Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures

The current ~20 year global warming / climate change “hiatus/pause” set to continue (post El Niño), despite record and increasing CO2 emissions!

Global Warming theory check?

Watts Up With That?

UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2016: +0.34 deg. C

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6-1

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year). […]
The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.
As promised just over a week ago, here’s how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite…

View original post 607 more words


Global Surface Temperature Anomalies Should Be Higher In 2016 Than 2015

Global surface temperatures should be higher every year as “CO2” massively increases year to year.

But the current ~ 20 year ‘global warming’ stasis suggests otherwise.

Ergo, trace gas and plant food, CO2, sounds like the perfect patsy to control you, your energy use and every other critical aspect of your life that requires …. energy aka CO2.

Getting it now?

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

This post confirms what most of us suspect based on the history of global surface temperature data responses to strong El Niño events. That is, if global surface temperatures respond similarly to past strong El Niños, the 2016 values should be higher than 2015.

TABLE OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES DURING EVOLUTION AND DECAY YEARS OF STRONG EL NIÑOS, AND THEIR DIFFERENCE

Table 1 lists the global temperature anomalies from GISS, NOAA NCEI and UKMO for the evolution and decay years, and their differences, during the eight strong El Niño events of 1957/58, 1965/66, 1972/73, 1982/83, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1997/98, and 2009/10. I’ve also listed the 2015 values for the 2015/16 El Niño. For this discussion, I’ve defined a strong El Niño as one where the peak NOAA Oceanic NINO Index value equals or exceeds 1.5 deg C. The annual global temperature anomaly values are as provided by…

View original post 333 more words


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” :


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


Another climate scare debunked. Professor urges calm

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

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

un-logo-communist-1.jpg

•••

via Andrew Bolt :

Professor Michael Asten urges calm – and a bit of honesty in the warming debate :

UN climate agency is exaggerating the effects of El Nino

  • THE AUSTRALIAN
  • NOVEMBER 28, 2015 12:00AM


The UN climate agency, the World Meteorological Organisation, has predictably hyped the global warming associated with this El Nino to encourage political leaders to action in next week’s Paris climate conference (”UN tips 2015 as hottest year”, 26/11).

However, its press release overlooks the full WMO discussion which notes that this El Nino is similar to three significant events in 1972-73, 1982-83 and 1997-98. It is not an unprecedented event, and past experience shows that prediction of the progress of El Ninos is notoriously difficult. The WMO quotes only surface temperature data, which may be subject to upward biases from meteorological stations sited in cities and ships that are thermal sources. The two data sets of lower atmosphere temperatures as measured globally using weather balloons and satellites were not used by the WMO, but they show a less alarming result — there is no upward statistical trend in global temperatures over the past 18 years, a feature much discussed in scientific journals as “the pause”.

Empirical scientists should be alarmed that while the most commonly quoted climate models predict a global temperature increase of 3C per century over this time, it is not happening. Rather than being panicked by the WMO press release, Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt and their opposite numbers represented in Paris would serve us well by pausing their deliberations until science delivers a global temperature model consistent with measurement.

•••

“The Pause” related :

UN (Paris COP21) related :


One Climate Prediction That Came True

President Eisenhower saw the current corruption of government and science coming, 55 years ago:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.”

– Dwight Eisenhower 1960

Real Science

Two years ago, I realized that the criminals at NOAA and NASA were no longer making any attempt to generate honest temperatures, and I predicted that they were ramping up to engage in whatever fraud was necessary to declare every month to be the hottest ever. My prediction was correct, with criminals running the White House, NOAA and NASA.

July was the hottest month worldwide since records began being kept in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Thursday.

The temperature in July, when averaged for all locations around the planet, was 61.86 degrees, topping the previous hottest months of July 1998 and July 2010.

Germany and the United Kingdom both broke all-time July heat records.

July was Earth’s hottest month ever recorded

The level of fraud on display here is off scale. The UK had a cold July, and globally – July of 1998 was much hotter.

ch_tlt_2015_07_anom_v03_3 (1)ch_tlt_1998_07_anom_v03_3

July…

View original post 92 more words


Settled Science Update : New Paper Finds 18 Year Warming ‘Pause’ Not Due To Missing Heat Hiding In The Deep Ocean

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.

•••
download

via THE HOCKEY SCHTICK :

New paper finds the 18+ year ‘pause’ of global warming is not due to missing heat hiding in the deep oceans

A new paper published in Ocean Science Discussions directly contradicts the claim that “90%” of the alleged “missing heat” from anthropogenic global warming has disappeared into the deep oceans below 2000 meters. This was, according to the authors, the favored excuse (out of more than 70 ‘excuses’ at this point) for the “pause” or “hiatus” of global warming over the past 18+ years.

Warming of the deep oceans, however, would cause thermal expansion of the deep oceans and add to sea level rise [called steric sea level rise]. The authors examined several datasets including satellite altimetry, ARGO floats, and the GRACE gravitometer satellites, and find that the thermal expansion of the deep oceans and contribution to sea level rise is “negligible,” and thus, there is no evidence that the alleged “missing heat” “trapped” by greenhouse gases has somehow sunken to the deep oceans. In addition, the “missing heat” is also nowhere to be found in the upper oceans, nor the atmosphere (because in reality it was lost to space as increased outgoing IR radiation over the past 62 years).

The authors find the sea level budget of total sea level rise is “closed” with “negligible” contribution from the deep ocean, thus no warming or thermal expansion from the “missing heat” in the deep ocean can be accounted for:

“…the sea level budget is closed when using the CCI, AVISO and NOAA data. Hence, in these cases, the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) contribution is negligible.”

Note: see prior Hockey Schtick posts using the GRACE ocean mass + ARGO steric sea level calculation of sea level change described in this paper, as well as this NOAA 2012 calculation of same showing sea level rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC.
Excerpts, full paper here

Read full post via THE HOCKEY SCHTICK ….

•••

UPDATE :

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed | NASA

Oceans Not warming NASA study.png

Related : 

Climatism Hot Links :


22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming

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
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.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

22-inconvenienttruths-on-global-warming

A highly insightful contribution from Jean-Pierre Bardinetvia WattsUpWithThat, detailing the inconvenient questions that underpin why so many people, and now more and more governments, remain and are becoming increasingly sceptical of the ‘science’ that drives the trillion dollar, man-made global warming climate change industry.

A must read for anyone interested in the science of climate, rather than the science of politics or ideology.

•••

Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinetvia WattsUpWithThat 

According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.

Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.

But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list.


The 22 Inconvenient Truths

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapourfeedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion:p.22)

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine(Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)


Appendix

Jean Poitou and François-Marie Bréon are distinguished members of the climate establishment and redactors of parts of the IPCC fifth assessment report report (AR5).

Jean Poitou is a physicist and climatologist, graduated from Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie (Physics and Chemistry engineering college) and is climatologist at the Laboratory of the climate and environment sciences at IPSL, a joint research lab from CEA, CNRS, and UVSQ (*). He has written a book on the Climate for the teachers of secondary schools

François-Marie Bréon at CEA since 1993, has published 85 articles, is Directeur de recherche at CNRS, and author of the IPCC report 2013; he has been scientific manager of the ICARE group (CNES, CNRS, University of Lille), and of the POLDER and MicroCarb Space missions

Continue reading …

•••
IPCC Related :

Climatism Links :


Warmists Who Denied The Pause Now Claim To Explain It

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

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

•••

A “Settled Science” update via Andrew Bolt’s Blog :

Warmists who denied the pause now claim to explain it

I guess just the acknowledgement is progress, but I do think Matthew England at least owes an apology.

Matthew England contradicting former Senator Nick Minchin in April 2012:

NICK MINCHIN: …Basically we’ve had a plateauing of temperature rise. I mean we are in a warming phase. The world is either warming or cooling. It never stops doing nothing. It’s either warming or cooling. We’ve had a warming phase since the end of the little ice age, 150 years ago. In terms of global average temperature it peaked 1998 and it is effectively stable now, despite the increase in CO2. So there is a major problem with the warmist argument because we have had rising CO2 but we haven’t had the commensurate rise in temperature that the IPCC predicted.

ANNA ROSE: That’s just not true, Nick…

MATTHEW ENGLAND: What Nick just said is actually not true. The IPCC projections of 1990 have borne out very accurately…

Matthew England in December 2012:


… we’re halfway through this projected period. And the warming to date is consistent with that [IPCC] projection.

And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this.  And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven’t kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.

But Matthew England today:

The near two-decade long “pause” in rising average global surface temperatures was a “distraction” that did not change long-term model predictions of a much ­hotter world this century, according to new research.

Climate scientists at University of NSW said “natural variability” could explain the slowdown or “hiatus” despite strongly rising ­levels of carbon ­dioxide in the ­atmosphere…

Research leader Matthew ­England said …  “It is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,” he said…

“Our research shows that while there may be short-term fluctuations … long-term warming of the planet is an inevitable consequence of ­increasing greenhouse gas concentrations,” he said.

“This much-hyped global warming slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand”.

Maybe, maybe not. But this concession is interesting:


The paper also suggests that decadal climate oscillations were not pushing heat into the deep oceans, another explanation for the “missing heat” and absence of surface warming.

Also published now in Nature Climate Change, another paper trying to explain the pause that England once denied:

Despite a steady increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), global-mean surface temperature (T) has shown no discernible warming since about 2000, in sharp contrast to model simulations, which on average project strong warming.

•••

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat :

Climate modeler Matthew England still ignoring reality – claims IPCC models will eventually win

…On the plus side, at least he acknowledges the existence of “the pause” now, but says it’s irrelevant. Whatever.

Read more here »

•••

See also :


Onward marches the Great Pause

Watts Up With That?

Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 2 months

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 1 month to 18 years 2 months (indeed, very nearly 18 years 3 months). Will this devastating chart be displayed anywhere at the Lima conference? Don’t bet on it.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 2 months since October 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

What will the chart look like this time next year, at the beginning of the…

View original post 2,038 more words