The increasing disconnection between the frequently-adjusted global surface temperature datasets and the accurate satellite measurement of the troposphere is casting further doubt on the unproven hypothesis that humans cause all or most climate change by burning fossil fuels. IPCC computer models predict a higher warming in the lower and mid-troposphere, but the latest Met Office retrospective adjustments produce 36% faster warming on the surface. “The lack of much tropospheric excess warming over surface warming suggests that changes in greenhouse gases are likely not a significant factor in current warming,” note scientists in a recently published Clintel report.
All the main surface temperature datasets have had large amounts of heating added to their retrospective records of late. Clintel notes that the recent update of the Met Office’s HadCRUT dataset showed 0.2°C more warming than its predecessor. In 2013, similar retrospective adjustments added considerable heating. As the Daily Sceptic reported last month, Professor Ole Humlum disclosed that since January 2008, the GISS database run by NASA increased its surface air temperature between 1910 to 2000 from 0.47°C to 0.67°C, a boost of 49% over this period. “Frequent and large corrections in a database unavoidably signal a fundamental uncertainty about the correct values,” noted Humlum.
Of course, the global average temperature plays a crucial part in persuading populations that there is a ‘climate crisis’, and only a collectivist Net Zero political solution holds the key to survival. But it can be seen that these frequent upwards adjustments of surface temperatures are causing inconvenient problems elsewhere in the global warming narrative. The satellite record shows that global warming ran out of steam a couple of decades ago once powerful natural El Niño effects are discounted, with any remaining change almost confined within margin of error territory. It needs only a moderately sceptical mind to question some of the recent adjustments.
According to the accurate satellite record, there have been two temperature pauses this century. The first one from around 2000 to 2014 was debated in scientific circles, and the Met Office wrote a paper on the event titled The Recent Pause in Global Warming. The latest pause has lasted since the small temperature uptick caused by one of the most powerful El Niño natural weather oscillations ever recorded in 2016.
But all signs of the pause have been expunged by HadCRUT4 and the latest update HadCRUT5. The hockey stick is alive and well at the Met Office with Clintel reporting a 37% cooling applied from 1850 to 1910, and a substantial jump of 38% from 2000 to 2020. Pause, what pause – the question springs to mind. Clintel notes that the recent past has the best data and the movements are “surprising”. In addition, with swings such as this from one version of HadCRUT to another, it is asked: “Just how accurate can their estimates of global surface warming be?” Of course, all of this movement is helpful in trying to nudge towards the invented climate ‘tipping point’ of a 1.5°C rise since 1850. As I noted last Friday, there was the regular annual media outing for the claim that temperatures could hit 1.5°C “within five years”, a story that has been doing the rounds for about five years.
This latest examination of the global temperature dataset is published in Clintel’s new detailed examination of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Reports, and is titled The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. In a wide-ranging assessment, the Clintel scientists find that the UN climate body emphasises worst-case scenarios, rewrites climate history and has a “huge bias” in favour of bad news. We have covered this important new work in detail here, here and here. A spokesman for Netherlands-based Clintel has told the Daily Sceptic that the mainstream media have ignored its work, while the Dutch national press agency refused to circulate a press release.
The key take-away was the finding that the IPCC based 42% of it predictions and impact suggestions on a scenario called SSP5-8.5 that assumes up to 5°C of warming within less than 80 years. Even the IPCC believes the scenario is of “low likelihood”. In addition, this implausible scenario impacts about 50% of all climate science literature, much of which forms the basis of “screaming headlines”.
The comparison of the surface temperature record – complete with all its potential corruptions such as urban heat effects, poor device-siting and constant retrospective adjustments – against the satellite record, is of considerable interest. Clintel notes climate models backed up by scientific logic suggest that with additional warming on the ground, temperatures in the lower troposphere should actually be higher. This is due to the effect of condensing water vapour releasing latent heat that warms the surrounding area. Clintel finds that the Met Office surface datasets is warming 36% faster than the UAH satellite record, compiled since 1979 by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The linear trend since that date is warming of 0.19°C per decade for HadCRUT, compared with only 0.14°C per decade from UAH. The authors note that this suggests “there are problems with the land-based temperature data or the processing of it”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
When studying geography at A’Level and university in the late 70’s and early 80’s, the temperature data from the previous 100 years conclusively showed that we were heading for another ice age as temperatures had fallen.
The same temperature records (now that they have been suitably adjusted and manipulated) conclusively show that we have dangerous global warming. Indeed, according to the BBC, the consensus amongst climate experts is so overwhelming that the issue is beyond debate. I believe this is what is nowadays called “The Science”.
As young Jack would say: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
The $cience….follow the Trillion $ industry called Climate Thingy-Changey. Following the $ always leads to the consen$u$ $cience….
This is what they are freaking out about. A small rise in temperature since the end of the LIA in 1850. How bizarre is that? Warming after an Ice Age?
Not is there ANY correlation of ANY statistical significance between XO2 levels and temperature.
Long term…
or short term
And the heat radiating capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty much all played out…
Hopefully, the good news is that they will continue to adjust the data, then lo and behold, we will pass the 1.5 degree threshold and nobody will notice any difference. The whole catastrophist edifice should collapse at that point.
You’d think, but it’s way beyond rationality at this point. It’s religious, articles of faith, intransigent belief, integrated into tribal and personal identity. And once the political and bureaucratic forces start moving they’re dumb, arrogant and inflexible.
But never mind, despite the incredible waste of accumulated wealth and sanity, it’s always fun watching the slow motion idiocracy of modern academia and the state crash into reality.
Averages are not reality… 50% of data is above or below.
The so-called average Earth surface temperature is not representative of temperatures all over the surface. The average is calculated from non-scientific instrument meant for weather reports not scientific study. They are not calibrated to a single reference instrument. They include measurements on instruments going back to the 19th Century in many cases, so they are unlikely to be accurate to within 1C to 2C, yet they allegedly yield temperature changes of small fractions of a degree.
There is no one temperature for the Earth’s climate, nie do we know what ‘the Earth’s temperature’ should be.
It is not science.
What is the worship of measurement it is the worship of Ahriman. What about if every moment in time is qualitatively different. A small change to highlight the absurdity of scientism. There is no big other, no big daddy measuring everything and as Karl Popper said, theory precedes observation. We have a fine tradition of science in our country and I am not knocking it. Just that there is a deeper and greater science and the English language itself facilitates this. The time that we are living in asks of us all of our abilitites.
Well yes. And no.
When anyone tells you that the world is going to end if you don’t do exactly as they say, you can be sure you’re dealing with a murder suicide death cult, and you had better hold on tight to your wallet.
No it doesn’t “cast doubt.” It destroys their propaganda; but the lefty Communitarians pushing the nonsense aren’t going to stop because of an inconvenient truth like THE FACTS.
Climate propaganda Met Office Adjusts Temperatures. Every institution far left liars.
***
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
The Thermometer Temperature record of earth is a total clutter of manipulated data adjusted more times than a lady of the night’s knickers. Out of that clutter we are expected to believe that temperature rises of hundredths of a degree can be detected from the use of thermometers that were never designed for such accuracies. It is very peculiar how many people these days are suspicious of government. They often don’t believe a word they say. On Immigration, Foreign Policy, Education, the Economy etc etc. Yet when it comes to climate the general public mostly swallow all the climate change pronouncements from podiums at big conferences as if it were all some kind of ultimate truth. Why do they not believe a word from government on other stuff, but believe them on climate? ————–Because they think it is all about science. They think scientists in white coats are busy busy busy all day studying the climate with barely time to make a cheese roll, and then they rush to government ministers with their findings, and the politicians and bureaucrats have little choice but to act on the “science”. ————The opposite is true. It is government who started 30 years ago (about 1990) to start dishing funding out like confetti to anyone who would conjure up any kind of study that would seem to indicate humans were altering the climate. This brought thousands of people onto the scene eager to get their grubby hands on the government money. We remember the Hockey Stick Graph plastered all over IPCC reports purporting to show a sharp upward trend in warming in the late 20th century that as with most of the claims turned out to be false. But not only false, but data, computer code and methodology were withheld so others could not check the thing for themselves. ————This has been going on from day one, because it isn’t and never was about about science. —–It is “official Science” in support of the Political Agenda called Sustainable Development and the collectivist NET ZERO policies that seek to control the worlds wealth and resources—–with climate as the excuse.
Who caused the last ice age. Fred Flintstone?. Ps: My garden has never looked lovelier
Mann et al are still desperately trying to protect their outrageously wrong Hockey Stick. They lie, cheat and adjust data to try to justify it. This has been going on for over 20 years and the so-called scientific publications are also supporting this travesty of honest science – follow the money.
Its been noted by many real scientists that our Met Office has been fiddling the actual measured temperature records to exaggerate any global warming, and blame human emissions for it. Surely somebody with scientific authority should make it clear that data given by the Met Office cannot be trusted to be accurate and ensure reported data is accurate. I’m still waiting for somebody with the scientific competence to prove CO2 is the cause of global warming to any significant degree, but not seen it yet.
There is no “global temperature”. It is just a mathematical calculation to produce a number that has no meaning in physics. A simple way to realise this is to consider totals. Mass and volume can be added to produce a total and an average can be calculated although what use it could be I do not know. Temperatures cannot be added to produce a total. Another way to understand this is to take a container of water. Work out the volume and mass and measure the temperature. Then take some of the water out and repeat. The volume and mass will be less but the temperature will not have changed (assuming no heat loss). This is why there are laws in classic physics of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. There is no law of conservation of temperature.
Stop talking about the global temperature as if it exists and then you might understand the science.
I had a discussion with someone about this under a different article the other day. I tried to explain the same kind of stuff that you are talking about here. But the person has already decided what is true. Which is fair enough. People are entitled to their opinion. ——-However it is on this issue of climate change where the likes of you and I are not supposed to have any kind of opinion that might undermine the collectivist political agenda. (Sustainable Development, Net Zero etc) It is therefore good that people can speak freely on this website, regardless of their point of view, because we will not be allowed to do that on the State Broadcaster or the other bought and paid for climate activist channels like SKY etc.