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 "clip_image002[4]")
![clip_image004[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0044.jpg "clip_image004[4]")
![clip_image006[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0064.jpg "clip_image006[4]")
![clip_image008[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0084.jpg "clip_image008[4]")
![clip_image010[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0104.jpg "clip_image010[4]")
January 1990 to June 2015
![clip_image012[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0124.jpg "clip_image012[4]")
![clip_image014[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0144.jpg "clip_image014[4]")
![clip_image016[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0164.jpg "clip_image016[4]")
![clip_image018[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0184.jpg "clip_image018[4]")
![clip_image020[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0204.jpg "clip_image020[4]")
January 1997 to June 2015
![clip_image022[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0224.jpg "clip_image022[4]")
![clip_image024[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0244.jpg "clip_image024[4]")
![clip_image026[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0264.jpg "clip_image026[4]")
![clip_image028[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0284.jpg "clip_image028[4]")
![clip_image030[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0304.jpg "clip_image030[4]")
HadCRUT4: comparison of the old and new versions
![clip_image032[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0324.jpg "clip_image032[4]")
![clip_image034[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0344.jpg "clip_image034[4]")
![clip_image036[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0364.jpg "clip_image036[4]")
![clip_image038[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0384.jpg "clip_image038[4]")
![clip_image040[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0404.jpg "clip_image040[4]")
![clip_image042[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/clip_image0424.jpg "clip_image042[4]")
Well it appears that the ‘winter gales’ have come early to the UK this year.
Because there is a ‘sea ban’ in place in SW England due to the large waves and bad weather
Winter Gales – was she in a 50’s sit com?
Don’t know, not old enough to remember 😉
But this July has been rather cool with unusually strong gales for the time of year in Scotland and now SW England. This is what happens with a cooler Atlantic and a more zonal southern tracking jet stream. lt risks leading to cooling in northern europe during the summer.
Wait, wasn’t that Gail Winters
Changing the reported temperature anomalies has not hidden the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate. Only existing data [Phanerozoic (last 542 million years) and current ice age] and a grasp of the fundamental relation between math and the physical world are needed or used. The proof is at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
“Make what you can of them: but I, for one, will place no further reliance on any of the three terrestrial datasets..”
Promise? Well that’s a relief!
[Rick, what makes you think anyone cares about your opinion on this? -Anthony]
It depends on the International Dateline.
You might consider this land based data/chart made by Michael Palmer, Department of Chemistry University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
It would be nice to see that chart brought up to current time and compared to U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/14/despite-attempts-to-erase-it-globally-the-pause-still-exists-in-pristine-us-surface-temperature-data/
Here is the longest continual thermometer record going back to the mid 1600s.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Central-England.jpg
How does CO2 cause such variation?
Yes!! I knew it!! I remember 1957 well, it was very hot, unbearably so, in southern England, so hot I went swimming in some very dirty southern English rivers to help stay cool, along with thousands of other southern English people. My dad’s boss’ house had a basement where it was pleasantly cool, and I wished that we could have been rich enough to have a basement of our own. So there you have it, 1957 was the hottest year ever in Central/Southern England (except for 2015 of course, and before that 2014, 2013, 2012, etc. all the “hottest years ever”).
Thanks Lord M. Another solid contribution.
Bearing in mind your central point in this post is the obvious data tampering that has now ruined 3 land-based data-sets, I thought you may like to consider the post below which I put onto Bishop Hill earlier tonight. Just as a change of government here has resulted in ‘renewables’ subsidies and some green policies being axed, so too could a change of senior government personnel result in a potentially disastrous come-uppance for the climate data-snatchers. See below: (slightly amended from my original post at BH)
***********************
“Tom Hayes has just got 14 years in jail for fixing / rigging Libor rates across the globe. Ouch! Now ask yourself – away from the world of finance is there a more data-sensitive area that is completely dependent on accurate information than ‘climate change’? I doubt it. False data has cost implications running into hundreds of $billions, and that’s before social policy, commercial advantages / losses and personal career prospects are considered.
Nobody has given this guy any sympathy whatsoever so that means a clear precedent has now been set regarding public acceptance of severe penalties for manipulating public policy-influencing data. The guys who’ve been adjusting climate data – and they clearly have been, have left their handy work right there in the public domain. Oops. They could be in for a few sleepless nights following this very interesting precedent, and I wonder if you think it’s worth a bit of sabre-rattling?”
*********************
So, there you have it. Following Hayes’ 14 year jail sentence for adjusting and rigging Libor data, it should now only be a matter of time before a similar fate befalls our friendly data-changing climate criminals. Tick tock.
The obvious advantage of climate change as the basis of this scam is that it’s notoriously hard to quantify. You can’t prove it is a problem, but at the same time you can’t prove that it isn’t. Even the most in-depth analyses always leave some nagging doubt that it m-i-g-h-t just be a problem after all. Plus you can even knock-down almost all of the postulates of the alarmists, but that still doesn’t entirely dismiss their argument.
Thus, the scam has a long potential lifetime. If a more readily analysable scare had been chosen, then the question would have been settled too quickly for a morass of legislation, all beneficial to the scammers, to have built-up around it.
The ‘millennium bug’ was an example of a similarly effective scare story which also persuaded firms to spend large amounts of unnecessary money on mitigation measures, but one with a too definite sell-by date after which it was not credible. The main worry of the climate alarmists is that the 21stC cessation of warming is their equivalent of going to work on Jan 3rd 2000 and finding that all is normal. Except, it will take more like a decade to sink in, instead of a day or two. By which time it may be too late to undo the damage.
Well the Crimastrologists have just endorsed this as their theme tune,changing ‘He’ to ‘We’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3r0CFKzILo
BGV
I’m no NFL statistician – this is a pure example – and, besides, I like the Bears.
If on 1st January 2018 the Bears have won six Superbowls [so they’re fourth equal in all time SB wins] – that’s a fact.
If they win the 2018 SB – on January 14th [say – my brother’s 60th birthday] they will then have won seven SBs.
So you or I could say on 16th January 2018 ‘The Bears have won 7 SBs! They’re now third equal!’
Simple things for a simple mind – or a determined deviant?
Auto – I watched the ’46’ and the Refrigerator get a TD
Haha, got to laugh. Is Tim Tebow the new Refrigerator, the go-to man on the one yard line? I hope he makes the team. I want to see how he is used. The old Refrigerator was a lot of fun to watch — unstoppable force meets immovable object.
Eugene WR Gallun
Why is the most pristine data set being ignored?
?w=780&h=450
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn
“Data from NOAA’s premiere surface reference network. The contiguous U.S. network of 114 stations was completed in 2008. There are two USCRN stations in Hawaii and deployment of a network of 29 stations in Alaska continues. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years? ”
” These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. ”
Here is the plotted data from this pristine un-adjusted data set:
where is the warming in the USA
There is an intellectual root that allows the likes of Mr Karl [of NCDC] to rationalize that he can cut science off from reality; that intellectual root was the irrational reaction by Immanuel Kant to a developing modern skepticism/empiricism; such as the skepticism/empiricism expressed by Kant’s contemporary David Hume. The Kant irrational reaction to skepticism/empiricism spawned the post modern philosophy of science which Mr Karl uses to perform fiat science.
John
McKitrick & Michaels 2007 paper was challenged in 2008 by Schmidt, quick search, not hard to find.
I am afraid that poor old Obama and Strong, Figueres, Ban-Ki Moon, Orestes, Schellnhuber, Suzuki etc and all their Liberal Luvvie mates are badly mistaken if they think that China or India are going to give a tinkers fart about their plans to rule the world from Paris. They missed the boat by 20 years.
I wonder what ISIS think of this challenge to THEIR world domination ?
AndyG55:
Perhaps that is the point. The Obaminator doesn’t want to deal with real problems so he is keeping things internalized with classic misdirection. Look how he has dealt with China, Iran, the ISIS threat, Russia …
So he needs a straw man. Chamberlainesque. The US will need another Pearl Harbour to look globally. Meanwhile the BRICS countries are strengthening.
To be fair, it may be several years too late to do anything about ISIS. They are already amongst us. While ‘we’ worry about CAGW, (Fiddling), the world (Rome) burns. I believe I have heard that somewhere before.
[On June 3rd 2015 Monckton said, “For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming”
…
Now on August 4th, 2015 Monckton says: “The third period, from January 1997, runs from the month in which the Great Pause of 18 years 6 months began.” ]
No idea why this has caused an issue? There are two different periods shown with no pause because two different data sets don’t agree. If somebody doesn’t know which one is best to choose, therefore you can’t pick which period of the pause it was.
Scientifically we can pick which data set is best to choose because one covers the planet better than the other.
UAH shows the pause 18 years 5 months.
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
RSS shows the pause 18 years 6 months.
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
UAH covers more of the poles than RSS, so would always consider this product the best choice if you have to pick one.
So picking one period most likely correct for the pause would be 18 years 5 months.
They have still failed to notice the law of holes.
The fact average surface temperature is rising faster, than that of the bulk troposphere (as measured by satellites) is extremely damaging to the prevailing climate paradigm in general and specifically to computational climate models.
It should be the other way around. Global average temperature of the lower troposphere (~3.5 km elevation) is expected to change some 20% faster than that of the surface and 40% faster in the tropics (between 20N &. 20S), a.k.a. “hot spot”.
According to all available datasets, it is not the case.
There can be two distinct solutions to this puzzle.
1. Rate of surface warming is overestimated by 50-60%
2. Climate theory is flawed, average absolute humidity is actually decreasing in the upper troposphere
In either case, a big trouble is brewing.
Brian’s ranting has prompts me to ask a more serious question. At some point the pause will presumably end and we will see either renewed warming or cooling. What will be the trigger for declaring the pause to be over, and how will the end date for the pause be identified? Monckton’s method doesn’t look well suited to identifying the end of the pause.
Natural cycle oscillations of around 30 year periods occur in the data for many decades. The planet cools for around 30 years then warms for around 30 years and this has happened since the last ice age. Nothing so far has been different from this natural oscillation. All periods of warming or cooling lasting longer than 15 years have always ended up with this 30 year oscillation. Based on this evidence the period is already long enough to show it is not a pause and just part of the next 30 year cooling oscillation.
Ian, you raise excellent questions. As far as GISS and Hadcrut4 are concerned, the pause has indeed either ended or is less than a year, which I would not classify as a pause. In cases like this, we can point to the time for no statistically significant warming which always has some value. We can also point out how the small rise in temperature is way less than the models have predicted which is the case for NOAA, GISS and Hadcrut4, even though they no longer show a pause.
Not only are the Climate policies ramping up, fiscal instability in world economies is getting closer to crisis point. Puerto Rico next on the basket case list and the USA looking to raise rates, shut down Congress (again) and reduce its credit rating. If One World Government is the goal, the conditions are ripe for seizing control
So, I guess the following is no longer “operative”?
IPCC, AR5 (2013), WG1, Chapter 2, p. 194:
“Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).”
http://ipcc.wikia.com/wiki/152.4.3_Global_Combined_Land_and_Sea_Surface_Temperature
Ooops, that is a problem. Instead of spending all this time exposing the fraud by highlighting all the statistical manipulations the climate “scientists” do, I would use their manipulations against them. Hoist them by their own petards. If temperatures are truly increasing at an abnormal and accelerating rate, sea levels would show the same acceleration. They don’t. There are countless dogs that don’t bark in the conclusion of the climate “scientists.” Climate “science” is a fraud, the people perpetrating it know it is a fraud, that is exposed in the Climategate emails. Dr Thompson knows it is sublimation, not melting, that is causing the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier to disappear. They have to know they are wrong or why else would they violate just about every commonly accepted scientific and statistical practice? To commit this fraud you don’t do it by accident, you have to do it in a premeditated manner. I would instead focus on the smoking guns and use their own data to hang them. The climate “scientists” claim that the oceans are warming, and they blame it on CO2. CO2 traps IR radiation between 13µ and 18µ. Changing CO2 from 250 to 400 ppm resulted in an increase in IR radiation of 346.7 to 347.6, or less than 1W/M^2 (use looking up, tropical, no clouds or rain, 0.01K)
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The question then becomes can 1W/M^2 applied over 150 years warm the oceans? The answer is hell no. If the answer is hell no, then the next question is what is warming the oceans. Once that question is asked, the conclusion is the same thing that is warming the oceans is warming the atmosphere, and that something is the sun.
Also, H20 absorbs the same spectrum and much more than CO2. Change the humidity by 10% and see what happens. If the GHG effect can cause catastrophic warming, H20 would have done it a long time ago. A 10% change in humidity can increase the radiation by 7 W/M^2, 347.6 to 354.5. Basically H20 renders CO2 impotent. H20 can be 4 parts per 100, CO2 is 4 parts per 10,000.
Once again, warming and energy is all math, and math provides the way to expose the fraud. The climate scientists have twined the ropes that will be used to hang them. Either the calculator is wrong, or the Climate “Scientists” are wrong. I bet on the calculator being right.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
“The terrestrial temperature records are now mere fiction.”, yes, very sadly so.
“Once science was done by measurement: now it is undone by fiat”.
Sums it up perfectly,.
I don’t know what some of the giants of science,such as Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Faraday, Einstein, Feynmann, Bohr, Turing, Curie, Watson, Crick, etc etc would think about it all, but I strongly suspect they wouldn’t like it.
Having ‘adjusted’ their way into World Governance, it will be a simple matter to ‘normalise’ the data over time to show how ‘successful’ eco-marxist policies are in general, and power impoverishment is in particular. The crushing cold will do the rest.
The July anomaly for RSS came in at 0.289. As a result, the negative trend goes from January 1, 1997 to July 31, 2015, or a period of 18 years and 7 months.
The following is for Brian G Valentine and anyone else who is interested.
The slope from January 1, 1997 is -0.000252. The slope from December 1, 1996 is +0.000141. Note that the negative slope is larger than the positive slope. This means that the “real” starting time for the period of 0 slope is closer to December 1 than January 1. The difference between the two slopes is 0.000393. Let us now make an assumption that may not be true but which is the best we can make under the circumstances. Namely let us assume that the change during December 1996 was uniform. If we assume this, then the starting time for the pause is 0.000141/ 0.000393 x 31 =11, or in other words, December 11, 1996.
Lord Monckton will rightly say the pause goes from January 1997 to July 2015, or 18 years and 7 months. However if he would say it went from December 1996 to July 2015, he would not be totally wrong. It is just that it is from December 11 and not December 1.
Brian, by what mechanism does CO2 increase to warm us out of an ice age? Why didn’t we have catastrophic warming when CO2 was 7,000 ppm, how did we fall into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm? Lastly, CO2 increased from 250 to 400 over the past 150 years. The additional heat absorbed by CO2 is 1W/M^2, how is that enough to warm the oceans?
It could make a huge difference!
When that was written, the slope was 0 (or slightly negative) from September 1996. The zero line would have been around an anomaly of 0.24. Had the anomaly stayed at 0.24 or very close to it since then, the pause would still start in September 1996. However since it is now starting in January 1997, it just means that more recent months were above 0.24. And a really strong El Nino over many months could make the pause disappear entirely as has already happened with GISS and Hadcrut4.
On the other hand, if we get a strong La Nina, with anomalies being way below 0.24, then the start of the pause gets pushed back earlier.
Today, the pause is 18 years and 7 months long on RSS and it starts January 1, 1997 since that is the first full month that the slope is negative. The starting time could change next month however if the August anomaly is way above or way below 0.24.
Hello again Brian.
You’re either being wilfully obtuse or are irredeemably thick. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about your intelligence, which leaves only one possible conclusion.
Bye bye.
Brian, what do any of your questions have to do with Monckton’s methodology? You’ve yet to show you even understand his methodology yet you keep asking the same questions for which you’ve been given the answers to by numerous people in this thread alone. Time to take your trolling elsewhere.
The absurdity of you finding fault in an immaterial 1 second difference, and ignoring all the flaws routinely produced by the climate “scientists” is absurd on its face. Why don’t you apply the same standards to the IPCC and other Climate ‘Scientists?” My questions are intended to expose your epic level of hypocrisy. Clearly you are a student of Saul Alynski, a deceitful propagandist, and not a student of real science.
You should ask the people adjusting all the historical records. The pause can be defined in numerous ways.
Here is the temperature record. Today’s temperature is at or below the same level of 2002, 1998, 1996, 1991, 1988 and close to 1984. That is the unfortunate reality the pause deniers must cope with. BTW Brian, how does 1W/^2 warm the oceans? How does CO2 cause local warming in the Arctic? How does CO2 cause glaciers and ice to melt in sub zero temperatures like those found on Mt Kilimanjaro’s peak?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2015_v6.png
Lord Monckton, I would move beyond exposing the data manipulations and flaws in the AGW theory and science. It is a fraud, anyone with a 2nd grade education is science can see that. The warmists will simply keep putting our crap in order to keep everyone chasing their tails. These are distraction tactics. Liberals perfected that concept, just read Rule for Radicals by Saul Alynski. Deceit, deception, distortion and manipulation is their well published MO. Don’t fall into their trap. What we need to do is to start promoting a Science Verification and Validation Agency to verify the validity of any science paid for by the tax payer and used to promote a public policy. This science is so bad because there are no watch dogs. People are being paid to lie, cheat and steal. We need an agency that does double blind testing on all the data and conclusions. As long as people like Michael Mann can be exposed as a fraud in the climategate emails, and then an “internal” investigations exonerated him, the corrupt cycle will continue. There is simply too much money at stake. Eisenhower warned us about it in his farewell address.
We need to have an independent agency verify the data and validity of the conclusions, and have it done in a double blind manner. If you remove the titles of these climate “science” graphs and ask people to interpret them they will reach the exact opposite of the climate “scientists.” If you put the data into a computer and run a stepwise regression CO2 would never be selected as the most significant variable. Only when people with preconceived conclusions look at the data does CO2 become important.Remove the bias and the fraud is exposed.
This is evidence of a bias, not a valid theory. The only way you get something to error completely to one side is if you systematically fail. Climate “science” is a systematic failure because it is based upon CO2, and not the Sun and Water Vapor and clouds. Once again, CO2 can’t warm the oceans with its 1W/M^2 marginal energy input. The sun is heating the oceans which in turn warm the atmosphere.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628×353.jpg
Tom Karl — The Devil Is In The Size Of
The Adjustment Between Data Sets
In data given special care
I proved the “Pause” was never there
“It isn’t there!” is what I say
My paper made it go away!
The magic that my data gets?
Adjustment twixt the data sets!
That little number up or down
Creates a slope that’s — up or down
I admit a lousy poem — but it makes a true point. The slope is created by the size of the adjustment between the two data sets. Karl thinks he has found a way to compare apples with oranges. Doesn’t work.
Karl used the rare instances where ship data and buoy data were close together in space and time (I hope) and used the difference between them to determine his “adjustment”.
!) This adjustment is just “luck of the draw”. (Or did he cherry pick which ships and buoys to use leaving certain ones out?)..
2) Both ship and buoy data have margins of error that combined greatly increase the margin of error of his adjustment. The margin of error of the adjustment would be so large as to make it meaningless even if the whole concept was not flawed.
Anyway that is my poetic take on Tom Karl’s inane paper.
Eugene WR Gallun.
As HH Lamb wrote in 1982:
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…