By Maxim Lott
Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.
But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.
“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.
And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.
“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”
…
Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.
…
But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else.
“Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote.
Full story here
A lady who has been working on this theoretical physics for 30 years or something said that her greatest fear was that they had it completely wrong.
Did you ever ask yourself that “Why is reality so difficult to understand” ?
=O)
The only conclusion I make is that the surface thermometer record is so unreliable that it has taken decades while these clowns just play with adjustments and still can’t even ‘model’ things accurately.
1 The “science” clearly cannot be settled and
2 An awful lot of the “scientists” in this field seem pretty unsettled too if not downright unhinged.
😎
How can it be “settled” if the numbers it is based on aren’t?
Gunga – a better man than I –
our watermelon pals have made a slight error.
“The science is settled”
Now, with amazing foresight, prescience, and 20/20 hindsight, I can tweak that:
“The politics is settled” –
Does that feel ‘better’?
Auto
Climate science is in the dark ages from not agreeing or for that matter really not knowing why/how the climate of the earth changes to not even being able to agree on present and past data. Between all the adjustments and all the different sources to collect climate data I would say this field is in the dark ages. It is the only scientific area where one can say no progress has been made.
Well, we went from torturing, then burning our women, to merely burning our food. Some might claim a little progress. 🙂 GK
London ‘Times’ swallowed it whole last Saturday – ‘hiatus is a myth scientists say’ was the thrust. Didn’t print my letter of course!
Even if you buy Karl’s oceanic cooked books, which I don’t, the plateau continues in the atmosphere, as observed by satellites and balloons. And if CO2 in the air be the ostensible cause of alleged global warming, then the atmosphere would have to warm up before it could warm the seas. And more.
Is all the raw data available for this data set to the general public? Is the methodology available also? That would be the reason for the adjustment in detail and the algorithms for this adjustment?
No “conspiracy” is required to get folks (scientists included) to produce most any outcome you like. Simply reward those who head in “your” direction and punish those who do not. Government is in possession of the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick. Label “your” direction as good for the environment and news media will join your parade. When it occurs to folks that “your” direction will result in more centralized government control (possibly even “one-world” power), everyone left of the political center will dedicate themselves to herding the masses in “your” direction and steer them away from such pesky concerns as “cost versus benefits” and even “reality versus fiction”.
Amazing – when the real headline would have to read, “Readings from dodgy thermometers on ships used to generate new untrustworthy global temperature record”.
But somehow that wouldn’t sound quite so catchy.
The methodology was invented by people like Phil Jones.
It involves physically modelling a variety of buckets and the effects of raising them to the height of various heights of deck in various types of weather, and then imagining several fag smoking sailors standing over the bucket with a thermometer. There are heaps of assumed stuff about the bucket and the ship.
And then the intake thermometers were treated in a similar manner.
At some point somebody tried using a bucket on a ship with an intake and compared both values and this got used as the gold-standard for switching between buckets and intakes.
There are so many ways in which errors can pile up that it’s really quite unbelievable that this is the best that we can do.
Maybe we should be using tree-rings for the modern era.
What do they show, post 1960?
Here’s a bucket sample:
The most important thing for bucket sampling is to tie the retrieval line to the ship, and not to you. When I was doing this in 1970-71, it was standard practice to notify the engine room when you were taking the bucket sample so they could take a corresponding reading. There should be lots of paired data, sea “surface” vs. engine cooling intake temperatures, without going off the deep end into deep theory.
One other point: In addition to questions about the temperatures, the locations are important. Before GPS/GNSS, location accuracy might be within a nautical mile or so. Better accuracy was obtained close to shore with LORAN. For the old measurements (cooling and/or bucket), location was based on skill with the sextant and chronometer or listening to WWV time signals.
Excellent points. But in a “discipline” where 1200 km counts as good enough, today’s “climate scientists” shouldn’t be bothered by the location problem.
Hate the auto-play video ads. I have stopped visiting sites with them. The Breitbart site is the worst. Please reconsider the use of these ads WUWT.
[we don’t control them, wordpress.com does, and every wordpress.com website is likely to display them -mod]
use adblock
Not true.
I have a WordPress web site and I pay for it so I have zero ads there. It only costs a pittance a year.
The field of climate science today can best be described as lethal poison … the “poison” being disguised as scientific data put out by government paid scientists which is really just propaganda issued under the authority of their public office to promote a political agenda. And “lethal” to the real genuine scientists who dare question, scrutinise, and challenge such unscientific “pseudo scientific propaganda”.
These climate change charlatans are making once highly respected organisations look like modern day “FIFA” type bodies in which corruption is allowed to flourish.
At least in New Zealand, in relation to the “Kiwigate” temperature data scandal, the originator of the technique of temperature data adjustment to create an enhanced global warming trend (which was not evident in the real data held by the NZ Met Service) was summarily dismissed from his position at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, which was providing the flawed data used in determining multi-decadal trends in global average temperatures used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Even with the latest corrections, there is a pause( no additional rise in temperature between the dates ) from 1880-1935, and again 1945-1980 . Satellite data confirms the current pause. The current pause is likely to last 20-30 years more .
The timing of Karl’s paper is outstanding. I’m so impressed. One day we wake up and its very important to spend trillions of dollars on CAGW. Its so obvious that I should pivot my business to net some of this cash. Maybe I could get to the head of this movement somehow, maybe o could be the spokesman and star in a bunch of dodgy documentaries claiming “we are already screwed”? My feeling is that I would be competing with others who claim.we’re beyond screwed, them I would have to ramp up my rhetoric to get air time. Hmmmmm, ” we are screwed so bad, hell is gonna feel like a deepfreeze compared to how utterly screwed we are”. “All babies will be born soulless demons”… Or something, ” kittens will bake to a crisp under the noon sky”
Karl et al 2015 finally “jumps the shark” by showing just how easy it is to manipulate the data.
I suggest they manipulate it a bit more and end AGW in our time.
So the satellite data that still shows the pause with global coverage is not government data? Is that right?
Owenvcthegenius
I would not call the timing of this study outstanding . I would call the timing political and troublesome. Its timing seems to me somewhat deliberate and comes out just as the world leaders are meeting at the G7 meeting in Europe and during the Berlin climate negotiations and also prior to the upcoming Paris Conference . This study follows at the heels of the 2014 Annual report with similar questionable science and doubtful record temperature claims that was released just prior to the state of the union speech . They claimed that the 2014 warming was not due to El Nino effects but later backtracked and showed an El Nino during the latter part 0f 2014 . When a scientific organization places political agenda ahead of its scientific mandate it looses its credibility as the national climate record keeper and becomes just another branch of the ruling political party. As we saw with the flawed 2014 annual report , other US scientists and scientists in other parts of the world are again speaking out about the possible flawed science in this report that claims no recent slowdown in the rise of global temperatures . AGW scientific consensus clearly flew out the window. Rather than seeking consensus first on major changes in previously accepted records with other scientists of equal if not more experience in this field , they seem to rush out with press release to score political points for their political leaders only.
Here is the quote from NOAA annual report for 2014
“This is the first time since 1990 the high temperature record was broken in the absence of El Niño conditions at any time during the year in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, as indicated by NOAA’s CPC Oceanic Niño Index. This phenomenon generally tends to increase global temperatures around the globe, yet conditions remained neutral in this region during the entire year and the globe reached record warmth despite this.”
Yet an El Nino did exist during the latter part of 2014.
As I’ve said elsewhere, these people are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on. They want us to believe two contradictory assertions: (1) 21st-Century scientists couldn’t get 21st-Century temperatures right, but (2) they know to the tenth of a degree how much the global average temperature changed from year to year over the course of the 20th-Century.
However, like Mann’s “Hockey Stick” and Cook’s “97% consensus” it has served well it’s real purpose: to generate headlines and influence how people (especially politicians) think.
exactly, it would belaughable if not for the amount of tax payers money being wasted. i still cannot believe so much air time is given to a bunch of no marks who ended up in the climastrology field as result of not making the grade to do anything worthwhile.
they must be loving all the attention after being ignored by all and sundry most of their lives ,i bet even some of them have managed to find a girlfriend before reaching the age of 40 as a result.
They actually claim to know surface air temperature to ±0.025 C.
CHANCE OF DUGGAR RAPES AT 36°4′35″N 94°9′39″W is 3.2% above normal 1850-2014 averages..this is expected to rise thru oct nov dec peroid…