Advertisements

THERE Is No Unprecedented Global Modern Warming

“DURING 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped —nor so they fall outside the range of natural variability…”

OBAMA was right when he hashtagged #ScienceSaysSo!

American Elephants

You have heard the wailing and screaming about President Trump’s exit from the Paris Climate Accords, but do you understand that the agreement, never ratified by the U.S. government (NOT a treaty) accomplished nothing at all to modify or change the climate. The climate of the earth has been changing mildly for millions of years, and there is no unprecedented Global-Scale modern warming. The “Accords” were designed to transfer large amounts of wealth from the rich nations to the poor nations, ostensibly to allow them to save themselves from that non-existent unprecedented warming.

There are two kinds of climate science that we are dealing with. One is based on satellite measurements and thermometer readings and recorded history. The other is based on computer programs, based, I believe on computer programs that were designed to forecast what the financial markets were going to do. They took what they knew about the…

View original post 397 more words

Advertisements

Mother Nature Not Behaving As Climate Scientists Expected

180226-snow-rome-mc2_0f3fec47e045286fb7f1a7a1e199f341.jpg

RARE snowfall turns Rome into winter wonderland | pic NBC News

LATEST data of common climate metrics that are misreported or omitted by the mainstream media because the actual reported *data* simply doesn’t cooperate with their catastrophic global warming narrative…

ARCTIC

THE Arctic still hasn’t melted away as climate zealots prophesied. The “disappearing” ice continues to grow with volume the highest in several years:

Read the rest of this entry »


“THE PAUSE” Lives On : Global Temperatures Continue To Cool Despite Record And Rising CO2 Emissions

 

GLOBAL temps continue their cooling trend, rebounding off the 2015/16 Super El Niño – the strongest since accurate measurements began, caused by surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, west of Central America rising up to 3C warmer than usual.

THE latest UAH V6.0 February anomaly of +0.20 brings temperatures back to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Niño.

UAH Feb data and results here…

*

MEASURING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES – Satellites Vs Thermometers?

satellite-v-thermometer-628x353.png

Satellites

NASA’s MSU satellite measurement systems, generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur.

BEFORE 2016, UAH and RSS both tracked closely showing very little warming in their data sets which led to the identification and validation of “the pause” in global warming which has since become the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

From the RSS website:

HOWEVER, by 2016, Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and who has used the pejorative “denialist” in various correspondence, decided that “the pause” was not a good look for the global warming narrative so RSS was massively adjusted upwards, conveniently eliminating “the pause” in the RSS dataset.

Mears’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website:

MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.

Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

THE result…
Differences between the old version and new version of RSS:

 

 

(Data and research via WUWT)

*

UAH is the satellite data set featured in this post and is jointly run by Dr. John R. Christy –  Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. And Roy Spencer Ph.D. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Spencer commentary on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:

“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.

The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.

Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.

And that is the most important point to be made.”

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

(Climatism bolds)

*

Thermometers

THIS epic twitter conversation between NASA GISS’ chief climate commissar Gavin Schmidt and @7Kiwi captured an epic admission as to the spurious nature of the highly upwardly ‘adjusted’ NASA land-ocean temperature data set, that leads to the huge and widely recognised divergence between satellite observations, climate models and NASA’s GISS temp…

 

A translation (square brackets) of Gavin’s admissions just for fun . Though many truths in it…

NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record

More info on NASA GISTEMP: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

*

IT’S not difficult to see why the NASA data set is the preferred go-to for global warming activists, mainstream media, the UN IPCC and politicians seeking to implement draconian climate policy on their citizenry…

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 8.21.43 am.png

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. [This is an update of Fig. 9a inHansen et al. (2010).]

“The Pause” is well and truly wiped from the record, with vengeance!

C/w UAH satellite global temp data:

 

VISUALISING NASA / NOAA DATA FRAUD aka “Adjustments”

NASA has doubled global warming since 2001:

 

NASA make up make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data. NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is fake:

 

NASA has massively altered their US temperature data since 1999, to make a 1930-2000 cooling trend disappear:

SEE more extreme examples of NASA / NOAA temperature data fraud at Tony Heller’s superb resource: The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

*

GOOD READ : Satellites / Thermometers

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 

via CFACT

by Dr. Roy Spencer

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

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 Dr_-Roy-Spencer-178x300thermometers, 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.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

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 measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

•••

“The Pause” related :

“Hottest Year Evah” Meme via Dataset related :

Climatism Top Posts :

Climate Science related :

Source info :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ, Jamie 🙂

Donate with PayPal

•••


Why John Christy’s Missing Hotspot Matters

“One of the key predicted observations of anthropogenic CO2 climate theory is the existence of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.

“But nobody has yet managed to unequivocally detect that predicted hotspot.”

IMO, one of the most important pieces of the “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.

Dr David Evans wrote an excellent piece on the missing “hot spot” back in 2008:

“No Smoking Hot Spot”
(The Australian)

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-missing-hot-spot/

—–

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

Watts Up With That?

German garden gnome German garden gnome. By Colibri1968 at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsGuest essay by Eric Worrall

One thing which struck me about the recent climate science hearing is how little attention was paid to Dr. John Christy’s demonstration of a flawed climate model prediction – the missing Tropospheric hotspot.

A flawed prediction does not automatically mean the models are totally wrong – but it is a strong indicator that something isn’t right.

Consider the primary observation. The world has warmed since the mid 1850s, and for the sake of argument lets assume that the world has warmed since the mid 1930s.

Given that warming, you could propose a number of different theories for the cause of that warming, for example;

1. Chaotic shifts in ocean currents or solar influences have influenced global temperature.
2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global temperature to rise

View original post 872 more words


Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah”

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

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

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

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Global Warming Hype.jpg

Global Warming activists routinely parrot the infamous “Hottest Year Ever” meme.

However, this depends entirely on which temperature data set is cited:

NASA’s ‘GISS’ temp uses land and ocean-based thermometers which measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ our data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record (square bracket add-ons by Climatism)

Then there are the much more accurate and comprehensive satellite measurement systems, RSS/UAH, which measure 24/7 the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere – the exact place where global warming is meant to occur, according to the theory.

There is a growing divergence between NASA’s (land-based) GISS temp and RSS (lower troposphere) satellite temps since 2000:

nasa-giss-vs-rss-satellite

Gavin’s New Site | Real Science

The growing divergence between NASA’s GISS and RSS satellite data sets, since 2000, didn’t used to be so stark.

So why the obvious temp divergence, post 2000, after near exact correlation from 1979?

Before 2016 El Niño :

rss-v-giss-divergence

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Current RSS v GISS :

RSS v GISS divergence post 2000.png

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Tony Heller of Real Climate Scienceamongst many other heroic climate realists, have spent thousands of unpaid hours explaining why NASA’s data set has been corrupted by 1. UHI and 2. ‘Cooling the past and warming the present.'(data manipulation) to fit the global warming narrative.

UHI (Urban Heat Island effect):

All Warming In NSW And Victoria Is Due To UHI

I did a survey of the ten oldest stations in New South Wales And Victoria, circled below. Three rural stations were not included because of obvious problems with the data, but none showed any warming.

MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE              ASN00086071
DENILIQUIN (WILKINSON ST)              ASN00074128
BATHURST GAOL                          ASN00063004
SYDNEY (OBSERVATORY HILL)              ASN00066062
CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE          GSN     ASN00090015
BOURKE POST OFFICE                     ASN00048013
WAGGA WAGGA (KOORINGAL)                ASN00072151
FORBES (CAMP STREET)                   ASN00065016
INVERELL COMPARISON                    ASN00056017
GUNNEDAH POOL                          ASN00055023

ScreenHunter_3589 Oct. 11 08.55

The two urban stations at Melbourne and Sydney both showed strong warming, and both have disastrously poor siting of their thermometers in the middle of large cities.

ScreenHunter_3552 Oct. 11 07.59ScreenHunter_3566 Oct. 11 08.22

By contrast, all of the rural stations show a long term cooling trend, with some recent warming. (Note that there is no data for the most recent years with some of the rural stations.)

ScreenHunter_3563 Oct. 11 08.17ScreenHunter_3558 Oct. 11 08.11

ScreenHunter_3570 Oct. 11 08.28ScreenHunter_3574 Oct. 11 08.34

ScreenHunter_3582 Oct. 11 08.47

The only conclusion which can be derived from this is that Australia has not warmed long-term, and that BOM claims of record temperatures are due to UHI and/or data tampering.

For all GHCN stations in Australia, there is no net warming since 1880

ScreenHunter_3512 Oct. 11 05.31

Satellites temperature measurement systems, UAH/RSS, are not polluted with asphalt, car parks, AC exhausts or human development, which is probably why they show no statistically significant global warming, at all, for nearly two decades :

UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2016_v6-550x318.jpg

LATEST GLOBAL TEMPS – UAH SATELLITE – ROY SPENCER – Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

rss-from-1979

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

UPDATE April, 2 2017

Current RSS Satellite temp data…

(Note record temp drop post 2016 El nino. Confirmed by UK Met office.)

Screen Shot 2017-04-02 at , April 2, 3.44.30 PM.png

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

On the other hand, NASA’s climate change activist-in-chief, Gavin Schmidt’s GISS temp measures; asphalt, car parks, AC exhausts and human development :

From WUWT :

How not to measure temperature (or climate change) #96

From the “global warming data looks better with heat-sinks and air conditioners” department.

Dr. Mark Albright, of the University of Washington writes:

Here is a great example of how NOT to measure the climate! On our way back to Tucson from Phoenix on Monday we stopped by to see the Picacho 8 SE coop site at Picacho Peak State Park. Note the white MMTS temperature monitor 1/3 of the way in from the left. The building is surrounded by the natural terrain of the Sonoran Desert, but instead the worst possible site adjacent to the paved road and SW facing brick wall was chosen in 2009 as the location to monitor temperature.

Here is a view looking Northeast:

Picacho8SE-looking-NE

For an aerial view in google maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/32°38’45.9%22N+111°24’06.9%22W/@32.6461088,-111.4018201,111m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

The NCEI HOMR metadata repository tells us:
COMPATABLE EQUIPMENT MOVE 55 FEET DUE WEST. EQUIPMENT MOVED 05/06/2009. (that is when the new state park visitor center was built)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20001376&tab=MISC

Additional photos:

Picacho8SE-looking-E

Note the air conditioner heat exchangers within a few feet of the MMTS sensor:Picacho8SE-looking-NPicacho8SE-looking-NWPicacho8SE-looking-SE


 

Picacho 8 SE has it all: brick building, parking lot, road, and air conditioner heat exchangers within a few feet of the MMTS sensor.

This one takes the cake, and I think it is worse than our former worst-case USHCN station (now closed) located in a parking lot in Tucson at the University of Arizona:

Tucson-USHCN

 

•••

And here’s the resulting UHI-polluted graph from NASA :

Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at , September 8, 3.32.05 PM.png

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

•••

Outside of how to accurately measure the earth’s atmosphere to detect the supposed anthropogenic global warming signal, there is a mountain of damning evidence relating to the fraudulent tampering of the global temperature record by climate activist government agencies – NASA and NOAA.

I highly recommend visiting Tony Heller’s site “Real Climate Science” for a comprehensive understanding of the blatant manipulation of NASA’s GISS temp data set to fit the global warming narrative.

Some examples via Tony Heller of NASA ‘cooling the past and warming the present’:

NASA has massively altered their global temperature data over the past 15 years, to double global warming:

NASA GISS FRAUD.gif

A Closer Look At GISS Temperature Fraud | Real Science

The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934:

NASA US temp adjustment.gif

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science

NASA didn’t like the 1940’s warmth in Iceland, so they simply erased it:

The Arctic warming from 1910 to 1940 completely wrecks the alarmist’s story. Fortunately for them, they control the NASA and NOAA data and can tamper with it any way they want to produce data which matches their theory.

They are constantly cooling the past in Iceland, with their latest handiwork shown below.

Reykjavik

Original version : Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Most recent tampering : Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

What they can’t tamper with is the written record of eyewitnesses.

ScreenHunter_151 Aug. 12 16.38

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?] M…

ScreenHunter_152 Aug. 12 16.41

31 May 1947 – TEMPERATURES RISING IN ARCTIC REGION LOS ANGELES…

•••

See also :

Related :

NASA Data Fraud Related :

Australia Massaged Adjustment / UHI Related :


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” :


RSS Continues To Diverge From GISS

Perhaps Gavin forgot to adjust-out the UHI effect of ‘hot-air’ belched from 40,000 climate warriors in Paris?

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

RSS figures for November are now out, and also show a small fall on October, as did UAH. The 12-month running average still refuses to go above earlier years, despite the strongest El Nino conditions since 1998.

ts.gif

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

Although temperatures are likely to rise still further in the next few months, there is absolutely no way this year will come close to approaching either 1998 or even 2010.

image

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

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend

It’s time to call the fraud squad in.

View original post