Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Supposedly record-high temperature and carbon dioxide levels supposedly bring record chaos

Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Tom Tamarkin

A recent NOAA article is just what Doctor Doom ordered. It claims the 18-year “hiatus” in rising planetary temperatures isn’t really happening. (The “pause” followed a 20-year modest temperature increase, which followed a prolonged cooling period.) The article states:

“Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

Published in Science magazine to ensure extensive news coverage before critics could expose its flaws, the report was indeed featured prominently in the national print, television, radio and electronic media.

It’s part of the twin peaks thesis: Peaking carbon dioxide levels will cause peaking temperatures, which will lead to catastrophic climate and weather. Unfortunately for alarmists, the chaos isn’t happening.

No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a record 9-1/2 years. Tornadoes, droughts, polar bears, polar ice, sea levels and wildfires are all in line with (or improvements on) historic patterns and trends. The Sahel is green again, thanks to that extra CO2. And the newly invented disasters they want to attribute to fossil fuel-driven climate change – allergies, asthma, Islamic State and Boko Haram – don’t even pass the laugh test.

The NOAA report appears to have been another salvo in the White House’s attempt to regain the offensive, ahead of the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Climate Conference. However, a growing number of prominent analysts have uncovered serious biases, errors and questions in the report.

Climatologists Pat Michaels, Dick Lindzen, and Chip Knappenberger point out that the NOAA team adjusted sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by 0.12 degrees Celsius, to make them “homogenous” with lengthier records from engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are “clearly contaminated by heat conduction” from the ships, and the data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring.

So why not adjust the ship data downward, to “homogenize” them with buoy data, and account for the contamination? Perhaps because, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry observed, this latest NOAA analysis “will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration.” However, it will not be “particularly useful” for improving our understanding of what is happening in Earth’s climate system.

Dr. Curry and the previously mentioned scientists also note that the buoy network has covered an increasingly wide area over the past couple decades, collecting high quality data. So again, why did NOAA resort to shipboard data? The ARGO buoys and satellite network (both omitted in this new analysis) do not show a warming trend – whereas the NOAA methodology injects a clear warming trend.

Canadian economist and statistical expert Ross McKitrick also analyzed the NOAA approach. He concluded that it wipes out the global warming hiatus that eight other studies have found. Its adjustments to SST records for 1998-2000 had an especially large effect, he says. Dr. McKitrick also recaps the problems scientists have with trying to create consistent temperature records from the multiple measurement methods employed over the centuries.

Theologian, ethicist and climate analyst Calvin Beisner provides an excellent summary of all these and other critiques of the deceptive NOAA paper.

It is also important to note that, in reality, NOAA is quibbling about hundredths of a degree – essentially the margin of error. On that basis it rejects multiple studies that found planetary warming has stopped.

Britain’s Global Warming Policy Forum succinctly concludes: “This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with those produced by the UK Met Office and NASA,” as well as by other exhaustive data monitoring reports over the past four decades.

The vitally important bottom line is simple.

The central issue in this ongoing debate is not whether Planet Earth is warming. The issue is: How much is it warming? How much of the warming and other climate changes are due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases – and how much are due to the same powerful natural forces that have driven climate and weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history? And will any changes be short-term or long-term … and good, bad, neutral or catastrophic?

At this time, there is no scientific evidence – based on actual observations and measurements of temperatures and weather events – that humans are altering the climate to a significant or dangerous degree. Computer models, political statements and hypothetical cataclysms cannot and must not substitute for that absence of actual evidence, especially when the consequences would be so dire for so many. In fact, even the “record high” global average temperature of 2014 was concocted and a margin of error.

Simply put, the danger is not climate change – which will always be with us. The danger is energy restrictions imposed in the name of controlling Earth’s perpetually fickle climate.

Moreover, the IPCC’s top climate official says the UN’s unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the [global capitalist] economic development model.” Another IPCC director says, “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

That summit could give government officials and environmental activists the power to eliminate fossil fuels, control businesses and entire economies, and tell families what living standards they will be permitted to enjoy – with no accountability for the damage that will result from their actions.

For developed nations, surrendering to the climate crisis industry would result in fossil fuel restrictions that kill jobs, reduce living standards, health, welfare and life spans – and put ideologically driven government bureaucrats in control of everything people make, grow, ship, eat and do.

For poor countries, implementing policies to protect energy-deprived masses from computer-generated manmade climate disasters decades from now would perpetuate poverty and diseases that kill them tomorrow. Denying people their basic rights to have affordable, reliable energy, rise up out of poverty, and enjoy modern technologies and living standards would be immoral – a crime against humanity.

Countries, communities, companies and citizens need to challenge and resist these immoral, harmful, tyrannical, lethal and racist EPA, IPCC, UN and EU decrees. Otherwise, the steady technological, economic, health and human progress of the past 150 years will come to a painful, grinding halt – sacrificed in the name of an illusory and fabricated climate crisis.

________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Tom Tamarkin is founder and CEO of USCL Corporation and of the fusion energy advocacy groups http://www.fusion4freedom.us  and http://www.fuelRfuture.com. He is widely credited with inventing the utility industry smart meter and holds granted and pending patents in the field.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Twin peaks – twin prevarications

  1. I wonder if NOAA will also try to adjust Atlantic hurricane occurrences in the past 9 years.

    • The ship readings are higher than the buoy readings(and the ARGO buoys which were not used.) Adjusting the buoys up increases the temperature and trend. Adjusting the ship readings down would increase the trend and help erase the current lack of temperature increase, but lower the peak temperature.
      Neither method is justified since the ship readings are known to be contaminated. Unless the actual degree of contamination can be determined there is no way to combine the two sets of readings in a way that reflects reality. Since the buoys are known to be more accurate it MIGHT be reasonable to try and homogenize them into the ARGO data for SST’s, if the accuracy and measurements of the buoys show that they are reading similarly to the ARGO measurements. Data should only be combined when it is known that they are giving similar measurements of the same phenomenon.

      • A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT PROBLEM IN Karl 2015.
        Let me have two bags of marble of equal weight — but their contents differ.
        Bag #1 contains 50 marbles weighing 2 oz. and 50 marbles weighing 1 oz. for a total weight of 150 oz. (The average weight of the 100 marbles in the bag is 1.5 oz.)
        Bag #2 contains 25 marbles weighing 2 oz. and 100 marbles weighing 1 oz. for a total weight also of 150 oz. (The average weight of the 125 marbles in the bag is 1.2 oz.)
        Well, by god, i decide that if I measure the difference in weight between the 2 oz. marbles and the 1 oz. marbles I can use this to properly adjust the weight of the bags. The difference in weight is, of course, 1 oz.
        Taking Bag #1 — I adjust the 50 marbles weighing 2 oz. down to 1 oz and the new adjusted weight of the bag is 100 oz. (The average weight of the 100 marbles in the bag is now supposedly 1 oz.)
        Taking Bag #2 — I adjust the weight of its 2 oz. marbles down to 1 oz. and the new adjusted weight of the bag is 125 oz. (The average weight of the 125 marbles in the bag is now supposedly 1 oz.)
        Now I adjust the other way.
        Taking Bag #1 — I adjust the 50 marbles weighing 1 oz. to 2 oz. and the new adjusted weight of the bag is 200 oz. (The average weight of the 100 marbles in the bag is now supposedly 2 oz.}
        Taking Bag #2 — I adjust the 100 marbles weighing 1 oz. to 2oz. and the new adjusted weight of the bag is 250 oz. (The average weight of the 125 marbles in the bag in now supposedly 2 oz.)
        (In both adjustments there is an upward trend in weight between Bags #1 and #2. An upward slope has been created. This occurs whenever bag #1 has more big marbles than bag #2.)
        In Karl 2015 there are more early high temperature readings from ships. And years later there are more lower temperature readings from buoys. It is just like the two bags of marbles. When you take the difference between the ship temperatures and the buoy temperatures whether you adjust the buoy up or the ships down you get an upward slope between the results which varies only in degree.
        Will the people at Science who published the Karl 2015 paper be smart enough to understand what I just said?
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • How about we completely throw out and discount the ship data BECAUSE IT IS CRAP!
        And was never intended to be used for scientific conclusions about the temperature of the planet.

      • “Will the people at Science who published the Karl 2015 paper be smart enough to understand what I just said?”
        Current trajectory of intelligence indicates that the answer is never.
        Care to hear the projected date that they collectively become dumber than a bag of rocks?
        (Any sort of rocks)

      • Actually the example by Eugene clearly illustrates this. We are dealing with the average global temperature. In his example the trend in the average marble weight is exactly the same, whether the adjustment is made upward or downward. In both cases the average marble weight is equal for bag #1 and bag #2, so both have a trend of 0. I hope Pat Michaels and Judith Curry will start to understand this at some point.

    • For the trend it makes absolutely no difference whether the buoys are adjusted upwards to match the ships or the ships adjusted downwards to match the buoys. The resulting trends will be exactly the same.

      • Aran
        i am not sure what you are saying.
        I was, in a simple fashion, demonstrating that the upward trend created in Karl 2915 is simply an artifact of the differences in the numbers of ship measurements and buoy measurements. In the past there are more high ship measurements and fewer low buoy measurements. Currently there are fewer high ship measurements and more low buoy measurements. Making any adjustments to either the ship measurements or making adjustments to the buoy measurements artificially creates an upward tread.
        If you want a downward trend simple start with low buoy measurements outnumbering high ship measurements in the past and have high ship measurements outnumbering low buoy numbers in the present. Then adjust the temperatures and you automatically get a downward trend.
        Nothing complicated about it. Karl’s upward warming trend does not exist in the real world. It is totally an artifact.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Well the whole global average temperature is kind of artificial and does not exist in the real world. However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that the adjustment actually removes an artificiality. The reason for the change is the discrepancy between ship and buoy data that is apparent from their measurements at the points where they overlap. So rather than introducing one, they actually remove an artefact that came from the fact that ships measurements were systematically too high. I don’t see what could be wrong with that.
        Ideally they would have adjusted the ship to the buoy and not vice versa, but as you show, it makes no difference for the trend. Climate change is anyway about anomalies and trends and not about the absolute values. They could have added a further 20 degrees or whatever to both ship and buoy data and the anomalies and trends would have been exactly the same. Your example illustrates this with very basic maths and it is really quite astounding that some of the experts in the post do not realise this, despite their titles showing they should be well educated. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • Aran
        i demonstrated this using marbles. it doesn’t matter what the size of the adjustment is.
        The upward trend is created by the fact that in the past there were more higher ship reading and fewer lower buoy reading. Presently there are fewer high ship readings and more lower buoy readings. That is what creates the upward tread and the size of the adjustment is absolutely unimportant. No matter what size the adjustment is you will always get an upward trend.
        You will always get a downward trend if in the past you started with fewer high ship reading than low buoy readings and presently have more high ship readings than low buoy readings. That situation will always create a downward trend.
        What Karl 2015 touts as “global warming” is just an artifact of the method. It means absolutely nothing. The pause is still there. What Karl 2015 says is that the people who wrote it are incompetent.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Eugene,
        You should look at it the other way around. There was an artificial cooling trend due to ships measurements being systematically too high and there being relatively more ship measurements in the past. This artificially warmed the past with respect to the present and more recent past when buoys became more prominent. This artifact has been removed and I still don’t see what’s wrong with that.
        You basically seem to start of with the assumption that the old measurements were the correct measurements and that they just added something out of the blue. The whole point of the adjustment is that the old measurements were not correct, but contained a discrepancy between buoys and ships which has been corrected. Again, I don’t see the problem. Do you suggest we keep using the data set where we know there is a systematic error in the measurements? I suggest we should adjust for that error as best as we can so we get closer to the truth. Carefully document and publish the adjustments so that everybody knows what has been done and why. The pause that you claim is still there is based on measurements with known errors. Feel free to ignore the corrections and keep using the data set where we know the sensors used have not been calibrated properly.

  2. “That summit could give government officials and environmental activists the power to eliminate fossil fuels, control businesses and entire economies, and tell families what living standards they will be permitted to enjoy – with no accountability for the damage that will result from their actions.”
    If I had read that 10 years ago, I would have thought the author’s next tricks would be to find Elvis, the Loch Ness monster and UFO’s. Now I am not so sure, the never ending drivel that defies sense, common or not, seems to be coming from the other direction. They (warmists) have given science a wide berth and now depend on propaganda to drive home their message.
    The same thing happened 40 years ago when we were given a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in the “Common Market” as a naive 20 year old I voted “Yes”, to have found out al these years later that the project was not about trade but a United States of Europe, with each step towards that goal carried out with stealth. our government knew this at the time and successive governments have prevaricated over another referendum.
    This must not happen again because if it does, the damage will be world wide not just in Europe. Incidentally, the EU also want strict CO2 controls too!

    • “They (warmists) have given science a wide berth and now depend on propaganda to drive home their message.”
      ——————
      Government gave government scientists the wide berth and it is government pushing the lie.
      Kinda makes one wonder where they are herding us and why?

    • What is the meaning of “prevaricated” here? Dictionaries say that it means “to lie”, but there seems to be a meaning in the UK “to delay” that is not correct.
      Ian M

      • The dictionary will give you a definition that states it is to be ‘deliberately evasive’. But here in Britain, in everyday, common usage, it means to dither, to be indecisive. It’s one of those strange things that have happened to some English words, that the meaning has been altered by the people. ‘Irony’ is the worst one, don’t even get me started on that one! I have told my neice (who is interested in the English language) that it is NOT ironic if she gets run over by an ambulance, but it IS if that very ambulance was coming to save her life. Unfortunately, the word is much mis-used. I’m not a grammar nazi, and make many mistakes myself, but the mis-use of ‘irony’ seems to grate my nerves.

      • It’s ironic how much the use of the word ‘ironic’ has been twisted from the actual definition of ‘ironic’… or maybe it isn’t. Ironically I can’t tell anymore. ^¿^

      • Hey, when the Preezy of the United Steezy uses the nonword “irregardless” in a nationally televised speech, you know that correct use of langwidge is becoming a mute point.

  3. Even if NOAA’s most recent adjustments to sea-surface temperatures somehow turned out to be correct, it would only mean that global surface temperatures have been slowly and steadily increasing without any sign of acceleration due to predicted feedbacks and without any sign of increases in extreme weather. In fact, the effects of climate change so far seem to be net positive, with only a slight increase in sea level as a possible negative. I don’t see any cause for alarm. And I certainly don’t see any reason to force everyone back to the stone age by banning the use of fossil fuels before efficient alternatives have been developed. Time is on our side. There’s no need to panic.

  4. AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
    In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
    Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
    SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
    GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
    TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
    EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
    GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
    LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
    LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
    GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
    MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
    STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
    WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
    AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
    OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
    Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
    Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
    Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
    Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
    Past historical data showing no correlation.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
    Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748

  5. Someone once said it’s a good thing we have satellite data to keep NOAA honest. It appears they were wrong.

  6. Paul and Tom, Best report Eva…..
    No, seriously, great work, as is all we expect from you guys.
    Thanks for summarizing the convoluted conspiracy so adeptly. We await further stumblings, missteps and gross overreaches of the Warmists/Marxists in response.

  7. “The central issue in this ongoing debate is not whether Planet Earth is warming. The issue is: How much is it warming? How much of the warming and other climate changes are due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases – and how much are due to the same powerful natural forces that have driven climate and weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history? And will any changes be short-term or long-term … and good, bad, neutral or catastrophic?”.
    This virtually says it all.
    You can also add the following question; “Is it possible to model climate accurately enough the make any meaningful predictions?” (Freeman Dyson and Christopher Essex would say no.)

  8. This challenges the IPCC orthodoxy, albeit in the opposite direction from the ‘deniers’. It remains to be seen whether the IPCC will disavow these heretics because their claims repudiate the orthodox ‘climate scientists’ who have accepted the pause and have been scrambling to ‘explain’ it.

  9. https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/595px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png
    The first two absorption bands of CO 2 is approx. 2μm and 2,8μm (Figure 2). This radiation emitted by the sun. The earth does not emit waves in this regard. Absorbing agents reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface in these bands, which play a role similar to ozone and ultraviolet absorber protects the Earth from an excess of these emissions. The amount of energy that can absorb CO2 in these areas can be estimated at around 4% of the total capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
    Another extent of absorption of CO 2 is 4 – 4,5μm. The earth emits a minimal amount of radiation. These are the waves on the border of frequency emitted by the planet’s surface. Partly scope of this goes beyond earthly emissions. The graphs depicting the amount of radiation emitted by the Earth, we see an almost horizontal line by selecting the emission of energy at this wavelength. In this range, carbon dioxide absorbs about 8% of the total amount of infrared which is able to absorb. Due to the fact that the absorption in this band is only a fraction of CO 2 absorption capacity, and also extremely small is the same infrared source at this frequency can not be considered the significance of the absorption climate because it is the interaction too slim and perhaps trace.
    Fourth clearly indicated on said graph (Figure 2), an absorption band, the scope of the biggest infrared absorption by carbon dioxide. It includes a wavelength of about 14μm to 18μm, so it is very large, and in addition to a large amount of radiation – in this field is absorbed approx. 88% of the total absorbed by CO 2 radiation. Infrared absorption peak for CO 2 falls to about 15μm, as shown in the following figure (Figure 3). It is in this fairly large absorption band environmentalists see their greatest source of influence on the climate. It does not surprise me, personally, because they have to search some data to confirm their theories. It seems that this is the proof – a large band of infrared absorption, but again this is proof perverse. What matters is because no amount of radiation, but its quality, that is the real power of influence. We are dealing here with radiation of high wavelength, and the greater the wavelength the less energy. By means of such radiation will not change in any significant way temperature, and partly because these wavelengths are not applicable in heating. There frequencies used bordering with visible light (from 0,78μm) and slightly larger wavelength, but those larger than 10μm did not play a role here (although they are present there, because the filaments of infrared radiators emit large range of wavelengths). Devoted by the atmosphere part of such radiation is certainly not lead to a significant increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and will not increase the average temperature of the atmosphere.
    Known, perverse slogan of environmentalists is the identification of these wavelengths from the microwave and creating associations with microwave, which is a complete mistake, calculated on the ignorance of readers. The difference between microwaves and infrared is in fact fundamental. Microwaves, is composed of electron radiation, and infrared light particles or photons – particles of very different energy. Their frequency of overlap, as is the case with many other types of radiation, but their essence is fundamentally different.

    • You state: “Microwaves, is composed of electron radiation, and infrared light particles or photons – particles of very different energy. Their frequency of overlap, as is the case with many other types of radiation, but their essence is fundamentally different.”
      My advice? Read a science book. The frequencies overlap because the definition of microwave and infrared are squishy, and not defined by some international standards body. Much like a hand used in measuring a horse used to be the breadth of a human hand, hardly exact, although it is now standardized to 4 inches.
      Where the frequencies of Microwaves and infrared overlap, they are exactly the same thing. Electromagnetic waves / photons of a particular frequency. Their essence is not “fundamentally different”, but “exactly the same”.
      BTW, nice charts and graphs. Looks very scientific. Would work well on a TV show or Movie to show gravitas and “respect” for the scientific method. Didn’t wade through the explanation though after seeing numerous problems with it. For example not stating how much “energy” is in each band that is being absorbed, vs. total energy output. Each frequency has a certain amount of energy associated with the photon at that frequency, and the total energy at that frequency is the sum of the energy in all the photons at that frequency (intensity). But who cares? – Mmmm, a climate scientist I would guess.

    • Truly, sir, you should never, ever post anything on radiation again. And I mean that, as a teacher of physics, with a gentle and loving heart. The problem is that you don’t understand physics in general, quantum mechanics in particular, or any single aspect of the greenhouse effect. The funny thing is that the graphic you posted is (IIRC) a part of Grant Petty’s book on this very subject, and if you’d read it and understood it you would post something entirely different (as well as something that made a shred of sense).
      Also — again with the best possible will — perhaps I could sell you on adding things called “paragraphs” to whatever writing you do? A mindless rant on “the filaments of infrared radiators” would be greatly improved by being broken up into distinct thoughts, so that we can enjoy your assertion that “The difference between microwaves and infrared is in fact fundamental. Microwaves, is composed of electron radiation, and infrared light particles or photons — particles of a very different energy. Their frequency of overlap, as is the case with many other types of radiation, but their essence is fundamentally different.” as a completely, categorically false statement all by itself.
      rgb

    • No increase in temperature of the lower troposphere (with an increase of CO2) indicates that the infrared radiation is not able to excessively heat the atmosphere.

  10. “So why not adjust the ship data downward, to “homogenize” them with buoy data, and account for the contamination? Perhaps because, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry observed, this latest NOAA analysis “will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration.””
    I just can’t help but wonder what the U.S. is going to end up looking like once Obama and the EPA finish waging their war on CO2 emitters………
    http://tinyurl.com/q3kotyn

  11. I was unsure which thread to post this in – perhaps any one will do…
    I’m from the UK and have other interests than CAGW. One of those led me to this blog site:
    ‘How do you defeat a turnip-ghost’:
    http://jackofkent.com/2015/06/how-do-you-defeat-a-turnip-ghost/
    Although the post is about the new UK government seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act, it perhaps holds true for many of the ‘followers’ of the CAGW meme.

  12. “Denying people their basic rights to have affordable, reliable energy, rise up out of poverty, and enjoy modern technologies and living standards would be immoral – a crime against humanity”
    Wow, just wow… Crimes against humanity sure are cheap these days. Since when did all those “basic rights” become so? What about the basic rights to: nourishing food, clean air, clean water, a nice house with a pool, education, health care, entertainment, transportation, spending cash, clothing, friends, Super Bowl tickets, etc.
    Seriously though, why taint such great work and material with this quote near the end? It really detracts from the story and opens you to ridicule. If you stick to verifiable facts and leave out the hard yank at the heart strings, your article reads better.
    Cheers!

  13. California currently dumps half their precious previously collected water into the ocean to save a bait fish … of course it Californians doing it to themselves as opposed to others imposing poverty on others …

  14. The central issue in this ongoing debate is not whether Planet Earth is warming. The issue is: How much is it warming? How much of the warming and other climate changes are due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases – and how much are due to the same powerful natural forces that have driven climate and weather fluctuations throughout Earth and human history? And will any changes be short-term or long-term … and good, bad, neutral or catastrophic?
    ——————————————————————
    You left out the most important question.
    Can we really control the temperature of the earth?

  15. Tom and Paul,
    One small but important correct. You — and many others — describe this as a “NOAA article” and a “NOAA report.” It’s not. I asked NOAA’s media liaison to confirm this: it is a “study by NOAA scientists.” As stated in the two NOAA press releases.
    NOAA’s scientists can publish findings that agree or disagree with NOAA policy — as stated in NOAA’s scientific integrity policy. Nor does their work represent NOAA’s official doctrine, unless specifically stated.
    To loosely paraphrase your article, Karl et al his is an addition to the large literature about the pause. It’s potentially significant because it disagrees with much prior work. Despite the framing by activists and many journalists, being written by NOAA scientists does not make it decisive — and it doesn’t carry NOAA’s authority.

    • Interesting. An important addition to the large literature about the pause.
      So now Karl has become a “denier” of the pause. The first “denier” of the pause. We need to remember this.
      Very interesting.

      • rd50,
        I think that’s a bit harsh. Science tends to take place on the edge of our instruments’ resolving power, so debates like this are a commonplace in science.
        Also, the whole “denier” thing is anti-science in pure form. No matter which “side” uses it. Copycatting garbage tactics of activists doesn’t help.

      • I certainly agree with you that calling Karl a “denier” is a bit harsh, in fact much more than a bit harsh. I would even go further and say calling him a “denier” is stupid. However, think about the origin of calling scientists “deniers” who had good reasons to question that CO2 is responsible for global warming. Did you object then?
        You stated “Nor does their work represent NOAA’s official doctrine, unless specifically stated.”
        So, now, NOAA has an official doctrine?
        Did they send this “doctrine” to you? Yes NOAA did, you reviewed the “doctrine”, and you agreed with it.
        Please, post a copy of the doctrine NOAA sent to you. I searched for it at NOAA Internet site but was unable to find it.
        Thank you in advance for posting NOAA’s doctrine within a day or so. After reading the “doctrine” I certainly will offer my apology and retract my “denier” characterization if appropriate.

      • Well, to the Editor:
        Here is the definition of “doctrine”
        doc·trine
        /ˈdäktrən/
        noun
        noun: doctrine; plural noun: doctrines
        a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
        “the doctrine of predestination”
        synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More
        tenet, maxim, canon, principle, precept
        “the doctrine of the Trinity”
        •US
        a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.
        “the Monroe Doctrine”
        Now for NOAA doctrine you send me this according to my request:
        “Well, it would be nice to know the “official doctrine” of NOAA.”
        Your response is:
        You’re kidding, right? You didn’t know that NOAA issues reports? Look at their website for documents they call “reports” that are “of” or “from” NOAA. They issue lots of them, of many kinds — from technical to broad: http://www.noaa.gov/
        You are an Editor and you don’t know the difference between a “doctrine” and “reports”
        You must be kidding. Shame on you.
        Here is what you stated in your post:
        “Nor does their work represent NOAA’s official doctrine, unless specifically stated.”
        Now, please send me a copy of NOAA’s official doctrine. I don’t want reports, I want the doctrine.
        Thank you.

    • Editor: If a chart with Karl’s ‘adjustments’ are used for public dissemination and/or is listed on the NOAA site AND the chart contains the NOAA watermark, then you are being fed a line of BS.

      • I agree. Blame Karl. The NOAA watermark is there for all to see. The NOAA site provides the data in graph as well as table form. No, No, Nanette. Not the policy of NOAA expressed by Karl.
        If Karl is correct, don’t worry NOAA will take the credit. If Karl is wrong, don’t worry NOAA will …..not quite sure what they will do. But now, the “Editor…” above received this from NOAA: “Nor does their work represent NOAA’s official doctrine, unless specifically stated.”
        Well, it would be nice to know the “official doctrine” of NOAA.
        Where can anybody find the “Official Doctrine of NOAA”. Does such a thing exists? The Editor apparently did not received such.

      • rd50,
        “The NOAA watermark is there for all to see.”
        What is this “watermark”? As for the NOAA press releases, see my reply to kokoda.
        “Well, it would be nice to know the “official doctrine” of NOAA.”
        You’re kidding, right? You didn’t know that NOAA issues reports? Look at their website for documents they call “reports” that are “of” or “from” NOAA. They issue lots of them, of many kinds — from technical to broad: http://www.noaa.gov/

  16. Under Kamikazedave’s post (scroll down just a bit) June 15, 2015 at 9:04am (it is near the top) I give an explanation of the Karl 2015 fallacy using bags of marbles. It is simple. If you are having difficulty wrapping your head around this — what i say should clear it up the problem.
    I am good at simple stuff.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • Funny that you argue against the changes by Karl where your example actually shows why they are justified.

      • You might want to consider this:
        Climate science standards of accuracy: Given two values of differing accuracy always adjust the more accurate one in the direction of the less accurate one if it will show more warming.

      • Well that’s clearly wrong. Adjusting the ships down to the buoys would have given exactly the same warming. See Eugenes example.

  17. QUOTE from column:
    “The central issue in this ongoing debate is not whether Planet Earth is warming.”
    The quote is WRONG, in my opinion, and also not a bright statement:
    – Earth has been warming since the last ice age peaked 15,000 to 20,000 years ago.
    – Earth has been cooling since the Greenhouse Ages
    – The central issue is not whether Earth is warming or cooling — Earth is ALWAYS warming or cooling.
    – These are the two central issues, in my opinion:
    (1) Has there has been anything unusual about Earth’s climate in the past 150 years?, and
    (2) Why is CO2 demonized as a “climate controller” when there is no correlation between CO2 levels and average temperature, except for ice core data showing CO2 peaks FOLLOW temperature peaks, rather than causing them.
    .
    With the 12 to 18 year “pause” (ignoring the smarmy “adjustments”), we can not even be sure if the 1850 Modern Warming is still in progress today.
    There is no scientific proof CO2 has caused any of the slight warming in the past 100 years (assuming the warming is not just measurement error), and no scientific proof that a rise of CO2 from 400 to 500 PPMV would have any measurable warming effect.
    There is also no scientific proof that humans can forecast the climate, and much evidence that we can’t.
    Climate blog for non-scientists:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

  18. Twin Peaks – the cult show that flirted with the surreal while exposing the venal lives of the protagonists. An appropriate metaphor.

  19. The author states “…So why not adjust the ship data downward, to “homogenize” them with buoy data, and account for the contamination?”
    Ships data is always a bit warmer because of heat generated by the ship makes the water in the engine intake warmer than the buoy data. So engine data will always show warmer temperatures than the surrounding ocean. This is not in dispute. The effort to “homogenize” the data is only so that records that go back further than the buoy data can be used.
    The study looks at how temperature changes differ in the ship intake vary over time, and it has been going up whether you “add” a constant, or “subtract” a constant .12 degrees from the data. So the author is correct, they could have adjusted the ships data “downward”. Unfortunately for him, they would have gotten the same result.
    If one wants to dispute the study, one could argue that temperature of engine intake water is not a good source to use to see if the oceans are warming because ships engines, pipes, hulls, etc. have changed over the time period of the study in a way that the difference between intake data and buoy data has also changed, but that is a totally different argument that the deniers need to find some evidence to support.
    GW is not predicated on one or two or a dozen studies. It is the accumulation of thousands of studies, millions of data points, and more than a dozen models, 90%+ of which support carbon dioxide induced planet warming. Anyone who has ever done science has gotten data that are outliers. Sometimes they can be explained, sometimes not. In which case they are noted, and discarded so the 99% of the data that follows the pattern can be used for inference and explanation.
    Get over it already, your side lost the debate a long time ago. Just like the flat earthers and creationists.

    • I take it you haven’t noted that the uncertainty in the correction factor is +/-1.7 degrees.

    • averaging the output of more than a dozen failed climate models does not give you the right answer.

    • mabouril
      June 15, 2015 at 2:04 pm
      . Unfortunately for him, they would have gotten the same result.
      ====
      The buoy data is the recent data that takes place during the ‘pause’…..
      …not adjusting the recent data would still give you the pause
      Adjusting the ships data which occurred before the pause…would not affect the pause
      But it’s still a 1/10th of a degree….and who’s stupid enough to believe a 1/10th of a degree is global warming

    • Climate science standards of accuracy: Given two values of differing accuracy always adjust the more accurate one in the direction of the less accurate one if it will show more warming.

    • Evolutionists declared victory without explaining the orgin of DNA which Sir Fred Hoyle proved could not have evolved in this universe. If you can disprove Hoyle’s math please do so. Otherwise do not claim that Intelligent design has been disproved.
      Thanks Max

  20. Completely wrong. The Pause did not follow a twenty year period pf warming. That warming was fake warming created by a cooperation between GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC temperature sources. This fake warming was used to over-write the hiatus of the eighties and nineties that brought warming to a complete stop. It lasted from 1979 to 1997 or 18 years, as long as the current hiatus has lasted. I discovered it in 2008 doing research for my book “What Warming?” and put a picture of it into the book as figure 15. These three temperature sources had their data computer-processed in an identical way and traces pf this computer use are still visible in their publicly available temperature data-sets. Satellite data are free of this junk. But they could not control satellites and only ground-based data sets used their fake warming. As a result you can still download satellite temperature records of this hiatus. This means that we now have two hiatuses, not one, and the anti-pause forces don’t even know about the first hiatus because their friends in the temperature business have hidden it so well. Now why is this so important? you might ask. It is important because two hiatuses together will cover more than 80 percent of the entire satellite era. This means that there has been no warming at all for eighty percent of the satellite era. But what about the remaining 20 percent? The remaining 20 percent is taken up by the super El Nino of 1998 and a short, steep warming that follows it. That warming is the only warming during the entire satellite era. Neither one of these two is caused by greenhouse warming. Add it up and you will find that there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever during the entire satellite era that started in 1979. With that, AGW dies and IPCC must be closed down. And one more thing: defund all decarbonization projects and block their funds.

  21. 3 observations based on this umpteenth post on Karl et al.
    1. I am very much amazed by how much fuzz people make over such a small adjustment, that is well within the error boundaries. As the post says it mainly deals with hundredths of degrees, which is peanuts. The most recent adjustment to UAH was larger I believe. So why on earth all the fuzz? The only reason so many people on this blog have tried so desperately to discredit these adjustments is that the hiatus does not show anymore. However, this is not a consequence of the adjustments being so large or fundamentally flawed (although I agree that some are questionable), but rather a consequence of the fact that the hiatus is not very significant. A few minor changes, well within the error margins proved enough to remove it. The hiatus is nothing more than an exercise in fitting a straight line through a short and noisy subset of the data, which means that small adjustments can significantly change the outcome.
    2. Some of the “experts” in the post still don’t seem to understand that the resulting trends would have been identical whether ships were adjusted to buoys or vice versa.
    3. The posts that there is no scientific basis for human influence on the changes in climate and atmosphere is false. There are several observations, such as changed isotope ratios, differences in warming between night and day, that no one has been able to explain without introducing a human influence.

    • Aran, you say “3. The posts that there is no scientific basis for human influence on the changes in climate and atmosphere is (sic) false. There are several observations, such as changed isotope ratios, differences in warming between night and day, that no one has been able to explain without introducing a human influence.”
      You have cited two examples. The first, isotope ratios, is simply to do with the origin of CO2 – natural or man-made, which says nothing about the influence of CO2. You have therefore failed to falsify the posts to which you refer.
      The second regarding differences between night and day warming could be explained by UHI or poor weather station siting. Again, no falsification.
      Try again.

      • The first one illustrates the human influence on the atmosphere, something which is often disputed here. As for the second, I don’t know what UHI means. Poor whether station siting is an argument one could use to dispute any effect whatsoever. If you don’t believe the measurements you can not say anything anymore. You might as well claim Martians are the cause of everything. Also not falsifiable. Anyway, it will have to be a very special and unrealistic case if the small minority of weather stations that are not located properly could produce a coherent effect. If you can show me a calculation that shows how such poor siting could realistically reproduce the signal I would be very interested.

      • UHI – for the ignorant – is Urban Heat Island. Anthony did a study on that. It affects land temperatures.
        Let us hope that PLANT FOOD warms the Earth. I live near Chicago and it would be seriously inconvenient to have to try to visit the city if it was under 2 miles of ice. Especially if DOT didn’t keep the roads clear.

      • Aran, you say “If you can show me a calculation that shows how such poor siting could realistically reproduce the signal I would be very interested.” Here is a link to Watts et al 2012 Station Siting http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
        This next link is about UHI affecting temperatures. “New Study on Urban Heat Islands and Climate Change Shows Most Large U.S. Cities Getting Hotter Faster than Rural Areas” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/20/uhi-worse-than-we-thought/

      • Mike,
        Neither of these studies show how UHI or poor weather station siting could replicate the day/night difference, which you claimed they could.
        Anyway, the only thing I wanted to point out was that there is evidence of human influence on climate. Whether or not you choose to believe the evidence or whether or not these can be explained by other, arguably more far-fetched, theories does not matter. There is lots of evidence for the theory of relativity, but there are also still people trying to disprove it or coming up with alternatives. Denying there is evidence for human influence on global warming is simply and blatantly ignoring huge volumes of scientific research. This is why all the serious skeptics such as Watts, Monckton and Spencer actually agree that there is human influence on climate, just that it is a lot smaller than currently presumed. The aforementioned blindness to science only gives serious skeptics a bad name, and actually makes it harder for them to be taken seriously.

    • Aran, you rightly point put that this change is tiny. And you could also mention that it is insignificant working to a 90% confidence level rather than a more customary 95%.
      So why was this published at all? And why in such a prestigious journal as Science? And why with such fanfare?
      The answer is not related to science but to the politicisation of science. It was a faked up paper with dodgy adjustments designed to influence the Paris talks.
      If you seek the truth then the politicisation of science should be opposed. That’s why this paper is opposed.

      • Strangely enough hardly any the articles on this site have opposed the paper based on politicisation. Rather the authors have chosen to attack it based on flimsy and sometimes erroneous attacks on the scientific content.

    • one adjustment takes place during the pause…and erases the pause
      ..the other adjustment would have taken place before the pause..and have no effect on the pause

    • Aran June 15, 2015 at 9:36 pm says:”…The posts that there is no scientific basis for human influence on the changes in climate and atmosphere is false….”
      Apparently you did not read my previous post or you would not have written such nonsense. Let me repeat some key facts you need to know. First, there are two hiatuses, not one. You are trying to disprove one of them because the hiatus of the eighties asnd nineties does not exist on ground-based temperature curves.But it does exist in satellite records you can download anytime to verify its existence. That is because that section was fraudulently changed to show warming by ground-based data moguls. I caught HadCRUT3 in action and later showed that GISS and NCDC also were involved. All of them are official temperature control agencies reporting to IPCC and not controlled or supervised by any independent authority. You are fighting the one hiatus and have no idea that there are two of them. The older one in the eighties and nineties contains a wave train of five El Nino peaks produced by ENSO. This allows an independent measurement of global temperature trend you cannot overturn by using sea surface temperature as Karl et al. are attempting to do with their latest fiasco. It is a fiasco because they have actually only two legitimate data points that do show warming. They try to add them to their “Global” data and then use those data to prove that there was that warming from the ocean. Nice try, but double dipping is not allowed in science. Even if you add them to existing data they do not prove that there is an upward slope to the hiatus because each one of these points is stretched out over a sixteen year interval. When I caught HadCRUT3 creating false warming they at least understood that you have to show an upward temperature slope if you want to claim that warming exists, but these guys don’t even know that and think that a sixteen year long temperature measurement tells you anything about a warming trend. I am actually too generous to allow them two data points because one of them is fully contained within the other. Their paper slipped through the editors and reviewers who were apparently as ignorant of what they were doing as they themselves were. Quite a trick to get into Science if you actually have just one data point stretched out to sixteen years.
      Reference: Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view iof global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010), figures 15 and 24

  22. Part of NOAA’s inofficial doctrin, shown in the Guest Essay:
    ‘The NOAA report appears to have been another salvo in the White House’s attempt to regain the offensive, ahead of the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Climate Conference.’
    ____
    Interesting envolving of the thread; in the EU such is called ‘Wertediskussion’.
    Better ‘hands off’ – personal opinion.
    Doctrins, Werte mainly belong in the field of opinions ( and aims !).
    rd50 – Thx for highlighting!
    Hans

  23. hmmm. I am curious. Warmists have always harped on using the anomaly, not the actual temperatures, to detect trend, always saying it homogenizes the data so that comparisons can be made and longer records stitched together. That oft repeated basic “rule” seems to have bit the dust. What’s next? They start eating their young?

Comments are closed.