Real Climate Science

What did you mean by this?

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming, and it is a travesty that we can’t”

– Kevin Trenberth

Richard Muller claimed he was a converted skeptic.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER Published: July 28, 2012
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic – NYTimes.com

Less than a year earlier, Muller said he never was a skeptic.

11/03/2011

“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic“

Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism

A decade earlier he made it clear that he was a flaming alarmist who wanted to prove global warming.

By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review

Mr. Obama told the lawmakers that he had already been patient waiting for the GOP-controlled House to act since the Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan immigration bill in June 2013.

At that point, Vice President Joe Biden asked how long Republicans might need to bring up an immigration bill, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting, asking if they might be ready by mid-February or another time this spring. Mr. Obama gave him a look that ended that line of discussion, the people said.

Wall Street Journal

In other words, Obama believes that 350 million Americans are too stupid to realize that the new Congress doesn’t meet until January.  Seventy-four percent of Senate Republicans voted against the 2013 “bipartisan immigration bill.” It obviously was not going to make it through the House then, and certainly won’t now.

Twenty-five years ago, the President of the United States was actually working for the United States and against communism. Almost inconceivable now, after the past six years.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]

I posted this six weeks ago.

https://realclimatescience.com/2014/10/01/if-i-were-the-coach/

Enrique finally figured it out yesterday, and got a fantastic result.

The late 1970’s were very cold in the US, while warm and dry on the leftist coast. Jerry Brown was governor of California and they suffered a terrible drought, which he blamed on global cooling.

Jerry Brown is still governor, and blames the current drought on global warming.

The winters of 1977-1979 were among the coldest in US history, and were due to global cooling.

It appears that we are headed into a sequence of similarly cold winters, which are being blamed on global warming.

There was also a large expansion of  Arctic sea ice in the late 1970’s, which Mark Serreze cleverly hides by pretending there wasn’t any satellite data before 1979.

We appear to be doing a repeat of 1977-1979 – only this time experts call it “global warming” and in the 1970’s they called it “global cooling.”

In other words, most climatologists have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, and just make up sciency-sounding words to keep the funding coming in.

PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt

There has been a huge expansion of thicker, older ice since 2012. Color scale below shows the age of the ice in years, with ice less than three years old masked out.

The graph below compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data. The small difference between RSS and HCN is probably due to the fact that my HCN calculations are not gridded.

My conclusion is that RSS is the only credible data set, and all the others have a spurious warming bias.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

– Richard P. Feynman

There are 317 US HCN stations which took their readings at morning or night on July 15, 1936. Maximum temperatures at these stations are unaffected by TOBS (time of observation bias) and are less affected by UHI (urban heat island) than minimum temperatures.

As you can see, they show that the US is on a century long cooling trend.

This is a map of those stations.

More evidence that USHCN temperature adjustments which turn the cooling trend into a warming trend, are propaganda rather than science.

The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) takes records from 1,218 stations around the US, which show the country on a century long cooling trend – as seen in the blue line below. But they alter the data to create a sharp warming trend before they release it to the public – as seen in the red line below.

Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

The animation below shows how they tamper with the data, to create a non-existent warming trend from thermometers which show a cooling trend.

The next graph shows the spectacular hockey stick of data tampering they are doing, which increase US temperatures at a rate of 3.3 degrees F per century since 1997.

This is bad enough, but it gets even worse.  Thirty percent of the temperatures USHCN reports, are completely fabricated, i.e. there is no underlying thermometer data at that station for that month.

The map below shows stations which have reported temperatures in 2014. They are fairly evenly spaced, and cover the entire lower 48 states.

So how do we know that the US used to be hotter? Over the past century, the percentage of maximum temperature readings over 100 degrees has dropped precipitously.

They normally try to explain this away by claiming that time of observation bias (TOBS) causes double counting of past 100 degree temperatures. This is complete BS, as seen in the next graph – which can not be affected by TOBS issues and shows nearly the identical shape.

The bottom line is that the US is cooling, and NCDC is hiding the decline through massive data tampering. They are defrauding the public, legislators and scientists through unjustifiable and incorrect adjustments.

The next graph shows the 317 stations which took their readings either at morning or at night on July 15, 1936. These stations have a warming bias due to TOBS, and  would need upwards adjustments in the past. Despite their warming bias, they do not show any warming.