Man Made Global Warming
By Paul Homewood
Once upon a time there was The Pause.
For a decade and a half, global temperatures stopped rising, an embarrassment for climate scientists. Even the Met Office published a long study in 2013 into the possible reasons.
But while one team at the Met Office were scratching their heads, another was busy at work eliminating the problem.
After all, if the data does not support the theory, you simply change the data.
The Met Office’s Hadley Centre, in conjunction with the disgraced Climate Research Unit at the UEA, had for years published their global temperature series known as HADCRUT3. They regarded it as the gold standard of datasets.
But just a year after the Met Office’s paper on the pause, a new version was rushed out, HADCRUT4, which conveniently removed that pause.
By 2014, when HADCRUT3 was formally replaced, the new version had added about a tenth of a degree to warming since 2000.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/none
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
But the Met Office did not stop there. In 2021 they had another bite at the cherry, replacing HADCRUT4 with HADCRUT5. The new version added nearly another tenth of a degree:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/HadCRUT.5.0.2.0/download.html
Put all three series together, and we can see how most of the warming since 2001 is the result of adjustments to the data:
The Met Office claimed there were valid reasons for changing their datasets. They would, wouldn’t they?
But I am certain that if they had set out looking for ways to reduce warming trends, they would have had no difficulty justifying that either. After all, they could have started by excluding the effect of UHI from their data.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s gone the other way now as climate science can’t explain their ‘excess’ heat of 2023.
Just a shot in the dark but could someone has messed around with data from the recent past making it seem warmer than it really is?
Hoist on their own petard
No longer true OB. A paper late in 2023 by Hansen (yes, him) blames the gap between models and those pesky real life observations on anthropogenic aerosol emissions. This paper and its implications has received huge support from warmist ”scientists” as it gives a huge get-out clause for all those models that were programmed purely on CO2. To be clear, the warmth in 2023 and its continuation into 2024 is still anomalous but Hunga Tonga in particular has provided the perfect excuse to say “see – it’s all about what aerosols do”. It’s more complicated than I can go to here (not least due to the fact that Hunga Tonga is mainly about water) but here’s the rub – if Hansen and his devoted followers are right, the fact that humans are no longer producing as many aerosols implies that, once the effects of Hunga Tonga and the latest El Niño had finally abated, were all gonna fry because the only reason we haven’t to date is the cooling effect of man-made aerosols. In other words, anthropogenic aerosols have cooled us below what the models predicted but soon it’ll all be about CO2 again and the oceans will boil. Utter carp in my opinion but we’ll see.
No, Hansen is not the latest on this. This appeared on 19 March 2024…
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.
Author: Gavin Schmidt
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
“they could have started by excluding the effect of UHI from their data.”
Yup.
And they could have got Alok Sharma to blow up all the Class 4 and Class 4 observing stations.
But they don,t want to show real figures , as UHI helps their propaganda .
Hadcrut figures have been changed to show fake rises in temperatures and most of their figures start from the 1970s , when the world was very cold and we were being told an “ICE AGE ” was coming .https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/09/hadcrut-data-manipulation-changes-2000-2014-warming-trend-from-0-03c-to-0-14c-per-decade/
So we should expect more lies all of the time as they try to promote their Climate Change fraud .
According to Roy Spencer’s web site, UHI has added between 0.4 and 0.6 deg K to the measured warming. This certainly does not seem unreasonable given that urban population is growing everywhere, and the urban areas move into the semi-rural areas needed for quality temperature measurement stations.
Why are not all of the low grade sites purged from climate study records and a new justifiable temperature set produced? The low class sites may be okay for local weather forecasts, but should not be used where accuracy is needed. Some “climate scientists” have told me that accuracy does not matter as only the difference (anomaly) is significant, but low grade stations also get that wrong as the bias is not even over day and night.
I’ve got a couple of problems with it.
My observation is that UHI produces several degrees of temperature increase. Now, when blended in with global data, perhaps 0.4 – 0.6 is accurate for the overall effect, but one could come away believing UHI is only 0.4 – 0.6 degrees, locally.
Secondly, Dr Roy does SATELLITE temperature measurement, such that UHI is going to be pretty thin once blended in. I.e., when you are measuring nearly the entire surface of the earth, how much is ‘urban?’ I assume it is quite small, but I don’t know.
Here’s a random number I found on duh web:
Well, let’s throw Antarctica back in. Plus 71% is covered by water. I expect then that urban areas are less than 1% of the earth’s surface.
“I expect then that urban areas are less than 1% of the earth’s surface.”
Yet they make up the bulk of the mal-adjusted surface data. !
It used to be said that if your hypothesis was that all swans are white, observing more white swans lends a slightly increased weight to it, but one black swan sinks your hypothesis without trace.
Today we have scientists hiding black swans or pretending that they are really white if you look at them in a certain light (total darkness actually, which will be visited on all of us if these idiots have their way).
Humans love patterns, causation, money and a belief every problem can be solved by us. All big problems for genuine science.
It was the same with the nonsense around saturated fat, and the so-called “French paradox,” and the drugs that reduced LDL better than statins but showed no improvement in all cause mortality. The eminent cardiologist’s excuse was that these drugs reduced cholesterol “in the wrong way.”
So we now have the met-office manipulating not even good data but ‘junk’ data
We’ve had over a year of “Global Temperatures” exceeding the 19th century benchmark temperatures by the 1.5C limit. In fact it even breached 2C on 17 November 2023.
It will be interesting to see if the rise falls below 1.5C this year, despite ENSO falling a bit it is still in El Nino conditions. We’re entering Northern Hemisphere summer so I think there’s very little chance of us getting back to safety this year. How the alarmists handle exceeding the limit for over 2 years, over and above hyping every wildfire and weather event, will be interesting to say the least.
These Met Office charlatans know that the theory of man-made CO2 global warming is a complete fiction so they retrospectively adjust their temperature records to try to maintain their fake narrative. Will they double down on this faking when the planet starts cooling? This is predicted by the cyclical periodicity of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and solar influences as researched by, inter alia, Svensmark and Shaviv, see https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-the-movie-part-2-natural-climate-change-and-extreme-weather/ and Zharkova’s grand solar minimum, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/. They might be able to fake their temperatures but they won’t be able to hide the sudden excess of snow and ice, as experienced in the cyclical ice age scare of the 1960-70s (as recently documented by Paul), just as their co-conspirators can’t hide the excessive numbers of dead bodies resulting from their Covid “plandemic”.
Those of us who have a bit more than a passing knowledge of collecting serial data know that the first sign of a problem with a model, is that data that increases in magnitiude with time, or period of sampling, is a sign that the assumed distribution model is not physically correct. For an assumed ‘steady state’ system, the effects of perturbation are assumed to follow a Gaussian ‘normal’ law of accumulation. If the perturbations are ‘white’ – have no statistical correlation to each other, then over a long enough period and equal magnitude of perturbation for each event, the effects can be averaged to a residual value. However, if there is a statistical correlation, between individual events, then the distribution becomes skewed and the assumed ‘steady state’ no longer applies. With highly non-linear systems such as this planets climate, the crudities of ‘steady state’ reasoning will soon show divergence in the data, producing events like the infamous ‘hockey stick’.
As is well known and documented, non-linear systems produce data under perturbation that diverges from an assumed ‘average’ and as Paul has frequently demonstrated, this depends on where you start sampling the data. The various HADCRUT realisations show increasing divergence from a ‘clean’ average. The variance in HADCRUT 3 is much less than in the later models. This could be due to increasing heat island effects in the data but, is far more likely to be due to how the same data has been post processed.
Let me give a cogent example. Suppose you have a cellar full of lumps of coal and you sample the range of lump sizes. You rapidly find that the distribution of lump sizes is not ‘normal’ but there is an excess of smaller lumps. The reason why such a distribution is skewed, is that smaller lumps are produced by breaking off the surface of larger lumps and that depends on the suface area of the lumps, which is a non-linear relationship to their volume. So an a priori assumption of a normal distribution is false and will change with time and continued damage.
True normal distributions in physical systems are very rare, most are ‘skewed’ and this has to be taken into account when looking at their data.
And there was me thinking that it was the sun that heated the oceans (apart from a small volcanic effect). I never knew that heat from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could find its way into the oceans. It must be an area of physics that passed me by.
If the CO2 and other GHGs heat the atmosphere above the ocean, then the oceans will cool less and hence overall lead to a warming.
Just think of the difference in cooling rate of your hot coffee in the warm kitchen as opposed to being in the fridge.
As Jennifer Marohasy puts it:
But, if we believe this information, ocean sea surface temperatures are on average, about 6C warmer than surface air temperatures. This is certainly the situation in the equatorial regions, and over much of the planet.
If the surface of the ocean is on average warmer than the atmosphere immediately above it, then the direction of heat transfer must be ocean to atmosphere. This is certainly the case in the tropics, driving atmospheric circulation.
To suggest the atmosphere is warming the ocean is nonsense. Yet the scientists informing the journalists relying on this same information are suggesting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are responsible for the warming of the oceans.
That the ocean is warming the atmosphere (not the other way around) is also evident from the lag in temperatures, considering this same data.
Atmospheric temperatures are lagging the warmth in the equatorial Pacific by a good two months.
Good morning Phillip.
Perhaps we just have a different use or interpretation of the English language – it can be a bit vague at times. Both side of the climate debate are prone to using the vagueness of the language to give an accent to their speak.
To rephrase the question: does the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere lead to a warming of the oceans? The answer must be an equivocal ‘yes’ for the reason I have given. Do we still disagree?
Certainly warmer air above the oceans will slow down the rate of heat transfer from water to air (all other things being unchanged), but the heat capacities are so different that the effect on ocean temperature will be immeasurably small.
Most of us on this site don’t think that CO2 does warm the atmosphere. Also 57% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year comes from the oceans.
Phillip. So now we have agreement on the process of how GHGs can affect the rate of change in ocean temperature. By what amount is another discussion for another time, I would just like to add that from experience the effect at least on land can be huge:
Here on the Baltic coast we sometimes experience really dry air arriving from Russia and its high pressure area. Differences between day and night temperatures can be over 20C, even in June when we have really long daylight hours. If it clouds over during the night, and the wind changes to come for the sea, the difference is little more than a couple of degrees.
nevis52
That is surely an assumption. From my experience of following the posts over the last decade or so, there are a great many who accept the warming by CO2, but believe that it is greatly over-rated, the response is over the top and more detrimental than doing nothing.
As to the mention of the source of CO2, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It all behaves in the same way. Why mention it?
If I’ve understood this correctly, the Met Office has admitted that their previous data was inaccurate, but Met Office now expects non-believers to accept that the latest data is accurate.
As someone else sometimes writes: We used to live in the Holocene period, we now live in the Adjustocene period
Adjustocene … or as we used to call it: plasticene (Plasticine)
I prefer ‘hypocrisene’.
The problem is, the Met Office has no way of knowing. Once you move away from observed data, you are in trouble. I struggle to understand how a majority of sites that were “wrong” were wrong by being too cool. Why would that be in the late 20th century? Homogenisation is just a convenient way to do away with data you don’t like. If you know it is wrong, exclude it, but you cannot change it to match data from nearby.
Agree – If the baseline is corrupt, then everything is corrupt
https://youtu.be/uGDnkq_KeTA?si=gyZ-ycs55jE9qf5h
So many divergent views. Who to believe?
Are you trying to be serious?
Yes actually. I find it interesting that there are so many opposing views. So many thinking they are right.
Tony Heller is saying 30-50% of USHCN weather stations no longer exist, but ‘still report temperature data’ via NOAA. The story came from zerohedge.com originally.
https://realclimatescience.com/2024/04/startling-new-revelation/
OB I recently got the list of these weather stations graded by CIMO ranking by following up on the recent FOI request. However, there are many more sites listed here that they did NOT supply. I have now put in another request for the CIMO ranking of all these additional stations but as yet have not even had an acknowledgement of my request.
In my area some of these sites are listed as Dungeness B (as in nuclear power station), Dover Beach, Folkestone Ski Centre and Gillingham Football Club – the latter on the stadium roof. There are many more BUT for the life of me I cannot actually find that some of them even still exist – if they ever did!
The more I dig the weirder things are becoming. A neighbour’s computer graduate son found a “security” wrapping programme dumped on my laptop following an earlier contact with the Met Office which screwed up my long term email address and all files associated. He effectively unlocked it for me but pointed out it was a rather archaic programme once favoured by the “security” services….often followed by a “dawn raid”!
I shall update if I can find any more about these additional sites PLUS some data I have uncovered from allegedly “closed” stations.
Meahwhile, the trend line on a graph of CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa is virtually a straight line. Steady increase begets wobbly temp increase.
∴ CO2 theory of alleged global warming is falsified.
Why does no one ask if sampling gasses on the side of an active volcano which produces CO2 is the Gold Standard for atmospheric C02 level recording? Where are the others stations around the world used to calibrate it?
Oh it is and I am sure you have read my rant before because there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim that CO2 liberated back into the Carbon Cycle from whence it came by the actions of man can in any measurable way be shown to be responsible for any of the current warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, the 4th such warming in recent human history IN AN INTERGLACIAL.
The greenhouse effect is dead but the global Marxist U.N. IPCC octopus keeps using it as their marionette.
(1034) TL Winslow’s answer to Should we judiciously use carbon capture, storage, and recycling to address our greenhouse gas climate crisis? – Quora
“If the data does not support the theory, you simply change the data.”
The best definition of settled science I ever saw.
The Met Office, where empirical science and the truth go to die
3. Does that mean their “adjustment for Hadcrut 3-Hadcrut 4 was made INCOMPETENTLY or was it simply that the people in the shadows pulling their strings told them to go back and do it again as Hadcrut-4 did not fit “their needs“?
I think there is a word for this……
Fraud.
Me thinks something is rotten in the county of Devon, specifically in Exeter, the headquarters of the Met Office.
There is nothing worse we are told than a dirty copper because of the position of trust and respect they hold. On that basis, I think there is someone worse, and that is a dirty government scientist willing to commit a scientific fraud upon the people of Great Britain, for money and position.
Perhaps I did not make it clear to Gamecock that UHI is a major distortion mainly because the majority of measuring stations are in areas that are dominated by this effect. Spencer was comparing ground measurements with satellite measurements. Anthony Watts, on Heartlands Trust published a very detailed survey of US measuring stations that the “Climate scientists” try to rubbish as they don’t like it, (they claim non-peer review for most publications that they don’t like, the peers being IPCC supporters).
Adjusting measured values without proof of their reason for error is simple dishonesty. Unless the physics of adjustment are clear (e.g. the radiation correction that is used in some situations), bad data should be rejected provided that they are not true outliers.
Ground measurements are useless.
You will NOT find this admission on the Met Office site now , but back in the 20th Century before climate change hysteria became obligatory they actually stated
“It is unavoidable that some sites do not meet all these requirements, particularly where a station set up for one purpose gradually takes on a different role, for example an airport site originally established for aviation observing may become a key synoptic or climate station while suffering the effects of urbanisation. A few sites are in city centres and may be unsuitably located close to large obstacles or even on the roof of a building.”
Yes airport runways and ”the roof of a building” are now considered acceptable
https://artefacts.ceda.ac.uk/badc_datadocs/ukmo-midas/ukmo_guide.html#2.1
Would they now use a weather station on “the roof of a building”?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/u10kkf645
Yes it really is on the roof of Gillingham’s Priestfield Stadium and they quote climate averages back to 1960 based on figures from places like these. YCMIU
A water body which has its surface polluted by light oil and/or surfactant will warm. Its albedo will be lowered and evaporation will be reduced. On an oceanic scale there will be fewer breaking waves which will release fewer salt aerosols into the atmosphere. Cloud cover will be reduced with consequent increased insolation of the ocean surface.
See Franklin, Pockels, Lord Rayleigh.
How much are these effects contributing to sea surface warming? We don’t know because no-one has done the science.
JF