Much of the observed warming this past century is artificial, either caused by the urban heat island effect or by dubious adjustments to the actual data reported by surface temperature stations. Christopher Monckton has just uncovered the latest example of temperatures gatekeepers adjusting the data to fit an alarmist narrative. Monckton writes:
They’re at it again. The old lady of temperature datasets – HadCRUT, the only global dataset to reach back to 1850 – has released its revised monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies for 1850-2020. The earlier dataset (HadCRUT4) showed a least-squares linear-regression trend of 0.91 K on the monthly anomalies from 1850-2020 – only just over half a degree per century equivalent.
HadCRUT5 shows a 1.04° C trend from 1850-2020, or three-fifths of a degree per century equivalent, up 14% from the 0.91° C trend on the HadCRUT4 data:
ABOVE: Before and after adjustments to the HadCRUT surface temperature record.
This was not enough. Like the endlessly-adjusted GISS, RSS and NCEI datasets, HadCRUT5 hikes the trend – and does so by a startling 14%. The usual method is adopted: depress the earlier temperatures (we know so much better what the temperature was a century and a half ago than the incompetents who actually took the measurements), and elevate the later temperatures with the effect of steepening the trend and increasing the apparent warming.
Of course, elaborate justifications for the alterations are provided. It is beyond my pay-grade to evaluate them. However, it is fascinating that the much-manipulated GISS, HadCRUT, RSS and NCEI datasets are managed by climate fanatics, while the UAH dataset – the only one of the big five to have gone the other way – is managed by climate skeptics.
Monckton goes on to compare these inflated temperature trends to climate models and says:
This is the most straightforward way of showing that the models’ global-warming predictions are without a shred of legitimacy or credibility. They are elaborate fictions. They suffer from two defects: they are grossly excessive, and they are accordingly ill-constrained.
You can read the full analysis here.
Indeed, warming adjustments to the temperature record seem to be happening faster than “global warming” itself. Where is the accountability in climate science?
Well, I’m afraid we’ll have to stick to this wisdom some more time:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln
This just shows how bad Climate Realism is. They squabble over a 10% difference in temperature change figures instead of actually trying to do something about the fact that climate change is happening.
Basically, they are criticizing climate scientists for ‘changing’ the temperature change by an ‘alarming’ 14%. What if they got it wrong before by that amount by undercounting? If you have this much time to write an article about this, why don’t you actually try to do something about the climate crisis? Or are you too busy trying to tell the American people fake news so you can get paid by oil companies and frackers all while undermining humanity’s success?
Nope. They selectively only go back to 1850, when scientists have records back to Roman times that tell a completely different story. I bet you didn’t even know that they can tell what the temps were then. Look it up.
Apparently Ahmed yo are either very young, have not read much history, or do not realize the the “News” is a business, and scientists get most of their money by producing results wanted by those supplying the money. Anthropegenic man made Climate Change / Global Warming is the height of human arrogance. Remember, Galileo, spent his last years under house arrest for the simple reason he stated the earth rotated around the sun. The consensus at the time was that the sun rotated around the earth. There is no such thing as a consensus in science. There is only a hypothesis, theory, or fact. But there are also no absolutes.