Overheated claims on temperature records

“Most basic assumptions underlying climate concerns are either in doubt or simply wrong” – Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

“Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” says Paul Driessen. “Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.”

“Virtually never do these scary press releases mention that the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements. Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase.  Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons. And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.”

“This article by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris points out all these highly relevant but often (deliberately) ignored realities.”

Overheated claims on temperature records

It’s time for sober second thoughts on climate alarms

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Now that the excitement has died down over the news that Earth’s surface temperature made 2017 one of the hottest years on record, it is time for sober second thoughts.

Did the January 18 announcement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that 2017 was our planet’s third-hottest year since 1880, and NASA’s claim that it was the second hottest year, actually mean anything?

Thank goodness we have been in a gradual warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age

Although the Los Angeles Times called 2017 “a top-three scorcher for planet Earth,” neither the NOAA nor the NASA records are significant. One would naturally expect the warmest years to come during the most recent years of a warming trend. And thank goodness we have been in a gradual warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s! Back then, the River Thames was covered by a meter of ice, as Jan Grifier’s 1683 painting “The Great Frost’ illustrates.

Regardless, recent changes have been too small for even most thermometers to notice. More important, they are often less than the government’s estimates of uncertainty in the measurements. In fact, we lack the data to properly and scientifically compare today’s temperatures with the past.

This is because, until the 1960s, surface temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which constitute 70 percent of the planet’s surface area, had more than an occasional station separated from its neighbors by thousands of kilometers or miles.

The data collected at the weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit). In most cases, the real-world accuracy was no better than +/-1 deg C (1.8 deg F). Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful. Displaying average global temperature to tenths or even hundreds of a degree, as is done in the NOAA and NASA graphs, clearly defies common sense.

Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as those by NOAA and NASA. This was done initially because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.

Satellites did not show the desired warming so bureaucrats closed most of the colder sensing stations thereby yielding the desired warming

However, the satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models, which had become so crucial to climate studies and energy policy-making. So bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations – the ones furthest from much warmer urban areas – thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.

Today, virtually no data exist for approximately 85 percent of the earth’s surface. Indeed, fewer weather stations are in operation now than in 1960.

Computations by NOAA and NASA after about 1980 are meaningless

That means surface temperature computations by NOAA and NASA after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with earlier data renders an unavoidable conclusion: It is not possible to know how Earth’s so-called average surface temperature has varied over the past century and a half.

The data is therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of policy recommendations produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and used to justify eliminating fossil fuels, and replacing them with renewable energy.

But the lack of adequate surface data is only the start of the problem. The computer models on which the climate scare is based are mathematical constructions that require the input of data above the surface, as well as on it. The models divide the atmosphere into cubes piled on top of each other, ideally with wind, humidity, cloud cover and temperature conditions known for different altitudes. But we currently have even less data above the surface than on it, and there is essentially no historical data at altitude.

Many people think the planet is adequately covered by satellite observations, data that represents global 24/7 coverage and is far more accurate than anything determined at weather stations. But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles, regions that the IPCC, NOAA and NASA tout as critical to understanding global warming. Besides, space-based temperature data collection did not start until 1979, and 30 years of weather data are required to generate a single data point on a climate graph.

So the satellite record is far too short to allow us to come to useful conclusions about climate change.

In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind – temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH,  and so on – to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past. Lacking such fundamental data, climate forecasts cited by climate activists therefore have no connection with the real world.

British Professor Hubert Lamb is often identified as the founder of modern climatology. In his comprehensive 1972 treatise, Climate: Past, Present and Future, he clearly showed that it is not possible to understand climate change without having vast amounts of accurate weather data over long time frames. Lamb also noted that funding for improving the weather database was dwarfed by money being spent on computer models and theorizing. He warned that this would result in wild and unsubstantiated theories and assertions, while predictions failed to improve. That is precisely what happened.

Each and every prediction made by the computer models cited by the IPCC have turned out to be incorrect.

Indeed, the first predictions they made for the IPCC’s 1990 Assessment Report were so wrong that the panel started to call them “projections” and offered low, medium and high “confidence” ranges for future guesstimates, which journalists, politicians and others nevertheless treated as reliable predictions for future weather and climate.

IPCC members seemed to conclude that, if they provided a broad enough range of forecasts, one was bound to be correct. Yet, even that was too optimistic. All three ranges predicted by the IPCC have turned out to be wrong.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is right to speak about the need for a full blown public debate among scientists about the causes and consequences of climate change. In his February 6 television interview on KSNV, an NBC affiliate in Las Vegas, Mr. Pruitt explained:

“There are very important questions around the climate issue that folks really don’t get to. And that’s one of the reasons why I’ve talked about having an honest, open, transparent debate about what do we know, and what don’t we know, so the American people can be informed and they can make decisions on their own with respect to these issues.”

On January 30, Pruitt told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that a “red team-blue team exercise” (an EPA-sponsored debate between climate scientists holding differing views) is under consideration. It is crucially important that such a debate take place.

Most basic assumptions underlying climate concerns are either in doubt or simply wrong

The public needs to understand that even the most basic assumptions underlying climate concerns are either in doubt or simply wrong. The campaign to force America, Canada, Europe and the rest of the world to switch from abundant and affordable coal and other fossil fuels – to expensive, unreliable, land intensive alternatives – supposedly to control Earth’s always fluctuating climate, will then finally be exposed for what it really is: the greatest, most damaging hoax in history.

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.


11 thoughts on “Overheated claims on temperature records”

  1. Great article!!!

    They need to add to this how satellite sea level, satellite temperature data and ground temperature data bases have been “Adjusted” over the years.

    Is it a coincidence that all of these adjustments have made the earth appear to be warmer and the seas higher.

  2. Has anyone else notice this, as temperatures plateaued for a few years before dropping off those on the AGW gravy train relentlessly described every year to be hotter than the previous one? Yet now they are describing each year as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on warmest year. Does this mean it’s the 4th warmest year in a row? Or does it mean it’s the 4th warmest year but not as warm as the last one or the year before that or what?

    To me they are distorting the language they use to fudge the truth in the hope that they can keep the gravy train from hitting the buffers. As the public freeze the gravy train hurtles on regardless obtaining money under false pretences whilst manipulating civilization through unwarranted fear and intimidation. The term Climate Change says to me that the IPCC know they got it wrong and they are hedging their bets hoping that it’s still getting warmer yet as it’s actually cooling they can say oh well we predicted that to.

  3. What a fine article, Robert. Thank you.
    Ordinary people and lower-level activists may quite honestly believe the global warming hoax, but the story of that hoax is incomplete without recognition of the power and money behind it. Who are the hoaxers?

    US Senate Minority Staff Report
    “The Chain of Environmental Command”
    How a Club of Billionaires and Their
    Foundations Control the Environmental
    Movement and Obama’s EPA

    From “Findings” on page iv: “The “Billionaire’s Club,” an exclusive group of wealthy individuals, directs the far-left environmental movement. The members of this elite liberal club funnel their fortunes through private foundations to execute their personal political agenda, which is centered around restricting the use of fossil fuels in the United States.”

    You won’t want to read the whole thing, but do skip to pages 5. 6 & 7 to see the charts which show the names and $ amounts. And this was only as of 2012. Can you imagine how much more since?

  4. Dr. Ball is right on. Ask anyone who looks at their I-phone weather report. It will change from day to day, based on … models.
    And they want us to project out 20, 30, 100 years based on similar modeling? I don’t think so. Not convincing me!
    God is ultimately in charge of the weather and not man.
    Go pick on someone your own size.

  5. Yep I knew that all along. There was an article back in the early 90’s that said that many cold weather reporting stations were closed in Russia after the cold war, but they still measured the same number of warm locations since that time. So the surface data is completely inaccurate and of course warm biased.

    • MANNipulation = barking up the wrong Lonesome pine to meet his master needs for further UK provided AGW research grants.

  6. Yes, indeed, this “alternative energy” cabal claiming to provide “clean energy” is
    “…. the greatest, most damaging hoax in history.”

    It took hundreds of years to elevate mankind’s energy requirements from burning dung or wood to modern, and highly (96+ percent) efficient and 24/7-reliable coal, natural gas, and nuclear electric power generation systems.

    That’s why every electricity metering or consuming implement is now becoming “smart.”
    What “smart” really means in that context is “being able to be TURNED OFF, REMOTELY”, and without your knowledge or influence.

Comments are closed.