From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Graeme Hooke
How NIWA, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, lied to their citizens:
NZ Climate Science Coalition statisticians have uncovered evidence of scarcely believable deception from our National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA). [The equivalent of the UK Met Office]
Last December, NIWA released a reconstructed NZ temperature series Report on the Review of NIWA’s Seven Station Temperature Series (“7SS Review”) (pdf, 8.5 MB). It has a fresh new graph that’s all but indistinguishable from the previous graph. But that’s not the point.
The point is the new series is a lie
Full post here.
This is just a small part of a UN led global effort to exaggerate the minimal warming since the Little Ice Age, well recognised by genuine scientists to be the coldest era sine the Ice Age.
The genuine temperature temperature record for New Zealand is absolutely clear, that the current climate is much cooler than most of the last 10000 years.
That is of course, if you don’t rely on heavily adjusted upwards temperatures recorded next to airport runways!
“The point is the new series is a lie”
New series? What is going on here. New? The article referenced is from 2011, which is why the series shown stops in 2009. “Last December” it says? That would be Dcember 2010.
I often have problems with the content of your posts, but here it seems you are right.
Of the 42 comments on Homewood’s site, only one so far has questioned the fact that the data are ~12 years old and asked if there had been any update since.
No answer did there come (at time of writing).
Ah, climate skeptics; about as skeptical as kids in a candy store if you’re telling them what they want to believe.
Said as if the climate hysterics ever deviate from their “the sky is falling” chorus, with the tune being a single note.
Doesn’t matter how old the report is.
It still indicates massive data tampering, and you are still condoning it. !
This nonsense wss taken to court in NZ and laughed out – twice!
Incorrect. It was taken to court, then to appeal but hardly laughed out. The Judge ruled that the case didn’t establish a basis of fraud or intention to deceive, that it failed to prove a level of wrongdoing that could cause harm (physically or financially) to others and, given those criteria, the judge ruled that the court was not able to rule between 2 differing scientific viewpoints. Hardly ‘nonsense’ and typical that you failed to research it properly.
Jude Venning’s finding is here. It is dismissive. The key bit:
This does not disagree with my post and is far from being ‘dismissive’.
You obviously don’t understand what judicial review means and the limitations placed on the court during the process. Judicial review involves examining the evidence to determine if the decision of the impugned body is consistent with their legislation and if the decision was rendered properly (notice I did not say that the decision was correct). The court must recognize the expertise of the impugned in the matters before the court and give that expertise due deference. The standard to succeed at judicial review is the that the impugned decision is patently unreasonable on the evidence.
Yes. And that is what the Coalition alleges. And they took it to court, and they failed. And then failed to pay costs.
The Judge said the substantive issues werent justiciable [paragraph 174]
All that NIWA needed to show was that their method, was it either
beyond reasonable doubt X
on the balance of probabilities X
tenable …Y
So The Judge said it was ‘tenable’ for NIWA to do what they did.
You are building a straw man.
The issue is if the data has been improperly analyzed regardless if it is from 1950 – 2009 or from 1900 – 1950 or any other period of time. Errors in the past can be corrected just as well as current temps. Heck, corrections may even show current data analysis is faulty too.
Address what the article and paper addresses. IOW, stay on topic.
The fact is that the NZ coalition eventually got their wild claims of lying etc to the NZ High Court. When they got there, they had nothing to say.
Even worse, this group were ordered to pay $80k when they failed to prove their reckless allegations against NIWA in court. So what did they do…. being the honest citizens they are (not) they went into liquidation leaving the NZ tax payer to have to foot the bill for their frivolous case. Hardly a group to accuse anyone of fraud I would have thought. Bit like Jim Jordan moaning that Hunter Biden is refusing a subpoena.
So basically, Mann’s data is correct because he didn’t present it to a court. This data is wrong because they didn’t present it to the court. Hypocrisy is a terrible thing!
Not justicable Nick.
Niwa also said back in 2011 that they would publish a peer review paper which would validate their new analysis.
It took some 5 years after being stuck in peer review.
So the journal it was finally published in was …
NIWAs own house journal
Theres the Nuts and Bolts of the courts opinion
‘At several points in his judgment, Venning J highlighted the limits of the Court’s ability to resolve the substantive disagreements between NIWA and the Trust. The disagreements were based on conflicting evidence, indicating “a scientific debate which this Court is not in a position to determine one way or the other” (at [173]). Venning J deftly sidestepped this issue, holding that the Court did not need to resolve that debate, but instead simply needed to determine whether the approach taken by NIWA was “tenable”
Gee thats a very low bar for Niwa to reach…..’tenable’
Heres NIWAs published paper that was pal reviewed by BOM
” Mullan, A.B; Stuart, S.J; Hadfield, M.G; Smith, M.J (2010). Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series NIWA Information Series No. 78. 175 p.
Published in their own ‘Information Series’ , how cool is that
So, absolute evidence that NIWA have massively tampered with past data.
Thanks Nick.
Get to have you on our side 😉
Now eat your other sock !!
No. There is no evidence of data tampering. NIWA has just performed a series of calculations on the data that the authors of post object to. The raw data is still there and available to anyone who wants to do something different.
Not calculations, Isaak. NIWA imported the Australian BoM’s methods of data collection, adjustments and homogenisation which resulted in an artificially constructed temperature record which is completely at odds with the previously recorded temperature record. You do the math – it was noticeable in NZ because they redid the series in, more or less, one go – in Australia the changes were done gradually but have the same effect. The raw data is not ‘raw’ but ‘adjusted’ – this has been the problem all along; the raw data was disposed of once the ‘adjustments’ had been made which means that they cannot be checked or audited, cannot be compared or used for ‘something different’. The fix is in.
Richard,
the raw data is all there and available at
https://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
along with the data from 6500 other sites. You can download the data and
do your own analysis.
As I said, Isaak, it is not raw, it has already been ‘adjusted’ – at this point, it has become completely useless as a dataset.
Izaak,
what do you make of this situation?
From the NIWA site –
https://niwa.co.nz/education-and-training/schools/resources/climate/station
Master station list – most climate variables in the datasets are from these stations. Where AWS stations have replaced the original stations, the records have been combined. Because the complete years of data generally vary between variables, an average of the complete years of data was calculated.
Most of the 31 select stations now used have only 20 – 25 years of data.
What’s up with that?
Aren’t “climate indicators / trends” these days supposed to be based on a minimum of 30 continuous years of records?
Shades of BoM. Cooling the past?
And ignoring the past –
re-starting weather records from just 1910 onwards leaves out the harshest heatwaves and droughts from the1896 – 1905 “The Federation Drought”.
Over 400 people died in the 2-week long Australia wide heatwave.
It’s not ‘shades of BoM’ – it IS BoM – it was their series of ‘adjustments’, data collection and homogenisation that NIWA started using and BoM were involved in the whole setup, even providing support and corroboration for the court case.
They have been caught lying and cheating fire the top ten percent of managers.
Only 10%? Why that limit?
I’m okay with getting rid of more. How many people work for the New Zealand NIWA?
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation. In a cold interglacial period, 20+ percent of the land is frozed, named the Holocene which alternates with very cold glacial periods. The interglacial periods usually last around 10,000 years and the glacial periods usually last around 90,000 years, although there can be wide variations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
The norm where I sit is a kilometer of ice.
Warm is good.
Time flies. It’s back down to -11F outside here but I’m enjoying my natural gas warmed house and two 4wd autos in the garage ready to go if needed.
There are some disappointed Tesla owners in Chicago, however.
The technical word for non-functional electronics is ‘bricked’.
It was 5 degrees when my oft-delayed flight got in last night. I started my ICE SUV from afar and it was warm and ready to go when I got in. And, as a bonus, I used the heater, defrosters and heated seats all the way home.
“This is just a small part of a UN led global effort to exaggerate the minimal warming since the Little Ice Age, well recognised by genuine scientists to be the coldest era sine the Ice Age (since the glacial maximum).”
Is this referring to the usual UN hype, or is there an actual link to clandestine goings on? If so, this would be something big.
Another something big ?
NEWS TIP
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/01/15/german-farmers-enter-week-2-steadfast-take-back-the-proposed-tax-increases-then-well-pull-back/
Nobody who consistently watches the TVNZ “News” could have failed to notice NIWA’s regular twisting of the truth, usually in support of the previous-Leftie government. When will our new Government take action to compel the media to adopt their previously-unbiased stance?
“When will our new Government take action to compel the media to adopt their previously-unbiased stance?” Probably never. The new government leans to the right but fear mongering is still a useful tool. They still claim to support the net Zero aim. On the bright side, only boomers watch TVNZ News and they know the climate hysteria is a scam.
The government is rarely the best answer. Half the major news orgs in the U.S. will be bankrupt in 10 years, consumers having moved to more reliable sources. For example, I check out Sky News almost every day on YouTube, where you can control the speed of the slow talkers or pause when you want. TV is a box that governments & corporations keep you in. Step away.
NIWA has been doing this for many years. I gave a decade earlier very similar NIWA example in essay ‘When Data Isn’t’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Been NZ bad climate actors for a long time. Sort of like BoM in Aus.
Data manipulation is just about all alarmists have left. Sea level rise didn’t accelerate. Arctic summer ice didn’t disappear. Models provably wrong multiple ways. Renewables are ruinables. BUT but—look at our faked warming data! Proves we are all gonna die.
Oops. The old article cited is the same one I cited a decade ago. Did not think to check. My bad.
none-the-less, the underlying fiddled surface temp data fact remains, at least in the US, and for world land temps. Heller has more than adequately documented.
You mean like publishing a sorry tale that’s over a decade old and has twice been turfed out by a court of law for the inane garbage it is/was?
Discuss the errors from the past. If past analysis is incorrect, do you really think more current data hasn’t been fiddled?
It is totally natural for you to CONDONE grass fraud..
It is a large part of who you are. !
grass -> gross
Still relevant. In fact probably more so now – you see, the climate enthusiasts are running out of time; look at that steep straight line on the NIWA constructed data – at some point the discrepancy between what NIWA are saying the temperature is and what is clearly being measured will be too big to hide. Data tampering is unsustainable, TFN – you might want to jump off the gravy train now, before it slams into the buffers.
You’re assuming a lot there, Richard.
Specifically that there is some fraud in the NIWA data.
A court has already rejected that. Two courts, in fact.
The person “slamming into the bluffers” is more likely to be your good self.
Somebody else who does not understand judicial review, see my post above. The question before the court was not whether the impugned decision was wrong but whether the decision was made properly, that is according to the governing legislation and not patently unreasonable. If the decision is wrong but the method of reaching that decision was not patently unreasonable then judicial review fails.
Or, as TFN says, they were turfed out.
I don’t pretend to understand the specifics of it, but it seems clear to me that the case was dismissed and costs were awarded against this shady group who then suddenly just – disappeared. I’m sure the NZ tax-payer is thankful for the costs they became liable for.
Wonderful to see this site feature the ‘before’ article again, some 12-years later and without any reference to what actually happened. What would ‘Skeptics’ do without Nick Stokes?
What would sceptics do without Nick Stokes? A whole lot better, for starters!
Look, there is a difference between academic fraud and legal fraud – this group thought the courts would rule on fraud but failed to prove legal fraud.
As to not paying the money owed, Michael Mann did exactly the same thing when he lost his case against Tim Ball so it’s hardly unique.
So it’s right that this outfit faded away and failed to pay its costs because some guy in America failed (you say) to pay his costs?
Did US taxpayers pick up the bill for that supposed incident?
Does the “faked warming data” include the satellite data collected by Dr. Spencer and his colleagues at the UAH? They are also claiming that last year was the warmest on record.
Where exactly?
Right on this website at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/
where they state: “The 2023 annual average global LT anomaly was +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 mean, easily making 2023 the warmest of the 45-year satellite record.”
How does the U.S. escape all this warming that is occurring all over the globe?
The USCRN temperature data shows little to no warming between 2005 – 2023. How can that occur when the U.S. is ~20% of the Earth’s land surface?
Is it possible that UHI is polluting much of the land temperatures? The world’s population has grown ~25% since 2005, much of it in urban areas. This simply must have some effect through additional energy (heat) emitted by humans.
“The USCRN temperature data shows little to no warming between 2005 – 2023.”
Do you keep forgetting all the times you’ve been corrected on this, or do you just keep repeating the claim regardless of whether it’s true.
You could actually say how much warming CRN shows over that 18 year period, and then say how much you would have expected to bring it in line with the rest of the world.
“How can that occur when the U.S. is ~20% of the Earth’s land surface?”
Is that what they teach you in the US? It’s more like 6% of land area. Less than 2% if you include the oceans.
You are correct, I used North America that is ~17%. I’ll have to check Canada and Mexico to see their trends.
However, the question still stands, how has the U.S. managed to dodge all the global warming? Answer me that question!
It hasn’t.
According to UAH, the US is warming faster than the global average trend (+0.18C per decade US versus +0.14C per decade global).
What say ye?
Thanks, I was just about to say the same.
Here’s the graph of annual anomalies for the US.
What’s the variance of the data used to calculate those anomalies?
And so it goes. First they’ll insist that the data shows no warming in the USA. Then when it’s demonstrated that the data does show warming, they’ll insist that the data isn’t good enough to know anything about the temperature change.
The data is plenty good. The way it is used is *NOT*.
The fact is that you don’t understand ANY of this. Therefore you continue to try and show that climate science *is* correct in its usage of the data they have. And you get your nose rubbed in it every single time. A puppy eventually learns, but you don’t.
The usual nonsense. But still missing the point. If you think averages are meaningless, then you need to explain how you can claim the USA shows little to no warming.
I’ve used both the UAH data that you thought was good enough to show a global pause, and the USCRN data which you keep claiming proves all the other data sets are wrong. If those data sets cannot be used, then what exactly do you use to make your assertions?
Just checked the USCRN NOAA data up to December 2023, and using Annual averages, the trend since 2005 is 0.34°C / decade. Not statistically significant yet, but difficult to see how this demonstrates little to no warming.
Why do you think an annual average is a good indication? Exactly what have you done to remove seasonality and make the time series stationary?
I am working on looking at stations that have all data from 2005 to 2024. Have you examined your early data to see how many stations were added between 2005 and 2010? If not you are not graphing long term stations only. Are there spurious sequences being introduced?
And here Jim forgets that it’s his claim, that the US is not warming. He won’t provide any evidence to support this. He’ll just say the CRN proves it. But then he’ll just dismiss any actual analysis of the data, with whatever excuse he can find. Here simultaneously attacking the use of annual averages and demanding I remove seasonality.
“I am working on looking at stations that have all data from 2005 to 2024.”
Then you need to show your work. Explain how you used that to produce a US figure that shows little to know warming. Put some figures on how little the warming was. Explain how you do this without averaging, taking into account all the variances etc.
Here’s the UAH trends for the globe since December 1978.
Australia has been warming at 0.18°C/decade, which means it’s warmed about 0.8°C over the last 45 years.
New Zealand has been warming at a faster rate according to the map.
Yes, Australia is warming faster than the global average over the longer term.
Which parts of Australia?
It’s a huge place having tropical, sub tropical, marine, alpine, and desert climates.
(please don’t tell me you just “averaged” all the provided temps records over the whole year, and came up with hundredths of one degree C as the difference factors?)
You’re looking at the same image I am. The southern part seems to be warming faster, if UAH (and my eyes) are to be believed.
Whew!
I was beside myself with worry there for bit.
Thank your idol that the northern tropical & subtropical & desert areas are only roasting up at 15 hundreds of a degree C every 10 years, not the 25 hundredths of one degree C that the more southern areas are.
I’ve lived all over that continent, and I don’t know how I would handle a midday Melbourne summer day that hit 34.25C instead of the 34.0C it was 10 years earlier on that same date.
What an existential crisis, hey?
If that is true, then where is there less warming than the global average? Doesn’t this destroy the meme that CO2 is driving the effects on warming since it is well mixed and is growing everywhere?
“If that is true, then where is there less warming than the global average?”
According to the map, anywhere yellow has a warming rate of between 0.05 and 0.15°C / decade. As the average rate is about 0.14, then that means most of the yellow is warming at or below average, and the white areas will be either warming or cooling slowly. The bits of blue around the antarctic are cooling.
It would be a help if they added finer bands. At present the scale is going all the way from -0.95 to +0.95°C / decade, which is hopefully not something we are likely to see.
You are including a lot of ocean in your estimate. That is totally different from land temperatures in Australia.
I would hazard that 90+% of the land areas are warming at 0.25 – 0.45. Where are the cooling areas?
At the bottom of the range, you would get 2.5C over a century and at the top end, 4.5C. Funny how that agrees with the IPCC.
“You are including a lot of ocean in your estimate.”
The sea warms slower than land – so it’s not surprising that much of the below average warming is happening there.
“That is totally different from land temperatures in Australia. ”
Australia is warming at pretty much the same rate as land in general. What is your point?
“I would hazard that 90+% of the land areas are warming at 0.25 – 0.45.”
I suspect you are wrong. Much of the land is in the first orange segment (0.15 – 0.25).
“Where are the cooling areas? ”
Why do you think there should be cooling areas?
“At the bottom of the range, you would get 2.5C over a century and at the top end, 4.5C.”
Assuming there is a linear trend that lasts for the next century. Average land according to UAH is warming at 0.19°C (which is probably a little on the high side given the recent warming).
“Funny how that agrees with the IPCC.”
I’m not sure what part of the IPCC you think that agrees with or what point you think you are making. I’m old enough to remember when Monckton used to post here, and was always going on about how the UAH data proved all the IPCC projections where wrong.
Here in Wokeachusetts where we run our furnaces 9 months each year- I hear nobody complaining.
Yes, Isaak, UAH is based on satellite data given to them by NOAA.
So just to be clear you are now claiming that people are deliberate falsifying satellite date before it is handed to other experts to analyse. Do you have any evidence for this?
Apparently not.
Wow, that is a huge leap from what I said – have you got something to hide, Isaak?
The only point I was making was to correct your statement where you said that the data was ‘collected by Dr Roy Spencer and his colleagues at UAH.’ The data was collected by NOAA satellites, collected by NOAA employees then given to Dr Spencer by NOAA. UAH do not have their own satellites and do not directly collect the data themselves.
Everything else is projecting by you, Isaak, not me. And I deeply resent your accusations that I ‘claimed’ anything of the sort – your kind of muck-raking and gutter tactics are neither wanted nor expected.
Richard,
Are you suggesting that we can’t rely on UAH data?
Are you? I merely corrected one part of Isaak’s post and suddenly I get two tinfoil-hatted, conspiracy-theory nutjobs accusing me of all sorts of spurious claims, completely unsupported by what I said. You and the other nutjob really are morons, aren’t you?
Leftist governments lying to citizens? How can that be? It’s unprecedented.
Sadly the deception is going on at this very moment.
As my seach has shown the the data about the daytime temps that are been recorded by AWS’s is a utter joke.
The best place for a AWS in my view is in the skip, as its utterly useless in giving you a true record of winter daytime temps.
Sorry “that the”
A bit of background to this hysterical talk of NIWA lying. The NZ coalition went to the High court, waving this very graph of disagreeing trends. Not reported at WUWT was the result. The court ruled against them on all claims, and ordered them to pay NIWA’s costs. Suddenly the Coalition melted away. It wasn’t anyone’s idea. The costs were never paid.
Here is another blast from the past
NS, your problem is all this manipulation is documented,,even by you.
thanks for that confirming post.
Here is more
“A group of global warming sceptics is considering an appeal, after losing its High Court bid to challenge temperatures recorded by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.
The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust did not agree with three publications indicating the country’s temperatures rose by almost a degree in the 100 years to 2009.
It applied for a judicial review of NIWA’s decision to publish the data, saying it did not apply recognised scientific opinion.
In a decision released on Friday, Justice Venning threw out the case and ordered the Trust to pay NIWA’s legal costs.”
They appealed, were rejected even more vigorously, with more costs to pay (they never did).
The changes were made..
They manically cooled the past and those “adjustments™” are responsible for basically ALL the pseudo-warming in NZ.
YOU know that, everyone knows that.. so why try to hide the facts??
They furthered the climate hysteria that you and many of your far-left comrades worship.
I suspect you know full well it is a con-job.
Enough said.
The fact you condone this sort of farce, says a lot about you.
This news report is faulty, the plaintiffs did not sue NIWA they asked the court for judicial review, a totally different process.
It isn’t a news report. It is a WUWT post, written by Anthony Watts.
Does any of this make the claims incorrect? Show something that refutes the claimed errors.
They made claims that they were unable to prove in a court of law. They didn’t show any evidence on which their assertions are based.
If it was dismissed, evidenced was never presented to be adjudicated.
Incorrect. See my post some way above. They failed to prove intentional fraud, which the court could have ruled on, and were left with 2 scientific views which the judge ruled was not in the purview of the courts to judge the scientific merits of either one. They showed there was evidence of tampering but couldn’t show there was an intention to defraud for personal or financial gain.
The judgment is here. A few excerpts:
“I am satisfied on the evidence that NIWA applied credible scientific methodology and, as such, did not breach any obligation it may have had to pursue excellence. The first alleged breach is not made out. “
“I am satisfied NIWA did apply tenable scientific methodology to the review process. This claim cannot be sustained. “
“On the evidence I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology. “
“The plaintiff cannot make out this allegation. The review was in accordance with recognised scientific opinion. The review was peer reviewed. “
So, again, you do not disagree with my post. They failed to prove legal fraud and the courts are no place to try to argue an academic fraud. The fact that the judge referred to NIWA’s whole case as ‘in accordance with recognised scientific OPINION’ says it all – not facts, opinion.
The judge is saying that he can find no fault with what NIWA did.
No, he is saying that they followed their own methodology, whether that methodology was correct or not is not the issue before the court.
“No, he is saying that they followed their own methodology, whether that methodology was correct or not is not the issue before the court.”
No…. read what he said…
“On the evidence I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology.“
That’s pretty clear.
You are aware that they used Australia’s BoM as their standard of ‘internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology’ aren’t you? And that it was solely peer reviewed by BoM employees?
So what fault did he find?
This ruling by the court sets out exactly what a judicial review can do, that is, examine the evidence to see if the methodology was correctly applied. If it was then regardless of the correctness of the decision the decision stands and the review is denied. That does not mean that the plaintiffs were wrong in their analysis or that NIWAs decision was correct on the evidence, it simply means that they failed to show that NIWA did not follow its own methodology.
So no case to answer. Costs to the shady ones who have… oh, disappeared.
Paul its easy to understand why there has been a winter warming trend here in the UK.
When you have got AWS’s recording the daytime high on sunny winter’s day as been 2C higher then the true value.
Technical point. NIWA isn’t the equivalent of the UK Met Office, that honour goes to the Meteorological Service of New Zealand (Metservice http://www.metservice.com). NIWA is perhaps closer to National Centre for Atmospheric Science, but is a government owned as well as largely funded research organisation with a brief that goes into water as well as air (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research).
News Flash! Sciencey types discover how global boiling and heat waves cause lots of snow in Antarctica-
A heatwave in Antarctica totally blew the minds of scientists. They set out to decipher it – and here are the results (theconversation.com)
Please remember the science is settled and you’re all doomed like the penguins and the polar bears that fled early.
The station reached a record high of MINUS 9.5C. Surely clowns who write this stuff have no idea what -9.5C feels like.
New Zealand temperature homogenisers (data fiddlers) really do have their work cut out.
The Southern Hemisphere summer solstice sunlight peaked more than 1000 years ago. The resulting cooling trend is now evident south of 45S on average but New Zealand is on the western side of the Pacific and still enjoys some warmth from the southward current from the tropical ocean.
In the long term, NZ will be in a long-run cooling trend that will be evident for more than 9,000 years. Summer solstice sunlight at 30N will be down 30W/m^2 from present level, which is already 2W/m^2 below the peak.
The Southern Ocean and Southeastern Pacific have cooled significantly throughout the satellite era:
This single image invalids all climate models because they show all regions warming at similar rates. Any region with a sustained cooling trend is impossible in CO2 driven climate models. Climate models are the only place experiencing CO2 driven global warming.
I notice that the top priority with the Davos set is now Extreme Weather Events™. This mob now own what was commonly referred to as bad weather when I was a child and became adverse weather in my professional career when there were weather related production losses. The local press here in Australia is all over the Blasting Arctic across the US. Blasting Arctic is just another example of EWE™. It used to be known as a snowstorm. Or even widespread snowstorm.
People living in places that are subject to Blasting Arctic need to make certain they can heat themselves independently of any electricity grid. The Davos mob are working hard to kill the reliability of electricity grids. At least now the plebs can make a case for INHERENT grid reliability as a defence against EWE™.
Oh, got a free few moments today and updated the CMIP3 multi-model mean versus GISS observations, 1970-2023. The CMIP3 model ‘forecast’ period runs from 2000.
This chart compares annual data for both data sets baselined to 1991-2020.
Observations are currently running warmer than the model projections, as is the linear trend ovr the period.
Sorry, latest GISTEMP data here.
Great graphs of URBAN WARMING
Meaningless on a global scale.
Which concentration scenario was that?
Like I said, and provided a reference to, it is the multi-model mean.
Yeah, but the models can be run with RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and/or RCP8.5.
If it’s a mean of all of them, it’s meaningless.
Adding the upper and lower bounds would spread to blazes.
The reference didn’t really say anything – just stacks of radio buttons.
Follow the link. Scroll down to “Multi Model Mean”. Select “tas”. Click “Select Field” (upper left).
This takes you to a new page where most things are already pre-set by KNMI.
Just hit “make time series”. From there, if you want to download the data as text, select “raw data”.
You can then transfer that onto your spreadsheet of choice. I used Excel.
Let me know if you get a different result. I have been wrong before.
Thanks.
I chased it a bit further, and the info seems to come from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50239
The potted summary is that the authors consider that all concentration pathways give much the same results for the first couple of decades of the 21st century, so they whack everything in together.
That’s my understanding of it too. The differences at this early stage are too small to differentiate between model runs/scenarios (or ‘pathways’ or whatever it is they call them now); so the MMM is a reasonable way to compare CMIP3 with current observations. It’s indicative.. And it’s doing a reasonable job, even if it’s on the low side of observed warming.
How about CMIP5 and CMIP6?
Still, as far as I know, within the projected range. It’s early for those model runs. CMIP3 was a bit ‘off’ in the early projected period too. That’s to be expected with natural variability (which can run hotter or colder than average in the early part of the forecast period). In the long run, the CMIP models are being shown to be skilful, as demonstrated by CMIP3.
CMIP3 has been a much closer match than CMIP5 or CMIP6.
You have me intrigued. Why would natural variability be higher earlier on?
For example, the 3-years leading up to 2023 were affected by La Nina conditions, which exerted an unusual (different from average) cooling effect on temperatures up until this recent transition to El Nino.
So if you had a climate model with the forecast period starting in 2019, with ENSO set to neutral, as most are, then you would expect your model to be running cool as of end 2022.
But it’s a short-term thing. It will correct itself over time, because ENSO is an oscillation (as its name suggests). Gradually ENSO influence will incorporate into the model projection.
That is what we are seeing with CMIP3, which projects out from 2000.
El Nino or La Nina aren’t just going to occur at the start of the model run period, nor are volcanic eruptions.
As it happens, they have occurred when they occurred, like the 2016 and current El Nino.
No, but they can; and as it so happens, in the case of CMIP6 they did. So yes, that will have an impact if you are comparing observations against projections in the short term.
Or the opposite might occur; whereby El Nino heats observations up versus projections. In such a case, I would be equally wrong to claim that the models are wrong (too cool).
These model runs need a couple of decades of forecast period before they can be properly assessed. A bit like CMIP3.
That’s why they need to runs with start dates around 2000 (without peeking).
Otherwise, you might as well use a random walk around the regression line.
Have a look at Figure 4 in https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50239
I see it, but it stops ~ 14 years ago. The data I linked to and charted are right up to date.
Fair enough about the age of the graphs.
You’d have to show the regression lines and slopes + the uncertainty intervals, though. It’s not obvious that the slopes are different.
You do know that GISS is not remotely related to global temperatures, don’t you. !
Better tell Roy spencer that then; because GISS and UAH are well matched since 1980, when their overlapping confidence intervals are taken into account.
You are a troll with no science background. With any education you would know that GISS is surface air temperature while UAH is satellite measured lower troposphere temperature. TWO totally different measurand’s. Trying to match them is useless because they are not the same. That’s what Mann did with his hockey stick.
I wish you would point this out every time WUWT hosts the UAH “global temperature update” Jim.
As it happens, the lower troposphere data are very closely correlated with the surface data.
Both show statistically significant warming tends and the upper and lower confidence margins overlap.
In fact, RSS, using more or less the same source data as UAH, shows even more warming than GISS.
In case you don’t know, NOAA has changed their STAR analysis and now pretty much matches UAH. RSS is totally different than has much more warming than either STAR or UAH.
You need to decide if NOAA STAR is correct or if GISS (who isn’t part of NOAA) or RSS is correct. You can’t say all are correct.
As to the correlation, so what. Two thermometers in a controlled water bath may have correlated temperatures but different measurements. One can have a temperature 2 degrees higher than the other one yet both be correlated. That is the problem with anomalies as climate science uses them. No attention is given to systematic uncertainty.
The correlation I refer to is the ‘trend’, not the temperature data, Jim.
UAH, RSS, GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA, JMA et al. … ALL have statistically significant warming trends over their shared period of measurement.
Is this a coincidence?
What is the variance of the data?
It’s all random, Gaussina, and cancels.
Stated values are always 100% accurate.
Two inch soil depth temperature should pretty much match surface soil temp. For the North Central River Forecast Center, the average 2″ soil temp in 2009 was 53F. In 2022 it was 34F.
Big cooling.
Why don’t you now tell us that soil temp at 2″ isn’t a good indicator of global warming.
The chart has two lines. Now produce an image that shows the CMIP3 prediction for any model, except INM, for 2023 relative to GISS “measured” over a 1X1 degree grid.
The models do not show Greenland plateau warming faster than anywhere else. They do not show the Southern Ocean cooling.
You only need to know that the peak solar intensity is shifting north; that lands responds to solar forcing more and faster than ocean and there is more land in the NH than the SH to forecast a global upward trend in temperature. The natural shift in forcing predicts overall warming. But it also predicts the NH would be warming faster than the SH would be cooling – EXACTLY what is being observed. And it has NOTHING to do with CO2. Only the gullible who have been scammed think that.
Yes. As the chart says, these are the average annual global temperatures for the CMIP3 multi-model mean (averaged computer model projections) versus GISS observations, baselined to the latest 3 full decades.
Not even sure what this means?
Look, it’s simpler than that: the CMIP3 models are actually running cooler than observations. So, in a sense, you could say the CMIP3 models really are wrong: they underestimated the observed warming trend.
Produce an image similar to the one above that depicts the difference between CMIP3 projection for December 2023 for any chosen model with the “measured” temperature from any selected global measurement over a 1×1 degree grid. It must be actual temperature difference for the month using colour coded scale to depict the difference as NASA has in the image I posted.
So rather than a single squiggle on a chart you produce an image so we can evaluate the skill of the chosen model against the real world data.
I have predicted an average warming trend of 0.13C/decade to continue for at least 200 years. But the SH will continue to cool from the south northward and the NH will warm from the Equator northward. My prediction is proving far more accurate than any climate model that is being driven by CO2 forcing. My model is based on real solar forcing – not make-believe CO2 nonsense.
You seem to be misdirecting here Rick, if I may say so.
You’re asking me to produce “an image” of something when what we are talking about here is simple numbers. Simple numbers that you don’t like the look of, for whatever reason.
I already produced an image, sourced it and provided links. It’s an image that shows that CMIP3 model projections are actually running cooler than surface temperature observations.
That’s all.
You have shown a chart with two squiggly Ines. It is quite easy to predict that the Global Average Temperature will trend up. It is a simple matter of following the peak solar intensity northward and understanding that land responds faster and more to that solar forcing than the ocean and there is a lot more land in the NH. The Global Average Temperature has to increase.
It takes much greater skill to determine where it will increase, where it will stay the same and where it will cool. All three conditions are apparent in the current regional trends.
An image that shows the predicted temperature change for a particular month compared to the measured value for the same month across a gridded globe at 1X1 degrees takes some skill.
The attached chart shows how the summer solstice EMR has/will change from 400 years before present to 400 years in the future across the latitudes. The SH has to cool and the NH has to warm because sunlight warms the Earth’s surface – not CO2. This is just a snapshot at those dates but the peak intensity is making a gradual progression northward. The South Pole has been getting less sunlight during the summer solstice for over 1000 years so the cooling trend is already established.
If you were capable of producing such an image similar to the NASA image above, you would come to appreciate that no climate model has any skill. You have been hoodwinked into thinking that climate models produce useful results based on the false notion that CO2 causes Global Warming™.
As turns out, Global Warming™ is now dead – all the snow in the NH has killed that notion in 2024. The new CO2 induced alarm is Extreme Weather Events™. That is what the Davos mob are currently addressing.
The NH is yet to see serious snowfall. The area of the NH oceans reaching the 30C regulating limit is increasing at 2,5% per decade so within 200 years, 50% of the surface will hit 30C in September to dramatically increase atmospheric water above current levels and that eventually comes down as snow in late October and November on land cooler than 0C. I know this because it has happened 4 times in the last 500,000 years under similar orbital conditions. People living in the NH are yet to see extreme weather.
That is just one La Nina year. Here is 2023:
Here is the last decade:
Those two images confirm my points. SH south of 45S cooling and Pacific region west of South America cooling.
Both are sufficient evidence to condemn every climate model. The models are incapable of even hind-casting sustained cooling trend. The CO2 warming engine prevents that condition.
Here is a challenge for you. Take the high CO2 prediction for any CMIP3 model for December 2023 and compare over a global 1X1 degree grid with any global temperature measurements to produce an image for the difference. Lets see how ell they have done over 20 years or so!
ROFLMAO. !
Look at the reference years.. The period of the “New Ice Age Scare”, and the extreme Arctic sea ice in the late 1970s.
All you are showing is HOW COLD IT WAS during that period….. Nothing more.
Get real, NIck-pick. !!
Thank goodness it has warmed up a bit.
Nick-Pick’s reference period….
This is the sort of crap he carries on with.
RickWill chose the reference period.
Always a cop-out
OMG you are pathetic. !!
Always intriguing to be criticised for using the same reference period as the person you are answering.
Happens a lot here.
Strange your crayon-like charts don’t show the cooling Rick talks about.
You must be using some sort of garbage never-was data set, as you like to do.
Also, what garbage ‘never-was-data’ is that which is being used ??
There is no way they knew the ocean temperature properly back in the 1950s
No way they knew whole of Arctic temperatures
Many parts of the land surface were basically unmeasured.
Many parts of the land surface are still not measured, and what readings there are, are heavily affected by urban , airport, bad thermometer data from quick acting modern thermometers, and manic mal-adjustments
And certainly no way they could have enough data in the Arctic region to colour it all in with their crayons.
None of what is portrayed in the charts has a chance of being remotely real. !!
Sorry, I’m not scared…you need to choose even brighter more vivid reds please. While you’re at it get rid if that pesky blue and grey at the bottom…maybe make that yellow.
The question of whether you’re scared or not doesn’t enter into it. The reality of a condition doesn’t depend on whether or not you’re scared of it. It’s still the condition.
The hysterical catastrophic-climate-change-meme-driven pursuit of decarbonisation & net zero is totally reliant on scaring the gullible. If “the condition” is nothing to be scared of then the whole rotten edifice crumbles to nothing.
UAH shows only 1 degree of warming in the Arctic since 1980.
Most of that due to the large 2016 El Nino spike.
Someone is exaggerating or FAKING the data… and you are using it,… sad, isn’t it. !
+1.2C warming, in fact.
You struggle with facts, don’t you?
Is the red supposed to scare us? Most of it is in the Arctic where a few degrees of warmth will *not* melt every thing – as shown by the Artic STILL not being ice free.
The dark brown/light brown? 1C warming over 40 years? Woohoo! That’s 0.25C per decade? 1C is not enough change to even affect crop harvests! As proof look at the record grain harvests every year! It looks like the increased temperature is a driving force for MORE FOOD!
No one ever seems to listen to Freeman Dyson’s criticism of climate science – that it’s not holistic at all!
What is it about you guys and “They’re trying to scare us!”. Are you really that easily scared? Booh!
No. They are pointing out ‘facts’.
Now, if you’re scared by facts, then maybe you could argue that they are scaring you; but they aren’t trying to scare you.
You do that all by yourselves.
Do you have problems with comprehension?
The same question you always run away from:
Where do the numbers for the South Indian Ocean come from?
The atmosphere several kilometers above the Southern Pacific Ocean (last graph) show a dangerous milestone approaching. In my analysis, without the volcanic cooling from the 80’s and 90’s, the moment would be already clear.
“Story tip” recall the worst wild fire in Quebec that blocked the sunshine and poisoned the air of NYC last July? Well they caught the guy who lit 14 of them!
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/quebec-man-who-blamed-wildfires-on-government-pleads-guilty-to-setting-14-fires-1.6726777
Climate change made him do it.
I went there, and got distracted.
as attached
Jeez wept – 2 Dollars for a turnip the size of an orange?
And that is at a mobile Farmer’s Market, catering for poor people who can’t get to the shops and buy ‘good fresh food’
>>As a kid, my father grew turnips the size of soccer-balls to feed his dairy cows – me and all other kids around us made Halloween lanterns out of them.
Where I am now, farmers grow a lot of potatoes, and other stuff.
Due to the well publicised and even more well known effects of Global Warming
(longer growing seasons, bigger crops, nicer weather, CO₂ fertilation amongst them)
That decidedly sh!t weather, those swamped and wasted fields/harvests, the shrivelled miniature vegetables, the skyrocket prices are NOT a demonstrations of warming weather – quite the contrary yet the images we see show the UK to be 2°C warmer than it has ever been.
Me, and all the farmers of the UK call BS on that.
Complete BS
Then you’re calling BS on thermometers.
Spring in the UK as a whole was fractionally warmer than average.
Summer and autumn where, respectively, within the 10 warmest ever recorded by instruments, as was the year as a whole.
Central England Temperature (CET) recorded its joint warmest year on record since 1659; tied with 2022!
Whatever is causing your woes, it ain’t lack of warming.
Using ad hoc quasi-statistics to get the desired result. Reminds me of Mann’s hockey stick.
Except that NIWA have only been hiding the data tampering for about 10-12 years whereas Mikey Mann hid it for 25.
Climate cultists caught lying. Response: It’s old data!!!
Non sequitur. The cultists got busted lying again.
This is another confirmation of my findings, that I described in a previous article on WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/systemic-error-in-global-temperature/