Now we tackle, using newly available data, what may have caused the fictitious temperature trend in the latter decades of the 20th century.
We first look at ocean data. There was a great shift, after 1980, in the way Sea Surface Temperatures [SSTs] were measured; [REF. see Goretzki and Kennedy et al. JGR 2011 Fig. 2] “Sources of SST data:” Note the drastic changes between 1980 and 2000 as global floating drifter buoys geographic changes increasingly replaced opportunities for sampling SST with buckets.
Data taken from floating drifter buoys increased from zero to 60% between 1980 and 2000. But such buoys are heated directly by the sun with the unheated engine inlet water in lower ocean layers; this combination leads to a spurious rise in Sea Surface Temperature [SST] when the data are mixed together.
In merging them, we must note that buoy data are global, while bucket and inlet temperatures are (perforce) confined to (mostly commercial) shipping routes.
Nor do we know the ocean depths that buckets sample; inlet depths depend on ship type and degree of loading.
Disentangling this mess requires data details that are not available. About all we might demonstrate, is the possibility of a distinct diurnal variation in the buoy temperatures.
The land data have problems of their own. During these same decades, quite independently, by coincidence, there was a severe reduction in ‘superfluous’ (mostly) rural stations — unless they were located at airports.
As seen from fig. 4, the number of stations decreased drastically in the 1990s, but the fraction of airport stations increased sharply, from ~35% to ~80%, in the fraction of “airport” weather stations, producing a spurious temperature increase from all the construction of runways and buildings; these are hard to calculate in detail.
We have, however, MSU data for the lower atmosphere over both ocean and land; they show little difference; so we can assume that both land data and ocean data contribute about equally to the fictitious surface trend reported for 1978 to 1997. The BEST [Berkeley Earth System Temperatures] data confirm our supposition.]
The absence of a warming trend removes all of IPCC’s evidence for AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming]. Both IPCC-AR4 [2007] and IPCC-AR5 [2013], and perhaps also AR-6, rely on the spurious 1978-1997 warming trend to demonstrate AGW [see chapters on ‘Attribution’ in their respective final reports.]
Obviously, if there is no warming trend, these demonstrations fail – and so do all their proofs for AGW.
Read more at American Thinker
We can assume that the UN IPCC gave the wink and nod to climatologists. Deliver what we’re looking for and we’ll reward you. If you want to diagnose something, logic and consistency are necessities. Don’t change methodology during analysis.
The mystery to me is why would Canadians fear global warming .
Why would Canadians accept the environmental holy war against Alberta oil? People don’t connect the dots anymore. Why have so many fallen for this hoax?
The RAW data NEVER shows any warming
until
It’s manipulated to show a warming
I want every brilliant scientist out there
to prove WHY this is necessary to prove their
So-Called ” Science “
Have you noticed that when ever they change methodology (bad practice in true science) it results in data that is hotter? Floating drifter buoys is one example. In Australia they went from instruments with a longer time constant, to those with a shorter one. The smaller time intervals caught that noise that exists in most measure data, and that made the temperatures appear warmer. NOAA eliminated the cooler climate stations at higher elevations and rural areas and kept the stations in urban heat sinks. These so call scientists know exactly what they are doing.