by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
On December 8, 2015, Senator Cruz, chairman of the Space, Science and Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. Senate, held a hearing on climate change, Data or Dogma? He displayed a red rag to the merchants of bull – a graph well known to WUWT readers:
The monthly graph that shows the generally lengthening Pause in global warming has been a profound and continuing embarrassment to the believers in the totalitarian Party Line on the climate question. Recently, the dogmatists struck back in a much-promoted 10-minute video, How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures? The new Party Line is that they give the wrong answer.
The short video contained 20 false representations, pretenses or implications, calculated individually and by mutual reinforcement to deceive. The deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here –
1. (without qualification) that 2015 was the warmest year since reliable records began, though the satellite records do not show it as the warmest year (see the above graph);
2. that satellite datasets have historically proven biased to show too little warming, though the UAH dataset showed too much warming until its 2015 correction:
3. (twice) that the satellite data, and in particular the UAH data, wrongly showed cooling in the 1990s, though they showed warming, and in the 2000s, though the terrestrial data agreed and after adjustments still agree with the satellites that there was cooling:
After all adjustments from 2010-2015, the graphs for 2002-2008 still show cooling:
4. that Drs John Christy and Roy Spencer, keepers of the UAH dataset, had been “chastened by their repeated mistakes and failures”, though all datasets, not only theirs, have undergone adjustments;
5. (twice) that all the UAH adjustments had left the warming rate understated, though until the most recent adjustment the UAH dataset had for much of the previous decade shown a warming rate greater than most other datasets;
6. that satellites were unique in not measuring temperature directly, though no method of measurement measures temperature directly, and the satellite temperature datasets are unique in being independently calibrated both by balloon radiosonde datasets and by platinum resistance thermometers themselves calibrated against the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation;
7. that satellite datasets had been shown to contain errors, with the implication that the terrestrial datasets had not undergone repeated adjustment, though all global temperature datasets are prone to adjustment and have been repeatedly adjusted;
8. that Dr Judith Curry and Senator Cruz accept the satellite data uncritically, though their statements that the satellite global temperature data are the best we have do not imply that those datasets should be accepted uncritically;
9. that Senator Cruz likes to focus on the portion of the RSS temperature dataset that begins after the El-Niño-driven spike in global temperature that peaked in 1998, though the graph displayed by Senator Cruz, on which Dr Mears was commenting, visibly began in May 1997, before the spike commenced:
10. (twice) that the spike in temperatures in 1998 entailed a downhill trend thereafter, though the graph had begun before the spike and, in any event any effect of the spike on the trend had been offset by a trough in 1999-2000 caused by the countervailing La Niña cooling that followed the 1998 El Niño, so that the trend in the RSS data for the 15 full years from January 2001 to December 2015, after the el Niño and la Niña, is if anything somewhat negative:
11. that the zero-trend “18-year dataset” displayed by Senator Cruz (actually 18 years 9 months) would produce a markedly different trend from the data over 10, 15 or 20 years, though the 10-year dataset after removing the distorting effect of the 2015-2016 El Niño shows a trend of little more than 0.5 Celsius degrees per century, the 15-year dataset shows a zero trend and the 20-year dataset shows a trend of little more than one-third of a degree per century, and all trends are within natural variability.
12. that a trend-line starting after the 1998 El Niño temperature spike and ending before the 2011-2012 La Niña trough would show an uptrend, though the trend-line is falsely positioned on the graph displayed in the video so as to steepen the true (green) trend:
13. that period chosen by Admiral Titley, the “Democrats’” witness at the hearing, showed an uptrend (which he then misrepresented so as to steepen it), though the period he chose was unduly short and, if he had not excluded an el Niño at the outset and a La Niña at the end, there would have been a downtrend:
14. that the video deploys a device used by the IPCC and by the Met Office, displaying global temperature in decadal blocks, though the decadal blocks were calculated to conceal the absence of global warming over much of the past two decades, while the full HadCRUT4 dataset clearly shows the recent slowdown in global warming:
15. that Arctic sea ice is declining, though Antarctic sea ice has been on a rising trend and reached a satellite-era record in early 2015, and though the decline in Arctic sea ice is chiefly only in a few late-summer weeks and is a small fraction of the seasonal variation in sea-ice extent, so that neither the extent nor the trend of global sea ice (from the University of Illinois) shows much change throughout the satellite era:
16. that column water vapor is increasing, though not all records show an increase and at least one, ISCCP, shows a decline:
17. that sea level is changing, though it has always changed and much of the increase in recent years is attributable to a “glacial isostatic adjustment” that, whether justifiable or not, is not an actual sea-level rise:
18. that the heat content of the global ocean is increasing, though the increase is calculated from ARGO bathythermograph temperature measurements that show warming of the top mile and a quarter of the ocean over the entire 11 full years of the record at a rate equivalent to only 1 Celsius degree every 430 years:
19. that the Earth’s allegedly rising temperature may be deduced from moisture, rainfall, water vapor, surface humidity, snow and ice, though no definitive conclusions about global temperature can be drawn from any of these indicators
20. (throughout) that, by implication, the terrestrial temperature records are in reasonable agreement with the predictions by IPCC on which the official concern about global warming is based, though on all datasets, the warming is so far below what IPCC had originally predicted that IPCC has itself had to reduce drastically its interval of near-term warming predictions:
Conclusion
The perpetrators of the offending video are, so they think, so well protected by the current U.S. Administration’s prejudice on the climate question that they can get away with a campaign of multiple, wilful, mutually reinforcing and no doubt profitable deceptions on this monstrous scale with impunity, to the detriment not only of the truth but also of two diligent and hard-working scientists.
Without saying anything more in public at this stage, we shall see. In the meantime, readers may care to recall the terms of 18 U.S. Criminal Code §1343 (wire fraud):
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

That last bit about prosecution… in a little more than 1 year from now, the US will have a new administration. The current administration will not prosecute members of it’s own team, no matter the offense. There is timing in everything.
Nice summary of a rather blatant scam.
I don’t know why but I expect Dr. Mann to end his speech with “Bdee, bdee, bdee… that’s all folks!”
Please don’t insult cartoon characters, even they have more integrity than Mikey Mann !!
He does have some small resemblance to Porky Pig, but at least Porky had some small degree of character
It looks suspiciously like alcoholic sialadenosis to me. He should watch his booze consumption.
Sorry to be crude, but to me his head looks like a zit that needs popping.
MM lost any credibility he may have had, however small that might have been, given his recent PhD degree at the time of his writing that debunked “study”.
That is why they are getting so desperate, they know their time is running out and they may be facing prosecution if a Republican takes the White House..Considering who the Demoncraps have running, I think that is very likely !!
The current Democrat candidates make McGovern look like George Washington by comparison (especially when it comes to telling the truth).
Um, compared to the GOP candidate, RICHARD NIXON, McGovern was by far the best candidate.
It really is fascinating the lies leftists tell each other.
“The deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here –”
hypertext missing?
This page is bookmarked…a bit like drinking from a fire hose but I’ll take it all in eventually. Many thanks.
“We have to get rid of the Pause”. Of course, this time no one said that (that we know of), the way they said it of the MWP, but you know they were thinking it. It’s just soooo inconvenient.
They had a couple of “tricks” up their sleeves to answer questions about it though.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1225026120.txt&search=cold-ish
It’s actually encouraging that the alarmers now feel the need to address contrary evidence rather than ignore. Maybe we’re reaching ghandi’s second stage.
Whoops. Meant third. Ignore ridicule attack
Yes, indeed, tax1999 — +1.
AGW Hustler SAYS: “The evidence against us is junk.”
Maria and Joe Public HEARS: The evidence against us …. {rest of sentence is there, but completely overwhelmed by the giant ocean wave that crashed onto shore at the same time}.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
They are trying their (disgraceful) best to delay the day of reckoning.
It started with the tree-ring fiascos at UEA, continued with Michael Mann’s hockey stick, was picked up by the IPCC, furthered with the NCDC temperature adjustments, keep alive by Ben Santer’s “there needs to be no warming in the troposphere satellite measurements for 17 years before we can declare global warming dead”, discounting one of the key predictions of the theory that there would be tropical tropospheric hotspot, refocussing on the very slight ocean heat accumulation instead, continued on by throwing out the satellite measurements of ocean sea surface temperatures which were always considered accurate, even more adjustments by the NCDC, faithful kept believing by refusing to explain exactly how 3.0C per doubling occurs, throwing out the Argo and buoy measured ocean sea surface temperatures and now, trying to throw out the lower troposphere.
This science has to implode on itself eventually because it is not a science. It is a long, long list of misdirections that even astrology would be embarrassed by.
But they still have millions of followers.
One wonders why Monckton looks at such a short time period of 5 years of sea level rise from 2003 -2008 but ignores the long term sea level rise…
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
ML, you have a few fact/logic problems to reconcile before you can have confidence in your SLR comment. First, computer modeled GIS adjustment is not relevent to actual SLR. Second, reconcile sat altimetry to geostationary ( determined by differential GPS) tide gauges. Third, reconcile your chart to the public tech spec for Jason 2, <3mm precision and <1mm random annual instrument drift.
Ever heard of instrumental error bars? Problem proven by the SLR closure problem.
You might want to further your education by reading my essay PseudoPrecision.
Hi ristvan; I thought Jason 2 was only accurate to 4 to 5 cm? And according to the BBC the Jason 3 is hoping to have accuracy better than 4cm (it says 2.5 to 3.3 on the NASA JPL website) – so I presume the quoted accuracy is a combination of the actual precision and error bars, drift, etc? I’m struggling to wonder why NASA themselves say their goal is an accuracy of 2.5cm?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35340733
Martin Lott,


You’re referring to:
17. that sea level is changing, though it has always changed and much of the increase in recent years is attributable to a “glacial isostatic adjustment”…
Here’s a longer time period:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
Notice that there’s no acceleration, which disproves the alarmist claims and predictions regarding sea levels.
Next, here is a peer reviewed study showing that the rise in sea levels is decelerating. If you’re interested, here and here are similar sea level studies.
Sea levels have risen at the same rate since before there were industrial CO2 emissions:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sea-level.gif
Here’s a chart showing actual rise versus modeled sea level predictions:
Next, tide gauges confirm there is no acceleration in SL rise:
And the folks in Kiribati who keep saying their island will be submerged are simply angling for UN loot:
But like everything in this politically charged hoax, there are “adjustments”, which always go in the direction of the AGW scare:
http://oi58.tinypic.com/331k5ya.jpg
This bar graph from Nature shows the raw data (left) compared with the “adjusted” chart (right):
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/carousel/nclimate2159-f1.jpg
I hope that answers your question. If not, I have lots more charts…
Nicely done, db!
Martin?… Martin…. ?
Has anyone noticed how far Colorado is from the nearest ocean, and how that state of reality is likely to persist (at a 95 percent confidence, or higher, level).?
Perhaps, because the long-term sea level rise is negligible, Mr. Lott.
(Source: Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, discussed here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/ )
*********************************
The IPCC, if that matters to you, supports Christopher Monckton on this issue:
See: Jimbo comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/#comment-630558
If you want to, Mr. Lott, do some research into sea level rise on your own, look at the charts for marine navigation from around the world. Just take a sample, from each area of the world where charts exist from the 1700’s. How many and by how much have those charts been corrected to account for sea-level rise since the 1700’s?
Shipping involves BIG MONEY (and/or potential liability for going hard aground). Those charts will be, thus, be highly, accurate.
+ 1
Old Sea Dog! THANK YOU. Ah, what a relief to know that my sharp response to you v. a v. the Wright Bros. (and the other guy… sorry, forgot the poor fellow’s name) didn’t make you my enemy for life. As far as I know, you didn’t see my apology on that thread. SO! A double blessing that you would +1 my comment. No, make that TRIPLE, for your long years of experience with such charts makes your opinion extra-valuable.
#(:))
One wonders why Monckton looks at such a short time period of 5 years of sea level rise from 2003 -2008 but ignores the long term sea level rise…
Yes, let’s look at the long term history of what was published then and what is published now. It’s fairly obvious that the historical data kept by Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group has been re-written over the last decade:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/ojdn6h.jpg
Hidden away on their FAQ, the University of Colorado state that they are actually measuring ‘sea volume’ and not sea level relative to land. Of course what people care about is where the water is coming up to on the shore, but that’s not what their chart shows…
In Sydney Harbour, Australia, the ferries still need to go around, rather than over, Pinchgut (aka Fort Denison), just as they have had to do since the ferries began operating.
Martin –
There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! by Nils-Axel Mörner
the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, a quasi-periodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean every few years.) Therefore, a much more realistic approach is to treat that ENSO-signal as a separate event, superimposed on the long-term trend, as shown in Figure 6 (Mörner 2004). Figure 6 shows a variability (of ±10 mm) around a stable zero level (blue line) and a strong ENSO-event (yellow lines) in 1997. The trend thereafter is less clear (gray lines). This graph provides no indication of any rise over the time-period covered (Mörner 2004, 2007a, 2007c).
When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal, and they extended the trend up to 2003, they seemed to have faced a problem: There was no sea level
rise visible, and therefore a “reinterpretation” needed to be undertaken.
Originally, it seemed that this extra, unspecified “correction” referred to the global isostatic adjustment (GIA) given as 2.4 mm/year (see, for example, Peltier 1998) or 1.8 mm/year (IPCC 2001). The zero isobase of GIA according to Peltier (1998) passed through Hong Kong, where one tide-gauge gives a relative sea level rise of 2.3 mm/year. This is exactly the value appearing in Figure 7. This tide-gauge record is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong, and obviously represents a site specific subsidence, a fact well known to local geologists.
Nevertheless, a new calibration factor has been introduced in the Figure 7 graph. At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one
of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to do so, otherwise there would not be any trend.” To this I replied: “Did you hear what you were saying? This is just what I am accusing you of doing.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
Match DB ‘s earlier Kiribati sea level graph with the ENSO meter
“by platinum resistance thermometers themselves calibrated against the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation”
I’ve heard this one here frequently, but never understood it. Are these thermometers in the satellite? Of what are they measuring the temperature? Why?
Excellent article as usual, by someone who knows more about the subject than most of the scientists who personally benefit from the hoax. That’s why Mann and the rest refuse to publicly debate any more. Mann never won any debates. The alarmist clique couldn’t even convince friendly audiences.
To answer Nick Stokes’ question, I don’t claim to know a lot about the details, but the cosmic background radiation is at a known temperature (≈2.8 Kelvin, IIRC). It is the same temperature across the sky; a remnant of the Big Bang.
With a known benchmark you can calibrate to it. It is a primary standard, and very accurate.
“but the cosmic background radiation is at a known temperature (≈2.8 Kelvin, IIRC).”
Well, actually the cosmic background radiation does not have a “temperature”. Radiation does not have a temperature as you would think of the temperature of a bowling ball or a glass of water.
The spectral distribution of the wavelengths of radiation present in the cosmic background radiation matches what would be emitted by a bowling ball at 2.8 K. So if you image that radiation source (cosmic background, or bowling ball) onto a calibrated temperature sensor you get the same response.
The Apollo astronauts where separated from the “cold” (2.8 K) vacuum of space by about an eight inch of aluminum. If the “cold” vacuum of space was actually at 2.3 K they would have been quite uncomfortable.
The inside wall of the Apollo capsule was about “room temperature”, and the outside wall was somewhat colder, but not 2.8 K.
But, of course, that assumes that the moon landings actually took place…..
Cheers, KevinK
I think that Nick Stokes is referring to there usually being two standards to calibrate an instrument, although one (in the measurement range) is used for regular correction of drift.
I have two problems with the cosmic background radiation allegedly coming from the “big bang”: 1. Since radiation moves at the speed of light, and matter much more slowly, all that early radiation would be much further (some 13 billion light years) from the original singularity than our solar system by now… and 2. The cbr approaches us from every direction — from what has it been reflected?
Brian Wilshire,
Noting first that it’s pretty much irrelevant for satellite measurements of the atmosphere where it’s coming from, I have looked into the matter some and conclude it’s probably scattered microwave radiation from water in or just beyond our our own atmosphere. The big bang has become so entrenched in so many aspects of cosmology/astrophysics that it’s unlikely the big shots would openly admit such a thing, it seems to me, unless they virtually had to . . (Rumors of big Science being self correcting are greatly exaggerated as far as I can tell ; )
This is awkward; I really want to comment re KevinK’s remark.
The Apollo astronauts would have been in the freezer if all they experienced was the cosmic background irradiation. Fortunately for them, they were warmed by the solar constant (1,361 watts/square meter) over half the projected surface area of their capsule. Not to mention their own internal heat generation (human metabolism and system electrical power production/dissipation).
But your point falls to ground once one considers that, in the realm of radiative heat transfer, a suitably shiny exterior surface would insulate the capsule as much as you would want. This is the principle of the modern thermos flask.
(Look, I did this for a living. Like most things, radiative heat transfer is simple…if you understand it.)
NS, there are precisely and only two explanations for your comment. 1. You do not understand how sat MSU algorithms are validated by radiosonde instruments. In which case, educate yourself. 2. Wilfull obfuscation. In which case, bugger off.
Should have added for sat calibrations, and by space (opposite earth) thermistor calibrations to account for potential sat solar warming. Try reading a NASA sat tech spec. All,publicly available if you dig deep enough. You know, why US spends billions per launch to get NASA sat data that NASA GISS then denies. Ponder that conundrum.
“NS, there are precisely and only two explanations for your comment.”
Actually, there is just one – I didn’t know, and thought someone might. No-one else seemed to know either. But link 2 of AJB below did explain:
“AMSR-E’s calibration system has a cold mirror that provides a clear view of deep space (a known temperature of 2.7 K) and a hot reference load that acts as a blackbody emitter; its temperature is measured by eight precision thermistors. After launch, large thermal gradients due to solar heating developed within the hot load, making it difficult to determine from the thermistor readings the average effective temperature, or the temperature the radiometer sees. The hot load temperature is not uniform or constant, and empirical calibration methods must be employed.”
Nothing to do with validation by radiosonde. Just calibrating the instrument. But an interesting sub-point. They use 8 thermistors because that have a reference object at non-uniform temperature where they have to sample and interpolate (“empirically”). Just the problem that is solved for the Earth’s surface by GISS etc. And that is just to convert voltage into radiance. Then they have to work out what part of that radiance can be attributed to the temperature-varying layers of the lower troposphere, sorting out the other radiance from clouds, surfaces etc. And then convert that back into a temperature estimate.
Yes, measuring air temperature by thermometer is indirect. But not on this scale.
Don’t pretend that this is the same as calculating the temperature anomaly for a huge percentage of the Earths surface with one dodgy station in Siberia while ignoring that it shifted 10 years ago.
+1000!
One
Two
Three
Four
AJB,
Thanks for those links. Every one of them was worth reading. I recommend them to Nick Stokes.
Far too many people are scrutinizing every aspect of satellite temperature measurements for any problems to persist.
Satellite data is the gold standard of global temperature data. Some folks don’t like it because it falsifies their belief that dangerous AGW is happening. Those folks have an agenda, or a belief, but it isn’t based on honest science.
Very interesting links.
Good science.
the quoted statement is incorrect as it stands. PRTs are used to measure the temperature of the onboard (warm-point) calibration targets. The cosmic background (cold point) is assumed to be 2.7 K (or something close to that..it doesn’t really matter). PRTs are laboratory standard and highly stable, each one being carefully calibrated before launch. Those two calibration points are used to calibrate the Earth-viewing data.
…and the AMSR-E calibration is a special case of poor design…the warm target was made of a material with low thermal conductivity. The instrument was designed in Japan by engineers just coming up to speed on the technology, and it should never have been approved by NASA in the first place. But, the instrument was “free” to NASA, so there was less scrutiny. I say all this as the AMSR-E U.S. Science Team leader.
Thank you for this information, Roy.
Are you retired? Seems the only people telling the truth are retirees these days because doing this while employed is most dangerous.
Dr. Roy Spencer is NOT retired.
(See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/dr-robert-carter-scientist-climate-skeptic-pioneer-friend-r-i-p/#comment-2123573 )
If the warm target is made of a material with low thermal conductivity the implication is that it could slowly age, e.g. it’s thermal conductivity could change and thus the temperature distribution across the warm target could slowly change. With eight prt’s this should be observable.
If there is a temperature distribution across the warm target, the detector could be looking at a varying emissivity. Just sayin.
Nicely done CMoB!
It still astonishes me that the warmest year ever declarations for both NASA and NOAA carried less than a 50% probability for such, but still gets the billing. Twisted facts to blatent lies will be the legacy of the current administration in the US. You like your temperature, you can keep it analogy ….
That was true for 2014. In 2015, things are very different. For example with GISS, the anomaly will be more than 0.1 above 2014. Since this is above the error bar, they will claim something like 99% certainty of a record.
But can we trust their 2015 anomaly? That is a different question.
Thanks for pointing that out Werner. That is indeed correct. All the adjustments have obviously changed my error bars also. I blame Karl et al for my confusion 🙂
Hmm… let me see – we can’t call it fraud and we can’t call it a conspiracy and we can’t call it a hoax, but even if “we” can’t, it appears the evidence can.
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. One can depend on you to tell the truth.
Global thermometer temperature databases, like HadCRUT4 and NCDC, show the warming paused after a maximum peak in 1998.
HadCRUT4: “The value for 2014 [0.56°C], given uncertainties discussed in Morice et al. (2012), is not distinguishable from the years 2010 (0.555°C), 2005 (0.543°C) and 1998 (0.535°C).”
http://www.oarval.org/hadcrut4_annual_global-25Jan2015Opt.gif
NCDC: “The warmest years shown are 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014, all close to a 0.65°C anomaly.”
http://www.oarval.org/NCDC-201401-201412Opt.png
BEST shows average cooling after 2005:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-comparison-small.png
UAH definitely shows a pause after 1998:
http://www.oarval.org/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1.gif
Here’s the most recent BEST graph. Looks like your claim of cooling after 2005 needs to be revised…
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_combined1.png
ML, assuming that BEST really is the “best”, no offense to Mosher intended. You really credit the error envelopes shown? I assume that BEST does the best they can but frankly, the original data is crap and we are talking about anomalies of a fraction of a degree Celsius.
Mr. Lotts. You have a LOT of reading to make up in the WUWT classroom. Don’t despair, however, you CAN do it. #(:))
BEST is a KNOWN-biased, non-science assumption-driven, dataset. It is not data.
Essentially, Mr. Lotts, when you compare BEST with UAH, you are comparing an crayon abstract of a scape with a high-resolution photograph of that same scene.
Like:
This (child’s best effort):
http://vermiliongoldfish.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/kids-drawing.jpg
with
This:
http://www.wallpaperfo.com/thumbnails/detail/20120428/nature%20trees%20flowers%20photography%20garden%20fields%20tulips%201600×1200%20wallpaper_www.wallpaperfo.com_6.jpg
Janice:
OUCH! Good analogy (and crayon drawing).
Thanks, Mr. Javert. And, no, lol, this ten-year-old-in-a-very-good-disguise (gets better every year!) is not the artist of that happy little picture. I DID draw like that… many years ago.
#(:))
It was Andres Valencia who invoked BEST, not Martin Lott. ML just updated it.
Martin – Which data set are you showing in your graph, the raw data or the EXPECTED data?
From the source –
Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm | [ Replying to the ” ” prior post & spelling errors in the Original ]
“One example of one of the problems can be seen on the BEST site at station 166900–not somempoorly sited USCHN starion, rather the Amundsen research base at the south pole, where 26 lows were ‘corrected up to regional climatology’ ( which could only mean the coastal Antarctic research stations or a model) creating a slight warming trend at the south pole when the actual data shows none-as computed by BEST and posted as part of the station record.”
The lows are not Corrected UP to the regional climatology.
There are two data sets. your are free to use either.
You can use the raw data
You can use the EXPECTED data.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
See how easy it is. If a fully automated, staffed by research scientists has already been adjusted. Anything for the cause.
Thank you, Nick St0kes. You are correct. You are also misrepresenting Mr. Valencia’s position: Valencia presented the almost-worthless BEST graph to show that EVEN the most rabid AGWers admit some cooling. Perhaps, he was mistaken, but, he was most certainly NOT advocating BEST, per se, as YOUR comment implies.
Re: aiming my comment at Mr. Lott, I was focused in rebutting this assertion of his (above):
.
I may have misunderstood Mr. Lott, so, thank you, Mr. St0kes, for drawing my attention to the possibility that what Lott MEANT to write is: “your claim
of{that BEST shows} cooling after 2005 needs to be revised… .”Thanks, Janice Moore, very perceptive and kind.
I used the latest graphic from
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/land-and-ocean/land-and-ocean-summary-small.png
from http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/ as it appears in ARVAL.
It is titled “Land and Ocean Summary”.
Martin Lott used
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Annual_time_series_combined1.png
from the December 30, 2015 press release at http://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-reports/
it is titled “Land & Ocean”.
Which is the best of BEST?
Or the least wrong of the worst set?
It does not matter much to me; I trust UAH at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
1. Is a matter of opinion on reliability rather than a true or false statement
2. Focusing on only one adjustment neither proves nor disproves a bias. Note that alarmist use the same false argumentation to show that the major adjustment to raw data actually warms the past.
3. Why 2002-2008 rather than the whole decade? Why no graph for the 1990s?
4. Adjustments are not the same as mistakes and failures
5. Valid objection. They should publish an erratum changing the word ‘all’ to ‘all except one’
6. Basically semantics. Matter of opinion on what constitutes a direct measurement. Are you aware that the balloon data do not agree with satellite data on your pause?
7. The statement is true. The implication is yours.
8. You do not refute the claim, you only mention that their evidence is not enough. I would be surprised to see a critical statement from Cruz on satellite measurements. Maybe he has made them, but I have not seen one yet.
9. Wow, 7 months. Really? That’s your argument? Seems to me his graph basically starts on the upward slope of the 97/98 El Nino.
10. You’re trying to falsify the claim of a downhill trend by showing a downhill trend?
11. Why is the 15/16 El Nino distorting and does it have to be removed while the same does not hold for the 97/98 El Nino?
12. You do not falsify the statement of the uptrend, you just show that you got a slightly different result. Maybe you used a different method or a slightly different start or end point?
13. If the “true trend” has it’s value only by starting at an El Nino and ending at an La Nina rather than the other way around, surely this “true trend” is just as unreliable as Titley’s?
14. I don’t see any clear slowdown in that graph on any scale larger than the noise level. Either way I agree that the decadal representation is not my preferred smoothing technique either, but that’s really just a matter of taste isn’t it?
15. Again no refutation and basically a point made on semantics (“much” change) and taste.
16. Valid point. They should have mentioned a source. I wonder how the “though not all records show” argument applies to your freedom clock.
17. No refutation, semantics, taste.
18. Your argumentation supports their statement. “Only 1 degree C in 430 years” is equivalent in heat to 23 degrees C per decade for the atmosphere (taking the crude 3 orders of magnitude in heat capacity).
19. Possibly. I don’t know enough about these. Without any evidence it’s just your word against theirs for me.
20. Finally a good argument!!! Also a matter of taste, but I think you should have just used #20 and ditched the other 19 which I find all pretty weak, due to reasons mentioned. As skeptics we should focus on this, the discrepancy between models and predictions. All that talk about a few month more here or there, an El Nino more here or there, a slightly steeper or less-steep trendline, they all do the skeptic cause more harm than good. It also just shows how frail the pause really is.
Re: 13: the depicted trend does not start at El Nino or end at La Nina. Indeed, the data could be extended to 2015, but the video’s relevant graph is cropped at 2012, so I suppose the visual response to it might look more cogent if it shared the same range.
Aran says:
Are you aware that the balloon data do not agree with satellite data on your pause?
No, they agree closely:
Do you know which data sets these are or have you just blindly copied something again? I’m not even aware of 4 independent global balloon data sets. So I’d be intrigued to find out which ones these are. Anyway, I was referring to the RATPAC data, which is most commonly used and shows no pause. Also note that on that scale of the graph (because of the model predictions) all temperature data sets might actually seem to agree closely.
Re: Aran at 5:55pm
The three links in this post (along with others on that same thread) completely refute the bogus RATPAC junk science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2121296
Aran says:
Do you know which data sets these are or have you just blindly copied something again?
Throwing mud doesn’t falsify anything. If you think you can show that chart is wrong, be my guest. But so far you haven’t; you just don’t like what it shows. Tallbloke originally posted that chart at his site. Complain to him if you don’t like it.
Yes, so, are you saying that falsifying a claim needs no proof whatsoever?
In that case I say you are wrong and give no evidence or argumentation since by your logic I don’t need to.
Sorry that reply was meant for John Knight
db,
Where am I throwing mud? I’m really interested in the data source. Unlike you I like to be critical of what I see. In this case I am wondering which 4 data sets these are, since they disagree with the one that is most commonly used.
You should really be a bit more critical, db, and not blindly copy other people’s things without knowing the sources. That’s unworthy of a skeptic. I could prove aliens exist, the world is coming to an end, vaccinations cause autism and broccoli causes cancer by just gullibly copying other peoples work like you do.
@janice: I agree totally that the coverage of the RATPAC is limited, as can only be expected because of the type of measurement. However, it is the best that I know of. Either way, this is a known limitation and by no means a refutation as you claim. Anyway, if the RATPAC is nonsense then the graph by dbstealey will likely be nonsense as well, because it would be very strange that somewhere there are 4 data sets with better coverage without anybody knowing about them.
Aran,
“Yes, so, are you saying that falsifying a claim needs no proof whatsoever?”
No, I’m saying all Mr. Monckton need do is show the statements made as if facts, were actually just personal opinions, then the “expert witness” aspect the video in question is obviously intended to fulfill, is undermined. There may or may not be “falsifying” potency in any particular point, the more the better, but just demonstrating assumptive partiality is fine I think, in this court of public opinion ; )
“Do you know which data sets these are or have you just blindly copied something again?”
Yes thanks: HadAT2, RAOBCOREv1.5.1, RICHv1.5.1, RATPAC
Now trot along back to Tamino’s little embarrassment and question more closely what he thinks he’s plotted.
AJB, thanks for the data sources. Bit strange though that RAOBCORE and RICH are used, since they are definitely not independent.
As for the rest of your comment, I don’t tell you where you should or should not go, I would appreciate you’d do the same.
Aran, because of the poor coverage from radiosonde data, RSS did a study where they compared areas that did have reasonable coverage with RSS data. What they found is excellent matches in the NH and SH extra-tropics with a little less agreement in the tropics. However, the tropics showed LESS warming than the RSS data which pretty much destroys you any claim that the satellites are under-reporting the warming.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation
Excellent link Richard M. Thank you for that.
Aran,
It appears to me that you are trying to help switch the burden of proof onto the “skeptics” . .
“1. Is a matter of opinion on reliability rather than a true or false statement”
That’s all Mr. Monckton need demonstrate, he’s not on the side demanding radical changes and vast amounts of money because of his opinion, right?
Then I suggest he changes the title to 20 debatable representations in one 10 minute video
He doesn’t have to, he’s responding to “factual ” claims here . ..
Yes, so, are you saying that falsifying a claim needs no proof whatsoever?
In that case I say you are wrong and give no evidence or argumentation since by your logic I don’t need to.
Aran says:
…are you saying that falsifying a claim needs no proof whatsoever?
But you are the one questioning what was posted, and you replied with an argument by assertion:
…I say you are wrong and give no evidence or argumentation since by your logic I don’t need to.
You do need to at least post something that’s more convincing. Irrefutable facts would be the best. But if you can make a good, credible argument, you may be able to convince this reader, at least.
You haven’t demonstrated that the Christy chart above showing the close agreement between satellite data and radiosonde balloon data is wrong. Both show the so-called “pause”. You just asserted that it’s wrong, so your other points become questionable (I didn’t look into them, but the balloon comment stood out). You might also consider pasting the point you’re responding to in italics, then give your opinion. It’s tedious going back and forth to see what your replying to.
dbstealey,
You said:
You just asserted that it’s wrong
You are up to your old tricks where you misquote me. I have not asserted the Christie graph is wrong. I have asked you for the data sources because I am interested in them.
janice,
If anything I have written is vague or foggy to you, I’d be happy to provide clarifications to any questions you might have.
As for the non-existent link, I’d be interested to see that come up. However, most of my points are about his basic arguments rather than any lack of evidence.
“You haven’t demonstrated that the Christy chart above showing the close agreement between satellite data and radiosonde balloon data is wrong.”
What makes it right? I know you aren’t fussy about details, but if you look carefully, it shows balloons and mid-troposphere temperatures (TMT). The ones Lord M shows are lower troposphere (TLT). A different series.
Very interesting links.
Good science.
Just to reflect on Nick Stokes comment on the differences in the atmospheric layers temperature measurement.
Apparently this has been done elsewhere.
‘One can imagine all kinds of lesser issues that might affect the long-term stability of the satellite record. For instance, since there have been ten successive satellites, most of which had to be calibrated to the one before it with some non-zero error, there is the possibility of a small ‘random walk’ component to the 30+ year data record. Fortunately, John Christy has spent a lot of time comparing our datasets to radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets, and finds very good long-term agreement.’
From ‘one’ link above.
Aran says:
You are up to your old tricks where you misquote me.
Aran, just like I did here, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote, verbatim. Then I posted my reply to it. I never misquote people. Willis Eschenbach has taught me the value of quoting commenters’ words exactly.
Therefore, I suspect your answer is just deflection. You would rather re-frame the discusion away from what I wrote:
“You haven’t demonstrated that the Christy chart above showing the close agreement between satellite data and radiosonde balloon data is wrong. Both show the so-called “pause”. You just asserted that it’s wrong, so your other points become questionable…”
Other commenters here support that view. If it is wrong, quit deflecting and refute it based on verifiable, credible evidence. If you can.
And once again, when replying to a long list of numbered points, have some consideration for readers and post the original point in italics, then your response below it. Going back and forth is tedious.
db,
You said:
No you did not. You have misquoted me many times and I have pointed this out many times. But I’ll happily do it again.
This was the quote I was talking about.
(With “it” referring to Christie’s graph)
You could have known I was talking about this sentence, because I quoted it verbatim as you wished. But apparently I have to do so again. You didn’t cut and paste exactly what I wrote. You asserted that I asserted something which I did not assert.
Dear Ar@n,
You, in your excitable little post at 4:29pm, seem to (cough), have overlooked something (and over and over, as revealed by your repeated snipes at Monckton for more proof to back his SUMMARY above):
(Monckton in above article)
Further, you imperiously demand unnecessary-to-understanding (by an average reader) precision and completeness in writing while your comment often wanders aimlessly about the countryside in a fog of vagueness and half-completed thoughts.
Hoping for better things from you (you ARE better than that, no?),
Janice
Aran:
(my comment will show as a reply to Janice because I couldn’t find a better way to get it into the comment stream)
Being charitable, you are having difficulty with falsification as incorporated in the scientific method.
Please state a summary of your education so readers have a clue as to your “training” on this topic.
Chip Javert commented: “…Please state a summary of your education so readers have a clue as to your “training” on this topic…”
Condescending. His statements speak for themselves. Agree or disagree unless you are omniscient.
Chip,
I don’t see why my education would be a factor, but let me assure you that my education in exact science is more extensive than Lord Monckton’s
The upward slope starts in December 1997. And several of those extra 7 months are deep in La Nina territory and that is the reason why this pause is so tough to break. If the linear trend had started in November the previous month, it would be way less by now.
No, he is showing the trend is downhill BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER the 1998 El Nino.
Look at the context of this statement:
“though the 10-year dataset after removing the distorting effect of the 2015-2016 El Niño”.
The 10 year trend does not go back to the 97/98 El Nino.
But that is not how things work. IF the whole ocean were to get 0.023 C warmer, then the most that the atmosphere could be warmed by this 0.023 C is also 0.023 C. There is no way that the ocean could lose this 0.023 C and make the atmosphere 23 C warmer.
+1
Dear Werner and Janice,
I had expected more factual argumentation from the both of you. “Deep in La Nina territory” is rather an exaggeration to say the very least. ENSO indices turned positive around March 1997. Also the La Nina preceeding the 97/98 El Nino was weak and peaked in 1995, so to claim that has had an effect on the trend line starting from May 97 is hard to believe. I’ll put that down to wishful thinking.
Well that’s stil la strange argument when the statement he is trying to refute is:
“that the spike in temperatures in 1998 entailed a downhill trend thereafter”
wouldn’t you agree.
Refuting there was a downhill trend after 1998 by showing there was a downhill trend both before and after 1998. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
Well no obviously it doesn’t. Who said it did? It’s simply not consistent to claim one El Nino to be distorting and to remove it, but to let the other one (which is even bigger) in place.
I know. That was not the point of my argument. The point was that Lord Monckton argued the amount of heat going into the ocean to be very small. Whereas the amount of heat he shows is much larger than the amount of heat that is “missing” from the IPCC predictions.
See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1994/plot/rss/from:1997.3/trend
The May 1997 anomaly was 0.024, which is almost at the bottom from 1994 on. That is what I was alluding to. I apologize for not making it clearer.
See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
I must be missing your point. The slope is downhill from 1998 as well as from 2001.
You said: “11. Why is the 15/16 El Nino distorting and does it have to be removed while the same does not hold for the 97/98 El Nino?”
Lord Monckton said: “though the 10-year dataset after removing the distorting effect of the 2015-2016 El Niño”
So how can the 97/98 El Nino be removed if it is not even present in the 10 year data set?
It IS small. All of those Hiroshima bombs in the ocean cannot even be detected by your skin.
1
Global temperature is not a good index for ENSO. May 1997 is by no means “deep in La Nina territory”.
2
Yes it is. And that was the statement that was made in the video as well. So the statement from the video:
is not being refuted.
3
I was not talking about only the 10 year fit. I was talking in general. One has to be consequent. If Monckton thinks the 15/16 EN should be removed from the 10 year fit, why doesn’t he think it has to be removed from the 18 year fit, or whatever result his cherry picking algorithm for finding the pause gives?
4
You are confusing heat with temperature. The temperature increase is small, the increase in heat is not
Aran,
I appreciate your trying to post the comments you’re replying to. Just cut & paste the quote, then either put quote marks (” … “), or use italics (‘<i>’ to begin the italics, and ‘</i>’ to end the italics), it’s very easy for readers to follow.
It is all relative. I am sure the oceans have gone up and/or down way more than 0.023 C over the last few million years. Do not make a huge deal out of almost nothing.
Aran has failed to read the words “by mutual reinforcement”. Individually each deception – such as saying 2015 was the hottest year evaah without saying the two satellite datasets don’t show that – may seem harmless on their own, but the sheer number of dishonesties has, to any reasonable mind, a powerful cumulative effect – as it was no doubt intended to do.
I still beg to differ. If you want to refute something one good argument can be enough. It can actually be better than 20 arguments of which most are weak. It is the weak arguments that provide alarmist with reasons not to have to take critical scientists seriously.
Aran has obviously had little experience in front of juries. Each of the 20 points listed in the head posting is readily understandable to a jury, and the sheer number of dub jetties establishes a compelling pattern of deception. Pick nits if you want, but this kind of detailed refutation works every time.
I had no idea juries were the intended audience for WUWT. As for these kind of detailed refutations working every time :You can find detailed refutations of the moon landing, of Al Qaeda being responsible for 9/11 and lots of other nonsense. And they are nonsense because their arguments are weak. Refutations don’t work because of the amount of detail nor by sheer volume, what matters in the end is the quality of the arguments.
OK Aran, that’s enough of this crap about juries and conspiracy theory – take a hike – Anthony
(P.S. Is this what the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) in New Zealand pays you to do? If so, I’d love to see your job description )
Aran,
“Refutations don’t work because of the amount of detail nor by sheer volume, what matters in the end is the quality of the arguments.”
The video in question is (to me) OBVIOUSLY a refutation of Mr. Monckton (and others) regarding the flat-lining of global warming in the satellite records, so your whole approach to this posting is bizarrely reversed, it seems to me. Again, it appears to be an attempt to help switch the burden of proof . .
This is what you seem to me to be espousing, essentially;
Mann el al get to say anything they feel like, no “falsification” of anything required, they are special.
Others can only rightly dispute their myriad claims if they can falsify them.
You get to say anything you like about such refutations with no need to “falsify” anything.
. . . Now I ask the jury ; )
What sort of person would want such a “systemic” bias in favor of those demanding radical changes and vast amounts of money from you? ; )
Dear Anthony,
If you had read carefully you would have seen that the “crap” about juries was brought up by Lord Monckton, so I suggest you refer your complaint to him rather than to me.
I will not take a hike. I believe in the freedom of speech and abhor censorship. I hope you do too. I don’t care much for ad hominems, please stick to the content. Willis Eschenbach wrote a great piece on how to disagree here Your comment falls somewhere in the bottom of his pyramid.
I am not the only skeptical scientist that is annoyed by bad scientific argumentation like Monckton’s. He and others actually make it harder for us to be taken seriously.
John,
I don’t know where you get your ideas from regarding Michael Mann getting to say anything they feel like, etc. Maybe you can be more specific about your accusations regarding me shifting the burden of proof.
In any case, Monckton’s is a refutation of a video that is a refutation of satellite data that are a refutation of traditional measurements etc. Science is basically refutations all the way down. If one makes an argument one should be able to support it. This hold for Monckton as well as Mann as well as anybody else.
Wow, I have been blocked, really?? For what? I thought this website was intended for discussion, but there seems to be some censoring going on of unwanted opinions.
The irony being there are many other skeptical scientist who, like me, are annoyed by bad scientific arguments from people such as LMoB, cause they actually make it harder for us to be taken seriously.
Wow AW, you blocked me? Really?? For what? Giving my opinion? What’s up with that? That’s censorship.
[What is blocked? In the queue perhaps, but far better responses than that have also fallen into (and out of) the same queue. .mod]
Aran,
“I don’t know where you get your ideas from regarding Michael Mann getting to say anything they feel like, etc. ”
Well, I guess I ought to have been more careful . . 95% of whatever they felt like saying in the video;
“20. Finally a good argument!!! Also a matter of taste, but I think you should have just used #20 and ditched the other 19 which I find all pretty weak, due to reasons mentioned. As skeptics we should focus on this, the discrepancy between models and predictions. ”
I forgot about the good “discrepancy between models and predictions” argument you allowed was fit to question the special ones judgment on . . Could you run that good argument about the discrepancy between models and predictions by me? I’m not real clear on that one ; )
I have slept on it last night and decided to take Anthony’s advice. I’m taking a hike, figuratively. This will be my last post here.
I have had my share of verbal abuse on this site, but that didn’t bother me much. And neither did it seem to bother you, Anthony, at least it never made you interfere the way you recently did with me. I can handle the name-calling, but, Anthony, publishing personal information about one of your visitors just because you disagree is a very low act imho.
Call me old-fashioned, but I value my privacy and that of my family. We all know what happened to Murry Salby.
I don’t expect many tears will be shed over my departure, but I for one will miss the discussions with those here that were open to it and those that understood that being a skeptic does not mean being a yea-sayer to every article posted on this site.
Finally I would advice everyone to take a hike, literally. Fresh air and sunshine do a person good. Better even, come to New Zealand and take a hike. It’s beautiful.
Just be sure to wear sunscreen.
Cheers
Worried that they are losing their audience more half truths, misrepresentations, and denials are presented to the all to willing media to disseminate. Unfortunately only time is against them. The dearth of skeptic representation in the media amazes me. I read in a recent poll of some 1100 citizens 30% checked the “AGW is a hoax” box! (no citations or further info) That’s an astounding amount.
I have some comments on 12 and 13. To call the red line on the so-called “Cruz” graph Titley’s is wrong, I believe. Understandably confusing, due to the flashy graphics of the video. Titley is speaking before a different data graph–also used as evidence contra the “Cruz” graph in the video. Titley does talk about arbitrary cut dates, but he may be speaking without a specific exhibit to that effect, that is, what the video’s red line provides. Indeed, Titley talks about the wrongheadeness of arbitrary dates, would he present a trend line of a mere 12 years? I believe the redline comes from the video creators. I would like to know who created that crap, it is the the worst deception in the video.
I mean worse pictorial deception. Complaining about satellite “adjustments” without addressing the adjustments inherent in the data they pose as accurate is like the boy who kills his parents and begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.
… like the Menendez case …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez
The change of government part is crucial, just as it is here in the UK. Almost all currently-serving and particularly decision-making politicians are completely compromised by their position on AGW, so they cannot change their minds and maintain credibility, much less survive in politics.
What’s needed is a complete change of decision-makers at the top table, people who cannot be blamed for current energy policy – which means they cannot be accused of hypocrisy if they amend all current climate laws.
I’d like Trump in the White House purely for the climate-watching comedy value. He’ll go after these climate crim’s with RICO and a bad attitude, and he’ll get them, too. There will be blood.
And hear I thought I could not possibly be more disgusted with Mann et al after the email debacle and subsequent whitewash.
Just keep it short and sweet-
‘The satellites were, in fact, mistaken – their data used to be too warm!’
Explains how these guys like to work.
Excellent, Lord Monckton, as usual.
Who is the shirtstain on youtube named John Poteet who is defending Mann?
Further to the above, my very first article on WUWT showed the following flat periods for several different data sets.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/crowdsourcing-a-temperature-trend-analysi/
Now, only RSS and UAH6.0beta4 shows any real flat trend at all.
Back in January 2013, the following was the case:
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
1. UAH Troposphere Temperature: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. NASA GISS Surface Temperature: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Wood For Trees Temperature Index: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. Hadley Center (HadCrut3) Surface Temperature: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Hadley Center (HADSST2) Sea Surface Temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS Troposphere Temperature: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadley Center (Hadcrut4) Surface Temperature: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Further to this point, when looking at the graphics, it looks as if the latest decade is about 0.17 C warmer than the previous one. However that certainly is not the case with RSS. With RSS, 2006 to 2016 averaged 0.236. And 1996 to 2006 averaged 0.231. This gives a difference of 0.005. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2006/plot/rss/from:2006/to:2016
And when error bars are considered, the last decade on RSS is tied with the previous decade.
It’s no surprise that alarmist scientists now hide out from any more fair, moderated, public debates with skeptical scientists. In the past, when they believed they could win the debate because the venue was a university campus friendly to their position, they agreed to enter some debates. The alarmist side lost them all.
Now they refuse to debate. Instead, Mann and his kind tweet, and send their lemmings onto sites like this to pester readers with their opinions and assertions. Recently when Gavin Schmidt was offered a chance to give his side with Dr. Roy Spencer present, Schmidt actually got up and skedaddled! Gavin Schmidt had been badly mauled by Prof Richard Lindzen in 2007. Now he hides out from any more debates.
When one side of a science question is afraid to defend their conjecture, it raises valid questions in the public’s mind. That’s what’s happening. Skeptics are easily able to demolish alarmist scientists and their lemming cohort, because the alarmist crowd really has no credible evidence to back up their climate scare. It comes down to this: they are lying for money and political power. Despicable, no?