20 false representations in one 10-minute video

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:

clip_image002

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.

mann-video-satellite-record

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:

clip_image004

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:

clip_image006

After all adjustments from 2010-2015, the graphs for 2002-2008 still show cooling:

clip_image008

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:

clip_image010

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:

clip_image012

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:

clip_image014

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:

clip_image016

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:

clip_image018

clip_image020

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:

clip_image022

16. that column water vapor is increasing, though not all records show an increase and at least one, ISCCP, shows a decline:

clip_image024

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:

clip_image026

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:

clip_image028

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:

clip_image030

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.”

194 thoughts on “20 false representations in one 10-minute video

  1. 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.

  2. I don’t know why but I expect Dr. Mann to end his speech with “Bdee, bdee, bdee… that’s all folks!”

  3. 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”.

  4. 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 !!

  5. “The deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here –”

    hypertext missing?

  6. This page is bookmarked…a bit like drinking from a fire hose but I’ll take it all in eventually. Many thanks.

  7. “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.

  8. 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.

    • 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:

      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:

      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:

      This bar graph from Nature shows the raw data (left) compared with the “adjusted” chart (right):

      I hope that answers your question. If not, I have lots more charts…

    • Perhaps, because the long-term sea level rise is negligible, Mr. Lott.

      We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas’s (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.

      The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration. ***

      It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

      (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, https://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

      https://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.

      • 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:

    • 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

  9. “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.

      • where they have to sample and interpolate (“empirically”)

        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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  10. 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 ….

    • both NASA and NOAA carried less than a 50% probability for such

      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 :-)

  11. 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.

  12. 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).”

    NCDC: “The warmest years shown are 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014, all close to a 0.65°C anomaly.”

    BEST shows average cooling after 2005:

    UAH definitely shows a pause after 1998:

      • 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):

        with

        This:

      • 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.

        #(:))

      • 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):

      … your claim of cooling after 2005 needs to be revised…

      .

      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… .”

  13. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

    • 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?

      • 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:

        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.

        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.

        You just asserted that it’s wrong

        (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):

      deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here – {LINK TO COME…. when the time in Europe turns from the dead of night into day, no doubt}…

      (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

    • 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.

      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.

      10. You’re trying to falsify the claim of a downhill trend by showing a downhill trend?

      No, he is showing the trend is downhill BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER the 1998 El Nino.

      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?

      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.

      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).

      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.

      • Dear Werner and Janice,

        those extra 7 months are deep in La Nina territory

        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.

        No, he is showing the trend is downhill BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER the 1998 El Nino.

        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.

        The 10 year trend does not go back to the 97/98 El Nino.

        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.

        There is no way that the ocean could lose this 0.023 C and make the atmosphere 23 C warmer.

        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.

      • “Deep in La Nina territory” is rather an exaggeration to say the very least.

        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.

        Refuting there was a downhill trend after 1998 by showing there was a downhill trend both before and after 1998.

        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.

        The 10 year trend does not go back to the 97/98 El Nino.
        Well no obviously it doesn’t. Who said it did?

        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?

        The point was that Lord Monckton argued the amount of heat going into the ocean to be very small.

        It IS small. All of those Hiroshima bombs in the ocean cannot even be detected by your skin.

      • 1

        The May 1997 anomaly was 0.024

        Global temperature is not a good index for ENSO. May 1997 is by no means “deep in La Nina territory”.

        2

        I must be missing your point. The slope is downhill from 1998 as well as from 2001.

        Yes it is. And that was the statement that was made in the video as well. So the statement from the video:

        that the spike in temperatures in 1998 entailed a downhill trend thereafter

        is not being refuted.

        3

        So how can the 97/98 El Nino be removed if it is not even present in the 10 year data set?

        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

        It IS small. All of those Hiroshima bombs in the ocean cannot even be detected by your skin.

        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.

      • The temperature increase is small, the increase in heat is not

        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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. And hear I thought I could not possibly be more disgusted with Mann et al after the email debacle and subsequent whitewash.

  18. 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.

  19. and in the 2000s, though the terrestrial data agreed and after adjustments still agree with the satellites that there was cooling

    Further to the above, my very first article on WUWT showed the following flat periods for several different data sets.
    See:
    https://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.)

  20. though the decadal blocks were calculated to conceal the absence of global warming over much of the past two decades

    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.

  21. 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?

  22. How long can the American Geophysical Union dole out subscriber monies to Michael E. Mann (in cash) for only to supplant his “Life Style” as an “Endangered Climate ‘Scientist'” under their Ponzi Scheme, the “Climate Scientist Defense Fund”?

    When will the USA IRS slam the HAMMER to the Head (And Executive Officer and her “sexual troops”) of the American Geophysical Union for money laundering and other high crimes and felonies and treasons (monies shuffled to Iran for over two decades)?

  23. you like RSS?

    1. It’s “calibrated” against radiosondes? Lets see
    Here is what Mcintyree says about that data

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/03/raobcore-adjustments/
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/27/leopold-in-the-sky-with-diamonds/

    Pull quote: “Radiosonde adjusters take adjustment to extremes not contemplated in the surface record – ultimately even changing the sign of the trend. Sort of like Hansen on steroids.”

    Now, lets get to the nuts and bolts of how RSS calculates temperatures.

    1. Diurnal corrections. The satellite crosses the equator at the same time, or at least it is designed to.
    and it records BRIGHTNESS ( not temperature) since it doesnt view all of the earth at the same time
    it has to make a TOBs correction ( yup just like surface data ) and as the orbit drifts they also have to
    correct for this. How do they do this? Suppose they view a part of the earth at 8AM.. well, they want to
    correct this and pretend that the observation was made at noon. To do this they have “know” the relationship between temperatures at 8am and noon…

    here is how it is described in their Theory documents

    “For each channel, we have constructed a brightness temperature climatology as a
    function of location, time of day, time of year, and Earth incidence angle. The
    climatology was constructed by feeding 5 years of hourly climate model output (from
    CCM3) into a radiative transfer model to calculate an hourly gridded brightness
    temperature dataset. These data were averaged to construct the climatology. The
    climatology is used to adjust the measured brightness temperatures so that they
    correspond to measurements made at local noon, and to convert measurements at local
    noon to local midnight.”

    CCM3 is…. a….. CLIMATE MODEL

    And what does RSS say about that?

    “It is
    possible that significant errors are present in the CCM3-derived diurnal cycles, since errors
    have been demonstrated to be present in the diurnal cycle of cloud cover and precipitation,
    and the diurnal cycle in near-surface air temperature appears to be too small in the model ”

    The other models that get used to create temperature from brightness are NCEP and a raditive
    transfer model

    “For each channel, we have constructed a brightness temperature climatology for the
    nominal Earth incidence for each view angle for the instrument, in addition to the first
    and second derivatives with respect to changes in Earth incidence angle. The
    climatology is constructed as a function of position and time of year. This is used to
    calculate adjustments for changes in Earth incidence angle, and also to refer
    measurements to nadir. This table is constructed from NCEP long-term means using a
    radiative transfer model.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Mean_Layer_Temperatures_RSS/AlgorithmDescription.pdf

    • Over the area covered by the ONLY evenly spaced untampered surface data, UAH is almost an exact trend match.

      This VALIDATES the satellite data extraction algorithms…. as does it match to radiosonde data.

      And no amount of yabbering on your behalf can alter that fact.

      And yes, I know you haven’t got clue what “validates” means.

      • ONCE AGAIN Mosher make a long comment with information openly given from honest scientists who explain the challenges they face, unlike the surface record crowd which primarily talks about problems in their data sets only when skeptics point out MAJOR issues.
        ONCE AGAIN Mosher fails to note the close agreement between the Satellites and direct observation weather balloons.
        ONCE AGAIN Mosher fails to note that CAGW theory predicts the overall troposphere is, according to the physics of CAGW, suppose to warm 20 percent faster then the surface, not 100 percent less going on for 18 plus years.

      • “ONCE AGAIN Mosher fails to note the close agreement between the Satellites and direct observation weather balloons.”

        Actually not.

        The Weather balloon data is HIGHLY adjusted.. very small sample.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015487/full
        Dont believe thorne? read Mcintyre
        Dont believe him… Go get the RAW data and look for yourself!!!

        Here is the point.. There is only one dataset that is actually tied to SI standards

        ““[3] With the notable exception of the Keeling curve of CO2 concentration changes [Keeling et al., 1976], to date there exists no climate record that is definitively tied to SI standards. Such records require comprehensive metadata, traceability at every step to absolute (SI) standards, and a careful and comprehensive calculation of error budgets [Immler et al., 2010]. They are expensive, time consuming to produce, and difficult to construct and maintain. It is therefore understandable that virtually all of the historical meteorological data available to the community fail, usually substantially, to measure up to such exacting standards. As a result, there will always be uncertainty in establishing how the climate system has evolved, notwithstanding careful attempts to identify and adjust for all apparent nonclimatic artifacts. Despite some claims to the contrary, no single approach is likely to encapsulate all of the myriad uncertainties in the data set construction process. The issue is most critical for multidecadal trends, since residual errors act as red noise, projecting most strongly onto the longest timescales [Seidel et al., 2004; Thorne et al., 2005b].”

      • “Over the area covered by the ONLY evenly spaced untampered surface data, UAH is almost an exact trend match.

        This VALIDATES the satellite data extraction algorithms…. as does it match to radiosonde data.”

        1. Actually NOT
        2. It sorta “matches” HIGHLY ADJUSTED Pencil whipped Radiosonde data
        3. Do you even read the literature or download data to see for yourself.. or did you trust someone?
        ah yes… good little WUWT skeptics never look at real data..

        And yes, I know you haven’t got clue what “validates” means.

        1. So… since the data is adjusted by a GCM.. AND then gets a valid answer… Logic says
        GCMs are right.

        ############

      • Yawn ,

        Keep panel-beating that lemon that is Giss, Noaa, Best.. Its all you can do as a one of the “Dodgy bros”

      • David A.

        “This VALIDATES the satellite data extraction algorithms…. as does it match to radiosonde data.”

        waaa.

        Here you go

        Comparisons between Satellite and Radiosondes.

        http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2012_MSU_AMSU_Short_Term_Trends.pdf

        “Multidecadal-scale changes in atmospheric temperature have been measured by both
        radiosondes and the satellite-borne microwave sounding unit (MSU). Both measurement
        systems exhibit substantial time varying biases that need to removed to the extent
        possible from the raw data before they can be used to assess climate trends. A number
        of methods have been developed for each measurement system, leading to the creation
        of several homogenized data sets. In this work, we evaluate the agreement between
        MSU and homogenized radiosonde data sets on multiyear (predominantly 5-year) time
        scales and find that MSU data sets are often more similar to each other than to
        radiosonde data sets and vice versa. Furthermore, on these times scales the differences
        between MSU data sets are often not larger than published internal uncertainty estimates
        for the RSS product alone and therefore may not be statistically significant when the
        internal uncertainty in each data set is taken into account. Given the data limitations it is
        concluded that using radiosondes to validate multidecadal-scale trends in MSU data, or
        vice versa, or trying to use such metrics alone to pick a ‘winner’ is an ill-conditioned
        approach and has limited utility without one or more of additional independent
        measurements, or methodological, or physical analysis.”

        “It is tempting to extend this approach to the
        evaluation of long-term trends in geophysical variables with
        well-established measurement techniques, such as atmospheric
        sounding. For example, one could use radiosonde/
        satellite inter-comparison studies to try to make determinations
        of satellite data set quality. In fact a number of studies
        have been used to suggest that one of the MSU data sets is
        more accurate than the others, based on a closer agreement
        with various radiosonde measurements. Randall and
        Herman [2008] compared MSU measurements with the
        results from a subset of a single radiosonde data set and
        concluded that the University of Alabama, Huntsville
        (UAH) satellite data set was more accurate than the RSS
        data. They focused on trends in the data set differences over
        5-year and 10 year periods, and on a limited analysis period.
        Christy et al. [2010] reached a similar conclusion using a
        similar short-term trend analysis, but analyzed only within
        the deep tropics, and only one time period (1989–1995).
        Christy et al. [2007] used tropical radiosonde measurements
        (both raw soundings and a single homogenized data set) to
        argue that the RSS data set contains a spurious warming
        trend in the tropics during the early 1990s, with the bulk of
        the analysis of MSU-radiosonde differences focusing on this
        period. Conversely, Po-Chedley and Fu [2012] argued for a
        significant discontinuity in the early portion of the UAH
        record associated with the short life-time NOAA-9 satellite.
        All these papers used a limited number of radiosonde data
        sets, and focused their attention on a limited time period.”

        “Several papers, often authored by the developers of the
        radiosonde data sets themselves, have addressed the first
        question and have mostly concluded that substantial
        decadal-scale errors may remain even in the homogenized
        data [Lanzante et al., 2003; Randel and Wu, 2006; Titchner
        et al., 2009]. A number of investigators have specifically
        caveated that it is probable that significant residual errors
        remain in the tropics where the network is sparse and most
        observations are daytime only when radiation effects are
        more important [Randel and Wu, 2006; Sherwood et al.,
        2005, 2008; Titchner et al., 2009].”

        “We have used methods similar to those presented in
        RH2008 to analyze 5- and 10-year trends in adjusted
        radiosonde and Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) measurements
        of tropospheric temperature utilizing an inclusive
        range of MSU and radiosonde products. In all cases we find
        that there are several time periods during which there is
        substantial disagreement between 5-year trends in radiosonde
        data sets and 5-year trends in the MSU data sets.
        Sometimes these differences cancel over longer time periods,
        perhaps leading to false or overly confident conclusions
        about the agreement between satellite and radiosonde data
        sets on multidecadal time scales. When data from different
        MSU – radiosonde pairs are examined, the results indicate
        that all MSU-sonde differences share many common features,
        and that in most cases, the differences between
        radiosondes and MSU is much larger than between different
        MSU data sets, or between different radiosonde data sets.
        Given the current state of knowledge, we are unable to
        determine whether this commonality is due to shared problems
        in the MSU data sets, or to shared problems with the
        radiosonde data sets, or a combination of both. It is possible
        that both types of data sets retain substantial common biases
        within their respective types. For MSU data the three different
        versions are derived from identical raw source data. If
        there is a time-dependent bias in the raw data that none of
        the merging procedures is able to detect and remove, then
        the common bias would obviously remain in all three data
        sets. A similar argument holds for the radiosonde data sets,
        though in this case, the underlying, unadjusted data sets
        differ in the number and locations of radiosonde stations
        used.”

      • Tell ya what Moshpit,

        How about you show us where the surface temperature data for, say Africa comes from..

      • Poor Mosh.. he really is taking his part as a PAID FRONTMAN for Muller and his alarmist cronies at the BEST data adjustment factory, rather seriously, isn’t he. ;-)

      • Come on moshpit.. you must know where your data is coming from.

        Please show us the locations of the well placed, evenly spaced, un-affected surface data stations in Africa and south America.

        I found one in Addis Ababa.. at the airport !!

        Can you also tell me what percentages of the total area on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere are covered directly by surface data……

        ……. and I don’t mean an airport or urban reading smeared over the whole countryside for 1000+km in every direction.

      • The ‘thing’ about Mosher is, he may or may not be right, but, that is not the point.

        He wants you to THINK; think about your assumptions and preconceived notions and then move onto the next step and actually PROVE your case.

        Mosher picks and chooses his wording carefully, and THEREIN lies your key (usually) to mounting a successful rebut of his arguments.

      • Mosher, your quotes do not say what you think. The match is very close, but not exact. Your post is about the “not exact”, and you confuse precision with accuracy as well. For example,
        =========================================================================
        ” It is possible
        that both types of data sets retain substantial common biases within their respective types.”
        ================================================================================= is a reference to the known example of precision applying to itself giving temporal accuracy over time, in that despite these small, (and I mean small in comparison to the surface record adjustments over time) “common biases”, they are consistent over time, thus do not affect the trend, or the sum. For example August of 2014 was declared to be warmer then August of 1998 by the deeply corrupted surface record. It was not…
        1998

        2014

        The difference is so far outside the error bars of the data set as to make the unquantified mist of your innuendos meaningless. On the other hand the adjustments to the surface are well beyond their own published error bars. Honest scientists discussing improvements in complicated instruments does not change the overall picture, or the overall agreement between the data sets. Please step back from the forrest of minutia you are lost in.

      • Looks to me that AndyG55 nailed the conversation.

        Mosher was throwing crap against the satellite data and their verification process.

        If you actually read through the links Mosher provided, you will discover that those links do not disclose what Mosher claimed they did.

        Bad radiosonde data does not invalidate all radiosonde data. Those links and studies that Mosher is throwing about relate what happens when someone tries to assimilate all radiosonde information into coherent data.
        The compiled data is compared against individual radiosondes and ‘models’. Radiosondes are bad because they fail to match modeled expectations?

        Steve also throws in error comparisons between RSS and UAH, implying the alleged UAH error taints all satellite data; completely overlooking the fact that UAH corrected the algorithm causing the difference and that both satellite datasets are in agreement.

        Steve is attacking the satellite data, because that dataset is far superior to the land based temperature data. Blasting a dataset that is accurate to tenths and hundreths of a degree, that is omnipresent above the Earth (multiple satellites taking measurements); and then shamefully comparing that dataset to the land based temperatures containing individual thermister adjustments of several degrees!

        Oh yes, GISS is just so accurate. Elsewhere in the world, scientists would consider that data severely compromised as adjustments are made to the actual datum, not kept separately with complete and thorough documentation.

        Real world data bases that people’s lives and finances depend on, keep all original data. Adjustments are maintained separately with complete metadata for each and every adjustment.

        Before computers, this data was kept in journaled ledgers with full detail.

        Even instantaneous corrections for incorrectly entered financial data followed accounting protocols; the entry was crossed out with a single line, the correct number entered immediately above and then initialed by the adjuster. Some agencies required a supervisor to also initial corrections and enter a summary note in the ledger.

      • ““[3] With the notable exception of the Keeling curve of CO2 concentration changes [Keeling et al., 1976], to date there exists no climate record that is definitively tied to SI standards”
        =================================================================
        Hum? I think the adjustments match the CO2 increase quite well, about 95%

    • Sooo… Mosh you add up all those errors and get a measurement accuracy of what?
      From what I’ve read it is around 1C, hell I’ll give you 2C.
      Now what is the true accuracy of the surface data?
      Put a pin in Salt lake city and draw a circle on a map with a 1200km radius.
      LA – check
      Phoenix – check
      Death valley – check
      Denver – check
      Boise – check
      Portland – check
      It’s almost the entire western US from the front range to the Pacific and from Mexico to Canada!
      So now tell us how you can take the temperature in Portland and tell me what the temperature in Phoenix is within 2C on any given day, how about 5C? do I hear 10C?, how about 20?
      And this is supposed to be better than whatever the satellite errors might be?
      It must average out, yeah, that’s the ticket…

  24. Apart from a few +/- figures on trend lines, there is little mention of the statistical accuracy of the data sets, or whether there is any significant differences between the various sets of data, which are using averages or means – monthly, yearly or whatever – having their own error bars. When all of the graphs and data sets are considered, natural variations of climate are still not ruled out.

  25. I saw, the picture of Michael Mann and the first thing I thought of was that hit musical:

    The Sound of Science

    Duh, I fear my files ain’t clear
    Ray, a beastly heat from the sun
    Mann a name I call myself
    I’m a pariah, and it really ain’t much fun
    So what? my research has misled
    La – statistics are my foe
    Gee, I really am well fed
    That’ll bring us back to duh-Oh
    Duh
    Ray
    Me
    Ah
    So?
    La
    Gee
    Duh-Oh
    Duh, I fear my files ain’t clear
    ….

    • Tom,

      I have a similar reaction, though a different hit musical comes to mind , ,

      Trouble, oh we got trouble,
      Right here in Siants City!
      With a capital “T”
      That rhymes with “C”
      And that stands for Cool,
      That stands for cool.
      We’ve surely got trouble!
      Right here in Siants City,
      Right here!
      Gotta figure out a way
      To keep the young ones morons after school!
      Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble…

  26. Good essay/presentation. Maybe better to describe it as a good demolition or rebuttal of yet another desperate attempt to deflect attention from the failed models and failures in the CAGW scheme.

    The ‘Conclusion’ is especially interesting.

    Keep up the good work. You have delivered another torpedo into the sinking of the CAGW. It’s got a tough hull but it’s so full of holes that it’s hard to believe it’s still afloat. Another salvo or two and it may go down quite rapidly and carry with it it’s crew into the depths of dark history.

  27. The 20 false representations in this one 10-minute video constitute a World Record and an explanation as to why Michael Mann’s nose is definitely growing bigger and probably longer.

  28. Don’t believe those pesky Satellites. I mean you can’t even trust them to show weather patterns, Volcanic activity, the West Coast drought, shifting sands or basically anything. We did not land on the Moon and “that’s all folks”!

  29. Starting from just before the 1998 spike is the best way to get a calculated trend that is lower.

    If you lower the numbers for 1999 and 2000, you get higher trends, when starting from 1998.

    • You miss the point that the 1998 El Nino was effectively cancelled out by the 1999/2000 La Nina. That is why the Met Office said this in 2013 in their paper, “The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?”

      The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/the-met-office-the-pause-2/

      2001 of course was an ENSO neutral year, so there is sense in using that as a start point

      • 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

      • This is the biggest factor that too many skeptics do not emphasize near enough. Since El Nino and La Nina events generally come in pairs they have very little affect on a trend of any length as long as BOTH events are used. Due to the fact that El Nino events precede La Nina events that means starting on an El Nino or ending with a La Nina will always include both events. Skeptics simply cannot cherry pick.

        This is not true for alarmists. They can start with a La Nina and end with an El Nino thus missing the other opposing halves of the two pairs. The result is a significant warming effect. That is exactly what Titley did.

        Also, it is most likely the pause is not really a flat trend. It is the end of a warming trend and the start of a cooling trend. This can be seen here.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.5/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1996.5/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to:2013.5/trend

        As the cooling continues the pause will be extended on both ends.

    • The ‘starting’ point was not chosen. It was calculated and is essentially the end point. Starting point is today (the last month with data available).

      • I believe the esteemed climate scientist Townes van Zandt had it BEST:

        Now this man down at the used car lot
        Tried to sell me four wheels and a trunk.
        I said, “Man, there is no engine!”,
        He said, “The engine’s just a bunch of junk.
        You don’t need no engine to go downhill
        And I could plainly see, that that’s the direction
        You’re headed in”, and he handed me the keys.

  30. The primary false logic needed by an alarming CO2 supporter is that the Earth must dangerously warm by CO2 because that is the highest reality and evidence to the contrary must not be real or belongs to a lower impure reality. Satellite data will be discounted as an impure lower kind of reality because it contradicted the highest reality that there must be high and dangerous warming by CO2..

    Who would have thought Plato’s mystical dualistic metaphysics and epistemology would be used to create CO2 climate alarm in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?

    John

  31. Reading these posts clearly denotes the intelligence and scientific approach of actual scientists. Most is outside my area of study, so I am swimming a bit. Nevertheless, I have confidence that the truth will eventually prevail. Nobody can escape reality regardless of our wants, desires, wishes, head-burrying, etc… My sincere gratitude to all you who help educate the likes of me. Thank you.

  32. Lord Monckton, I trust you see the video as a first step in the dance. This silly little video is to soften the blow when they soon adjust the embarrassing satellite temperatures that just wouldn’t let go. They have already made Christy and Spencer out to be a couple of skeptic clowns in the video so RSS and UAH will suddenly diverge – probably slowly at first and then with the confidence that comes from blatant fiddling of the surface record, weathering of whitewashes of their behaviour and the rationalization of the climategate affair that should have sunk them six years ago. I think there will be some adjustment factor also added to the balloon/radiosonde data, to make it a trifecta.

  33. For 2015, the difference between GISS and RSS, etc is huge!

    Many may recall the announcements last year when the new record was only 0.02 above the previous year. Since it was less than the error bar of about 0.1, the certainty of a record was rather low. And with other years not far behind, GISS could only claim that 2014 was 38% certain of being the warmest. While the 38% was higher than for any other year, the other 9 years had a cumulative percent of 62% of being warmest.

    Here are the top 10 anomalies for GISS for last year and this year:

    Last year:
    1    2014  68
    2    2010  66
    3    2005  65
    4    2007  62
    5    1998  61
    6    2002  60
    7    2013  60
    8    2003  59
    9    2009  59
    10   2006  59
    This year
    1   2015  87
    2   2014  74
    3   2010  72
    4   2005  69
    5   2007  66
    6   2013  65
    7   2009  64
    8   1998  63
    9   2002  63
    10  2003  62

    Note that 2015 of 0.87 is 0.13 higher than the 2014 value of 0.74. Also note how the 2014 value went up from 0.68 a year ago to 0.74 this year.
    Due to a difference of 0.13, the claim may be made that the certainty of a record is more than 99%.

    In contrast, RSS has 2015 at 0.192 below 1998.
    UAH6.0beta4 has 2015 at 0.216 below 1998.
    So it seems that we can be over 99% certain that neither RSS nor UAH6.0beta4 set a record in 2015.

  34. Well, Mr. Pearse (and thank you for that lovely remark about older women — still trying to connect with you about that since you apparently never saw my thanks on the bogus litigation thread about a month ago…),

    I, for one, am going to do a HAPPY DANCE!

    For, as has been pointed out elsewhere, that the climate hustlers are attacking the sterling expert testimony against them so frantically shows that they know they have lost.

    “Hamster Dance Song” (youtube)

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    #(:))

  35. We have entered a new phase, a data war.
    Mosh wants a perfection in data, as we all want.
    A counsel of perfection.
    But unfortunately no such thing has happened.
    ‘Despite some claims to the contrary, no single approach is likely to encapsulate all of the myriad uncertainties in the data set construction process.’
    So when Mike says ‘so I am swimming a bit.’ I heartily agree.
    For the educated layman the data sets, not to mention the non predictive prognosis on global temperature, are widening.
    When I look at ground temperature records homogenised in Australia, take Hillston as an example, they are clearly conflated with climate areas that are milder by methods not revealed, except to Chinese hackers, so are doubtful.
    The problem for the scientist is to choose the best fit and and show errors.
    So what is the most reliable method of temperature measurement of the atmosphere with all its warts?
    The Met office thinks satellites are good.
    My POV is that satellites are more reliable for showing the errors in the Global Models than anything else, with balloons coming in a close second.
    The rest of the official temperature data is in the spelling paddock or knackers and needs more work or be ‘let go’.

    • “Mosh wants a perfection in data”

      NO !! He Doesn’t.

      Otherwise he would not be even considering using the sparse, irregularly space, urban tainted surface data.

      What he wants is dat that he and his mob can manipulate to their given desires.

  36. About the surface data…

    Any REAL scientist should know exactly where their data is coming from.

    They should know if that data is reliable or not……. But they have NO IDEA.

    NOAA et al should have accurate location data, history, and pictures of every site they take data from.

    It should never have been up to Anthony to have to do the surface station audit in the USA.

    The surface data is a MONUMENTALLY FLAWED, MEANINGLESS, WHITE ELEPHANT.

  37. Christopher Monckton,

    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);

    Plot above shows monthly mean values, not annual. Annualized from here: http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

    Year TLT Rank
    —- —- —-
    1998 0.55 1
    2010 0.47 2
    2015 0.36 3

    Note 1997:

    Year TLT Rank
    —- —- —-
    1997 0.10 18

    Add 0.45 to 0.36

    Year TLT Rank
    —- —- —-
    1998 0.55 2
    2010 0.47 3
    2015 0.36 4
    2016 0.81 1

    Or you could note that 0.55-0.36 = 0.19, so 2016 only needs to be 0.20 warmer to take the top slot in RSS. There is little scientific value in any of these calculations, but they might be useful for wagering odds.

    With qualification, 2015 was the warmest on record since reliable records began at the surface.

    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:

    Mind the pea. It’s a matter of record that prior to the switch from v5.6 to v6.0beta, the majority of UAH TLT adjustments were warming adjustments.

    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:

    Not finding the falsehood here.

    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;

    Wow. The main reason for adjusting either the satellite or surface records is mainly not to correct mistakes, but to correct for trend bias. That numerous corrections have been done to surface data does not mean that mistakes had necessarily been made. The UAH team did in fact make mistakes to some of their corrections.

    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;

    Isn’t this really just a repeat of 3? It’s a bit unhelpful that this list does not include direct quotes and/or timestamps to the video.

    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;

    “…though no method of measurement measures temperature directly…” is chopping the parsely rather finely. It really should beyond dispute that ground-based thermometers and radiosondes carried by balloons are a form of in situ measurement, whereas the aptly named Remote Sensing Systems data products (and their UAH siblings) are not.

    Even though radiosonde instruments are calibrated, they still suffer problems with inhomogeneities like any other product, including surface-based and (A)MSU-based products. And they do not all “agree” with each other, and therefore they don’t all agree with UAH/RSS products. Contrast the surface products from four different teams derived from different mixes of source data.

    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;

    My turn to parse. The title of this article is “20 false representations in one 10-minute video”, not “20 false implications in one 10-minute video”.

    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;

    Ibid., with the added note that Dr. Judith Curry’s endorsement of the satellite products as the “best” available does not hold up well when one considers that the stated trend uncertainties of the satellite products may be greater than the trend uncertainties of the land record: http://skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

    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:

    RSS linear trends for some selected periods (K/decade):

    0.123	full record
    0.001	1997-2015
    -0.002	1998-2015
    

    Note that we have to go to three decimal places to see the difference in trends beginning in 1997 vs. 1998. We only need to go to one decimal place to see the difference between those two starting points and the full record.

    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:

    I’m not even going to bother responding to the text because that plot is so woefully misleading. Here’s what a proper regression of CO2 against RSS TLT looks like for the entire interval:

    For a longer-term view, here’s what it looks like over the entire Mauna Loa CO2 record against HADCRUT4

    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.

    The two plots posted just above should suffice to illustrate that looking at more data than just the past 18 years and 9 months tell quite a different story from the longer-term view.

    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:

    See my response to #9. You are quibbling here about 0.001ths K/decade here. For the record, the stated trend uncertainty for the entire RSS TLT product is 0.044 K/decade:

    http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf

    See Table 2 bottom right of page 14.

    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:

    Irony meter #5 of the year gives up the ghost to Christopher Monckton for complaining about “unduly short” trends.

    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:

    That HADCRUT4 decadal mean plot also shows that prior “pauses” …. ended.

    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:

    Landed ice is the tiebreaker.

    16. that column water vapor is increasing, though not all records show an increase and at least one, ISCCP, shows a decline:

    Mind the pea again. The decline there is between 610-310 mb pressure, and ISCCP data only go back to 1983. A longer-term view from NCEP shows a steady increase in specific humidity at the surface …

    … which dwarfs the declines at higher altitudes.

    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:

    Sea levels change for a reason, namely, that temperatures change for a reason, namely that external forcings are not constant on geological time scales. Planet gets warmer, glaciers and ice caps diminish. Planet gets cooler, glaciers and ice caps grow. On long enough geological time scales, configuration of the continents change, affecting internal variability, solar absorption and the carbon cycle. It’s complex, but not magical or mysterious.

    The more relevant point is that we are seeing changes to the system which normally occur on geological time scales of thousands of years happening within human lifetimes … which is the thing that should be giving you pause.

    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:

    Ocean water has 4 times the specific heat capacity of atmosphere, and the oceans themselves are absorbing 93% of the total additional energy into the system. A thinking truth-seeker would realize that such a staggering amount of energy is probably the best evidence that an 18-year “pause” in lower tropospheric temps isn’t telling on the order of 95% of the story.

    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

    I put the tray of water in the freezer. Several hours later, I pull out ice cubes.

    We can’t deduce anything from first principles of known physics. You read it here first.

    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:

    And we end on another “by implication”, this time harping on things like “reasonable agreement”, which is an inherently subjective determination.

    I get it, Mr Monckton, you hold differing opinions from what was presented in the video. That does not make their views “false representations”.

    I have given your note way more than its due in my opinion. Cheers.

    • Brandon, having read several well-argued (and some less well-argued) WUWT comments from you, may I ask you a simple yes/no question to determine which side of the fence you sit on?

      Q. Is mankind’s CO2 emissions warming our planet?

      • GeeJam,

        Technically the Sun warms the planet, but yes, I believe that our CO2 emissions are contributing to an accumulation of absorbed solar energy, the net result of which is warming of the oceans and surface.

    • Sorry Brandon, but you are going to be disappointed in the 2016 GAT. Trying to use 1997 as a springboard to predict 2016 is a fool’s game. 1996-97 was a La Nina year. The 2014-15 period was a weak El Nino (at least before it got Karlized). Now, try subtracting that difference and see what you get. Do I even have to mention the two El Nino events have played out entirely different?

      • Richard M,

        Sorry Brandon, but you are going to be disappointed in the 2016 GAT.

        This begins to sound like a wager.

        Trying to use 1997 as a springboard to predict 2016 is a fool’s game.

        Think of 0.81 K as the 2016 upper bound and 0.56 K as the lower. Noting that RSS TLT lags El Nino peaks by about 6 months, so even if this one died tomorrow I think the odds are favorable of 2016 being at least 0.20 K warmer than 2015 according to that dataset.

        Do I even have to mention the two El Nino events have played out entirely different?

        Nope, they’ve all been different. This is weather we’re talking about here.

  38. I would simply suggest the establishment of a fund to employ good legal representation who can collect, collate and build the case against all these ‘climate non-truthers’. In the meantime, let them continue to dig themselves deeper into their hole.

  39. Yes, attack the messengers (satellites) that were sent into orbit to provide more consistent global measures and overcome the measurement bias in land surface records and methods.

  40. Yes… Attack the messengers who tell the truth. It is the way of the Green, environmentalist, leftist, socialist, anti-free speech, anti- free trade, AGW crowd, etc. etc… The only correct way of thought is by these groups and if you disagree, their thought police come to try to shut you down with slurs, lies, deceptions, hate speech, accusations based on falsehoods, etc., etc… When they don’t have a leg to stand on regarding truth, fact, reality, they can only rely on trying to silence or appear to win the discussion by shutting their opposition down with the afore mentioned tactics of losers. Why? Because they hate. Because their ideals are, to them, the only right way and they cannot allow dissent by anyone who differs from what they believe. They are the real bigots, anti freedom, racist, facist, (secretly) anti liberal – totalitarian A – holes, anti anyone or anything who disagrees with their agenda, etc. idiots.

Comments are closed.