Much of the reported warming from the 20th century was due to upwards adjustments of recent temperatures, and downwards adjustments of older temperatures.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
This worked pretty well until satellites showed up and provided some badly needed checks and balances on the adjusters. Since 1990 it has been tougher to justify any further upwards adjustments to the data.
For the claimed warming since 2000, GISS has relied on their data free Arctic hole.
Essentially all of the warming which GISS reports since 2000 has been due to imaginary extrapolated Arctic data. The animation below shows GISS 2000-2009 trends, alternating between measured data and extrapolated data.
GISS shows between 2 and 4C warming at the pole, without a single thermometer reading within 800 km. This heavily skews the global trend data, because places which actually have thermometers show little or no warming.
So how does Hansen’s 2-4C Arctic warming compare with satellite data? UAH shows about one tenth of Hansen’s imaginary Arctic trend – at 0.25C.
Bottom line. Other than the 1979-2000 (0.2C) warming confirmed by satellites, much of the claimed global warming is based on tainted and probably useless data. Why is this nonsense allowed to continue? It isn’t science.
I am beginning to suspect that an awful lot of Academically trusted ‘science’ needs auditting by the armchair army, not just climatology.
Dr. James Hansen …”even though in certain cases it might be more accurate to use reanalysis rather than extrapolate observations, I prefer not to mix observations and models. Sometimes the extrapolations will be off in one direction and sometimes in another. If the weather patterns are such that there is a cool pool in the central Arctic, then our extrapolation is likely to misrepresent the situation. So I don’t intend to leave the impression that I think it is accurate in individual situations, but I think that, on the average, it is better than omitting the Arctic, thus implicitly assuming that it has the same tendency as the average of all global regions with data.”
Make of that what you will.
I prefer not to mix observations and models.
So he goes with the models.
(I went with a couple of models. Was difficult, high maintenance and all, you know?)
Sounds like hedging to me…
So, we have computer models for future climate conditions that are based on wrong assumptions in order to make it warmer in 100 years and we have current measurements that show it’s already warmer today than it really is, that are based on the absence of real data.
How long will it take for the rest of the world to find out that this CAGW is BS?
Poll numbers show they’re already on to it. They just don’t know the details.
imaginary extrapolated Arctic data
==========================================================
Imagine there’s no cold in the Arctic
It’s easy if you try
Warming at the South Pole
Above us polar bears that have died
Imagine all the stations
Recorded, not repor-or-or-orted
You may say I’m a believer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as drones
Imagine there’s no money
Only serfdom everywhere
Al Gore in a Gulfstream
Pachauri in a bed
Imagine all the people
In Zhivago ho-ome-steads
Yo-o-o-o-ou
You may say I’m a believer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as drones
Imagine cat 5 hurricanes
Tornadoes from the sky
Floods, dust storms, and starvation
Children only cry
Don’t think so? There’s no pressure,
Red button, you will di-i-i-i-i-ie
You may say I’m a believer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as drones
Imagine there’s no science
An Inconvenient is the Truth
The IPCC the only text book
The consensus thinks for you
Imagine all the pupils
Learning controlled view-ew-ew-ew-ew-ews
You may say I’m a believer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as drones
😉
Where there’s a will (ingness to unscrupulously adulterate or invent values that support a pre-determined expectation)
There’s a way (to go Steven for calling out the bullies and the blusterers on their falsehoods and machinations)
Pingback: AGW’s Logical Impossibility: The ‘Argument Ad Providentiam’ « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE
Thank you Steven for helping add yet another item to my list of signs that AGW seems more and more a miracle than anything else…
As for AAiM, this is one of my AGW songs…those Minnesotans are not alone… 😎
“It ain’t necessarily so”
It ain’t necessarily so
It ain’t necessarily so
The t’ings dat yo’ li’ble
To read in de IPCC,
It ain’t necessarily so.
Li’l CO2 was small, but oh my !
Li’l CO2 was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Solar Influence
Who lay down an’ dieth !
Li’l CO2 was small, but oh my !
Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !…
Oh Phil Jones, he lived in de CRU,
Oh Phil Jones, he lived in de CRU,
Fo’ he made his home in
Dat institute’s warming.
Oh Phil Jones, he lived in de CRU.
Li’l Mann was fond of a trend.
Li’l Mann was fond of a trend.
He floated on bristlecones
Till Ol’ Briffa and colleagues,
They saved him, they said, and dat trend.
Wadoo …
Well, it ain’t necessarily so
Well, it ain’t necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De skepticism’s a villun,
But it ain’t necessarily so !
To get with the Science
Don’ bet your emissions!
Live clean ! Don’ have no pollution !
Oh, I takes dat IPCC gospel
Whenever it’s pos’ble,
But wid a grain of salt.
Gavin Schmidt wrote nine hundred blogs,
Gavin Schmidt wrote nine hundred blogs,
But who calls dat writin’
When no reality will give in
To no man with nine hundred blogs ?
I’m preachin’ dis sermon to show,
It ain’t nece-ain’t nece
Ain’t nece-ain’t nece
Ain’t necessarily … so !