NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is 'sharpening their knives' to cut 'the pause' from the global temperature record

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.

221 thoughts on “NOAA's National Climatic Data Center is 'sharpening their knives' to cut 'the pause' from the global temperature record

  1. 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:

      • “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…
        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 …}
        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)
        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 $$”SCIENCE”$$!

      • @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.

      • @ 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.

      • 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

          Try reading the actual submissions made by scientists instead of the PR news clips about the articles.

          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.

      • 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.”
        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.

      • Steven Mosher June 3, 2015 at 7:25 pm

        Overall adjustments COOL THE RECORD. are those faked up?
        …the hiatus? hmm not so dramatic any more…..
        ….. changes were to SST.. ….an adjustment for buckets ….

        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.

      • 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 is not the actual paper, just a reporter’s simplification. The real paper is here ::
        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

        “irreproducible science”

        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.

        Thank You:
        richard verney
        Mike Jonas and

        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,
        #(:)) (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….

  2. 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.

      • 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 !

      • 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
        “… 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.”
        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,”

      • 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?
        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

    • This has NOAA and NCDC in the webpage.
      (1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index = 16.92°C.
      (2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature = 0.69°C above 13.9°C [= 14.59°C]
      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.
      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.
      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.
        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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

  3. 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]

  4. 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…

      • 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)
        (early Rowan Atkinson, if I’m not mistaken, love that guy’s style)

      • “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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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…

  7. 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.

  8. 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. :))
      Read — it — and — weep, you pitiful AGWers.

      • 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?

    • 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.

  9. 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.

    • 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, @%$%$%^$%^**&&!~@, ……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

  10. Aw, I’ll be offline most of tomorrow afternoon. Will have to wait for the replay. 😉

  11. 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.

  12. …..” terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.”
    Yup, it makes you wonder if She is just toying with Her latest organism.

  13. 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.

  14. “…the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.”

    Meretricious mendacity, at that.

  15. > 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.

    1 – 2 – 3 – 4
    5 – 6 – 7 – 8

    • Steve Case,
      From your link, Levitus says:
      “I have said from the beginning that the fact that the long-term trends in models and observations do agree so well is what is most important.”
      Those rent-seekers might as well be living on a different planet. Their models can’t forecast, and they can’t hindcast. But Levitus says it’s a “fact” that models ‘agree so well’ with observations.
      They don’t. Climate models are always wrong. Not one model predicted the 18+ years of no global warming. They were all wrong.

  17. Sooner or later, these guys are going to have Feds on their front porch like FIFA did last week.

  18. I hope they’re right. Warmer is better. Milder weather, more rain and CO2 fertilization are the trifecta of fossil fuel blessings. Aside from the cheap and abundant energy, of course. But we’ll be lucky to get +1C. Which isn’t going to help much when the overdue ending of the current interglacial occurs and temps drop an average of -6C for 100,000 years.

  19. They have their knives out to cut the pause? How interesting. In that case, let us present them with another hiatus/pause they think they have cleverly hidden. I am talking of the existence of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties, a complete lack of warming for eighteen years, from 1979 to 1997. How do I know about it? Because I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” It is very clearly shown in satellite temperature measurements. That was before the time that a name for a hiatus even existed. ENSO was active at the same time and produced five El Nino peaks there. They serve to verify that there really was no warming as figure 15 in my book shows. I also discovered that ground based temperature curves from GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT had covered up this hiatus with a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” I even put a note into the preface of my book warning people about the fake warming. but nothing happened. They simply carried their fakery on into the twenty-first century. That is how they got 2014 to be the warmest year ever when that was not true. For the last five years I have periodically brought attention to this situation but have simply been ignored. Let’s now bring it out and let them explain how come there are two hiatuses, not one, and let them jexplain why the created that fake warming. To me it is just plain scientific fraud, intended to change the appearance of the global warming curve.

    • “subsidized until their costs go down.”
      LOL. Thank — you — Eamon! #(:))
      I needed a good laugh.
      Keep up the good work for truth in science (esp. about NUCLEAR ENERGY — YEA!), there in Eire, Mr. Butler!

      • Go raibh maith agut, Janice. I’m a big fan and always enjoy your posts. The encouragement is appreciated. Nuclear in Ireland, it’s the way forward, but not easy to sell.
        It’s interesting here at the moment because they have a predicament to ”cut emissions” and at the same time agriculture here is set to develop and expand. Sometimes, they don’t seem to understand that they are often in disagreement with themselves. There’s also huge controversy and resistance to wind farms.
        I have plenty of debates going on with different individuals and groups. Some of which, like our national TV broadcaster and some political parties, no longer respond to my emails. For me, their silence speaks volumes.
        Many thanks again,
        Slan, Eamon.

  20. They are running out of time to push the propaganda.
    There is a physical reason why there has been no warming for the last 18 years and why there has been almost no warming in tropics.
    Likewise there is a physical reason (a change in forcing) for the sudden increase in Antarctic sea ice for all months of the year and for the recovery of multiyear sea ice and ice volume in the Arctic. There is a physical reason why the Atlantic ocean has started to cool. The planet has started to cool.
    2015_1, +0.261, +0.379, +0.143, +0.119
    2015 _2, +0.157, +0.263, +0.050, -0.074
    2015 _3, +0.139, +0.232, +0.046, +0.022
    2015_4, +0.065, +0.154, -0.024, +0.074

    • Powerful evidence (and nice argument against AGW), Mr. Astley. Worth 10,000 words.

    • Good Post. Only the El Nino tropics warming. IMV the AMO will now take precedence over the Pacific. it tends to dominate NH T anyway. Just wait for a La Nina that is a negative image of the 98 El Nino, inIconjunction with a cooling AMO, and a weak sun. The 98 step up in GT will likely reverse, and I can see the .4 degrees of warming in the satellite records being 100 percent reversed.

  21. What the hell is he kickin’ about? We sell ’em, but we don’t push ’em home for him.

    Chapter 7 (The Grapes of Wrath)

  22. I’m sure NOAA once served some purpose aside from being a propganda outlet and data manipulator, but darned if i can remember what it was. Your tax dollars at work.

  23. Zeke better not try posting anything at SG (Goddard) he will be utterly destroyed. He is a warmist troll and always has been it should be obvious by now to everyone on this site and “other lukewarmer sites” just like Mr Best.

      • Okay, Ian (I realize Eliza is the one to address this — but, just having a bit of fun),
        (smile) Zeke isn’t a troll like Warren Pound. What is he? A drunken elf? A psychotic gnome? A bad fairy?
        [Please do not insult psychotic drunken gnomes by comparing them to climastrologicalapologists …. .mod]

      • Likewise, however lately Zeke’s published in the company of trolls, such as Nuccitelli, he’s slipping further and further to the dark side.

  24. It takes a long to for WUWT to cop on to very basic things. BEST really fooled WUWT and now ZEKE again!
    quote from the guardian today
    “A new paper just published in Science Bulletin by Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, and John Abraham shows that mainstream climate models simulate global temperature observations much better than the “irreducibly simple climate model” of Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs” Are you now convinced?.
    Dana Nutcraker

    • “Mr. Best” is attempting to fool everyone on another topic, too, I think: it has been about two years since he said that he was “working on it” v. a v. the 3rd set of Climategate E mails. They just *poof* disappeared, I guess. (eye roll)

    • Money quote from the Mad Nutter:
      “This incident shows that while the peer-review process is necessary, it’s insufficient by itself to filter out all erroneous research. Sometimes bad papers still get published, and when the results of those papers align with the ideological biases of certain media outlets, their faulty conclusions can misinform a large audience.”
      They been screaming “Peer Review” for years, but when it turns against them, they suddenly change their tune. LOL.
      BTW the BEST paper, the one that Zeke and Mosh worked on, ended up been published in an Indian “Pay-for-Play” Indian Journal Mill startup website after being rejected by every Semi-Legitimate Left Leaning Science Journal. How pathetic is that?
      Hey Zeke and Mosh, how much did Muller have to pay to get that paper published?

      • Reg Nelson
        Don’t forget that Muller’s own daughter (who i believe was head of Best at the time) worked on the paper with her father but had her named removed from the paper before it was submitted to the journals. How bad is it when your own daughter won’t associate herself with your paper?
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • “Sometimes bad papers still get published… (and) their faulty conclusions can misinform a large audience.”
        At least this part is true. The stopped watch effect, or psychological projection?

  25. I’m looking forward to tomorrow!
    2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time.
    Not that Gavin could ever debate with anyone using honest science anyway. It’s easier to force feed ethanol to the databases and climate researchers then go and sit alone on public stages while pleading lack of debaters.

  26. “except, WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper,”
    Nice.. put the analysis in Watts 2012.
    generally speaking it’s not wise to telegraph a punch.

  27. Funny thing about liars…one does not need to hear the specifics of their new and improved lies to know that they are still lying.
    And no amount of fast talking or hand waving can make people forget that they have been engaging in a long series of prevarications encompassing the gamut of “climate science”.
    The historical temperature records have been corrupted and rendered untrustworthy by a years-long series of highly dubious shenanigans to force the record to reflect the predetermined conclusion that CO2 concentration is the temperature knob of the Earth.
    It matters not about the alphabet soup of degree credentials of those engaged in the latest effort to prove an untruth, or the supposed prestige of the publication which attempts to give credence to the unsupportable.
    People who understand enough about the actual science and also have no vested financial interest in the CAGW meme cannot be induced to believe a long series of lies by telling them one more big fat whopper of a lie. It does not matter if it is the President of the United States, the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church, highly paid government bureaucrats, grant enriched academic “experts”, or whoever.
    A lie is a lie. Repeating it over and over will not change a lie into truth.
    Saying in new and interesting ways will not transform fiction into fact.
    You can put lipstick on a pig, but everyone who embraces and kisses the pig still stinks from the taint.

  28. ‘sharpening their knives’ This may or may not be off topic. I’ll let the monitor decide.
    “To This Senator, Global Warming Skeptics Are Like John Gotti”
    In a Washington Post op-ed, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse charges in against what he calls “the climate denial network.” This group, he says, is behind a “a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.” His solution? Prosecute the network with “the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.”
    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    • I say let the Senator from Rhode Island try it. Dumbocrat Senators of course wrote letters to the IRS in 2011 to pressure the IRS to further scrutinize 501(c)4 filings from conservative groups, and they got their wish. I have no doubt similar things are happening now with the IRS and the DoJ.
      The bottomline: Senator Whitehouse and his Democrat ilk in the senate are morons and/or liars. I would love the opportunity to ask the DA Senator from RI which one he is.

    • Not to worry. The Washington Post ceased to be a trusted political news source years ago. People buy the WashPo for local news, comics and the society pages.
      Interesting that Whitehouse wants to use RICO for prosecution. Collusion to cash in on the green money while harming people and their careers is definitively an alarmist tactic.
      I’m all for Congress calling in the special prosecutors. It wouldn’t take too long before the prosecutors notice where the slime and crimes are. Whitehouse and his buddies attempts to silence skeptics by threats falls right under that RICO collusion tactic.

    When the owner of this mansion sells most of his real estate property, gives most of the proceeds to feed the actual poor of the world, cuts back on his own consumption, and gives zero fee on-line commentary…
    then I’ll start to worry that something might be going on that may be troublesome…
    Furthermore… when people start moving out of this county:
    Elevation:0 ft to about 180 ft on the 9th tee.
    Then I’ll worry a bit more…
    Until then – it’s all about paying indulgences to the Church of CAGW for the right to play a round or two early Sunday morning.

  30. The Church of CAGW won’t be able to hide the cooling coming in the next 5 years. They know that. That is why the big push now to get CO2 control regimes in place before the truth comes out and their lies hopelessly laid bare/ But they hope that by then it will be too late. Too many coal generators will be mothballed. Too many taxes and regulatory schemes put into motion by executive fiat.
    This is sort of like ObamaCare. Total repeal of ObamaCare was possible before and up to implementation. But with implementation and each passing month, complete repeal becomes more difficult. And the political Left supporters of the CAGW meme (to grab control of Western economies and the wealth redistribution schemes) understand this quite well too. Time is of the essence.
    As an aside of what is coming; the solar F10.7 readings have been going down steadily now. F10.7 peaked again around 160 (obs) around May 11. Now, it is only able to get to about 114 ay get to 120 by the weekend before heading back into the 80’s again by mid-June. Each solar rotation now shows the F10.7 a tad lower. Add in the negative AMO phase, and an end to the El Nino in the late summer, and watch out. Calls for a coming cold NH 20160-17 winter if the sun EUV and magnetic activity continues to fall through this summer. The Church of CAGW won’t be able to hide that decline.

    • But with implementation and each passing month, complete repeal becomes more difficult. And the political Left supporters of the CAGW meme (to grab control of Western economies and the wealth redistribution schemes) understand this quite well too. Time is of the essence.

      Another example is biofuels. This is a program which is an environmental negative and which causes famine and hunger around the world. There is absolutely no rational reason to continue with this program. And yet it persists because of the influence of the farm lobby. Similarly with carbon credits. A multi-billion dollar carbon credit casino would be a rich source of political funding – easily enough to ensure it becomes politically untouchable.

  31. The Paris Climate Summit will most likely be the LAST opportunity Leftists have to ram through any global CO2 taxes and sequestration rules & regulations before the CAGW hypothesis begins to be eye-rolled and giggled into oblivion.
    Once the current 2015 El Nino spike is offset by next year’s La Nina cycle, “The Pause” will likely extended to 20+ years. Moreover, the current solar cycle is past its peak, the 30-yr PDO cool cycle will continue to cool global temps, the AMO 30-yr warm cycle is quickly winding down and will likely enter its 30-yr COOL cycle by around 2020, and the weakest solar cycle since 1715 is expected to start around 2022.
    I’m not surprised the warmunists are busy “sharpening their knives” to remove the “The Pause” prior to the Paris Climate Summit. Again, CAGW isn’t about science, it’s about politics, and Leftists will do just about ANYTHING to keep the CAGW grant gravy train and Leftist agendas chugging along at least in time for the Paris Climate Summit.
    From 2017 or so, even the most aggressively ignorant voters/taxpayers will see the CAGW claims were grossly inflated and the CAGW hype will begin to fade as global temp trends remain flat to slightly falling for 20+ years and NONE of the dire catastrophes predicted since the 1980’s come even CLOSE to reflecting reality.

  32. Speaking of AAAS, I got this letter from the AAAS President today in the mail:
    I am so tempted to write Dr. Richmond an open letter telling her how:
    1. I support AAAS efforts to gain funding for scientific research to help developing countries fight disease, poverty, and environmental and natural disasters. These are pressing concerns for all the rich nations, but beggaring ourselves is not the path to helping them.
    2. And that human-caused climate change is a fraud that threatens to eliminate essential access to inexpensive energy resources that will improve developing nations’ standards of living and public health-sanitation systems, just as cheap energy was vital to those efforts the developed nations 100+ years ago.
    With each passing month that AAAS and Science mag editors stay “all in” on the CAGW fraud, the more damage it will eventually do to all of science.
    Joel O’Bryan

  33. Steve Godard regularly posts GIFS of overlaid graphs showing the alterations that have been made over time. Some of them are so radical that it’s hard to believe anyone would think they could get away with such shenanigans!
    How about a ‘doctored’ graphs page to go along with Sea Ice, Solar, Ocean etc….?

  34. NOAA makes mess of perfectly good data !
    Mr. NOAA try to do spectral analysis on your data.
    Mr. NOAA you are keeper of the world’s geomagnetic data, stop making mess of it.
    Mr. NOAA give back to the scientists what the science gave to you!
    p.s : follow the UK’s Met Office example! They were informed (by author of this comment) of the flaw in their CET data algorithm and they CORECTED IT !

  35. Whatever the alleged reasons for the adjustments one can’t help but feel that in an ever decreasing warming world adjustments are becoming the gold standard for climate science. Where’s there’s a will there’s a way!

  36. Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Dr. Phil Jones – CRU
    So Phil Jones is now “worried” that the world isn’t ending – what a fool.

  37. ‘WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper,’
    If the weakness are based on facts , reality or honest data , they sadly I have to tell you there not weakness at all for none of those actual have a high level of value in an argument that is not factually based in the fist place.
    We have seen often enough how the scientifically worthless is promoted by both press and politicians , endlessly defended by those in climate ‘science’ becasue it offers support for ‘the cause ‘ . Mann’s stick may be the classic case but it far from the only one . And although we may ask how do they think they can get away with it , the answer is simple , becasue they have so many times before .

  38. For those interested;
    Danish Proffessor Ole Humlum has an excellent site “Climate4you” site with lots of data plus a number of very interesting historical events in the links that cover the last couple of centuries and which are very relevant to much of the current discussion.
    Ole Humlum provides a number of graphs in the “Global Temperature” section which highlight the ever increasing differences in the temperature anomalies between older temperatures and present temperatures created by the bigoted and ever warming “adjustments [??]” of the official keepers of the Earth’s global temperature data.
    Ie; In the example from the NCDC in May 2008 , the January temperature anomalies between January 1915 and January 2000 were given by the NCDC as 0.39C
    By May 2015 the temperature anomalies between the same January 1915 and January 2000 historical periods the NCDC had “adjusted” those historical temperatures and had had jumped the differences to 0.52 C.
    An increase of 0.13C in the historically recorded temperatures differences or anomalies between Jan 2015 and Jan 2000 which was achieved purely and entirely through the biased and bigoted “adjustments” used by the NCDC
    This increase in those historical temperature comparisons was done by the NCDC through the medium of its highly biased and bigoted “adjustments” to those long recorded historical temperatures, adjustments that were made over that very recent 7 years long period, May 2008 to May 2015 and which Proff. Ole Humlum has graphed on his “Climate4you” site..
    Ole Humlum also provides another example from GISS for the period January 1910 and January 2000 where in May 2008 the difference between those January’s were 0.45 C.
    Whereas by May 2015 the difference had increased purely via GISS’s ongoing “adjustments” to past temperatures between that January 2010 temperatures and the January 2000 temperatures, the exact same identical period relying on the same historical data, to 0.69 C.
    An “adjustment” of nearly a quarter of a degree, 0.24 C in a period of just seven years and this in a global temperature environment where the global increases in temperature were accepted as running at about 0.6C to 0.8C per century since the end of the LIA in the early part of the 19th century.

    • The range of the estimates of the change in global mean surface temperature in December 2014 was from 0.06C (GISS) to 0.15 (HadCRUT), a difference of 0.09C or approximately 10% of the total reported global mean surface temperature anomaly since 1880, in a single month. However, in each case, the reported anomaly change was just large enough to make 2014 “the warmest year on record”. Hmmmm!
      I am not sure whether that makes these estimates precisely inaccurate, or inaccurately precise; or, both. 😉

  39. Correction; second last para;
    “Whereas by May 2015 the difference had increased purely via GISS’s ongoing “adjustments” to past temperatures between that January 1910 temperatures and the January 2000 temperatures, the exact same identical period relying on the same historical data, to 0.69 C.”

  40. If SST’s are really getting so much warmer, we should see the effect on atmospheric temperatures per the satellite record.
    We don’t – end of story.

  41. Looks like ROM needs to do another correction
    “An increase of 0.13C in the historically recorded temperatures differences or anomalies between Jan 2015 and Jan 2000 which was achieved purely and entirely through the biased and bigoted “adjustments” used by the NCDC”. Surely that should be 1915 instead of 2015?

      • ROM, ROM, dear ROM, be kind to ROM. That was a TYPO. Your comment was excellent! Why, just yesterday, in my journal, I started to write what happened to me on June 3, 1015. And I’m quite aways behind you in the road race of life. Just laugh.
        (Note: re Altzheimers: as we get older we need to be vigilant to remind and, thus, reassure ourselves, that we ALWAYS have forgotten things like “where did I park?” in a big parking lot and “where are those KEYS!!!” As long as you remember what the car keys are for, you’re fine!
        #(:)) )

  42. They have been complaining about the poor reliability of Bucket Sea Temps, but have completely glossed over the Calibration Errors that were found in the Argos bouy instruments. see the Jo Nova article here.
    Up to 2.0C errors found.
    They have also glossed over the same kind of errors when comparing Mercury Thermometers and the new electronic ones.

  43. So no pause? So no missing heat? I’m glad that’s been settled and we can all go home happy now.

  44. The “Pause” has been a huge inconvenience and embarrassment for Warmunists, with some trying to deny it exists, while others were creating “explanations” for it. If they can off the “Pause” it would allow them to all be singing from the same hymnal in Paris, presenting a united front instead of one in disarray.

    • “some trying to deny it exists, while others were creating “explanations” for it.”
      If the Pause “disappears” for some reason, do all of the papers creating explanations get retracted?

  45. anyone in the tank for this B.S. will side with the scientists….what they don’t say is what is very concerning…we are cooling not warming.

  46. Under the current liberal democrat emperor NOAA has become another corrupt bureau serving the will of odama; it exists for no other reason……

  47. Makes me wonder how much idle speculation plays it’s part in the adjustments.
    For example it is speculated that warmth has been “trapped” in the oceans for the last few decades, so have the measurements been adjusted to compensate for this trapped heat even though there is no proof of the oceans playing a new unprecedented role in climate?
    At a certain point adjustments are not really “fixing” the data but just speculation on what the data should be.
    As the witch said to Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas any more. BTW it is widely accepted now that the tornado in the Wizard of OZ was not caused by the evil witch but by global warming.

  48. Fred Singer weighs in at In part:
    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.
    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.
    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.

    • which of course is why the Pause must be eliminated. It is a mortal blow to the model outputs, and by extension, to the IPCC agenda if it remains.

  49. Has NCDC-NOAA been keeping the AMO data ‘warm’?
    There is a rather ‘weird’ case of the North Atlantic’s SST multidecadal oscillation (de-trended version is the AMO) drifting further and further apart from the Arctic’s atmospheric multidecadal oscillation as it can bee seen HERE
    The rate of drift has been constant at least since the 1890s. One rational explanation could be a slowdown in one of the Arctic overflow currents, possibly a major contributors to the AMOC.
    According to the graph (see link above) a critical point in time can’t be far off.

  50. I think it’s a good tactic by the warmists. Just deny the pause exists. As for the satellite temperature records just deny they exist too.

  51. So, has global warming really stopped?We will know for sure in just a few years.

    Yes, it has. Stopped or halted implies nothing about the future, whereas “paused” implies warming will re-commence. The only question now is; has cooling begun? There is evidence that it has, but we should know in a few years. What we do know for sure is that the Halt in warming shows the much-vaunted GCMs are pure unadulterated crapola.

  52. Ah yes, Science magazine.
    That paragon of virtue, truth, and rigorous review before publishing.
    Especially if the article ‘fits the narrative’.
    This little embarrassment happened just a week or so ago.
    Link: (to one article of many in various newspapers)
    Science magazine retracts same-sex marriage and gay canvassers study
    First couple of paragraphs in the ‘Guardian’ article:
    Science magazine on Thursday formally retracted a highly publicized article about a study gauging the ability of openly gay canvassers to shift voters’ views toward support for same-sex marriage.
    One of the authors of the article, Columbia University political science professor Donald Green, had requested the retraction on 19 May, saying his co-author, Michael LaCour, had been unable to produce the raw data that was used in the study.
    Science magazine, after its own investigation, said it decided to proceed with the retraction even though LaCour – a graduate assistant at the University of California, Los Angeles – did not agree with that decision.
    I guess the story was just too good to check….. until one of the authors realized he had been duped by the other one, and requested a retraction.

  53. People send you stuff. *
    Following your blog equals sitting on top of the world.
    Thx – Hans
    * there’s known knowns, unknown knowns, …. that blog reduces the unknowing of unknowns.

  54. I know I am using harsh language but I am tired of Zeke. He defends every bogus surface station adjustment made. Fortunately, Tony Heller has owned him on the subject quite thoroughly.

Comments are closed.