Advertisements

2015 Will Not Be The “Hottest Year On Record”

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 Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“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
NOAA.

“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.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6•••

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.

2015 will be the 3rd Warmest Year in the Satellite Record

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):
UAH-LT-El-Nino-year-rankings

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:

Yearly-global-LT-UAH-RSS-thru-Sept-2014.png

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

•••

UPDATE

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.

trend

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

It’s time to call the fraud squad in.

•••

Related :

Climate alarmist industry headlines “Hottest Year Ever” :

Advertisements

NASA Sea Level Fraud

When measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, NASA and the climate crisis industry refuse to acknowledge the much more comprehensive and accurate satellite data sets, UAH and RSS, as both show no global warming at all over the past 20 years. Instead they opt for the UHI effected and massively tampered with, GISStemp land-based data set.

Yet to measure sea-level rise, they are more than happy to use satellite data, over (land-based) tidal gauge data, when a glitch in the system fits their warming bias.

Shameless cherry picking and the biggest wilful scientific scandal in history.

Real Science

NASA shows 3.24 mm/year sea level rise on their web site. They call it “Facts” – when in fact it is blatant fraud.

2015-12-06-03-48-172015-12-06-03-48-222015-12-06-02-52-42

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Sea Level

Until early December 2015, NOAA had this web page up showing about half that much sea level rise. NOAA just made it disappear ahead of COP 21.

2015-11-05-08-57-48

the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.

Sea Level Trends – Global Regional Trends

Here is the web archive link from September 10, 2015

September 10, 2015 : Sea Level Trends – Global Regional Trends

So let’s look at how NASA committed their fraud. The first thing they did was to add in a 0.3 mm/year “Global Isostatic Adjustment” (GIA) to their satellite data.  This is a completely fraudulent adjustment based on theoretical sea floor sinking – which should be used to calculate the sea floor height

View original post 319 more words


How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?

Despite a lifespan of only fifteen years, running at max 30% output, an industrial windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

Sadly however, contradictory facts to the prescribed orthodoxy matter little in the ideological echo charmer of the great global warming swindle.

STOP THESE THINGS

turbine base

The ONLY justification for wind power – the massive subsidies upon which it entirely depends (see our post here); spiralling power prices (see our post here); and the suffering caused to neighbours by incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here) – is the claim that it reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

STT has pointed out – just once or twice – that that claim is nothing more than a central, endlessly repeated lie.

Because wind power fails to deliver at all hundreds of times each year, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources – which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses – as it does on a routine, but unpredictable, basis (see our posts here and here and here and 

View original post 898 more words


Wind Power: Not ‘Cheap’, Not ‘Clean’ and Not ‘Green’

New coal-fired power plants are currently being built at a record rate around the world including within the most ideologically aggressive ‘green’ nation in the world, Germany, who is undergoing the biggest resurgence of coal-fired power plant production in her history.

They are being built, not because the German public doesn’t prefer wind and solar but because those technologies can’t produce enough of the reasonably-priced, reliable energy necessary to power an advanced, industrial economy.

The crazed rush into feel-good ‘unreliable’ energies; wind and solar, based on dodgy, one-way science and ideologically driven politics, represents one of the most heinous and irresponsible acts of environmental and economic policy making in modern history.

STOP THESE THINGS

steel in turbine

The central, endlessly repeated lie upon which the wind industry seeks to ‘justify’ the colossal and endless subsidies upon which it critically depends; the destruction of wind farm neighbours’ health, wealth and happiness; and the slaughter of millions of birds and bats, is that wind power causes substantial reductions of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

STT has been slamming that myth since we cranked into gear nearly 3 years ago. It’s a topic that attracts plenty of interest.

Our post – How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine? – has clocked over 11,000 hits; and still attracts plenty of attention.

One petulant retort is that building a coal-fired power plant (or, heaven forbid, a skyscraper) using thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel adds mountains of CO2 gas (incidentally, an odourless, colourless naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on Earth) to a soon to…

View original post 822 more words


The robust Pause resists a robust el Niño Still no global warming at all for 18 years 9 months

With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures from satellite ones, and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models to observed reality, it is worth a background on atmospheric measurement systems from former NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. – climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who he developed the first temperature record based on satellites…

Roy Spencer On Satellite (UAH / RSS) v Surface Temperature Data (NASA GISS) :

I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.
..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.
(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).
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:

Yearly-global-LT-UAH-RSS-thru-Sept-2014.png

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).

via Roy Spencer On Satellite v Surface Temperature Data | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

2015 “Hottest Year Ever” Update :

2015 will be the 3rd Warmest Year in the Satellite Record « Roy Spencer, PhD

Watts Up With That?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Christmas pantomime here in Paris is well int0 its two-week run. The Druids who had hoped that their gibbering incantations might begin to shorten the Pause during the United Necromancers’ pre-solstice prayer-group have been disappointed. Gaia has not heeded them. She continues to show no sign of the “fever” long promised by the Prophet Gore. The robust Pause continues to resist the gathering el Niño. It remains at last month’s record-setting 18 years 9 months (Fig. 1).

clip_image002

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset continues to show no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The modelers ought to be surprised by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, with rare honesty, said in its 2008 State of…

View original post 4,467 more words


44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum (COP21 Update)

Two years has passed from first publishing this post, and there is still no sea-level rise in the same Pacific islands that 40,000 COP21 Paris climate delegates and climate catastrophists assure you are “drowning”. (See UPDATE 2015)

These are the same Pacific islands that Australia’s warmist PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has just granted USD $1,000,000,000 (One Thousand Million Dollars) to help stop a sea level rise that isn’t happening. Breathtaking insanity and a hubris that would make King Canute blush, ultimately defrauding Australian taxpayers of their hard-earned money.

Did anyone in the Australian government google “Pacific Island sea-level rise data” before pledging a billion to the UN? Silly question.

If someone in government had spent 10 minutes and 10 cents googling, they would have found no cause for concern at all.

Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Global Warming or Global Weirding is not about science or the environment. It never was.

You are witnessing the biggest scam in history, jam packed with deceit and fraud. Evidence of this can be found in this post, which cost nothing more than a laptop and a few hours…

Climatism

“We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.
– Saufatu Sopoanga, fmr Prime Minister of Tuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

Screen Shot 2013-09-04 at , September 4, 1.09.31 AM

Sinking islands call for NZ action – NZ Herald 3/9/2013

MAJURO, Marshall Islands – A tense opening session of the 44th Pacific Islands Forum has been dominated by appeals from Pacific…

View original post 1,086 more words


Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste

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 Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“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
NOAA.

“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.

•••

GettyImages-459376778-snow-640x480.jpg

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 30 Nov 2015 | Breitbart

Over the next 10 days, 140 world leaders – including Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and David Cameron – will descend on Paris to join 40,000 delegates at the UN’s COP21 climate conference.

Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.

1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

monckton1

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs

6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted

Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.

NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicised attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of theClimategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.

7. Winter Is Coming

Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum  (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.

8. CO2 is greening the planet

The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.

9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.

Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.

10. People are losing interest in global warming.

A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat, b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threats

11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist

This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.”  $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.

Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.

Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste | Breitbart

•••

See also :

COP21 related :

UN (Paris COP21) related :