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

Clouds over the Atlantic Ocean. Credit: Tiago Fioreze, Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Categories: 'Hiatus'FactchecksGlobal temperatureIn FocusTemperature
Tags: global surface temperatureglobal temperatureHadCRUT4Mail on SundayNOAATemperature recordZeke Hausfather

View Comments

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

    • 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

      • "....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?

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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."

    • 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?

      • 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,
        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 !!!

        • 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.

  • 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.

  • "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.

  • 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.

    • Here is the "huge impact" on the historical record you state the Karl adjustment had:


      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.


      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."

      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:


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


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


      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.


      Meanwhile, total ocean heat has been unambiguous:


      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).

  • 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.

    • 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."


      "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...
      Also covered by Stoat, here:

      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

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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).


          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.


          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.

          • 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

            Another study

            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.

          • 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.

            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.

          • 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.

          • 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:

            NASA modeling says anthropogenic greenhouse forcing kicking in by then. I think a significant part of that was non-trivial carbon loading from deforestation.

            "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.

          • 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:


            (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"

            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:


            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:


            "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.

            CMIP5 (more recent models) actually maybe look a little more off, but hardly anything that would match your language, courtesy Hausfather at BEST:

            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.

            Published in:

            "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"


            "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"

            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"

            I appreciate the exchange.

          • 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."

          • 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.

  • "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."



    Rick already pointed it out, but Bates called Rose a liar...

    "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data"

    -John Bates


    • 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?

      • "You, like most global conspiracy nutcases, seem to have a problem focusing on the point."


        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."