By Paul Homewood
Between 1979 and 2001, atmospheric temperatures above the oceans, as measured by UAH, rose slightly faster then sea surface temperatures as measured by NOAA’s ERSST series, the one now used in their global temperature datasets.
This is exactly what would be expected. As NASA explain:
Sea surface temperatures have a large influence on climate and weather. Even changes of just a few degrees Celsius can influence large-scale weather phenomena, such as El Niño or tropical cyclones. One reason for this big influence is that evaporation from the oceans is the primary source of water vapor in the atmosphere. The warmer the water, the greater the evaporation.
It is this process of evaporation which cools the oceans, and subsequently warms the atmosphere via condensation.
Moreover, temperature changes in the atmosphere tend to be greater than on the sea surface because of the much larger heat content of the…
View original post 64 more words
Worth another read after ‘The Daily Caller’ article on NOAA’s junk temperature science :
“300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data”
Patrick J. Michaels
Richard S. Lindzen
Paul C. Knappenberger
A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors, that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.
The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure…
View original post 546 more words
Reaping the carbon policy harvest
18 January 2016
For five years, Tata, the Indian firm that owns what used to be British Steel has been warning that energy costs in Britain are squeezing competitiveness.
Previous reductions have accelerated in 2015 with a 15 per cent cut in jobs.
Successive UK governments have responded by further turning the screws with now renewable energy requirements and other impacts. And each new announcement of retrenchments, like the most recent one, is met by anguished blame shifting and calls for specific supports.
Politicians the world over have a knack of etherealising their decisions on renewable energy as though they have no consequences.
Many have been conditioned by absurdities like the sun and wind is free so how can using this energy be adding to costs and their eyes glaze over when confronted by hard data demonstrating the renewals…
View original post 303 more words
By Paul Homewood
This is a must read, and definitely worth a bookmark.
Guest post from Roy Spencer for CFACT:
The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface thermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).
The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.
The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.
While the thermometers…
View original post 1,179 more words
300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’Posted: January 29, 2016
The following letter has been sent to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, regarding NOAA’s “pause buster” data shenanigans that we highlighted back in the summer of 2015.
The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:
“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”
I’ll say. As Bob Tisdale and I wrote back in June:
“If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.”
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go…
View original post 531 more words
2015 was the most fraudulent year on record at the White House. Their claim is utter nonsense.
Their 1981 version of the same graph only shows a little over half that much warming from 1880 to 1980.
The next graph overlays the two above at the same scale, normalized to the late 1970’s. NASA has massively cooled the past, far outside of their own error bars.
They added about 0.3C warming prior to 1980 by altering the data, and show another 0.2C warming since 2001, during a time when satellites show cooling.
Most of their surface temperatures are fake. There are vast areas of land with little or no temperature readings, and many of the thermometers they do have are contaminated by urban heat island effects.
View original post 92 more words
By Paul Homewood
I touched on the question of UHI the other day, and questioned whether NOAA/GISS were adequately allowing for it.
It is therefore perhaps worth reposting this article from 2014, which introduced a detailed study by Ronan Connolly, Urbanization bias III. Estimating the extent of bias in the Historical Climatology Network datasets
View original post 809 more words