Recently there’s been a couple of times I needed a global temperature but for obvious reasons I do not think it would be ethical to use reconstructions that I feel are fraudulent. This has left only UAH6 (which is the best impartial temperature we have in terms of the modern era from ~1980. Before that we now have a host of literally fabricated graphs that consistently add warming.
However, back in 1981, the guys at NASA were still in two minds about whether the world was warming or cooling. As such, whilst the data may have inherent biases like urban heating, it doesn’t necessarily have cherry picking of stations and processing techniques to manufacture an additional trend.
So, I started with a copy of Hansen et al 1981. Allegedly this is a 5 year running mean, but when I tried to match it to a similar running mean of UAH there was clearly far more variation in UAH. So, eventually I used a 20year smoothing on UAH 6.0
However, unfortunately, UAH starts in 1980 and Hansen et al finishes then, so they do not overlap. So in order to judge the the vertical offset I grabbed a copy of the Central England Temperature series. I’m not sure of the smoothing on this.
Hansen et al 1981 fits reasonable well – showing that CET is a good proxy for global temperature, but then the UAH 6.0 section shows a good start and then England is about 1C warmer between 1990 and 2009. I’ve checked several times and I can’t see anything wrong with the scaling so it appears to be genuine. It still needs work, but I’ll post it anyway in case anyone spots any obvious mistakes or has any ideas about vertical alignment.
Is it just me or does that “catastrophic global warming” scam look pretty daft when you see it shown thus. In particular – I’m struggling to reconcile is the feeling that there ought to be more warming in the last section … whilst knowing that on CET even the higher warming shown is totally unremarkable. So global temperature change shown red+black is less remarkable than not remarkable.
What’s all the fuss about?