h/t Tony Heller of Real Science (Link)
The introductory graphic is of the RSS Data prior to the “adjustments” (Source). It is clear that the observed data is falling outside the IPCC forecasts at the 95% confidence level. In any real science, that would be game over for the CO2 drives temperatures theory, and the real scientist would then go on to find other possible causes. Unfortunately, that isn’t how climate “science” works. In the field of climate “science,” when the models start to fail, you simply “adjust” the data.
Fig. 1. Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)
Magically, after “adjusting” the data, Temperatures barely fall back into the possible at a 95% confidence level band…but that won’t last long. In fact, tropical temperatures, the ones least impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect are already outside the 95% band.
Fig. 2. Tropical (30S to 30N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmospheric temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be on the low side of the simulated values, indicating that the simulations as a whole are predicting more warming than has been observed by the satellites.
When you overlap the before and after charts, you can see the impact on the chart. The chart suddenly becomes more linear and shows more warming. More importantly, the new data falls inside the previous 95% confidence band.
Prior to the “Adjustments” RSS and Satellite data were basically indistinguishable.
Now, after the “adjustments,” there is a distinct gap, with RSS showing more warming.
The reason for the one-sided “adjustments” should be obvious. The RSS supported the Satellite Data, not the highly adjusted ground measurement data from GISS favored by the Climate Alarmists.
It is very strange for a group of Scientists to have 3 data sources, 2 that confirm each other, and one that is an outlier, to have one of the confirmed data sets to be “adjusted” to fall more in line with the outlier. That just simply isn’t something that happens in real science.
Most unfortunate, however, is that honest people from the inside predicted that RSS would “adjust” their data to fall more in line with GISS.
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.
Here’s what I’m predicting:
1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.
The problem both the RSS and GISS data adjustments has is that the adjustments aren’t consistent with the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule and the Greenhouse Gas Effect. CO2’s absorption of energy isn’t linearly related to concentration, it shows a logarithmic decay. CO2 increases at a nearly linear rate, but its absorption of energy decays with each additional molecule.
The other problem is that the GISS ground measurements are measuring the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 has zero impact. CO2 doesn’t impact the lower troposphere. There is no reason the RSS should be consistent with the GISS Ground measurements because there is no Urban Heat Island effect at the upper Troposphere lower stratosphere.
The above chart is measuring the Ground Level Upward IR Heat Flux for 400 ppm CO2. It measures 417.306 W/m^2
Doubling the CO2 to 800 ppm does absolutely nothing to the 417.306 W/m^2 Ground Level Upward IR Heat Flux. Simply put, if H2O is present in the atmosphere, CO2 is completely irrelevant. Ground measurements measure the impact of H2O on the climate, Balloons and Satellites measure the impact of CO2 because they are measuring the layer of the atmosphere where there is no H2O and CO2 is the dominant GHG. There is no logical explanation why the RSS should be more aligned with the GISS Ground Measurements than the UAH Satellite Data. One is measuring apples and the other oranges. Matching RSS to GISS is like making fruit salad.
Balloons measure way above the ground measurement stations.
Art Imitating Reality:
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment