Posted: December 7, 2015 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Climate Change, Climate Fraud, Climatism, COP21, Data Tampering, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Global Temperature, NASA, Satellite Data, UAH | Tags: Alarmism debunked, Climate Change, COP21, Data Fraud, Data Tampering, Dr Roy Spencer, Empirical Evidence, GISS, Global Temperature, Global Warming "Pause", RSS Satellite Data, Satellite Data, UAH
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Dr Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for Climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and current principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, reports that 2015 will not be “The Hottest Year Ever” despite a strong El Niño …. and even stronger hot-air from the climate alarm industry.
December 3rd, 2015
Way back in June, John Christy and I called 2015 as being the warmest year on record…in the surface thermometer data. Given the strong El Nino in progress, on top of the official thermometer data warming trend, this seemed pretty obvious.
Of course, everyone has their opinions regarding how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder.
But I’m not going there today…
Instead, I’m going to talk about our only truly global dataset: the satellite data. With the November 2015 data now in, it’s pretty clear that in our UAH analysis 2015 will only be the 3rd warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. Based upon my calculations, this will be true no matter what happens in December (barring Armageddon).
Here are the yearly rankings, for which I assumed the December 2015 anomaly will be +0.40 C (click for full-size):
The years are displayed with the warmest on the left, and the coldest on the right. The color coding and arrows have to do with El Nino years…
Read on …
2015 will be the 3rd Warmest Year in the Satellite Record « Roy Spencer, PhD
UAH and RSS
With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the atmospheric temperature measurement systems used to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere – the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured :
Roy Spencer :
…if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.
Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.
And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record « Roy Spencer, PhD
The temperature divergence, this century, between NASA GISS temp (land based) and RSS satellite data, is mind-blowing.
Looks like someone is adjusting the curve to fit the ‘global warming’ narrative. Gavin? Tom?
Paul Homewood from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :
Between 1979 and 2001, the RSS satellite data increased at virtually the same rate as GISS. Since then, there has been a massive divergence, with GISS claiming that the pace of increase has barely reduced from the earlier period.
In contrast RSS (and also UAH) confirm that, if anything, temperatures have been dropping.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
It’s time to call the fraud squad in.
Climate alarmist industry headlines “Hottest Year Ever” :
Posted: September 18, 2013 Filed under: Alarmism, Alarmism Debunked, Angry Summer, Australia, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Tax, Climate Alarmism, Climate Commission, Govt Climate Agenda, Propaganda, Tim Flannery, UAH | Tags: Australia, climate changes, Climate Commission, Jo Nova, Karoly, UAH satellite data
“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
Another round of government-funded PR went out a couple of weeks ago, across the obedient Pravda-media. It told us about another meaningless “record” that was probably not a record, and wouldn’t tell us whether man-made warming was the cause, even if it was. Not a single journalist had the wherewithal, nous or intellectual honesty to search the Internet looking for a different point of view. Though, in their defense, how could they have guessed that Prof David Karoly wouldn’t know about the UAH satellite program to measure temperatures? (It has only been running since 1979.)
This below, are the 12 month averages over Australia by satellite. Graphed at Kens Kingdom by Ken Stewart, with no doctorate in climatology and no government funds.
In the troposphere over Australia it was a hot year but not a record.
For the third time this year we’ve been hit with claims of a “hottest ever” record that doesn’t tell us anything about the climate, but does reveal a lot about the sick state of government funded science, corrupted, decrepit, and so far from being scientific it might as well be run by Greenpeace. If the government stopped funding climate science entirely, climate research might speed up.
The “hottest” headlines are science-marketing
- Again, for the third time, the more accurate, more comprehensive satellites show it was a hot year, but was probably not a record. Satellite data shows we didn’t have a hot angry summer. Man-made emissions were probably not to blame for the hot angry summer we didn’t have. And now apparently we also haven’t quite had the “hottest” 12 month period since 1910 either, but the hottest since 2010. (But what’s a hundred years between friends?)
- Again, for the third time, the “records” depend on mystery methods that can’t be replicated. This time the records appear to be based on ACORN data, supposedly the highest quality we have. This is the dataset we were told had neutral adjustments — an equal number of positive and negative changes. But inexplicably (yet again) somehow those neutral changes increase the trend. (Define neutral?) Who would have guessed that thermometers in the 1920s and 30s were overestimating temperatures and nobody noticed for decades after the fact? (Lucky that got fixed, eh!) Handily for record-makers, the BOM have more than one dataset — if it’s not a record in one, it might be in the other? The angry summer records depended on AWAP data that are not published in full either, and subject to different mystery-black-boxadjustments. Back in 1910 that set has a mere 16 temperature stations on a continent of 7 million square kilometers. (No there can’t possibly be anything to hide in those undisclosed methods can there?)
- Again, for the millionth time, even if it is the hottest for a century, it doesn’t mean anything about the cause. To state the bleeding obvious: all causes of warming cause warming. The world started warming up in the 1700′s, long before CO2, the trend was the same in the 1870s as it was in the 1980s. None of that fits the man-made- emissions graph of CO2. Ergo, CO2 didn’t have much effect, if any. The climate models can’t tell us what caused the warming to start 2-300 years ago, they don’t work on 20 year, 2000 year or 200,000 year scales. They don’t work on local, regional or global scales. They don’t work on vertical atmospheric scales. They don’t work.
The need for constant “record” headlines (despite the conflicting data) is the mark of an effective lobby group, but it isn’t the mark of careful impartial scientist.
The satellite data shows it was not a record
There are thousands of measurements coming in from satellites that criss cross the nation day and night covering every corner of the land. This data came out within a few days of the propaganda pieces published all over the country, but the “scientists” at The University of Melbourne couldn’t wait, indeed, they were in such a rush you’d think there was an election on, and dare I say, that getting out an inaccurate message before the vote, was more important than waiting a few days to get the science right?
The satellite measured TLT (meaning Tropospheric Lower Temperature) more accurately shows what the bulk atmosphere above the Australian land-mass is doing – which is the quantity that is most directly related to greenhouse gas impacts. Indeed the models tell us that the rate of warming should be larger in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface. In other words, if CO2 caused the warming, it would turn up in these satellite records before we saw it in the surface charts.
Some of the propaganda
The Conversation includes this gem of reasoning from David Karoly:
“However, attributing a single event or a record to human activities isn’t easy. But last year Hurricane Sandy put the spotlight on climate change and extreme weather.”
In other words, long trends don’t matter, ignore decadal averages, the current drought in hurricanes, forget global compilations of energy that show that storms are not getting worse, throw all your history out the window. If there is ever a bad storm anywhere in the world, it is our fault. Straight from the playbook of the witchdoctors of neolithic times. Send Karoly some conch shells.
Donate to connect-a-scientist to the World Wide Web
I ask again, as I did in June, if the satellites showed that the last Australian year was a record hot temperature, would Sophie Lewis and David Karoly have left that data off the paper, and entirely out of their calculations, and removed all mention of them from their press releases? (Climatism Emboldened)
As I said then:
The peer reviewed, comprehensive, [hottest ever] Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”, or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”.
Since the Uni of Melbourne don’t seem to have web access, perhaps someone can do them a favor and send them this in snail-mail so they can finally find out about the University of Huntsville Alabama? I’m sure John Christy would be happy to post them a printout of the UAH Australian data. I can relay messages if Prof Karoly would like.
Luckily my email goes all the way to America.
Thanks to Ken, Ed, Chris, and all the independent BOM audit team and to John Christy for the data.
This guy rips the Bureau Of Meteorology “Hottest Ever Year” false claims to shreds:
January 6th, 2014 at 04:13pm
The Bureau Of Meteorology released a statement on Friday which claimed that 2013 was Australia’s hottest year on record, with an average temperature of 23 degrees which, according to them, is 1.2 degrees above the long-term average. The numbers just didn’t quite seem right to me as 23 degrees seems like a an average maximum temperature, simply because of the massive areas of the country which struggle to reach 23 degrees during the day for much of the year, and that overnight lows don’t spend much time hovering as high as 23 degrees in much of the country for much of the year. Continue Reading »
Australia Climate Related: