MENU

Social Channels

SEARCH ARCHIVE


Additional Options
Topic

Date Range

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below:

Clouds over the Atlantic Ocean
Clouds over the Atlantic Ocean. Credit: Tiago Fioreze, Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.
FACTCHECKS
5 February 2017 4:38

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather

02.05.17
Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather

05.02.2017 | 4:38am
FactchecksFactcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise

This is a guest post by Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth, an independent temperature analysis project.

In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.

What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

NOAA’s results are independently verified

The new NOAA record published in Karl et al primarily updated their ocean temperature record. While they also released a revised land record based on data from the International Surface Temperature Initiative (and the related Global Historical Climatology Network version 4 beta product – GHCNv4), the land record was largely similar to their prior record and was responsible for relatively little of the increase in warming they showed.

Karl et al Fig 1

Figure 1 from Karl et al 2015. Almost all of the difference between the trends in the new and old temperature records were due to updates to ocean temperatures.

I recently led a team of researchers that evaluated NOAA’s updates to their ocean temperature record. In a paper published last month in the journal Science Advances, we compared the old NOAA record and the new NOAA record to independent instrumentally homogenous records created from buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats. Our results, as you can see in the chart below, show that the new NOAA record agrees quite well with all of these, while the old NOAA record shows much less warming.

This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally). You can read more about the study in Carbon Brief’s article.

Global sea surface temperatures from the old NOAA record (ERSSTv3b), the new NOAA record (ERSSTv4), and instrumentally homogenous records from buoys and satellites. See Hausfather et al 2017 for details, as well as comparisons with shorter Argo-based records.

Global sea surface temperatures from the old NOAA record (ERSSTv3b), the new NOAA record (ERSSTv4), and instrumentally homogenous records from buoys and satellites. See Hausfather et al 2017 for details, as well as comparisons with shorter Argo-based records.

The fact that the new NOAA record is effectively identical with records constructed only from higher quality instruments (buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats) strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.

John Kennedy, a researcher at the UK’s Met Office in charge of their ocean temperature product, agrees that NOAA’s new record is probably the most accurate in the last two decades, remarking: “At a global scale, those adjustments really do seem to work and the ERSSTv4 adjustments [NOAA’s new record] work best of all.”

Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.

NOAA’s land data similar to other records

The land record that NOAA used in the Karl et al paper was a sneak peak at their new GHCNv4, which increases the number of global land stations from the 4,400 currently used to around 25,000.

This is quite similar to the Berkeley Earth land temperature record, which uses a similar number of stations. There is little reason to think that the inclusion of more station data will give us less accurate results.

The Karl et al land record ends up quite similar to the old one, though it shows about 5% more warming since 1970, mostly attributable to the inclusion of additional stations in the Arctic. As the chart below demonstrates, their results are quite similar to those of Berkeley Earth as well as the current operational NOAA land record (based on GHCN version 3), and also agree quite well with the latest version of GHCNv4.

Global land temperature records including the current official NOAA land temperature record (based on GHCNv3), the Karl et al land record, a land record based on the latest GHCNv4 data, and the Berkeley Earth land record.

Global land temperature records including the current official NOAA land temperature record (based on GHCNv3), the Karl et al land record, a land record based on the latest GHCNv4 data, and the Berkeley Earth land record.

The new NOAA temperature record is also by no means an outlier when compared to other groups producing global (land and ocean) surface temperature records. It shows less warming in recent years than records from Berkeley Earth, NASA, and Cowtan and Way, and a bit more warming than found in the Hadley Centre/CRU record. The old NOAA record, on the other hand, was on the bottom of the pack, with less warming than found by the other groups.

If folks don’t like the NOAA data, they will get the exact same story using surface temperature data from any other group, with no detectable sign of a “hiatus” or “pause” through to the present.

Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al) NOAA temperature record is only available through the end of 2014.

Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al) NOAA temperature record is only available through the end of 2014.

NOAA did make their data available

In his article, David Rose relies on reports from a researcher at NOAA who was unhappy about the data archiving associated with the Karl et al paper. While I cannot speak to how well the authors followed internal protocols, they did release their temperature anomalies, spatially gridded data land and ocean data, and the land station data associated with their analysis. They put all of this up on NOAA’s FTP site in early June 2015, at the time that the Karl et al paper was published.

As someone who works on and develops surface temperature records, the data they provided would be sufficient for me to examine their analysis in detail and see how it compared to other groups. In fact, I used the data they provided shortly after the paper was published to do just that. While it would have been nice for them to publish their full analysis code online as well as the data, I’m sure they would have provided it to any researchers who asked.

Rose also makes a big deal about the fact that NOAA’s new ocean temperature product adjusts buoys up to match ship data versus adjusting ship data down to match buoys. This turns out to be a bit of a red herring; since scientists are interested in the change in temperatures over time, you end up with the same increase in temperatures (e.g, the temperature trend) if you apply the offset to one or the other.

Because climate scientists work with temperature anomalies (rather than absolutes), the direction of the offset doesn’t have any effect on the resulting temperature series. On the other hand, not correcting for the offset between ships and buoys results in a spurious cooling bias, and a record that differs a lot from the buoys themselves as we found in our paper.

Rose’s article presents a deeply misleading graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artefact of the use of different baselines; Hadley’s “0C” value is relative to the average temperature from 1961-1990, while NOAA’s is relative to the average temperature from 1901-2000 (a period which includes the colder early 20th century).

Comparison of published HadCRUT4 and NOAA global land/ocean monthly temperature anomalies.

Comparison of published HadCRUT4 and NOAA global land/ocean monthly temperature anomalies.

This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly. As the chart below shows, when you correctly put the two datasets on the same baseline (eg, with respect to the 1961-1990 period), you find no offset in recent years between the two, though there is slightly more warming in the NOAA dataset due to the higher weight they give more reliable buoy data in their analysis.

Comparison of HadCRUT4 and NOAA global land/ocean monthly temperature anomalies put on a common 1961-1990 baseline.

Comparison of HadCRUT4 and NOAA global land/ocean monthly temperature anomalies put on a common 1961-1990 baseline.

Similarly, if you simply download the NOAA and Hadley ocean temperature datasets you would find that the published Hadley values are actually higher than the published NOAA ocean values in recent years. This is because Hadley uses a 1961-1990 baseline for their ocean temperature product while NOAA uses a 1971-2000 baseline. Putting both datasets on a common baseline is essential to performing accurate comparisons.

Further updates to come from NOAA

NOAA is planning on further updates to their sea surface temperature record this year to incorporate Argo data and to make some adjustments to their spatial interpolation technique. Based on the preliminary results that their team presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting late last year, their new record (ERSSTv5) will have about 10% less warming than their current record (ERSSTv4) over the 2000-2015 period, largely due to changes in the way that they account for areas with limited data. Their upcoming record will still show 50% more warming than the old NOAA record (ERSSTv3b).

While NOAA’s data management procedures may well need improvement, their results have been independently validated and agree with separate global temperature records created by other groups.

The “astonishing evidence” that David Rose purports to reveal in no way changes our understanding of modern warming or our best estimates of recent rates of warming. It does not in any way change the evidence that policymakers have at their disposal when deciding how to address the threats posed by climate change.

If anything, there is strong independent evidence that NOAA’s new record may be the most accurate one over the last two decades, at least for the two-thirds of the world covered in ocean.

Sharelines from this story
  • Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise
  • Orellian Tay

    Nothing like duelling scientists to help people understand science.

    Karl et at 2015 blew the doors off of the pause

    Fyfe et al 2016 blew the doors off of Karl et al 2015

    Still the outputs are using Karl’s results. Eventually this will get sorted out.

    • Al Rodger

      The “duel” between scientists actually has nothing to do with what Rose of the Daily Rail is writing which is designed to make fools of the paper’s readership (itself not a difficult task).
      Rose tells us the “pause or slowdown” he fantasizes about lasted 1998-2013. This is only one version of the denialist “pause or slowdown” but let us see if it exists.
      The graphic linked here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachemnt) uses NASA GISS data but is essentially identical. Can you spot a “pause or slowdown”? If it were there you would expect an area of deepening blue lasting 1998-2013. You might argue that an area turning blue from red would also constitute a “pause or slowdown” and one does exist. It is 6½ years long and lasts from late 2003 to early 2010. And the Karl et al (2015) amendments (or the ocean bits of it which are almost all of it and also used by NASA) made no change to that 6½ year period. Rather it made the red bits marginally red and the blue bits marginally more blue. The comparison is shown here (2 clicks) graphed out for the ‘5 year average’ in neutral green – so if anything the truth is opposite of Rose’s denialist claptrap claim.

      Of course, there are still other versions of the denialist claptrap. And there are scientists also getting a bit hot under the collar with each other but because they too are treating different versions as though they were the same. Thus Fyfe et al (2016) pops at Karl et al (2015) because of that 6½ years which Karl et al was not addressing. And in the process Fyfe et al get into hot water with statisticians for basing their conclusions on findings that are not statistically significant.

      As for getting it “sorted out”, Karl et al did sort out one avenue of adjustment. Rahmstorf & Foster (2011) has sorted out another, the impact of SolVol&ENSO. Do not be surprised if other avenues don’t also add further reasons for missing warming. Do not be surprised if the impacts of our AGW are being masked and a lot more of a problem that they are known to be already.

      • Orellian Tay

        I believe that there are two camps of scientists and that they need to sort this out. Right now, GISS shows the results of Karl et al a but others have not adopted the results. Thus the two camps.

        You can throw your hat in with Karl if you choose, but clearly not everybody has so trying to convince me that your hat is in the right ring is pointless.

        • Swami_Binkinanda

          PAGE 3 HAS FAKE NEWS TOO!

        • Al Rodger

          Orellian Tay,
          You talk of “two camps” but who are in these two camps? I am particularly interested in those you say “have not adopted the results” of Karl et al (2015). If you cannot demonstrate there is “two camps” by setting out who this anti-Karl camp comprises (and that it is a camp and not just a few warming themselves at a small fire) your comment is but worthless jabber. The Karl-camp apprears to include all those who use the adjusted data. I see no rebel camp, no dissenters, just a few objectors around that small fire which is on the verge of going out.

          • Orellian Tay

            “You talk of “two camps” but who are in these two camps? ”

            GISS uses Karl et al to produce their outputs, but Hadcrut does not.

          • Al Rodger

            Perhaps you should do a bit of background reading. The reasons for the differences between ERSSTv3 amd ERSSTv4 (the Karl et al finding) is set out in Hausfather et al (2017) which also discusses the HadSST3 data. The HadCRU SST data is shown to be not as greatly affected by the biases in ERSSTv3. So do we hear any “Oh no it isn’t!!” from HadCRU? Of course not. There are no “two camps,” just a couple of denialists feeding David Rose a high-profile controversy to boost Daily Rail circulations.

          • Orellian Tay

            So what you are saying is that GISS adopted the same processes as Hadcrut?

            I surmise this because Karl et al had a huge impact on surface temps, which meant a big change, but your statement says no big change exists between ERSST4 and HadSST3, ergo Hadcrut already had this big change and must be the source of the work done by Karl et al.

            Fascinating.

          • Al Rodger

            Orellian Tay,
            No. You are wrong. (And note that Karl is not GISS but NOAA.)
            If you look, I think you will find Karl et al (2015) is an independent piece of work. It makes no reference to Kennedy et al (2012) which is the paper that defined HadSST3.

          • Orellian Tay

            There was Fyfe at al from last year that trashed Karl et al. Fyfe et al was produced by the warmist themselves and did not include anybody that is identified as a denier .

            How is it that people don’t know this basic information is beyond me.

          • Al Rodger

            Orellian Tay,
            Fyfe et al (2016) (this trasnscript from one of the co-authors Ed Hawkins has a few annotations) accepts Karl et al (2015). It might interpret the implications of Karl et al differently, but it sure as hell does not dispute the data. And it is a dispute over data that we have from David Rose of the Daily Rail.
            It seems you don’t even do “basic” but are stuck repeating the misguided opinion of others.

          • Orellian Tay

            If you do not believe that politics does not impact science you are incredibly naive.

            Every paper written by scientists, that want a future, that even hints at not supporting the agenda will always include a caveat, a followup article or something of the sort that states that the results of the paper in no way should indicate that AGW is not real and dangerous.

            Your link is the caveat. The caveat is a political statement not a scientific one. The scientific one is from the paper and that is the one that counts.

          • Al Rodger

            I don’t think you entirely appreciate what the “transcript” I linked to actually is. It is Fyfe et al (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’! It is a transcript of the full paper!! Word for word!! (The only differences are the additional annotations by a co-author Ed Hawkins who is, indeed has never been, not entirely happy wit a couple of sentences.)
            Your talk of “political statement” and of ‘caveats’ is pure denilaist conspiracy theory claptrap. Pure la-la land. If there were science that undermined AGW it would be beyond the power of politicians to stop it (outside possibly the obliteration of mankind in a nuclear war as a rather dramatic cover-up). The author of such research debunking AGW would immediately become a twenty-first century Einstein-figure, renowned and lauded around the world. So where is he/she??!!!

          • Orellian Tay

            Quote from Fyfe et at.

            “It has been claimed that the early-2000s slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

            Well that pretty much sums it up, the pause is real….. quite contrary to the “pause buster” paper by Karl et al.

            and this

            “This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more”

            Oh look, internal variability can cause this.

            Yet, GISS shows no such pause and therefore internal variability can not produce “a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more”

            “Your talk of “political statement” and of ‘caveats’ is pure denilaist conspiracy theory claptrap. ”

            Look at this one for example. There is absolutely no mention of the possibility that ECS has been over estimated. The paper avoids that obvious possibility.

            Then we have this from Ed Hawkins post about the paper.

            http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/making-sense

            “Firstly, climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ – global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase, sea levels are still rising, and the planet is retaining ~0.5 days of the sun’s incoming energy per year.”

            Notice is says “Firstly”… the very first thing that needs to be stated, to be very clear is the caveat. Denialist claptrap right?

          • Al Rodger

            Orellian Toy,
            While you hopelessly scrabble to defend your ”caveat” conspiracy threory, I think you are in other ways transforming your position to regain your comfort zone. (You may not be aware of this.)
            Upthread you were waving Fyfe et al (2016) to discredit the work of Karl et al (2015) in establishing amendments to the NOAA global data records. But Fyfe et al is entirely happy using those amended NOAA records. (Perhaps you didn’t notice that.)
            Now you are waving NASA GISS temperature data (which employs NOAA data in its own assessment) saying it doesn’t show a “pause.” But Fyfe et al is very clear – there was no pause! Yes!! This is the denialist claptrap you spout and Fyfe et al provide you with zero support.

            “A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a “slowdown” not a “stop”.

            “Recent claims that scientists “turned a routine fluctuation into a problem for science” and that “there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual” [26] were made in the context of an examination of whether warming has ceased, stopped, or paused. We do not believe that warming has ceased “

            Assuming you can be taken at your word, the debate you now enter is not whether Karl et al was wrong to amend the NOAA data as it did (the nonsense being flaunted by Rose/Curry/Bates). Rather the debate you enter is whether Karl et al (2015) were correct to say there was no “slowdown”. They were quite plain in saying it.

            “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.”

            The two sides in this issue disagree over the status of statistical significance and also how the data should be used to measure ”slowdown.” Be warned, these are rather narrow arguments with little opportunity for denialist claptrap. But don’t let that stop you.

          • Orellian Tay

            GISS no longer shows a pause, it did in the past but does not now.

            Fyfe claims that the pause is real, but Fyfe is an “opinion” piece and does not produce any product. What they are saying is that they disagree with Karl et al. This is why Fyfe “discredits” Karl et al.

            My claim is simple. Karl et al is currently part of the official science. There are official challenges to Karl et al. You have to respect both sides and understand that the science is open to debate.

            You are correct, Kart at al show no slowdown. Fyfe at al says there was.

            “The two sides in this issue disagree over the status of statistical significance and also how the data should be used to measure ”slowdown.””

            Totally agree.

            The reason why this is so important is obviously related to the relative importance of natural variability. Karl et al does nothing to the long term trend of course. What it did was rob Peter to pay Paul. Peter being the past and Paul being the recent past.

          • Al Rodger

            Orellian Tay,
            How wrong can you be? Do you practice your contrarian positions to maximise the untruth you spout?

            (1) GISS still shows the same “pause” it showed with or without Karl et at (2015). See here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your arrachment’). The upper panel is post-Karl, the lower one pre-Karl. There is a 6½ year “pause” lasting from late-2003 to early-2010 on both.

            (2) Fyfe et al (2016) states there was no “pause” as does Karl et al (2015) but they contradict Karl et al who claims there is no “slowdown”. It is only on this narrow “slowdown” claim that the two differ. And Fyfe et al use a lot more than “opinion” to argue its case.

            (3) The global temperature data is open to scientific debate (is not ERSSTv4 going to be superceded by ERSSTv5 as a result of such debate?). That Karl et al has been adopted into ERSSTv4 does not make it any different, does not make it “official” and does not make Fyfle et al in any way “official”. This is but “science” at work. There is no “official” conspiracy afoot.

            (4) You say you “totally agree” with me on the different positions taken by Karl et al & Fyle et al and even quote my explanation of that difference. But it is evident from the rest of your comment that you do not accept my explanation.

            (5) The contribution of natural variability to any variation from CMIP-5 ensembles (which Fyfe et al present) will continue to be a matter for research, either directly (as in Fyfe et at) or indirectly (as in Karl et at) who do not “rob Peter to pay Paul” but correct artifacts within the temperature record. Note that there may be reason to consider that the likes of ENSO is being affected by AGW and so is not entirely “natural variation”. And anthropogenic forcings are still in part poorly understood. All this will result in reearch. Those different researches will hold a view of the natural contribution. Fyfe et al rather concentrate (but not totally) on the natural being the main unknown as their closing paragraphs show, but that is a little myopic.

            Research into the nature and causes of the slowdown has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing, and internal variability. This has led to widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more – particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions. The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the current warming slowdown. This is particularly true in the embryonic field of decadal climate prediction, where the challenge is to simulate how the combined effects of external forcing and internal variability produce the time-evolving regional climate we will experience over the next ten years.” (My bold)

      • Bart_R

        Nice analysis.

        I generally find people whose conclusions agree with my own make me more, rather than less, nervous that I’ve overlooked something, so I will take some time to review your presentation, but it is very well-reasoned at first glance.

        Every decade has a ‘pause’, the past two decades had such a brief interstice between their pauses that many ran them into a single event, which is clearly an error and shows how sensitive climate is to some types of forcing. That’s worse, not better, news.

        When I apply BEST’s or NOAA’s merged-ocean-ice-surface temperature datasets, or Cowtan & Way, to Charney ECS on 20-year means of temperature and CO2 level, it appears Karl’s results are marginally more robust and consilient, too.

        https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4241/2736/original.jpg

  • Russ

    This article is just distraction. The real issue is to do with scientific integrity and potential scientific misconduct, not what may or may not be claimed in a silly Daily Mail story. Stop trying to deflect. If it is shown that proper process was not carried out such that we and the scientific community have been intentionally mislead, then those scientists responsible should be named and shamed, their publication should be retracted and you as a scientist should be prepared to stand up say that their actions are unacceptable. Integrity is everything in science. If we can’t trust scientists, what is the point of science. It is somewhat disturbing that you seem to jump to the defence of Karl et al before the details of what went on have been disclosed. That your data matches theirs is irrelevant. Perhaps if they had used the proper protocols then it wouldn’t. How are we supposed to know?

    • Christian_Moe

      The real issue is global warming. Deniers distract and deflect by making some niggling question over data archiving out to be some kind of big deal. It isn’t, as witness Mr Rose’s ham-handed attempt to manufacture something that would look like an actual problem with the analysis.

      • Miek D.

        The first step in determining whether the earth is warming is to measure it. If you put you finger on the scale while measuring, you really aren’t measuring and you don’t know what the trend in the earth’s temperature really is. If the earth isn’t really warming as the scientists’ model are predicting, the models are likely wrong, and then man made AGW may be wrong.

        • Swami_Binkinanda

          It’s actually going faster than the models thanks to normative bias and the abuse of scientists by hydrocarbon enthusiasts.

        • Bart_R

          Dr. Katherine Hayhoe cites some 26,500 factors confirming warming, from instrumental records of temperature or any of the 50 essential climate variables of the World Meteorologic Organization, or their proxies from botany, zoology, geology, ocean chemistry..

          That’s a lot of thumbs you’re claiming exist.

          The simpler explanation would be the warming is real, and AGW remains the most exact fit to be inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission possible, but no more than possible, until new observation lead to amended or new fit.

          Your claim fails on Regulae Philosophandi, therefore is not science.

        • Christian_Moe

          Also, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your chain of hypotheticals is remarkably evidence-free, as was Mr Bates’ “finger on scale” accusation. There are 5-6 different groups measuring the earth’s warming. You are welcome to check their analyses.

      • Jim Young

        Despite all the efforts to distract, deflect and deny, “…A total of 72 percent of American voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change. Only 17 percent of voters say the U.S. is “doing enough to address climate change,” while 18 percent say the U.S. is “doing too much,” and 59 percent think “more needs to be done to address climate change…” according to the Feb 8,2017 Quinnipiac Poll.

        Seems certain politicians will do everything in their power to deny this, and attack all the science and scientists that do very much more vital research than just climate change. It is somewhat like the German book burning and purges/firings of Jewish scientists and academics including the ones that would have continued to serve even evil masters if allowed to.

        Talk about shooting the messenger, this administration seems to want to eliminate the scouts, blind the lookouts, and write what they want sham watchmen to report.

    • caerbannog

      Bates’ claims are debunked here, and by someone who worked at NOAA on the ERSSTv4 and other data-sets used in Karl et al. http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1

    • Bart_R

      Who exactly is John Bates to determine what is or is not ‘proper process’?

      A martinet holding up processing because of inflexible and arbitrary measures inapplicable to the process doesn’t come across as much of an authority, most especially when Karl’s results are so robustly confirmed across multiple sources.

      That your data matches theirs, independent verification, is one of the most relevant tests of experimental results.

      • Orellian Tay

        “Who exactly is John Bates to determine what is or is not ‘proper process’?”

        Dr. John Bates is the guy that was given an award by NOAA for leading the creation of “the proper process”.

        I guess you didn’t actually read anything about this did you.

        • Bart_R

          Dr. Bates was given what, exactly?

          A Bucky Newshawk award?

          How did he manage that, do you think?

          John Bates has zero credential in any field related to process design. Not a single course from a recognized school, institute or organization with its hand in data management. He uses CMM verbiage, but does not credit CMM as source anywhere. Not a single paper in the field of data management until 2012 and it’s re-skinned version in 2016, and that a blind-leading-the-blind AMS bit of filler applying inappropriate CMM standards as a measure of utility.

          Yes, much of what Dr. Bates writes sounds good, as doggerel. In the real world, his fragile maturity model views collapse on first contact with the facts. The real world will always see short-term studies, and Dr. Bates’ inflexible scheme cannot accommodate that reality. The real world will see errors found sometimes after years of processing, and the maturity model has no means to adapt to this reality.

          Karl et al (2015) is just one example of round pegs that don’t fit CDR’s square holes.

          Had Dr. Bates actually qualified himself in data sciences, instead of taking on a job he was unqualified for and collecting NOAA salary for a decade of substandard achievement, maybe that in-house Gold Medal would mean something.

          From the point of view of data management, however, it’s very, very insignificant.

          • Orellian Tay

            Your credibility vs NOAA

            I’m gonna trust NOAA on this one, but nice try.

          • Bart_R

            NOAA still employs Karl, and Bates is ex-NOAA.

            How’s your trust, now?

            And really, I don’t ask anyone to trust me; anyone who assigns credibility to any anonymous blog commentator has some serious problems with understanding what credibility is for.

            However, since Dr. Bates uses CMM lingo, but doesn’t credit CMM for it, how about some references to CMM authorities?

            https://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/93tr024.pdf

            http://cmmiinstitute.com/

            How much of a Gold Medal do you think CDR would earn, by CMM measures?

          • Orellian Tay

            “And really, I don’t ask anyone to trust me; anyone who assigns credibility to any anonymous blog commentator has some serious problems with understanding what credibility is for.”

            Yet your argument was based on this.

            Karl et al is still being used by GISS and it will be the official version until that changes. I accept this fact. I only happen to suspect it will change.

          • Bart_R

            READ HARDER.

            How was my argument in any way based on my own credibility?

            Let me simplify it for you: Dr. Bates’ argument is based on his own bad standard, a poor application of CMM that is inappropriate because it fails the most fundamental tests of adequacy CMM itself holds data management systems to.

            Science holds exact fit inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission possible, but no more than possible, until new observation leads to amended or new fit.

            Dr. Bates’ CRD is a production-line standard that does not properly accommodate assumption, exception or omission, nor adapt to changes in them, nor allow for amendment of inference. If you were developing a system for producing car parts, John Bates’ CRD would be adequate. For science, while it pays lip service to many admirable ambitions, it just fails. If it hadn’t failed, then Karl et al (2015) would not have found so much wrong with one of CRD’s products.

            Will GISS further improve its products? If there are more heroic efforts — that’s a CMM term describing a low level of maturity — like Karl et al (2015), then of course.

          • Orellian Tay

            “Let me simplify it for you: Dr. Bates’ argument is based on his own bad standard, a poor application of CMM that is inappropriate because it fails the most fundamental tests of adequacy CMM itself holds data management systems to.”

            Expert credibility vs Random guy on the internet.

            I’ll go with the expert.

          • Bart_R

            Right. I presented links to experts.

            John Bates?

            Not a qualified expert in CMM, or he’d have listed his Carnegie Mellon certificate somewhere in his cv.

          • Orellian Tay

            Wow, you linked expert stuff. Congrats. I will consider the expert whistleblower over your linked experts.

          • Bart_R

            You’re free to make whatever logical fallacy based on Argument from Authority you want.

            It’s still a logical fallacy, and it’s still invalid.

            But see, when you talk about maturity models, as John Bates does, there is an actual authority that isn’t “an expert”, but the CMM authority, the author of the Capability Maturity Model, Carnegie Mellon.

            And Carnegie Mellon doesn’t know John Bates.

            Which means John Bates is not an expert.

            And he comes across more as a dog whistler than a whistle blower.

  • The Mail is a tits and bums paper but used to publish good climate change articles. Somehow, since the BREXIT campaign it has switched to political anti climayte change articles.

    • Krulle

      Because they noticed that Britain will need more industry to pay for anything.
      Once they’re outside tax-free trade, things must be produced inside theUK to have some jobs. And that means factories. And that means pollution.
      So , to dampen the BrExit effect, the pollution must be held as having no influence on anything.

    • Nicholas Palmer

      Nonsense. The Mail have been publishing shock horror denialist propaganda pieces by David Rose for a long time.

      • Orellian Tay

        Quite true, which is why you should totally ignore anything they say. Life is better when you can ignore messages delivered by messengers you don`t like.

        • #NoLegitimacy?GetBlocked

          Murdoch Tabloids and David Rose?

          No legitimacy.

          • Orellian Tay

            Exactly, one you know who is speaking you can ignore them. Even if they say 1+1=2 you know it is a lie.

          • Abel Adamski

            The boy who cried wolf.
            When they constantly twist, distort, misrepresent and even fib they lose any relevance.
            Pity as even if they published something factual, real and of critical importance, who would even pay attention

        • Nicholas Palmer

          Orellian Tay – you put forward a solipsistic view. Deceitful or deluded
          propaganda, such as the Mail often publishes, is seen by many millions
          of the ordinary voting public who haven’t got the scientific expertise
          to realise when their minds are being swayed by deceitful clever crafted
          rhetoric. These people vote, so it is important that those sources who
          try to fool them for political advantage are called out loud and clear.

          • Orellian Tay

            You do understand what Fyfe at al was right?

            You do understand that the article was based on information from a senior NOAA official with serious credential right?

            Who wrote the article is only relevant to people that choose to ignore the message. To the rest of us, the content is what matters. The fact that people disagree is perfectly acceptable. Ignoring information because you don’t like the messenger is foolish.

            You wonder why Brexit and Trump took the day? It is because people chose to shoot the messengers and ignored the message. How did that work out? It didn’t and the response is to……. shoot the messenger.

            Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

            There is in fact information out there that does in fact disagree with the articles content, that is helpful information.

          • Steven Sullivan

            But Zeke *dide* address content of Rose’s article, namely, the duplicitous graphs Rose touts. Did you ignore that information?

          • Orellian Tay

            The neat thing about science is that is has to be bulletproof. Fyfe et al, written last year by warmists was more than enough to raise serious questions.

            What Bates brought up simply explains problems with process.

            So which group is correct? There are good arguments on both sides.

          • Nicholas Palmer

            You are ignoring the fact that it was the “messenger” (David Rose) who created this whole faked scandal using all the techniques of deception and misdirection and misleading language and assertions he is so well known for in his “shock horror” exposes for the Daily Mail.

            The information from the former NOAA employee, who left NOAA a couple of months ago to set up his own consultancy, was mere nitpicking about proceedural errors (in his opinion) of data validation. That the data in the papers was valid was subsequently validated by others anyway and the Karl paper still stands as valid science. The Fyfe paper in no way significantly contradicts it. Ask Fyfe et al if you don’t believe me.

            What Rose twisted this pointless nitpicking into was monstroulsy dishonest (or he’s breathtakingly stupid), yet it seems to have fooled half the gullible denialosphere who continue to clutch at straws.

          • Orellian Tay

            Thanks for your opinion about how valid Bate’s concerns were, but I’ll go witht eh NOAA guy on this one.

            “The Fyfe paper in no way significantly contradicts it. Ask Fyfe et al if you don’t believe me.”

            I read the paper so I don’t need to ask him.

          • Bart_R

            I’m sure we all understand what Fyfe et al (2016) was.

            Why don’t you set out exactly what your intepretation of Fyfe’s case is, and how it pertains to Karl et al (2015)?

            Keeping in mind, that’s “John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart” (2016), a list of credible authors who in no way differ substantively from the also credibel “Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang”‘s individual stated views on AGW, and when you say John Bates has serious credential, what exactly is it you do mean?

            With a degree from University of Wisconsin in Meteorology, and almost 30 decades of meteorology experience, listed on his resume, available from his newly formed consulting company’s website, does Dr. Bates list himself as a meteorology consultant?

            No he does not. Dr. Bates, with a half dozen or so published papers to his name, including one as lead author, calls himself a Data Management Consultant.

            Yet Dr. Bates, whose claims in his attack on Karl et al are based almost entirely in archival practice, has zero credential in allied fields. He does not have a credential in Library Science, he does not have a PMI credential, an IIBA credential, nor a credential in data sciences or computer sciences of any sort listed anywhere on his cv, other than that he was attached to something that won an award. John Bates is the Les Nesman of his field, proudly crowing about his Bucky Newshawk award, with nothing else to lend credence to his claims.

            From what I’ve seen of his work so far, it is amateurish and more an obstacle, for all its verbose lip service to the adages of good archival practice, than a means to improvement.

            So, no. This isn’t shooting the messenger. This is recognizing that the messenger is a bag-carrier for Lamar Smith, with an obvious chip on his shoulder against the NOAA, and a private monetary agenda.

  • BarryWoods

    wow – another article that fails to inform the reader of the name of the ‘researcher’ – Dr J Bates principal scientist and former AGU board member..

    Dr Bates 1st hand criticism of NOAA here:
    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/american-geophysical-union-elects-ncdc-scientist-board

    • Bart_R

      And his award-winning crayon drawing here:

      https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/slide1.png

      Dr. Bates takes on the appearance of a petty martinet miffed his pretty diagram was ignored because it was holding up actually getting the job done.

    • Abel Adamski

      “There are a couple of relevant pieces arising from Victor Venema and
      Zeke Hausfather already available which cover most of the science
      aspects and are worth a read. I’m adding some thoughts because I worked
      for three and a bit years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up
      to the Karl et al. paper (although I had left prior to that paper’s
      preparation and publication). I have been involved in and am a co-author
      upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

      The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect
      of the work. NOAA’s process is very stove-piped such that beyond
      seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups.
      John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings
      on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in
      person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the
      journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes)
      mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases
      these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

      http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html

    • Steven Sullivan

      This Dr. Bates:

      “There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.”

      https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

  • GaelanClark

    Say, could you point us toward the archived data for the Dr.Karl “pausebuster” paper?

    • nmlnie
    • Rick Kooi

      John Bates Consulting inc., must be off to a good start with all of this publicity
      …. which was never mentioned a year or two or three when it was current.
      ..
      HMMMMMM!!!!
      .
      Nick Stokes | February 6, 2017 at 4:52 am |
      Geoff,
      “Procedures like authority endorsement must surely be an initio taken as good”
      Ironies abound. Here is what skeptics had to say when someone deemed skeptic at CSIRO was reproved for completely ignoring publication approval processes.

      But the stuff about “time a paper’s release for impact” is nonsense.

      Firstly, as ehak points out, it was actually submitted in December 2014.

      And I’m sure the dead weight of the Bates’s in NOAA would mean that they had it in process for long before that.

      But second, it is a methods paper.

      There is no particular reason why it should have impact, except skeptics decided for some reason that he was stealing their favorite pause.

      Basically, the information about measurable ship-buoy bias had been published for years, and ERSST just had to do something about it. That was the driver.

  • Alan_McIntire

    See

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

    “But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

    It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised…….

    Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

    Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

    The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

    • Bart_R

      Proof by reference to WUWT. That’s a logical fallacy.

      A computer “suffered a complete failure”?

      If it ran Windows, it likely suffered complete failure several times a day. How is that relevant?

      Karl’s been independently verified as Zeke points out, above. How can you read the article and still den.. Ah. WUWT. Nevermind.

    • Rick Kooi

      The scientific community is outraged, by the accusations made by the DAILY MAIL and Writer Rose.

      and response has been swift.

      Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist &
      energy systems analyst at Berkeley Earth,
      who worked on providing prior independent verification of the data,
      writes at CarbonBrief:

      What Rose (He is the author-hitman) fails to mention is that the new NOAA results had been

      **previously been validated by independent data from satellites,

      **buoys and Argo floats and that

      **many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

      … Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is PATENTLY INCORRECT, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important parts of NOAA’s results.

      …Rose’s article (a hit piece / Factually Barren) presents a deeply ‘misleading’ graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artifact of the use of different baselines…This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly.

      Peter Thorne, climate scientist for the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, writes:

      I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

      The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who WAS NOT INVOLVED in any aspect of the work… John Bates NEVER PARTICIPATED in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely.

      This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes)

      mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

      Victor Venema, climate scientist who studies climate variability for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), writes today:

      The [global warming] “pause” is

      based on bad statistics and

      cherry-picking a specific period, which is bad “science”.

      With good statistics, there is no evidence of any trend change.

      Rose gets some suggestive quotes from an apparently disgruntled retired NOAA employee. The quotes themselves seem to be likely inconsequential procedural complaints, the corresponding insinuations seem to come from Rose.

      I thought journalism had a rule that claims by a source need to be confirmed by at least a second source. I am missing any confirmation.

      … It sounds as if he made a set of procedures for his climate satellite data, which he really liked, and wanted other groups in NOAA to use it as well. Was frustrated when others did not prioritize enough updating their existing procedures to his.

      Each of the above scientists then proceeds to patiently and factually rebut Rose’s and Bates’ claims, point by point,

      graph by graph.

      I encourage you to check out the links to see what the debate is about.

      But there seems little point in the general public debating the scientific details.

      And it’s probably not the priority.

      Scientists were also refuting Bates’ claims in detail on climate change contrarian Judith Curry’s blog, where Bates personally posted his arguments.

  • rlhailssrpe

    I leave the scientific debate to scientists, but the author of this article does not rebut the basics of Dr. Bates’ judgement or the Daily Mail article by Mr. Rose. The essential fact, still outstanding, is that the NOAA paper which became a key input to the Paris Conference should never have been published. The lead author, Dr. Karl failed to comply with his own organization’s basic policies on science, in several different ways. The Mail article also claims that Congress was denied a request for the basic documentation on the finding in a timely manner. And the author’s claim that Dr. Bates is ignorant of what is happening in other academic circles, while it may be true, is irrelevant to Bates’ claim that his organization did not comply with their own policy.

    These are not trivial concerns. America just elected a President due to a wide spread judgment that climate change is a hoax. This could never have happened unless millions have concluded that the US government, in many federal organizations, is lying to us about a matter of survival. It is a common problem: Issue crap to meet the boss’ schedule, we will fix it later. But later never happens.

    Dr. Hausfather should spend more time in a boxing ring, learn how things can get hot very quickly if you screw up.

    This issue has been badly handled; it is demeaning to science and a disaster.

    • Orellian Tay

      But data archiving is nore really that big an issue right? That is what Christian_Moe says right above so he must be right. Who cares about data quality and process when morals and feelings are at stake.

      Is there a sarcasm font? If not, somebody needs to invent it soon!

      • Bart_R

        Try appending /sarc.

        Also, try having a legitimate grievance.

        • Orellian Tay

          Well now my life is complete

          /sarc

          Worked like a charm, thanks!

          • Bart_R

            So sad to hear how incomplete your life is.

            And if only you had a legitimate grievance, you might stand a chance of getting a life.

          • Orellian Tay

            It isn’t me with the grievance, it is science that does.

          • Bart_R

            It clearly isn’t grammar, either. /sarc

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you does.

          • Orellian Tay

            I do, quite a bit actually as does everybody else. Most people haven’t really figured out that they are already paying hundreds a year for this.

          • Bart_R

            Riiiight.

            Of course you pay what you owe.

            Your check’s in the mail, no doubt. /sarc

          • Orellian Tay

            “Of course you pay what you owe.”

            Golly, can you tell me how much this guilt is going to cost me?

            We are all paying a lot for this nonsense and people are finally figuring this out.

          • Bart_R

            Golly. What do you have against letting the Market decide the price?

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

            Because until fossil waste disposal is put on the Market and priced by the Law of Supply and Demand, anyone ‘figuring this out’ is talking through their hat.

          • Orellian Tay

            “Golly. What do you have against letting the Market decide the price?”

            Nothing. You?

            “Because until fossil waste disposal is put on the Market and priced by the Law of Supply and Demand, anyone ‘figuring this out’ is talking through their hat.”

            It is always amazing to me how some people simply think everybody else is too stupid to see a bold faced lie.

            “I believe in a free market, as long as it includes all the regulations that I think should be there!”

          • Bart_R

            Adam Smith invented the Free Market.

            http://www.ifaarchive.com/pdf/smith_-_an_inquiry_into_the_nature_and_causes_of_the_wealth_of_nations%5B1%5D.pdf

            It is never amazing to me to see a liar keep on lying.

            So I won’t be amazed by your reply.

          • Orellian Tay

            Yes and the zipper was invented by a Canadian by the name of Whitcomb Judson.

            About as relevant as your last post I suppose.

          • Bart_R

            Adam Smith’s Free Market Capitalism included all the regulations needed to keep capital secure and the Market so near to conditions of “perfect competition” as could be obtained.

            That’s not the regulations someone just thinks “should be there”, but the regulations that achieve the level playing field that allows the Market to deliver fair distribution of scarce resources while relieving misery and maximizing utility.

            If the topic is the free market and its regulations, there’s little more relevant than Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

            Perhaps you should learn to zip it up when you’re so far behind, and your flacid little lies are so exposed?

          • Orellian Tay

            That depends entirely on the objective of the regulation. As you say, the regulations put in place are there to encourage competition. Your regulations pick winners and losers based on unknowns.

            Regulations on unknowns….. and you call that capitalism. Like I said before, how idiotic do people have to be not to know this is both nonsensical and bad.

          • Bart_R

            What regulations do you suppose are being discussed?

            Weathering and sequestering are the known ways fossil CO2 is removed from air and returned to mineral form.

            Those actions are, in terms of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, “fruits of the land”.

            You cannot return fossil to mineral form without weathering or sequestering. You cannot weather or sequester without land. That makes weathering and sequestering scarce, and Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize in Economics for proving that scarce goods must be subject to the rules of Market competition to avoid harm to the Economy.

            Why do you hate Capitalism and seek to ruin the economy?

          • Orellian Tay

            You have no reason to do this. Why not remove salt from the ocean? Why not remove oxygen from the atmosphere?

            Why do you think people are stupid? Clearly you are too bright to fall for it.

          • Bart_R

            Saltiness of oceans isn’t a scarcity on anyone’s land.

            Oxygen in air, again isn’t a scarcity on anyone’s land.

            Weathering and sequestering of CO2 back to mineral form are scarce, otherwise CO2 levels would not be rising. Further, essentially 100% of CO2 rise can be attributed through isotope markers to fossil CO2 wastes dumped by those burning fossil CO2.

            Those who burn fossil CO2 are clearly willing buyers of scarce fossil CO2 waste disposal on other peoples’ lands, or they are thieves. 197 nations of the world have declared the will to reduce fossil CO2 levels in air. Those nations are clearly full of willing sellers of fossil waste disposal by scarce weathering and sequestering, at the right price.

            The Market is where buyers meet sellers and set that price by the Law of Supply and Demand.

            Why do you hate and fear Capitalism?

          • Orellian Tay

            “Why do you hate and fear Capitalism?”

            Have you stopped beating your dog? Same kind of nonsense.

            You obviously have no clue what you are talking about yet you seem to want to convince people that your regulations are based on principles of capitalism.

            People simply are not that stupid.

          • Bart_R

            I’ve never owned a dog and you’ve never actually been a Capitalist.

            Are you claiming you’re allergic to Capitalism?

            A Capitalist pays for what he takes that isn’t his, if he wants something.

            You’re taking weathering and sequestering from other peoples’ land. You clearly have made the choice to take what isn’t yours. They clearly own the land and have the right to profit from its scarce goods, including sequestering and weathering of fossil CO2 out of the air back to mineral form.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Orellian Tay

            “You clearly have made the choice to take what isn’t yours.”

            It was sold and I paid for it.

            Do you know what weathering and sequestering is by chance? My understanding is more traditional so perhaps you use a different meaning.

          • Bart_R

            For the purposes of the Market, weathering and sequestering of fossil CO2 out of air back to mineral form are scarce fruits of the land, excludable because fossil bitumen, cement, coal, gas and oil are excludable and rivalrous because it takes thousands of human generations for these fruits of the land to remove the amount of CO2 added to air from fossil at current rates.

            As Elinor Ostrom said in her Nobel Prize winning speech, that means weathering and sequestering must be privatized on the Market to avoid perverse incentives and economic ruin.

            As such, weathering and sequestering need to be bought and sold, and you don’t have a receipt.

          • Orellian Tay

            ” that means weathering and sequestering must be privatized on the Market to avoid perverse incentives and economic ruin.”

            So, economic ruin has happened because “weathering and sequestration” was not privatized? An example please.

            As for Nobel prizes, those are simply political in nature.

          • Bart_R

            Yeah, yeah. Of course. Marie Curie manipulated the Nobel committee.

            An example of economic ruin proving Lin Ostrom’s Nobel Prize winning claims about the Tragedy of the Commons, or an example of economic ruin because you don’t pay what you owe for fossil waste dumping?

            Be specific; it’s been my experience of those deadbeats who will do anything to avoid facing the fossil debts they owe that they’ll wriggle out by moving goalposts, so if you’d be kind enough to spell out exactly what you can’t imagine an example of for yourself, I will see what I can do to help you make up for your knowledge deficit.

            However, as addressing knowledge deficit has yet to repair what’s wrong with deniers, my hopes are not high.

            But if you’re serious, you may find something here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv7zFAdZ6LI

          • Orellian Tay

            I asked for an example. You asked me to be specific, but this is your point not mine.

            “it’s been my experience of those deadbeats who will do anything to avoid facing the fossil debts ”

            So some people are paying and some are not? Care to explain this.

            “However, as addressing knowledge deficit has yet to repair what’s wrong with deniers, my hopes are not high.”

            I can imagine this must be exhausting. Can you figure out why climate science is unique? I certainly can’t think of another science that, despite 97% agreement, a huge number of people simply do not believe. What makes CS so special?

          • Bart_R

            Cases in point.

            All this evasion, nitpicking and false premise of yours leaping to new subjects before old ones are resolved in response to a reasonable request for clarity.

            You think climate science is unique in that there are deadbeats who rather than face their debts irrelevantly deny the science?

            Perchance you’re familiar with the writings of Dr. Elisabet Kubler-Ross?

            Give yourself a treat, and look her works up.

            And their denial is irrelevant. All that is needed for fossil waste disposal to require Market rents of fossil waste dumpers is that the weathering and sequestering that dispose of fossil CO2 back to mineral form from the air be scarce, excludable and rivalrous. Climate change is irrelevant to that question; global acidification is tangential to it; crop nutrient density loss, also irrelevant to the question of what is owed to property-owners, how much and by whom; soil fertility loss is also not pertinent, although all four categories of gross harm are most certainly true.

            So, no more indulging your misanthropic and miserly dodging: answer the questions as they come, settle the issues before moving on to new ones, and admit when you’ve had a change of mind as a consequence of reasoned dialogue, or what’s Disqus for?

          • Orellian Tay

            I asked questions. Your reply was

            “All this evasion, nitpicking and false premise of yours leaping to new subjects before old ones are resolved in response to a reasonable request for clarity.”

            CS is unique in that the “science is settled” but many people don’t believe it. There is no rational explanation for this, yet people like you claim it because people are uneducated, which does not explain it at all.

            “and admit when you’ve had a change of mind as a consequence of reasoned dialogue, or what’s Disqus for?”

            Why is it that I need to change my mined?

            CS has to be bulletproof for the hypothesis to be correct, but there are many bullet holes. I am always amazed at how scientifically educated people can willfully ignore the bullet holes. I have yet to meet a single person that ever said that any point I raise has merit.

            The most obvious is the missing hotspot of course. This is a requirement of the hypothesis. It must exist, no if ands or buts. But it isn’t there of course, but nobody will admit that this is even an issue that should raise concern. You won’t either of course and I don’t expect you to. So even in the face of rock solid evidence you will reject any possibility that it is you that you could be wrong.

            I know for sure that I could be wrong and I have a metric that I will accept as proof, but it is still not showing any sign that my opinion is wrong. It shows me that my opinion is right. It is the satellite data of course. The very best data we have with the best accuracy and coverage, but it isn’t working for you so you ignore it and stick to other things that do. Yet the hypothesis has to be….bulletproof.

          • Bart_R

            What a load.

            Let’s revisit where we are here, and how we got here:

            Eleven days ago, you wrote, sarcastically in reply to Nicholas Palmer’s observation that “The Mail have been publishing shock horror denialist propaganda pieces by David Rose for a long time..”, with “Quite true, which is why you should totally ignore anything they say. Life is better when you can ignore messages delivered by messengers you don’t like.”

            That’s where this thread started. Have you resolved Nicholas Palmer’s concerns in all this?

            Have you answered my question, in all this time?

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/carbonbrief/factcheck_mail_on_sundays_astonishing_evidence_about_global_temperature_rise/#comment-3142516641

            Why don’t you set out exactly what your intepretation of Fyfe’s case is, and how it pertains to Karl et al (2015)?

            Keeping in mind, that’s “John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka & Neil C. Swart” (2016), a list of credible authors who in no way differ substantively from the also credible “Thomas R. Karl, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang”‘s individual stated views on AGW, and when you say John Bates has serious credential, what exactly is it you do mean?

            You’ve never met that challenge.

            Don’t you know what Fyfe et al was about?

            Can’t you rephrase it in your own words?

            Don’t you know why you trust John Bates, when he has no actual training in the area of data management you are trusting him about?

            Ten days we’ve put up with your dodges and carrying on.

            It’s worn thin.

            Answer.

          • waxliberty

            What then, do you believe is the correct capitalist response to a negative externality problem?

            Have you taken any economics courses? I ask honestly.

    • Bart_R

      John Bates’ ‘judgement’ is that his own narrow, inappropriate and dated application of Carnegie Melon’s Capability Maturity Model to the ‘CDR’ standard was violated by Karl et al‘s peer-reviewed, published scholarly research, since confirmed independently by four different independent sources.

      Applying Dr. Bates’ judgement, one finds that Newton and Einstein, too, would fail, while Mengele and Lysenko would pass.

      CMM is a great standard, for stamping out parts on an assembly line. Many of the principles of CMM would be excellent to see in an ideal world. However, when you build an inflexible, fragile data management model that cannot accommodate necessary assumptions, exceptions and omissions, does not adapt to new observations calling into question old data, and cannot pass muster on inspection, then you’ve failed, Dr. Bates.

      NOAA did not, and could not, comply with Dr. Bates’ standard, and still uphold the best longstanding standards of science. Given the choice of pencil-pushing adherence to arbitrary bureaucratic rules, or science, I believe NOAA made the right call.

      Perhaps if you spent more time in the demanding and rigorous disciplines scientists like Zeke pursue at the highest levels, you’d use less sport metaphors.

      • rlhailssrpe

        We shall see.

        All of the data, software, dialog and assessments, must be archived. If corners were cut, fudge factors used or the complete records, electronic and hard copy, do not cleanly exist, we shall see. Independent eyes will review the record against the “arbitrary bureaucratic rules” which NOAA established for their pencil pushers and claims to adhere to.

        In boxing, they count to ten over a prone body, to determine the outcome. It is also true in life.

        • Bart_R

          What is it with the deadbeat set and all this putting things off until tomorrow that were seen sixty years ago?

          And inappropriate sports metaphors?

          And crowing over victories when they’ve lost?

          If this were boxing, then John Bates’ CRD would be ultra-featherweight with its gloves on the wrong hands.

        • Rick Kooi

          “…7 February 2016 interview with EE News, Bates explicitly stated that he did not mean to suggest that Karl et al had manipulated data:

          Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

          “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he said.”
          ????
          rhailssrpe

          • rlhailssrpe

            Bates, an expert with personal knowledge, has made the charge. It is a serious one, the release of a paper, carrying the prestige of the US government, which drove world energy policy, yet was flawed in development. It has been two days; others will respond.

            The question is: Did it happened? And if so, who broke the rules?

            I do not know, but I read.

          • Rick Kooi

            1. He had NO PERSONAL knowledge
            …he has admitted that
            …this is a procedural dispute
            admittedly … NOT A SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE….

            SO THE SCIENCE
            “which drove world energy policy”
            is COMPLETELY accurate

            …despite your spewing of anger and ideological hatred.

            The Dr. CLEARLY STATES there was NO FLAWED DATA….
            ZIP!
            ZERO!
            NADA!

            The Daily Mail lied again (you deniers are always lying & distorting
            !…and
            YOU ARE LYING TRYING TO JUSTIFY your ideological soul mate……

            get a hotel room!

          • rlhailssrpe

            You have anger issues and just got blocked.

          • Rick Kooi

            and a fond fair well indeed !

    • Jim Young

      “America just elected a President due to a wide spread judgment that climate change is a hoax.” You mean the President that wants to eliminate the EPA and gag all scientists as much or more as he does with non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreements he demands from any and all that deal with him, work for him, or marry him? The one that not only didn’t appoint a replacement for Science Advisor, John Holdren, but eliminated the whole Office of Science and Technology Policy. So who can the public trust on real science, Kellyanne Conway?

      Who does Trump most respect in the field of science, and who would the science community, as a whole, suggest to him? Perhaps we need a shadow Organization of Science and Technology Policy, ready to step in when he is ready to at least listen to the opinions of the scientists the public can trust most.

      As it is, it seems a book burning rampage is more likely, quite the opposite of the archiving you’ve mentioned, and more like what Cheney/Bush tried in the article referenced below.

      See http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/epa-closing-libraries-destroying-scientific-documents.html

      “…a nationwide network of 27 libraries that provide critical scientific
      information on human health and environmental protection, not only to
      EPA scientists, but also to other researchers and the general public.
      But now some of those libraries are being shut down and some of the
      scientific information they house is being sequestered or destroyed.

      The libraries represent an invaluable source of scientific knowledge on
      issues from hazardous waste to pollution control. To make the best
      scientific determinations, scientists need access to this information.
      In 2005, EPA’s dedicated library staff fielded more than 134,000
      database and reference questions from agency scientists and the
      public.In February 2006, under the guise of cutting costs, the Bush
      Administration proposed cutting $2 million out of the $2.5 million
      library services budget for fiscal year 2007. Such a drastic cut would
      ensure the closing of most of the library network, but would hardly
      register as a cost savings in the $8 billion EPA budget…”

      What they couldn’t destroy, they made harder to access, going so far as to claim copyright problems and trade secrets (in data we the taxpayers paid for). That data should have been archived and available to legitimate researchers, epidemiologists, and others who protect us from real threats.

      • rlhailssrpe

        You raise a valid point, where is the scientific leadership in the climate change debate?

        The head of the EPA has been a lawyer or politician for a long time. John Holdren came from Woods Hole; they are not known as a center of excellence on climate science. Chu was an expert in freezing an atom with a laser. He poured money on projects whose principles were heavily involved with the Democratic party. Many of the climate experts became deniers, left the UN organization.

        The only certainty that we have is that a new boss is in the corner office. He is either a politician or a lawyer. And I doubt anything that comes from treehugger.com.
        We desperately need that quiet genius who knows what is real.

        How bad is carbon combustion and when will it get bad? We, hopefully, shall see.

        • Jim Young

          You mention Democrats, reminding me of Kennedy getting us fired up to go to the moon, and Gore encouraging the development of the internet. Republicans (I was a 5th generation one for my 1st 50 years) have a couple Presidents that lost the popular vote, and still danced with some of the least popular big oil interests.

          Eisenhower wanted nuclear energy, weapons, space rockets and submarines (he thought to reduce the need for a large expensive military). He also wanted peaceful rockets for the International Geophysical Year (and cheaper, safer, reconnaissance). Personally, I would love to have a Herbert Hoover type, who as Secretary of Commerce seemed to encourage all sorts of scientific efforts that paid off with really useful progress in commercial applications and public utilities (Hoover Dam). Seems different administrations had different emphasis, but currently have one that wants to crush most research that has, or is likely, to interfere with their fossil fuel private profiteers that put their profit above a human habitable planet.

          • rlhailssrpe

            IMHO we have had a string of poor leaders, and it shows. We are very divided on many issues and the schism is getting worse. I spent my career in energy, engineered a score of nukes, two score carbon fueled power plants and decades assessing advanced technologies. Our regulation and energy R&D seems to go to the highest bidder on campaign contributions; we are not getting the truth from our government, particularly on energy. Maybe Trump will beat it out of them, or maybe he also will twist technology for personal power. We will see.

            Eisenhower posed a conundrum on atomic power; either humanity will learn to use it for peaceful purposes, Atoms for Peace, or it will annihilate us all. Our military spends, every few months, more than the total cost of all of our nukes and we have enough bombs to kill everything on the planet. So do others.

            A court in West Virginia recently handed down a judgement that the EPA has violated its charter law, since day one; it ignores the social cost of its regulations which is its job. Maybe Trump will change this; his background is controlling costs. IMHO the weakest of climate change rests on cost; no one knows how much, when and the cost of CO2. If the sea rises in five centuries, who cares. Five centuries ago, North America was largely unknown and alchemy was science. We do know that with fracking, we have centuries of cheap carbon fuel under our feet; the days of $100/ b oil are gone forever. OPEC has broken their pick. Ditto Russia.

            We shall see.

          • Jim Young

            I would prefer nuclear, but only if they ran it as conscientiously as Hyman Rickover thought they needed to (he doubted they would and therefore was against civilian nuclear power he thought would compromise safety too much). The TransAtomic WAMSR (Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor) type would be my preferred type since it is walk away safe and actually dramatically reduces the existing worst forms of “waste” fuel as its most worthy goal. Demonstrating that it can do it may sway public tolerance for more safe nuclear tech. So far I don’t see the type discipline and care Hyman Rickover would demand, though, so I’ll hold off until the industry convinces me otherwise. I have seen all the industries ignore safety too much, and neglect the external costs far too often, though I saw the long term changes in clean air and places like Casco Bay’s water from the measures taken to reduce acid rain and other pollutants. They are perceived as less dangerous than nuclear, but it is just different consequences to me.

            Christie Todd Whitman did do what was termed cost effective clean up (surface) in the closest thing I’ve seen any members of my old party do to protect us (actually clean some small portion up, too. However, I live about 5 miles as the crow flies from the Stringfellow Acid pits Superfund Site they quit dumping toxins in over 40 years ago and are still trying to cleanup, so that portion of the EPA mission is going very very slowly when they even do any of it. Besides what I can learn from lower echelon workers in the field, I looked into what a more active environmentalist learned about the fake studies and tactics to get around legitimate testing. Patricia McPherson played a big part in showing the scale of deception in getting permits and doing unauthorized work. The official stories have shown to be false in a Paul Moyers KNBC4 4 part series, “Burning Question NBC4 part 1-Playa Vista Safe?” No matter how ultimately safe or dangerous you think conditions are, take a look at the deceptive practices that seriously question the credibility of the officials and companies. Start the entire 4 part series at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4O6jI2y_m4

            Another eye opener for me was the 250 mile oval of damage we could see from geosynchronous orbit satellites. Investigation revealed it was from the Sudbury Super stack (trying to disperse the H2S by getting it high enough (1,250 ft). I happened to meet a Canadian that had moved to L.A. from Sudbury back around the 70s. When I asked why he moved, he said they let the workers retire at 50 or 55, since so few lived to 65.

            We do not need to go back to that carelessness, especially with 50% more energy hungry people than we had back then.

          • rlhailssrpe

            If you review every epic technical disaster: private sector, government, US or foreign, you find the same root cause, lousy management. Consider Bhopal, Three Mile Island, the Challenger Accident, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Fukushima, or the BP blow out. Every organization cheated on the mission. I lived the regulatory disaster, the regulation often came from a victim of a bad boss in industry who sought revenge, punishment, or an egg head, devoid of experience, or a ninety day wonder, a blow hard. The common technique was to set a standard that was an order of magnitude higher than what was achievable. This had two effects. The honest people struggled then bankrupted. The liars pencil whipped the record. I designed a number of chimneys and the evolving reasons why the height was selected.

            The Admiral, Richover, was a tyrant, he broke good people. Zumwalt said due to his brilliance, the US Navy gained 15 years on the enemy, but due to his management, the US Navy lost 15 years. Technical management, of complex systems requires almost non existent skills, the brilliance of an Oppenheimer and the wisdom of a Solomon. The secret is to know the level of screw ups which is OK, and set that as the organizational goal, use both the whip and the carrot. You can not cook an egg unless you break a shell.

            The Light Water Reactor was a good choice (there may be better ones); it simply requires juice at all times and must run within the operating parameters, maintain your margin of safety. There is an axiom in Mechanical Engineering: All valves leak, you can slow it down but you cannot stop it. This is true for nukes, rockets, lethal chemical systems and oil wells. Keep your systems in good shape, pay for sober employees and managers who know what they are doing and you can boringly make money.

            Good civilian organizations run good nukes. And they pay their bills. And they listen to smart people.

          • Jim Young

            I actually agree very much with what you are saying, especially on the employees and managers who know what they are doing. To me, too many have tried to make massively complex and almost impossible to maintain checklists, much less follow in an emergency, as if any trained monkey could follow them. The sharpest crew of operators I met were actually at the CHP NG fueled plant that won the 2009 Energy Project of the year award from the Association of Energy Engineers. Though using Natural Gas, the 18 techs operating it were former Navy Nuclear technicians that rotated their jobs every 28 days so they all knew the entire system upside down and backwards, enough so that they were able to make further refinements in efficiency and maintain the system integrity to standards you’d expect from a nuclear reactor team (and save even more money in the process).

            See http://sustainability.csusb.edu/Projects/centralCoolingSystemUpgrades.html.

            I wish all operators were as well trained and effective, whether or not in a nuclear plant or, as they are, just in a plant that can benefit so much from such highly skilled operators.

            Results may vary, and do, with some beyond the Pale in terms of competence and compliance. Bhopal did more damage than some nuclear accidents, even the West, Texas fertilizer explosion, too. A nuclear engineer involved in decommissioning the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, told me the people before her had lost track of three nuclear fuel rods, in the worst example of criminally careless management I’ve ever heard of from lower echelon staff. That’s why I need to see much more evidence of all plants being much safer by design, and operated by sufficiently knowledgeable operators.

          • rlhailssrpe

            “Scully”, the famous pilot who landed a large jet liner in the Hudson, saved hundreds, has criticized the airlines on your point. Today’s pilots are trained at punch lists; they do not know how to fly a plane (I simplify for brevity). If a computer is coded wrong, as in the final approach disaster at San Francisco, they flew the plane into rock. He lauds check lists are a reminder; everybody forgets. But on take off or landing, I do not want a guy making minimum wage, on the controls, when I am in the back.

            Every old engineer has his war stories, most are unreported near misses, in which one expert earned his life’s income in a pinch. E.g. birds flew into the engines on take off over a city where maximum thrust is mandatory. The head lines are made by the events in which a Scully was absent, for a few seconds after a life time in the seat.

            In life or death technologies, the pros should make more money and regulators and the CEO less. The capitalist model only works in brain surgery. It does not work on a battle field.

    • Rick Kooi

      OOOOPS….they didn’t abide by Dr. Bates ‘personal’ paper work policy…..

      but the primary allegation was using FLAWED and MANIPULATED DATA !
      LOOK !
      “….7 February 2016 interview with EE News, Bates explicitly stated that he did not mean to suggest that Karl et al had manipulated data:

      Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

      “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he said.

      NOW IT IS SIMPLY ABOUT TIMING……still it was largely completed MONTHS before the Climate Summit….supposedly the reason to rush?????

  • Marcus Cicero

    Would the author and his “expert” care to explain the claim the ocean is warming due to global warming when the average atmospheric temperature is 58 degrees Fahrenheit and the average surface temperature of the ocean is 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Also please explain how this is able to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    • Nicholas Palmer

      Ridiculous thinking. Don’t you know what an average means?

      • iMarcusCicero

        Yes, and obviously you don’t. You must be a warmist.

        • Nicholas Palmer

          “Obviously you don’t”

          Ha Ha ha, yet another supremely arrogant yet breathtakingly stupid comment from one of the deluded denizens of the denialosphere. If any of the pseudoscientific “reasoning” you lot use made any real sense at all don’t you think that the giant fossil fuel companies would be beating a path to your doors so they could protect their enormous bottom lines by discovering any supposed big holes in climate science? Bear in mind that they have more money than god to pay the best analysts on earth to examine the fuzzbrained nonsense of the denialists for any validity. Guess what? They found none and they are not beating a path to your doors.

          Here’s what the largest – Exxon-Mobil – are currently saying about the risks right now on their corporate website. Read it and consider it then just shut up and keep your misguided and fallacious opinions to yourself in case you mislead anyone else in future.
          _____________________________
          “We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how
          to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse
          gas emissions.

          The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants
          action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a
          warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that
          action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

          ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
          its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting
          research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in
          constructive dialogue on policy options.”
          ___________________________
          http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

    • Abel Adamski

      Duhh, the sun warms the oceans, the land, the rivers and the lakes. The oceans and waters shed that heat by evaporation and radiation to the atmosphere, but also by melting ice at the poles.
      The radiation is being hampered by the greenhouse gases, which are not
      equally mixed as can be observed by the Copernicus satellite.
      The
      effectiveness of the greenhouse gases is shown by the reduction in the
      height of the stratosphere due to cooling due to IR being blocked from
      the Earths surface. This contributes to the increase and earlier onset
      and equatorial movement of the luminescent clouds

      Melting the polar ice – check (the Antarctic is being melted from below and is increasingly unstable )
      The Arctic sea ice is in a parlous state,especially for mid winter.
      Permafrost is melting and Glaciers that civilisations depend on for their water supplies are vanishing fast

      So your argument is entirely spurious and practically irrelevant, however you may wish to closer evaluate the mechanism’s of that law

  • RDWebster

    Just a visual observation about the last graph… when the 1998 and 2016 El Niño impacts are considered, the data appear to confirm the “hiatus” in warming. Cover the portions of the graph before 2001 and after 2015 and ask yourself, is there visual evidence of significant warming, or of warming hiatus?

  • Tennhauser

    “This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally).”

    This statement is nonsense. If the old data set relied more on warmer ship measurements, while the new data relies more on colder buoy measurements, then that would reduce the temperature recorded, lowering the warming trend. Instead the opposite was reported.

    In addition, at some point in the past, the ship and data from buoys must be spliced together given the Argo data only extends back to the early 2000s…before that there is only ship data.

    My guess is that NOAA was already relying on buoy data, but since the buoys were colder, it produced a pause in warming when spliced with the ship data. Therefore they are doing the exact opposite of what this article says – they are going back to the older inaccurate ship data, since it doesn’t need to be spliced in with with anything. Quite possibly they are “adjusting” the buoy data upwards. So the correct statement would be:

    “This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on ship records since there were measured over a longer period of time, and adjusting the buoy data upwards.”
    This is actually a common problem in science – new equipment leads to better, more accurate measurements. But if the phenomena you are measuring is something you are measuring over time, it is difficult to distinguish between small changes that are due to higher instrument accuracy, versus actual environmental changes.
    Which is something to note – we are talking about very small changes in temperature here. Minor changes in measurement methods can show either a warming trend, or none at all. This leads to logical questions regarding the importance of this trend.
    What I would appreciate seeing is clean data – unadjusted data from ships, and from buoys, graphed separately. That would eliminate instrument error, or adjustment error, and allow us to compare the trend line of the two separate data sets.

    • Abel Adamski

      That has been done, do keep up with the science, and in fact is mentioned in the article above.

      The other factor that supports the statement is the massive amount of ocean warmth caused melt of Antarctica and Greenland and did you notice all the ice melt at the Arctic and the worlds mountain glaciers during those years.
      The hiatus was a fake

      • Tennhauser

        My point, which is fairly simple for even a non-scientist to understand, is instead of bothering to adjust and splice disparate data sets together (which is always problematic), report them separately. Ship data with ship data. Satellite data with satellite data. Buoy data with buoy data. I can handle a graph with more than one line. It’s not complicated. It would greatly simplify the discussion.
        What the quote is saying is that instead of adjusting the numbers one way, to weight one set of data, they adjusted it another way, to weight another set of data. All well and fine. However, the end result is counterintuitive to how it is described (i.e. depending on colder buoy data would erase the hiatus, when it would seem to do the opposite). I don’t suspect bad science, but bad writing on behalf of the author, and I think the process could be described much better.
        You must admit that after nearly 20 years of reporting the hiatus, suddenly a minor data adjustment makes the whole thing go away. You should expect a lot of questions and concerns. Try dealing with them gracefully.
        And, yes, actually, I live in the high arctic and work as a scientist. Glaciers have been retreating up here since before I was born. 6,000 years ago my house was under a mile of ice. Has it increased over the last 60 years? I think so. A little. Certainly the tundra is getting more brushy that it used to be, but that could be as much a function of higher carbon dioxide as temperature.
        Also the hiatus was not “fake” – choose your words more carefully – it was NOAA that reported the hiatus. I think you mean “incorrect”. “Fake” implies evil intent on the part of NOAA, as opposed to a simple error.

  • James

    You deftly avoid the point–that flawed data were submitted in an effort to advance the whole climate change farce.

    • Abel Adamski

      You miss the point, changes are happening far more rapidly than modelled.

      Do keep a record of those that have influenced your beliefs, you may wish to ask them some questions in a few years time.

    • Rick Kooi

      James you are setting aside TRUTH….to jump on that other Horse…..politics…..that’s the last part of the horse that jumps over the fence.

      THE FACT IS
      ” MORE TIME ”
      WAS TAKEN
      in assembling the report and in the Peer Review process……because of the importance of the Research Conclusions and the fact that it was timed so close to the Paris Summit, and was going to be attacked by the knee jerk reactionary DENIERS.

  • tateofpa

    Just one question did NOAA violate their own protocols by rushing their report through?

    • Ceist Celt

      The quick answer is “No”. For a detailed answer, read some of the rebuttal articles.

    • Rick Kooi

      NO….they violated Dr. BATES OWN devised and implemented verification program….and being attached to HIS OWN system….emotionally condemned being Set aside as he retired…being forgotten..etc.

      scroll up 5 and see just how limited Dr. Bates knowledge of what actually was going on.

    • DocRichard

      The article was published in Science, and they did not rush it through; they took longer than they would normally take.

  • tateofpa

    Bates said “Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,” So if they can ignore their own standards why should we believe anything coming out of there?

    • Abel Adamski

      False.
      The paper actually went through a longer than normal peer review process because of the controversial nature of it’s subject matter.

      A matter of public record

    • Rick Kooi

      “flawed” was actually the author/hitman Rose’s choice of words…..BATES convinced himself that if NOAA set aside his own verification regimen, & there for it was illegitimate and not verified…
      scroll up 2 and read an active participants who knew what was actually going on…..BATES was not an active participant.

  • tateofpa

    “What John Bates has done is to expose this culture based not on robust science, but on promoting an agenda,” Mr. Pielke said in a comment on Climate Etc. “Regardless of one’s views on policies, the scientific method should not be hijacked as they have done.”

    • Abel Adamski

      Funny others have replicated the results and the melting of mountain glaciers and the Arctic support that paper

    • Rick Kooi

      REREAD Bates real statement….
      Bates, retiring…was bitter than some of the programs and methods HE ORIGINATED were being set aside…that does NOT PROVE DATA TAMPERING with nefarious intent…..much of what Dr. Bates has advanced his entire career is misconstrued by ROSE…the Author-HIT MAN….used by DAILY MAIL to reach their POLITICAL AGENDA.

      Pielke is a Mushroom scientist…not a climatologist or a physicist.

      “….The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was NOT involved in any aspect of the work

      NOAA’s process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups.

      John Bates NEVER participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely.

      This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes)
      mis-representation of the processes that actually occured.

      In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

      I will go through a small selection of these in the order they appear in the piece:

      1. ‘Insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minised documentation’

      Dr. Tom Karl was NOT personally involved at any stage of ERSSTv4 development, the ISTI databank development or the work on GHCN algorithm during my time at NOAA NCEI.

      At no point was any pressure bought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices.

      It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout.

      The GHCN homogenisation algorithm is fully available to the public and bug fixes documented.

      The ISTI databank has been led by NOAA NCEI but involved the work of many international scientists. The databank involves full provenance of all data and all processes and code are fully documented.

      The paper describing the databank was held by the journal for almost a year (accepted October 2013, published September 2014) to allow the additional NOAA internal review processes to complete. The ERSSTv4 analysis also has been published in no fewer than three papers. It also went through internal review and approval processes including a public beta release prior to its release which occurred prior to Karl et al., 2015.

      2. ‘NOAA has now decided the sea dataset will have to be replaced and revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming’

      While a new version of ERSST is forthcoming the reasoning is incorrect here. The new version arises because NOAA and all other centres looking at SST records are continuously looking to develop and refine their datasets. The ERSSTv4 development completed in 2013 so the new version reflects over 3 years of continued development and refinement. All datasets I have ever worked upon have undergone version increments. Measuring in the environment is a tough proposition – its not a repeatable lab experiment – and measurements were never made for climate. It is important that we continue to strive for better understanding and the best possible analyses of the imperfect measurements. That means being open to new, improved, analyses. The ERSSTv4 analysis was a demonstrable improvement on the prior version and the same shall be true in going to the next version once it also has cleared both peer-review and the NOAA internal process review checks (as its predecessor did).

      3. ‘The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devestating bugs in its software that rendered its findings unstable’ (also returned to later in the piece to which same response applies)

      The land data homogenisation software is publically available (although I understand a refactored and more user friendly version shall appear with GHCNv4) and all known bugs have been identified and their impacts documented. There is a degree of flutter in daily updates. But this does not arise from software issues (running the software multiple times on a static data source on the same computer yields bit repeatability). Rather it reflects the impacts of data additions as the algorithm homogenises all stations to look like the most recent segment. The PHA algorithm has been used by several other groups outside NOAA who did not find any devestating bugs. Any bugs reported during my time at NOAA were investigated, fixed and their impacts reported.

      4. ‘The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified’

      The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto. This provenance satisfied both Science and the reviewers of Karl et al. It applied a known method (used operationally) to a known set of improved data holdings (published and approved).

      5. [the SST increase] ‘was achieved by dubious means’

      The fact that SST measurements from ships and buoys disagree with buoys cooler on average is well established in the literature. See IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 SST section for a selection of references by a range of groups all confirming this finding. ERSSTv4 is an anomaly product. What matters for an anomaly product is relative homogeneity of sources and not absolute precision. Whether the ships are matched to buoys or buoys matched to ships will not affect the trend. What will affect the trend is doing so (v4) or not (v3b). It would be perverse to know of a data issue and not correct for it in constructing a long-term climate data record.

      6. ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]’

      v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.

      7. ‘they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously seperate sets of records’

      Karl et al used as the land basis the ISTI databank. This databank combined in excess of 50 unique underlying sources into an amalgamated set of holdings. The code used to perform the merge was publically available, the method published, and internally approved. This statement therefore is demonstrably false.

      There are many other aspects of the piece that I disagree with. Having worked with the NOAA NCEI team involved in land and SST data analysis I can only say that the accusations in the piece do not square one iota with the robust integrity I see in the work and discussions that I have been involved in with them for over a decade.

  • Bart_R

    Does it occur to anyone how odd the coincidence that John Bates appears to be both the ‘whistleblower’ and a Denizen of Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc.?

    I know Zeke’s written there, and I’ve been a denizen, so I’m not going to suggest that Dr. Curry’s salon is a mire for deniers. Well, yes, I’ve just done that by implication, sure, but I’m not going to flat out say it.

    Just how much of NOAA is riddled with people who interfere with science for some other agenda?

    • Ceist Celt

      Is it a coincidence that Lamar Smith head of the House Committee of Science has a full Hearing scheduled for Feb 7 called “Making the EPA Great Again” and was one of the first to tweet a link to the Daily Mail trash piece using it as ‘confirmation’ of his false claims against NOAA scientists?

      https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-making-epa-great-again

      The Democrats were only allowed to invite one guest speaker (Repubs 3). THey invited Rush Holt CEO of AAAS who publish the Journal “Science”.

      I and hopefully others tweeted a link to Zeke’s debunking article (and others) to @RushHolt so he’s fully prepared for Lamar Smith’s dishonest unethical shenannigans.

    • Ceist Celt

      Is it a coincidence that Judith Curry appears to be the only ‘scientist’ that the House Committee on Science and Lamar Smith follow on the @HouseScience Twitter account?

      https://twitter.com/HouseScience/following

      Or that @HouseScience tweeted links to the David Rose piece 6 times? First tweet on Feb 4?

      Or that the House Committee on Science has a full Hearing scheduled for Feb 7 called “Making the EPA Great Again”?

      https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-making-epa-great-again

      • Rick Kooi

        and though the committee is manned by DENIERS….Dr. Curry is not a Denier…she has some skeptical views…

        • Ceist Celt

          So she’s just a conduit for deniers?

    • jmac
    • Steven Sullivan

      Speaking of coincidences…
      ‘There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.” — https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

  • mike desjardins

    this article state:
    NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records .
    Dr Bates state the opposite
    :an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships.
    someone is out right lying here

    • libdevil

      It appears that Bates (or Rose, the author of the Daily Mail article) was using a bit of a trick. What you quote isn’t about weighting, it’s about choosing an arbitrary baseline. Buoy and ship readings have a different baseline, and so to compare them you pick one or the other (or if you’re feeling particularly random some other number) and adjust everything to that new base. Now you can compare them. But what matters isn’t the base, it’s how much the reading differs from the base over time. You can then weight the calculation of the average of those difference readings to favor the more reliable buoy data, regardless of whether you chose the buoy baseline, the ship baseline, or some third baseline as your starting point.

    • Rick Kooi

      The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was NOT involved in any aspect of the work.

      NOAA’s process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups.

      John Bates NEVER participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely.

      This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes)
      mis-representation of the processes that actually occured.

      In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

      I will go through a small selection of these in the order they appear in the piece:

      1. ‘Insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minised documentation’

      Dr. Tom Karl was not personally involved at any stage of ERSSTv4 development, the ISTI databank development or the work on GHCN algorithm during my time at NOAA NCEI. At no point was any pressure bought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices. It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout. The GHCN homogenisation algorithm is fully available to the public and bug fixes documented. The ISTI databank has been led by NOAA NCEI but involved the work of many international scientists. The databank involves full provenance of all data and all processes and code are fully documented. The paper describing the databank was held by the journal for almost a year (accepted October 2013, published September 2014) to allow the additional NOAA internal review processes to complete. The ERSSTv4 analysis also has been published in no fewer than three papers. It also went through internal review and approval processes including a public beta release prior to its release which occurred prior to Karl et al., 2015.

      2. ‘NOAA has now decided the sea dataset will have to be replaced and revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming’

      While a new version of ERSST is forthcoming the reasoning is incorrect here. The new version arises because NOAA and all other centres looking at SST records are continuously looking to develop and refine their datasets. The ERSSTv4 development completed in 2013 so the new version reflects over 3 years of continued development and refinement. All datasets I have ever worked upon have undergone version increments. Measuring in the environment is a tough proposition – its not a repeatable lab experiment – and measurements were never made for climate. It is important that we continue to strive for better understanding and the best possible analyses of the imperfect measurements. That means being open to new, improved, analyses. The ERSSTv4 analysis was a demonstrable improvement on the prior version and the same shall be true in going to the next version once it also has cleared both peer-review and the NOAA internal process review checks (as its predecessor did).

      3. ‘The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devestating bugs in its software that rendered its findings unstable’ (also returned to later in the piece to which same response applies)

      The land data homogenisation software is publically available (although I understand a refactored and more user friendly version shall appear with GHCNv4) and all known bugs have been identified and their impacts documented. There is a degree of flutter in daily updates. But this does not arise from software issues (running the software multiple times on a static data source on the same computer yields bit repeatability). Rather it reflects the impacts of data additions as the algorithm homogenises all stations to look like the most recent segment. The PHA algorithm has been used by several other groups outside NOAA who did not find any devestating bugs. Any bugs reported during my time at NOAA were investigated, fixed and their impacts reported.

      4. ‘The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified’

      The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto. This provenance satisfied both Science and the reviewers of Karl et al. It applied a known method (used operationally) to a known set of improved data holdings (published and approved).

      5. [the SST increase] ‘was achieved by dubious means’

      The fact that SST measurements from ships and buoys disagree with buoys cooler on average is well established in the literature. See IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 SST section for a selection of references by a range of groups all confirming this finding. ERSSTv4 is an anomaly product. What matters for an anomaly product is relative homogeneity of sources and not absolute precision. Whether the ships are matched to buoys or buoys matched to ships will not affect the trend. What will affect the trend is doing so (v4) or not (v3b). It would be perverse to know of a data issue and not correct for it in constructing a long-term climate data record.

      6. ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]’

      v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.

      7. ‘they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously seperate sets of records’

      Karl et al used as the land basis the ISTI databank. This databank combined in excess of 50 unique underlying sources into an amalgamated set of holdings. The code used to perform the merge was publically available, the method published, and internally approved. This statement therefore is demonstrably false.

      There are many other aspects of the piece that I disagree with. Having worked with the NOAA NCEI team involved in land and SST data analysis I can only say that the accusations in the piece do not square one iota with the robust integrity I see in the work and discussions that I have been involved in with them for over a decade.

  • John Beech

    I don’t care about them using a different adjustment for the data. I believe the temperature data. What I don’t believe is that man is the root cause. Why not? Simply because we also have data (both antarctic ice cores and ocean sediment cores) showing both CO2 and atmospheric temperatures have been higher and lower. This, during periods of time when mankind couldn’t possibly have been the root cause. Moreover, we have data showing ocean levels have varied widely – and once again – mankind wasn’t to blame. Yet today we have an obsession with blaming mankind . . . leaving me wondering, where’s the proof? Show me that and I’ll be aboard 100%. Until them, it’s voodoo science farting away our money to the sole benefit of climate scientists shouting the sky is falling. In any case, I can think of several advantages to global warming, which are somehow never discussed. To wit, extending the growing season of northern latitudes, increased CO2 advantages plant growth and farm production, a possible passage through the arctic for shipping, the increased availability to make productive use of land in norther latitudes, e.g. Greenland, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, as well as better climate for Finland Sweden, Norway, as well as the Baltics and the rest of northern Europe. Against this we have sea level rises, that we can deal with with widely practiced engineering, e.g. dikes and pumps.

    • Jamie Wrench

      Isotopes, dear boy. Man made CO2 has its own ‘fingerprint’ that is different from that from, say, volcanoes. All very interesting to research, but voodoo? Nah.

      • Bart_R

        Technically, the isotopes of carbon from volcanoes are pretty similar to any other fossil isotopes, though the directly measured volume of CO2 due volcanoes is so low as to represent little more than a rounding error in total fossil CO2 emitted in a year, but the gist of your point is true: Rubino et al (2013) show that in effect only fossil CO2 has contributed to the post Industrial Revolution CO2 spike.

        There are other measures that also confirm the fossil nature of the problem. This is good news for renewable biomass energy, in that likely just burning carbon already on the surface doesn’t contribute to the problem (though it would be better to use pyrolysis to create biochar to sequester CO2 out of air as a useful soil amendment and use only the volatiles — producer gas and creosote — as biofuel).

        • Rick Kooi

          Burned Fossil Fuels have a unique isotope.
          …”pretty Similar” doesn’t quite cut it.

          Humans pump out 135 times more CO2 than all of the volcanoes on earth combined….EACH YEAR!

          • Bart_R

            You are correct, 135 times more CO2 from humans than volcanoes is a good approximation, so volcano fossil carbon just doesn’t matter.

            However, Rubino et al (2013) and all other major studies do use relative C13 ratio, due plant preference having an influence on surface vs fossil carbon, and so can’t tell volcano from human CO2 very well. There is some oxygen isotope work done, but that’s not really very helpful in distinguishing volcano from human source either.

            The really reliable inventories dating back to Hogbom and Plass, however, tell us all we need know: it’s human fossil waste dumping that is the source of the spike.

    • Abel Adamski

      Along with all that comes increasingly erratic and extreme weather events and increasingly powerful storms and hurricanes, plus greatly increased activity by insects and the little things, plus changes in the nutritional qualities of common agricultural food products.
      Plus the shifting of the weight on the surface of our spinning ball will lead to increased tectonic activity giving us the occasional volcanic winter for a couple of years at a time until the Earth rapidly warms back up again due to the high CO2.

      I do not think you comprehend all the interacting facets involved and their likely contribution due to change of state

    • Bart_R

      “Your honor, people have always died. Therefore you cannot find my client guilty of murder, despite tens of thousands of witnesses and articles of physical evidence direct and circumstantial, including the smoking gun.”

      Over long enough timescales, the Faint Young Sun Paradox skews temperatures. Removing the very small (but over a huge time period) influence of the change in overall solar output still leaves some significant differences in global temperature correlated to CO2 level, but explains most of the delta.

      Continents drift over very long time periods. Removing that influence still leaves a few significant differences in the global-temperature-CO2 correlation, over very long time periods, but not very much.

      Episodes of intense volcanism, giant meteor strikes, and the like when removed from the record leave a clearer picture of correlation of CO2 and global temperature.

      Milankovitch Cycles due orbital changes pretty much explain the bulk of the remaining differences seen in ice cores.

      It’s CO2 that most exactly fits all observations given least assumptions, exceptions or omissions.

      As for the proof? Google Scholar shows tens of thousands of hits on search terms like “CO2 Climate” every year more and more. There’s a mountain of proof far in excess of the evidence for gravity waves, the Higgs Boson, extrasolar planets, and black holes combined. Argumentum ad Ignoratio does not cut it.

      Nor can we call any outcome an ‘advantage’ when it is inflicted against the will of the recipients, any more than can you ‘advantage’ a stranger from behind against their will. That’s just assault.

      Minimizing the cost of losing whole cities to make excuses for needless fossil waste dumping?

      That’s a demented level of indifference amounting to criminal negligence.

      • John Beech

        Eloquent, but with respect to proof you cite hits on Google Scholar – seriously? Are you a young man? Me? Not so much so. In fact, whilst taking a degree in the 1970s (engineering versus journalism or literature), headlines were all about global cooling. Or put another way, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

        • Bart_R

          Why all the snarl, John?

          I do indeed cite hits on Google Scholar in response to your LOGICAL FALLACY OF ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIO!

          If you had taken the bare minimum standard of care in informing yourself, then it would take only one citation of those tens of thousands to prove to yourself you could not make an honest argument of lack of proof.

          I’ll match my degrees against your degree any day, except Argumentum ad Verecundiam is also a logical fallacy.

          If all you have to make your case is logical fallacy, you may wish to show the due diligence to revisit your premises.

          And there you go, changing your story when confronted with facts and reason, heading for a Gish Gallop of infinite regress. That there was a headline in 1972 about something doesn’t prove or disprove anything. We’ve made remarkable progress in genetics since the 1970’s, yet headlines about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster do not disprove DNA.

          Seriously, if you’re going to cite your engineering credential, are you willing to put up your professional standing, your career and all the good you’ve done, to defend indefensible conduct by politicians and lobbyists?

          Because it sounds like you are saying just that. Though I imagine you’re retired now, so losing your profession wouldn’t really affect you much, so what of value would you stake to defend your very wrong and morally questionable stance?

          • John Beech

            Have some coffee, then reflect on what you wrote regarding snarling.

            My point is a) the opposing viewpoint gets short shrift and b) facts are inconvenient because nobody has proved mankind is the root cause. Meanwhile, why is there little mention of the fact Yellowstone emits an estimated 45,000 tons of carbon dioxide daily? Doesn’t this add up, too?

            Do we have climate change? Sure! Is it due to mankind? Hmmm, there’s
            insufficient data to support this position. Remember, projections exist
            for sea level rises of about 10-20 feet by the end of the century and
            the claim is it’s because of man’s influence on the climate. Thing is,
            during the last 20,000 years we’ve had a sea level rise of about 400′.
            You want data? There’s your data.

            My advice? Read, digest, maybe learn from it and then refrain from a
            scorning attitude because there’s no room for it in the discussion.
            Simply put, it alienates those who are not fully informed. Last thing,
            eyeball this brief video (less than 5 minutes) is presented by one of
            the founders of Greenpeace and is in regard to climate change. I believe
            it will help everyone become better informed. http://tinyurl.com/hrxastm

            And please, don’t shoot the messenger because you may say he’s bought and paid for by the oil industry, but is what he says any less true? That brings me to my final point, the game has devolved to sniping at credentials – even you engage in it. But credentials aren’t the whole story. Here’s an interesting piece of work (dating back a couple years but it’s still worth reading). http://tinyurl.com/gtv2kkf

          • Bart_R

            A video from PR flack, lobbyist Patrick Moore?

            This Patrick Moore?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMnYIYHSiQ8

            I feel like I’m being Rick-Rolled with your tinyurl landmines.

            Like your link to WUWT, John.

            I don’t give them my slim web traffic, having long ago shaken the dust of that notorious den of slanderers and prevaricators from my sandals.

            That said, how can you argue a), when WUWT exists and has such enormous web traffic; hardly anyone in the English-speaking world is unaware of the messaging of climate change deniers.

            And how can you argue b), when the proof of human caused climate change has more evidence than pretty much any other current finding of science, dating back six decades to H. H. Lamb, and substantiated on average dozens of times a day with new peer-reviewed published papers on the subject?

            It can’t be because you’ve read and addressed my points above; you don’t acknowledge them, you don’t address them, you don’t agree to agreeable ones or dispute on their own merits the ones you disagree with, but merely you Ad Hominem about coffee and red herring about the puny contributions of Yellowstone and a broad-brush mischaracterization of well-explained sea level rise before the start of the Holocene Gish Gallopingly, introducing new cases without finishing discussion of present ones first. There is no goodwill in your approach, only deceptive practices.

            Why would I want advice from a deceiver?

            It’s pretty clear your intention is not clarity, but only to avoid and evade the solution. Your solution aversion is the real subject here, isn’t it?

          • Rick Kooi

            so which one of you have the bigger one?

          • Bart_R

            Thanks for your drivel-by one-liner contribution. In times like these, you’re a real asset to have along.

        • Steven Sullivan

          Do you even understand what Google Scholar *is*, old man?

  • Karl H

    These measurements seem very accurate, does anyone know the error rate for the equipment and what the operational conditions as well at the calibration schedules and techniques used?

    • John Beech

      The measure is of about 0.01°C whilst the margin of error is .1°C . . . or to put it into context, the referee calls the play dead 10 yards from the goal line and then moves the ball to within an inch of the opposing goal line and says that’s close enough.

      • Karl H

        actually I found the data it looks like the margin for error is about 2.5 degrees celsius 66% of the monitoring stations can only get down to 2 degrees 1.2 % are accurate to less than 1 degree 6.5 % are only accurate to 5 degrees.

        I would sure love to know the voodoo math involved in accurately speculating .1 degree.

        • Rick Kooi

          Kindly provide the legitimate source of your data???

        • Bart_R

          Suppose you were measuring the heights of children in classrooms around America, grade by grade, year over year.

          Children tend to squirm a lot. Their height isn’t really a stable measure. Being right within a half inch for any particular child in any particular grade is dubious.

          Still, decade by decade, statistics can show average heights shifting, to a precision of less than a tenth of an inch.

          How is that done?

          It’s not magic.

          It’s not bad math.

          It’s not even questionable metrology (the science of measurement).

          Careful population statistics can determine how likely it is for differences smaller than measurement error (or uncertainty) to reflect real differences.

          If you have enough classrooms; if the classrooms are each large enough; if methods are consistent enough over time, then it is possible for very small differences in averages of large numbers of children to reveal real trends in height.

          The same applies to baseball and global climate temperatures.

          It doesn’t take completing a four year degree in Statistics to understand this concept. But it does take at least thinking about it.

          A difference of one tenth of an inch between two individual children where measurement error is one half inch is not significant.

          A difference of one tenth of an inch between two populations of tens of thousands of children with that same one half inch measurement error likely is significant.

          Thanks for asking.

      • Rick Kooi

        Humans have raised world temps a little more than 1C….is that statistically significant?
        It has averaged, that Natural Cycles take about 10,000 years to raise temps world wide by that same 1C…..does that tell you how powerful Human CO2 Contributions to our atmosphere Are…..?

        We are pumping 135 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than ALL of the volcanos on Earth Combined….and we are doing that every year.

  • MaryTormey

    We should at least understand that nuclear power is not going to cool things down. We can use energy conversion of reflection of unwanted heat.

  • Steven Sullivan

    A detailed refutation of Bates’s claims about the process, by an indepedent scientist who worked with NOAA and co-authored all the relevant papers underlying Karl et al 2015.

    http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1

  • Ceist Celt
    • cunudiun

      I’m going to plagiarize that list!

      • Rick Kooi

        it is already a duplicate of the mail article…which Dr. BATES has DECLARED WRONG…. “He NEVER CLAIMED that the Science TEAM (Karl et.al.) MANIPULATED DATA or that they had Ever USED FLAWED DATA”

        Thus indicating, ONCE AGAIN, that ROSE and the Daily Mail are liars……a cheap political agenda.

  • Tongbei

    Funny to me that even the “fact checking” is a lie. It’s getting more and more amusing. No, the satellite data doesn’t confirm anything – except that there is a pause and that there is no appreciable warming. Too bad with the phony “scientists” promoting their agenda, but whatever. It’s not really going to matter if the politics can be shattered – hey I rhymed :).

    • Rick Kooi

      Dr Roy Spencer..the FATHER of the Global Warming Pause and Global Warming Hiatus…
      has finally published ALL of the RAW SATELLITE DATA since 1979…the 1st readings.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com

      scroll down to the graph and take a look at SCIENCE FACT !!

      • Bart_R

        Uhm.. No?

        LT is not raw data. LT, or TLT, is a synthetic signal picked out from noise of a previously merged set of signals from several satellites, generally with one primary at a time for a few years until its quality degrades too much to be of use as a core of the TLT processing.

        Altitudes unknown or not accounted for with these satellites on top of propagation of errors through TLT means that until just a few weeks ago the uncertainty in satellite temperatures could have been as high as a range of 2 degrees C.

        Using satellite data to infill lapses in the surface record on short spans is all well and good; using satellite data to attempt to track global warming is simple folly.

        • Rick Kooi

          WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO ?
          all the data and references above and this is all you got????

          • Bart_R

            Got? Not got?

            The fact that even Roy Spencer can’t fully hide warming and the lack of pause is very clear from the link you provided.

            I’m supporting your point.

            I merely nitpick about tiny technical details. Your claims are sound. Some of your wording would grate on some people, but pretty much all of my wording grates on most people, so.

        • Dan Haynes

          Maybe you should tell that to Spencer, the anti-science wack job who claims that it can be used to track global warming?

          https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

          “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount 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… 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.”

          Note the lead authors list includes Christy, who along with Spencer maintains the data.

          Make up your mind.

          • Bart_R

            You appear to be reacting to the first sentence of my reply, without reading the rest.

            I’ve corresponded with Roy and John in various blog threads once or twice. They’re no better readers when it comes to admitting their mistakes, it appears, than you in this case.

            I was objecting only to the part of Rick’s remark that implied that Spencer’s LT was raw satellite data, much less all the raw satellite data, or that looking at raw satellite data was very useful for anything. Rick’s points otherwise are generally sound.

            Satellite raw data is incomprehensibly noisy. Deriving signal from it is a remarkable feat. No shame to Roy and John for getting it so very wrong for so very, very long. That they’ve been caught repeatedly covering up their mistakes and problems?

            That’s shameful. RSS has a much more honest track record, though they too have the simple problem that satellite temperature data has simply not had very good quality.

            The latest efforts by the greater scientific community to extract satellite temperature from the mess its in due to decades of bible-thumping incompetence seem to be making headway.

            But for now, surface temperature datasets are more reliable.

          • Dan Haynes

            Roy Spencer is a dogmatic religious fundamentalist who declares at the outset that AGW cannot happen. So anything (including errors) with his name on it *must* be considered questionable both in integrity and intent.

            “Using satellite data to attempt to track global warming is simple folly.”

            That’s not true. It’s a data source that must not contradict the other data or models. How else would we know about things like the stratosphere cooling? If all we had were surface temperature records, how would we know warming isn’t coming from external sources?

            If you’re saying using it as the only method of tracking is folly, yeah, but doing that would be about as anti-science as it gets.

          • Bart_R

            Roy and John are indeed signatories of the End-of-Days Cornwall Alliance cult’s Declaration on denial of science, a document indicating bias in clear terms.

            Yes, I am saying using satellite as the only method to track temperature would be folly, as would incautious inference drawn from satellite to attempt to obscure or indict other, more reliable, sources.

            For some uses, we may attempt to winnow out from satellite what supplemental information we can. That’s great, so far as it is possible to make sense of past problematic observations from unreliable and noisy instruments.

            Going forward, new efforts are being made to better the data delivered. But from 1979-2016? That data is very poor quality and has the misfortune of being passed through the hands of religious extremists with a declared bias.

      • A genuine question that’s rarely mentioned, the media simply point to man-made causes. How about the natural causes? How about if our sun is increasing its activities (solar flare and others)? When I read about the Carbon Tax, then I realized that the huge money is behind the Global Warming push, now it’s called Climate Change to accommodate both up & down in temperature 🙂

        Global Warming: Natural or Manmade? | Roy Spencer, PhD

        Believe it or not, VERY LITTLE research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

        • Rick Kooi

          PROVING you are historically vacuous …
          .
          The 1st century of research was right on determining if this was a natural event.
          THE FACT THAT GLOBAL WARMING was SO POWERFUL
          that it brought 1 of EARTH’S most powerful natural cycles
          …the drift into the next predicted ICE AGE
          …TO A SCREEEEETCHING HALT
          …..
          should worry you as it worries legitimate science.
          .
          We have lived thru many solar minimums…and temperatures continue to rise…level off once in a while and then rise in earnest.

          Your worry about a carbon tax
          (which members of both parties
          GUARANTEED would be revenue neutral)

          Oh and by the way
          …if you are SO worried about MONEY
          .
          .TRY removing ALL SUBSIDIES, ALL SUPPORTS
          AND ALL THOSE UNIQUE TAX BREAKS & TAX DEFERRALS
          …FROM PROFITABLE FOSSIL FUELS (over $1 TRILLION last year)
          and Solar & WIND..( 38 Billion )
          .
          Because, dear,
          ALL new SOLAR & WIND electric generation plants are producing electricity CHEAPER than the DIRTIEST COAL ELECTRIC PLANT .
          *
          200+- years of US & German & Dutch records
          …confirmed by Russian, Japanese, & Chinese Records
          Here are the hottest years on record:
          HOLD THE PRESSES!
          2016 is now the NEW HOLDER OF THE HOTTEST YEAR on record
          1. 2015 + 0.89
          2. 2014 + 0.74
          3. 2010 + 0.70
          4. 2013 + 0.66
          5. 2005 + 0.65
          6. 2009 + 0.63
          7. 1998 + 0.63
          8. 2012 + 0.61
          9. 2006 + 0.61
          10. 2003 + 0.61
          .
          OF ALL TEMPERATURE RECORDS SET LAST YEAR…
          98% were HIGH TEMPERATURE RECORDS
          Just 2% were COLD TEMPERATURE RECORDS
          .
          16 of the 17 Warmest Record WORLD Annual Temps have occurred since 2000.
          .
          2016 U.S. temperatures compared to normal. (NOAA)
          Every single state and every single city in the Lower 48 states
          was warmer than normal in 2016.
          .
          The U.S. has had 20 straight warmer-than-normal years &
          is warming at the rate of 0.15+ degrees per decade.
          The last 20 Years have been the WARMEST
          20 Year Period in RECORDED history.
          .
          11 Science Research teams from 10 different Nations, have attempted to disprove the thesis, that this period has been the WARMEST 20 Year in recorded history…
          .
          (1000’s& 1000’s) of Ice Cores & soil cores, tree rings & fossilized tree rings, stalagmites, fossils, CONFIRM !
          .
          The Conclusion is that this 20 year period is CLEARLY
          THE HOTTEST 20 Years in thousands of years !
          ** No Record cold years since 1909 !
          .
          London’s THAMES river use to freeze-over every 30 or 40 years
          … BUT hasn’t frozen since 1814!
          **
          If everything is SO NORMAL, wouldn’t you think we would have half of those years as record cold years??
          …or
          the River Thames would freeze a few times
          …or
          once or twice??
          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t
          2.
          The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago.
          The peak post-ice-age temperatures occurred about 7,000 years ago,
          during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
          .
          We’ve been headed back into an ice age for the last 7,000 years
          And
          temperatures world wide have been falling for nearly 1000 years,
          * noticeably cooling .
          *
          But that trend back to another ice age ended abruptly 200-250 years
          *
          * IN PERFECT SYNC with the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION,
          the increase in the world’s population all wanting to be warm.
          ..Chopped & burned tens of millions of trees,
          dug up & BURNED hundreds of millions…& soon tens of billions of tons of COAL !
          (( PRIOR centuries, HAVE NOW BEEN renamed “THE LITTLE ICE AGE” ))
          * Current temperatures are now well above the Holocene peak.
          .
          .Warmer than the Medieval Warming, by FAR.
          .
          .Far Warmer than the Roman Warming
          …..and neither of those events were global events
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

          3.* The real problem is the fact that temperatures are rising
          & are rising faster than life can adapt.
          *
          The Permian Extinction was the worst mass extinction in the history of the Earth.
          It was caused by a rapid rise in temperature that …
          >>> wiped out 96% marine species & 76% of land species. <<> is 1 degree in under 100 years. <>> WHICH IS THE PRIMARY SIGNATURE OF GLOBAL WARMING <<>>>>>>>>>>>(no natural cycle could do that!)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> (no natural cycle could to that)
          · That winter temperatures would warm faster than more than summer temperatures.
          · Polar amplification
          (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).!)
          (but no one ventured to say that MID WINTER,
          near the N. Pole, “with 24 Hrs. of no sun”,
          that temps would be above FREEZING
          as they were 2 & 3 weeks ago and AS THEY WERE 2015!!)
          .
          · That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. (clearly a fact)
          · The magnitude (0.3 K) & duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
          · They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
          · They predicted a trend significantly different & differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
          · The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
          · The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
          · The expansion of the Hadley cells.
          · The poleward movement of storm tracks.
          · The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
          · The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
          · The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
          · That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
          Model Performace on Various http://www.sciencemuseum.org.u
          https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publ
          https://web.archive.org/web/20
          ****
          http://iopscience.iop.org/arti
          ****
          Here’s a recent graph of global temperature from 1880-2016, do you spot a trend?
          http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
          Graph of Arctic sea ice over the last 1,450 years.
          http://static.skepticalscience
          It doesn’t include the last decade, if you tried to put recent years on there it would blow off the bottom of the chart a long ways.
          Graph of global sea ice, red line at the bottom is 2016.
          https://sites.google.com/site/
          Antarctica and Greenland have both lost overall mass at about 120 gigatons of ice per year. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/s
          GOOGLE NSIDC for 2016 ice level records

        • Dan Haynes

          Oh, that’;s right, you’re the greatest scientific genius since Einstein. Only you and a handful of other global conspiracy wack jobs would ever think “Gee, maybe it’s natural warming?”

          How arrogant can you possibly get? That is a genuine question and a necessary one because the only way that climate scientists, scientists in general, graduate students, literate lay people, scientific journal editors, investigative journalists worldwide could *ALL* be so completely f’n stupid as to never consider “Gee could it be natural?” is if they’re all f’n morons and you’re the only person on earth left with a functioning brain.

          Of course you did proceed to make that question a rhetorical one rather than a necessary one by then proceeding to link to Spencer, one of the rare cases where a university should be able to retract a science degree.

          I’m pretty certain that you know it, but for those readers who don’t know, Roy Spencer is a religious fundamentalist lunatic, one of the signers of the Cornwall Alliance Declaration on global warming that states explicitly that runaway global warming *cannot* happen because his gods wouldn’t let it, and that any global warming *cannot* be harmful because his gods would not allow it to be harmful

          Think I’m joking?

          http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming-2/

          “WHAT WE BELIEVE

          We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
          design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
          robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
          suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate
          system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural
          cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

          “WHAT WE DENY

          We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable
          products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is
          vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in
          atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor
          abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
          contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”

          In other words, Roy Spencer has declared himself to not only be biased, but to be dogmatically biased such that *NO* evidence anyone could ever produce would ever convince him. Just like his followers.

          Roy Spencer signed that declaration (and other fundamentalist anti-science fatwahs) which means any of the unpublished, non-peer reviewed *bullshit* dogmatic religious claims can be pitched right out with the leavings of the cat box.

          It also means that folks shilling the links to Spencers anti-science blog are pretending that somehow for 50 years everyone on the planet except a tiny handful of right-wing nutcases have all gotten all the climate science completely and absolutely wrong.

          Notice two things consistent in the anti-science wack jobs claims: They’ll claim “what if it’s natural” but they will NEVER state clearly what specific natural driver has not already been taken into account, and as usual, they will NEVER get off their ass and publish an alternative hypothesis that isn’t contradicted by the existing evidence _and_ that makes a new prediction that the AGW theory does not.

          If there were any evidence of natural causation, someone would have published it in a reputable journal for peer review by now and collected all the relevant Nobel prizes for being able to see problems that have eluded the global scientific community for 50+ years.

          What are the odds? What would William of Ockham say? Global incompetence of the scientific community? Or a handful of attention whores hawking global conspiracy websites?

    • Rick Kooi

      Dr. BATES was interviewed yesterday and strenuously denied that he accused his fellow scientists of Manipulating DATA or of USING FLAWED DATA.

      • Tongbei

        Proof?

        Anyway, with the sheer quantity of evidence showing rampant falsifications of earth-based temperature stations, IPCC-gate, the fact that all the rss data showed an 18-year pause (before the manipulating known widely to have been conducted at NASA)… Global Warming is religion… clearly. There is no evidence of any thing to worry about. Nothing. Polar bears are doing fine – increasing in number. Discussions of their fate due to melting polar ice is vacuous and stupid. It just goes on. Just think what you brainwashed employees of the church of science (as opposed to the actual scientists) have done to damage the real issue of environmentalism by propping up this vacuous lie.

        • Rick Kooi

          NICE LIST OF TALKING POINTS….which is not proof…..
          The nonsense about ‘earth-based temperature stations”
          mentioned thousands of times about being based next to runways, and downtown cities etc…..
          THERE was ONE (1) source for that crap……25+ years ago at a IPCC committee meeting….
          Skeptical Science invitees stood up and disrupted the meeting making the allegations that 80%+ of the 2000 stations were corrupted by placement ISSUES….they claimed were purposely positioned to reflect higher temps

          THEY were challenged to provide verification that these dissidents had visited and studied the 2000 stations….

          NOTHING was offered…offered time to get passports etc….they refused.

          Finally data from 15 or so sites was deleted from all of the other data sets.. and the computers were run again…. Removing the Challenged sites and all of there data…….actually raised the annual temps….by a tiny tiny fraction of a degree….

          The skeptics finally left after the after noon break……

          2 weeks late, Heartland published a REPORT and over 1000 press releases….declaring how the IPCC committee HAD AGREED TO MONIPULATE/RIG the data to support a tiny tiny increase in temperatures around the world.
          **********SO YES, DEAR BOY, having seen these BS reports…I am asking for proof…….and you are the 30 or 40 th person I have asked…and I am still waiting…….

          Been thru back ground checking such reports on BREITBART & DAILY CALLER & WATTSUP & WORDPRESS…..and found a giant circle jerk of lies and distortions…and one quoting the other quoting the other and back to the start….

        • DoRightThing
    • Dan Haynes

      Well the satellite data showed that the stratosphere is cooling as expected if GHGs are

      warming the lower atmosphere and that Spencer and Christie are so concerned about the accuracy of their data it took them what, like 8 or 10 years to finally admit their mistakes and correct the known errors in their methods?

      “except that there is a pause”

      Really? And there’s a global conspiracy, climate scientists from Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Israel, Spain, Italy, France, Pakistan, Greece, Chile, Iceland, Korea, Japan and every other country they come from are all unwilling or unable to make themselves instantly the most famous scientist in the world by publishing a paper containing the brilliant “proofs” of the internet attention whores?

      Why doesn’t Roy Spencer get off his ass and publish a paper? Why doesn’t Mclean or Curry or any of the other deniers shut the fuck up for long enough to publish a paper that would show they’re the greatest scientific minds of the age?

      Oh, that’s right, your global conspiracy claim again. Remind me again, why is it that no one at any of these 197 organizations will publish your claims?

      http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

      Why doesn’t any graduate student who wants to instantly jump start their career publish your brilliant insights into science that you can’t even describe, let alone understand?

      Why do the notoriously competitive scientific journals always looking to raise or maintain their impact factor, why do they refuse to publish papers that challenge the scientific consensus?

      Tear your dress a little more dear, a little more swoon in the faint. Back of your hand against your forehead and swoon onto the couch in 3…2…1…

  • tttt

    Liberals are like Transgenders, they suspend reality and believe something that isn’t… is.

    I’m a girl, says the 47 year old, 6″4 hairy armed man with an 8 incher… because I “feel” like a girly!

    The world is warming, says the libtard,,,even though all the models fails to show this, even though people who DO THIS FOR A LIVING come out and admit it’s all political…

    • Rick Kooi

      Even the Rudimentary Models used in the 1965 Research Report on Global Warming present to the President of the USA….were REMARKABLE SPOT on ACCURATE !
      *
      You read in ideological sites, like Breitbart & DAILY CALLER…about 1 here and 1 there that they describe as failure …. there are hundreds of models used daily around the world…provide keen insight into Global Warming and resulting climate changes….but all YOU HEAR about are preliminary results which Daily Caller and the like, distort by calling them failures.
      *
      MANY CENTURIES OF FALLING WORLD TEMPERATURES, during which time,
      a new Ice Age was expected.
      but then,
      in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s, came the sudden, unpredicted end of what has NOW been renamed the LITTLE ICE AGE.

      A Natural Cyclical slide into a NEW ICE AGE overpowered by:
      ….& In sync with the Industrial Revolution & mankind’s dramatic increased use of Carbon Fuels for energy & warmth, pumping TOXIC Green House Gases into our atmosphere.
      *
      In response:
      The Japanese launched a satellite, decades ago, reported a detailed record of
      A. Incoming Solar Short Wave Radiation/Energy
      (unaffected by Green House gases).
      B. Escaping Long Wave Infra Red Heat Energy
      (which proved to be seriously affected by Green House gases)

      Infra Red Emission from Earth to Space were seriously restricted in the Wave Lengths of Green House gases:
      CO2, Methane, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide, CFC s, water vapor.
      *
      *AS Greenhouse Gases Increase,
      *..In the Exact Same Wave Lengths of Co2 & other Green House Gases,
      Escaping Infra Red Heat Radiation is DECREASING….Stay in our Earth System.
      Resulting in Temperatures > RISING < on earth.
      .
      EVERY satellite system indicates that temps rising !
      .
      (Because Infra Red Radiation unable to escape our earth system by GH gases
      ..the Stratosphere (next layer up) is COOLING !
      ..(less infra red heat energy to warm it)
      ((there is NO natural cycle which accounts for this ))
      .
      EVERY Digital Ground Weather (2100 NOAA & NASA)(tens of thousands private stations) measure rising temperatures.
      EVERY ONE !
      .
      EVERY Digital Ocean buoy & Argo measures rising temps!
      EVERY ONE!

      The Arctic :
      Satellite Record LOW ICE LEVEL in 2016 ! …which, sadly, surpassed the Record Low Ice LEVEL set in 2015
      Antarctica :
      Satellite Record LOW ICE LEVEL in 2016 …and just announced a record low ice level for ANTARCTICA
      source: National Snow & Ice Data Center, December 2016
      .
      1910 Glacier National Park became a national park to protect 150 Pristine Glaciers.
      150 pristine mountain glaciers when I visited in 1958.
      only 25 GLACIERS REMAIN in Montana's Glacier National TODAY.

      ((( Skeptics/deniers were predicting us to be knee deep in a new ice age by 2030. )))

      Asian Media are in near panic mode, as their populations are able to watch with the naked eye, as Snow Packs and Glaciers visibly recede, year by year.

      THOSE SNOW PACKS & GLACIERS are their primary source of water for drinking & irrigating.
      *******
      The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
      Sea level rise :
      Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
      The rate of sea level rise in the last decade, however, has nearly DOUBLE
      that of the last century Global sea level .
      .
      Global temperature rise :
      All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed dramatically since 1850 !

      Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s…..16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
      *
      Even though 2007-2009 witnessed a solar energy output decline (no sun spots) surface temperatures continue to increase.

      Warming oceans :
      The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969

      Shrinking ice sheets:
      The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show
      Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about
      152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. NSIDC declared that both the ARCTIC & Anarctica reached SATELLITE HISTORIC RECORD LOW ICE LEVELS 2016!

      *Declining Arctic sea ice :
      Both the extent & thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
      The Nationla Snow & Ice Data Center reports The Arctic broke its HISTORIC Satellite Low Ice Level in 2016, which broke the last Artic Low Ice Level set in 2015,
      and continues a 40++ year Decline in ice levels

      *Glacial retreat :
      Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

      The disappearance of nearly ALL of the 150 Pristine Glaciers in Montana's Glacier National Park since 1958 ! (((just 25 remain)))

      Extreme events :
      The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing significantly, while the number of record low temperature
      events has been decreasing, since 1950. …as has been verified, independently around the world.
      .
      ((There has been NO world cold temperature records since 1909))
      .
      As PROJECTED BY Rudimentatry Computer models since 1965.
      .
      (10 of the 15 BUSIEST hurricane seasons have occurred since 2000.
      (Flooding Rain events have Doubled)
      (Storm Events have doubled)
      (Storm Severity has nearly doubled)

      (The BIGGEST Hurricane Ever, occurred since 2000)
      (Heat Waves have doubled.)
      (Droughts have nearly doubled)
      (Square Miles of droughts have more than doubled)
      (3 SUPER Typhoons occurred on the Pacific, a 1st. & they appeared all at the same time)
      (The Strongest Hurricane ever recorded occurred in 2015)

      Ocean acidification :
      Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
      the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased
      by about 30 percent Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
      the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13
      This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide
      into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans.
      The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is
      increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

      Decreased snow cover :
      Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover
      in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades
      and that the snow is melting earlier Satellite observations reveal
      that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has
      decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.16

      References
      IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
      B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the
      thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
      Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-
      Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,”
      Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
      V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences
      in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,”
      Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
      B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic
      and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,”
      Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483. In the 1860s,
      physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse
      effect and suggested that slight changes in the
      atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations.
      In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius
      first speculated that changes in the levels of
      carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the
      surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
      National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions
      For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press,
      Washington, DC. Church, J. A. and N.J.
      White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise,
      Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
      The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded
      from the CSIRO website. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indi
      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/dhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist..
      . T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008,"
      Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
      v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18. I. Allison et.al.,
      The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science,
      UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea
      http://science.nasa.gov/headli
      01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm Levitus, et al,
      "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently
      revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36,
      L07608 (2009). L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,”
      in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes,
      U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis
      and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7 R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock,
      “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,”
      Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009 http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice….
      National Snow and Ice Data Center World Glacier Monitoring Service http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extre
      http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/shttp://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/s
      C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004),
      367-371 Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
      National Snow and Ice Data Center C. Derksen and R. Brown,
      "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period
      exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504 http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/so
      Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

      http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden

      **
      In science,
      there's only one thing better than empirical measurements
      made in the real world -and that is multiple independent measurements
      all pointing to the same result.

      There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human
      fingerprint in global warming:

      The human fingerprint
      in atmospheric carbon dioxide

      That rising carbon dioxide is caused by human CO2 emissions should be obvious
      when comparing CO2 levels to CO2 emissions:

      "Harries 2001 does look at the full infrared spectrum except for wavelengths less than 700nm
      (which happens to be where a large portion of the CO2 absorption occurs).

      The observed changes in the spectrum from 1970 to 2006 are consistent
      with theoretical expectations of greenhouse gases.

      As the atmosphere warms,
      more infrared HEAT is radiated toward space.
      BUT,
      less infra red radiation is actually escaping at CO2 & GHG wavelengths.

      **The net effect is that less total heat-radiation escapes out to space.
      More Heat Stays in our earth system.

      This is independently confirmed by surface measurements
      which find the net result is more long wave (IR heat) radiation
      returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006)

      ((both of these research studies are Peer Reviewed, Published
      & the result have been replicated around the world)).

      It's also confirmed by ocean heat measurements
      which find the oceans have been accumulating
      heat since 1950 (Murphy 2009)…"
      .

  • tttt

    The Church OF Global Warming cult members are right up there with Scientologists. Wacko birds.

    • Rick Kooi

      Poor Dr. Bates being misquoted into implying things he has denied for decades…
      Dr. Bates along with noted Skeptics Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. Judith Curry…have each and every one defended the integrity of the scientific method and the honest of researcher who have different opinions … they have denied that climate data from NOAA, NASA etc has been manipulated for nefarious reason…..

      ROSE is the Daily Mails Hit Man author…know for playing FAST & LOOSE with Facts….

      “….Victor Venema,
      climate scientist who studies climate variability for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), writes today:

      ” The [global warming] “pause” is based on bad statistics
      and cherry-picking a specific period, which is bad “science”.

      ” With good statistics, there is no evidence of any trend change.

      ” Rose gets some suggestive quotes from an apparently disgruntled retired NOAA employee. The quotes themselves seem to be likely inconsequential procedural complaints, the corresponding insinuations seem to come from Rose.

      ” I thought journalism had a rule that claims by a source need to be confirmed by at least a second source. I am missing any confirmation.

      … It sounds as if he made a set of procedures for his climate satellite data, which he really liked, and wanted other groups in NOAA to use it as well. Was frustrated when others did not prioritize enough updating their existing procedures to his.

      Each of the above scientists then proceeds to patiently and factually rebut Rose’s and Bates’ claims, point by point, graph by graph. I encourage you to check out the links to see what the debate is about.

  • Dan Haynes

    Wow. The depth of the dishonesty here is just mind boggling.

    Look at all the global conspiracy nutcases all claiming the data is faked…yet not a single one of them will get off their ass and challenge the paper(s) in the journals where they were published.

    Instant fame and fortune. Instant recognition as the most brilliant mind in modern history, a place in world history up there with Newton and Einstein, a huge salary at any corporation, university, or scientific institution they care to work at, finally setting the record straight by exposing the global conspiracy of scientists and science journals and investigative journalists and universities…it’s all right there just waiting for them.

    All they have to do is stop attention whoring on the internet and publish their testable alternative theory that fits the existing evidence and goes on to make a testable prediction that the current theory does not.

    It’s so simple. It’s *trivial*, money, fame, a place in world history. All they have to do is publish.

    So what do they do instead? Attention whoring on the internet. “Oh, those Australian scientists are colluding with the Italian scientists who are in cahoots with the Russian scientists who are co-conspirators of the Chinese scientists who signed a secret pact with Brazilian scientists who own the French scientific journals and prevent them from publishing any papers that contradict anything ever published by US scientists.”

    The Royal Society has been giving fairly accurate evaluations of science since Isaac Newton’s day but now they’re in cahoots with NASA, NOAA, AAAS, NCSE, MIT, IPCC, IASC, AMO, AMS…every single reputable organization on earth all conspiring to either publish bad science or to allow bad science to be published.

    What does William of Ockham say about this? A 50 year running global conspiracy involving millions of people spending billions of dollars out to make Republicans look like morons?

    Or a handful of weak minded clowns on the internet begging for attention by lying and denying?

    You want to know for sure they’re not skeptical? Ask them what *specific* evidence would convince them. What specific data or what specific analysis would scientists have to produce to convince them that human activity is the primary driving force behind the recent rapid global warming?

    The blatantly dishonest responses you’ll get to that simple question tells you everything you need to know about climate science deniers, biological evolution deniers, big-bang cosmology deniers, abiogenesis deniers, whack jobs claiming vaccines cause autism, UFO abduction claimants, astrologers and every other form of anti-reason and anti-science.

    If they can’t directly answer simple, innocuous and specific questions about their claims, then there is no global conspiracy, there is just another pathetic individual begging for attention on the internet.

    Oh, and someone please tell the morons *again* that global climate is measured over 30 years. Please. It’s so fantastically depressing to see people so simple minded that one begins to question exactly how far removed we are from our common ape ancestor.

    Trend and variation people. It’s really not that difficult to understand:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw

    Keep banging the rocks together guys. You’ll get there.

    • Nicholas Palmer

      Excellent comment, Dan. I use the same arguments sometimes plus I point out that the vast majority of the giant fossil fuel companies now accept mainstream climate science too, with clear statements on their corporate websites to that effect. Despite having more money than god to pay the best analysts on earth to investigate the claims of the denialists for any shred of validity, they went with the mainstream view, no doubt dearly wishing things would have been different in order to protect their enormous financial bottom lines. It’s a sort of “free market” proof of who’s telling the truth and who’s spreading fuzzbrained nonsense…

    • Rick Kooi

      EVEN DR. BATES and ROSE’s Claim all the evidence disappeared in a computer failure was a lie….2 reporters with a tech. expert have USED THE COMPUTER !
      ***
      “….Because of its direct attack on a talking point popular with climate change skeptics, the study has been a common target of those seeking to undermine climate science. In this latest round of controversy, the Daily Mail article cited a “whistleblower”

      (retired NOAA scientist John Bates) who came forward to reveal what he described as ethical lapses in the way that study’s data were selected and archived by its authors.

      The allegations made against Dr. Karl and his co-authors fall into three general groups:
      1) That the team unethically selected flawed data that was supportive of their cause.
      2) That they failed to archive their data as required by both NOAA and the journal Science.
      3) That they rushed through the required internal review process to get the paper published before the 2015 Paris Climate Summit.

      First,
      and most “astonishing,” were claims that the data used in Karl’s paper were manipulated to derive a specific result, according to Rose’s Daily Mail report:
      The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues
      — known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade
      — as stated in version 3
      — to 0.099C per decade …
      But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source — water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden — so affecting temperature readings.
      Here, Rose offered two implications. The first was that Karl’s methodology was intentionally opaque in order to hide the fact that it went against a well-known ship measurement bias. In reality, the entire methodology was spelled out in the paper, and the ship data correction Karl et al selected had previously been published. This correction, far from ignoring the differences between boat and buoy data, actually took into account the generally superior buoy data in its calculation:
      Several studies
      have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data. This is particularly important because much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15%.

      These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias.
      Recently, a new correction [Huang et al 2015] was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) data set version 4, which we used in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction that is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. […] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better-known instrument characteristics and automated sampling.

      Therefore,
      ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction.
      Conspicuously absent from Rose’s article was any mention of a 4 January 2017 study that critically investigated the choices referenced above, demonstrating that the record made by Karl et al tracked the buoy data and other modern sources of data more accurately than any other model. The lead author of that more recent study discussed those findings in response to the Daily Mail article:
      I recently led a team of researchers that evaluated NOAA’s updates to their ocean temperature record. In a paper published last month in the journal Science Advances, we compared the old NOAA record and the new NOAA record to independent instrumentally homogenous records created from buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats.

      Our results, as you can see in the chart below, show that the new NOAA record agrees quite well with all of these, while the old NOAA record shows much less warming.
      This was due to two factors: the old NOAA record spliced together warmer ship data with colder buoy data without accounting for the offset between the two; and the new NOAA record puts more weight on higher-quality buoy records and less weight on ship records (versus the old NOAA record which treated ships and buoys equally) …
      The fact that the new NOAA record [Karl et al 2015] is effectively identical with records constructed only from higher quality instruments (buoys, satellite radiometers, and Argo floats) strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.
      The second implication,
      that Karl et al intentionally selected data and corrections with the intent of exaggerating global warming, was a serious charge based only on Bates’ testimony.

      But in a 7 February 2016 interview with EE News, Bates explicitly stated that he did not mean to suggest that Karl et al had manipulated data:

      Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

      “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he said.
      With respect to the team’s use of this new correction, Rose reported that “Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.”
      However,
      Karl told us via e-mail that Bates’ only role in the paper was to organize the internal review process, during which time he says no such conversations regarding their use of ERSSTv4 ever took place:
      [There were] no discussions, nor emails to me. Dr. Bates was asked to coordinate the internal review of the paper (I am not sure who made the request) since this was normally handled by Tom Peterson, but he was one of the authors. The responsibility of the coordinator for the internal review is to identify an individual within the [National Centers for Environmental Information] who could review the paper and pass those comments back to the authors for their response. In our case, there were no comments by the reviewer.
      (Neither John Bates nor David Rose returned our requests for comments.)

    • Orellian Tay

      “Look at all the global conspiracy nutcases all claiming the data is faked”

      Ummm, to be strictly correct, all data is faked.

      “yet not a single one of them will get off their ass and challenge the paper(s) in the journals where they were published.”

      Fyfe et al, 2016

    • StephenWV

      LOL! See my posts above. As long as science is unable to scientifically mathematically understand and include the reactions to greenhouse gasses of the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event… the 100,000 year glacial cycle… they must and do ignore it. If GMT followed greenhouse gasses then all their model predictions would have come true. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN!

      Instead GMT continues to follow the changes of every climate change of the past million years or so and in particular, the past 400,000 years as my posted links (2) above illustrate.

  • Michael Goss

    “However, I rather suspect the same holds true for those who build simplistic computer models and attempt to make predictions.”

    If your understanding of climate science is that the entire basis of AGW rests on “simplistic computer models,” then you need a better understanding of climate science. Because your argument seems to be based on the idea that “we just don’t know.” We do. Just because you haven’t taken the time to understand how or why doesn’t change that fact.

    Isotopic analysis of CO2 (specifically, the 13C/12C ratio) is one example of how we know the source of the increased atmospheric CO2 (hint: it’s us). But it also follows logically from simple differential calculus–d[CO2]/dt = sources – sinks. Add to your sources (nobody would deny that we are responsible for the emission of billions of tons annually) without changing your sinks and you’ve got an anthropogenic increase in CO2.

    I would highly recommend reading the following, especially section 2.2.1.1.1
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

    Also, Tans 2009:
    http://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/22-4_tans.pdf

    A pertinent quote from the above:
    “The mass balance outlined above leaves no serious doubt that our own activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels, have caused the increase in CO2. There is additional supporting evidence from atmospheric observations of isotopic ratios of CO2. The 13C/12C ratio has declined in such a way that the source of CO2 must be of organic origin. The time history of the 14C/12C ratio shows, despite the large injection of 14CO2 due to nuclear weapons testing, that the source of CO2 must be at least ~ 20,000 years old. Furthermore, the spatial gradient of CO2 between Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the South Pole has steadily increased from 1957 to the present, which is consistent with a growing source that primarily resides in the Northern Hemisphere.”

    We climate scientists are not trying to fool people. We are not trying to “go with the consensus” to get funding. We are merely doing research. And we would appreciate if our research was not misquoted and misrepresented by those who haven’t taken the time to understand the scientific basis upon which our findings are founded.

  • Bart_R

    You have that wrong.

    The difference in the average of over 40,000 daily readings each with a margin of error of 0.1°C is some multiple of 0.01°C when comparing individual years, or 365 times 40,000 readings.

    While propagation of error in measurements is sometimes tricky stuff, there are numerical methods for telling how likely a difference of averages is to be significant based on the sizes of difference, number of readings, and margin of measurement error.

    In this case, the chances that 0.01°C is significant is well over 99.5%.

    And the proof you deny you’ve seen, from Law of Consequence, was published six decades ago by H. H. Lamb in the UK. Climate has states; states change due forcings, generally external; change in CO2 level is an external forcing of global climate; measurements demonstrate fossil waste dumping into air by human agency is raising CO2 level; measurements further show there is no larger forcing on climate time scales than the present rate of fossil waste dumping. There’s the argument. There’s tens of thousands of measurements proving the argument. You can stop claiming there is no proof anywhere.

  • Gavin Morrice

    Errata: *sneak peek.

  • aieldndn

    Would a slowing RATE of warming be consistent with Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

    Considering time frames and overall environmental impact how does a changing planetary equilibrium temperature compare to decreasing ocean and atmosphere O2 levels?

    Does Henry’s Gas Law require a proportional decrease in ocean O2 solution as atmosphere O2 levels decrease?

    Would this indicate that the atmosphere O2 concentration is being supported by the depletion of O2 in ocean solution?

    What will happen to the RATE of atmosphere de-oxygenation as the O2 fraction in ocean solute decreases?

    Is this a sustainable process?

    • Rick Kooi

      Did you wrench your arm patting yourself on your back trying to sound oh so intelligent.
      and
      by the way
      saying nothing on point !

  • Rick Kooi

    Bates was interviewed yesterday and DENIED that he ever Accused the Study’s Authors
    of manipulating DATA or USING Flawed Data.

    • Bart_R

      I imagine John Bates was very surprised after commenting on Curry’s blog and giving an interview to David Rose that anyone interpreted his claims to imply data manipulation or using flawed data. /sarc

      • Ceist Celt

        Yet he chose to engage with a contrarian blog inhabited by science deniers and a trashy tabloid and journo known for fake hysterical articles attacking climate science.

      • Rick Kooi

        I Imagine Dr. Bates was VERY SURPRISED THAT HIS COMMENTS ABOUT management and publication were so thoroughly DISTORTED by Dr. Curry and (well, he should have expected it from Rose, a serial distortionist) Rose.

        • Bart_R

          Yeah. Judith surprised me that way a few times before I got wise to her shenanigans and dropped her blog from my reading list. Nice lady; bad actor.

      • Rick Kooi

        “….7 February 2016 interview with EE News, Bates explicitly stated that he did not mean to suggest that Karl et al had manipulated data:

        Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol.

        He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

        “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he said.”

        TIMING?? months before the climate summit…this was rushed?

        • Bart_R

          I hear you.

          My own issues with Bates is how he’s misunderstood some of the most fundamental principles of data management. He appears to be wielding some sort of oddball ‘system’ as a weapon to attack people he has a private grudge against, and in the process is spreading dangerous misunderstandings.

          You don’t use a maturity model to hamstring a productive organization as Bates seems to believe; you’re supposed to help that organization more reliably and efficiently produce things that can be managed up through CMM levels, and not make it necessary for people to go to heroic lengths to get the job done in spite of your system.

          • marcusG

            People like Dr Bates are the main reason I never want to work at a place that uses CMM again.

  • Ceist Celt

    Why hasn’t there been a big stink about Spencer and Christy’s UAH tropospheric satellite dataset? It’s still beta version 6.x and has been used for almost 18months now. Their paper explaining the underlying changes has still not been published.

    RSS updated their satellite data set to Version 4 last year. They waited until after their paper has been published to release the data set. The old Version 3 (which is closer to UAH 6.x beta) runs colder because of various issues outlined in their paper.

    Yet Judith Curry, Ted Cruz etc run around claiming “The satellite data is the best data we’ve got!” (referring to UAH). Despite the satellite data having much higher error range than land based temperature data.

  • DoRightThing

    Snopes also calls out Rose:
    Did NOAA Scientists Manipulate Climate Change Data?
    A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy.
    http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

  • Rick Kooi

    The Whistle Blower….Dr. Bates
    He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.
    “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he said.”

    • mark

      How is this not a problem? If we, the great unwashed, are to “believe in science,” then shouldn’t the science stand up to the rigors of, um …, science?

      • Rick Kooi

        IT would be a problem if it were the truth.
        ….DUH !.
        …that is the point…
        Daily Mail and ROSE are financially dependent upon the OIL & COAL billionaires…..would you be tempted to tell a lie or non stop lies
        to protect
        a $1 TRILLION + cash flow ….

        But YOU believe that research scientists would lie,
        who,
        on average,
        earn about the same as a 1st year elementary school teacher even though they have an additional degree and 5 years of experience.????

        That fairy tale you believe !!!

        • mark

          Wow. Are you sitting in the basement just waiting to jump on responses to your comments? You read an awful lot into the 2 sentences I wrote. I replied to a comment which mentioned neither Rose nor the Daily Mail. “The issue here is … timing … not properly disclosed ….” Those are not minor issues to those who believe that if we are to “believe in science,” then those who peddle the data and conclusions for political and/or monetary gain should do so with some intellectual integrity. You may now go back to watching your weed grow.

  • DoRightThing

    Potholer delightfully demolishes Rose’s deception.

    NOAA vs Mail on Sunday — FACT CHECK
    https://youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs

  • JG

    Wait. They admit the new record shows a lower rate. They also admit the old record was easily a falsified report due to the fact everyone know ships produce heat. And they still feel it wasn’t a dupe. We’re supposed to think these very smart men and women weren’t smart enough to see a motor would cause incorrect data. These aren’t scientists these are people looking to cash in. I admit something is going on with the climate and with the weather that is different than the normal cycles. My issue is they are going after one cause and any data that points a different direction they ignore. That’s a sign of someone cashing in on fear not a scientist.

    • waxliberty

      Your understanding of the issue is completely in error.

  • Orellian Tay

    “So I asked for the name of a paper that was revised or retracted as a result of the “climate-gate” emails,”

    Let me quote you:

    “Wow. The depth of the dishonesty here is just mind boggling.

    Look at all the global conspiracy nutcases all claiming the data is faked…yet not a single one of them will get off their ass and challenge the paper(s) in the journals where they were published.”

    So, where did you say climate-gate? You didn’t.

  • Orellian Tay

    Way back in December of 2014, the science was clear. Both surface temps and atmospheric temps showed what use to be called the pause of the hiatus. Together the two lines of evidence were logically consistent and made perfect sense. The Karl et al had a huge impact on the historical temperature record and one of the bigger impacts was the disappearance of the pause.

    There was much rejoicing that the pause not longer existed. However, science is a tough taskmaster because it demands logical consistency. Once you lose that, you are in trouble.

    I am sure that you can see the logical inconsistency that was created with Karl et al right? How has this been addressed? It has been 2 years since that paper came out so obviously the logical inconsistency has been addressed right? Nope, that was never addressed. It was simply ignored…. and there was much rejoicing.

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but science is a tough task master and it simply can’t accept logical inconsistency. Either Karl et al is wrong or the satellite and balloon data are wrong. You simply can’t pretend that the science is clear when you have obvious evidence that our interpretation of reality can’t be true.

    • waxliberty

      Here is the “huge impact” on the historical record you state the Karl adjustment had:

      https://skepticalscience.com//pics/buoy_only_1.png

      Not really so big.

      The ship/buoy adjustment is relatively simple to understand, which should make it clear the conspiracy etc. stories about it are pretty questionable.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/guest-post-on-baselines-and-buoys/

      NOAA made it clear this adjustment was needed way back in 2008. The fix was seven years in the making:

      “Because ships tend to be biased warm relative to buoys and because of the increase in the number of buoys and the decrease in the number of ships, the merged in situ data without bias adjustment can have a cool bias relative to data with no ship–buoy bias. As buoys become more important to the in situ record, that bias can increase. Since the 1980s the SST in most areas has been warming. The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warming. This change in observations makes the in situ temperatures up to about 0.1°C cooler than they would be without bias. At present, methods for removing the ship–buoy bias are being developed and tested.”
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI2100.1

      I believe the logical inconsistency you describe was more of a question of blogs cherry picking comparisons. Here is a tweet from NASA director Schmidt showing that GISS surface record also shows no change in long-term trend:

      https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/702558277918392321

      Latest RSS troposphere data shows warming pretty consistent with all this:

      https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rsstttv41.jpg

      Which is now more consistent with in situ radiosonde measurements than it was before the orbital decay fix.

      https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/diff.jpeg

      So, plenty of consistency (now).

      Though there is still a bunch of inconsistency in the atmospheric temps, as there was before (UAH adjusted in the other direction, etc.) It turns out to be non-trivial to try to measure the troposphere consistently. But the fact that the coolest records here are (a) associated with known problems (orbital decay) and (b) inconsistent with radiosondes and (c) inconsistent with multiple surface records (and while the troposphere is different, it should generally follow surface heating) argues against the flattest records.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_dL1shkWewaYUdhcjdFOFJ3ZTA/view

      Meanwhile, total ocean heat has been unambiguous:

      https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

      And corresponding environmental response also unambiguous, e.g. mass coral mortality due to ocean heat in 2016. Many, many lines of evidence reinforcing the reality of warming.

      ‘Pause’ always was a question of temporarily flatter surface warming, not an absence of warming or any sign of stoppage in the global warming process (see ocean heat accumulation).

  • StephenWV

    Talked about duped.

    I realize they are unable to do it, but global warming scientists need to put at least SOME effort into deciphering the math that would comprehend the reactions of the 100,000 year glacial cycle that seems to be mitigating the introduction of man caused greenhouse gasses.

    Science needs to stop ignoring this the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. Science predicts the effect of the greenhouse gasses on the average earth temperature while ignoring, necessarily, how the complex 100,000 year glacial cycle will react.

    There is obviously something that is causing the climate change predictions to fail. Based primarily upon the reaction to CO2 doubling recently from 200ppm to 400ppm, if the average earth temperature were controlled by the greenhouse gas increases, all their predictions would have come true. IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

    Instead the average earth temperature remains several degrees COOLER than the highs of the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles, following the pattern of climate change of every glacial cycle as shown by the peer reviewed data from the Dome Fugi ice core samples, in the graph on the U.S. Government’s NOAA web site. (Link below).

    About 5 million years ago, scientists agree that the glacial cycle over powered the orbital cycle (which was mathematically predictable) as the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event. They also are in agreement that they do not have the ability to quantify the causes of that change, let alone be able to mathematically, scientifically predict its reaction to the man caused introduction of green house gasses.

    So why do they wonder why their predictions miss the mark? But as the Dome Fugi highs of the past 400,000 years suggest, and the UN FINALLY agrees by their statement recently that it has been proven that the average earth temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees… The average earth temperature continues to follow the past 400,000 years of glacial cycles.

    Even at the extremely rapid parabolic rate of increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so, which falls in line with the peer reviewed Dome Fugi analysis (replicated by the Vladivostok ice core analysis)… it will take several hundred years to exceed the past highs. Additionally scientists have pointed out the pattern of extremes of colder lows and warmer highs exhibited in the 400,000 year analysis. Thus it is highly likely that the UN prediction that the temperature will rise at least another 2 degrees is finally a prediction I can believe in.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html

    • DoRightThing

      Human forcings vastly outweigh Milankovitch forcings.

      Per Tzedakis et al 2012, “glacial inception would require CO₂ concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv”

      For reference, we are at about 406 ppm right now ( http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ ) and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won’t be happening in our lifetimes.

      Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:

      “Our research shows why atmospheric CO₂ will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn’t matter at what rate we burn them.

      The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.”

      and

      “Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.”

      So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery for the next million years…
      http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
      Also covered by Stoat, here:
      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/09/carbon-dioxide-our-salvation-from-a-future-ice-age/

      The background temperature trend for the preindustrial Holocene period can clearly be seen in the Marcott 2013 paper, until the present where the temperature shoots up at a rate of change unprecedented in the 252.2 million years since the Permian extinction.

      A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years Marcott et al
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

      We now have a Pliocene atmosphere in a Holocene world with Holocene lifeforms – last time that happened, sea levels were 80 feet higher than today.
      Relocating 10,000 coastal cities will be expensive, starting with Miami in just a few of decades time, and they are already suffering the effects.

      • StephenWV

        ALL these studies DO NOT take in to account the reactions by the glacial cycle to the introduction of man caused green house gasses.

        For example, with all the climate change hysteria about the melting of the glaciers, sea ice, and ice caps, studies are showing that the influx of this fresh water into the oceans may be responsible for the mitigation of the warming effect caused by greenhouse gasses. This is just one event over the past million years that has contributed to the transition from the interglacial warm up to the glacial cool down. There are likely many other unknown, less obvious, and unstudied events in play.

        This information is not discussed by the global warming alarmists and is available on the U.S. Government NOAA web site.
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/model-abrupt.html

        • waxliberty

          You linked to a page on paleoclimate data sources. Studies based on such data indicate that modern warming is pronounced and noticeable relative to the prior long, slow cooling of the Holocene (since the last post-glacial maximum).

          http://www.countercurrents.org/Marcott_PAGES2k.png

          I don’t think there are any serious claims anywhere that freshwater melt is “mitigating” global warming itself. The oceans are heating up down to depth of 2000m, generally consistent with physical models.

          https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/7/20/1437400442446/b791fce9-88a9-4e36-a944-a2b0009c403b-477×660.jpeg

          Encourage you to engage honestly with the scientific evidence and explanations that are available, regardless of party affiliation. Nearly a full quarter of the Great Barrier Reef was lost last year, as a result of spiking ocean temperatures.

          • StephenWV

            Strange BUT here are 2 studies that show that fresh water is a major cause of global cooling on a very large and rapid scale. If/when the average earth temperature rises to a point where the ice caps melt, then the likelihood is it will be the beginning of the glacial cool down, if not sooner.

            Fresh water introduced to oceans starts cooling event
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1929

            Another study
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1860.1

            Google search does list the link I provided goes to the info I stated BUT it no longer does (strange) I prefer to use links to the U.S. Government NOAA web sites when possible as I believe them credible. The NOAA article I was attempting to connect was a good one but is no longer easily found… can’t find another link to that particular article in a quick search. Sorry.

          • waxliberty

            You seem to be confusing some things to start. You talk about “the glacial cycle” but the accelerating ice melt happening today is not caused by the glacial cycle, it’s caused by greenhouse warming. The world was very slowly cooling before anthropogenic warming spiked.

            Global thermometers say temperatures and total ocean heat is increasing, despite the freshwater influxes so far, that much we can say unambiguously.

            Ah, you’re talking about thermohaline circulation type disruptions. Yes, this is not good news, there are already (disputed) signs of the weakening of AMOC due to such freshwater melt. It is one of the major ‘tipping point’ concerns with global warming the IPCC monitors and discusses.
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2554.html

            So scientists are monitoring it, but such events are more about massive regional or hemispheric changes to circulation of heat rather than flipping the planet as a whole into a cooling phase. The planet as a whole can’t flip in that way as long as more energy is entering the system than is escaping to space.

          • StephenWV

            What part of several degrees cooler than the interglacial highs of the past 400,000 years do you not understand? What part of the admission of scientists that they are unable to scientifically mathematically understand the 100,000 year glacial cycle so they must ignore it in all their calculations of predictions do you not understand? What part of the temperature drop due to fresh water introduction causing over 1 to 2 degree temperature DROP IN 20 YEARS lasting 150 years (compared to the current rate of about 1 degree rise taking about 100 years) do you not understand?
            What part of the average temperature continuing to follow the expected temperature rise as indicated by the past 400,000 years of interglacial warm ups do you not understand? What part of the temperature NOT following the doubling of CO2 off the charts as the failed predictions wanted to happen do you not understand?

            Scientists also point out that the patterns of highs and lows of the past glacial cycles show greater extremes of cooler lows and warmer highs thus we might normally expect temperature to naturally rise another 2 degrees at least as the UN IPCC predicts as corresponds with all the interglacial warm ups of at least the past 400,000 year.

            And YES they are not only monitoring it, they are also attempting to develop more and better theories to understand this complex earth climate change system that remains a mystery as their models and predictions have continued to fail As Dr. Judith Curry of Virginia Tech states “due to flawed data.”

            If you read (and can understand) the information and studies posted on the NOAA web site, and their lovely chart of the world (and their admission that except for the European and North American continents, they have no accurate to verify the temperatures in the rest of the world as the lack of data point on the map indicates.

            Your claim that it is regional is laughable.

          • waxliberty

            First, I genuinely respect that you are citing literature and NOAA and appreciate the thoughtful reply. I enjoy discussing the subject, though there is of course a very serious aspect to the implications of what’s currently known and impact already observed.

            “What part of several degrees cooler than the interglacial highs of the past 400,000 years do you not understand?”

            The article says “over two decades temperature cooled about 3.3°C in Greenland“, and maybe 1 degree in Europe for a century. It goes on to say there were some signs of *climate* being affected globally (i.e. changes in aridity etc.)

            The article is about an event 8K years ago – a global 3 degree shift or even a 1 degree shift would be a massive climate change analogous to the shift into/out of a full glacial. You would expect it to show up in multi-proxy reconstructions of global temperature pretty dramatically (given we do see the big glacial events by such methods), but it doesn’t really show up at all in Marcott:

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

            (for more context / useful discussion see oceanographer Rahmstorf here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/ )

            Marcott is mostly sediment-based and so has coarser resolution, so you can have some amount of shift hiding in there but nothing on global full degrees or 3 degrees scale, which is ginormous in earth terms (basically what we’re worrying about this century).

            Here is the link to the Kobashi paper being referenced, which uses similar language “a synchronous event (within ±4 years) at a hemispheric scale”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107000455

            The importance of global measurements is that these can help differentiate a circulation change (which massively redistributes heat, causing large regional climate changes) from a major forcing event (where the entire global energy budget of the planet – the ratio of heat coming in from the sun vs. heat escaping to space – causes global climate change). The logic follows from conservation of energy, which is super core to the case for greenhouse warming.

            “What part of the average temperature continuing to follow the expected temperature rise as indicated by the past 400,000 years of interglacial warm ups do you not understand?”

            See the discussion in the Rahmstorf article I link about orbital cycles. Milankovitch theory of glacial cycles doesn’t predict a lot of specifics exactly, but generally we saw a long slow cooling of the Holocene punctuated by the aggressive spike of modern warming. So the prevailing view is that we were on a long slow decline to the *next* ice age which greenhouse warming has overwhelmed. You can see this in richer reconstructions like Pages 2K as well, here is Pages 2K superimposed with Marcott last 2K years:

            http://www.countercurrents.org/Marcott_PAGES2k.png

            The Milankovitch theory relates to an energy-based understanding of how slow, subtle orbital variation eventually builds up to climate change. That same energy-based understanding indicates that greenhouse forcing completely overwhelms the orbital forcing. Orbital forcing on century timeframe is tiny because the earth’s wobble doesn’t change hardly at all on that timeframe; it’s not even strong enough to be listed in charts like this:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/

            “What part of the temperature NOT following the doubling of CO2 off the charts as the failed predictions wanted to happen do you not understand?”

            (CO2 hasn’t doubled yet.) What analysis supports your view that warming is not happening, or that not enough warming is happening per predictions?

            Here are models as run around turn of the century (CMIP3) vs. observations, courtesy NASA.
            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoYiOVQWYAA3K0d.jpg

            CMIP5 (more recent models) actually maybe look a little more off, but hardly anything that would match your language, courtesy Hausfather at BEST:
            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2d0j1XWIAAdzsa.jpg

            Here is maybe the most important one, total ocean warming (oceans are warming to depth of 2000m, consuming ~93% of total greenhouse heat being captured) vs. models – pretty spot on.
            https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/7/20/1437400442446/b791fce9-88a9-4e36-a944-a2b0009c403b-477×660.jpeg

            Published in:
            http://159.226.119.58/aosl/EN/abstract/abstract568.shtml

            “And YES they are not only monitoring it, they are also attempting to develop more and better theories to understand this complex earth climate change system”

            Always.

            “As Dr. Judith Curry of Virginia Tech states “due to flawed data.””

            Source? What flawed data?

            “their admission that except for the European and North American continents, they have no accurate to verify the temperatures in the rest of the world”

            A reasonable point given the wording of the article, but you are reinterpreting “sparser” as mean “no accurate information” which is not supported by the article.

            Marcott for example used 73 proxy data sets, nothing fundamentally difficult about using sediment samples all over the world. Not a paper, but some interesting discussion here:

            “The “main” method (if there is one) was to use the data to estimate gridded temperature on a 5×5 degree latitude-longitude grid, then compute an area-weighted average. The same procedure was also applied using a 30×30 degree latitude-longitude grid”
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

            And more discussion on regional differences on a follow-up post here
            “In their supplemental materials, Marcott et al. included the reconstructions restricted to three very wide latitude bands: the northern extratropics (from 30N latitude to the N.Pole), the southern extratropics (from 30S latitude to the S.Pole), and the equatorial band (from 30S to 30N latitude). These reconstructions are computed using their “Standard 5×5” method”
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/regional-marcott/

            I appreciate the exchange.

          • StephenWV

            Unfortunately I have a state meeting to attend and must leave at 6AM tomorrow and do not have the time to continue tonight. Quickly I will say that the orbital analysis has not been effectively incorporated and mathematically explained WRT the several newer aspects they are attempting to introduce into their models and only amount to discussion for the most part but remain unable to explain why and how the 100,000 year glacial cycle does what it does.

            Quickly CO2 doubling from 200 to 400ppm was predicted to be a catastrophic event and at 400 ppm it is WAY off the charts where it has always paralleled temperature yet scientists are confounded when temperature did not respond according to their calculations which was instrumental in their ramp up of ocean monitoring, looking for the reasons that climate change is proceeding as it is despite all the data analysis that they believed would give them the “right” predictions. So agin I say when science is advanced enough for them to understand the reaction of the glacial cycle to man’s input… then they will be able to tell us when the move to start the 100,000 year cooling ending up with a mile deep glacier over Washington DC. But as a jokester said “maybe that will stop government spending.”

          • waxliberty

            Good luck with the state meeting.

            CO2 hasn’t doubled, it was 280ppm pre-industrial, so only 40% global increase so far.

            “the several newer aspects they are attempting to introduce into their models”

            Happy to read a reference to this if you have it, as it’s not clear what you’re referring to.

            “scientists are confounded when temperature did not respond according to their calculations”

            I just showed you that ocean heating is pretty right on in terms of calculations, and there are multiple papers to that effect. Guessing you are confused by outdated articles (there is an old NASA article about how the ocean wasn’t warming, back when ARGO was first deployed and some problems with floats hadn’t yet been identified), but hard to tell. You would definitely need to support such claims with citations or data of some kind, and also explain why you think the current measurements and/or models are not actually at all correct.

            Not clear what you’re saying, but sounds like you argue Milankovitch theory isn’t correct. You’d need to support that as well, with something.

            Fun fact: Milankovitch hand-calculated insolation cycles while in a Soviet gulag. Ice cores later proved him right.

          • waxliberty

            Maybe this got edited, or I missed some claims. Responding to those.

            “So the rapid rate of increase in the average earth temperature that started around 1900 (and increased at a more rapid rate than current)
            through about the 1940’s was caused by man… laughable.”

            This is a bit of a zombie claim. There wasn’t nearly as much warming as current:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:1940/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend

            NASA modeling says anthropogenic greenhouse forcing kicking in by then. I think a significant part of that was non-trivial carbon loading from deforestation.
            http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            “unable to scientifically mathematically understand the 100,000 year glacial cycle so they must ignore it in all their calculations”

            I don’t think this is accurate, though there is probably a grain of truth of uncertainty of some kind somewhere that led to this claim. Do you have a citation?

            Orbital wobble changes take place on tens of thousands of years. A single century is very small for that. It should be pretty evident; here’s super simplified (incorrect) napkin math just for ballparking – last glacial was 15K years ago and 4 degrees cooler or so, would mean wobble effect is on order of 0.02°C per century. We’ve warmed a full degree already in a century.

            “What part of the temperature drop due to fresh water introduction causing over 1 to 2 degree temperature DROP IN 20 YEARS lasting 150 years ”

            It’s very clear there is no such global drop at the event 8K years ago you referred to, in proxy reconstructions of temperature. We can’t know it was there if we can’t measure it being there.

            “Your dismissal of the fresh water effect seems to be based on the fact that it did not cause another glacial cool down”

            I did not dismiss the fresh water effect – the paper you referenced indicated there was a large one. It did not say there was such a large global dip in average surface temperature, though you seem to believe otherwise.

            “So says the data, theories, and computer models”

            So says physics, yes. There are a lot of very good reasons why we have confidence in core physical laws such as thermodynamics, Clausius-Clapeyron and so on at this point.

            “What part of the most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event do you not understand?”

            This is just very wrong. How do you imagine that the incredibly slow turning of the earth – imperceptible in a century – is the “most powerful naturally occurring climate forcing event”? It’s not even close. Now it’s the most *persistent* perhaps, on *very* long timeframes – very slow/subtle, but consistent over time. Other forcings like solar and volcanic don’t tend to get so simplemindedly focused on forcing in one direction for an extended period.

  • CB

    “That’s right dear, millions of people worldwide are spending billions of dollars to create fake data just to make anti-science Republican wackos look like imbeciles. That mission was accomplished long ago and without the need for a conspiracy – or even any effort.”

    LOL!

    Fatality.

    Rick already pointed it out, but Bates called Rose a liar…

    “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data”

    -John Bates

    http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

    • Dan Haynes

      You, like most global conspiracy nutcases, seem to have a problem focusing on the point. Do you need it explained one more time? I can help you with the big words if you’d like:

      “What does William of Ockham say about this? A 50 year running global
      conspiracy involving millions of people spending billions of dollars out
      to make Republicans look like morons?

      Or a handful of weak minded clowns on the internet begging for attention by lying and denying?”

      You’re trying to change the subject to a nitpick of one choice of wording, and one that clearly should include methodology as well as data.

      So what is it? Is there a global conspiracy out to make you look stupid? Are Russian and Italian scientists conspiring with German and English scientific journals to publish bad science, and then Chinese and Swiss scientists are also conspiring to cover up the bad science by not challenging it in the journals, and then science reporters at Scientific American and Popular Science are all joining in the global conspiracy and failing to break news about bad science that would sell millions of issues?

      Answer the fucking question: Yes or no?

      The USA is not the only source of climate science. It is not the only nation with scientific journals. It is not the only nation with an interest in the validity of studies of the global environment?

      What is more likely? Is everyone conspiring to make the anti-science nutcases look stupid, or are they simply stupid and/or attention whoring on the internet?

      And stop trying to change the subject. If you’re too stupid to figure out how to defend the OPs claims then just give it up and troll some other thread.

      You were provided with links to rational analysis of the claims made and that clearly point out that it’s just another case of sensationalist fuckwits with blog ad space to sell screaming yet another global conspiracy claim.

      You failed to respond to any of those analysis, you failed to respond to the main points I made, why is that?

      That is a legitimate question. Why did you fail to respond to any of the points? Is it stupidity, you’re not capable of recognizing them? You’re simply attention whoring on the internet? You don’t see any need to response to rational, evidence based arguments?

      Why are you writing stupid things instead of responding to the arguments?

      • CB

        “You, like most global conspiracy nutcases, seem to have a problem focusing on the point.”

        lol!

        I was agreeing with your point!

        It’s not possible for a sane person to believe in a conspiracy as vast as the one Climate Deniers allude to.

        Sorry for the confusion.

        “2016 became the warmest year in NOAA’s 137-year series.”

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

  • Pingback: Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records | Climate Change()


Related Articles

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.