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]")
Midnight December 31 1996 ?
Have you ever tried to find out the exact start date of the hundred months to irreversible climate change prediction. The only thing I know for certain it is well before the time in their web site.
In a noisy signal it is difficult to define a precise starting point. On a more pedantic note if the statement does not include the exact start timing we are only talking about a microsecond as the timing quibble point.
Ironically, these adjustments and time series manipulations are also some sort of man made warming.. Sincerely, I wonder who is going to believe their forged evidence, deception made to impose a new world order, and who is going to save us from them. Climate science will need its Snowden moment someday. We can understand that the people involved in this don’t want to step forward and ruin their career, but leaving evidence as a testament is also a possibility. Let’s hope that someone will step forward.
If terrestrial datasets are continuously being adjusted then that means that they are deemed to be continuously inaccurate both now and in the past. If they cannot be deemed accurate then nor can predictions derived from them be deemed accurate.
Easy those ‘measurements’ that support ‘the cause ‘ are accurate any which do not are inaccurate .
Reality of course has nothing to do with it .
In order to satisfy yourself over the perplexing difference between Dec. 1996 and Jan .1997 . you can assume a starting point of midnight December 1996. Doing!! happy new year!
One thing I’ve always wondered is, “Where are the papers that prove these statistical techniques are valid?” What is the name of the paper/s that proved the gridded method of deriving temperature up to 1200 km away actually works? Surely someone used known values from stations to derive values for other known values, and compared the results and proved the technique worked, e.g. used temperatures from stations across the US South to derive values for stations in North Dakota, and arrived at nearly the same numbers as ND’s weather stations.
Similarly for the homogenization methods, and the time of observation adjustments. Surely someone did a paper using controlled station values to derive these methods and prove they are valid. What are their names, who did them, and when were they published?
i asked this question a while back. never did receive an answer 🙁
Concerning your first question, I’m not quite sure, but this may be what you’re looking for.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372, doi:10.1029/JD092iD11p13345.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff_1.pdf
Perhaps the temperature datasets are showing an increase because the global average temperature is actually increasing.
If you are genuinely “open minded” or a skeptic, then you have to consider that possibility.
The problem with that is that the satellite data sets contradict the others. That should not happen.
Werner Brozek.
“The problem with that is that the satellite data sets contradict the others. That should not happen.”
That is an unproven assumption on your part. I do not see any contradiction, the upper air and surface are different things.
svante, the troposphere is supposed to warm at a faster rate than the surface.
See Professor Brown’s comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-divergence-between-latest-uah-and-hadcrut4-revisions-now-includes-april-data/#comment-1959685
Yes, and pigs could fly, and Donald Trump’s “hair” might be real.
If the global temperatures were actually increasing then satellite data and balloon data would also. It is scientific evidence that tampering with surface data has caused this increase. The surface data have not even shown any warming while left alone with no adjustments.
All GISS and HADCRUT excuses previously were because didn’t cover much of the poles. UAH covers more of the poles than GISS and HADCRUT ever will.
Taking this into account the blame on the poles is not an excuse as it is not backed up.
You are 100% correct. In addition if one looks at Antarctica temperature have been much below normal there.
Svante Callendar
Though we are incapable of measuring it, i will grant that at any given time there is such a thing as a “global average temperature”. We have had ice ages and warm periods — thus that “global average temperature” is always changing.
Lately earth has been coming out of “the little ice age” so the “global average temperature” has been rising. This rise we have experienced has not in anyway been harmful — In fact, it has been quite helpful to mankind.
The dispute with the temperature data sets is that their creators seem to deliberately want to increase the “global average temperature” by statistical manipulation of the data. They seem determined to make it higher and its rise quicker than it actually is.
Suggesting that we be “open minded” and grant that the “global average temperature” could actually be rising as stated by the creators of the data sets is what is known as “a straw man argument”.
Though their results spark the argument it is HOW THEY MANIPULATE THE DATA that is being questioned. It is their methods used to arrive at their conclusions that is highly suspect.
We cannot ever know what the “global average temperature” is at any given time — but we can certainly examine the means currently used to estimate it.
These people have gone to great effort to hide the methods they use to manipulate the data. That is highly suspicious in itself. A dishonest accountant only shows you his results and hides how he obtained them. When you see the manipulators of the data sets doing the exact same thing doesn’t that make you suspicious?
So in the future, remember, it is their methods we are arguing about — not the results par se. Though we can never know what the “global average temperature” is at any given time we can determine the VALIDITY of the methods these people are using to calculate it.
But as I said, they don’t want their work examined.
Eugene WR Gallun.
Eugene WR Gallun.
No my point was the global average temperature increase may also be real, to be honest the skeptics have to consider that possibility. Just making up stories that it is fabricated data is just a convenient excuse for ignoring scientific evidence that some skeptics do not like.
The scientists can indeed talk about a “global average temperature” as it is an estimate. ALL temperature measurements are estimates.
Paul Homewood has also done his calculations on HADCRUT’s latest version 4.4
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/hadcrut-cool-the-past-yet-again/
“However, we find that similar adjustments have now been made since the original version 4.0 was released in 2012. Note that the anomaly for 2010, (the last year that appeared on version 4.0), has increased by 0.004C on the latest revision, but by 0.029C over the four revisions since version 4.0.
All of this, of course, is designed to remove the pause. Some would call it fraud.”
They don’t exist. That is how a real science would address this issue, this isn’t a real science. People simply need accept that and go to the next step. How do you battle a fraud with such political support? How did Russia battle Lysenkoism? How did we battle the Piltdown Man? How did we battle Eugenics? Eventually the truth will be exposed in the next cooling cycle. Mother Nature will debunk this “science” on her own. We need to start battling this fraudulent political movement with messages that resonate with the public. Highly scientific arguments simply won’t work. The truth doesn’t matter in politics. Here is a quote that would help in the political approach to this fraud.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/
$1.5 Trillion or $4 billion/day can provide a lot of needy children lunches, build schools and hospitals, repair degenerating bridges, pay down the debt, provide water for California, provided medicines for the elderly and needy. Best yet would be pay unemployment for unemployed coal, gas and oil workers. The Coal Industry and John L Lewis built the modern Democratic Party back in the 1930s and now they are being thrown under the bus. $4 billion/day could fund sensitivity training for cops and promote “black lives matter” events. $4 billion could fund a large number of NEA projects, AIDs research, sanctuaries for Lions, scholarships for illegals, breast cancer research, more funding for Planned Parenthood. Lower tuition for college. More funding for Obamacare. More foreign aid to Africa. $4 billion/day will build a lot of inner city schools. Just think of all the liberal spending priorities that are being underfunded because we are wasting all this money on a hoax. I’m pretty sure Democrats don’t like paying higher utilities and gas bills any more than anyone else, so they get hurt just as much as everyone else by these idiotic policies. We need to start a campaign that lists spending priorities and highlight what isn’t getting done because Climate Change is soaking up al the money and pouring it down a rat hole. The selfishness of these Climate Hoaxsters is of biblical proportions and the human suffering they are willing to inflict on society because of their own misguided priorities is Stalinistic in scale. We simply need to change course on how we battle and expose this hoax. We need to start talking to the American people, give them alternatives, talk in cost benefit terms, talk in terms of alternatives. We need to make this hoax personal. We need to make the American people know they have been played as fools, and they paid for the rip off. We need to generate anger that will send people to the ballot box. American needs an enemy, and the fraudulent climate hoaxsters fit that bill. They have corrupted the educational, scientific, NGO, Media, EPA and government. We need to unleash the IRS on Sierra Club and others that were working closely with the Administration. talking in scientific terms won’t work, we need a political campaign to expose this fraud. We need Coal miner being interviewed. We need “experts” put of the spot to explain how glaciers melt in sub zero temperatures. We need “experts” to explain how CO2 can result in a 20 pause and how did ice ages occur in the past when CO2 was 4000ppm? We need an angry electorate.
Where is the IRS?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/emails-appear-to-show-coordination-between-epa-environmental-groups-on-power/
co2islife: Well said! Here in Europe, we have more of the ‘climate change’ lunacy at work. I have in front of me a European Commission press release from Warsaw dated 19th November 2013, obtained via the internet.
It says:
“At least 20% of the entire European budget for 2014-2020 will be spent on climate-related projects and policies, following the European Parliament’s approval today of the 2014-2020 EU budget. The 20% commitment triples the current share and could yield as much as 180 billion Euros in climate spending in all major EU policy areas over the seven-year period.”
180,000,000,000 Euros.
A colossal waste of money which could be much better spent on improving people’s lives in the real world, as you point out.
do you have a link for that quote carbon 500 ,i would like to post that information elsewhere.
bit chilly: here’s the EU budget link you’ve asked for.
If it doesn’t work, just type in ‘An EU budget for low-carbon growth’ into your search engine. The quote I’ve used is the first sentence in the document, so you’ll know straightaway that you’ve got the correct one. I’m pleased that you’ll be able to make use of it.
bit chilly: sorry, I forgot to paste the link! Here it is:
http://www.ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/docs/pr_2013_11_19_en.pdf
[Added www to front of link. Is that what you intended? .mod]
thanks for that link ,utterly astounding !
what a fantastic post by co2 is life. well said that man. the only part i would change is when you say americans, i would say all people of the developed world,this is a global fraud.