by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
On December 8, 2015, Senator Cruz, chairman of the Space, Science and Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. Senate, held a hearing on climate change, Data or Dogma? He displayed a red rag to the merchants of bull – a graph well known to WUWT readers:
The monthly graph that shows the generally lengthening Pause in global warming has been a profound and continuing embarrassment to the believers in the totalitarian Party Line on the climate question. Recently, the dogmatists struck back in a much-promoted 10-minute video, How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures? The new Party Line is that they give the wrong answer.
The short video contained 20 false representations, pretenses or implications, calculated individually and by mutual reinforcement to deceive. The deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here –
1. (without qualification) that 2015 was the warmest year since reliable records began, though the satellite records do not show it as the warmest year (see the above graph);
2. that satellite datasets have historically proven biased to show too little warming, though the UAH dataset showed too much warming until its 2015 correction:
3. (twice) that the satellite data, and in particular the UAH data, wrongly showed cooling in the 1990s, though they showed warming, and in the 2000s, though the terrestrial data agreed and after adjustments still agree with the satellites that there was cooling:
After all adjustments from 2010-2015, the graphs for 2002-2008 still show cooling:
4. that Drs John Christy and Roy Spencer, keepers of the UAH dataset, had been “chastened by their repeated mistakes and failures”, though all datasets, not only theirs, have undergone adjustments;
5. (twice) that all the UAH adjustments had left the warming rate understated, though until the most recent adjustment the UAH dataset had for much of the previous decade shown a warming rate greater than most other datasets;
6. that satellites were unique in not measuring temperature directly, though no method of measurement measures temperature directly, and the satellite temperature datasets are unique in being independently calibrated both by balloon radiosonde datasets and by platinum resistance thermometers themselves calibrated against the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation;
7. that satellite datasets had been shown to contain errors, with the implication that the terrestrial datasets had not undergone repeated adjustment, though all global temperature datasets are prone to adjustment and have been repeatedly adjusted;
8. that Dr Judith Curry and Senator Cruz accept the satellite data uncritically, though their statements that the satellite global temperature data are the best we have do not imply that those datasets should be accepted uncritically;
9. that Senator Cruz likes to focus on the portion of the RSS temperature dataset that begins after the El-Niño-driven spike in global temperature that peaked in 1998, though the graph displayed by Senator Cruz, on which Dr Mears was commenting, visibly began in May 1997, before the spike commenced:
10. (twice) that the spike in temperatures in 1998 entailed a downhill trend thereafter, though the graph had begun before the spike and, in any event any effect of the spike on the trend had been offset by a trough in 1999-2000 caused by the countervailing La Niña cooling that followed the 1998 El Niño, so that the trend in the RSS data for the 15 full years from January 2001 to December 2015, after the el Niño and la Niña, is if anything somewhat negative:
11. that the zero-trend “18-year dataset” displayed by Senator Cruz (actually 18 years 9 months) would produce a markedly different trend from the data over 10, 15 or 20 years, though the 10-year dataset after removing the distorting effect of the 2015-2016 El Niño shows a trend of little more than 0.5 Celsius degrees per century, the 15-year dataset shows a zero trend and the 20-year dataset shows a trend of little more than one-third of a degree per century, and all trends are within natural variability.
12. that a trend-line starting after the 1998 El Niño temperature spike and ending before the 2011-2012 La Niña trough would show an uptrend, though the trend-line is falsely positioned on the graph displayed in the video so as to steepen the true (green) trend:
13. that period chosen by Admiral Titley, the “Democrats’” witness at the hearing, showed an uptrend (which he then misrepresented so as to steepen it), though the period he chose was unduly short and, if he had not excluded an el Niño at the outset and a La Niña at the end, there would have been a downtrend:
14. that the video deploys a device used by the IPCC and by the Met Office, displaying global temperature in decadal blocks, though the decadal blocks were calculated to conceal the absence of global warming over much of the past two decades, while the full HadCRUT4 dataset clearly shows the recent slowdown in global warming:
15. that Arctic sea ice is declining, though Antarctic sea ice has been on a rising trend and reached a satellite-era record in early 2015, and though the decline in Arctic sea ice is chiefly only in a few late-summer weeks and is a small fraction of the seasonal variation in sea-ice extent, so that neither the extent nor the trend of global sea ice (from the University of Illinois) shows much change throughout the satellite era:
16. that column water vapor is increasing, though not all records show an increase and at least one, ISCCP, shows a decline:
17. that sea level is changing, though it has always changed and much of the increase in recent years is attributable to a “glacial isostatic adjustment” that, whether justifiable or not, is not an actual sea-level rise:
18. that the heat content of the global ocean is increasing, though the increase is calculated from ARGO bathythermograph temperature measurements that show warming of the top mile and a quarter of the ocean over the entire 11 full years of the record at a rate equivalent to only 1 Celsius degree every 430 years:
19. that the Earth’s allegedly rising temperature may be deduced from moisture, rainfall, water vapor, surface humidity, snow and ice, though no definitive conclusions about global temperature can be drawn from any of these indicators
20. (throughout) that, by implication, the terrestrial temperature records are in reasonable agreement with the predictions by IPCC on which the official concern about global warming is based, though on all datasets, the warming is so far below what IPCC had originally predicted that IPCC has itself had to reduce drastically its interval of near-term warming predictions:
Conclusion
The perpetrators of the offending video are, so they think, so well protected by the current U.S. Administration’s prejudice on the climate question that they can get away with a campaign of multiple, wilful, mutually reinforcing and no doubt profitable deceptions on this monstrous scale with impunity, to the detriment not only of the truth but also of two diligent and hard-working scientists.
Without saying anything more in public at this stage, we shall see. In the meantime, readers may care to recall the terms of 18 U.S. Criminal Code §1343 (wire fraud):
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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)?
Can you smell it?
Its the smell of desperation from these criminals.
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.
And we all know how Giss/HadCrut et al treat data from other places in the world.
selectively… to suit the fabrication. !!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
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.
There ya go, Mosh..
A willing buyer for your lemon. !!
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.
Andy just kicked your A55 in 2 sentences. You have nothing.
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.
Steven,
“There is only one dataset that is actually tied to SI standards… the Keeling curve”
+100. Best of thread. Got to be one of the best all-time comments at WUWT, imo.
““[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%
David,
I do not understand your comment. Adjustments to what?
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…
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.
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
….
LOL
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…
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.
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.
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”!
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).
Looking at Mann’s picture I ask myself the question: would I buy a used car from this man?
Or from Mosh.. they are all part of the “Dodgy Bros” sales team.
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.
AndyG55
This is 2016, we have mouthwash, go buy some, your breath stinks.
@ur momisugly George Tetley: ??
If I am not offended by anything AndyG55 wrote above, WHO WOULD BE??
Yes, I apologise profusely to the Dodgy Bros…..
Stop farting on the keyboard, George.
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
Nice.
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.
It was only two years ago that the Met Office said
“changes in temperature observed in surface data records are corroborated by measurements of temperatures below the surface of the ocean, by records of temperatures in the troposphere recorded by satellites and weather balloons, “
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records
WOOPS!!
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.
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:
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.
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.
#(:))
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.
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.
+1
NOBODY has challenged Mosher on his KEY assumptions yet, and he is wide open and vulnerable on them.
Christopher Monckton,
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.
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.
Not finding the falsehood here.
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.
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.
“…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.
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”.
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
RSS linear trends for some selected periods (K/decade):
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.
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:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fKyeOSi9fM0/VOewnbi9GQI/AAAAAAAAAWg/VHF9fk038dc/s1600/CO2%2Bregression%2Bvs%2BRSS.png
For a longer-term view, here’s what it looks like over the entire Mauna Loa CO2 record against HADCRUT4
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qrF0UrUv_yI/VOezpNNzcxI/AAAAAAAAAWs/AEVB4Sw7EzU/s1600/CO2%2Bregression%2Bvs%2BHADCRUT4.png
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.
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.
Irony meter #5 of the year gives up the ghost to Christopher Monckton for complaining about “unduly short” trends.
That HADCRUT4 decadal mean plot also shows that prior “pauses” …. ended.
Landed ice is the tiebreaker.
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 …
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
… which dwarfs the declines at higher altitudes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you Brandon.
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,
This begins to sound like a wager.
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.
Nope, they’ve all been different. This is weather we’re talking about here.
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.
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.
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.
Brandon Gates look:
TLT: 1993 start pause
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html (translate this to Hadcrut and Gisstemp)
TLS: 1993 start pause
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLS/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png