Guest essay by Ross McKitrick University of Guelph
June 4, 2015
UPDATED June 8 2015: Some changes and corrections noted in red. Also added MAT records and Kent figure 18
Background
The idea that there has been a hiatus in global warming since the late 1990s comes from examination of several different data sets:
 |
HadCRUT(land surface + ocean) |
 |
HadSST(ocean surface only) |
 |
NCDC(land surface + ocean) |
 |
GISS(land surface + ocean) |
 |
RSS(lower troposphere) |
 |
UAH(lower troposphere) |
 |
Ocean Heat Content (0-2000m)Argo floats (black line)NOAA SST est’s (red solid and dashed lines) |
(Added Fig 14 above) Marine Air Temperatures by latitude band
Black: HadNMAT2
Red: HadMAT1
Green: MOHMAT4
Blue: HadSST3
Light blue: C20R
Sources: all data accessed through http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm except last one, taken from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html.
The IPCC’s recent report identified this hiatus and commented as follows (Working Group I, Chapter 9, Box 9.2):
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years… Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012.
K15 New Estimates
Karl et al. (2015, which I’ll call K15) have struck a very different note, saying that the post-1998 trend is much higher than previously thought, and is in fact about the same as that of the post-1951 interval. Their trend estimate revisions are as follows:
The big source of the change is an upward revision (+0.06 oC /decade) to the global post-1998 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) trend, with only a small change to the land trend:
LAND OCEAN
So what changed in the SST records? Bear in mind that there are very relatively few records of air temperatures over the oceans, especially outside of shipping lanes and prior to 1950. So to get long term climate estimates, scientists use SST (i.e. water temperature) data, which have been collected since the 1800s by ships. The long term SST records were never collected for climate analysis and they are notoriously difficult to work with. Many judgments need to be made to yield a final record, and as the K15article shows, changes in some of those assumptions yield major changes in the final results.
A Primer on SST Data
There is a large literature on methods to derive a consistent climate record from the SST archives. The contribution of K15 is to take one such record, called the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSSTv4), and use it to compute a new global climate record. The difference in recent trends they report is due to the changes between ERSST versions 3b and 4.
Almost all historical SST products are derived from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS, http://icoads.noaa.gov/) or one of its predecessors. ICOADS combines about 125 million SST records from ship logs and a further 60 million readings from buoys and other sources.[1] A large contributor to the ICOADS archive is the UK Marine Data Bank. Other historical sources include navies, merchant marines, container shipping firms, buoy networks, etc.
SST data have historically been collected using different methods:[2]
· Wooden buckets were thrown over the side, filled with seawater and hauled on deck, then a thermometer was placed in the water;
· Same, using canvas buckets;
· Same, using insulated buckets;
· Automated temperature readings of Engine Room Intake (ERI) water drawn in to cool the ship engines;
· Ship hull temperature sensors;
· Drifting and moored buoys.
In addition, there are archives of Marine Air Temperature (MAT) taken by ships that have meteorological equipment on deck.
Here are some of the problems that scientists have to grapple with to construct consistent temperature records from these collections:
· Ships mainly travel in shipping lanes, and vast areas of the oceans (especially in the Southern Hemisphere) have never[3] been monitored;
· Sailors are not inclined to take bucket readings during storms or perilous conditions;
· Readings were not necessarily taken at the same time each day;
· During the process of hauling the water up to the deck the temperature of the sample may change;
· The change will be different depending on how tall the ship is, whether the bucket is wood or canvas, whether it is insulated, and how quickly the reading is taken;
· The ERI intake may be just below the surface in a small ship or as much as 15 m below the surface in a large ship;
· Similarly the hull sensors may be at widely-varying depths and may be subject to temperature effects over time as the engines heat up the hull;
· MAT readings are taken at the height of the deck, and modern ships are much taller than older ones, so the instruments are not at the same height above sea level;
· Buoys tend to provide readings closer to the water surface than ERI data;
· There were not many surface buoys in the world’s oceans prior to the 1970s, but there are many more now being averaged in to the mix.
Now add to these challenges that when data is placed in the archive, in about half the cases people did not record which method was used to take the sample (Hirahari et al. 2014). In some cases they noted that, for example, ERI readings were obtained but they not indicate the depth. Or they might not record the height of the ship when the MAT reading is taken. And so forth.
Ships and buoys are referred to as in situ measurements. Since in situ data have never covered the entire ocean, most groups use satellite records, which are available after 1978, to interpolate over unmonitored regions. Infrared data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) system can measure SST accurately but need to be calibrated to existing SST records, and can be unreliable in the presence of low cloud cover or heavy aerosol levels. In the past few years, new satellite platforms (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission or TRMM, and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer or AMSR-E) have enabled more accurate data collection through cloud and aerosol conditions.
Hadley, GISS and Hirahara et al. (2014)[4] all use satellite data to improve interpolation estimates over data-sparse regions. The ERSST team (i.e. K15) did prior to version 3b but doesn’t anymore, due to their concerns about its accuracy.
The Three Main ERSSTv4 Adjustments
The measurement problems mentioned above all well-known. A great deal of work has been done in recent decades both to try and recover some of the metadata for in situ temperature readings, and also to estimate corrections in order to overcome biases that affect the raw data. K15 have made some relatively minor changes to the bias correction methods, and the result is a large increase in the post-1998 trend.
A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.
B. They also gave buoy data extra weight in the computations.
C. They also made adjustments to post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular a large cooling adjustment applied to readings over 1998-2000.
Taken together these changes largely explain the enhanced trend over the past 15 years. So now everybody needs to decide if they think these adjustments are valid.
Perhaps they are. The main problem for us observers is that other teams have looked at the same issues and come to different conclusions. And the post-1998 K15 data don’t match that from other independent sources, including weather satellites.
A. Looking at the first adjustment, K15 take the buoy data and add 0.12 oC to each observation. They computed that number by looking at places where both buoy data and ship data were collected in the same places, and they found the ship data on average was warmer by 0.12 oC. So they added that to the buoy data. This is similar to the amount estimate found by another teams, though the bias is usually attributed to ships rather than buoys:
Recent SST observations are conducted primarily by drifting buoys deployed in the global oceans (Figs. 1, 2). The buoys measure SST directly without moving seawater onto deck or to the inside of a ship. Therefore, buoy observations are thought to be more accurate than either bucket or ERI data… In the present study, we regard this difference as a bias in the ERI measurements, and no biases in drifting buoy observations are assumed. The mean ERI bias of +0.13 oC is obtained and is within the range for the global region listed in Table 5 of
Kennedy et al. (2011).
(quote from Hirahari et al. 2014 p. 61)
That quote refers to a paper by Kennedy et al. (2011 Table 5)[5] which reports a mean bias of +0.12 oC. However, Kennedy et al. also note that the estimate estimated bias in each location is very uncertain: it is 0.12 
oC ! Also In other words, the bias varies quite a bit by region. This is a key difference between the method of K15 and that of others. K15 added 0.12 oC to all buoy data, but the Hadley group and the Hirahari group use region-specific adjustments while the Hirahari group modify the bias adjustment for the estimated time-varying fraction of insulated versus uninsulated buckets.
B. There is not much detail about this step. K15 simply say that because the buoy data are believed to be more reliable, they were given more weight in the statistical procedure, and “This resulted in more warming.” Steps A + B accounted for just under half of the additional warming.
C. It has been noted by others previously that SST data from ships shows a more rapid warming trend than nearby air temperature collected by buoys (Christy et al. 2001).[6] K15 compute an adjustment to SST data based on comparisons to Nighttime MAT (NMAT) records from a data set called HadNMAT2. This step entailed making a large cooling adjustment to the ship records in the years 1998-2000. K15 say that this accounts for about half the new warming in their data set. They defended it by saying that it brought the ship records in line with the NMAT data. However, this particular step has been considered before by Kennedy et al. and Hirahara et al., who opted for alternative methods that did not rely exclusively on NMAT, instead making use of more complete metadata, perhaps in part because, as Kennedy et al. and others have pointed out, the NMAT data have their own “pervasive systematic errors”,[7] some of which were mentioned above. So rather than using a mechanical formula based solely on NMAT data, other teams have gone into great detail to look at available metadata for each measurement type and have made corrections based on the specific systems and sites involved.
Numerical Example
Here is a simple numerical example to show how these assumptions can cause important changes to the results. Suppose we have SST data from two sources: ships and buoys. Suppose also that ships always overestimate temperature by exactly 1 degree C and buoys always underestimate it by exactly 1 degree C. We have one set of readings every 10 years, and we are not sure what fraction is from ships versus buoys. Both ships and buoys accurately measure the underlying trend, which is a warming of 0.1 oC /decade from 1900 to 1990 then no trend thereafter.
The Table below shows the simulated numbers. Suppose the true fraction of ships in the sample starts at 95% in 1900 and goes down by 8% every decade, ending at 7% in 2010.
| Year | Buoy | Ship | True Ship % | True Avg |
| 1900 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 0.95 | 3.00 |
| 1910 | 2.10 | 4.10 | 0.87 | 3.10 |
| 1920 | 2.20 | 4.20 | 0.79 | 3.20 |
| 1930 | 2.30 | 4.30 | 0.71 | 3.30 |
| 1940 | 2.40 | 4.40 | 0.63 | 3.40 |
| 1950 | 2.50 | 4.50 | 0.55 | 3.50 |
| 1960 | 2.60 | 4.60 | 0.47 | 3.60 |
| 1970 | 2.70 | 4.70 | 0.39 | 3.70 |
| 1980 | 2.80 | 4.80 | 0.31 | 3.80 |
| 1990 | 2.90 | 4.90 | 0.23 | 3.90 |
| 2000 | 2.90 | 4.90 | 0.15 | 3.90 |
| 2010 | 2.90 | 4.90 | 0.07 | 3.90 |
The true average is calculated using the weight in the True Ship % column, adding 1 oC to the buoy data and subtracting 1 oC from the ship data. The result is shown in the graph:
The thin black and gray lines are the ship (top) and buoy (bottom) data, while the thick black line in the middle is the true average.
But now suppose we don’t know what the correct adjustment is for the buoy data or the ship data, and we don’t know the True Ship % figures either. We will estimate the global average as follows:
· Adjust the buoy data up by +2 oC every year (a bit too much)
· Adjust the ship data down by 1 oC every year (the right amount)
· After 1940 we will also apply a cooling adjustment to the ship data that starts at -0.25 oC and goes up by that amount every decade
· We further cool the ship data by 1 oC in 1990 and 2000 only
· We estimate the ship %, starting it at 99% in 1900 (a bit high) and reducing that by 7% every decade (a bit too little) up to 1990, at which point we observe the True Ship % and follow it exactly thereafter.
Before looking at the results, ask yourself if you think these adjustments will make much difference.
| Year | Buoy | Buoy adj | Ship | Ship Adj | True Ship% | True Avg | Est Ship % | Est Avg |
| 1900 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | -1.00 | 0.95 | 3.00 | 0.99 | 3.01 |
| 1910 | 2.10 | 2.00 | 4.10 | -1.00 | 0.87 | 3.10 | 0.92 | 3.18 |
| 1920 | 2.20 | 2.00 | 4.20 | -1.00 | 0.79 | 3.20 | 0.85 | 3.35 |
| 1930 | 2.30 | 2.00 | 4.30 | -1.00 | 0.71 | 3.30 | 0.78 | 3.52 |
| 1940 | 2.40 | 2.00 | 4.40 | -1.25 | 0.63 | 3.40 | 0.71 | 3.51 |
| 1950 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 4.50 | -1.50 | 0.55 | 3.50 | 0.64 | 3.54 |
| 1960 | 2.60 | 2.00 | 4.60 | -1.75 | 0.47 | 3.60 | 0.57 | 3.60 |
| 1970 | 2.70 | 2.00 | 4.70 | -2.00 | 0.39 | 3.70 | 0.50 | 3.70 |
| 1980 | 2.80 | 2.00 | 4.80 | -2.25 | 0.31 | 3.80 | 0.43 | 3.83 |
| 1990 | 2.90 | 2.00 | 4.90 | -3.50 | 0.23 | 3.90 | 0.23 | 4.10 |
| 2000 | 2.90 | 2.00 | 4.90 | -3.75 | 0.15 | 3.90 | 0.15 | 4.34 |
| 2010 | 2.90 | 2.00 | 4.90 | -3.00 | 0.07 | 3.90 | 0.07 | 4.69 |
The new estimated average is the red dashed line.
The fit is not bad up to 1990, but the accumulated effect of all the small mistakes is the artificial trend introduced at the end of the series. At this point we would hope to have some independent data on the post-1990 trend to compare the result to in order to decide if our methods and assumptions were reasonable.
This example proves nothing about K15, of course, except that small changes in assumptions about how to deal with uncertainties in the data can have a large effect on the final results. But that was already clear because the K15 themselves explain that their new assumptions—not new observations—are what introduced the warming trend at the end of their data set.
Conclusion
Are the new K15 adjustments correct? Obviously it is not for me to say – this is something that needs to be debated by specialists in the field. But I make the following observations:
· All the underlying data (NMAT, ship, buoy, etc) have inherent problems and many teams have struggled with how to work with them over the years
· The HadNMAT2 data are sparse and incomplete. K15 take the position that forcing the ship data to line up with this dataset makes them more reliable. This is not a position other teams have adopted, including the group that developed the HadNMAT2 data itself. BTW, if you are interested, the global HadNMAT2 temperature anomaly is the black line in the figure below. The data series ends in 2010.
(Added above)(Kent, et al (2013), Global analysis of night marine air temperature and its uncertainty since 1835 1880: The HadNMAT2 data set, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 1281–1298, 1836 doi:10.1002/jgrd.50152)
· It is very odd that a cooling adjustment to SST records in 1998-2000 should have such a big effect on the global trend, namely wiping out a hiatus that is seen in so many other data sets, especially since other teams have not found reason to make such an adjustment.
· The outlier results in the K15 data might mean everyone else is missing something, or it might simply mean that the new K15 adjustments are invalid.
It will be interesting to watch the specialists in the field sort this question out in the coming months.
Ross McKitrick
Department of Economics
University of Guelph
rossmckitrick.com
[1] Woodruff, S.D., H. F. Diaz, S. J. Worley, R. W. Reynolds, and S. J. Lubker, (2005). “Early ship observational data and ICOADS.” Climatic Change, 73, 169–194.
[2] See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/Kennedy_2013_submitted.pdf for a review.
[3] Rayner, N. A., D. E. Parker, E. B. Horton, C. K. Folland, L. V. Alexander, D. P. Rowell, E. C. Kent, and A. Kaplan, (2003): Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(D14), 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670.
[4] Hirahara, S. et al. Centennial-Scale Sea Surface Temperature Analysis and Its Uncertainty, Journal of Climate Vol 27 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00837.1
[5] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf
[6] Christy, John R., David E. Parker, Simon J. Brown, et al. 2001 Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979. Geophysical Research Letters 28, no. 1
[7] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/Kennedy_2013_submitted.pdf page 28.
The T rise from circa 1917 to about 1944 was most likely little influenced by CO2 and more by changes in advection. It looks as if the rise from about 1976 till 2001 likewise to a large extent can be explained the same way. It behooves us to stop quarrelling and sit still and wait for another 20-30 years to see what happens before we do anything to stop a possible man-made global warming.
Agreed, though with the AMO due to flip and a continuing -PDO this could run and run until the next warm cycle.
All the real Data is here,check it out.
http://www.astrotheme.com/transits_ephemerides_chart.php
The only data that matters is data that is not agenda driven which is satellite data. End of story.
Sorry to disappoint you but the True Data is here,
http://www.astrotheme.com/transits_ephemerides_chart.php
(Sarc)
Twisting the knobs and torturing the data until they get the pre-selected answer.
Is this as big a fiddle as the Hockeyschtik? Basically the same device, data manipulation, to achieve the same end, get rid of an inconvenient historical record.
The best explanation is that pre ARGO the SST data was not fit to yield a global aggregate figure other than to say 0.5 or 1.0˚C say. Using it for identifying the sorts of variations and trends being sought is fundamentally flawed and so obviously so that in all honesty it should not have been attempted let alone relied on in any way. Using as a basis for policy is therefore utterly lunatic and you might be better off reading sheep’s entrails.
Is this as big a fiddle as the Hockeyschtik?
No. It doesn’t even affect trend since 1950, the dawn of the CO2 era. And if it doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do much. They are sacrificing themselves on the altar of pause removal. A dog eating its own tail. And the pause can be explained away easily by PDO flux, anyway.
This is so agenda driven and does not deserve discussion. Their adjustments of the data are a fabrication of the truth and as far as I am concern are a non issue. Many reliable sources from Weatherbell Inc., to satellite data, to radiosonde data paint an entirely different correct truthful picture in contrast to the BS of the AGW agenda supporters.
on every level, it’s what is known as a psyops:
4 June: Breitbart: Steve Milloy: Harvard, Syracuse Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/04/harvard-syracuse-researchers-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/
Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph),
You have given a clear and impartial analysis / discussion of Karl (of NOAA) et al. (2015).
The interesting development would be if, in the next couple of months, someone at NASA GISS makes a similar move as NOAA’s Karl.
John
John, keep in mind that GISS currently uses the ERSST.v3b data. It will soon be replaced by the ERSST.v4 data. The question is, will GISS buy into the new NOAA data with all of its peculiarities, especially in the 1930s and 40s?
Of course they will, Gavin has already endorsed the new Karl et al. 2015 paper publicly.
Bob Tisdale on June 5, 2015 at 7:05 am
– – – – – –
Bob Tisdale,
Thanks of the background on data used by NASA GISS.
John
Anthony Watts on June 5, 2015 at 7:22 am
– – – – – – –
Anthony,
Yeah.
& I would think NASA GISS would want their own peer reviewed published paper independent of NOAA’s efforts on revising the temperature record with a warming outcome.
John
Ross
“So what changed in the SST records? Bear in mind that there are very few records of air temperatures over the oceans, especially prior to 1950. So to get long term climate estimates, scientists use SST (i.e. water temperature) data, which have been collected since the 1800s by ships.”
WRONG
Check the source material ICOADS
http://icoads.noaa.gov/advances/parker3.pdf
There are 8 million records for air temps prior to 1900.
Steven, in context of comparison with air temp records over land, would you rank the air/sea temps comparatively many, or comparatively few?
The issue is Ross’s error and whether or not he will correct it.
ICOADS records typically come with bot an SST measurement and a MAT measurement.
Comparing MAT records with SAT records simply by number is a foolish thing to do.
1. MAT is highly correlated with SST.
2. SST is more homogenous than the land.
consequently you dont need as many MAT measurements.
Everybody knows that 8,000,000 is a very large number and could never constitute “very few”.
Each roving reading represented the temperature of 820,000 square kilometres of ocean air, if only one reading was taken per day.
Probably, more readings were recorded daily and probably there was an overlap of meteorological readings and ship of war entries.
Can a ratio of two large numbers result in “very few” or would that be WRONG?
mebbe
June 4, 2015 at 8:45 pm
“Everybody knows that 8,000,000 is a very large number and could never constitute “very few”.”
—————————
In light of my question to Steven, your statement comes off as disingenuous and I think you know that.. Are you satisfied that your calculated sample rate would yield accurate result? Assumptive modifiers such as “probably” don’t cut it. How is Dr. McKitrick’s assertion that “Bear in mind that there are very few records of air temperatures over the oceans, especially prior to 1950.” inconsistent with your calculated historical sample rate of 1 reading/day/820,000 square kilometers? Many would conclude that such granularity is only minimally useful and then only with caveats underscoring the data inadequacy for making pronouncements of precision to 100ths of a degree.
Alan,
It might be true that sarcasm without a declaration of sarcasm is disingenuous, so I’ll admit to the charge.
In case I’m still being too oblique; no, I don’t think 8,000,000 log entries over half a century is a lot.
See what happens when I hit WUWT and comment before the morning’s first cup o’ java? Cranky old **** dude doesn’t begin to cover it.
How many of those records were taken at the same place over time? And were equally, spatially dispersed across the ocean\globe?
I suggest none.
Quantity does not equate to quality.
This issue is Ross’ error and whether or not he will correct it.
1. The records need not be taken at the same place and time. That said you will find that ships tend to follow the same routes.
2. Quantity will definately help you. With ICOADS this is definately the case.
However, if you guys want just raw data.. then the raw data shows MORE WARMING.
“MORE warming” … well, it’s still below CMIP5 business-as-usual scenario ensemble averaged outputs. The models still fail, regardless of any contrived evaporation of the “hiatus.”
The political appt’d managers at NOAA must understand the obvious outcome is that this only buys them some time before the model failures become apparent again, ie. global cooling with a strong La Nina in 2016 going into 2017. Nature doesn’t care about man-contrived data adjustments. This is a political result. That NOAA should help affirm what the administration it works for wants, should come as no surprise.
The real surprise is how dubious the methodology employed in this paper is for Science. That speaks volumes to how deeply the politicized corruption has gone into the AAAS and the editors at Science.
Steven Mosher;
However, if you guys want just raw data.. then the raw data shows MORE WARMING.
The issue is not if adjustments in general are warranted. The question is are these adjustments on top of the existing adjustments warranted? They seem rather dubious at best.
Steven Mosher, you are once again using misdirection in this discussion. We are not discussing the changes due to the “Folland adjustments” back in the 1930s and 40s, which increased the long-term SST trend. We are discussing the changes in trend during the hiatus. I corrected you on this on another thread yesterday. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to comprehend, Steven.
There are 8 million records for air temps prior to 1900.
From the slides you linked to, emphasis mine:
Undigitized marine observations for 1851-1900UK national archives
Given that they are not digitized, their existence is moot. They are of no value until they are, no matter their number.
dmh
You have pointed out that the real issue is the error by Steven Mosher and whether or not he will correct it.
It is not acceptable to point out errors of Steven Mosher. If you don’t believe me then ask him.
Richard
Steven,
You haven’t talked about your life. You’re a young guy, so you had the opportunity to take AP calc BC. Did you take it, and did you score a 5? You should have been able to take Physics C (Mech). Did you take it and score a 5? Did you take AP Chem and score a 5?
So,at northwestern, did you take honors calc and honors physics? Did you take PChem? If so,what were your grades?
Put down your credentials. “I didn’t study math and science because it was too easy.” Riight.
Air temps were taken at the same time as sea temps, i.e. 0600, Noon, 1800 and Midnight.
Air temps were not taken at the sea surface, though; usually a Stevenson Screen on the weather side bridge wing, so could be 20 to 60 feet above sea level.
Ross does point out above that there are ~185 million total measurements in ICOADS. 8 million is less than 5% of the total. Maybe that’s what he means by very few?
OK, rephrase it to say “For most of the world’s oceans there are very few records of air temperatures…” The source you cite also shows that 55% of those records are from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, and a further 12% from the South Atlantic. There’s little AT data from the Pacific and Indian oceans. After all, if there was good comprehensive AT data then we wouldn’t need SST as a proxy.
Ross, I continue to find it amazing that NOAA used NMAT data as a reference for SST data adjustments, when the NMAT data have always been considered an inferior dataset.
Bob,
It is not “amazing” when it helps the “cause” to kill the “pause”.
Today’s politically-motivated left have abandoned all notions of shame for lying.
Basically for the Progressive Left in America it boils down to: “If you aren’t lying, you aren’t trying.” That includes Climate Science handled by US government climate scientists. We’ve known that for years. We’ve seen that in action. K15 is just one more egregious example of lying to support the cause. And Ross McKitrick was trying to be too polite.
Ross is amazingly polite, both in print and in person. I do not know how he does it, given the magnitude of the bull$hit he is documenting.
Copy available on Ross’ website
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015.pdf
so no need to copy/paste/ fixup etc, thanks.
Unbelievable that Karl et al should use the old old measurements at sea problem. Highlighted years ago by Daly and others. Or maybe not so unbelievable. Time to recycle. Next thing will be adjusting the post-USSR demise temperatures back down and homogenising to replace all the old stations that disappeared. Smearing the arctic land temperatures over the ocean is a more recent trick that they revisit. There’s been a recent revisit of the hockey stick so that one will have to lie fallow for a while.
Must be 15 years since I read Daley’s comments on the measurements at sea, and had the chance to check them out with a couple of ex-mariners. The response to asking how the process was conducted was laughter. “I would be very surprised if the job was ever done properly anywhere …. punishment job for a misdemeanour, like cleaning out the heads … no way you’d even be allowed to try it in a storm … “.
That AAAS and Science Mag would publish such an arguably piece of garbage, confirmation-biased result of K15 speaks volumes to the levels of political corruption that has invaded the AAAS.
I read through the K15 paper this morning before going online to any website critique. That bit about using the ship data to correct the buoy SST data, and then calling the buoy data more accurate was obvious cherry picking and confirmation bias driven.
The K15 paper is garbage and the AAAS will one day be ashamed of having published it.
Thanks, Dr. McKitrick. Good explanation.
Karl et al. is trying to rewrite the climate records to revive a dead parrot, so to speak.
Propaganda in Action?
Should anyone wonder how the mainstream media will respond to this new paper they needn’t go any further than the AustralianScienceMediaCentre. This site coordinates pre-prepared responses from a range of selected scientists. Remarkably these all give credibility to the warmist cause. (Goebbels would be proud of what amounts to a scientific propaganda filtering for journalists.) This organisation has been duplicated in other countries so performs a global propaganda purpose which appears to be strongly influenced by the UN and left. I recommend anyone who cares about freedom of scientific thought and the media goes to this site now and see for themselves how this operates.
http://www.smc.org.au/expert-reaction-global-warming-slowdown-an-illusion-created-by-bad-data-science/#more-16619
Here are the expert reactions and I apologise for taking up so much space but they may disappear so it is good to circulate them before this happens.
Professor Matthew England is Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at UNSW
“There’s nothing all that new in this paper and nothing that surprises me. The bottom line is that multiple data sets and multiple lines of evidence have shown that global warming hasn’t stalled at all. This is another paper adding to this evidence. All that’s happened is that after 2000 the global average surface warming has been slower than that seen during the 1980s and 1990s. This has been unequivocally linked to natural decadal climate variability. Projections for this century reveal that regardless of this variability, catastrophic warming will result without action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.
———–
UK expert comments:
Dr Ed Hawkins, climate scientist at NCAS, University of Reading, said:
“Observations of temperature over the past 150 years were made with a wide variety of instruments. Because measurement techniques have improved over time, corrections have been made to ensure the past temperature data is consistent and accurate.
“The process is never finished. Climate scientists continue to refine our understanding of past temperature changes. This update to one of the major global temperature datasets uses new information on measurement type to produce improved corrections which act to increase the global temperature trends over the past 15 years.
“This suggests that the much-discussed recent slowdown in global temperatures is far less pronounced than previously thought. In addition, estimates of climate sensitivity constrained by past observations may need a slight upwards revision, increasing the risk of negative consequences from our warming climate in future.”
———–
Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London, said:
“This study is important and makes a significant step forward to the analysis presented in the IPCC (2013) report as it addresses three key areas of uncertainty.
“First, the study analyses and corrects for the different temperature measurements between floating buoy and ship data, as ship data is systematically warmer than buoy data. Globally this is a difference of 0.12˚C. They also corrected the ship data. Prior to the Second world war there was a shift from bucket to engine intake thermometers, this was assumed to be a universal shift but recent analysis shows that some ships even today use bucket observations, which are always cooler due to evaporation.
“Second, the study makes use of the new data produced by the International Surface Temperature Initiative http://www.surfacetemperatures.org This project started in 2010 to provide the very best data on surface temperatures. In five years they have double the number of stations available globally and ensured all the data in their data base is corrected for changes in station location, instrument changes, observing practice and urbanization. This data is a significant improvement on the data used in studies reported in the IPCC 2013 report. Third the authors took account of the incomplete data in the Arctic region, which has underestimated the warming in that region.
“The result of this study is that warming rates both of the short and long term are much more similar than previously suggested. The period 1880 to 1940 was not as cold as previously reported and that the warming trend from 1950-1999 was 0.113°C per decade, while from 2000-2014 it was 0.116°C per decade. This important reanalysis suggests there never was a global warming hiatus; if anything, temperatures are warming faster in the last 15 years than in the last 65 years.
“A whole cottage industry has been built by climate skeptics on the false premise that there is currently a hiatus in global warming. This is despite climate data showing continued warming of the Earth surface. Much of the media have latched on to this supposed slow-down as it continues the ‘for and against’ climate change debate. The weight of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming and this new study shows that the global warming hiatus was just wishful thinking.”
———–
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair of the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said:
“This reassessment of global temperatures, which gives that there has been no pause or slowdown in surface warming since 1998, is very important as it comes from an extremely well regarded group at a US Government laboratory.
“It has been known that the storage of the excess heat caused by increased greenhouse gases has continued, and it had been thought that the reduction in surface warming must be due to natural variation in the heat exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean. Now it appears that any such exchange of heat between the atmosphere and ocean has not been large enough to obscure the global warming trend, even in the relatively short period we have so far had in the 21st century. It also suggests that some of the lower estimates of warming that depend on the low trend in recent temperatures may no longer be credible.”
———–
Prof Tim Osborn, Professor of Climate Science at the University of East Anglia, said:
“This is an important update to the NOAA global temperature dataset, one of a handful of such global temperature records that are used to monitor ongoing climate change. These records have to combine information from many types of measurement, and inevitably these have differences and biases that must be taken into account when calculating how the global temperature has changed over the last 150 years – and over recent decades too. Previous work has addressed many of the biases already, but more refinement can always be achieved as new data become available and as our understanding of the limitations of our measuring systems improves.
“More observations over land, especially in the high latitudes, and better corrections for biases in sea surface temperatures as the measuring systems have gradually changing from ship-based measurements to drifting buoys. Interestingly, similar improvements were already introduced to our global temperature record (the HadCRUT4 record, a joint endeavour of the Climatic Research Unit and the University of East Anglia and the UK Met Office) in 2012, though they did not make such a dramatic difference as they appear to do in the NOAA dataset. Understanding why this difference arises will need detailed analysis in the coming months.
“The long-term warming since 1880 is hardly affected by these updates, but estimates of warming trends over shorter periods are affected. The IPCC cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from short-term trends, but they did highlight that the warming over the 15 years from 1998 to 2012 may have been slower than the average warming rate since 1951 – and therefore it is interesting to understand this difference and its possible implications for our understanding of the climate system and our projections of future climate.
“This new study suggests that the slowdown in the rate of warming may be much less pronounced than in the global temperature records that were available for the IPCC to assess. The IPCC’s assessment wasn’t wrong, but perhaps the emphasis would be slightly different if the assessment were carried out afresh with the new studies since 2013 that could now be considered. One of the problems with the IPCC having 6-year assessment cycle is that it takes time for new findings to feed through to the assessments that inform decision makers and policy makers.
“Nevertheless, I would caution against dismissing the slowdown in surface warming on the basis of this study, nor to downplay the role of natural decadal variability for short-term trends in climate. There are other datasets that still support a slowdown over some recent period of time, and there are intriguing geographical patterns such as cooling in large parts of the Pacific Ocean that were used to support explanations for the warming slowdown. It will be interesting to see if these patterns are still present in the revised NOAA dataset (the new paper shows only the global average temperature). Furthermore, a key feature of the apparent slowdown in surface warming was that it left the observed warming close to the bottom of the range of climate model projections of warming during the last few years at least. The newly revised NOAA data can be used to update that comparison, though it’s not likely to resolve that issue.”
———–
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said:
“This is an interesting study which confirms that uncertainties in the global temperature record are one part of understanding the recent slowdown in warming. The slowdown hasn’t gone away, however – the results of this study still show the warming trend over the past 15 years has been slower than previous 15 year periods. While the Earth continues to accumulate energy as a result of increasing man-made greenhouse gas emissions these results also confirm that global temperatures have not increased smoothly. This means natural variability in the climate system or other external factors have still had an influence and it’s important we continue research to fully understand all the processes at work.
“Overall this study demonstrates the importance of further work in narrowing down uncertainties in global temperature datasets and in better understanding climate variability. These are areas the Met Office has been working on for a number of years. The numbers in this study are within the uncertainty ranges calculated in our own global temperature dataset and we’re in the midst of a long-term project to further improve and narrow down our understanding of uncertainties. Understanding variability in the rate of global average surface warming is an ongoing and active research topic.”
———–
Prof Richard Allan, Professor of Climate Science at the University of Reading, said:
“This study highlights the care that is required in turning measurements into a credible climate record.
“The most important new adjustment the authors make is to account for the changing coverage of ships and floating buoys which differ slightly in their temperature readings. Accounting for this discrepancy increases the temperature trend for the most recent period (since 1998) over the oceans and makes the recent global warming trends indistinguishable from those over the earlier 1950-1999 period.
“It remains a surprise that surface warming over the past 15 years is not larger than the 1950-1999 period which experienced quite slow global warming before the 1980s, in part due to a cooling effect from aerosol pollution and volcanic eruptions that counteracted the warming influences of greenhouse gas emissions.
“Warming was rapid in the 1980s and 1990s and it is curious that a comparison with these decades was not included in this new study. The past 15 years has undoubtedly been climatically unusual with atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns unprecedented in the observational record.
“The authors importantly note that focus on understanding how climate varies from one decade to the next, motivated by unexpected and unusual changes in the oceans and atmosphere, is welcome and has advanced scientific understanding of our complex climate system.”
———–
Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said:
“Getting data on global temperature for climate is always hard as these observations were always designed for monitoring weather and don’t necessarily have long-term stability. Despite this, long-term trends in global temperature are very similar between the 4 more or less independent datasets that exist. Even the corrections talked about in this study make very little difference to the long-term trend. (The 1951-2012 period on left hand side of their fig. 1). So they are not grossly flawed but remarkably robust. They are more flawed when looking at shorter-term changes in datasets.
“Does this mean there has never been a hiatus? It depends how you look at it. Even with the corrections in this study, the observed warming has not been as large as predicted by models. Other global datasets, even when corrected for missing Arctic data, still show a decreased trend since 1998. I strongly dispute that the IPCC report got it wrong on the hiatus, and I think this is where the study really misrepresents the IPCC. The IPCC made a very cautious and preliminary assessment of the hiatus acknowledging that the change wasn’t significant. Further, I would still expect other observed datasets to have a clear hiatus. As the IPCC report bases its assessment on more than one set of observations, I would expect its conclusions to still hold up today.
“Generally the IPCC reports try to capture an evolving science. This is challenging but important work and policy makers need the most up-to-date information possible to make informed judgments.
“The study makes the important point that we need to look really carefully at data quality and issues of instrumental change. Yet there are several legitimate judgment calls made when combining datasets to make a global mean-time series. I still don’t think this study will be the last word on this complex subject.”
———–
Prof Jeffrey Kargel, Glaciologist at the University of Arizona, said:
“The results and conclusions reached by Thomas Karl and others are certainly in accord with what we are seeing amongst the world’s glaciers, where melting – retreat or thinning – is taking place very widely.
“The results are also consistent with broader disruptions in the global climate system that the world’s people are feeling. The idea being pushed blindly by some with vested interests that somehow the planet is not responding to continued emissions of greenhouse gases doesn’t make sense from a simple physics viewpoint; but the climate-change denialism also doesn’t sit well with people who can read the newspaper and watch the TV news about climate change in action and who can recognize the effects in their own experiences.”
———–
Prof Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge, said:
“This is a careful and persuasive analysis, and I think shows clearly that the so-called ‘hiatus’ does not exist and that global warming has continued over the past few years at the same rate as in earlier years.”
Posted on June 5, 2015 at 4:30 am, filed under Expert Reaction, Hot Topics and tagged Climate change, Environment, IPCC
The Climate Liars love that word “slowdown”, which they use instead of “pause” or “hiatus”.
You did good work, for the record.
For The Record:
Tagged And Bagged. The record of this is now preserved.
The SST data sets are a hodge podge of collection methods and standard.. How can anyone take them seriously? They are worse than the data sets from Stevenson Screens. Watts needs yet another project/paper: The incredulity of the SST record.
NOAA since the Federal reorganization that culminated in October 1972 has grown to become a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Religious Institution (mostly Male) of the Federal Government.
As such, NOAA should allow their sexual aspirations to live, and not be given to restraint that can lead to psychological paralysis.
I encourage NOAA to release a Press Statement saying that the Earth has warmed more than 100 degrees C since 1950 and that the warming has caused the death of more than 300 Billion human beings.
How would NOAA explain this.
NOAA Representative: “Its a Miracle God Bless.”
Ha ha ja ja
It is of course unabashed data buggering. The only question is whether these people believe their own manipulations or are they out and out liars.
A look inside NOAA today. Ah.. 😉
Are subsequent measurements from the same thermometer not identified as such?
For land based surface stations each measurement is associated to a single station, from this is is easy to calculate a day to day change regardless of the magnitude of the temp, you can get an accurate trend. This the main process I use. It eliminates the whole trying to adjust the magnitude to obtain alignment. It is my belief this is the most accurate method of obtaining a trend.
Then any station with a full years trend can be compared. I believe this is the only accurate surface data.
If sst data is like wise associated to specific sources ,the same process can be used without any alignment adjustments. programmatic adjustments to large volumes of data,even with exceptional accuracy, there can be significant amounts of error, 10% errors on 1,000,000 measurements is 100,000 created errors that didn’t exist prior to trying to “fix” the data. Worse still is there’s no way to identify the bad data from the good.
The real takeaway from this paper isn’t whether or not the hiatus is real or not.
The real takeaway is that the folks at NOAA et al can use and abuse statistics to make the numbers say virtually anything. The could even tweet the numbers to make AGE go away.
The behavior of a politicized executive branch agency under the Obama Administration is by now to be expected. The Obama Admin mantra is firmly in the “If you aren’t lying, you aren’t rying” realm.
No, the real takeaway for me is that credibility of the AAAS is on hiatus, and possibly may fall fatally off the cliff in a few years when the fraud of this pseudoscience is exposed.
“If you aren’t lying you aren’t trying”
First chuckle of the day (-:
To claim that the Obama has politicized NOAA is just silly. NOAA (and NASA) are agencies now filled with the graduates of schools where AGW has been taught as fact for the past 30 years. Instead, NOAA and NASA have convinced Obama and the politicians of the Left that there’s a disaster looming. Maybe Raphi Cruz or Jebbers Bush could “clean house” if they came into office. But who would they put in there instead?
The moderate Left of 21st Century politics tends to take scientists’ statements at face value (yes, I call Obama a moderate — compared to my political creed, Obama is moderate Republican in the Eisenhower mold). Anyway, moderate Lefties implicitly trust that climate scientists are giving them an accurate assessments of the facts — because they worship science as being an infallible temple of pure thought (and forget that scientists are humans who are not immune to faults of humans). Most politicians are not grounded in the sciences. It would never occur to the current crop of Lefty politicians to look at the actual data, let alone pick it apart. And seriously, how can you expect politicians (who are not scientifically trained) NOT to take all the dire global warming warnings of the experts seriously? All they hear is that experts are screaming that the end is near. The fact that the experts may be distorting the facts never occurs to the politicians on the Left side of the political spectrum.
Whereas the moderate Left of the 21st Century are worshipful science and scientists , the radicalized Right of the 21st Century is manifestly anti-science. Probably half of the passengers riding in the Republican presidential clown car believe that the world was created 4004 BC. And the other half would claim they believed in the Biblical creation story (even if they didn’t), just to pander to the religious right. It would never occur to the radicalized Right to actually look at the actual data. These are the same guys that think a woman can shut down the viability of sperm if she were REALLY AND TRULY raped.
I love the give an take of the SCIENTIFIC discussion on WUWT. But the political snarking is just plain silly. Politicians are politicians. Take the politics elsewhere. Cheers!
beowulf888
Cleverly phrased, but dead wrong. NO republican candidate for president believes that, and very, very few “religious right” (as you exaggerate their conservative voters) believe that meme. It’s used – by the left and in their publicity for their propaganda and in their universities and in their parties.
But, no, fewer “right wing” “believes” that the world was created 6000 years ago than do the left wing that Bush brought down the World Trade Center.
I’ve been diagnosed with early stage AGE. My doctor says it’s inoperable and incurable. : )
Were any of the ships named “Yamal?”
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(most sorry Kiki Dee)
I got no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Man is the measure
Or all things that be
The Progressive Alliance
And its New Age Science
Say I got the data in me
I work in the mists and the fogs
By methods that none can review
To hide like a fox from the dogs
The premise of all that I do
The thermometers all want skilling
If their readings are not alarming
As the early one all need chilling
So the later ones all need warming
Man is the measure
Of all things that be!
What Portagoras said
Onto Nietzche led
So I got the data in me
The truth’s a consensus of thought
We agree to agree about
A joy for so long we have sought
Our minds ever free of all doubt
We are born uncertain of heart
And live in fear of things unknown
Consensus is truly the start
Of our souls becoming our own
Man is the measure
Of all things that be
To Progressive drums
The Superman comes
And I got the data in me
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Eugene WR Gallun
Spot on, once again!
INTERVIEW WITH TOM KARL. BBC’S ROLAND PEASE SOUNDS VERY ANNOYED. SAYS HE HAS LOADS OF PAPERS EXPLAINING THE PAUSE AND NOW THIS. THE INTERVIEW ENDS AT 8 MINS PLUS.
LISTEN FROM 7 MINS IN:
AUDIO: 4 June: BBC Science in Action with Roland Pease: No slow down in Global Warming
Evidence Against the Global Warming Pause
An analysis using updated global surface temperature data disputes the existence of a previously reported 21st century global warming slowdown. The new analysis suggests that there has been no discernible decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century up to the present day. This period has been dubbed a global warming “hiatus.” This new analysis is sure to cause more controversy and debate…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sbqd3
FOLLOWING IS WORTH LISTENING TO IN ISOLATION:
AUDIO: 47 secs: 4 June: BBC Science in Action: No global Warming Pause?
Professor Tom Karl, the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centres for Environmental Information (NCEI) explains to Roland Pease about how his analysis using updated global surface temperature data disputes the existence of a previously reported 21st century global warming slowdown or pause. The new analysis suggests that there has been no discernible decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century up to the present day. This new analysis is sure to cause more controversy and debate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sx3gs
BBC’s annoyance seems to show with the related links at the bottom of this Helen Briggs’ piece!
4 June: BBC: Helen Briggs: US scientists: Global warming pause ‘no longer valid’
“The IPCC’s statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ – is no longer valid,” said Dr Karl, the director of Noaa’s National Climatic Data Center.
More on this story
Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’
21 August 2014
Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report
23 September 2013
Why has global warming stalled?
22 July 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179
“The IPCC’s statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ – is no longer valid,” said Dr Karl, the director of Noaa’s National Climatic Data Center.
Is Dr Karl calling ALL OTHER DATASETS INVALID!?!? RSS, UAH, Hadcrut, etc?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/mean:3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/mean:3/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/mean:3/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:3/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
That is an absurd claim. The paper took a bad set of data with known problems, tried to patch it up with a whole bunch of adjustments of dubious merit, ans so bad data with dubious adjustment is now the best dataset ever? And is now being used to discredit far more consistent and reliable datasts, namely the RSS and UAH satellite measurements, etc.
And is it true or not true that rate of land warming was bigger in 80s and 90s than in 00s and 01s?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1980/mean:12
Is this a dumb question?
They computed that number by looking at places where both buoy data and ship data were collected in the same places, and they found the ship data on average was warmer by 0.12 oC. So they added that to the buoy data.
and
During the process of hauling the water up to the deck the temperature of the sample may change;
and
They computed that number by looking at places where both buoy data and ship data were collected in the same places, and they found the ship data on average was warmer by 0.12 oC. So they added that to the buoy data.
Surely they should have reduced the ship data which is acknowledged to be less reliable in the paper?