A group of scientists led by senior NASA climate adviser Gavin Schmidt has heavily criticised a recent Daily Sceptic article that presented new evidence from the results of meteorology balloons showing global temperatures had slowed over the last two decades. Writing in the Climate Feedback ‘fact-checking’ blog, the scientists note that the Daily Sceptic article claimed: “Global warming started to run out of steam over two decades ago… Half of the apparent global temperature increases from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative adjustments.” The article is said to be “Inaccurate”.
The first part of the statement is a view held by many eminent scientists analysing data from accurate satellites. The second part of the claim is made by Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo. The 50% adjustment refers to the figures produced by the NASA-connected GISS surface temperature dataset. The ‘fact check’ does not dispute the figure, but Schmidt dismisses the 90-year trend as “just a cherry pick”. Meteorologist Victor Venema from the University of Bonn complained that the term “administrative adjustments” was not used in science.
Our article was published on May 19th under the heading: “New evidence shows global warming has slowed dramatically over last 20 years”. We reported that in a major re-evaluation of 40 years of telemetric data from meteorology balloons rising through the troposphere, scientists confirmed that temperatures had mostly paused since around 1998. We linked to the original research, and published the following graphs, so that readers could take a view on our statement.
The graphs show the results for the northern hemisphere up to 70°N and the tropics. Most of the warming over the last 40 years occurred up to the late 1990s. The tropics, it was noted, had warmed less than the north, and in fact at 11 km it is difficult to discern any significant warming at all. We also reported that temperature pauses from 1998-2010, and a current one lasting 91 months, had been largely wiped from all major surface temperature datasets. Over the last decade, the U.K. Met Office has added 30% heating to recent figures in its HadCRUT record and depressed earlier measurements.
We also noted that all these ‘adjustments’ provided covering fire for journalists quoting ‘scientists say’, to claim continuing warming and provide ongoing support for the political Net Zero agenda.
The author of the balloon report, the Italian meteorologist Fabio Madonna, takes issue with our analysis. He notes that in his paper, “it is never mentioned that ‘temperatures have mostly paused since around 1998’”, although he accepts there was a slowdown in the northern hemisphere from that date. He argues that the results from the tropics at 300hPa (11 km) show a “significant warming after 2000… in line with the statement by the IPCC”.
Perish the thought that Madonna is cherry picking a low 2000 date after a very strong El Niño surge to make his point. In attempting to spot statistical trends, the longer period used the better – 90-years, for instance, is excellent – and I stand by my observation that there has not been much warming seen in this record for the tropics for over 40 years. The two pauses noted are clearly seen, and the fall from another very powerful El Niño oscillation in 2016 is noticeable. Venema at least spots the considerable powers your correspondent brings to analysing this data, noting that Chris Morrison’s “actual evidence” seems to be his “own research eye-ball estimate of warming”. Presumably covering himself in case it is proved the author’s eyesight is not faulty, he notes that Madonna’s evidence is “just one dataset of many”.
Most of the arguments deployed against the Daily Sceptic and other investigatory work are along the lines, ‘look at the surface datasets, be fearful of the future predictions made by models and read your IPCC bible’. GISS director Schmidt argues that temperature corrections are made to accommodate new stations and algorithms are updated. In fact, trying to arrive at a global surface temperature is the product of measurement, model computations, smoothing, proxy data and estimations. For that reason, the continuous and accurate satellite measurements are often seen as a better source of temperature data.
Of course, Schmidt is keen to support surface temperature databases, but he is also keen to promote the record of climate models. Writing in the Spectator last year, he noted that some might be wary of basing decision on models, especially given the problems in forecasting the Covid pandemic. But it was important to realise that most outcomes depend on the overall trend, he said, and not on the “fine details of any given model”. He went on to argue that the track record of models going back to the 1970s “shows they have skilfully predicted the trends of the past decades”.
“Skilfully predicted” is one way of describing the track record. Others are available. The above graph was produced by Professor Nicola Scafetta of the University of Naples. It plots 38 of the major models showing their predictions set against the thick green line of the satellite record. In his view, the models should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”. Schmidt is understandably cautious about focusing on the “fine details” – this presumably being a reference to the fact that the models are never correct in their forecasts. In fact, we can see that the predictions started to go haywire 25 years ago, no doubt coincidentally just as the global warming fright started to gain political traction. No doubt again by coincidence, from around this time the major temperature datasets started to heat up their recent record, removing the slowdowns and pauses seen in the satellite data.
In 2013, Schmidt appeared on an American TV show with Dr. Roy Spencer, a fellow NASA scientist. Dr. Spencer compiles the widely-used University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite data record. Schmidt refused to sit down in the same studio with Dr. Spencer and debate climate science. He suggested he did not need to be arguing with people “just to make good TV”. At 6.30 minutes he is invited to meet Dr. Spencer, but said he was not interested in staying.
The authors of the Climate Feedback ‘fact check’ are ungenerous to those who hold sceptical views and presume to argue from their own authority and that of the IPCC. The Daily Sceptic is said to be a website with “a history of publishing scientifically unfounded claims”: the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which published Professor Humlum’s work, is said by Venema to be an “anti-science think tank”, while Chris Morrison “presents” himself as a former financial journalist (it’s true, I should know, I was there).
Venema goes on to suggest that claims of “administrative adjustments” correspond to the “conspiracy theory” that an “open group of thousands of scientists from all over the world and numerous disciplines, are conspiring against humanity by pretending that the world warms more than it actually warms”. Who knows, but the common exam request, ‘Discuss’, springs to mind. Heaven forbid that any climate scientist would seek to ‘hide the decline’.
I concluded a recent article with the words of the distinguished atmospheric physicist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, who said the current climate narrative was “absurd”, yet it had universal acceptance. In a “normal world”, the counter-arguments would be compelling, he argued. I added: “Perhaps it is the trillions of dollars being diverted into every green project under the sun, and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists, along with the political control offered to elite groups in society by Net Zero, that currently says it is not absurd.”
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.
The short answer is ‘Yes’!
The main conclusion from the pandemic is that governments should have done very little at all. If they had done so, fewer people would have died, and we would be in much better shape economically.
The progress of the virus has been remarkably uniform throughout the developed world, regardless of what governments have done.
Historical comparisons are real, modelling is the substitution of imagination for reality.
I don’t think it’s been as intelligent as imagination.
Who says imagination is intelligent?
Or, in this case, that there weren’t false assumptions fed into the modelling?
“Should We Have Relied More on Historical Comparisons, and Less on Epidemiological Models?”
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
My response when I saw this last week was that it is basically the final vindication for all those who (correctly) characterised the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic as basically flu.
It’s a cold rather than a flu, but the significant point is that it is basically just another typical pandemic irruption of a seasonal respiratory virus, blown into a huge catastrophe by panic overreaction. Shame on them all.
“The infectivity and severity of SARS-CoV-2, whether assessed by statistical parameterisation (basic reproduction number and adjusted case or infection fatality ratios, respectively) or synoptic description (household attack rate, time to epidemic peak, and excess all-cause mortality rates), are well within the range described by respiratory viral pandemics of the last few centuries (where the 1918–20 influenza is the clear outlier)”
If those who hysterically shouted down the wise men and women calling for calm and pointing out that it was just another flu were honest, they would be apologising.
They aren’t, of course.
And yes, obviously policymakers should have looked at history rather than at manipulative, fantasy modelling results. It’s not as though we are short of precedents where panic overreactions based on modelling nonsense have led to costly disasters.
Can you think of any that didn’t involve Ferguson?
I agree, but I do believe one thing was different this time around. The French built the lab, the US paid for it, the Chinese released it and the UK helped to cover it up. That warrants some different actions – none to do with management more to do with the hangings.
Three of your four assertions are correct, but read this long article – https://www.unz.com/article/the-flying-pangolin/
Well – a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.
But – a well laid-out argument of the bleedin’ obvious is still worthwhile.
Bluntly – only the brain dead would place any faith in epidemiological modelling after the series of massive miscalculations that have occured.
Even in terms of the immediate history of this epidemic, a forecast based upon that reality is far more accurate than computer gaming.
When Vallance forecast the notorious ‘4000 deaths a day’ in the autumn, I deliberately wrote down (to avoid kidding myself) my own forecast based simply on trends and previous patterns. It was just intelligent use of historical real data – not at all sophisticated. It was essentially an intelligent guestimate.
The result was massively more accurate than any of the mathematical models.
Dominic Cummings has since confirmed that the Government did abandon its original plan at the last minute. He claims, “No10 was made aware by various people that the official plan wd lead to catastrophe.”
“Various people”? And “catastrophe” for who exactly? Was this the point they crawled out of their own little bed, and into another much, much bigger bed?
Those various people have clearly been proven wrong by Sweden, South Dakota, Florida&co.
But as nothing changes- to the contrary, they are doubling down on lockdowns et.al. as the only permitted response henceforth and are ready to sign away all their sovereignty here to the WHO in November- it is now very clear that they were and are following a totally different agenda with all this, and also that DC was and is neither in the loop nor as smart as he thinks he is.
it is now very clear that they were and are following a totally different agenda with all this, and also that DC was and is neither in the loop nor as smart as he thinks he is.
Cummings deserves a lamp post of his own, though of course lots of lamp posts will be needed.
Have they back-tested any of Prof Pantsdown’s predictions to see if any of his guff has had any merit at all, ever?
Just look at how ENORMOUSLY wrong IC was on vCJD prediction
… and the rest.
Ferguson from the Bill Gates’s Imperial College simply provides the numbers that his masters and government want. He is just a cog in the wheel, nothing more.
Exactly. A corrupt puppet.
A very rich corrupt puppet.
One can only hope he bumps into someone who can give him the attention he needs.
So long as they clean up afterwards.
“Should We Have Relied More on Historical Comparisons, and Less on Epidemiological Models?” How can this even be a rational question? Of course this should have been the case. Ferguson et al., have a lot to answer for. To then use poorly designed and disproven models as ‘evidence’ for future planning policy, borders on the insane and is at the least a sacking/resignation offence. To then continue with a policy that has wrecked lives, the economy, livelihoods, education, hospitality, psychological equilibrium, is most certainly criminally negligent and worthy of a custodial sentence.
Time to go Johnson, Hancock, Gove, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson.
I wouldn’t count on any resignations, they’re all smug in their fantasy that they’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
You’ve missed Farrar, Semple & a couple of other criminals.
Sorry for repeating, but the modelling has been done to support the required messages that created the psyop that was necessary to bring about the public response to the strategy already decided. The modellers might have over-sized egos, but they are foot soldiers, they have done what their masters paid them to do.
Of course the application of brains and a bit of historical perspective would have been better. Actually the output of a community of chimpanzees would have been better. but spending much time on this misses the point.
There is absolutely no way, given what we know about the early timeframes for such things as the Drosten RT-PCR test, that this was an accident of history, a cock-up, a mistake covered up ever since, or even just a combined effort of useless individuals. This was planned and executed, albeit with the usual errors en-route of any grand stategy. If it was any of the afore mentioned cock-ups it would have been wrapped up and swept under the carpet last summer.
Exactly. The headline and article are disingenuous.
I keep on recommending it, but the Council of Europe report on the swine ‘flu non-pandemic really is essential reading, in so far as you can see a template for what actually happened over Covid.
It’s blindingly obvious – but I bet that if you do a search of the archives for the past two years, you will find no mention in the media – a mark of the raddled nature of current journalism. Any proper investigative journalist would have been showing it like a rash.
Indeed & this is how I ended up connected to Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, who pretty much shot the last Plandemic in the face.
The problem is that much of the population (and indeed, even especially our governing classes) lacks any historical knowledge of anything before yesterday. The little they do know is that our ancestors were bad, and stupid, and that we are much, much better than them in every way. Year zero advocates must always libel the past.
‘We’ were the victims of psychological, economic and biological warfare.
It’s easier for politicians to do something rather than nothing. Bunch of cowards.
Make that, criminals.
Your headline fundamentally equates to, ‘should we use knowledge and experience or go with guesswork?’
^^^THIS^^^
No sh*t, Sherlock.
GIGO
Well as we already know it’s been a case of garbage fed into the models and consequently we got got garbage out. Too many incorrect assumptions were made by the modellers who were too arrogant to correct the mistake preferring to keep repeating the mistake instead. Most notably the assumption that 100% of the population are susceptible and that our immune systems wouldn’t work.
And that it would kill a higher proportion of those infected than it actually did.
Should we have relied more on knowledge and experience and less on the guesses of narcissists?
The answer should be obvious.
You think? Modelling is no better than medieval alchemy or fairground fortune telling. We really are going backwards.
It didn’t matter what they did as the entire episode was & remains fraud
To me, a unreconstructed non scientist, it appears that the “modellers” and “Sage” and other ( malign) influencers are at their core politically motivated, on the Brexit side of the divide, in thrall to “big” organisations such as the EU and the WHO and therefore their psychological allegiances and bents infect their allegedly professional functions – this is illustrated by the people on “independent” SAGE and it is impossible not to see their mindset/direction of travel. I include career politicians in this description; they all have skin in the game. None of them are brainless but I can imagine that once they decide on how to impart their so called knowledge and experience wrapped round their true aim, they do not do a lot of..” now am I right here, is there something I have missed, I will seek another opinion ” or listen to the little man ( old norse meaning ) on their shoulder. They also know they are currently untouchable – how often do they stare down the barrel to justify their output. Having started on a course of action they know full well is wrong, none of them have the personal integrity to admit they might be wrong – their agenda/narrative prevents that, and the politicians need to get re -elected. Kings/queens new clothes for sure or ” Breaker Morrant Syndrome”. For this reason, I cannot see that powers acquired will be handed back, July 19th regardless, without something happening that forces this to happen….