Airbrushing The Pause From History
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Once upon a time there was a Pause:
Indeed the Met Office went to great lengths to explain it away in a paper published in 2013.
The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:
And the pause was crystal clear in the Met Office’s own global temperature dataset, Hadcrut3:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012
The Pause was a considerable embarrassment to global warming alarmists, because it called into question the assumption that increasing GHGs automatically raise temperatures. At the very least, the Pause suggested that natural factors were more powerful than any GHG effect.
And, of course, this was not the first Pause. Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures were also stable:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1980
This of course would not do! So the Met Office tampered with its own data, to produce a new dataset, Hadcrut4, which conveniently eliminated the Pause. Hadcrut4 was wheeled out in 2012.
The new dataset changed a a slightly negative trend into about 0.1C of warming between 1998 and 2012:
Still though, global temperatures even under the new dataset were rising much more slowly than the models had projected. More tampering was called for, so Hadcrut5 was wheeled out in December 2020.
Surprise, surprise, the rate of warming had increased!
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html#regional_series
The new dataset was found to have added a full 0.1C of warming between 1998 and 2021, compared to Hadcrut4. Added to the 0.1C added from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4, this meant 0.2C of warming artificially introduced. Without these adjustments, global temperatures would be no higher now than in 1998.
Which is precisely what the satellite data shows:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Thank you Paul and explanatory – always. In simple graphs do the liars prestidigitate, the trouble is, they don’t much try to hide the deception and as the fixes become larger, it’s all rather obvious.
But then they only do what their masters order and in this case it is hmg. Lets face it boris and the truth is a very loose association. Indeed the Conservatives and Labour party’s indulgence of the fantasists running HadCruT has gone well beyond fudge and fix, into the realms of overt hyperbole and statistical manipulation on steroids.
You see it has to be, they’ve got to continue peddling the lie, also reference here the covid scamdemic.
Nobody at UKMO keen to take the kudos and put their name in as author then?
Not me…
Second statement: ‘And the key paragraph is this:’ – what is ‘this’?
Maybe this:
” the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean”
Translation: The ocean ate it.
[Apology to all dogs everywhere that never ate the kid’s homework.]
Oceanic absorption is one ‘ missing heat ” hypothesis and not all that credible . The second hypothesis canvassed by Judith Curry is more plausible : “changes in cloud cover resulting in more reflection of solar radiation” https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and implications-of-the-pause/
The congruence of satellite observation cloud cover data and the Hadcrut temperature series is apparent in this graph : ” Global Average Cloud Cover and Temperature 1983 – 2008 ” https://notalotofpeopleknowthatfiles.wordpress.com/2018/10/cc-hc4.png
Note the dataset alignment during the very warming hiatus the UK Met Office acknowledged in July 2013 before the Orwellian palimpsest was re-inscribed as necessary :
” The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely ……It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused ”
The 2013 IPCC WG1 Report ‘ Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years ” contained this passage validating the pause :
” …In summary the observed recent warming hiatus defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998 – 2012 ……is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing ……primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle “
Like the GWPF, I rather prefer this chart on warming:
content://com.android.chrome.FileProvider/images/screenshot/16507169275082104905494.png
Looks even better Kelvin
Do you have this graph using the Kelvin scale?
Here you go, along with CO2 concentrations:
John >Do you have this graph using the Kelvin scale?
Create your own 2m-T graphs in absolute Kelvin i.e. departure from 0K – not a climatology anomaly. And any Lat range or Lat/Lon grid you may wish to isolate e.g. your home region:
Web-based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tool: Monthly/Seasonal Time-Series
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/atmoswrit/timeseries/index.html
Yes this is a tropospheric reanalysis model but it is observation based and not subject to bogus adjustments.
For example, a plot of the Southern Hemisphere (or NH) produces a seasonal warm-cool sine wave of negligible trend. You never see this in anomalies. Also see the difference between the warmer NH vs cooler SH and how the NH skews the Global Average of the two towards the NH and assumes the NH seasonal cycle rather than a flat line where SH cancels out NH cyclicity,
Without all the GISS, HadCRUT, NCEI etc “adjustments” the so-called “warming world” disappears this century. Very noticeable in the SH where even anomalies show negligible warming (the NH provides that).
I suggest ignoring those anomaly time series and instead immerse yourself in this WRIT tool for a while to get a real handle on what actual surface temperatures look like. Default Grid Point is NH (0 to 90), for SH change to -90 to 0.
Karsten Haustein has an annual GFS T2m timeseries anomaly plot in Kelvin of similar data except it is GISS “adjusted”. Even so if you click on the overview panel to go back previous years it is evident that peak warming was the 2015/16 El Nino. The forecasts though are obviously not adjusted. Scroll down and hover on the 7 day Robin forecast for example:
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate
Global 0.271K, NH 0.596, SH -0.05. Awkward for CO2-centric types.
I used that on my Facebook and Twitter profile home page for a while. Twitter especially didn’t seem to like it!
“Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past”. George Orwell warned us about totalitarian regimes rewriting history. Nice to see the MO conforming to type.
” More tampering was called for , so Hadcrut 5 was wheeled out in December 2020 ”
” Suddenly there sprang into his mind ready made as it were , the image of a certain Comrade Ogilvy …….It was true that there was no such person as Comrade Ogilvy but a few lines of print and a couple of faked photographs would soon bring him into existence ……Comrade Ogilvy who had never existed in the present , now existed in the past and when once the act of forgery was forgotten , he would exist just as authentically , and upon the same evidence as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar ” [ George Orwell , 1984 ]
“The scientific questions posed by the current pause in global surface warming require us to understand in much greater detail the flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system. Current observations are not detailed enough or of long enough duration to provide definitive answers on the causes of the recent pause, and therefore do not enable us to close the Earth’s energy budget. These are major scientific challenges that the research community is actively pursuing, drawing on exploration and experimentation using a combination of theory, models and observations.”
The hiatus is acknowledged and confirmed. More money is needed to confirm the confirmation?
The fact is there are thousands of organizations and people who have “Climate Change” in in their name or job title so the lies have to continue for “sustainability” for funding/paycheck reasons. Sustainability is used in the same way.
Those of us who have watched the great climate scam grow from early on remember.
As the Paris conference neared, Obama was embarrassed by testimony of the pause, the word went out (obvious but uprovable) to fix it. On cue for Paris, Karl et al cooked up the ‘pausebuster’ paper. And the Paris agreement was secured and became history. Of course stories of impropriety surfaced later, but as with Climategate, they were ignored, twisted, rubbished and buried.
HIDE THE DECLINE!
Or . . . better yet . . . stop calling it ‘Global Warming’ ! OK, let’s see . . . Ah, Climate Change !
We can blame ups or downs on that . . . Should have thought of that in the first place . . . Oh . . . when did you say those grant applications were due ??
Heads up for the BBC tonight and “Our Changing Planet”.Should be fun!
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4048602/bbc-plots-green-lifestyle-focused-programming-tv-radio-digital-channels
“The BBC is planning a raft of climate-focused content across its TV, radio, and digital services during April and May aimed at highlighting positive lifestyle and behavioural choices that can be made to help support the environment, the broadcaster announced today.”
I’ve been forced to listen to the trailers for the R5 programme about investing “greenfly”! presented by two people who, by their extremely opulent lifestyle, haven’t the vaguest idea about any sort of environmental care – typical BBC.
I always think “environmentalist” with the emphasis on the “mentalist”!!!!
“greenly”
It feels good not to be funding such nonsense. Nothing would have tempted me to watch it anyway.
Tiny temperature changes can have big effects…on graphs, grants and careers!
It’s all so obvious, so blatant and so predictable. Fraud all the way down.
Almost makes me sick . . .
A Tesla ‘S’ in an average year driving 15,00mi. causes 5,000 lbs. of CO2 to be burned in the USA. but then it is officially described as ‘Emissions Free’ . . . that one car gets $2,000 dollars of ‘Carbon Credits’ to sell at an average of $5.00 per Ton of CO2. The buyer of these credits can burn 400 Tons of CO2 . . . How does this magic trick make planet Earth any cleaner ??
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
Simply by ignoring the little man behind the green curtain…
Ooooops Sunday!
Even Jim Hansen agreed there was a warming ‘standstill’.
A recent insight into current standards
https://www.edinburghgeolsoc.org/lectures/
In amongst the hydrogen stuff you’ve got to love the Atlantic Conveyor for added special effects,
So are they admitting that they were bad at estimating the global temperature 1990 to 2012 and they still didn’t get it right 2012 to 2020 but now they’ve ‘finally’ got it right or did they use a time machine to go back and retake the temperature readings? How do they know what the 1961 to 1990 baseline is anymore? Surely that would change as the older the readings the less accurate they get? The sloppy method suggests that readings are getting less accurate as time goes on and need more adjustment.
How good will the climate proxies be if they’re calibrated to ever changing data? How can proxies have any credibility if thermometer records can give such unreliable results? If the ‘better’ 2020 figures are due to a better selection of sites, how can proxies with a very limited set of sites be a remotely accurate representation of global temperature in the past?
How can climate scientists be continually issuing new versions without somebody asking how a science ‘settled’ at least 2 decades ago still needs tweaking? Or that amazingly, each new version shows more warming than the last one.
Your last para nails it! Thanks.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
Hey, if you had to decide between believing data from a £10 thermometer or a £100,000,000 “Climate Model”, which would YOU choose?
Same with all these “it’s worse than we feared” papers.
No, that means you were wrong and your models were wrong. But of course the three decades of “ten years to save the planet” conflicts with those papers too. Its worse than we thought but oddly it still hasn’t happened.
It’s simply not science any more, just a gargantuan fraud kept alive by extremists and activists.
Precisely ! . . . And, don’t for get their government handouts to keep them active . . .
The UK Met Office’s Peter Thorne has the government functionary insider answer [ in the form of a Climategate email ] to your closing paragraph questions : ” I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run ” ….He said it
The BoM (Australia) have been doing the same thing. The Bureau has marked up Aust’s annual mean temps from at least 2001 to 2017 by 0.1C-0.2C. Both 2001 and 2011 had annual means below average – not any more.
And their logic is totally flawed. Changes to an average that always move in one direction requires systematic error bevause random error would average out. That’s why we use averages for measuring things, to remove random error. Yet they claim there’s no systematic error but random error. They find temperatures they don’t like and increase them. Its simply fradulent. Temperature data is no longer remotely true.
I’m a fully signed up sceptic, but every time I see that satellite temperature graph that is supposed to show no temperature rise, I see an upward trend. Can anyone explain that for me?
What you see are step-changes caused by El Ninos. There’s no upward trend as such, but a series of large scale spikes that may not entirely decrease before there’s another event. Global temperature is “controlled” by the frequency of El Ninos. Now perhaps thst frequency increases because of CO2 effects as there’s no fundamental cause in non-linear chaotic systems (which is why you can’t model them) but the proximate cause are El Ninos.
Nobody has the capability to forecast ENSO even though the science is claimed to be ‘settled’.
Simple upward trend isn’t really the point Robert. We need discerning evidence to confirm or refute the enhanced greenhouse effect theory/models. We know there is an upward trend, but it is well below model/theory predictions.
If you are still in doubt, there is a far better test, and this has been around for over 10 years now. there is much better evidence available, and it has been available for more than 10 years now. The following paper is among the first, and possibly the best, debunkings of the climate models and is well worth reading.
“What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?”, Christy et al, 2010
The paper predicted it would cause a debate, and so it turned out to be the case. This is “peer review” as a clash of alternative ideas working the way it should
Despite that debate and many papers being published in the literature, the conclusions of the above paper were never meaningfully challenged.
From the paper’s conclusions:
“A key indicator of the response of the tropical temperatures in enhanced-greenhouse gas-forced models is that the ratio of trends of the TLT layer relative to the trend of the surface, Tsfc, should be about 1.4, i.e., a ―scaling ratio‖ (SR) of 1.4. Using observed trend values, the observed SRs for TLT are significantly less than 1.4, being ~0.8 ± 0.3. This suggests that on average, the model amplification of surface temperature trends is overdone, and that the observed atmosphere manages to adjust to heating processes without allowing (over decades) a temperature change in the troposphere at a higher rate than it changes near the surface. An alternate explanation is that the reported trends in Tsfc are spatially inaccurate and are actually less positive. A more positive surface temperature trend than reported here, of course, would make the disagreement with the models even more significant [7,8].
We believe this is an important result that allows model developers to examine convective and cloud parameterizations, feedback effects and other energy transfer processes for the goal of building more effective models [20]. We are well aware this issue will not be closed with our result. We fully expect others to become engaged and produce defensible estimates of trends which may or may not support our conclusions. We have begun here the process of examining the different datasets to arrive at the idea of trend accuracy, and thus narrow the uncertainties for useful, characteristic metrics, such as the scaling ratio, which avoid some of the pitfalls in model evaluation created by the randomness of natural, inter-annual fluctuations.”
Theory had predicted greatest warming trend should be just above the troposphere in the tropical regions. This became known as the “tropospheric hotspot”. As the above paper says, warming in this region is predicted to be about 1.4 times of the rate of warming at the surface.
This “amplification” or surface warming is essential because there has to be a source for those IR photons supposed to be coming back to warm the surface. The reason for the predicted warming is an increase in the “blocking” (absorption) of outgoing IR due to increased CO2. Therefore observing the “amplified” trend in warming aloft would be a very important test to confirm the theory.
But Christy and colleagues showed the warming trend aloft is not amplified (not 140% of surface warming as predicted), but it is “attenuated” (80% the rate of surface warming). This is an example of a discerning test, using observations of the real atmosphere, which refutes the theory/models.
And, as Christy and colleagues rightly point out, if the surface temperature data tampering is artificially increasing the trend, it will only make matters worse because the attenuation will drop below 80% and this will further refute the models.
Excellent Post ! . . . The tip of the manipulation . . .
It’s a return to the mean anomaly after three major El Ninos (1998, 2010, 2016):
Thank you both. Very helpful
Remember this?
No major US hurricanes in 11 years. Odds of that? 1-in-2,300.
Earl is dead now, as yet another hurricane has avoided the United States.
8/5/2016
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/no-major-us-hurricanes-in-11-years-odds-of-that-1-in-2300/
Putting it simply, the western world is committing economic suicide because faulty, poor quality models agree with fiddled data.