Note: the comments on height and the greenhouse effect are not accurate. Please see next article for a better description

Summary so far

In previous articles, I have tried to work out to what extent I can produce a global temperature which is free from the “thumb on the scales” as Dr Bates referred to NOAA’s own attempts to get rid of the global temperature pause. There are also indications that NASA have been trying to get rid of the 1970s cooling.
I am reasonably confident that the satellite data is the best available global temperature we have. This is because it is the only sensor where we have a known quality standard and traceability of calibration back to recognised standards. In contrast, from my own experience, I know that ground sensors have huge problems, and there is a complete lack of quality control which would make even a chocolate chip manufacturer squirm.
So, far I have identified an apparent yearly increase in land surface temperature apparently starting in 1970. I have proposed a way to remove this and was at the stage of comparing my proposed solution with available temperature sets when I went to look at Meteorological balloons.

Meteorological Balloons

I downloaded the data from NOAA  and produced this.
Something is very odd with this. All the layers above 300mb (9km) are cooling and the higher ones most and the lower layers are warming. Could this be the signature of global warming? According to the Noddy theory of global warming, CO2 traps IR, so this, Noddy researchers might conclude is the signature of greenhouse gases: the heat is trapped in the bottom of the atmosphere and so there’s no heat for the top. Continue reading →

Following the last post  I had a go to see what the graph might look like. With a bit of added processing to CET to give it a similar dynamic to the other global temperature proxy datasets, I produced the following curves which are overlaid here:

And in one continuous sequence here:

In the last article I concluded that a reasonable proxy for global temperature could be produced using CET, then sea temperatures (HADSST3) then UAH6. However, that left me wondering why land based temperatures were so appalling. So, I decided to have a look at temperatures from 1980 onward which is when we see problems as the following shows:It didn’t take me long to work out what was going on. The following graph (all 12month smoothing) is produced by overlaying onto UAH6 a copy of HADSST 3offset by 0.21 with a copy of land based measurements (CRUTEM4) with a -0.22 offset PLUS a “detrend” of 0.6. (Which is equivalent to about 0.17C/decade of introduced warming)
I think it’s safe to say, that they are all close to each other. Continue reading →

I was planning to write today about a superb piece by Coral Davenport of the New York Times which has run a few intelligent articles on climate and the environment lately:

Head Stacks Agency With Climate Change Skeptics

However, for me the most interesting part was close to the end:

Mr. Inhofe, 82, will complete his current Senate term in 2020. While he declined to speak of his retirement plans, Mr. Inhofe said of Mr. Pruitt, “I think he’d make a great senator.”

I will say very firmly that there are few politicians I admire as I think we are poorly served by most. However there are a few notable exceptions and Inhofe is one. Yes there are always back room guys who do the actual work like Mark Morano and others, but as I like to put it: “you always need a fairy to put on top of the tree”. And Inhofe was the guy who became the key politician, at a time of immense and systematic hostility, who was willing to speak up for common sense on climate.
Any politician can get behind a cause which is widely respected and liked. But few have the guts to stand up for what they know to be right at a time when every other politician is going with the crowd the other way. But Inhofe stood up to be counted at a key time and in doing so he was widely vilified and the target of much public hate. That takes guts for a politician.
Once Inhofe was one of the key politicians constantly in the climate news. But since Trump, I’ve noticed that Inhofe’s name has been missing and I was even wondering what had happened to him …. now perhaps we know? Has he has metaphorically handed the snowball onto a younger generation?

Thanks for all you’ve done Inhofe.

Following the behaviour of the Lords & many politicians in trying to thwart the will of the British people over Brexit, they have shown they cannot be trusted with our democracy. The House of Lords should be scrapped and replaced by an apolitical body such as a citizens assembly.
The exact nature of the citizen’s assembly is not as important as that the upper house should be largely free of the self-serving career politicians and bought peerages who have have recently shown so much contempt for the will of the people. Several options are possible including an assembly selected like a jury from volunteers or one appointed by a similar citizen’s panel where members are chosen for the character not their political colour.

In my last post I created a reconstruction of global temperature over 350 years which I show below:

And as I said in the article, I was confused why the UAH 6 (red) had not warmed as much as the Central England Temperature (CET). I thought about it and it seemed to me that there was some factor affecting CET which in some way was being averaged out by the far more global UAH, which implied that some parts of the world were more like CET and had been warmer and some must have been a lot cooler so that the average overall was lower. At first I assumed this might be a northern-southern hemisphere. So, I played around with a few graphs on WoodForTrees.org and eventually produced this:

Here we can see that the actual global temperature from UAH is the lowest of the bunch, which is not that different from HADCRUT global south which is mostly ocean, next is Hadcrut north which is more land and the highest is CRUTEM north which is land only from the northern hemisphere. Continue reading →

Recently there’s been a couple of times I needed a global temperature but for obvious reasons I do not think it would be ethical to use reconstructions that I feel are fraudulent. This has left only UAH6 (which is the best impartial temperature we have in terms of the modern era from ~1980. Before that we now have a host of literally fabricated graphs that consistently add warming.
However, back in 1981, the guys at NASA were still in two minds about whether the world was warming or cooling. As such, whilst the data may have inherent biases like urban heating, it doesn’t necessarily have cherry picking of stations and processing techniques to manufacture an additional trend.
So, I started with a copy of Hansen et al 1981. Allegedly this is a 5 year running mean, but when I tried to match it to a similar running mean of UAH there was clearly far more variation in UAH. So, eventually I used a 20year smoothing on UAH 6.0
However, unfortunately, UAH starts in 1980 and Hansen et al finishes then, so they do not overlap. So in order to judge the the vertical offset I grabbed a copy of the Central England Temperature series. I’m not sure of the smoothing on this.
Hansen et al 1981 fits reasonable well – showing that CET is a good proxy for global temperature, but then the UAH 6.0 section shows a good start and then England is about 1C warmer between 1990 and 2009. I’ve checked several times and I can’t see anything wrong with the scaling so it appears to be genuine. It still needs work, but I’ll post it anyway in case anyone spots any obvious mistakes or has any ideas about vertical alignment.

Comment

Is it just me or does that “catastrophic global warming” scam look pretty daft when you see it shown thus. In particular – I’m struggling to reconcile is the feeling that there ought to be more warming in the last section … whilst knowing that on CET even the higher warming shown is totally unremarkable. So global temperature change shown red+black is less remarkable than not remarkable.

What’s all the fuss about?

Back in December 2014 I wrote an article entitled: “Inhofe: finally the big guns are firing!”

I guess those shells have finally landed. Today I heard this:

Climate scientist Michael Mann’s new book says climate denial is ‘driving us crazy’“This is what happens when ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers run the show,” said Michael Mann,
….“It’s an all-out assault on Earth,”

Notice how the simple expediency of removing funding from bloated and corrupt government departments who waste their time on bogus hockey sticks, hiding the decline and fabricated graphs like this:
… becomes an assault on the whole planet. Bring out the straight jackets!
Or to use another of my Metaphors the kick from Climategate has finally reached Michael Mann’s tiny brain and it’s clear his eyes are watering:

At this point I want to again thank all the individuals both sceptic bloggers and those who supported us and made this possible. I can’t repeat this sentiment often enough:

Never before have so few achieved so much with so little … except that is the whole of science and mother nature on our side.

As expected the cuts are beginning. We’ve already heard that NASA climate is effectively closing, now we have more details at NOAA and EPA.

Trump administration to cut climate change science agency NOAA’s budget by almost 20 percent claims new report

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280688/NOAA-budget-cut-Trump-administration-memo-says.html