UK Met Office Raises The Bar On Climate Fraud

Here is a new stunner in the world of government climate fraud. The UK Met Office is claiming that 2015 temperatures are above 1C warming for the first time, due to human influence.




Global temperatures set to reach 1 °C marker for first time – Met Office

The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures are still well below pre-industrial levels.

ScreenHunter_514 Jul. 02 08.36

First IPCC report

They also showed more than 1C warming in 2012


Global surface temperature – Met Office

And they completely ignored satellite data which shows Earth cooling this century, not warming as The Met Office claims.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Temperatures this year are nowhere near record warmth.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The entire basis of their claim is fraudulent, except for the “human influence” part. The human influence being ongoing fraud. And of course their partners in crime at the Guardian have picked up on this without doing any checking.


About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to UK Met Office Raises The Bar On Climate Fraud

  1. gator69 says:

    Not a single paper exists that refutes natural variability as the driver of global climate change, and yet the grantologists and their enablers are certain man is to blame.The fraud runs deep and wide.

  2. 1saveenergy says:

    to get up to their 1.02 figure; Oct, Nov & Dec will each need to be ~ twice as hot as August… looking forward to that !!

  3. Dave N says:

    Never mind that there’s very likely been much larger variations (up and down) throughout Earth’s history, without any human influence whatsoever. Also nevermind that much larger changes were predicted, and never eventuated.

    Their claims are certainly only for the extremely gullible. Sadly, that includes many in power.

  4. BruceC says:

    Pretty easy to get a 1C increase when they use the coldest part of HadCRUT as their reference period …. 1850-1900. 😉

  5. Gail Combs says:

    They need to replace there photo with this one:

    After all Britain faces longest winter in 50 years after earliest ever arrival of Siberian swan

    The arrival of winter, traditionally heralded by the migration of Siberian swans, has come early as 300 birds flock to Britain
    Britain is facing its longest winter in 50 years after the earliest-ever arrival of a Siberian swan which traditionally heralds the start of the season.

    Each year around 300 Bewick’s swans migrate 2,500 miles from Arctic Russia to escape the approaching cold weather which follows closely behind them.

    They flock to the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve at Slimbridge, Glos, where their arrival has been recorded since 1963.

    The first bird arrived on Sunday – a full 25 days earlier than last year and the earliest date on record.

    It coincided with the first frosts of the autumn in the area and experts say its early return could be a sign of a long, hard winter ahead.

    The premature arrival of winter in many European countries has encouraged Bewick’s swans to flock westwards earlier than usual.

    Temperatures are currently five to 10 degrees below average in parts of western Russia and eastern Europe and are expected to drop to the minus 30s….

    And then there is the increase in remaining snow patches in Scotland. They are way up since last year when the BBC wrote Glacier-like hazards found on Ben Nevis: … they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve. Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.

    Snow patches in Scotland have nearly doubled since that BBC article was written

    The Alarmists must be getting frantic!

  6. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, your graph from the first IPCC report is wrong. It was removed from that report ass soon as it was determined to be wrong. You know that, so you are being especially deceitful here.

    • gator69 says:

      “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
      and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest

      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

      They would never remove a graph because of their desire to be effective rather than honest, Stephen said so…

      • AndyG55 says:

        That sound like the sort of crap that Martin would write.. (2014)

        “We need a database of current states of climate arguments. Skeptical Science is basically that database, but we need a canonical name for each argument and a summary of the current state of the argument, plus the list of papers and datasets that are used to establish the current state of the argument, and finally, the list of papers that are refuted by the current state of the argument.
        Then the rule for moderation can be: If your post argues against the current state of some climate argument, your argument most not be one that has been refuted.
        The whack-a-mole strategy is what must be prevented from obscuring the current state of climate science.”

        Truly hilarious spew, worthy only of a very base level Gore bot.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “….Truly hilarious spew, worthy only of a very base level Gore bot.” Who is desperately hoping someone else will do his homework for him.

          It occurs to me that what you have are people like us who are curious and willing to work and think.

          On the other side you have the lazy SOBs who are hoping someone else will do their work for them. Of course they are liars and Ass Kissers, and the top tier are multi-billionaire sociopaths, but all in all the motivation is power and $$$ not knowledge.

          If the playing field was level we would win hands down. Unfortunately they grabbed control of the money machine and then the economy and all the resources and yet they still have a hard time defeating us.

    • Ted says:

      Can you link us to the papers that refute the older graph? I don’t mean papers that disagree with it. I mean papers that show the errors in the older data.

      • Jason Calley says:

        I am guessing the answer will be either silence or no.

        • Gail Combs says:

          No Jason,

          It looks like Martin went running home to get one of the “Big Guns” to bail him out.

          This response also answers the question about whether or not the skeptic blogs are closely watched by Alarmist Central.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, Jason, Gail, the general level of immaturity shown by commenters here is astonishing.

        • David A says:

          Martin you were asked simple questions regarding an assertion you made. How is the graph wrong? Who said it was wrong besides you? Your answer, crikets.

          Now the lamb graph has some criticism due to its sparseity, but has sense been backed by numerous peer reviewed reports. There Martin,did your homework for you, and sorry martin, no cookies for you your deception.

      • The paper refuting it were discussed in the climategate mails.

        The story is simple.

        Folland put the graph in by mistake
        As Jones explained to people the paper refuting the diagram was published in an obscure journal to spare Hubert Lamb the embarassment of being wrong.

        The diagram was wrong.
        It was wrongly included
        the story of how the paper refuting it was “hidden” is an untold story in climategate..

        oh wait.. I’ve told you people this a good number of times

      • Martin Smith says:

        Ted, the two graphs are hand drawn. There is no scale on the Y-axis of either of them. There are no papers refuting the graph because nobody writes a scientific paper to “refute” a graph that has no basis in fact to begin with.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The graph from the IPCC was NOT wrong, and having a base-level Gore bot say it is wrong is totally meaningless.

      It was removed because it was contrary to the fraud they wanted to perpetrate.

    • the “graphic” goddard uses was in fact grey literature.


      ‘I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
      from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
      from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
      way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
      further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
      perhaps it’s not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
      much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([1]
      the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
      They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
      case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what
      happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
      persistent inquisitor….. (so make sure you don’t leave such things on the table…).
      What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
      seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don’t think he
      gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
      submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
      Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
      record in that volume.”

      Phil Jones wrote:
      > Tom, Caspar,
      > Keep the attached to yourself. I wrote this yesterday,
      > but still need to do a lot more. I added in a section
      > about post-Lamb work in CRU, but need to check out
      > the references I’ve added and look at the extra one
      > from 1981 that you’ve sent. This may take me a little
      > time as I’m away Weds/Thurs this week. I see my name
      > on an abstract, by the way, that I have no recollection of !
      > I presume this has something in about instrumental global
      > temps. This abstract isn’t in my CV!!!!!
      > So your point (3) needs to document that we knew the
      > diagram wasn’t any good, as well as how far back it goes.
      > Knowing Hubert on some of his other ‘breakthroughs!’
      > it is clearly possible it goes back to Brooks !
      > On the post-Lamb work in CRU, I recall talking to Graham
      > (maybe mid-1980s) when he was comparing recent CRU work
      > with Lamb – correlations etc. Did that ever see the light of day
      > in these pubs or elsewhere? I will look. It isn’t in the chapter
      > Astrid and he wrote in the CRU book from 1997. I recall some
      > very low correlations – for periods from 1100 to 1500.
      > This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that
      > should be discussed online on RC – at least till we know all
      > the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot
      > of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
      > enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
      > non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!
      > As for who put the curve in – I think I know who did it. Chris may
      > be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the
      > DoE curve. This is likely bad enough.
      > I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to
      > admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame.
      > I have a long email from him – just arrived. Just read that and he
      > seems to changing his story from last December, but I still
      > think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on
      > Friday – that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like
      > a mystery whodunit.
      > In the meantime – any thoughts on the attached welcome. Getting the
      > level of detail required is the key.
      > I need to do a better diagram – better scanning etc.
      > Cheers
      > Phil

      > At 18:02 06/01/2007, Tom Wigley wrote:
      >> Phil,
      >> I see the problems with this in terms of history, IPCC image,
      >> skeptix, etc. I’m sure you can handle it. In doing so, you might
      >> consider (or not) some of these points.
      >> (1) I think Chris Folland is to blame for this. The issue is not
      >> our collective ignorance of paleoclimate in 1989/90, but
      >> Chris’s ignorance. The text that was in the 1990 report (thanks
      >> for reminding us of this, Caspar) ameliorates the problem
      >> considerably.
      >> (2) Nevertheless, ‘we’ (IPCC) could have done better even then.
      >> The Rothlisberger data were available then — and could/should
      >> have been used.
      >> (3) We also already knew that the Lamb UK record was flawed.
      >> We published a revision of this — but never in a mainstream
      >> journal because we did not want to offend Hubert. I don’t have
      >> the paper to hand, but I think it is …
      >> Wigley, T.M.L., Huckstep, N.J., Mortimer, R., Farmer, G., Jones, P.D.,
      >> Salinger, M.J. and Ogilvie, A.E.J., 1981: The reconstruction of European
      >> climate on decadal and shorter time scales. (In) Extended Abstracts,
      >> First Meeting, Reconstruction of Past Climates Contact Group, EEC
      >> Directorate-General for Science, Research and Development, Brussels,
      >> Belgium, 83­84.
      >> It could be …
      >> Wigley, T.M.L., Farmer, G. and Ogilvie, A.E.J., 1986: Climate
      >> reconstruction using historical sources. (In) Current Issues in Climate
      >> Research (eds. A. Ghazi and R. Fantechi), D. Reidel Publishing
      >> Company, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 97­100.
      >> The point of this paper (whichever one it is) is that it covers only
      >> the decadal variation — but it shows that Lamb was out to lunch
      >> even on these time scales. As you know, this arose from his uncritical
      >> use of historical sources — a problem exposed in a number of CRU
      >> papers in the 1980s, staring with Bell and Ogilvie in Climatic Change.
      >> So part of the issue is where did Hubert get the century time scale
      >> changes in that diagram? The answer is, mainly from his own fertile
      >> imagination. For this he tried to synthesize both his flawed historical
      >> record for England (and records for Europe, equally flawed) and
      >> proxy data from many sources, again accepted uncritically. Still,
      >> there almost certainly was a LIA in Europe in the 17th/18th
      >> centuries (but not in Iceland — at least not in the 17th century).
      >> Whether or not there was a significant centuries-long MWE is
      >> doubtful in my view.
      >> On another historical note, Hubert got many of his ideas from
      >> C.E.P. Brooks — possibly Brooks’s work is what inspired Hubert
      >> to pursue his climate interests. Of course, he went a lot further
      >> (too far) because he had a lot more information to work with.
      >> However, it is interesting that Fig. 33 in Brooks (1928) looks a
      >> lot like the IPCC90/Lamb Figure — in Brooks the record goes
      >> back further, and there is a very warm period from about 500
      >> to 950AD.
      >> You should be careful about using “recovery from the LIA” to
      >> explain warming after the Maunder Minimum. It is easy to show
      >> with (e.g.) MAGICC that there is no such thing — especially if
      >> you accept the view on low-frequency solar forcing espoused
      >> in the recent Foukal et al. paper in Nature. If you want some
      >> support for this (i.e., the spurious recovery idea) I can send you
      >> a diagram.

      • Gail Combs says:

        All those e-mails do is say that 17 years later (06/01/2007) the graph AND THE TEXT which I quoted were an embarrassment and the ClimAstrology Team™ were trying to figure out the best way to bury it.

        At the time Dr Lamb (1913-1997) was ten years dead so could provide no correction.

        What is missing from that set of e-mails is the timing.
        1. The original hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes was from 1999.

        2.A version of the hockey stick graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).

        3. In 2003 Soon and Baliunas published a paper refuting the Hockey Stick and as a result there was a big blow-up in the Bush Admin, the EPA and the journal editors were fired.
        Soon, Wille; Baliunas, Sallie (31 January 2003), “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years”

        4. The 2003 Soon and Baliunas paper was followed by McIntyre and McKitrick showing that ‘phone numbers from a phone book’ would produce a Hockey Stick using Mikey Mann’s methods.

        After this McIntyre and McKitrick were making presentations from 2004 to 2008 to National Academy of Sciences, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Royal Institute of Technology, Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute… link

        The entire Con Game was unraveling. People were microscoping all the data and that ‘Lamb’ graph and the text in FAR stood out like a sore thumb because it refuted Mikey’s Hockey Stick also. The ClimAstrology Team™ HAD to get rid of it or Mike Mann and the rest of them who had contributed would look like absolute FOOLS. Even more important the Copenhagen Summit (2009) was on the horizon and they HAD to have everything swept under the rug before then.

        So history got rewritten. Dr Lamb was dead and the ClimAstrology Team™ was busy rewriting history anyway so what’s one more piece?

        All this does is show MORE FRAUD!

        • AndyG55 says:

          FRAUD which MoshPit, being the salesman for the Best lemon, absolutely has to support.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Steven Mosher says: “As Jones explained to people the paper refuting the diagram was published in an obscure journal to spare Hubert Lamb the embarassment of being wrong.”

          Gail says: “At the time Dr Lamb (1913-1997) was ten years dead so could provide no correction.”

          There is nothing worse than being both dead AND embarassed. Thank goodness Dr Lamb was at least spared that.

        • Gail Combs says:

          There is something much worse. Being a dead lying Warmist residing in Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell.

          The deepest, darkest circle of hell is reserved for the very lowest form of human existence the traitor. Satan himself resided in the center of this Hell chomping on the traitors heads. To Dante the traitor is an even lower form of entity than a murderer, mass murder, sodomite, or usurer. The Traitor sell their souls, and have betrayed their principles, their kin, their fellow man, their country, and even the gods themselves.

          From Tacitus the ancient Roman historian to modern times the Traitor is the most hated of humans.

          A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
          – Marcus Tullius Cicero

          I am an Agnostic but more and more I hope Dante’s description of what awaits the traitors among us is correct.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Gail,

          “And so it was in the days of NOAA that the heavens did open up and rain-drought flooded the surface of every nation that did not have data put forth. And the frozen reaches of the poles began to vanish as they melted at 40 degrees below zero. And in the south, those oceans with no thermometers did boil and seethe with the errors of their sceptical minions. And lo! even the Lamb, Dr. Hubert himself, was defamed as he lay in the very halls of Death itself. And so it was that the warmists celebrated mightily, not knowing that those true of knowledge and firm in their faith of science would rise from Heller and walk forth into the clear and radiatively normal air of the Earth!”
          Book of Jason, Chapter 2, verse 11

          Oh well… I can dream, can’t I? 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          Love it Jason!

          The Martin Troll wonders why we are so ‘Unwelcoming’

          For one, I think we are all sick to death of the years and years of fighting for the scientific method to be honored So we are a bit short tempered when someone spews the same Bull feces we have heard a hundred times before.

          Also we have all read the Rules for Radicals. This is the one they want to use on Christians.

          RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

          Not being a Christian, I see no reason to be polite to a person I consider a traitor and even the Bible is not very nice when speaking of traitors.

          Revelation 20:1-15

          Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer…..

          Isaiah 33:1

          Woe to you, O destroyer, While you were not destroyed; And he who is treacherous, while others did not deal treacherously with him As soon as you finish destroying, you will be destroyed; As soon as you cease to deal treacherously, others will deal treacherously with you…..

          Matthew 27:3-5

          Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself…..

          Seems nobody likes a traitor.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Yeah, it has been disappointing dealing with Martin. He just repeats the same accusations over and over and claims that the adjusted data must be right because it has not been proved to be otherwise. Of course science does not work that way, but he still claims to support science. I really do believe that Martin has the ability to reason and think logically — but he refuses to do so. I have no idea what his motivation is; I can only guess that it is one of two things. Either he has some very sad personal need to stir up discord, or he is actively being rewarded in some manner. It is a darn shame. He could do better.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Jason! I have no problem dealing with those who are ignorant of facts, what I truly cannot tolerate is willful ignorance like that displayed by Marty. Refusal to acknowledge facts and logic, is to me a mortal sin, and deserves all the derision I can dish out. Especially when it comes at the cost of seven million lives each year.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The Magical appearance of the Mosh Pup makes me lean towards paid low level troll.

          I am very cynical when it comes to ‘Activists’ after seeing the ads in the Boston Globe for Activists to protest Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in 1984. They were paying $10.00/hour when the minimum wage was $3.35. Heck in 2004, twenty years later we were paying lab techs $10.00/hour.

        • You miss the POINT

          They never expected these 2007 mails to be READ

          The mails detail that the chart was a mistake

          So, start by admitting that

      • AndyG55 says:

        MAGICC…… ROFLMAO 🙂

        You funny boy Mosh/Jones.

        “MAGICC is a coupled gas-cycle/climate model. It has been used in all IPCC reports to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level …”

        nuff said. !!

        We all know these projections and BOGUS, and proven by REAILITY to be WRONG!!!

      • David A says:

        The lamb graphic has sense been verified by numerous peer reviewed publications. Go to th NIP report to see a list of them. Quotes from a bunch of biased CAGW enthusiasts making false assertions foes not bolster a story. The graph was not wrong, just the data at the time was to sparse. Just as the data for all CAGW alarmists projections is not only to sparse, but not even backed by the observations.

        • There are no numbers on the Lamb graphic.
          There is no definitive source

        • gator69 says:

          It has more scientific merit than the BS your team is pushing. The same team that wants to deny the MWP and LIA.

          Care to try again for that paper I requested? 😆

  7. gofer says:

    We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation


    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment


    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University


  8. Gail Combs says:

    No the graph wasn’t wrong it just did not support the political position like Mikey Mann’s Hokey Stick so it got pulled.

    Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century

    Two major proxy studies, larger than ever, were released in April and June 2012. They show that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) existed, and was similar to current temperatures. These comprehensive studies suggest current temperatures are not unusual….

    I’ve mentioned before how there are hundreds of proxy studies showing it was as warm or warmer back then. (CO2science has been documenting them.) But these studies are worth a mention because they are so large.

    Climate models cannot explain what caused the warming 1000 years ago, nor the cooling 300 years ago, so they can’t rule out the same factors aren’t changing the climate today (though they claim they can). If climate models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future.….

    • Martin Smith says:

      The graph was wrong. It was copied in as a cut and paste and never should have been in the report. You know this, so you, too, are being especially deceitful.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Rewriting history are we?

      • Ted says:

        Can you provide a link to where the IPCC admitted their mistake in presenting that graph, and explained the nature of the evidence used to remove it? Each report they produce is probably the most heavily peer reviewed document in history, to that point. If such scrutiny didn’t reveal the error you claim, then either your claim is false, or the peer review process is deeply flawed. There are no other possibilities.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Your are WRONG.

        You a LYING, DECEITFUL Gore operative with no proof of anything you have said since you first slimed onto the blog.

      • BruceC says:

        If my memory is correct, ‘that graph’ was reproduced from a series of graphs taken from a peer reviewed paper written by H.H. Lamb, founder of the UEA-CRU.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I think your are correct. I don’t have a link to prove it though.

          From what I can dig out it is in FAR on page 202.

          It is supposedly from data from Dr. Lamb:
          Lamb, H.H. 1977. Climate, present, past and future. Volume 2. Climatic history and the future. Methuen & Co Ltd., London, 835 pp.
          and there is a reference in FAR:

          The text around Figure 7.1 shows that as usual Martin is dropping Alarmist Pigeon feces.

          …The period since the end of the last glaciation has been characterized by small changes in global average temperature with a range of probably less than 2 C (Figure 7.1) though it is still not clear all though whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global. However, large regional changes in hydrological conditions have occurred….

          There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5000 – 6000 BP) at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era…

          The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been
          exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum
          China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases…

          These are some of the other Lamb papers:
          Lamb, H.H. Climatic changes: the development of knowledge problems of assessing trends, causes & human impact. [MS].

          Lamb, H.H. The variations of climate over the past 2000 years and their relation to history.

          Lamb, H.H. On the frequency and patterns of variation of climate. To be presented at the
          Conference called by the Rockefeller Foundation at Bellagio 5-7 June 1975.

          Lamb, H.H. Lecture to the Institute of Fuel at the Royal Institution. Long-term weather
          patterns and energy. 1979.

          Lamb, H.H. Meteorology, climatic changes and history. 1987. [MS].

          Lamb, H.H. The future of the earth – greenhouse or refrigerator? Norwich : British
          Association, 1984. [MS].

          Lamb, H.H. Climatic changes in recent times, the possible influence of human activities and the outlook for the future. Lecture given to Philips Lamps, (1979 : Eindhoven). [MS].
          Lamb, H.H. & R.H. Clements, Climatic changes, 1967. [Reprint from Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs].

        • No,

          See the climategate mails. the graph was grey literature.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Mosher.. ex used-car sales man. Still hired by BEST as a low-end salemen to sell their lemon..

        • rah says:

          Steven Mosher says:
          November 12, 2015 at 1:10 am


          See the climategate mails. the graph was grey literature.
          Asking a lot to get anyone with a little familiarity with those e-mails and the way that situation played out to believe anything those people said or say or to have any confidence in the accuracy of anything they say or do.

      • The graph was wrong? You can use any of these then:

    • The graph was wrong.

      In their private emails of 2007 Jones, wigley and others all admit the graph was wrong.

      Grey literature included by Folland.

      The papers refuting the work were published in obscure journals to “protect” lamb.

      • David A says:

        The did not dispute lamb period, they criticized it for being sparse, just as their critical papers were. many papers since support lamb.

    • Nope.. Graph was wrong

      here is what they said in secret

      “‘I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
      from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
      from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
      way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
      further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
      perhaps it’s not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
      much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([1]
      the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
      They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
      case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what
      happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
      persistent inquisitor….. (so make sure you don’t leave such things on the table…).
      What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
      seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don’t think he
      gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
      submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
      Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
      record in that volume.””

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are a poor salesman.. because everyone knows that’s all you are.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, The Mosh Pup is using e-mails from a generation later and after Lamb was dead for ten years to say Lamb didn’t use his data (from his papers) to draw that graph.

          The claim the graph is no good because it is ‘Grey Literature” is a REAL belly laugh given Donna Laframboise book on the Fourth Assessment Report published in the same year as the e-mails — 2007.

          She finds many chapters draw barely more than half their citations, and the whole AR4 draws only about 70 percent, from peer-reviewed sources.

        • gofer says:

          Gail, that was priceless. Its really grey all over.

  9. If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.

    PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
    IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
    FF & Land Use Source…….8.9……….4.22
    Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9……… 2.32
    Net Sink.……………………..4.0……….1.90

    If the anthro 8.9 Pg C/y (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave!

    The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is some mighty fine math calculating. Amazing what happens when these “Climate Bibles” are looked at closely.

      Thanks, that is a real keeper. BOOKMARKED!

    • Andy Oz says:

      That is one point I never thought of, and I bet the twits at NOAA/NASA/NSIDC et al didn’t either. Pretty much destroys the whole Anthro C argument in a few lines. Wow. Kudos!

  10. spren says:

    Steve has provided information repeatedly that maximum temperatures have not increased for many years and in fact may have decreased. But aren’t increases in the minimum temperatures the primary reason for the claimed warming trend? And don’t most of these increased minimums derive from stations located near urban areas? And if this is the fact, doesn’t that show the claimed warming is only a fictitious artifact or construct of UHI? I don’t believe rural stations have showed the same increase in minimums.

  11. Billy Liar says:

    This is the UKMO note on the reference temperature which appears to say that their ‘pre-industrial temperature’ is the average global temperature from 1850-1900.

    * While late 19th century temperatures are commonly taken to be indicative of pre-industrial, there is no fixed period that is used as standard and a variety of other periods have been used for observational and palaeo datasets. There are limitations in available data in the early instrumental record, making the average temperature in the reference period less certain. There is not a reliable indicator of global temperatures back to 1750, which is the era widely assumed to represent pre-industrial conditions. Therefore 1850-1900 is chosen here as the most reliable reference period, which also corresponds to the period chosen by IPCC to represent a suitable earlier reference period.

    Looking at their global temperature plot it would appear that the average 1850-1900 temperature is around -0.3 0n their scale and Jan 2007 had an anomaly of 0.832 in HADCRUT4 so the 1°C threshold was handsomely exceeded 8 years ago by their standards in similar circumstances (El Niño). Belcher is either a liar, incompetent or badly advised.

  12. ntesdorf says:

    Perhaps they really meant 1 degree warmer than when it was 1 degree cooler, or before they adjusted all the historic temperature data up and down by one degree Or, possibly something else…who can tell? The settled science changes so often and so fast that one can’t keep up with it.

  13. Angusmac says:

    It also helps the Met Office to increase temperatures when their new dataset (HadCRUT4) increases nearly all of the temperatures since 1908 by at least 0.5 °C when compared with their previous dataset HadCRUT3

  14. Angusmac says:

    Correction to my previous post. Should be 0.05 °C and not 0.5 °C.

  15. Gail Combs says:

    What is absolutely hilarious is they wait 17 years to remove ONE graph in a report supreceded by three other reports, yet the latest, the 2007 – AR4, was loaded with ~ 30% Gray literature references and mistakes like “Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035” and the idiotic ‘findings’ about malaria.

    AR4 was so bad “Chris Landsea, chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, resigned from the IPCC in 2005. He objected to the poor science and politics behind the IPCC hurricane claims.”

    I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

    Roger Pielke Jr. was so pissed he wrote a paper. It is here on his blog How Many Findings of the IPCC AR4 WG I are Incorrect? Answer: 28%

    In a paper just out in Climatic Change today Rachael Jonassen and I perform a quantitative analysis of all 2,744 findings found in the three 2007 assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here is the abstract of our paper:
    Jonassen, R. and R. Pielke, Jr., 2011. Improving conveyance of uncertainties in the findings of the IPCC, Climatic Change, 9 August, 0165-0009:1-9,

    Abstract Authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) received guidance on reporting understanding, certainty and/or confidence in findings using a common language, to better communicate with decision makers. However, a review of the IPCC conducted by the InterAcademy Council (2010) found that “the guidance was not consistently followed in AR4, leading to unnecessary errors . . . the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.” Our comprehensive and quantitative analysis of findings and associated uncertainty in the AR4 supports the IAC findings and suggests opportunities for improvement in future assessments.

    Yet the Mosh Pup wants us to believe there is ‘scientific motivation’ in the removal of a seventeen year old graph from a report most people have never read and never will read?

    He really must think we are mushrooms!

  16. Steven “Graph Is Wrong” Mosher wrote a grey literature book, without using any grey matter. The MWP was a hoax, he says, and the only evidence for it is a chart scribbled on a napkin by a drunken pseudoscientist and given an x and y axis by deniers who work for big tobacco.

Leave a Reply