Half The Planet Has Not Cooperated
With The ‘Global’ Warming Narrative
According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from the south pole to the equatorial regions.
Below is an actual e-mail conversation between the Climate Research Unit’s Phil Jones and climate scientist Tom Wigley. Phil Jones is the one who is largely responsible for making up the 1850-present temperature data for the Met Office in the UK (HadCRUT).
According to Peterson and Vose (1997), in 1901 the representation of maximum/minimum instrumental temperature stations in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) up through the equatorial regions (South Asia, North Africa, Central America) was negligible. Only coastal Australia had substantial instrumental representation in the early 20th century. The rest of the temperature data for the SH and equatorial regions needed to be made up to extend “global” instrumental temperature data back to 1850.
To measure the historical temperature record for the bottom half of the planet, then, scientists use proxy evidence from such sources as ice cores or alkenones to reconstruct past climates. When they do that, a common theme emerges. The proxy evidence used in temperature reconstructions suggests that there has been no significant changes in temperature from Antarctica to the regions near or just above the equator in the last few centuries. In other words, half the globe has not been following along with the anthropogenic “global” warming narrative.
Listed below are about 75 graphical reconstructions indicating no obvious warming trend during the last few hundred years of assumed anthropogenic influence on surface temperatures.
Rosenthal et al., 2013
“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1°C and 1.5°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”
“[T]he reconstruction…shows that recent warming (until AD 2009) is not exceptional in the context of the past century. For example, the periods around AD 1940 and from AD 1950–1955 were warmer. … [B]ased on tree ring analyses from the upper tree limit in northern Patagonia, Villalba et al. (2003) found that the period just before AD 1950 was substantially warmer than more recent decades.”
Goni et al., 2004
Kilian and Lamy, 2012
Massaferro and Larocque-Tobler, 2013
“The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in Little Ice Age [AD 1300 to 1800] and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period [AD 1000 to 1300].”
“It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have coincided with … the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.”
Australia, New Zealand
“In the centre of Australia, all the stations available in a circle of radius 1,000 km were showing very little or no warming, as still acknowledged in the GHCN v2 data set up to October 2011 (Fig. 6). … Table 1 presents the warming trend for the 30 longest temperature records of Australia collected in a single location, with measurements started before 1900 and continued until after 1985. … In the 30 locations, the monthly mean maximum temperature is warming 0.0004°C/year, or 0.04°C/century. “
Cook et al., 2002
Cook et al., 2006
Saunders et al., 2013
“[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century.”
“Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean plays a fundamental role in ocean and atmosphere circulation, carbon cycling and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. … As a result of anomalies in the overlying wind, the surrounding waters are strongly influenced by variations in northward Ekman transport of cold fresh subantarctic surface water and anomalous fluxes of sensible and latent heat at the atmosphere–ocean interface. This has produced a cooling trend since 1979.”
Doran et al., 2002
“[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.”
Masson-Delmotte et al., 2004
Kilian and Lamy, 2012
Mulvaney et al., 2012
“A marine sediment record from off the shore of the western Antarctic Peninsula also shows an early Holocene optimum during which surface ocean temperatures were determined to be 3.5°C higher than present. Other evidence suggests that the George VI ice shelf on the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula was absent during this early-Holocene warm interval but reformed in the mid Holocene.”
39 responses to “There Has Been No ‘Global’ Warming In The Southern Hemisphere, Equatorial Regions”
Warmists keep saying CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, yet only the Northern Hemisphere has any warming in it.
And even that wasn’t happening during the 1940 to 1970 period, when the Northern Hemisphere cooled by -0.6 C.
” yet only the Northern Hemisphere has any warming in it.”
the south has a lot of ocean…
does that you mean it was never GLOBAL warming?
How come CO2 effect which is an ATMOSPHERE effect, doesn’t work in the Southern Hemisphere?
It was Northern Hemisphere Warming. It’s never been Global Warming.
It’s all because the Southern Hemisphere has Antarctica. The Northern Hemisphere doesn’t. There is little land between Antarctica and the rest of the Southern Hemisphere, just open ocean. So Antarctica is literally the weather factory.
Watch the North Atlantic for keys to the future with the NH. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a driver of atmospheric and oceanic decadal- and centennial-scale variability, modulated by the Sun.
Wahab et al., 2016
Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar interactions, and the mechanisms explain the response of the Earth’s climate system. The NAO (North Atlantic oscillation) is one of the most dominant modes of global climate variability. Like El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscillation, it is considered as free internal oscillation of the climate system not subjected to external forcing. It is shown, to be linked to energetic solar eruptions. Surprisingly, it turns out that features of solar activity have been related to El Niño and La Niña, also have an significant impact on the NAO. The climate of the Atlantic sector exhibits considerable variability on a wide range of time scales. A substantial portion is associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a hemispheric meridional oscillation as atmospheric mass with centers of action near Iceland and over the subtropical Atlantic. NAO- has a related impacts on winter climate extend from Florida to Greenland and from northwestern Africa over Europe far into northern Asian region. In the present work solar cycle 22 was implemented via sun spots number and area and there interrelationship with NAO index and discussed their dependency which consequently that could be used to predict the behavior of NAO index in the next solar cycle as an indicator to climatic variability.
And CO2 transmits >90% of the wavelengths of IR emitted by ambient earth temperatures at close to 100% – it is basically irrelevant at the tiny concentrations present in the atmosphere.
The NH suffers from UHI effect.
Africa at 11,608,000 Sq. Miles (30,065,000 Sq. Km) is about 20% of the earth’s land mass, and historically has had about 2 weather stations…not substantially more today
Are they really saying this? Or are they not saying that it’s well mixed … i don’t know, let’s watch a youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
Kenneth, so there is some small cooling from 1940 until 1970 in the northern hemisphere: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:36/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:36/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1940/to:1970/trend
Does the graph look like warming never happened? Is the seasonal cooling in the northern hemisphere also a sign of warming not happening? Every year it gets cold for some months, doesn’t it? 😉
HadCrut like GISS has corrupted their data with adjustments.
Here is what looked like BEFORE climate science fraud came along:
This one with 2017 GISS overaid the 1974 NCAR data:
Actually, the cooling wasn’t “small”. It was -0.5 to -0.6 C for the Northern Hemisphere between 1940 and 1970 according to the instrumental datasets available in the 1970s and early 1980s. But since that didn’t fit the burgeoning narrative, Phil and his cohorts decided to add some warming to that period (actually, what they did was gradually reduce the1930s/1940s warm peak by about 0.5 C to make the increase in temperature look linear rather than oscillatory). Without data manipulation, the recent decades would have matched the 1930s/1940s warmth rather than greatly exceeded it. Reconstructions of NH temperatures almost always show an oscillation, not linear warming as the manipulated instrumental datasets do. For example, a compilation of 15 and 22 temperature reconstructions respectively from the NH revealed this very oscillatory pattern:
Schneider et al., 2015
Stoffel et al., 2015
When the data don’t fit the models, change the data. Right, SebastianH?
“Instrumental surface temperature records have been compiled for large portions of the globe for about the past 100 years (Mitchell, 1961; Budyko, 1969). They show that the Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature has risen about 1°C from 1880 to about 1940 and has fallen about 0.5 °C since then”
“the mean annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere increased about 1°C from 1880 to about 1940 and then cooled about 0.5°C by around 1960. Subsequently, overall cooling has continued (as already referenced) such that the mean annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere is now approaching values comparable to that in the 1880s.”
“Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world. … Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. … [I]f the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world’s hungriest continent. … Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an ‘ice age’.”
King and Willis, 1975
Starr and Oort (1973) have made a comprehensive study of meteorological temperatures, using about 10 million individual measurements of temperature, to derive the average temperature of the bulk of the atmospheric mass in the northern hemisphere for each of the 60 months between May 1958 and April 1963. If the mean seasonal variation is subtracted from the monthly values to yield the residual temperatures, it is found that the spatially averaged temperature fell by about 0.60° C during the 5 years. A comparison of the temperatures with the monthly mean sunspot numbers during the same period suggests that the declining temperature trend may be associated with the decline in solar activity.”
In most un-tampered data, the 1940 period was much warmer than the 1970’s in the NH.
Forced by the ocean currents, particularly the AMO
DENY facts using massively tainted and maladjusted data, seb
Its what you do. Lie and Farce, in every post you make.
Seb DENIES that data has been adjusted to favour the AGW scam, when the evidence is obvious and very blatant.
He is most definitely a “Climate Change™” Denier.
Ah, the classic “but the data was adjusted” skeptics card has been played again. If the adjustments don’t fit in your narrative than claim they are fraud, right?
No. The problem is that the adjustments were made in one direction only. Can you guess which one?
Gees Kenneth.. I’m going to need a bigger hard drive to save all these graphs and REAL DATA ! 🙂
Marvelous and very revealing data
Brazilian are upset because like last year winter has started early, except this year it’s even earlier.
Ummm, just a bit more cool weather getting to the SH early again.
As I said on some blogs back in 2014 —
Consider if the Arctic sea-ice extended south as much as the Antarctic sea-ice has gone north, then you would be able to walk (or preferably snowmobile or skidoo) on the ice from the East coast of Labrador (in Canada) to the west coast of North Scotland or South Norway.
Since then very little has changed.
Most of the countries of SH had never had many trouble with extreme weather conditions except maybe for the hurricanes in South Pacific near Australia and NZ. Weather forecast was mostly due to agricultural interest. Tornadoes were not fully acquainted maybe till recently the movie film ‘Twister’ brought it to the people’s attention. So it’s very unlikely that temperatures would have been taken with scientific accuracy almost everywhere around the SH. And the personal experience of everyone says the weather remains quite the same thru the decades. That’s why the AGW has very little interest all around these countries and in fact it’s mostly confused with ‘pollution’ or ‘deforestation and fauna extinction’ for most of the population.
I wonder why, in the two first figures of this post, there are no stations in Scandinavia?
A little something for seb-sob to read.
Enjoy, AGW stooges.
Don’t know if the link will work here:
Also, the argument that it is ok to emit more CO2 if your economy grows is a little bit irritating. The absolute emissions increase the CO2 concentration. If the goal were to stabilize the CO2 output per GDP unit, we would still double the output every few decades …
It is ALWAYS ok to emit CO2.
It is totally and absolutely BENEFICIAL to all life on this glorious CARBON BASED planet we are so fortunate to live on.
It is absolutely MARVELOUS that CO2 levels will continue to climb, no matter what the AGW cretins try to do.
Doesn’t it make you feel like you WASTING YOUR TIME, seb.
We all know you are. 🙂
Maybe time for you to WAKE UP TO REALITY!
“A little something for seb-sob to read.
Enjoy, AGW stooges.”
again, you have nothing but insults. The wuwt article is simply wrong. Germany is exporting more electricity and it is moving out of nuclear power. It is a perfect example of lying with numbers.
the main progress of “energiewende” was in electricity sector. Looking at total CO2 output is just a trick to confuse the uneducated. It is fake news at best!
and electricity production:
oh, and thanks for your nice introduction on wuwt. You are a troll and nothing else.
May 2, 2017 at 2:08 am
I have directed two low-info twerps from NoTricks to come and argue against this.
I doubt they will have the courage to appear.. but if they do, please treat them with the hilarity they deserve.
AndyG55,doesn’t know you were banned there a long time ago.
Meanwhile why can’t you address it anyway, here?
“You are a troll and nothing else.”
And why are you here EXCEPT as a low-level low-information AGW troll.
GET REAL sob-sob, you don’t even know what YOU are.
The WUWT article is simply CORRECT..
you have NOTHING, expect baby troll yapping, as usual
[…] blog of the day is NoTricksZone, with a post noting the absence of warming in the Southern […]
[…] just days ago, Kenneth Richards here showed that there hasn’t been any warming over the entire southern hemisphere at all. The warming of […]
[…] There Has Been No ?Global? Warming In The Southern Hemisphere, Equatorial Regions According to overseers of the long-term instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from the south pole to the equatorial regions. Below is an actual e-mail conversation between the Climate Research Unit’s Phil Jones and climate scientist Tom Wigley. Phil Jones is the one who is largely responsible for making up the 1850-present temperature data for the Met Office in the UK (HadCRUT). so when it's asserted that something occured 1901 or previous to then, it's not based on any temperature readings, but attempts to figure it out by ice core or other proxies. […]
Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”
CO2 blankets the globe at 400 ppm, so as far as any cross-sectional multivariable model it is considered a constant. In other words, at any one period in time, CO2 can not explain regional differences in temperature. CO2 is 400 ppm at the N. Pole, S. Pole, and the Equator. You can’t explain a variation with a constant, especially one that traps outgoing, not incoming radiation.
[…] Kenneth Richard, May 4, […]
[…] The oceans are rather uniform emitters of radiation, whereas the land isn’t. As man has turned fields into cities, forests into farmland, rivers into lakes, and dirt into asphalt roads, man has altered the heat absorption of the land. He has no similar impact on the oceans. Therefore, to identify the CO2 “signature” we should focus on the Southern Hemisphere, instead of the corrupted Northern Hemisphere. The above chart does just that, and demonstrates that the Southern Hemisphere has much lower temperature volatility, did not surpass the previous peak set in 1998, and has increased 0.2 Degree C less than the Northern Hemisphere since records began in 1979. Both Hemispheres, however, show that they closely track the changes in the ocean temperatures. Once again, CO2 is 405 ppm, so CO2 can’t be the cause of the temperature differential between the two hemispheres. Clearly, there is warming that is not due to CO2. This observation is also supported by other research as well. […]
CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does
In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.
“How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
Nice try …
So, extra cooling in the poles, and absolutely no warming anywhere else (as you have well proven)
Are you now becoming a GLOBAL COOLING ALARMIST ????
Or do you just have too many feet in your mouth at the moment !