1.3 trillion we Brits are committed by the Climate Change Act to pay to halt global warming within 36 years look like chicken feed.

JB: Climate science is firmly based upon the fundamental physics of the surface/atmosphere/sun system and is nowhere close to being a quasi-religious belief system. CB chooses to disparage the scientists working in the climate field and chooses to disbelieve the scientific principles upon which our understanding of the climate systen depends.

 More ranting by Booker in the Sunday Times 11th January continued on the same theme. The Booker-preferred Satellite data correlate to the extent of 92% with the HADCRUT4 values so the disparaging of the latter is nonsense. The graph below shows the records of Satellite (UAH) and HADCRUT4 with 0,284 C added to the satellite readings to make the comparison more obvious.

 

Decriers please note the similarities, the two records are playing the same tune!