Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.
University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.
“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”
Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”
The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.
Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.
“From our observations, we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.
While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.
A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.
Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”
Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused the global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot, and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.
Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.
“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.
“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.
DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:
Read more at Daily Caller
And the Eco-Wackos Green Nuts want us to ignore the Satellite data and only listen to their new age mumbo jumbo while they sit lotus style communing with gaia going OOOOOOOMMMMM OOOOOOMMMM OOOOOMMMM
You are only partially correct. Climate activists posing as scientists like to use satellite data once it has been “corrected.” Not long ago I read an article from one such researcher who said that the “corrected” satellite data agreed with one of the UN climate models.
And the MSM is far to busy firing all the sex predator talking heads
to actually cover something like the earth doesn’t have a fever .
No warming … No story . Headlines would be 3 inches high if it was the revers .
Are we seeing a pattern here ? The media and some women rights activists backed a rapist in the White House and his power hungry wife for decades . Now that they are finished as a political
pay to play team upon reflection the media dotters are having a rethink . The same thing will happen with the climate Armageddon industry . How is that ice free Arctic prediction looking ?
Like any industry , when you consistently get things wrong
people won’t buy your stuff .
The political divide makes a bad situation worse. If we turn a blind eye to the lies and deceit of “our side”, more lies and deceit will pile up until they’re too onerous to deny.
Same with climate alarmism. No one seems to want to own up to the bad models. The actual temperatures are not scary, they’re kinda good news, really. Beats the heck out of ” colder”.
May, 2017
John Abraham, a professor of thermal science, writes … about additional errors identified in Roy Spencer and John Christy’s temperature estimates.
According to Abraham, Spencer and Christy’s claims that troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have not been rising are wrong:
“They errantly include COLD stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites,” Abraham writes.
He also points to a recent paper that had questioned Christy and Spencer’s decision to use preliminary data in their congressional testimony while it was still in the peer review stage:
“At present, the UAH v6 (most recent Christy/Spencer data) results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 (Spencer 2016).
The release of the UAH version 6 products before publication is unusual, and Spencer recently stated that a manuscript has been submitted for a peer-reviewed publication. While some may find it scientifically inappropriate to utilize UAH v6b6 data before publication, these data have already been presented in testimony during congressional hearings before both the U.S. House and Senate and have also appeared on websites and in public print articles,” Abraham quotes the January 207 paper.
Abraham adds, “let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people suggest).”
The inability to state an argument concisely is
the hallmark of a liar.
I have been following the climate change movement for 15+ plus years. In that amount of time a clear pattern has emerged. The US historical data before 1950 was “corrected” downward, favoring the climate change movement. The US historical data after 1950 was “corrected” upward, favoring the climate change movement. Current readings are being adjusted upward, favoring the climate change movement. The scientific instruments in ocean buoys have been “corrected” upward using the industrial instruments on ships. If adjustments were being made honestly, at least some of them would not favor the climate change movement. However, adjustments always favor the alarmists. This is a pretty good indication that the above about the satellites is another piece of the fraud.
I have experience with industrial instrumentation. I’ll refer to thermometers here. Important temperatures required regular calibration of the instruments involved. The accurate way to take temperature readings throughout a system was to use only one calibrated instrument . I doubt that a ship’s water intake temperature reading needed to be exact. Even less likely that any number of ships passing through the same water would get the same readings. Ocean buoys would be dependably consistent.
The instruments aboard a satellite would be the best available. One accurate “thermometer” circling the Earth, fudge – proof consistency .
Especialy in Australia where they were cuaght tampering with the data these something realy dirty in the enviromental movment since Carson and Silent Spring