By S. Fred Singer
Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?
Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 5. The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming. If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.
This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.” The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.
Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces. It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.
Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:
There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.
Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause. Yours truly turns out to be amongst these. They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.
But hold on. NCDC may turn out to be quite wrong. Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures — which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations. If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].
Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998. This finding is confirmed by other, independent instrumental data — and also by (non-instrumental) proxy records (from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments). This leads to important far-reaching consequences that are more fully discussed and referenced in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) [search NIPCCreport.org, esp. the CCR-II report of 2013].
UN-IPCC claims for AGW undermined
IPCC-4 [2007] and IPCC-5 [2013] both present claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that are based mainly on reported surface warming from 1979 to 2000. In the absence of such a warming trend, the IPCC claims become invalid; there would be no human-caused greenhouse warming in the 20th century – and certainly not earlier.
It is worthwhile, therefore, to re-examine carefully the absence of warming in the last two decades of the 20th century.
The satellite results of near-zero warming trend are fully backed by radiosonde data from balloon flights — notwithstanding spurious claims by Santer et al [in Int’l J of Climatology 2008; see full discussion by Singer in Energy&Envir 2013]. The absence of a tropical “Hotspot” (a once-controversial upper-troposphere warming trend) “makes the cheese more binding.”
Sea-surface temperatures (SST) show only a slight warming – as do night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT), assembled by the Hadley group. Data on ocean heat content before 2000 are spotty and not very useful. In any case, the interpretation of vertical temperature profiles would require factoring in ocean circulation at different levels.
Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one suspects that the reason is they show no warming.
A quick word about the observed (and genuine) warming interval 1910-40. It can be seen not only in surface thermometers at weather stations, temperature records from ships, but in all published proxy records. Alas, I could not find any atmospheric temperature data for that period. It is generally agreed, however – including by IPCC –that this warming is of natural origin and not from GH gases.
Thus there is no evidence whatsoever of any GH warming from human-released CO2 — during the whole of the 20th century or earlier.
The bottom line
One can certainly argue about whether the NCDC results are correct –and I expect many months of back-and-forth. So, has global warming really stopped? We will know for sure in just a few years.
There will certainly be debate also about my proposition of no evidence at all for AGW. We will need a persuasive answer to the puzzle — why do land thermometers show a warming before 2000, but not after 2000? I may have an answer, but must first try to convince my colleagues.
One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show. This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.
*****************************
This article originally published on American Thinker
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project; in 2014, after 25 years, he stepped down as president of SEPP. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.
*********************************************************************
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists.
I think the best thing the UAH and RSS camps can do is make some popcorn and enjoy the show. This has the potential to bring Multi-Decadal Discord among the surface temperature camps.
I disagree. Sitting on the sidelines will let others control the conversation. The more voices, the better; especially when those with a broader understanding of the factors affecting climate change speak reasonably and clearly. They have to be consistent in rebuking the name-calling too.
Consider this it may be much more than a simple pause or hiatus, What we may be experiencing now is Earth’s PGW (Peak Global Warming).
Global Temperature Modern Grand Maximum (MGM)
others being MWP, Roman Maximum etc.
+1
We are most definitely going into a cold cycle now. It always shows up first in Hudson Bay and New England and then the rest of the world gets it. All ice ages started this way, too.
In another forum, someone made the claim that the adjustment to the buoy readings just _coincidentally_ happened to match the error bars of those same thermometers. In other words, they got their warming through assuming that 100% of the reading errors from those buoys were maxed in a positive direction.
I’m not sure they have to assume. The modern temperatures are always adjusted right to the top of their error bars and then, on reflection a few years later, adjusted right to the bottom of the error bars. That way, every year is the “hottest ever”, and the trend is always up.
I first noticed these manipulations back in 2010. The newest readings are always adjusted up, only to be retroactively adjusted down a few year later.
We call this ‘cooling the past and heating up the present’. It is a game they love to play. Eventually the 1998-1999 super el nino will shrink to ‘coldest year EVAH.’
I have posted the following on one of the many threads here!
The FACT is that warming IS continuing, it is! It’s just nothing, nothing at all like we were told it would be. I know Moncky boy likes to use RSS, but if you choose HadCRUt4, the warming IS continuing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend:1998
Until that warming stops, and it actually starts cooling (which I think it will), then we don’t have much of a case. And we are in danger of pissing on our own chips if asked to justify the ‘pause’. 21st century warming is still on an upward trajectory. UAH shows this too.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend:1998
We are missing a trick here. PLEASE, people, we should be banging on about the IPCC’s projections, and how far out they were/are. We should be arguing that spending trillions is unnecessary and futile – howsoever the warming is caused.
Yes, I know even HadCRUt4 isn’t very good, as I believe it too extrapolates for the Arctic, but look, even UAH is showing continued warming. To justify our argument, we need to see those lines in those graphs above level off – minimum. WHEN, and only when, the 21st century shows a downward trend, then we should set up a fund to pay for full-page advertisements in all the big global dailys, with a simple graph and a footnote, telling the public that they are being conned by their own governments, and by silent scientists. But I say again, the FACT is that warming IS continuing…it simply is. Deal with it. Let’s just wait, and watch
Nice cherry-picking, Ghost.
Bruce, don’t be absurd. Anyone here will testify that I am as much a warming sceptic as anyone here. ALL date points are cherry-picked – all of them. The IPCC ‘cherry-picks’ theirs and we pick ours. My point, (and congrats on missing it, jeez!) is that much is made of 21st century ‘warming’ or lack of it. But it is still warming.
Ghost, you can’t come on here and suggest using HadCRUt4. The group of commenters here know all too well that all the ground based teperature records are hopelessly flawed to the point that they are unusable. If you want to use UHA, fine, we can use that, but that is as far as we are willing to go.
Try changing the start point of your graphs to 2002. You will then see your cherries picked.
Oh dear. I have to say I’m very disappointed. I’ve been visiting wuwt for many years, I’ve argued points on climate science, and been educated. I’ve found Willis’ threads very enjoyable and hugely informative. I’ve also liked reading Bob Tisdale’s graph-filled posts. However, much as I enjoy it here (as a die-hard warming sceptic), I may have to evaluate if I join in, in future. Reading some of the comments, it’s quite clear that some people really can’t comprehend very basic stuff. I don’t mean that in a condescending way. But we have people here who JUST want to use RSS because that shows them what they want to see. I find that truly incredible. It reminds me of the warmists I used to argue with on the old BBC forums 12 years ago. How can you take such a position as that!!?? ‘RSS shows what I want to see, so I’m not looking at anything else, so there.’ Someone even wanted to only use data since 2002!!! Amazing. As I explained, I know all too well that HadCRUt4 is flawed, but on balance it is the best surface temp record we have. The satellite data is flawed as well – do some of you even know that it doesn’t actually measure temperature?
I want to make one final attempt to get some of you around to the idea that we can’t pick and choose stuff that suits us, or our argument. Having been arguing with warmists since 2003, the vast majority of those arguments have been about the data since 1980ish, but also, very often, since 1998 (for obvious reasons). The years after 1998 did not see the continuation of that year’s ‘The Great El Nino’ warming. And is VERY clear that models and projections of warming have been pathetic up against reality. BUT, like it or not, a meta study of all data shows that warming is still on the rise – and yes, slowly; within error bands, noise, blah-de-blah.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend:1999
You just have to suck that up. You can ignore it if you wish, but that’s for your mind to wrestle with. I’m not going to name-names, but many of the posts below don’t even warrant a reply, such is the ridiculousness of their position.
wuwt has always been a great place to come and talk to like-minded people about warming, or lack of it. But if our argument has become as silly as some of those shown on skepticalscience and realclimate, where we (or rather, some) will only use RSS because it shows what they want, then wuwt has taken a wrong turn, and that’s a great shame.
As long as this green line…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend:1999
…is still upward, then we have to argue on that, on its cause. We CANNOT pick and choose datasets that support our position. To do so is fraudulent, and it’s arguing from a point of weakness.
Totally. Like presenting a single line representing a “global temperature”. Only a moron would do that.
Jeff, you genius, you. The graph I linked to is a meta study – it may be the best thing we have to the global anomaly. The green line is an aid to indicate where it is going. But of course, you’d know that, what with you being a genius, and all. Nighty-night, you’ll be going back to kindergarten on Monday.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: “But we have people here who JUST want to use RSS because that shows them what they want to see.”
Whereas you refuse to use RSS because it shows you what you don’t want to see, perhaps?
Actually, most informed sceptical commenters use RSS and UAH satellite datasets because they judge them to be the least interfered with or “homogenised” and to have the most universal Global measured – as opposed to Kriged or whatever – coverage compared with the terrestrial datasets.
Why do you pretend to have such extraordinary difficulty appreciating that?
UAH 6.0 has made the difference between RSS and UAH very tiny. UAH 6.0 is not showing continued warming.
So far, the MSM has pretty much ignored Karl et al.
“Let’s just wait, and watch”
I’ll agree with that, for now. I’d go for some pointed questions to alarmists, though. I think my observation that Karl et al’s warming rate means it will take 200 years to reach the magic +2C° rise may be a good needle.
Well Ric, I just use woodfortrees for the convenience. I saw the new version on Roy Spencer’s own site, don’t know why it hasn’t made it to woodfortrees yet.
And they both match balloon radiosondes very well.
But Big Jim, Hadcrut 4 has only just been adjusted to show warming to bring it in line with GISS & BEST, so why would you use it?
So what do you want to use?
Satellite data. It is the most accurate data for global temperature.
You are correct dbstealey
…
Look at what the RSS data shows
…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
HADCRUT4 V HADCRUT3 October 10, 2012
By Paul Homewood
12 month average anomaly
HADCRUT3 HADCRUT4
Dec 1998 0.55 0.52
Dec 2011 0.34 0.40
Increase/Decrease -0.21 -0.12
The new version increases warming (or rather decreases cooling) since 1998 by 0.09C, a significant amount for a 13 year time span. Whilst the changes should not affect the trend in future years, they will affect the debate as to whether temperatures have increased in the last decade or so.
Thru 2011 it was showing a decrease, just not as large as the pre-massaged HADCrut3.
What to use? Why not NCDC. From their yearly summary
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index = 62.45 °F [16.92°C. ]
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature = 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) = 14.59°C (58.24 °F)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. And do you consider this proof that cooling is going on?
Joel D. Jackson-
warming for 16 years no change for 18.6 years- your point?
Joel D. Jackson-
be careful with graphs,
Both UAH and RSS show 1998 as SIGNIFICANTLY warmer then 2014 or 2015 YTD. It is not even close. Clearly the bulk of the atmosphere has cooled since 1998. It helps to see this visually…
Amen Big Jim.
The slight, but continuous, warming affirms the position of those skeptical scientists.
The longer it goes on the more confidence we can have in the direct logarithm greenhouse effect from CO2 of 1C for a doubling of CO2. The evidence of the speculation for the additional so-called “positive feedback”, “amplification” etc (or whatever they wish to call it) starting with the Charney report in 1979 just doesn’t exist.
It is impossible for theoretical CO2 impacts to be anything other than logarithmic. Linear and compounding claims project surface temperatures surpassing those of the planet Venus with less than 5% of its CO2 concentration.
Wicked,
Good point. During the Phanerozoic Eon, ie the past ~540 million years, there are only been two brief excursions in average global temperature over about 22 degrees C.
If IPCC’s fantasy of 4.5 degrees for doubling of CO2 holds then we have this:
280 ppm: 13.7 C
560 ppm: 18.2 C
1120 ppm: 22.7 C
2240 ppm: 27.2 C
Not going to happen. Didn’t happen when CO2 concentration was 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. The sun’s power then was over 95% of present. Didn’t happen at 5000 ppm in the Ordovician, when there was an ice age, with solar output at 96% of current. Didn’t happen in the Silurian, Devonian or Early Cretaceous, with CO2 still in the thousands of ppm and solar radiation at 97%.
Thanks to another, longer ice age, CO2 dropped in the Late Cretaceous and Early Permian, but recovered before the End Permian Mass Extinction Event. CO2 levels were again in the thousands rather than hundreds during the Mesozoic Era, with solar power at 99% of now, but again no runaway warming. Ditto during the early Cenozoic, despite the peak warmth of the PETM.
The 1 C is, however, the change in the equilibrium temperature and unobservable. In view of the unobservability, belief in the existence of a linear relation from the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration to the change in the equilibrium temperature is pseudoscientific.
If the tenth of a degree warming this century is within the margin of error, then you can’t honestly say that “the warming IS continuing” can you?
Speaking of missing the point, isn’t the skeptical view less about warming and more about “is man causing it” as claimed by the warmist propaganda. If skeptics get too picky about the fine points their message can get lost on the average Joe!
Carbon is not a pollutant and temps are not going up in sync. Isn’t that our case!!!
X100.
This is what Lindzen has been saying for years.
Does C02 contribute to warming?
Yes.
How much does it contribute?
Almost immeasurable.
The problem with that argument is that if they can show a graph of steadily rising CO2 and steadily rising temperature, the average LIV sees it and says “it’s warming now, and CO2 is the cause OMG PONIES!!1!”. If they see a graph of steadily rising CO2 and temperature meandering up and sideways willy-nilly, the implied causation isn’t speciously evident.
This is a propaganda war, and yes, this is, in the words of the most brilliant VP ever, a BFD.
To Harold:
The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists. So such cannot be shown for claiming that CO2 is responsible to temperature anomalies increase.
The best you can find is from 1959 to 1978 (or so) CO2 was increasing while temperature anomalies were decreasing.
Then from 1978 or so until 1998 or so, both CO2 and temperature anomalies were increasing, good correlation for this phase.
After this, the third phase (the pause, hiatus you name it) shows CO2 continuing to increase to this day while temperature anomalies, again pick your data set, are barely doing anything.
The problem is nobody can find a graph showing a positive correlation between increasing CO2 from the beginning of reliable measurements at Mauna Lua in 1958 and ANY temperature anomalies data set from that date up to now. None exists.
I think that can be accounted for by PDO flux. But it is only in line with Arrhenius (1906), and that means we top out well within the “net benefits” zone.
RSS shows cooling since 1997, even more since 2001.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
UAH has been updated and is now very close to RSS.
So there’s your cooling this century.
As for Hadcrut4 and all the other mutilated products of Mosh/Zeke/Gavin etc. etc….
So when you post “But I say again, the FACT is that warming IS continuing…it simply is. Deal with it. Let’s just wait, and watch”, I think perhaps it is YOU that is missing a trick.
We are obviously continuing to warm since leaving the Little Ice Age which is said to ended by 1850.
But the warming has little to do with CO2 levels, though warming causes some increase if CO2 levels. Though it seems the human activity has added
a considerable amount to increasing CO2 levels.
Or increasing CO2 levels probably have mostly been caused by human activity, though the increase in temperature is unlikely caused by CO2.
What increasing CO2 levels have caused is a global greening of deserts, and increase plant growth in general and a significant increase in crop yields.
So the measure of warming world is gradual warming of oceans with result of slow increase in global sea level. And seems likely in coming centuries sea levels will continue to rise, and mostly from the ocean slightly warming.
So in another 100 years we could see rise temperature by as much as 1 C, though probably closer to .5 C. And within 100 years we might see a ice free
Arctic ocean by late summer and it seems the expansion of sea ice in southern ocean will stop and possibly retreat.
But tend to agree that in short term of couple decades, temperatures may lower a bit [that doesn’t mean warming since time of Little Ice Age has stopped- it’s natural variability].
If we see an ice free Arctic in the next 100 years, it certainly won’t be any time in the next 15-20 (and certainly won’t be the first time this has happened either) as once the AMO flips to the cool cycle the story will stop being a melting Arctic and probably then we’ll start hearing the alarms about the Antarctic melting away since the 2 poles are in opposite cycles. As for any warming, is anyone here that’s commenting an actual climate scientist or met? Seems no one is mentioning the AMO & PDO and the fact that the AMO is nearing the end of its warm cycle. With the sun continuing to be unusually quiet, we’re headed for some brutally cold winters over the next decade+ and maybe some chilly summers in some places as well. And even during the coldest PDO cycles, there are always a few years thrown in that have a bounce of warmth.–just as in the current cycle of the cooler PDO, there have been a couple of years thrown in that have been quite warm (but still nothing that hasn’t happened before). To keep talking about CO2 is simply ridiculous. If you want to talk about it at all, why not mention the fact that CO2 continues to rise even though our cars are now expelling very little CO2 and power plants & industry are also expelling less CO2 than say even 20 years ago. The rise in CO2 also is nothing that hasn’t happened before. In fact, we’ve had periods when we’ve had much higher CO2 but lower temps as well as periods when we’ve had lower CO2 but warmer temps so how anyone sees any correlation between CO2 & temps is beyond me and not based on actual fact. It’s kind of the same AGW argument–they see temps going up from the late ’70’s through the 90’s and see CO2 rising during the same period and are naive enough or dumb enough or simply disingenuous enough to say that the increase in CO2 caused the warming. So, what was the excuse during the previous warm period of the late teens to late 30’s? Or what was the excuse for rising CO2 during the 60’s & 70’s but dramatically cooler temps?
@ur momisugly gbaikie
And just why are you arguing with yourself?
The above is simply a mimicking of a “figment of the imagination” of the vocally avid proponents of CAGW ……. which is attested to by the fact that there is NO “human signature” recognizable in the past 57 years of atmospheric CO2 data as per recorded by the Mauna Loa observatory.
YUP, and that same “gradual warming of oceans” also confirms your above claim that “warming causes some increase in CO2 levels” ……. which is attested to by the fact that atmospheric CO2 ppm has been “steadily & consistently” increasing an average of 2 ppm each and every year for the past 57 years as per the Mauna Loa record.
Just like the past 57 years of “steady & consistent” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm as per the seasonal temperature change in the ocean waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
There is nothing else in the natural world that is precisely yearly “cyclic” …… other than the seasonal equinoxes and solstices,.
Human activities = NO, …… local/regional weather events = NO, …. near surface land temperatures = NO, …… volcanic eruptions = NO, ……… El Ninos/La Ninas = NO, ……… NOTHING.
You are correct with Hadcrut4 which has finally been updated by WFT! Even then, the rate is a not alarming 0.007 C/ year.
However while WFT has just updated UAH, they just replaced 5.5 with 5.6 yesterday. Version 6.0 actually shows a negative slope of – 0.003 C/year from January 1998. To verify, see:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
My understanding is that UAH v6.0 is still beta. It was released to it could be scrutinized. Roy said it will go ‘final’ when yheir paper on the algorithm revisions is published, although he has explained them in some detail on his blog.
Dear “The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley”,
The expression you use in your comment (Moncky boy) is not necessary and it is insulting.
You will use that person’s correct name in future. Think on.
Dear “The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley”,
I agree with Warren Latham but I ask, rather than demand, that you use that person’s correct name in future.
Please do not denigrate anyone by mocking their names.
It doesn’t help address the issues.
Warren, get over it! Nothing worse than snobby political correctness!
Wickedwenchfan, It is not political correctness that Warren has an issue with. He is simply urging the use of common courtesy/civility, something that you seem to have a problem in understanding. Please play nicely!
There is so much wrong with HadCRU that it is worse than worthless garbage. It’s anti-scientific, as totally unverifiable, its underlying “data” having been “lost”. And that’s just for starters.
All the “surface record” sets are pack of lies.
RSS shows no 21st century warming and neither will UAH after its needed adjustment.
So far in this century, the globe has cooled and it will probably continue doing so for at least two more decades.
The big picture… This is like picking up the imperfections of a slate pool table with a microscope. Crazy how much time and resources have been wasted on the natural weather.
HadCRU 4 is over adjusted HadCRU 3 which is over adjusted hadCRU2 which is over adjusted ………….
So plenty of accuracy there to 0.0001 °C
It’s adjustments all the way down! 😉
Jim. Isn’t the UAH sync’ing their V6 dataset with RSS and it is now showing similar lack of warming?
I disagree with using HadCRUt4 alone. I’ll take the 2 satellite datasets for 2 reasons:
1) Coverage. They cover more of the globe than any other.
2) Dissenting views of the lead scientists. RSS is pro CO2 controls the climate and UAH is skeptical. I like that. It keeps them both honest and I’d love to hear a civilized discussion between the 2.
I’d also be happy to take an average of terrestrial and satellite data. Either way I agree that a temp increase of 0.7 to 1.6 per doubling of CO2 with no positive feedback is to be focused on as it needs no measures and will be beneficial.
Not synced at all, at least we shoild hope not. UAH finally went and changed the way they deal with the aperture issue (essentially, Earth’s curvature as seen by the satellite sensors), from their original quick and dirty but good enough method (validated by radiosondes) to the ‘correct’ 3D geometry way. Roy explained this rather nicely on his blog. Also gives UAH better vertical resolution, and guess what? No tropical troposphere hot spot seen by the satellites, just as none has been found by radiosondes. Nice replication of a result that, BY ITSELF, falsifies the CMIP3 and 5 climate models relied on by the IPCC.
The fact that two different groups are separately processing the satellite microwave data and coming now to almost exactly the same results is good science, called replication.
That NCDC and HadCRU do not agree is bad science, called lack of replication.
HadCrut, as is any government number, totally discredited in my eyes. From economic performance to unemployment to global temperature. all numbers today are corrupted by politics.
Robert, thanks. It is hard to trust big government when you see they are so far left and getting more so. With each step we lose individual freedom and history is something to be re-written to correspond with leftist orthodoxy. And that includes historical weather and climate data.
Big Jim: Years 1999-2001 contained La Nina cooling effects, following the big El Nino warming in 98-99. What time period one picks affects the results. The proper way would be to use statistics and calculate for various periods.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
I like the advertisement idea. I would contribute. It is going to be hard to wait and watch. I’m afraid it is going to be like acid rain, ozone, polar bears, DDT, rain forest and many other scares that just disappeared .
IPCC, AR5 (2013), WG1, Chapter 2, p. 194:
“Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).”
http://ipcc.wikia.com/wiki/152.4.3_Global_Combined_Land_and_Sea_Surface_Temperature
http://tinyurl.com/p3p5v9s
Take a look at this which I start in 2001 to avoid both the 1998 El Nino and the subsequent 1999/2000 drop off.
HadCRUT4 and UAH show very similar trends but I would like to see the new UAH data before drawing any firm conclusion. RSS for the same period shows a decline.
Note that HadCRUT is about 0.4 wamer than UAH, possibly (probably?) due to its Arctic smearing.
steuth, is that you again hoggy?
The trick you are missing is that worry over global warming cannot be reversed. In addition , you’re not going to convince those who believe their is no warming to concede anything. However, I believe both these passionate movements can be redirected to their mutual benefit. What is needed is for billions (rather than trillions) to be spent on converting the world’s primary source of electric power to next-generation nuclear.
It would meet the Left’s stated goals of reducing carbon emissions, while accomplishing the greatest economic, environmental and social benefit ever provided by government intervention in the economy. Nuclear waste can and should be used as fuel, it should not be stockpiled until it leaks into the environment. Electricity would be inexpensive and virtually unlimited. High paying jobs would be created both for construction and ongoing operation of these plants. Worldwide poverty would be drastically reduced by a global economy unencumbered by high energy costs.
The only drawback is activists on both sides would have to get off their high horses, and agree that regardless of who’s right, nuclear power can meet the needs of everyone on the planet with no downside (if the proper technology is employed). The billions invested would yield trillions in economic and environmental benefits.
I’ve been on board nuclear power since I was 10, figured we’d have to stop burning hydrocarbons this century, but still believe surface data shows no warming from Co2 (which is not the same as it not warming at all).
Its the rolling wave technique. Temperatures today will be lowered in the future to show future warming trends.
yeah when they “adjust” data they always lower temps in the past and raise temps in the present and near past. It must be a coincidence. How many adjustments now? I have heard of 3 major adjustment for past temp data. I must just be prone to paranoid conspiracy neurosis. Pretty soon the first part of this century is going to be a little ice age if they keep this up.
Where can you go to get a degree in Data Manipulation? The way things are going, I would think such a degree would be in high demand.
And ancestors will freeze to death, which means we will never be born. It’s worse than we thought.
He who freezes the past controls the present and warms the future.
It was some years ago that the 1930s temperatures had been adjusted a dozen times! Of course, all these adjustments cooled the 1930s.
Sorta like the economic stats, huh?
Then ***unexpectedly*** the numbers are revised downward.
Trenberth used that analogy as well, and I disagree with it for this reason.
When economic data is first published, not all data has been [received] and analysed yet. So subsequently, when the remaining data is [received], an “actual” number can be published.
With climate/temperature data, it’s not that they’ve [received] the rest of the data and can now issue the REAL number. They already HAVE all of the data.
That’s why the analogy fails.
More like the story of the plane crash in Mexico with 20 million in cocaine, 8 million in heroin and 4 million in cash ….. I mean 10 million in cocaine, 4 million in heroin and 2 million in cash …. wait it is really 8 million in cocaine, 2 million in heroin and zero cash …. wait there’s an official count now …
🙂
“How many mooah Mistah speakah, …..How many mooah”
lol
Yep! and at some point there will have been a mini ice-age in the 80’s
OK So NOAA took data that was reliable, but not valid and attempted to make the data valid. Then after this, they try to make a claim about the interpretation of that data, contradictions with other data sets notwithstanding.
Curry is right. This has little or no scientific value.
Well it’s not like we didn’t see this coming. They know the temps aren’t going to trend up anytime soon so 19 years was where it was go all in with the scam or let it die. This little budge here might buy them another 10 years if the public doesn’t wake up.
AGW can’t be ending – it never existed!
Quite so !
It is the job of climate alarmists to manipulate/distort/terrorise the real data to justify the insanity of their cause, or rather to justify the insanity of shutting down the western world’s economies in order to try and solve a non- problem.
This ham-handed attempt to try and change the data to impress the gullible and stupid that the ‘pause’ never existed is clear proof of the typical integrity of today’s ‘climate scientists’, or rather it demonstrates their complete lack of integrity.
Well, this is the year of Paris, so anything is acceptable – the end justifies the means, so telling lots of porkies is a perfectly reasonable strategy. Too many of these guys seem to have taken the practices of the great George Orwell novel 1984 to heart.
Don’t forget this is on top of all the other “Quality Adjustments” over the last few years.
“Has global warming really stopped”? Yes, it really has stopped. That in no way implies what the temperature will do in the future, unlike the words “pause” or “hiatus”.
In what way has it stopped?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/trend:2010
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend:2005
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend:2000
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend:1995
That’s going back in 5-year plots. Or perhaps you would like to ‘cherry-pick’ the past year:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/trend:2014
Nope, still rising. As one of my old girlfriends once said to me, it may be small, but it’s still rising.
Ghost,
Gotta call you on that.
Why did you pick HadCRUT4? Satellite data is the most accurate for measuring global T. So let’s just change your links to RSS instead of HadCRUT4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend:1995
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend:2000
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2005/plot/rss/from:2005/trend:2005
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend:2010
It was arch-Warmist Dr, Phil Jones who stated that 1997 must be the start year for determining if global warming has stopped. That’s why skeptics use 1997 — it was the Warmist side that suggested it (back when they believed global warming would resume with a vengeance; but it didn’t. It stopped.)
So here is what happened starting from Dr. Jones’ year of 1997:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend:1997
RSS data is the best.
…
Look at what RSS shows….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend:2000
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: “Nope, still rising.”
Only if you cherry-pick from the “homogenised” databases.
Now why – when there are more reliable databases available – would you persist in doing that, still claim to be a sceptic, and accuse anyone who tries to put you right of cherry-picking, I wonder?
Joel D. Jackson:
RSS data is the best.
…
Look at what RSS shows….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend:2000
is THIS what you were trying to do?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
@joel jackson:
The entire debate is over global warming since 1997. That year was specifically designated by Warmist scientist Phil Jones as THE start date. Both sides use it.
So take your cherry picking elsewhere, please. Because global warming stopped after 1997.
dbstealey
…
I am not cherry picking anything.
I am looking at the entire database.
You are the one that is picking specific intervals.
No catweazle666
I’m looking at the entire database for RSS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
..
Statistics 101 will teach you that the more data you look at, the more accurate your findings will be.
…
RSS clearly shows over it’s entire lifetime that warming has been happening.
Joel D. Jackson:
“Statistics 101 will teach you that the more data you look at, the more accurate your findings will be.RSS clearly shows over it’s entire lifetime that warming has been happening.”
And yet you posted: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend:2000. So what’s that “2000” doing on the end?
In any case, nobody has “denied” that there hasn’t been any warming since the beginning of the RSS data, we are discussing the existence of the “pause/hiatus/plateau/etc.”, which is commonly regarded as commencing in 1997, so keep your sarcastic comments about Statistics 101 to yourself, why don’t you?
j jackson says:
I am not cherry picking anything.
Of course you are. I explained, you just don’t want to listen. Argue with Dr. Jones if you don’t like his start year.
The same Phil Jones shows that the rise in CO2 has had exactly no effect on natural step rises in global temperature since the LIA:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Jackson also falsely asserts:
RSS clearly shows over it’s entire lifetime that warming has been happening.
It’s entire lifetime? Wrong, as usual:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend
Jackson is out of his depth here. ‘Skepticalscience’ is really where he would be comfortable. Here, we have verifiable facts and evidence. Commenters can’t get away with bogus statements like that.
Dbstealey.
..
The RSS database starts at approximately 1979
..
Why are you cherry picking 1997?
…
Here is a plot of the entire lifetime of RSS
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
…
Notice how RSS clearly shows us the global warming signal.
…
You want to ignore all the data from 1979 until 1997?
..
Why do you want to ignore that data?
..
Do you need me to school you in sample size when doing statistics?
catweazle666
The trailing 2000 is a leftover from me copying the previous commenters plot.
..
It has no effect on the result
Jim.. its cooled for the last million years. What warming?
J Jackson says:
Why are you cherry picking 1997?
*Sheesh* If I was a quitter, I’d give up. I’ve explained at least three times here, and dozens of times in other threads, that Dr. Phil Jones is the one who in 1999 explained in an interview that we could not be sure statistically that global warming had stopped in 1997 until 15 years had passed.
Well, guess what? It’s been 18 1/2 years now with no global warming. And that is why everyone uses 1997 as the start year.
But J. Jackson simply will not listen. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. Science is all about keeping an open mind, and letting observations, data, and evidence show the way. Pseudo-science is deciding what you want to believe, then torturing the data until it gives the answer you crave.
Jackson is cherry-picking the time frame that gives him what he wants to see. That is pseudo-science. The discussion is about the fact that global warming has stopped. Not whether there was no warming, ever.
Once again, here’s some good advice for Jackson: if you don’t like what Dr. Phil Jones said, complain to him. The rest of us understand. Global warming stopped after 1997.
Look dbstealey…..
…
You need to get over your fixation on Jones.
In order to make sure that no one cherry picks anything, you need to examine and analyze the entire RSS database.
When you look at ALL the RSS data this is what you see……..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
…
You are correct about satellite data, it’s the best. And the best data shows us the continual warming trend that is happening.
Furthermore, you pictures of chimpanzees are nothing more than ad-hominem blather. When you grow up and begin acting like an adult, maybe you can learn something.
Dbstealey says: “Jackson is cherry-picking the time frame that gives him what he wants to see”
..
No sir, I am examining the ENTIRE RSS dataset
..
This is what it looks like.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
..
Please explain to all of us how looking at the entire dataset is a “cherry pick”
Joel D. Jackson: “No sir, I am examining the ENTIRE RSS dataset”
You may well be, sunshine.
But everyone is discussing the portion post-~1997, generally considered by most authorities to be the commencement of the “pause”.
And the reality of that “pause” is what the whole thread is actually debating.
Live with it.
dbstealey June 5, 2015 at 11:07 am
It was arch-Warmist Dr, Phil Jones who stated that 1997 must be the start year for determining if global warming has stopped. That’s why skeptics use 1997 — it was the Warmist side that suggested it (back when they believed global warming would resume with a vengeance; but it didn’t. It stopped.)
stealey, Jones did not say what you claim, in an interview in 2010 on the BBC he was asked:
“BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
Note that the BBC chose the time span. He answered as follows:
“Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”
A year later Jones reported that the additional data caused the trend to be significant at the 95% level.
(Comment deleted. commenter using fake identity, deleted per WUWT policy –mod)
“Now please explain to me why 1997 is preferable to 2011 as a start point. I prefer to look at all the data, why do you wish to exclude all of the data before 1997 ?”
Because, despite whatever preferences you personally might or might not have, on this particular blog we are discussing a specific, apparently controversial phenomenon – generally referred to as the “pause” or ‘hiatus”- that most authorities agree commenced on or around 1997, and that has a duration of approximately eighteen years, as you would be aware had you read – and understood Dr. Singer’s explanation above.
What is it about that you are having trouble comprehending? You have been informed of this on several occasions, both by myself and by others, quite succinctly. Do you suffer from difficulties comprehending basic English? How many times do you have to be told a simple piece of information such as that before it penetrates your consciousness?
You prefer the entire RSS record? Fine! 1998 is still the warmest year by a long shot. Current temperatures is about the same as in 1982. The real problem is not cherry picking the data, but cherry picking interpretations of it!
Several definitions of “global warming” are in common use. I submit that none of them hold up to logical scrutiny.
Until recently, the “global warming” was the change in the global surface air temperature at equilibrium. This definition had the shortcoming that the “global warming” was not observable. Thus claims regarding the “global warming” of the future could not be tested. Thus, these claims were not scientific.
Recently, in conjunction with the “pause,” a definition of “global warming” has come into use in which it is the change in the global temperature along a trend line when this line is fit to time-temperature data in a specified period. This definition has the drawback that unlike a change in the global temperature, the change in the global temperature along a trend-line is generally multivalued. Thus the proposition that there has been a “pause” can be simulataneosly true and false violating the law of non-contradiction.
dbstealey suggests that we modify the latter definition of the “global warming” by nailing the point in time at which the fitted data start at 1997 following a suggestion of Phil Jones. This suggestion has the shortcoming that the “global warming” is undefined in periods preceeding 1997. Also, there is the possibility that in a segment of time following 1997 the “global warming” will be multi-valued violating non-contradiction.
Before meaningful research on global warming can be conducted we must provide a logically sound definition for “global warming.” In arriving at one such definition one would define a partition of the time-line into segments. An average temperature would be computed for each segment from the data in a specified global temperature time series e.g. the UAH time series. The “global warming” would be defined as the difference between two of these averages. Defining the “global warming” in this way would facilitate an act that is currently impossible. This is to provide policy makers with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions. Absent this information the climate is uncontrollable.
Terry Oldberg,
I agree that no currently used definition of global warming is adequate. Also, 1997 was not my suggestion. I was pointing out that Phil Jones (and others) designated the 15 years following 1997 as the time necessary to determine statistically if global warming had stopped.
Now they don’t like it. I think they truly believed they were on safe ground when they made those statements. They fully expected global warming to resume.
But it hasn’t. Rather than admit that the real world is telling them something very different than what they believed, they’ve gone into their ‘say anything’ mode. We see it in all their comments.
Phil.,
You’re wrong again:
Phil Jones, from the Climategate emails:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Global warming stopped after 1997 (“from 1998”). Jones said that had to continue for 15 years before it is statistically significant. Since 1998 there has been no global warming. None.
The only Authority that matters — the real world — is debunking the endless predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. I have no doubt that Jones really believed that he was on safe ground, and that GW would resume within his 15 year window. But it didn’t.
A few more:
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – 19th November 2009: ”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Dr. David Whitehouse: Statistically speaking it is accurate to say that according to HadCrut3 the world’s temperature has not increased for the 16 years between 1995 and 2011, though many prefer the more conservative ten years post-2001. This is not a ‘sceptical’ claim just a straightforward description of the data.
And the famous quote:
Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Dr. Jones: Yes, but only just.
Let’s forget the backing-and-filling “but only just”. That’s trying to rationalize the fact that the alarmist clique was flat wrong. And Jones refuses to give a straight answer here:
Question: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
Dr. Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
The real world is going in the wrong direction to suit Jones. And get this tail tucking:
Q: If you have confidence in your science why didn’t you come out fighting like the UK government’s drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?
Jones: I don’t feel this question merits an answer.
Instead, Jones whined that he was contemplating suicide! But as I specifically predicted at the time, Jones was on a full-pay timeout, and would shortly return to his old job. That’s exactly what happened.
Jones is just typical of that pseudo-science crowd. They have no understanding of what it means to be a skeptic. No one on their side of the fence does.
J. Jackson says:
Now please explain to me why 1997 is preferable to 2011 as a start point.
This has been explained to you so many times that you are either not able to comprehend the answer, or you are being deliberately ornery because you’ve decisively lost the science debate.
Question: How many years has it been since global warming stopped?
Answer: about 18 ½ years. Subtracting that number from this year, 2015, takes us back to 1997.
Everyone else understands that simple arithmetic.
(Comment deleted. commenter using fake identity, deleted per WUWT policy –mod)
PS Dbstealey
..
Here is an example of WFT showing no pause in the past 18 and 1/2 years
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend
..
or this
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1997/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1997/trend
..
or this
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
[Typo fixed. ~mod.]
Jackson sez:
Per Karl et al., published in the issue of Science
And dbstealey says: Read the climategate emails. You will clearly see that climate peer review is totally climate ‘crony review’. Pal review. It isn’t science, it’s propaganda. Thus, it is worthless. Verifiable facts, measurements, and observations are what matter, not self-serving, sciencey-sounding spin.
Re: Tom Karl, see here. If you want to argue in support of Dr. Karl, that’s the place to do it. I wouldn’t recomment it though, if you want to keep any credibility. Take a look at the comments, you’ll see. Karl has been ripped to shreds — just like your own comments there.
Re: GISTEMP: they are the outlier. Their numbers are far different from all the other temperature databases. Thus, they should be rejected. NASA/GISS is not credible. They should stick to their primary mission: Muslim outreach.
As for your last chart, UAH and RSS used to be slightly different (by a tenth or two of a degree over many years). Buth they have been converging. At the current rate, UAH is going to show more cooling than RSS.
Satellites provide the best, most accurate global temperature measurements. Within the margin of error, there has been no global warming for almost twenty years now. Those who predicted runaway global warming (the original scare) were flat wrong. But like the self-serving rent seekers they have become, they won’t man-up and admit it. Instead, they do an Orwell-style language change. Now “climate change” is the old “runaway global warming”.
Honest folks admit it when they’re proven wrong. You might give that some thought.
“Read the climategate emails”
…
The emails don’t mention the “pause” so they are not relevant to this discussion.
…
Your link to Monckton’s article is “opinion” not a research finding. You do realize that WUWT doesn’t even have an impact ratio.
“Satellites provide the best, most accurate global temperature measurements”
You know what the senior scientists at RSS said about the reliability of his data? If not I’ll post a link to it.
…
Isn’t UAH satellite data? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
J. Jackson says:
The emails don’t mention the “pause” so they are not relevant to this discussion.
They are certainly relevant to your claim about peer reviewed papers, so, wrong again.
Your link to Monckton’s article is “opinion”…
Christopher Monckton is a published, peer reviewed author. Thus, his analysis is much more than an ordinary ‘opinion’. That’s your class of commentary; while his is credible.
Your “senior scientist” is an ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe. He is not credible, because no one is credible who peppers his comments with pejoratives like “denier” and “denialist”. That alone proves that he is not a worthwhile scientist; rather, he is an ambitious, lowlife name-caller.
People call other scientists names like that because they’re losing the science debate. That sissy doesn’t have what it takes to accept a challenge to debate skeptic scientists in a neutral venue with a mutually agreed moderator. No alarmist has the cojones to debate any more. That’s because they have lost every debate with skeptics. So now, they sit in their ivory towers and call names. If people like that impress you, they don’t impress most folks.
Finally, you were the one who said you could find anything by cherry-picking WoodForTrees. So taking the past decade, we see that global T has fluctuated within only one-twentieth of a degree. Hey, where’s that “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe”??
Face it, the climate alarmist crowd was flat wrong. By continuing to dig their hole deeper, they just look like a bunch of grifters pushing a hoax. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening with global temperatures, or with Arctic ice, or Polar bears, or ocean “acidification”, and there is no acceleration in global warming, or sea level rise, or anything else. The alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything.
The whole ‘global warming’ scare is a giant head fake, kept afloat only by a mountain of taxpayer money and the mindless lemmings who believe in it. Take away the money, and the bubble would deflate in about two microseconds. I understand what the grifters are getting out of it. But what are you getting out of promoting the fake “dangerous man-made global warming” scare? Anything?
“Your “senior scientist” is an ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe.”
….
Good one…..next time you post a link to RSS data, I’ll remind you of what you said about the guy that is responsible for it.
“they don’t impress most folks.” ……but his data impresses YOU !!!!
…
“He is not credible” ….. Is his data credible?
PS DB
…
Is a peer reviewed author a scientist ?
…his data impresses YOU !!!! & etc.
It’s not his data.
Thank you for the laugh DB……
..
It is “his” data.
He’s the senior scientist at RSS
..
He’s responsible for it.
J. Jackson:
sci·en·tist
ˈsīən(t)əst/
noun
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Lots of folks are scientists. It does not require a PhD, or a published paper, or anything else, other than studying or expert knowledge. For example, Lord Monckton has more expert knowledge in this subject than 97% of those on the UN/IPCC.
The owner of this site who you constantly denigrate is a scientist, too. And there are other differences between scientists. Someone like Michael Mann is an ethics-challenged charlatan, IMHO. To this date he has never provided his complete data, metadata, methods and methodologies that went into fabricating his Hokey Stick chart, to other scientists requesting them. So even though he’s a scientist by definition, he’s not any more credible than your “senior scientist”. (Once again: it’s not “his” data.)
I asked before: what do you get out of promoting the misinformation that supports the “dangerous mann-made global warming” scare. Anything?
db,
Not to speak for Joel, but I’ve worked with people with PhD’s (or in some cases engineers) who either felt like they were better than others, or didn’t like letting people without degrees in their club, or they don’t know anything and don’t think anyone else without a degree can know anything either.
What they both don’t get are the scores of people with fewer qualifications who don’t let that stop them from changing the world.
Here are pictures for the entire staff at RSS
..
http://www.remss.com/about/profiles
….
Not only is Mears a “scientist” he’s also a “vice president”
..
Enjoy !!!
Micro6500,
Yes, I agree with that.
================
J. Jackson says:
Can we expect you to publish a refuation of Karl’s paper?
No need. It’s already been done here, and very thoroughly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/has-noaa-ncdcs-tom-karl-repealed-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
Enjoy!!
And:
He’s
the senior scientistone of several senior scientists at RSSFixed.
And:
You are correct about satellite data, it’s the best.
Thank you.
“No need. It’s already been done here, and very thoroughly:”
…
Really? If you think for one minute that an article published on a “news & commentary” web site refutes a peer reviewed scientific paper published in Science, you don’t have a clue how science is done. The topic of the “news and commentary” might be science here, but real science gets published in science journals.
…
” one of several senior scientists at RSS”
…
Again you display your lack of investigative skill. You’ll find that in addition to being the senior scientist at RSS, he is also the VP. A serious investigation would have revealed to you that the only person at RSS that has a higher ranking than Mears is the president of RSS, Mr. Frank Wentz/ Now Frank may have studied science, but he did not reach the level that Mears has with a PhD.
Mears is responsible for the data at RSS, a fact that you’ll have to accept since you consider the man to be “ethics-challenged, self-serving wannabe”
…
Please tell all of us what does Mears wannabe?
…
I like the fact that you think the data coming from an ethics-challenged person is the best.
How do you define “global warming”
The bottom line: even if there wasn’t a pause, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation. Just warming. Like all the other Holocene warm periods.
Absolutely, 100% correct. I’ve been reading and waiting to see if someone – anyone, was going to state the obvious: Any warming since the end of the LIA is natural variability, unless the alarmists can prove CO2 usurps that natural variability.
Correctomundo, Blackbeard. It’s the classic fallacy: ‘It’s happening, so it must be due to X (CO2) even though we can’t back that assertion with any credible evidence, and a lot of evidence flatly contradicts it.’ One uncomfortable fact is the lack of any global warming this century.
The day someone is able to produce a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying AGW, I will sit up straight and pay attention. I will change my mind if it’s warrented by new facts and evidence.
But so far, there are no measurements quantifying the fraction of man-made global warming, out of total global warming (MMGW) from all causes. The entire ‘carbon’ scare is based on evidence-free assertions that MMGW is happening, and that it will cause big problems.
But there is no supporting evidence for any of those claims.
“I will change my mind if it’s warrented by new facts and evidence.” ~dbs
Spot on. This is the essence of science.
“… The entire ‘carbon’ scare is based on evidence-free assertions that MMGW is happening, and that it will cause big problems. …” ~ dbs
Again, spot on. The entire edifice of alarmism is built upon the idea that “back radiation” drives the climate and warms the surface some 33 degrees. This is entirely a hypothesis and I have seen no evidence of it. The evidence we do have says that the planet warms first and then CO2 concentrations rise after the warming.
~ Mark
markstoval June 5, 2015 at 1:38 pm
There is no carbon scare. There is a war on plant food.
When they can prove “back radiation” on Venus, then I will consider it on Earth. First they have to disprove that atmospheric mass and gravity have no effect on temperature and that ideal gas laws only apply if ‘P’ is placed on its own on one side of the equation.
wickedwenchfan
+10
Asking the question; How long has it been since the globe has warmed? is not cherry picking either. It cannot be, because the question has no specific date going backwards. 1998 was clearly the warmest year, and not by a little. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/the-climate-warming-pause-goes-awol-or-maybe-not/#comment-1955535
The start date of the satellite era is an unintentional cherry pick, as it falls at the beginning of warming ENSO cycles.
There are five lights.
2+2=5
Bruce Jenner is female.
There is no pause.
Your 2 + 2 = 5 is only valid for Common Crap, er Core.
Or if a dog’s tail is a leg.
2 + 2 = 5?
How accurately can you measure 2?
It might be right.
2+2 in base 4 + 10
2+2=5 is true for very large values of 2.
Crispin,
That one always brings a smile… ☺
Speaking of large values of 2, I realised after working on my comments in Ross McKitrick’s thread the reason why the Hockey Stick failed to score the winning goal for Climate Alarm. They sent a Mann to do a Buoys job.
So there we have two good examples of inflating value without increasing worth.
and…
There is no spoon.
Nice Star Trek reference.
So,,,, the A in AGW really means “Adjusted” via Anthropogenic means ?
What is the total contribution of the cumulative adjustments made by human hands in any given temperature data set? .8-1.2C?
C’mon, somebody must know this.
It even sounds right. Adjusted Global Warming!
I go for Mann Made Global Warming personally.
I like climate séance.
A recent article by Monckton posted here had that information. I think the number was about 0.5°C, or in other words, 1/2 of all 20th century warming was caused by Anthropogenic adjustments.
Har, Har….+100
Ossqss, in Arts of Truth the adjustments to the historic record were examined, and I found that of the ~0.76C since 1900, ~0.45 is probably real and the rest comes from anthropogenic data homogenization. Too complicated to explain in a comment. Now, those estimates are without uncertainty error bounds, which even Gavin Schmid says are on the order of plus minus 0.1C
How do we interpolate this in the fundamentals? The U.S. was by far the best of such……
http://www.surfacestations.org
I have been testing K band thermocouple drift compared with RTD’s today in the lab in Yogyakarta. The drift over periods of a few minutes is about 0.3 degrees C up and down, depending on the manufacturer. Calibration offsets needed ranged from 0.15 to 5.0 degrees.
The RTD’s drifted from each other by up to 0.004 C.
So what is the importance of finding a quarter of a degree change in a value that has half a degree of drift?
I thought we had to see water vapor go up before temperature did to validate the models?
Unfortunately for the Warmists it seems to be going down…
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract
Only a matter of time before they start altering the satellite data itself.
The day the satelite stops transmitting.
Well, NASA and NOAA control the satellites and their data. We have seen that both corrupt data to fit their political agenda.
So there was a pause for 21 years, it just so happened to occur between 1979 and 2000
I and a few others have been banging on about this for years.
The problem is the straight line linear plots/trend lines that the warmists use. But there is no mathematical justification for using such a linear trend line.
When one looks at the satellite data, temperatures are flat from lauch (1979) through to the run up to the 1998 Super El Nino, then there is a step change in temperatures of about 0.2degC, then following the Super El Nino, temperatures are flat to data.
It is clear that there are two pauses, not one. There is no first order correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. It would appear that there is simply a one off and isolated warming event of natural origin, namely the Super El Nino of 1998.
We are unable to detect the signal (if any) to CO2 from the noise of natural variation bearing in mind the limitations and errors imposed by our best and most sophisticated measuring devices.
Does that mean that CO2 does not cause warming? Well no one knows. Possibly it does cause warming but it is subortinate to natural variation and swamped by it, and the signal (if any at all) would appear to be rather small unless the error bounds of our best and most sophisticated measuring equipment are large. The smaller these error bounds are, the smaller Climate Sensitivity to CO2 must be.
The more interesting question is why was the heat that was released from the ocean into the atmosphere by the Super El Nino of 1998 not yet dissipated? When will it dissipate?
It is difficult to see how the cult of AGW can enjoy the support or passive support of genuine scientists if cooling over the coming decade occurs.
The alarmists are running around in a panic and in ever decreasing circles, because they know that Paris is their last chance to destroy the world’s economy and condemn us all to living a feudal existence.
In my mind there are two major flaws in their thinking:
1) The Pause should not be happening yet it is, if they can massage the data it may go away;we need as much pre-massaged data as we can get
2) The world has had much greater concentrations of CO2 in the past, without climate change going into positive feedback and with CO2 levels being out od sync with raised global temperatures. These facts needs to be widely publicised.
Rather than strengthen the arguments of the Warmbots, this NCDC paper that “disappears” the Pause just shows what complete pandemonium they are in.
And what scoundrels too, to take taxpayer funded public property and abuse it for nefarious personal reasons.
The worst part of all this is that it was entirely possible temperatures could have risen by as much as a degree or so over that time simply due to natural variation, and the models would still be just as wrong.
The fact we even have to have a debate with these lunatics given that there’s no warming is a depressingly familiar sign of the decay of society.
Yep, integrity left the room …
And decency followed.
NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures….
=========
Global warming makes older thicker ice at one pole….and a hell of a lot more ice at the other pole
….while at the same time breaking record high temperatures at both poles
It’s magic……
I think the most effective way of dealing with this is to fan the fire…. aka use the “new” their was never a pause fake data and say the IPCC which confirmed a pause is wrong. Since the IPCC is wrong all of global warming as it is known is wrong and should be sent back to the drawing draw…. even the cultists should be able to grasp that concept.
O just to further add in on this if someone wants a personal project. 1998 is a very key year… as anyone following the adjustments knows 1998 keeps being adjusted down heavily. A great project would be to compare the temp release in 1998 of 1998 vs the current temp for 1998. Goddard’s site has been watching it for awhile however I think with these adjustments a key line has been breached… aka they have adjusted 1998 more then the margin for error for both the 1998 data and the current data…. which means both the past and current data sets are debunked because the margin of error is completely wrong.
Keep pushing and promoting both RSS and UAH while at the same time fully vet the ” agendas ” morph of version 3b to 4.
I find it interesting that the warmists are now spending so much time trying to re engineer the pause as in fact continued warming. If what we are suffering from is climate change why should it matter if its getting warmer or cooler. The reality is that the lack of major weather events, tornados etc is making that argument also difficult. There is no doubt that the only way they are going to keep the scare going is to somehow change the past so their constant narrative of Armageddon is not debunked. If they didn’t have such a compliant media and a corrupt political class this fight would’ve been over years ago. All we can hope is that we can continue to win some key battles so that eventually the war will be won.
I bought another bag of Budda Popcorn yesterday evening!
Looks like NOAA GS-15s really know how to cook-the-books (look over at Wa-Po). The fellow working at Silver Springs engineered a cushy consultant job, then retired, then next day walks back in his office and begins AS THE CONSULTANT. With a “housing allowance” of $50,000 per year he managed to walk away with about $500,000 before being fired after about 24 months.
Hats off the NOAA, the Fed at its best.
Ha ha
Hold steady. The premise is that change is accelerating, and is unprecedented. That leads to “action required” mentality. Is temperature change accelerating…sea level rise…first day of spring…coral reef decline…ocean acidification…glacier retreat…??? Make them say, “Oh yes, change is accelerating, but it’s too small to see that acceleration just now.” Right now they only have: “Things are changing…OMG!”
How can we measure or calculate acceleration when the primary values are so uncertain? So-called positive feedback is the lynch-pin to the CAGW hypothesis.
Yeah NOAA is packed with the usual government types. You have to hope that there are at least a few straight scientists in there to keep them a little in check.
So basically Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right from way way way back 2008? Maybe WUWT should have concentrated on the issue at hand which is massive fraud a long long time ago. FIFA has been caught out. Once Obama is finished and the Republican president M Rubio is elected (my Guess LOL), this will be the same for NCDC, NOAA, AMS, APS, IPCC will be prosecuted by the FBI and Interpol for massive fraud and misrepresentation.