Despite attempts to erase it globally, "the pause" still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

As readers know, the recent paper Karl et al. 2015, written by the head of the National Climatic Data Center now NCEI, went to great lengths to try to erase “the pause” from the surface temperature record using a series of adjustments. Those adjustments are deemed unacceptable and criticized by some climate scientists, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Chip Knappenberger, and Dr. Pat Michaels, who recently wrote:

In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.

As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

Dr. Judith Curry added:

My bottom line assessment is this.  I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.  The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth.  This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set.   The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target.  So 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.

Large adjustments accounted for the change, but one really should go back to the definition of “adjustments” to understand the true meaning and effect:

adjustment

But, what if there were a dataset of temperature that was so well done, so scientifically accurate, and so completely free of bias that by its design, there would never be any need nor justification for any adjustments to the data?

Such a temperature record exists, it is called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, (USCRN) and it is also operated by NOAA/NCDC’s (NCEI) head administrator,Tom Karl:

Data from NOAA’s premiere surface reference network. The contiguous U.S. network of 114 stations was completed in 2008. There are two USCRN stations in Hawaii and deployment of a network of 29 stations in Alaska continues. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years?

These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds. They also include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity for most of the 114 contiguous U.S. stations. Stations in Alaska and Hawaii provide network experience and observations in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29-station USCRN network in Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.

Yes the USCRN is state of the art, and signed off on by Tom Karl here:

USCRN-paperSource: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/71748.pdf

So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?

While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the NCDC website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted. We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.  I’ve done so, here, using a tool provided for that very purpose by NOAA/NCDC/NCEI:

USCRN-CONUS-PLOT-10YEARS

Note the NOAA watermark in the plot above.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets[]=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

NOAA helpfully provides that data in a comma separated values (CSV) file, which I have converted into Excel: USCRN-CONUS-time-series

Plotting that USCRN data, provides a duplicate of the above plot from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI, but also allows for plotting the trend. I’ve done so using the actual data from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI they provided at the source link above, using the DPlot program:

USCRN-trend-plot-from-NCDC-data
USCRN monthly CONUS data with polynomial “least squares fit, order of 1” for trend line done in DPlot program

Clearly, a “pause” or “hiatus” exists in this most pristine climate data. In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears. But don’t take my word for it, you can replicate the plot above yourself using the links, free trial program, and USCRN data I provided from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI.

Let’s hope that Mr. Karl doesn’t see the need to write a future paper “adjusting” this data to make the last decade of no temperature trend in the contiguous USA disappear. That would be a travesty.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

225 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zemlik
June 14, 2015 11:47 am

my problem with all of this is that there is a fundamental difficulty with understanding of reality.
For example if I look about I see a 3D space yet my thinking says that if I look over there ( just 1 foot slightly to my right and down a bit) it is impossible to imagine I could examine that little area of 3D space ’till it was really, really tiny forever. Further, a thing might exist, occupying this space but I can pick it up and wave it around, changing the location of all of the tiny bits. It is because of this dilemma that I am loath to accept anything as certain and I’m sorry if I come over as a bit hippy_like when I am really not.

zemlik
Reply to  zemlik
June 14, 2015 11:56 am

perhaps time is reality’s way of running away from the problem

Grant
June 14, 2015 11:54 am

Does this mean we’ll see statisticians working at Starbucks soon?

Jeff B.
June 14, 2015 11:58 am

But if they don’t erase the pause, then they can’t use the results as a basis for an authoritarian state. Worse, they might lose funding for their boondoggle kaffeeklatch in Paris.
In all seriousness, at some point, the decent amongst us are going to need to pass laws to make such abuse of data a criminal offense. It may already be under fraud laws. As far as I am concerned, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, T.R. Karl et. al. belong behind bars.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Jeff B.
June 15, 2015 8:21 am

“As far as I am concerned, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, T.R. Karl et. al. belong behind bars.”
The problem is that the people who control the courts are the same people who are paying Mann, Jones and Karl to produce the reports.

Sturgis Hooper
June 14, 2015 12:06 pm

NOAA can’t be trusted to record or report station data honestly.

mikewaite
June 14, 2015 12:11 pm

Frequently , those who disapprove of articles posted on this website , or the opinions of those who comment , decry this and similar websites as being totally irrelevant to the ongoing progress of climate science , since the comments cannot be compared in credibility to articles in established scientific journals.
In general I think that is probably undeniable, but there may be instances where the situation is not as clearcut , and the “pause” or “hiatus ” may be such an example .
Without doubt , and despite the recent Tom Karl paper denying its existence , it has made its way into the mainstream of scientific literatiure and achieved a honourable (or dishonourable) mention in IPCC dispatches .
My question is : who first promoted the suggestion that global temperatures were stalling or levelling , despite continued increase in CO2 concentration , in apparent contradiction of the elementary theories of radiative transfer in the textbooks. Was it on blog sites such as this or in a peer revewed artcles in Geophys Res Lett or some such?
Does anyone know who caught and called out the first glimpse of a “pause”.

JohnWho
Reply to  mikewaite
June 14, 2015 12:41 pm

Mike –
My guess would be the data, surface and satellite, first noted the “pause”.
Since blogs can respond quicker to the data than a peer reviewed paper, it would then make sense that it was noted in blogs before peer reviewed literature.

mikewaite
Reply to  JohnWho
June 14, 2015 2:08 pm

Thank you for the comment John.It reinforces my feeling that websites such as this one fulfill a useful alerting function as you suggest . It goes someway to contradict the sneers from certain quarters about the usefulness of blog sites, although such sites do not expect to be able to compete with the systematic application of the multiple resources available in a university or Govt lab.
In the case of the “pause” i suspect that it would have been a brave young grad student who first suggested to his or her professors that the latest data suggested a deviation from accepted (consensus) wisdom, but if the idea was already out in the blogosphere then it would become more acceptable as a subject of debate.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  mikewaite
June 14, 2015 2:11 pm

Blogs. Climastrologists kept pointing out that the duration of the “pause” was too short, you needed 15 (Prof Jones) or 17 years (Dr Santer) before it became significant. It was only after those periods were achieved, that the real clucking & squawking started in pal-revued journals & “explanations” for the pause or pause-denial started appearing.

Manfred
Reply to  Adam Gallon
June 14, 2015 2:45 pm

Does the Pope know this?

TonyL
Reply to  mikewaite
June 14, 2015 3:42 pm

I do not remember who first said “wait a minute”, but the warmists were sure going on about it in the climategate emails. I think some of those emails dated back to 2005.
Also, I suspect that if anyone were to crawl through the early WUWT archives, they would come up with some fairly early point on the pause. We see also that while the warmist camp was talking about the pause in private, the last thing they wanted was to see it mentioned out in the open, especially in the literature.

rd50
Reply to  mikewaite
June 14, 2015 5:06 pm

This is not the first pause or just “no increase in global temperature” while increasing atmospheric CO2 during our time is a well documented fact. The first pause is given here:
http://www.climate4you.com/
Not that I want to denigrate this current post about no increase in the last 9 years in the USA. Certainly great data and a big thank you to Mr. Watts.
He just have to add the linear increase in CO2 with his temperature data plot to show that there is no relationship between the two during this period. I am sure somebody will do it. Obvious.

Reply to  rd50
June 14, 2015 5:08 pm

rd50, here you go.

rd50
Reply to  rd50
June 14, 2015 6:36 pm

To dbstealy.
yes, the plot CO2 increases vs. temperature anomalies during this time period is what is more important. No relationship between the increase in CO2 and the temperature anomalies during the past 9 years. Granted, a short period but the same is true from the beginning of reliable CO2 atmospheric concentration measurements in 1958. From 1958 to about 1978 or so, CO2 increased while temperature anomalies decreases! So not the first time for no correlation between the two as shown here and other reliable sources:
http://www.climate4you.com/
Thank you for the plot. I expected somebody would show this.

Peter Yates
Reply to  mikewaite
June 14, 2015 10:36 pm

I don’t know if it was the *first glimpse of a “pause”, but a blog called ‘Foresight of Hindsight’ mentioned it on January 28, 2012. The blog used the UAH satellite graph which still had a trend curve at that stage. It wasn’t long after that when Drs. Spencer and Christie stopped using the software generated trend curve. I believe it was because the curve started to indicate a slight downward trend. On reflection, it was the right thing to do because the graphs of today show a mostly level trend. … http://foresight-of-hindsight.blogspot.com/2012/01/evidence-shows-no-global-warming-for.html

Gus
June 14, 2015 12:11 pm

Karl et al. 2015, fabrication, plain and clear. Satellite temperature data is the only data that we can trust, if we can trust anything, in this context. All surface temperature data is polluted, manipulated, inaccurate, questionable, tweaked to suit the purpose. It’s essentially garbage.

JohnWho
June 14, 2015 12:12 pm

Steven Mosher June 14, 2015 at 10:46 am
The cool thing is that the Gold standard MATCHES the “bad data” from nearby sites

Um, I believe you need to show your work/data regarding that statement.
Also, no “cherry picking” – if there are numerous “nearby sites”, then you can’t just pick the one that matches, you must show them all.
You must also show the CRN Rating for each “nearby” site.
Additionally, you need to define “nearby”.
Of course, that is only if you want to be taken seriously.
If not, you’ve done a great job here so far.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  JohnWho
June 14, 2015 12:43 pm

+1

J
Reply to  JohnWho
June 14, 2015 3:30 pm

Even if the USCRN matches nearby sites, this is OK.
That means the near by sites also show no warming in the past 10 years.
The other thing I love about this unadjusted real data, is it provides a great answer if you hear about “evidence” of carbon dioxide based warming in the USA. So if snail darter populations are down in the west of the US in the past 10 years due to “global warming”, we have a good reason to call BS!

AndyG55
Reply to  J
June 14, 2015 5:18 pm

From the link below, it looks like USHCN is being adjusted to match USCRN.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=6
There is really no way that two data sets from two different measurement systems could match that well.
btw, if you take the USHCN data and run a linear trend from 2005 until Aug 2014, you get a COOLING trend of -0.08ºF/year. (note this value is from memory, the spreadsheet is on my home computer, not this one)

TYoke
Reply to  J
June 14, 2015 7:57 pm

It is a bit difficult to tell, given Mosher’s drive-by posting style, but I think we are meant to infer from his “matches” comment that since neighboring USCHN data is similar to the USCRN data, we should therefore trust ALL of the GLOBAL adjustments to historical data. We should also presumably trust the heavy adjustments to the US data prior 2005. After all, the post 2005 data “matches” so obviously the adjusters are trustworthy, right?.
Despite Mosher’s belief, those inferences do not, of course, actually follow from the “matches”. Our NOAA “adjusters” are perfectly aware that they can’t get away with adjusting the post 2005 US data given the existence of USCRN. That is a degree of corruption that would be way too obvious to be plausible. Besides, they don’t need to adjust the post 2005 US data. Much better to fiddle with interpolations over the Antarctic or with non-existent data in the Pacific.

DHR
Reply to  JohnWho
June 14, 2015 4:52 pm

Judith Curry provides a site for the study comparing CRN with nearby HCN sites. The study is clear but pointless. All it says is that HCN sites near CRN sites, both in pristine areas are OK . So why is the HCN record “adjusted?” And if the issue is urban heat island, why is the HCN record adjusted up? Shouldn’t it be down?
Hear is the article: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/06/COOP-United-States-Climate-Reference-Network-USCRN-stations.html?m=1

Reply to  DHR
June 14, 2015 5:34 pm

See my further response to Mosher on that paper, over at Judiths. You are soo correct. Regards.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  JohnWho
June 14, 2015 7:55 pm

The difference in temperature from where I work and where I live, about 13 miles apart as the crow flies, can differ by as much as 27f on a clear summer day. So please explain how choosing a nearby site is meaningful. The temperature at each location is an intensive property of that location at that point in time. you can’t average the two locations together and come up with anything physically meaningful.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 14, 2015 12:15 pm

LOL
Once a fraudster and clima-teer fiddled with he’s numbers
Trying to achieve a belief that would not flee
And he sang as he watched as he’s old computer did a boil:
Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me
Adjusting the adjustments, adjusting the adjustments
Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me
And he sang as he watched as he’s old computer did a boil:
Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me
Ha ja ;-D

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 14, 2015 2:26 pm

Haha … Joanne Nova will appreciate that one.

AndyE
Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 14, 2015 4:12 pm

You have got to be from down under to laugh along with that. May I advise all yous from the far northern hemisphere to Google, “Waltzing Mathilda”.

Jeff
Reply to  AndyE
June 15, 2015 7:14 am

The Billabong Heat Island – previously unknown to Science – becomes a reality? 🙂

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  AndyE
June 15, 2015 10:38 am

Hahahaha. WTF? I have no words…
rip

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
June 15, 2015 12:10 am

Adjusting we will go, adjusting we will go
Heigh-ho, the derry-o, adjusting we will go
We’ll make the future temps look high
And make the past temps low
Adjusting we will go, adjusting we will go
Heigh-ho, the derry-o, adjusting we will go
And o’er a beer we discuss our career
How we now find such cheer in promotion of fear
Adjusting we will go… etc

crosspatch
June 14, 2015 12:43 pm

I expect an adjustment of “raw” data any moment now in order to prevent people discovering this sort of thing. Of course, the opposite of “raw” is “cooked”.

Reply to  crosspatch
June 14, 2015 7:02 pm

LOL. Well said and so true. 🙂

June 14, 2015 12:52 pm

For comparison with UAH v.6 for US 48
Trends incl. May 2015
1979-2015 0.0153
1979-1998 0.0059
1998-2015 -0.0106
2005-2105 -0.0091

Frank Kotler
June 14, 2015 12:53 pm

I understand that Dr. Gleick’s autodefenestration screwed up funding to bring us this data. I do hope it’s only a temporary setback!

herkimer
June 14, 2015 12:56 pm

The pause is evident on the NOAA Climate at a Glance web page as well and it applies to most of Contiguous US and Canada ( Really most of North America) 70 % of US and Canada have cooling anomaly trends for ANNUAL temperatures
Regional trend of Contiguous US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998
8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
• OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F/decade
• UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F/decade
• NORTH EAST -0.1F/decade
• NORTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
• SOUTH -0.5 F/decade
• SOUTHEAST -0.4 F/decade
• SOUTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
• WEST +0.7 F/decade
• NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -1.0 F/decade
The cooling is still apparent if you look at the last 10 years only. 34 States out of 48 states show cooling since 2005

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  herkimer
June 14, 2015 2:24 pm

Wait for it … wait for it …
“The US is not the globe”.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
June 14, 2015 5:39 pm

of Ottawa
I would love to see a globe of the US.

herkimer
Reply to  herkimer
June 14, 2015 4:15 pm

It is hard to understand why the pause is not real .Canada and US annual temperature trends have been cooling since 1998 .These two countries represent 75 % 0f North America . AMO which reflects North Atlantic SST temperatures is cooling since 2002, Canadian Atlantic province’s temperatures have been flat or in a pause since 1998. US North east and South east states show a cooling trend since 1998. The South Atlantic SST shows no warming . . . HOW CAN ALL THESE AREAS BE COOLER WHEN THE OCEANS AROUND THEM ARE SUPPOSED BE WARMING ACCORDING TO THE NEW NOAA SST CORRECTIONS?

herkimer
Reply to  herkimer
June 14, 2015 4:51 pm

I think NOAA IS pulling the same trick with Ocean sst temperatures adjustment as they did with the 2014 ANNUAL RECORD TEMPERATURES claim, making regional issues as if they were global. . In my opinion, 2014 was not a record temperature year all over the globe or ” globally “It may have been a record year due to the regional warm “blob” in the Northwest Pacific and the El Nino during the last three months . Yet they claimed 2014 as the warmest year globally while LARGE PARTS OF THE GLOBE DID NOT HAVE RECORD TEMPERATURES AT ALL DURING 2014
There is no evidence that all global oceans are warming faster at all than previously already reported .and to the same degree the last 18 years to warrant an across the board adjustment of all global ocean sst . The suggested problems with temperature measurements may only apply in few locations, if at all . The sst readings had already been adjusted in the past so this latest adjustment is completely unnecessary and seems wrong and it seems to me to be more like a political move than scientific one..

June 14, 2015 12:59 pm

Disregard the above table (labelling errors)
Correct Trend Results UAH v.6 for US 48
Trends incl. May 2015
1979-2015 0.0153 c/yr
1979-1998 0.0144 c/yr
1998-2015 -0.0116 c/yr
2005-2105 -0.0091 c/yr

June 14, 2015 1:03 pm

Pristine US surface dataset. Hmmm, that’s like calling my toilet water pristine then I being a lover of ice tea, dip my carafe into the basin to scoop some up…apply mix and drink. Later that day, I feel not well as the purety coefficient of my toilet water was adjusted up and I was cool with that

zemlik
Reply to  owenvsthegenius
June 14, 2015 1:12 pm

see ? beat poetry never dies.

cheshirered
June 14, 2015 1:03 pm

Let’s call a spade a spade: Karl set out to achieve exactly the desired outcome he and his pals wanted: to obliterate the pause. To slice and dice measured, observed and established evidence in the way he did to the extent he did represents deliberate climate fraud. Nothing more or less. Simple as that.

June 14, 2015 1:11 pm

The Karl paper found the warming in the oceans more than land. Does not compute from thermal mass comsiderations, as commented on above.. It found it by warming and then overweighing the newer SST buoy data, while ignoring the near surface only Argo data which does not show this warming. And, it does not foot to the UK SST product, as bob Tisdale previously pointed out.
A really obvious bad try.

Reply to  ristvan
June 14, 2015 1:17 pm

The Argo float data has been corrected you know:
         Correcting Ocean Cooling

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Steve Case
June 14, 2015 2:23 pm

They had to eliminate the “bad” data, which didn’t show warming.

D.I.
Reply to  Steve Case
June 14, 2015 2:43 pm

Re-Steve Case.
Thanks for the link to the ‘Stink’.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 14, 2015 4:14 pm

“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm.
explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.

Data Peeking
Keep adjusting until you get the answer you seek.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Steve Case
June 15, 2015 12:14 am

Yes, I read it in its entirety. You start to get the impression that as soon as warming is found, then they’ll stop digging. It doesn’t come across as ‘correction’ or looking for the truth, it comes across as searching for warming…until you get it…then stop searching. I don’t know whether it’s my subjective brain, or whether it’s the truth.

Reply to  Steve Case
June 15, 2015 11:34 am

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley June 15, 2015 at 12:14 am
… You start to get the impression that as soon as warming is found, then they’ll stop digging. …

Just like election recounts. You do it until your guy wins and then you stop.

jsuther2013
June 14, 2015 1:28 pm

If a lie is all that is seen and read, then that is all that is believed. One must counter each lie with a barrage of correction, and the perpetrator of the lie identified and scorned, as well as ridiculed.

Robert of Ottawa
June 14, 2015 2:08 pm

Nah, it’s pining for the fjords.

Robert of Ottawa
June 14, 2015 2:10 pm

I have long since decided that NCDC and NOAA and NASA will outright lie.
Nah, it’s pining for the fjords.

June 14, 2015 2:19 pm

Standard Deviation of data: 1.92 degrees. Typical 3 Sigma to mean falling outside of the presumed “distribution” as a statistically significant shift, 6 degrees F or 3 degrees C. This is the first time, in 10 years that I’d done an S.D. on a clean set of data like this (I do thank them for their data page.) But, it puts in perspective all the haughty, stupid, worthless stuff done with the PRE WII data, which has NO QUALITY CONTROL, NO CONSISTENCY…and (like the infamous “ocean heat content plot, is shown to be a FABRICATION by the sudden “dead level” ocean heat as of the ARGO BUOYS !!)the pre WWII is a WORTHLESS DATA SET, contrived in the last 30 years to “make a case”. The shrinking of the N.P. ice, A NORMAL CYCLE. The evidence to show a true shift in the atmospheric ENERGY BALANCE…LACKING.
PEOPLE WITH GOOD STATISTICAL KNOWLEDGE and the understanding of SIGNIFICANCE TESTS, please contribute on this!

June 14, 2015 2:26 pm

The units were not given, but based on the fact that it started around 0.6 F and ended around 0.3 F, I assume the -0.002678 has to be -0.002678 F/month since
– 0.002678 x 125 = – 0.33475. Unless I made a mistake, this is – 0.002678 x 0.5555 x 12 = – 0.01785 C/year. The global RSS for this period is about 10 times smaller at -0.001881 C/year. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2005/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
UAH6.0 is slightly positive at 0.00121 C/year for this same interval globally.

kim
June 14, 2015 2:34 pm

Here’s a funny story about Arthur Smith, Librarian to the American Physical Society. Years ago at lucia’s Blackboard he attempted to ridicule me by using his valuable time to try to track down the first time I ever used the phrase: ‘The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know’. He found it back to around 2007, but I think I came up with it before that. Of course, all his ridicule did was allow me to explain why I thought so. And, of course, to ridicule him for using his time searching my past blog posts.
As best as I can remember I started using it when I realized that the sun was doing something new to our observations, and I also saw the declining heights of climate optima during the Holocene. Also, it was becoming evident that climate sensitivity to CO2 must be on the low side.
===============

kim
Reply to  kim
June 14, 2015 2:39 pm

Oops that was supposed to be placed above where they are discussing who first noticed the pause. I’m not claiming credit, as I steal everything, but I sure have been yammering about it for a long time.
=================

rd50
Reply to  kim
June 14, 2015 5:39 pm

Please, the idea that cooling (or at least no increase in global temperature) is not something new in our time while atmospheric concentration of CO2 was increasing. Noted a while ago.
http://www.climate4you.com/

Reply to  kim
June 14, 2015 4:06 pm

Cooling? Cooling??? That is not possible, because this time it is different.
sarc/off

zemlik
June 14, 2015 2:51 pm

this is the thing (yah)?
this Canadian Indigenous woman was on the wireless saying how she was taken from her parents and bunged in an dormitory and forced to comply by force to wasp thinking.
Why do I mention this here? well it indicates indoctrination of thinking by authority.

zemlik
Reply to  zemlik
June 14, 2015 2:52 pm

yes yes “a”

ferdberple
Reply to  zemlik
June 14, 2015 5:04 pm

bunged in an dormitory
============
is that what they call it these days?

zemlik
Reply to  ferdberple
June 14, 2015 5:21 pm

ok, local dialect, meaning dumped in.

lee
Reply to  zemlik
June 14, 2015 8:03 pm

“bunged” used to be perfectly acceptable in Australia. Don’t hear it much anymore.

Aran
June 14, 2015 2:54 pm

I wonder what the significance is of this pause is. Without confidence intervals or error margins this result does not mean much.
In addition there is a big mistake in the statement from Pat Michaels:

Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

I agree that the adjustment of good data to bad data is questionable, but the part regarding the resulting warming trend is nonsense. Adjusting the ship data down to the buoy data would have resulted in exactly the same trend.

rd50
Reply to  Aran
June 14, 2015 5:44 pm

No need for confidence intervals, error margins. You have a pair of eyes and a brain. Couple them.
Nothing is happening here. No trend. Nothing. No increase, no decrease. Nothing. Simply no trend.

Aran
Reply to  rd50
June 14, 2015 9:43 pm

One problem with that is that different people see different things. Eyes and brains are easily deceived. I’d rely on the numbers rather than subjective interpretations. Another problem is that if you look at data like this over limited spatial and temporal domains you can get pretty much any kind of result, which in most cases will be meaningless since the trend will be determined by the noise rather than the signal.

Reply to  Aran
June 15, 2015 12:13 am

Aran
You say

I agree that the adjustment of good data to bad data is questionable, but the part regarding the resulting warming trend is nonsense. Adjusting the ship data down to the buoy data would have resulted in exactly the same trend.

No.It would not.
If you cannot understand this, then – to demonstrate the effect to yourself – do the following.
Draw axes for an imaginary graph on a piece of paper.
Put some points (or a point) at the top-right on the graph.
Put some points (or a point) at the bottom-left on the graph.
Put some points (or a point) half-way-up the left of the graph.
Draw two lines; each starts at the point(s) on the top-right.
One connects to the higher point(s) on the left and
the other connects to the lower point(s) on the left.
The two lines don’t have the same slope. So, choosing which point(s) on the left you ‘adjust’ to match the other affects the resulting slope of the graph. The slope is the trend.
Richard

Reply to  Aran
June 15, 2015 4:36 am

Without confidence intervals or error margins this result does not mean much.

Error margins? We are climate scientists. We don’t need no stinkin’ error margins!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ?rel=0&w=420&h=315%5D
(With apologies to fans of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)

Reply to  opluso
June 15, 2015 10:39 am

opluso and Aran:
While I agree that error margins are needed for completeness, their presence or absence is not relevant to the indication in this case.
The trend is slightly negative but not substantially different from zero.
Inclusion of error margins would not alter the indication that the trend is not significantly different from zero. And, yes, this can be eyeballed from the graph.
Richard

June 14, 2015 2:56 pm

Exactly this says it all and verifies the satellite and radiosonde data which is the correct data not the bogus data AGW enthusiast keep trying to put upon us.