Skip to content

Roy Spencer On That 2015 Record Warmest Claim

January 22, 2016

By Paul Homewood  

 

image_thumb116

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/satellite-temperature-data-supported-by-radiosondes/

 

Bearing in mind that RSS, run by Kevin Trenberth’s buddy Carl Mears, has consistently undershoot Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset, Roy’s latest blog may be of interest:

 

 

On that 2015 Record Warmest Claim

January 22nd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

We now have the official NOAA-NASA report that 2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record. John and I predicted this would be the case fully 7 months ago, when we called 2015 as the winner.

In contrast, our satellite analysis has 2015 only third warmest which has also been widely reported for weeks now. I understand that the RSS satellite analysis has it 4th warmest.

And yet I have had many e-mail requests to address the new reports of warmest year on record. I’ve been reluctant to because, well, this is all old news. (Also, my blog has been under almost constant “brute force login attacks” for the last month, from a variety of IP addresses, making posting nearly impossible most days).

There are many things I could say, but I would be repeating myself:

– Land measurements …that thermometers over land appear to have serious spurious warming issues from urbanization effects. Anthony Watts is to be credited for spearheading the effort to demonstrate this over the U.S. where recent warming has been exaggerated by about 60%, and I suspect the problem in other regions of the global will be at least as bad. Apparently, the NOAA homogenization procedure forces good data to match bad data. That the raw data has serious spurious warming effects is easy to demonstrate…and has been for the last 50 years in the peer-reviewed literature….why is it not yet explicitly estimated and removed?

– Ocean Measurements …that even some NOAA scientists don’t like the new Karlized ocean surface temperature dataset that made the global warming pause disappear; many feel it also forces good data to agree with bad data. (I see a common theme here.)

– El Nino …that a goodly portion of the record warmth in 2015 was naturally induced, just as it was in previous record warm years.

– Thermometers Still Disagree with Models …that even if 2015 is the warmest on record, and NOAA has exactly the right answer, it is still well below the average forecast of the IPCC’s climate models, and something very close to that average forms the basis for global warming policy. In other words, even if every successive year is a new record, it matters quite a lot just how much warming we are talking about.

Then we have scientists out there claiming silly things, like the satellites measure temperatures at atmospheric altitudes where people don’t live anyway, so we should ignore them.

Oh, really? Would those same scientists also claim we should ignore the ocean heat content measurements — also where nobody lives — even though that is supposedly the most important piece of evidence that heat is accumulating in the climate system?

Hmmm?

Finally, I don’t see why any of this matters anyway. Didn’t the Paris agreement in December signify that world governments are going to fix the global warming problem?

Or was that message oversold, too?

I’m not claiming our satellite dataset is necessarily the best global temperature dataset in terms of trends, even though I currently suspect it is closer to being accurate than the surface record — that will be for history to decide. The divergence in surface and satellite trends remains a mystery, and cannot (in my opinion) continue indefinitely if both happen to be largely correct.

But since the satellites generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets (which use all observations radiosondes, surface temperatures, commercial aircraft, satellites, etc. everything except the kitchen sink), I think the fact that NOAA-NASA essentially ignores it reveals an institutional bias that the public who pays the bills is becoming increasingly aware of.

And this brings up the elephant in the room that I have a difficult time ignoring

By now it has become a truism that government agencies will prefer whichever dataset supports the governments desired policies. You might think that government agencies are only out to report the truth, but if that’s the case, why are these agencies run by political appointees?

I can say this as a former government employee who used to help NASA sell its programs to congress: We weren’t funded to investigate non-problems, and if global warming were ever to become a non-problem, funding would go away. I was told what I could and couldn’t say to Congress…Jim Hansen got to say whatever he wanted. I grew tired of it, and resigned.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying climate change is a non-problem; only that government programs that fund almost 100% of the research into climate change cannot be viewed as unbiased. Agencies can only maintain (or, preferable, grow) their budgets if the problem they want to study persists. Since at least the 1980s, an institutional bias exists which has encouraged the climate research community to view virtually all climate change as human-caused.

There indeed is a climate change problem to study…but I don’t think we know with any certainty how much is natural versus manmade. There is no way to know, because there is (contrary to the IPCC’s claims) no fingerprint of human versus natural warming. Even natural warming originating over the ocean will cause faster warming over land than over ocean, just as we already observe.

But since the government has framed virtually all of the research programs in terms of human-caused climate change, that’s what the funded scientists will dutifully report it to be, in terms of supposed causation.

And until the culture in the government funding agencies changes, I don’t see a new way of doing business materializing. It might require congress to direct the funding agencies to spend at least a small portion of their budgets to look for evidence of natural causes of climate change.

Because scientists, I have learned, will tend to find whatever they are paid to find in terms of causation…which is sometimes very difficult to pin down in science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/

 

 

This really is a shocking position for science to find itself in. We would probably have to go back to the 17thC to find anything as bad.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. Andy DC permalink
    January 23, 2016 12:15 am

    The fact that they have used “brute force” tactics to keep a reputable scientist like Dr. Spencer from posting is despicable. It is actually downright frightening and certainly indicative of a police state mentality.

    • johnmarshall permalink
      January 23, 2016 11:11 am

      Remember he is still a luke warmist. He believes in the GHE.

  2. January 23, 2016 12:44 am

    Thanks Dr Spencer and please do find a youngish person to take your place. Your role in this fanfare is too critical.

    – Land measurements …that thermometers over land appear to have serious spurious warming issues from urbanization effects. Anthony Watts is to be credited for spearheading the effort to demonstrate this over the U.S. where recent warming has been exaggerated by about 60%, and I suspect the problem in other regions of the global will be at least as bad. Apparently, the NOAA homogenization procedure forces good data to match bad data. That the raw data has serious spurious warming effects is easy to demonstrate…and has been for the last 50 years in the peer-reviewed literature….why is it not yet explicitly estimated and removed?

    Shout that from the mountaintop.

    27000 journal articles a week.
    The pressure to publish and be noticed is destroying the credibility of science.
    Peer review is broken.

    Da peoples are smelling something rotten and so aren’t laying themselves down en masse to follow the movement. Science will take a black eye over this in the years to come and should start thinking about how to resurrect itself.

    Lies consume weak minds like a fire raging thru a forest while the truth moves slowly to fill the empty void.

  3. Brian H permalink
    January 23, 2016 2:13 am

    How long can the sham/scam keep going in the face of contrary evidence? Every minute is 60 seconds too long.

  4. January 23, 2016 4:45 am

    Been hearing over the past week supposed “chief” “meteorologists” are saying the phrase “SUPER EL NINO” of 2015/2016 helped cause this hottest year on record.

  5. Streetcred permalink
    January 23, 2016 7:31 am

    Read somewhere that Mears had ‘moved on’ from RSS.

  6. rwoollaston permalink
    January 23, 2016 11:05 am

    Yes, it is shocking, but at least there is some hard evidence available to contradict the dogma. As worrying, as recently pointed out in the blog describing the political affiliations of academics, is the politicisation of the softer sciences from schools onwards, as this affects the emerging worldview of the younger generations. It’s as though 1984 (Orwell) and Brave New World (Huxley) had never been written. A new world religion is being created and woe betide the unbelievers! OK a bit strong but you get my point…?

  7. Ben Vorlich permalink
    January 23, 2016 11:41 am

    Prior to Paul posting this I posted a question on a discussion at Bishop Hill regarding the same topic and received this reply:

    Sandy S

    Three snags with that graph, two scientific and one political.

    Firstly, the average of the 295 CMIP 5 models still used larger projected forcings than actually occurred. They therefore project a higher rate of warming than actually occurred. The models which most accurately reflect reality have projected forcings which match reality and project temperatures which match reality. Those models are about 1SD below the average. This point has been made repeatedly by Raff and myself, but does not seem to have sunk in.

    Secondly, you are not comparing like with like. The CMIP5 models are designed to be comparable with HadCRUt4. They generate temperature 5ft above the land surface or 5ft above the sea surface.
    Depending on the algorithm, thee satellite and radiosonde data combine measurements from the troposphere and lower stratosphere. They would be expected to show lower readings than the surface datasets or a forcing adjusted CMIP5.

    Thirdly, your graph came from John Christy, a recognised sceptic. Oh dear, certainly not a biased source then. ☺

    You can see it here
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2566888?currentPage=15

    The thought crossed my mind that 5ft above the surface hardly constitutes the atmosphere/climate.

    • January 23, 2016 1:21 pm

      The satellite data we focus on is only the lower troposphere, he is just confusing matters talking about the stratosphere which would be expected to cool under global warming theory.

      Most experts, incl the IPCC, say that they would expect the troposphere to warm faster than the surface

  8. Brian H permalink
    January 23, 2016 10:14 pm

    “has consistently undershoot ” — undershot

  9. January 24, 2016 12:04 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

  10. January 25, 2016 9:08 pm

    Two points to keep in mind;
    1) Warmest year ever by fractions of a degree measured in 10th and even 100ths of a degree. The entire planet. Hmmm….
    2) IPCC models still run hot. As time goes by, reality is ever diverging from their modeled numbers. Each year the divergence grows greater. Hottest year ever, and most divergence from model ever. Records falling all over!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: