One wonders with what your denier compatriots were having such difficulty.
So, investors.com. Well, that's not where I'd start for climate data but let's see what they've got. The first link, through several steps, gets us to
This is a 2017 study performed by John Christy and Richard McNider and published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences nee the Journal of the Korean Meteorological Society.
Abstract: We identify and remove the main natural perturbations (e.g. volcanic activity, ENSOs) from the global mean lower tropospheric temperatures (T LT ) over January 1979 - June 2017 to estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered value is +0.155K dec− 1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096Kdec− 1 , related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 (+0.09Kdec− 1 , Christy and McNider, 1994) using only 15 years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096Kdec− 1 represents the net T LT response to increasing greenhouse radiative forcings, this implies that the T LT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔT LT at the time CO 2 doubles) is +1.10 ±0.26 K which is about half of the average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31±0.20K. Assuming that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing over this period is near zero, the mismatch since 1979 between observations and CMIP-5 model values suggests that excessive sensitivity to enhanced radiative forcing in the models can be appreciable. The tropical region is mainly responsible for this discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the extra sensitivity are (a) the parameterized hydrology of the deep atmosphere, (b) the parameterized heat-partitioning at the oceanatmosphere interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.
AND
Conclusions The current tropospheric temperature trend from 1979-2016 is influenced by large, natural, interannual fluctuations which if removed reveal a trend about a third less positive than is directly measured (+0.155 down to +0.095Kdec−1). This underlying trend is essentially the same as calculated in CM94 (+0.09Kdec−1) when only 15 years were available and who determined the underlying trend at that time needed adjustment upward, from −0.04 to +0.09Kdec−1. We find that the influence of the tropical oceans and mid-latitude SST indices on the temperature trend has been essentially zero since 1979, so that removing the cooling in the early part of the record from the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo dominates the adjustment. The assessment of tropospheric climate sensitivity from the calculation of the underlying trend above requires significant assumptions. If we assume, among other things, that the impact of the net of natural external and internal forcing variations has not influenced the observed trend and that anthropogenic forcing as depicted in the average of the IPCC AR5 models is similar to that experienced by the Earth, then observations suggest the tropospheric transient climate response (TTCR) is 1.10 ±0.26 K. This central estimate is likely less than half that of the average of the 102 simulations of the CMIP-5 RCP4.5 model runs also examined here (2.31±0.20). If this result is borne out, it suggests many explanations including the possibility that that the average feedbacks of the CMIP-5 generation of climate models are likely skewed to favor positive over negative relative to what is present in the actual Earth system. As noted, we cannot totally discount that natural variability or errors in forcing might also account for the discrepancy between modeled and observed TTCR. However, given the facts that the processes controlling the uptake of energy by oceans and the transfer of heat in the tropical atmosphere are largely parameterized, it is not scientifically justified to dismiss model error, possibly substantial, as one source of the discrepancy. Acknowledgements. This research was supported under the US Department of Energy, DE-SC0012638. We thank the reviewers and editor for their helpful suggestions.
I found a collection of climate scientist comments about this study on a Climate Feedback page (
Daily Caller uncritically reports poorly supported conclusion of satellite temperature study) that nominally was reviewing a Daily Caller article about this study but included far more commentary about Christy-McNider 2017 than about Daily Caller. Feel free to visit the Climate Feedback link but the impressions I got from the original study and some of these comments are that:
1) No where is there a single comment even suggesting that NOAA or NASA have improperly adjusted historical temperature data.
2) An underlying purpose of the study was an attempt to discredit IPCC ECS and TCR estimates, a favorite bugaboo of Christy and his partner Spencer.
3) The study conclusion seems to the simple claim that the discrepancy between observations and CMIP-5 model runs is due to model sensitivity errors.
4) The study ignores several small but significant volcanic eruptions in the 21st century
5) The study claims that the lack of warming acceleration seen in the few decades reviewed is significant, when very little acceleration would be expected over such a short span
6) The study relies on a single source which Christy and McNider themselves characterize as "contentious". Reviewer Professor Victor Venema goes on to say " The authors have a long tradition of overconfidence in their data, their dataset has often needed large adjustments and has a large structural uncertainty and the study was published in a
low-level journal".
The next reference in the IBD articles is a Tony Heller piece in Real Climate Science at
NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees | Real Climate Science
I'm going to watch SNL and go to bed. I'll get back to this in the morning.
www.investors.com
