Temperature of the Earth – Why is the Southern Hemisphere Cooling?

A new paper from Xu and Powell, “Uncertainty of the stratospheric/tropospheric temperature trends in 1979–2008: multiple satellite MSU, radiosonde, and reanalysis datasets” is analysed by Willis Eschenbach at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/07/why-reanalysis-data-isnt/

The interesting question is why is the southern hemisphere cooling – If CO2 is distributed evenly there should be consistent warming – and aren’t the poles meant to show the most warming?

Just How Much is the Earth Warming?

Most agree that the Earth may have experienced a warming trend over the last 100 years – but how much?

Here is a look at the mean temperature trend using the instrument record.

Fig1. First estimate of global land temperature trends. As always in the RUTI project, data are unadjusted GHCN and the main efforts in the RUTI project is to identify areas of similar temperature trend before averaging – this due to limited data periods made available from GHCN (see more). As will be the case for all data sources, older data, especially before 1900 has limited data as foundation. All RUTI data in the present article use 1961-90 as base period.

Results:

1) Temperature peak in the latest decade appears to be around 0,22 K warmer than the 1940´ies heat peak.

2) We see a strong temperature decline 1940-78 around 0,55-0,6 K.

Read more at ‘Hide the Decline’

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php

Hers a look at mean temperatures from the Satellite data…

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.

Read more at Roy Spencer’s site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

More Chilling News

 

http://joannenova.com.au/

Lucky – its warming now

Chilling news for climate sceptics

Eugene Robinson

The Age October 28, 2011

FOR the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there. The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom climate-change sceptics once lauded as one of their own.

Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarming climate research as “polluted by political and activist frenzy’’. Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

“Global warming is real,” he wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

There you are … clueless and cynical die-hards! Which means of course the authour knows all the answers!
Why does he use a picture of cooling towers showing emissions of steam? I assume its meant to be a picture of CO2. I wonder if he knows the difference.
I dont know any sceptics who don’t think the earth has warmed slightly in the las 50 years.The question is how much and why.
Any 50 year period in history would show some warming or cooling trend – which would be worse warming or cooling.
Muller’s paper is simply a re analysis of flawed data- surprise, he gets similar results!
And why is Richard Muller’s paper getting this attention – it has not been through any peer- review process.
This is the real story here; Publication through the media before there is any peer review and criticism.
For some good comments on this paper go to…

More Global Warming Hysteria for your Research Funds

Hot seaweed in dire straits: report

One-quarter of temperate seaweed species in Australia face extinction because of global warming, a new study has found.

A team of Australian scientists says temperate seaweed communities have changed over the past 50 years to the extent that they have become increasingly subtropical.

 

Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial… by Joanne Nova

 

GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.

Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.

Did anyone really expect that teams of volunteers without offices, budgets, access to data or PR writers would spontaneously arise and point out any flaws? Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radiosonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it’s taken years to build, and it’s a silly way to run the country. This was always a loophole begging to be exploited.

We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.

Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming?

If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.

Between 1989 and 2009, the US government paid over $30 billion towards “climate change”. And don’t be fooled by the meaning of “climate change”, which ought to encompass all the factors that change the climate. The inherent bias in the system is so strong that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change actually defines “climate change” as being “man-made”. I kid you not.

“Climate change” means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The IPCC was originally established to investigate things “relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”. That was their mandate. They would have no reason to exist if there’s no disaster, and they were never going to announce that they studied it all and golly, but it’s all OK Chipper, and we’re headed home. Thanks for the funding!

What committee ever voted for its own extinction?

When the very term “climate change” means man-made, the mindset is biased. It’s a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias. The Orwellian overtones are extreme: How do you ask “what causes climate change?” and get any answer other than “man-made”?

Where are the programs to find out if man-made emissions didn’t cause global warming?

Exxon was a rare funder of climate skeptics but with a contribution of $23 million over a decade, it barely paid 1 part in 3500 of what the US government did.

When people ask “how can thousands of scientists be wrong?” they forget that a consensus on a highly complex, immature subject can be purchased, or unwittingly created. If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content.

That’s not to say that excessive one-sided funding proves anything about the climate, but nor does the existence of a consensus of government-paid climate scientists.

We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one. (Yes. It’s true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled “CO2″. But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones.

When politicians and journalists say they can’t find a credible voice of dissent, it’s only because they define “credible” as someone holding a government-funded position — and by definition, there are no government-funded sceptics.

The so-called “free market” leaders of the world missed the need for healthy competition in science. Their big mistake on climate policy was failing to see the effect of monopoly science. They could have set up institutes and research centres whose aim was to find non-man-made causes of climate change.

These alternate institutes and conventions would compete with the usual grant applicants for research, and it would be in their interest to find reasons the climate was changed by the sun, or geomagnetic effects or orbital changes, or who knows? Through natural competition (and may the best argument win) we’d have learned more about our climate, and we’d prevent a climate monopoly from potentially skewing the research.

As with all unbalanced systems, people are rushing to fill the vacuum. The volunteers are coming. Never before in science have so many unpaid people used their expertise to become whistleblowers.

As Eisenhower feared, government has come to dominate science. We need organisations that are timeless centres of excellence, rather than crisis-response teams. Groups of scientists need to compete to make the best, most accurate predictions, not the most alarming ones.

One thing is for sure, the mess of climate science needs to be cleaned up and we need to find ways to fund science that don’t pre-empt the answers, or stifle competition.

Joanne Nova is a freelance science presenter, writer, professional speaker and former television host, and is author of The Skeptic’s Handbook.

Other articles published by Jo Nova in mainstream media.
Related Articles: How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.

Larry Pickering Cartoon

_