[E. Pluribus Unum]

This graph is from A dangerous climate, an April 11, 2007 article in the London Daily Telegraph by Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University, Australia and former chair of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council and former Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Programme.

This graph does not appear to show global warming.

Is it fraudulent?

If so, how?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"This graph does not appear to show global warming... Is it fraudulent?

No, just wrong.

He's not been paying attention for the last 4 years - and neither, apparently, have his editors.

That graph turns on this:

“The first (claim) is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate… However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record.”

Now, why one would assume that the satellites measurements were more accurate is unstated and unclear; there are questions about the older instrumented data, but it’s pretty hard to understand how there could be been systematic and consistent errors in the ground level instrumented record as complied over the last few decades.

So for most climate scientists, it’s been a case of “who ya’ gonna’ believe – that satellite, or your lying eyes?”

And the (IMO reasonable) assumption has been that there was something wrong with the satellite measurements.

(Actually it’s a bit more complicated that that, when comparing the records you also have to consider a number of other things, for example the level of the atmosphere at which readings are taken and how that relates to assumptions about atmospheric behavior.)

However, the problem has been resolved: we have known for the last four years that the satellite data had been misinterpreted:

“Previously reported discrepancies between the amounts of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."”

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Turns out we should have believed our lying eyes all along!