By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
In the carefully-planned build-up to the Paris “climate” conference whose true purpose is to establish an unelected and all-powerful global “governing body” (they’re no longer brazenly calling it a “government” as they did in the failed Copenhagen draft of 2009, but one can imagine what they’re thinking), the three longest-standing terrestrial temperature records – HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC – have all decided to throw caution to the winds.
Even though the satellites of RSS and UAH are watching, all three of the terrestrial record-keepers have tampered with their datasets to nudge the apparent warming rate upward yet again. There have now been so many adjustments with so little justification – nearly all of them calculated to steepen the apparent rate of warming – that between a third and a fifth of the entire warming of the 20th century arises solely from the adjustments, which ought to have been in the opposite direction because, as McKitrick & Michaels showed in a still-unchallenged 2007 paper, the overland warming in the datasets over recent decades is twice what actually occurred.
The three terrestrial datasets are no longer credible. The satellites now provide the only halfway reliable global temperature record. And it shows no global warming for 18 years 5 months (UAH) and 18 years 6 months (RSS), even though approximately one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.
For the record, though, here is the six-monthly roundup of what the three terrestrial and two satellite datasets show. Make what you can of them: but I, for one, will place no further reliance on any of the three terrestrial datasets, which have been altered beyond all usefulness, in the wrong direction, and in a manner that is not easy to justify.
For instance, a month or two back Tom Karl of NCDC notoriously and arbitrarily increased the ARGO bathythermograph temperatures, even though ARGO happens to be the least bad ocean measuring system we have. The satellites show no warming of the lower troposphere over the past 11 years; the ARGO bathythermographs show no warming of the surface layers of the ocean over the same period; yet Mr Karl has capriciously decreed that the surface must have warmed after all.
Once science was done by measurement: now it is undone by fiat. Let us hope that history, looking back in bafflement on the era when the likes of Mr Karl were allowed to ru(i)n major once-scientific institutions, will judge him every bit as unkindly as he deserves.
For this and other reasons, I no longer propose to average the terrestrial with the satellite records. The terrestrial temperature records are now mere fiction.
Here is a table showing how far the terrestrial records now differ from the satellite records. Three periods are shown, all running to June 2015. The first period, from January 1979, runs from the first month common to all five datasets. The second period, from January 1990, runs from the year of IPCC’s First Assessment Report, since when the positive and negative phases of the PDO have approximately canceled one another out, giving quite a fair indication of the true long-run warming trend. The third period, from January 1997, runs from the month in which the Great Pause of 18 years 6 months began.
| Warming rates (K century–1 equivalent) | |||||
| To Jun 2015 | HadCRUT4 | GISS | NCDC | RSS | UAH |
| From 1979 | +1.59 +1.60 +1.60 | +1.60 | +1.50 | +1.21 | +1.13 |
| From 1990 | +1.47 +1.49 +1.50 | +1.67 | +1.56 | +1.07 | + 0.96 |
| From 1997 | +0.77 +0.79 +0.82 | +1.24 | +1.13 | –0.03 | +0.04 |
For HadCRUT4 the old and new values to May 2015 are shown in italics alongside the new value to June 2015. Satellite datasets are in bold.
From 1979 to the present, the difference between the means of the terrestrial and satellite datasets is 0.40 K century–1; from 1990 to the present, the difference is 0.56 K century–1; from 1997 to the present, the difference has risen to a hefty 1.06 K century–1. It is pardonable to deduce from this that the chief purpose of the terrestrial tampering has been to wipe out the embarrassing Pause.
The graphs are below. Frankly, even after the tampering, the warming rate is nothing like what it should have been if any of the IPCC’s predictions had been true. My guess is that once they’ve got their world government in Paris they’ll stop tampering leave the temperature records alone.
In fact, I expect that we’ll hear a great deal less about climate change once the world government is safely installed. As the divergence between prediction and reality continues to widen, the new dictators will not want anyone to be reminded of the great lie by which they took supreme and – for the first time – global power.
January 1979 to June 2015
![clip_image002[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0024.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image002[4]")
![clip_image004[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0044.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image004[4]")
![clip_image006[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0064.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image006[4]")
![clip_image008[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0084.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image008[4]")
![clip_image010[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0104.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image010[4]")
January 1990 to June 2015
![clip_image012[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0124.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image012[4]")
![clip_image014[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0144.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image014[4]")
![clip_image016[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0164.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image016[4]")
![clip_image018[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0184.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image018[4]")
![clip_image020[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0204.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image020[4]")
January 1997 to June 2015
![clip_image022[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0224.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image022[4]")
![clip_image024[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0244.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image024[4]")
![clip_image026[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0264.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image026[4]")
![clip_image028[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0284.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image028[4]")
![clip_image030[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0304.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image030[4]")
HadCRUT4: comparison of the old and new versions
![clip_image032[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0324.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image032[4]")
![clip_image034[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0344.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image034[4]")
![clip_image036[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0364.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image036[4]")
![clip_image038[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0384.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image038[4]")
![clip_image040[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0404.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image040[4]")
![clip_image042[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0424.jpg?quality=83 "clip_image042[4]")
Simple. The pause is calculated as the longest period back in time from today> that shows no trend. A slight increase over the last month or two can reduce the length of that period. No rocket science.
To put it another way, the pause starts today and is calculated to see how far into the past it extends.
It is logically impossible for some people to be this stupid.
The pause “starts” on the day that the temperature gets lower than it is today. Thus the start of the pause is determined by the current temperature and will change as that changes.
They are not “Terrestrial” but “human-adjusted”.
And it was only a matter of time before the climate extremists decided to throw caution to the wind and try to “prove” man-made warming by fabricating man-made warming.
World governments are pretty hard to form/control. I am expecting this Paris UN Climate Change Conference to fall completely apart.
The level of scientific objectivity of any scientist is inevitalby inversly proportional to the level of activism in which he or she engages. The rate of publication of papers by the leading activist scientists is accelerating as ‘Paris’ approaches. These are at best scientifically suspect. At worst, they are probably scientifically worthless. Sadly, they will still be invaluable as propaganda in the MSM and in the halls of unthinking government.
No number of papers or evidence of cagw failure could in any way possibly, drive or control the outcome of Paris.
Those people already have their objectives and they need no scientific support.
The meet is to decide who pays and how much.
Paris is about how to obtain and divvy up the spoils.
I have to wonder. Don’t these people realize that History will judge them??
They think they’ll get to write the history.
They have a good start by rewriting the temperature data part of history.
…They think they’ll get to write the history…..
At the moment they are able to control the literature that children read in which science fiction disaster scenarios are presented as near unalterable fact. The BBC has a formal policy of brainwashing the public who innocently believe that because the charter demands objective and honest unbiased broadcasting the information they get on climate change is fact.
I think it looks more and more as if they are right.
Not really, they know that the progressives will write the history and they with the help of the MSM will blame the Tea Party and Ted Cruz or who ever is the scapegoat of the day.
Did Dodd or Barney Frank ever get credit for the consequences of requiring the banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford the homes?
I read that home ownership in the US is down to 1968 levels.
The pass society and historians gave the coming ice age 10 year supply of oil Jimmy Carter Era scaremongers has emboldened them. They feel beyond reproach and having a clueless cheerleader in the White-house makes them feel that they can act without impunity. The nice thing is that never in history of the earth has CO2 caused catastrophic warming, not even when it was 7,000 ppm. The entire geologic record, even Al Gore’s chart proves AGW to be a huge hoax. It is only a matter of time before the talk turns to another ice age, and then the questions will start to be asked. Can solar panels and wind farms keep us alive when they are covered is 3 feet of snow?
Can solar panels and wind farms keep us alive when they are covered is 3 feet of snow?….
I got the figures for the 45Kw array at the National trust building with just over half an inch of snow . It produced 800W.
I have not personally examined the datasets. Are the data available in adjusted and raw format? Do they provide itemized conversion factors breaking any adjustments out into different categories (sensor bias, regional corrections, missing data point, etc).
Likely not but thought I’d ask.
Yes, it is available both ways from NCDC, GISS, and BEST in the US. See my post yesterday on USHCN. The global NCDC equivalent is GHCN. All three available on line free.
I say all mainstream government temperature data is manipulated and really should be disregarded.
It took me a couple of readings of your post to truly grasp its insipid nature. Did you really mean to post this? Did you think about what you were writing? You do realize, don’t you, that January 1997 fell immediately after December 1996? Logically, one can very easily make the case that “since December 1996” and “from January 1997” mean the same thing. If an event were to occur on January 1st, it would be since December and from January. There really is no point to your post other than to grasp at straws in finding fault. If you cannot add to the discussion, then just go away.
Oops! I made that mistake, too. Double stars for you!
So, it’s Jan. 1997 +/- maybe a month.
Perhaps, but that was not the original intention. With the May numbers, the start date was December 1. But with the June number, the start date changed to January 1.
(I probably should not go there, but when the date was officially given as December 1, it could have been November 20 for example. But we only have monthly numbers from RSS and not daily numbers, however that is a different issue.)
Honestly pal, is this sort of drivel the best you’ve got? The “pause” being referred to in the data is evidenced by a sub set of the data that shows no uptrend. As you add new data, time marching on and all that, the set changes and you re-evaluate the subset which satisfies the qualifying criterion. Accordingly the start date can vary as well with each re-evaluation ( the end date poitentially changing with each new data point added). Its all down to the general volatility of the data which is pretty plain to see.
Does your ‘argument’ evidence the level your CAGW belief?
Sorry buddy, but it comes across as utterly cretinous.
Yes and, when the BLS puts out numbers for, e.g., unemployment, it generally issues an updated and different value later as new information comes in. Does that mean we do not know what the unemployment numbers are, and they are just throwing darts at a board? Of course not.
This is a stochastic variable. It cannot be determined with perfect accuracy, only estimated. So, the pause started Jan. 1997 +/- maybe a year. If you still do not understand, go take a class in statistics and then resubmit your question.
Has anyone coined the term “Tamperature” yet?
+ 10
Like!
Well coined
Well played.
Though that’s the way we’ve always said it down south. yall
+2.0 C
Hoyt Clagwell
Tamperature!!!!! Laughing out loud. Never saw it before. It is all yours. Sheer genius.
Eugene WR Gallun
+10, too
Eureka, they have “found” the “missing heat”. It was there all along, hiding in plain sight in the data, which merely needed the proper “tweaking”, until it confessed. Just in time for the Great Paris Climate Gab-and-Shriekfest. How convenient.
Indeed. The adjusters have made fools out of a lot of their fellow scientists, many of whom have found reason(s) for lack of warming that actually hasn’t, supposedly, been lacking.
It’s hard to figure out how to say that so it makes any sense.
of course every ipcc report will now be re written in light of karls “discovery”,and all associated papers pre karl will be withdrawn ?
An image appeared in my mind of android called ‘Data’ on the rack of a mediaeval Inquisition whilst Torquemada cries ‘Torture that Data until it confesses’.
At the end of the day, there is no “we” in we. The real “we” is a small group of believers from wealthier countries and the major media who are hailing the 1500 pages final regulations of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan as enlightened and forward-looking.
It has taken me over an hour just to print this testament to environmentalism. It’s anti-fossil fuel and even worse it’s an economic disaster for the 4 billion people living in poverty.
“Too many from great and good for you to doubt the likelihood.” Robert Frost
They are ‘believers’ in a political agenda, not in any science of AGW.
Really? Where do these trollers come from?
Reality will eventually prevail, the land of the Earth is still cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land
Despite all the fiddling and ” adjusting ” the average temperature for July 2015 in the UK and Ireland was below the long term ( 1981_2010 ) average by between .6 and 1.5 degrees Celsius. Likewise June and May were below average in the UK and Ireland. Once again it’s worth remembering the UK Met Office’s prediction for this period _ above average temperatures and a possibility of it being the hottest summer evah! As I’ve said before some people never get tired of being wrong _but why would you when you never get called out on it.
l quite agree Chris, they maybe able to adjust the figures but they can’t adjust the weather.
l for one will be watching the coming winter with interest,because there a chance that this winter could end up calling the warmists buff. lts still early days and things could change. But l think there is a change that we could have below average temps in a area that spans from the Eastern states to NW Russia this winter.
the negative temperature anomalies for the coastal uk waters have been remarkably low, despite being incredibly high the past winter. cooling seas in summer does not bode well for the coming winter here in the uk.
Back in the 1940-50s there were station keepers who went out dutifully to record the weather conditions for years without a gap. I wonder how they would react upon learning their direct readings had been so massively adjusted as to swamp any possible scientific value? “You have to understand, you think you were observing 74°F but we here seventy years later know it was cooler than that because well, because.” I say this because I am part of a long term medical study. I get my blood pressure taken by the same machine used on my grandparents in 1947. I suspect any attempt to lower their readings now would invalidate the entire study.
That’s often my point. These weathermen-of-old recorded data dutuifully I would venture to say with pride in their accuracy.. Their data should have been left sacrosanct, absolutely. To change that data and call the new “data” better is nothing short of a dishonest act.
SO, inquiring minds want to know: How many variations of the multiple adjustments did they consider and then reject to arrive at the predetermined answer? An can we get access to those other runs to see if they overlooked something.
What inquiring minds need to do is disregard their manipulated adjusted data and throw it in the garbage where it belongs, along with their theory.( AGW)
The Tamperor(s) Wear no Clothes.
“Whose going to save the planet from those who are trying to save the planet?”
Anonymous Heins
Please stop saving us!
Monckton’s approach works backwards from Today and asks: How far back can you go and still claim no warming?
If today gets colder that “start” date (which is really an end date working backwards) changes.
Show the math git. Explicitly identify where and why it is impossible.
I see your point of confusion Brian. He frequently references two satellite data sets. Perhaps Monckton used RSS in one case and UAH in the other.
Mikey, Brian’s ‘point of confusion’ is deliberate. For the entire time of the ‘pause,’ my brother has been arguing using Brian’s ‘logic,’ which, at best, is illogic. But my thanks goes to Brian for his persistent obstinacy. In it I see my brother is not alone! He gets hold of a useless point and badgers it endlessly, to no purpose but wearying his opponents!
It’s not a point of confusion – Brian has focused in on this talking point in an effort to discredit Monckton, and he’s taking the Goebbles approach of constant repetition despite the number of times it’s explained to him. Maybe he’s taking Joe Romm’s denialist class on-line or something.
No I think Brian was just uncomfortable with shifting the start date without justification, because if that were to keep up, there could potentially be a forward (but rising) flat pause for years to come. He just didn’t express it well.
BFL: I think you’re being generous. I get Brian’s argument, but I disagree it was a point of ‘being uncomfortable’, nor was it a case of expression – he’s posted the same comment at least half-a-dozen times repetitively, seizing on one point in an effort to discredit the entire issue, because the Pause is obviously the biggest problem in the AGW playbook and therefore it must be eliminated.
Monkton’s methodology aside, as well as distracting quibbling over the exact date as to where the flat line begins, I think it’s safe to say that we have at least a decade-plus of very little variation in defiance of model predictions and there’s clearly a lot of CYA going on, trying to preserve AGW’s viability – with a lot of people whose livelihood – and in some cases, life’s work – depending upon its legitimacy. And in some cases, it’s just that people have expended a lot of emotional energy on the subject and it’s become a personal mission.
“Even though the satellites of RSS and UAH are watching, all three of the terrestrial record-keepers have tampered with their datasets to nudge the apparent warming rate upward yet again. There have now been so many adjustments with so little justification – nearly all of them calculated to steepen the apparent rate of warming – that between a third and a fifth of the entire warming of the 20th century arises solely from the adjustments, which ought to have been in the opposite direction because, as McKitrick & Michaels showed in a still-unchallenged 2007 paper, the overland warming in the datasets over recent decades is twice what actually occurred.”
The adjustments COOL the record.
raw data for both land and ocean ARE COOLER before adjustments
The adjustments COOL the temperature records from the past to increase the RATE of warming. We all do understand this.
“Climate science” is the most bizarre form of “science”:
– The future climate is always “known” with great certainty, yet
– The past climate is constantly changing, with “adjustments”, and new climate proxy estimates !
What other group of scientists is more certain about the future, than the past, other than climate modelers?
Climate models, by the way, are not data, and with no data they are not science — the models are just mathematical representations of the personal opinions of the people who control the programming of the computers.
Average temperature is most likely irrelevant on a planet where the climate is constantly changing — no one lives in the average temperature — ordinary people care about the climate where they live and work, not some average.
Whether Earth is cooling or warming depends mainly on the starting and ending points of the period being examined:
Earth has cooled a lot since the greenhouse ages.
Earth has warmed a lot in the past 15,000 years.
Earth has warmed slightly since 1850.
Earth has cooled since 1998.
Average temperature is always changing.
Earth is always getting warmer or cooler.
SO WHAT ?
Discussions about very rough estimates of the average temperature — measurements that are frequently “adjusted” and “infilled” by smarmy people who are very biased toward showing warming on their charts — are irrelevant discussions, because the data involved only cover about 0.001% of our planet’s history — 150 years of data do not determine a long-term trend for a planet with 4.5 billion years of climate history.
Ice sheets have come and gone, with scientists still not sure why.
Warming in the past 15,000 years was certainly not caused by coal power plants and SUVs.
Temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree are meaningless — they are likely to be measurement errors or random variations.
That’s why charts designed to make temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree look HUGE, grossly exaggerate the important of those tiny changes … but those types of charts are very useful as climate scare propaganda.
More CO2 in the air is good news for green plants and the animals / people who eat them.
If CO2 causes any warming, then it will do so mainly at at night, and mainly in the colder areas of our planet — the time and location when warming will be welcome by the few people who live there.
And warming is good news for everyone — don’t most people take vacations in warmer climates?
If in 1850, I was somehow given the power to choose the climate in 2015, I would have added CO2 to the air to stimulate green plant growth, with less fresh water required for that faster growth, and I would have increased the average temperature by a few degrees (not for me — just to please the always cold wife).
Now that I consider the actual climate in 2015, it’s very obvious the climate in 2015 is BETTER than the climate in 1850 — the green plants are happy, and the wives are not as cold.
When I look at the human progress between 1850 and 2015, I can’t identify ANY bad news caused by more CO2 in the air, and the slight warming — in fact I see that 1850 to 2015 was the most prosperous and healthy 165-year period for humans so far !
The huge reduction in poverty since 1850 was based on:
(1) The use of cheap and dense sources of energy: Coal, natural gas, and oil, and
(2) Inventions spurred by free-market economics, where smart people who develop better products and services that others want to buy, get larger financial rewards by making their customers happier!
More CO2 in the air is good news.
Slight warming since 1850 is good news too.
The only bad news is leftists are taking over our economy, so poverty is no longer declining.
But good climate news doesn’t sell newspapers.
And politicians can’t scare people with good climate news.
So they invent environmental crises out of thin air to scare people, and then they declare the government must be given more power to step in and “save the Earth” … or they just seize power through the EPA as Obama does.
Remember:
– The DDT crisis.
– The hole in the ozone layer crisis.
– The acid rain crisis.
– The global warming crisis.
All are nonsense — false boogeymen to scare people.
When a “crisis” stops scaring people, it is forgotten, and a new “crisis” is invented.
This has been going on since the 1960s..
The politicians lead the way with their glorious “we must save the Earth” speeches, but they need a bunch of nerdy-looking “scientists”, frowning and looking serious, as props.
And that’s where ‘useful idiots’ like Michael Mann, et al, come in — he is a prop for the ‘climate change play’, and gets paid well to make scary predictions about the future climate, which the press loves to quote.
The coming climate change catastrophe is only a political game, a strategy with with the goal of gaining power and money — the science is irrelevant, and that’s why :
– Surface temperature data are “adjusted”, and “re-adjusted”, and “re-re-re-adjusted”,
– Satellite temperature data are ignored,
– Over 75% of raw CO2 measurement data from Hawaii since 1959 are thrown out to make a smooth CO2 curve on a chart,
– Over 90,000 real-time CO2 chemical measurements from the early 1800’s to 1959 are ignored, and ice core proxy CO2 estimates are used instead, creating a suspiciously smooth CO2 curve on a chart.
– The work of geologists and other scientists, concerning historical climate estimates, is generally ignored, or “adjusted” to create a bogus “hockey stick historical temperature chart”, and
– Phony surveys are done to claim 97% of scientists agree, when in fact there is no consensus on a coming climate change catastrophe, nor would it matter if there was a consensus — a “consensus” on what is going to happen in the future is meaningless.
In the history of science, a scientific consensus was often a good leading indicator that a theory was wrong, or would be significantly revised in the future !
Most Important: Computer game predictions of the future climate are not science at all — they are climate astrology.
My free climate blog, with no ads,
and no money for me,
designed for the average guy,
who is not a scientist:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
yes
The right way to look for the Begining of the pause is to start at the begining and look for a BREAKPOINT.
That is you specify a data generating model ( say a linear one ) and then you identify the point where that model breaks down and you have to assume a zero trend to get the data to fit the model.
When this el nino hits the pause will disappear using monktons method.
using a break point approach if it exists it wont disappear.
The time when a no trend series in the data starts can overlap the time when the previous trend-line ends. There is no reason that the end of one has to exactly coincide with the beginning of the next.
If you define a pause as a time interval during which there is no statistically significant increasing or decreasing trend then the pause will start and end where ever it statistically wants to. If you fix the end point as I believe Monkton has then the start point is free to vary. The fun is seeing how far back it goes as time goes on. But you are right, this el nino could break the pause just as easily as adjusting the past.
when this el nino hits ? surely you mean if ? will be interesting to see what the following la nina does, or does not, do to the surface temp trend.
And when this little warming spree, caused by water, ends in three months and the temperature dips it will return much longer in its duration..