People send me stuff. What I received reminded me of this famous quote from NCDC’s Dr. Tom Peterson back in 2011
In this case multiple sources have sent me a press release and advance copies of a paper that would easily qualify Dr. Peterson’s remark.
Tomorrow at 2PM EDT, there will be a press release from the American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) about a paper from NCDC published in the journal Science. Since there is an embargo in place, and while I got the information second hand and am not bound by the terms of its advance release to journalists, I’m still going to honor that embargo. So, I can’t give the title or anything else about it, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up.
Why? Well despite the embargo, the paper and the press release that goes with it is quietly being circulated among journalists to get advance stories written. It’s an unfair advantage given to a select few that I aim to correct. So, I don’t feel at all bad about giving other media people a heads up to ask NCDC and AAAS if they can get into the “inner circle” of elite journalists who got this PR to the exclusion of others. So much for equal access. Isn’t government funded science great?
NCDC is hoping for a big splash, and they’ll probably get it in some of the usual media circles, except, WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper, and we’ve drained the pool ahead of time.
Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is the journal Science one of those sham publishing outfits that Howard Booth wrote about? I mean, if a fatal weakness has already been found in the paper, the editors and peer reviewers must not have done their jobs properly.
Nope, Science is not. Its generally considered the world’s foremost scientific journals. Being the lead author of a paper in Science pretty much makes your academic career these days (as far as tenure and the like go). The paper about bad journals and gullible science reporters that Booth was discussing was published in, oddly enough, Science.
Regarding the upcoming paper, if folks want a sneak peak of the results I’d suggest looking up the difference between ERSST v3 and the new v4 in KNMI Climate Explorer: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
“Science,” may be by some considered {one of the} world’s foremost scientific journals, Mr. Hausfather, however, articles like these show that it is not above publishing pseudo-science about CO2 emissions:
1. “A new study suggests that sea levels aren’t just rising; they’re gaining ground faster than ever. *** Also contributing to the apparent slowdown was a hiccup caused by natural climate variation, says John Church, a climate scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Hobart, Australia, and a co-author of the new study. *** ”
Really great science, there…
Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought
2. “‘All the studies are in pretty good agreement: The more warming we have, the more species we’ll lose,’ says Dov Sax, a conservation biologist at Brown University who was not involved in the work. ‘This is really important to know, from a policy viewpoint.‘”
{more largely unsupported conjecture …}
Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/04/climate-change-could-eventually-claim-sixth-world-s-species
3. “Anesthetics may make that tooth surgery bearable, but they are also contributing—at least somewhat—to climate change, a new study reveals. The gases act in much the same way as carbon dioxide (CO2), trapping energy from the sun in the atmosphere and warming the planet. ”
No comment (except: lol)
Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/04/anesthesia-gases-are-warming-planet
***************************
I seriously doubt that any bona fide scientist would consider his or her science career made by being published in such a periodical. Now, his or her Enviroprofiteer lacky career…. that’s another matter. Bring on $$”SCIENCE”$$!
To quote Zeke.
The NCDC should be proud of making these changes to SSTs between V3b and V4. It is obviously more correct.
http://freegifmaker.me/img/res/1/4/3/3/3/8/143338530538889.gif?1433385306
On the other hand, just looks like a bunch of faked-up adjustments to me. There should be a court order freezing these records for the future investigations.
Well, try asking some “bona fida scientists”. Or look at impact factors: http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/11/apr3-11_1D/
@jJanice Moore
You pick out statements without context and represent them as conveying the full context — intellectual shenanigans of the worst kind. When I see your scientific analysis refuting the papers in Science, I’ll reconsider my assessment that you’re a rank amateur disputing the lifetime work of PhD Scientists without so much as a smidgen of interest in understanding what they are saying or supporting your contrary conclusions. Such an attitude is incomprehensible.
@ur momisugly Warren Pound:
My quotes from the Science articles are representative and accurate. Anyone who takes the time to read the articles from which I quoted will easily be able to verify that fact.
warrenlb says:
…my assessment that you’re a rank amateur…
…says the rank amateur.
Janice, I believe I see your problem.
..
You are reading news articles, not research papers from the actual scientists.
…
Try reading the actual submissions made by scientists instead of the PR news clips about the articles.
Joel D. Jackson
Funny thing, that. The politicians keep using these same publicity statements and propaganda pieces from these same self-claimed Big Government-paid “climate scientists” when THEY make their laws and their EPA dictates and their speeches …. And all these self-claimed “climate scientists” seem to want tostand right there and soak up and the money and publicity they can get from the politicians with nary a complaint in sight.
Janice Moore June 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm
2. “‘All the studies are in pretty good agreement: The more warming we have, the more species we’ll lose,’ says Dov Sax, a conservation biologist at Brown University who was not involved in the work. ‘This is really important to know, from a policy viewpoint.‘”
{more largely unsupported conjecture …}
//////////////
It is just conjecture, but significantly it flies in the face of what we know about life here on planet Earth in the here and now, and also in the past when the globe was warmer than today.
Given that biodiversity is greaatest in warm and humid areas (eg., tropical rain forests), and least in cold and arid areas (eg, the Arctic, Antarctic, Siberian plains etc) it would be extremely surprising if a warming world would lead to the loss of a significant number of species.
Life like warmth and therefore is likely to flourish in a warmer globe, especially if the warming leads to an increase in rainfall. And if there is also an increase in CO2 then plant life will flourish and this is the base of the food chain which should make conditions for insect and animal life even better still.
Mr. Joel Jackson,
Unless those Science articles are misquoting and misrepresenting those junk science papers, the cited quotes in Science are enough to establish the fact that the papers are, indeed, JUNK.
Janice
I don’t understand how you can characterize the submitted papers as “junk” unless you have read them.
Once upon a time Science was considered a serious jopurnal. No more, I’m afraid.
Well, Mr. Jackson, you may be right. I may be giving the “Science” reporters too much credit for accuracy/veracity. Perhaps, you know more than I about just HOW BAD it really is at “Science.”
Bill??
“On the other hand, just looks like a bunch of faked-up adjustments to me. There should be a court order freezing these records for the future investigations.”
1. the paper hasnt even been released.
2. the changes they made to the ocean series are known issues. heck one even pointed out by climate audit types.
The paper shows three things.
1. Overall adjustments COOL THE RECORD. are those faked up? waaaaa
2. The long term trend from1880 to present is nomimally smaller in the new version
3. the hiatus? hmm not so dramatic any more.
The land portion is largely unchanged.. More stations added so folks need to be aware that GHCN going forward is likely to be replaced by ISTI. That database is on the order of berkeley earth size.. last I checked then a 2000 more stations..
The biggest changes were to SST.. and the product did have some issues.
As for faked up adjustments.. Just one question.
Lets say version A has an adjustment for buckets that stops in 1941.
Lets say that the raw data indicates that buckets were used AFTER 1940s
Question: would fixing this flaw in the earlier version be a “faked up” adjustment?
Now consider the fact that some skeptics may have CRITICIZED them for stopping the adjustment too early.
OK, so ” no mask, halfway grid points, demand at least 50 % valid points in region “. ERSST V3b2 vs V4.
Are you suggesting that sea surface temps “adjustments” will somehow reflect in global tropo temps no longer show the pause – w.r.t RSS and UAH ?
Perhaps you can explain your sneak peak in detail ? ? thanks !
warrenlb, when you treat honestly the post of another, I’ll reconsider my opinion that you are worthless troll who isn’t worth whatever he’s being paid.
I notice that once again, all you can do is attack those who disagree with you without even attempting to deal with the evidence presented.
Joel Jackson, any “study” that says that it has proven that warmer temperatures increases the rate of extinctions is, by definition, junk science.
I love the hypocrisy being shown by our resident trolls. In this case Mosher insults another poster for criticizing a paper that hasn’t been released yet. Then he turns around and declares that it’s results must be right.
Despite the fact that he hasn’t read it either.
The trolls are getting really desperate.
@Warrenlb
Must be nice to be a chauvinist, a beligerant superior in self glorification. Cheers!
@janice. why the mockery of Science articles. Did you read (1) for example? Do you have a reason to dispute altimeter drift and the need to correct for bias?
Dear Mr. Sanger,
I thought it was clear from my comment that I wrote to refute Mr. Hausfather’s claim that “Science” is a journal of integrity v. a v. CO2 and climate issues. The 3 articles about junk science were evidence of that. If you read and understand the 3 “Science” articles, you will see why.
Re: #1. Altimeter drift (nor any other trivial issue) does not save that piece of junk:
From a “hostile witness,” (NOAA has repeatedly come down on the side of the AGW speculation gang who tout this junk about acceleration in sea level rise):
“NOAA has released new and updated mean sea level trend data ***
The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades. ***
… the unchanging and constant linear NOAA mean sea level trend records from worldwide tide gauge station data versus the UN claims of increasing rates of sea level rise based on satellite sea level data suggests the latter outcome is driven by anomalous analytical artifacts associated with the measurement and measurement analysis methodology not reflective of real world outcomes.”
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
Your turn. Prove those 3 articles promote bona fide, non-junk, science. On their face they present a clear out-of-their-own-mouths, prima facie, case of: junk. The burden of proof has now shifted to you.
Janice
Steven Mosher June 3, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Weellll Mosh, colour me cynical, but the adjustments seem to conveniently address 3 of the more obvious issues with the official story.
1. Cooling the past? “Hey, we agree it was a bit much, couldn’t have been correct, not so bad now, that looks better.”
2. The hiatus? “See, it did not warm as much in the past as we first thought, but, hell, things is sure heating up now! (Now that we have a closer look)”.
3. And SSTs? “Adjustments for buckets”? Really? We are measuring fractions of a degree, and we change our measuring instruments, collection sites and methods many times over decades, and we accept that adjustments make it all OK? Fair enough for a ‘general overview’ of an idea, but not so much for making world changing policy decisions.
I have seen some patchy, adjusted, variously measured, modified, outlier trimmed, selectively picked, multi-sourced data sets in my time, but these temperature records surely take the cake.
Janice. Your comments aee being judged by your critics using the standards that should be applied to the documents you criticise but are not. IOW, double standards are operating. BTW, double standards (aka confirmation bias) are also visible in the statement by John Church about natural variation : it is very unscientific of John Church to cite natural variation as ending the global warming while (a) not knowing how it did it, and (b) not acknowledging that natural variation might have contributed equally to the earlier global warming. No wonder these people are desperate for an El Nino – they need something to rescue them from their predicament as soon as possible, and what better than a purely natural phenomenon to raise temperatures so that they can claim (with a huge sigh of relief) that this natural feature proves that the temperature rise is not natural?
Mosher says; “waaaa”
There’s a difference between “Overall adjustments…” and “Overall, adjustments…” and I know that I’ll just have to form my own opinion of what was meant.
It’s not hard to imagine how the record can be cooled, the long term trend can be lowered and “the pause” diminished simply by judicious cooling and warming of different segments of the line.
It is good to know that we will finally know for sure what temperature the bilge water was on MV Magnificent on April 4th 1957.
Waaaaa!
Zeke, you must really be living high up in the ivory tower.
Science and Nature no longer in any way have the stature you believe they have. A paper in Science makes your career…? You must be joking…. How naïve can you get.
There are a number of meta analyses showing that papers in Science and Nature have roughly the same proportion of “irreproducible science” as “lesser” journals – in my field I am aware of several papers in both Science and Nature that belong in the “irreproducible” category and that should have been retracted, but never were. And both journals, just like most other journals, have identifiable biases -a conclusion that, said in passing, applies across all disciplines covered by Science and Nature. Cliquish referees in any field equals biases.
Science’s biases in the field of “Climate Science” are so blatant and well documented that they make a complete mockery of your statement and a fool out of you.
Janice, I’m only going to reply on the first paper, but the point is the same. the sciencemag.com is not the actual paper, just a reporter’s simplification. The real paper is here :: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html
There’s nothing there that is controversial. The authors used GPS to get better estimates of land movement and correct errors in the sea level calculations. Their final global mean sea level estimate is a bit lower than previous estimates but does show a very slight acceleration.
This kind of detailed analysis and calibration is not “junk” at all; it’s just part of the pedestrian ongoing slow work of science, working out the details and attending to the small stuff.
I also read the WUWT post from a year ago by Larry Hamlin (which wasn’t about the later Science paper at all). Frankly I wasn’t convinced. He didn’t even compute a global mean sea level; he just drew a bunch of US tide gauge graphs and said they looked like straight lines so there couldn’t be acceleration. That really doesn’t pass muster as a scientific analysis. A real critique would have to be much more thorough and precise.
The IPCC AR5 WR1 chapters 3 and 13 on sea level rise, on the other hand, were reasonably informative with very detailed descriptions and links to the many ongoing studies on the topic. The Science paper is just one more small piece of the puzzle.
All tide gauges on the West Coast of North America show sea level decline since 1997. Globally, tide gauge records show a faster rate of sea level increase a century ago following the end of the Little Ice Age than recently. Glacier retreat in many areas – the Jakobshavn glacier of Greenland (and of James Balog’s “Chasing Ice” fame, and the glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska – was greater a century or more ago than now. Climate change did not begin in 1950 when atmospheric CO2 began its rapid rise, much of which is due to natural warming of the seas causing release of CO2. The current alarm of global warming is taken out of the context of previous periods of much greater climate change. Climate change – it’s what climate does.
I see what you mean. Running a 15 year rolling linear trend over all the currently available datasets in KNMI shows over the last 15 years ERSSTv4 is by far the most rapidly warming sea surface temperature dataset. It’s more than 3 times the warming rate of ERSSTv3b and approximately double HadSST1, HadSST3, and Reynolds OIv2. However for the 15 year linear trends ending at 2001, ERSSTv4 is has the “coolest” warming rate which has the effect of straightening out the temperature climb and getting rid of the warming hiatus in sea surface temperatures in this dataset.
I subscribed to AAAS and received the journal Science for a while and found that the latter was full of junk and stopped my subscription. The junk was in all areas -climate related, medical related, chemistry related, astronomy related, computer science related, pharmacology related etc. I believe that an article in the medical journal Lancet recently wrote that 50-60% of articles were junk from opinions on small unrepresentative samples, poor statistics, no check on errors, no baseline comparisons, wrong assumptions, etc etc. All these listed apply to climate related articles plus even worse assuming outputs ,from models, which have no basis of fact, are correct. Zeke if (as has been independently determined from different data and by many researchers) CO2 concentration in the lower atmosphere lags near surface temperature why do you still support the scam of climate change due to CO2?
@Tetris
This is truly troubling, if the research is not reproducible whether to disprove or prove the articles research and conclusions, by definition it is not science.
I am not getting this, if a leading science journal publishes junk science or what I refer to as editorial or opinion science instead of scientific research is science already doomed? Is climate science just a symptom and not the cause of the deterioration of scientific practice?
@David Sanger
1. “A new study suggests that sea levels aren’t just rising; they’re gaining ground faster than ever. *** Also contributing to the apparent slowdown was a hiccup caused by natural climate variation…”
Then explain the summary above. Collecting some data and then coming up with wild-assed assertions and conjecture is not very scientific, it is political. Here is my explanation of the summary.
“Faster than ever” is ambiguous and meaningless, it’s what a teenager would say about something, “yeah he’s my best friend evah”. “Faster than ever” followed by an “apparent slowdown” creates an environment of gibberish.
“A hiccup caused by natural variation”. Natural variation is a fact but pointing to it as a driver only when convenient is junk. It is more likely natural variation controls global temperature but interestingly it is not considered the default position. Instead it only becomes important when cooling the “hiccup”. The CO2 bias is alarmingly evident.
Collecting data is not the problem.
Overstating the accuracy, importance and completeness of the data and then making extremely broad ambiguous conclusions unsupported by the data is the problem, a huge problem.
Well, HURRAH FOR THE WUWT HEAVY HITTERS!
Thank You:
richard verney
D.B.
R.A.
MarkW
markx
Tetris
noloctd
Mike Jonas and
Alx
Your amplifications, explanations, and intelligent support in the face of my words being mischaracterized or misrepresented (perhaps, not intentionally…) IS MUCH APPRECIATED!
I’m done with this thread, but had to let you know that I am
Gratefully yours,
Janice
#(:)) (smile to start my day — yea!)
Janice Moore June 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Janice, I saw that article by Julia Rosen you mentioned about sea level change in Science. The original article was in Nature Climate Change. She is completely wrong so I placed a comment about it into Science. I said a few things they would ordinarily not accept but it went through and is now on their web site. You might want to take a look. I made a typo with the author’s name you will have to excuse me for because I did not have my glasses on. Those interested in what Science will let you say ought to look as well.
Zeke
I had already downloaded ERSSTv4 data from KNMI Climate Explorer. Any idea why the trends calculated therefrom are lower for all periods than those given for the Ocean at the end of the SI for the new Science paper? I used annual mean data to calculate trends, which I believe is what is done in the Science paper.
Well, try asking some “bona fida scientists”.
Would Svante Pääbo qualify as a “bona fide Scientist”?:
(about a junk paper on ancient DNA):
“Not surprisingly this paper appeared in one of the two journals that compete for headline-worthy work and enjoy an often undeserved scientific prestige”
Neanderthal Man, p. 58
Guess which two journals….
@Alx yes the summary by the reporter is misleading. That’s why it is essential to go to the actual source paper
The reference to “hiccup caused by natural variation” specifically refers to land water storage changes (i.e. rainfall changes during El Niño and La Niña years) as described in the Cazenave paper they cite.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html#access
I am a bit confused by the headline. At the moment, NOAA has no pause, unless you consider the 4 months from January to April a pause. GISS is similar but it goes only 3 months from February to April. Hadcrut4.3 is 3 months from January to March.
Does anyone know what is happening with Hadcrut4.3? As of June 3, the April anomaly is not out yet. Are they working on higher priority items?
The only global data sets that show significant pauses are RSS at 18 years and 6 months to the end of May and UAH6.0 at 18 years and 4 months to the end of April.
that’s the way I heard it too Werner….
OK, so ” no mask, halfway grid points, demand at least 50 % valid points in region “. ERSST V3b2 vs V4.
Is Zeke suggesting that sea surface temps “adjustments” will somehow reflect in global tropo temps no longer show the pause – w.r.t RSS and UAH ?
Perhaps he can explain his sneak peak in detail ? ? thanks !
There seems to be a divergence developing between the surface and satellite series:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1980/mean:12/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/mean:12/offset:-0.1/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1980/mean:12
ah ha….but they admitted to the pause too many times in the past…..don’t see how they are going to erase it now…with all of their precious decade of “science” trying to explain it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
They’ll ‘get rid of it’ the same way they ‘got rid of’ the ’70’s Is-an-Ice-Age-coming scare. They’ll just deny it ever happened. Even now, on twitter, I deal with at least two alarmist trolls who deny that there is any type of pause, even when confronted with all of the attempts to explain away the pause. They just say it doesn’t exist, and use something like the current heatwave in India as proof I’m wrong.
There are two sides of the coin:
Side one is that the pause is an artifact of negative PDO.
Side two is that the “double-warming” from 1977 – 2007 is an artifact of positive PDO.
Only by averaging over a full PDO cycle can one achieve the true warming signal. That signal is 1.1C/century since 1950, according to HadCRUt4 (which trend is upwardly adjusted).
Then the warming signal should have been flat for the 27 years prior to the positive PDO that started in 1977….from 1950 to 1977
Unless it’s not the negative PDO that’s doing it now…..
We have no idea what the temperature trend was prior to the late 70’s.
The surface measurement system is close enough to worthless that the difference isn’t worth measuring.
The idea that this system can tell us what the temperature of the earth is to within even 10C is laughable.
You’d have to increase the land based sensors by least 2 orders of magnitude and the ocean based ones by closer to 4 orders of magnitude.
And that’s without dealing with the many, well documented quality control issues.
It is relevant to note that a number of researchers have, at various times, commented on “the pause”.
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“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….” ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/20…
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
Above list of “pause” quotes from Jimbo!
July 24, 2013 at 9:37 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/24/reactions-to-the-pause-grasping-at-strawmen-in-hidey-holes/#comment-1370200
The pause is now documented even in Wikipedia, albeit with the standard attempts at spin in favor of warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus or use google search phrase “global warming hiatus”.
I was also wondering if there was a reason to smooth out the peak with the ’98’ El Nino. It doesn’t show in the graphs of that article.
Great list, markx! And how nice (thanks for telling us, too) that it was from our dearly beloved (and much missed) Jimbo!
“Latitude
June 3, 2015 at 5:56 pm
Then the warming signal should have been flat for the 27 years prior to the positive PDO that started in 1977….from 1950 to 1977”
This may be uninformed on my part, but isn’t that just what the NASA-GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index shows?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Isn’t this accepted data by the CAGW group, and doesn’t it agree close to 100%, with Mr. D’aleo’s and Dr. Easterbrook’s paper MULTIDECADAL TENDENCIES IN ENSO AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES RELATED TO MULTIDECADAL OSCILLATIONS, as far as the causative factors (PDO, AMO, NAM, AO, etc.) for the global temperature records???
Dan Sage
And with proper error margins you claim no possibility of a pause?
This has NOAA and NCDC in the webpage.
?w=640
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature = 0.69°C above 13.9°C [= 14.59°C]
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
Or just put in any number you like.
Monthly temperatures which are marked with an “E” are “estimated” rather than measured. More than half of the current data for 2015 is fake.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/
All this talk of NCDC reminds me.
NCDC needs to step up and fix this along with other problems that have been identified. And they are, I expect some sort of a statement, and possibly a correction next week. In the meantime, let’s let them do their work and go through their methodology. It will not be helpful to ANYONE if we start beating up the people at NCDC ahead of such a statement and/or correction.
I will be among the first, if not the first to know what they are doing to fix the issues, and as soon as I know, so will all of you. Patience and restraint is what we need at the moment. I believe they are making a good faith effort, but as you all know the government moves slowly, they have to get policy wonks to review documents and all that. So, we’ll likely hear something early next week.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
That was June of last year and don’t remember reading about any corrections or resolution or explanation and from the above now near 45% (up 5%) still fake they are only making more.
Assuming there was no trend prior to 1990, the start to the increase in “estimated” temperatures coincides with the Earth Summit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit
I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s going to be interesting to see how things proceed as “they” get more and more desperate.
Phil Jones of CRU and Climategate fame several years ago agreed that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and RSS and UAH satellite observations confirm that there has not been.
You are right. It isn’t a pause, it is a HALT until it starts moving again.
I think they are the two most reliable data sets and they both show virtually no change in temperature in almost a generation. Little fiddles are not going to change that. The IPCC forecasts are consistently unbelievable. Be happy. Catastrophe averted, if in fact there ever was one.
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
Is that because these RSS and UAH do not rely on terrestrial instruments whose records cannot be manipulated by homogenisation and other “essential adjustments”? Or is the troposphere totally divorced from the earth?
Collusion among “science”, politics, and media, aimed at shaping public opinion
I’m shocked, I tell ya.
Actually, I’m deeply saddened. The profession I practiced for 40+ years ihas been sucked into the whirlpool of political deceit.
When US Dept Interior Sally Jewell said “I hope there are no global warming deniers in the Department”, I knew it was time to leave. [sh*t]
Laugh — out — loud. You can SMELL the AGWer’s desperation.
“Nobody ever got rich bein’ honest.” (movie Mathilda — youtube)
{Yes, I mean those Enviroprofiteer windmill hustlers and the like)
With the bumpers falling off all their FAILED, NO SKILL, climate models, now they want to sell those hunks of junk by turning back the odometer.
Who will NOT see through such a pitiful, amateur, two-bit operation?
Only suckers (and most of them will not be paying any attention to this, heh).
In the end, truth (as in facts) wins.
Every time.
Aw, c’mon Janice, he’s only got 18 months left to totally screw up the US economy. Give him a break. Better yet, let’s not give him a break!
Best wishes.
Hi, Tom, Thanks for “wave of the hand.” Keep on eatin’ those Reeces Peanut Butter cups and goooo to the races (figuratively and actually).
Lol, that “57 state” “my parents met for the first time after I was born” etc… etc… puppet isn’t really our problem, you know… it’s the statist, Enviroprofiteer, hand inside that empty suit…
Janice, he said he had visited 57…with one more to go
…that makes it 58 😉
Well, Latitude, (smile), if you want to really expose that silly bow-to-the-Saudi-King-man (head was beneath that potentate’s chin = bow), IIRC, it was essentially: “I’ve been to 57 states with a couple more to go, not counting Alaska and Hawaii.” WHAT A DOPE. And he had the audacity (re: Cambridge, MA police) to say: “The police acted stupidly.” lolol Hm. Maybe he read that one… .
And now, apparently, the Dem’s are trying to tout (instead of “the magic Negro” — L. A. Times editorial) “the magic woman.” BARF.
A lot of us are praying, however… let’s see what God does between now and November, 2016.
Janice, that Saudi King holds the Islamic religious title of Guardian of the Holy Places. As such, he merits deep respect by all Muslims. And the hand inside the suit may discard it in a timely manner.
They are not suckers. There are a gazillion bureaucrats, grant-seeking scientists and subsidy-seeking owners of swindlemills rooting for NOAA to come up with the goods.
In a democratic country, if a left-wing government can deliver enough public money to enough of the population, they become unbeatable in elections – until they run out of the other people’s money. Well, even then they’re unbeatable in elections (Greece right now, for example), but the country is a goner.
Yes, Robert of Ottawa, the Enviroprofiteers/Envirostalinists are not fooled by the slimy turning back of the odometer. Only those fooled, here, are suckers (and, sadly, they truly are naïve and trusting and to be sincerely pitied).
Robert
This sounds even better with our colloquial usage of the “cheering term”
Janice I think this fits in rather well with the talking head/glove puppet idea.
James Bull
Oh, James Bull, lolololol #(:D)
PERFECT!
(early Rowan Atkinson, if I’m not mistaken, love that guy’s style)
in related news
he highest daytime temperature in the world on Wednesday was recorded at Sweihan, Abu Dhabi, where the temperature climbed to 50.5C at 12pm local time.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/heat-wave-spreads-pakistan-gulf-150603102018356.html
“On July 10, 1913, a temperature of 134 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded here, which stands as the hottest air temperature ever recorded on a properly sited and maintained thermometer anywhere in the world,” the National Weather Service reports.” USA Today via google.
That’s around 57 C.
its aljazeera, what did you expect? it has even be warmer here in Australia. Oodnadatta in South Australia got to 50.7 about 55 years ago.
Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and commented:
I believe you will thoroughly enjoy the post Anthony is discussing here. I will cross post it at ClimateObservations at 2PM eastern tomorrow.
Cheers!
Didn’t they try to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period?
“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.” – Jon Overpeck
Where is the pretend Nobel Prize winning Michael Mann when you need him!
They have. It is now called The Medieval Climate Anomaly.
Once the trickle of BS began, it soon became a torrent of swill for the trough. These people have no sense of morality – it has all been sacrificed at the altar.
De ye no ken? We are all doing what’s good for the planet under the green badge of environmentalism…
Great, more egregious lies coming from our government. I has become apparent that our POTUS will stop at nothing to garner control of our energy on his was to Paris in December.
This country continues to bound lower and lower with our ethical standards. Lead directly from the man at the top.
Don’t forget, he just pronounced “the US is most respected country in the world” because of him.
Time to buy popcorn.
In two years if there is a climate greeny in the white house it’s time to change citizenship.
Lindsey Graham is a green republican.
No worries FBI honing skills in Switzerland.
Rich pickings await their return.
I think they should go after the UN next.
The NCDC and their adjustments; when does it end? It won’t until there is no reward but only penalties for rewriting history.
I guess the ol’ Heidi de Heat argument was such a big failure, earning them much-deserved ridicule and rotten tomatoes, so now it’s deny, deny, and deny some more. Make it go away. For Paris, and for the Planet.
Yeah, that’ll work.
“… Make it go away…” heh.
Oh (sniff), Mr. Cobb, it almost makes you want to cry for the poor widdo climate modellers….
A song sung by a some GCM code (named Eddy) to its “scientist” writers… (youtube)
(Well… the world, as in REALITY, is. And it is not going anywhere. :))
lololololololololololol
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Read — it — and — weep, you pitiful AGWers.
Been playing the following to manics for many years:-
Thanks for the tune! Brought me back to that time period, when I was a young teenager. I remember hearing it on the radio, but it wasn’t exactly my cup of tea.
Well well,….history is full of useful idiots: CAGW, Environazis, Greeners, Tree Huggers, etc, etc…The sheeple happily follow the instructions of wolves as they all scamper to fall over the cliff.
Speaking of they’re being in denial, consider this idea of mine that highlights it:
Image—A hockey stick with its shaft slanting upwards & to the right and with its blade flat and pointing to the right. It’s transparently overlaid on a graph of the long-term (50-year) running mean of GASTA, averaged from five sources, which aligns with the shape of the hockey stick.
Caption—“Who’s in Denial Now?”
Anthony: Can you get Josh to draw this for tomorrow’s thread?
I do not care what NCDC may do or say. The reality is the reality and the global temperature pause is going to turn into a decline.
A brave prediction in the face of what could be a fairly big El Nino this year. These tend to cause temperature to spike up. Over the longer term I think you are right, but I wouldn’t put money on the decline starting this year.
That may indeed be so, but unless it is like the 1998 Super El Nino which caused a step change of some 0.15/0.2degC of warming, the warm temepratures seen in 2015 will quickly be cancelled out by a La Nina in 2016/7 such that by 2017, the ‘pasue’ will still be running but by then it will be over 20 years in length.
And should Salvadore be correct and some cooling begins to onset from 2017 onwards, the length of the ‘pause’ will quickly grow, since in this scenario it will be lengthening at both ends.
I make no prediction as to what will happen but it does appear that an El Nino this year is likely with corresponding warm temperatures. But the important point is that is a natural phenomena and the warmth is not the result of the effects of CO2 suddenly kicking in.
The warmists may like the temperatures that an El Nino may bring, but not the cause. Since they control MSM/or MSM has the same agenda, little attention will be given to the cause. We will not see headlines like ‘2015 warmest year on record because of natural oceanic El Nino effect.’!
It is presently well below normal in California coastal, and a strong drought. Even a strong El nino could not even get us back to normal.
You should care, Salvatore, because it will be billions more of taxpayers’ dollars being spent and wasted on the back of what the NCDC do and say.
No, it will be hundreds of Billions of Chinese dollars we borrow that will be spent. We will then inflate them to pennies so as not to really repay.
Worked with the Japanese…
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
I have already posted back in January that they will do “anything” to make 2015 the hot year in history so they can have an excuse to pass their climate treaty in Paris at the COP21 conference. I didn’t need proof although its good to have it I knew they would do this because of who they are.
I already saw something in the MSM today proclaiming that 2015 will be the hottest year on record. I assume they vetted their story by first checking with the official temperature adjustment bureau to see if they were going to make it so. I believe they have figured out the control knob will be man made temperatures.
drained the pool? are the buoys grounded?
From my back porch I can see the Steamship Algore sitting with its keel in 2 feet of mud.
With the N.O.A.A. Captain at the helm bellowing on radio to the engine room: “Full Ahead! Full Ahead! For a rat’s underwear’s last time — FULL AHEAD!!!”
Chief Engineer: No can do. Hard aground.
NOAA: Well, @ur momisugly%$%$%^$%^**&&!~@ur momisugly, ……JUST PUMP THE BILGE AND SAIL OUT ON THAT.
Chief: Pumping bilge. Over.
NOAA: {writing in log} 1100 PDT — pumped bilge; floating.
NOAA: {writing in log} 1105 PDT — U.S.S. WUWT 1/4 mile off port stern
NOAA: {writing in log — he has nothing else to do} 1107 PDT — WUWT off port midships shooting photos; radio chatter to Big City Traffic something like, “Algore’s faking it again” — Handed over watch to First Mate.
Mark from the Midwest
Al Gore owns a four decker fantasy class yacht named the Bio Solar One — and where it is docked called by all the BS One.
Eugene WR Gallun
Aw, I’ll be offline most of tomorrow afternoon. Will have to wait for the replay. 😉
This is saddening and beyond belief. Malfeasance, fraud – hey these words are made for milder stuff. This is a complete disintegration of morality. They know it’s as bad as what has been done to truth by 20th Century megalomaniacs but they know they can do it with impunity. Man of man. I couldn’t live with myself if I was involved in crimes much tinier than this. I’ve been agonizing over how we can one day clean the terrible science up but now I know, the situation is light years worse. This performance is directly to shove our faces in it. They know the unbelievably ugly people who will be in Paris will laugh about it.
I’ve been suspicious that there has been much afoot over the past months because of the hold up in data from the arctic and elsewhere. I’m wondering if the El Nino is a cooked up part of the fraud to make the rest of it plausible. Oh I hope there is someone on the inside who hasn’t been thoroughly sucked dry of integrity who will release the emails that must be around coordinating all this. I think it’s time for whatever public protests there can be before we are truly inundated.
Malfeasance, fraud – hey these words are made for milder stuff
Yes, those words are made of letters, completely innocent in themselves but, when combined in deliberate ways, state what you want; rather like temperature readings.
Frantic Researchers “Adjusting” Unsuitable Data
…..” terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.”
=======
Yup, it makes you wonder if She is just toying with Her latest organism.
What can be done!!
… and the atmospheric hot spot has been found at last, hidden inside some previously uninvented algorithms – https://theconversation.com/climate-meme-debunked-as-the-tropospheric-hot-spot-is-found-42055
PS. Is /sarc really needed?
THEY have been manipulating temperature data in Australia for a while now, removing ultra high temp data from the past to make the present look better for warming. In South Aus where I live it was probably the coolest summer ever, yet, THEY still come out with rubbish, like, the second hottest February on record. People are so used to this type of rubbish they don’t bother with it anymore. Some call it spin, while others would call it the present day truth. I call it manipulation and deceit.
“…the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.”
—
Meretricious mendacity, at that.
meteorologically meretricious mendacity!
Metronomically methodical meteorologically meretricious mendacity!
A big splash in an empty pool?
Thanks, Anthony. I’ll be watching.
> WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper…
As if the journal Science will ever publish the response.
Who cares? There will be many more readers of the correction at WUWT than readers of the paper at Science. The word will still get out and it will still be just as true regardless of what Science does or doesn’t do.
STOP THE ADJUSTMENTS !
STOP THE DATA POLLUTION !!
STOP DENYING THE PAUSE !!!
1 – 2 – 3 – 4
WE DON’T WANT YOUR CAGWar !
5 – 6 – 7 – 8
STOP ADJUSTING – ITS ALL FAKE!