Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one this summer trying to adjust the past down, so the present would be warmer. The sleight of hand on this was so obvious that even warm-oriented scientists such as Michael Mann and Ben Santer co-authored a rebuttal paper that said Karl was dead wrong and the pause was real. There is now a congressional investigation into Mr. Karl’s apparently political actions disguised as science
Now we have a new player in the “Karlization” process – Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) in Santa Rosa, CA. This is a private business that just happens to make a satellite based climate data set that is similar to the UAH satellite data set produced by Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, the RSS data set showed very little warming, and on the RSS web page they were so bold to say:
Source: http://www.remss.com/research/climate Archived here – http://www.webcitation.org/6fiQcrQDQ
All that is about to change. Readers may recall a video produced by the execrable “Climate Crock of the Week” activist Peter Sinclair that we covered here where the basic premise was that the “satellites are lying“. It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should. From the video Mears states:
They just wanted to know, you know, they wanted to fine-tune their statement about, you know, whether , you know, the surface temperatures are more accurate or the satellite temperatures are more accurate, and initially they wanted to say something like “But you really shouldn’t trust the satellite temperatures, you should go with these surface temperatures”, and I said, “Well, what I would like to emphasize, you’d really want to look at all the different datasets, so you don’t want to trust only the satellite temperatures, you want to look at the surface temperatures, and – and that sort of thing.
On his website, Mears makes this statement:
Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)
Source: http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures Archived here: http://www.webcitation.org/6fiS2rI7k
Mears uses the term “denialist” so there goes his objectivity when he feels the need to label people like that.
Clearly, he’s miffed. So what to do? Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have “found” that missing warming.
Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R
Here’s the result:
Here are the differences between the old version and new version of RSS
The new version V4.0 has the warming rate of almost double that of UAH V5.6 … (see Figure 9 below of the paper)
If you think that’s something, for the tropic-30S-30N: the new rate of warming of RSS V4.0 is almost five times larger than UAH’s!
Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS seems thrilled that the new adjustment is coming:
Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have already looked into this latest “Karlization” and have found what appears to be a fatal flaw. Spencer comments in an email to me:
The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.
From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c. They just leave it in.
Since this spurious warming is near the middle of the whole time period, this shifts the second half of the satellite record warmer when NOAA-14 MSU (the last in the MSU series) is handed off to NOAA-15 AMSU (the first in the AMSU series).
Why do we think NOAA-14 MSU is at fault?
1) AMSU is supposed to have a “Cadillac” calibration design (that’s the term a NASA engineer, Jim Shiue, used when describing to me the AMSU design, which he was involved in).
2) NOAA-14 MSU requires a large correction for the calibrated TB increasing with instrument temperature as the satellite drifts into a different orbit. The NOAA-15 AMSU requires no such correction…and it wasn’t drifting during the period in question anyway.
So, it looks like they decided to force good data to match bad data. Sound familiar?
Yes, yes it does.
Added: here is Figure 7 from the paper that Dr. Spencer refers to:
h/t to Willie Soon with thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer
UPDATE1: Given this sort of work has only two groups doing it, it is a very narrow field of scientific specialty, I asked Dr. Spencer this question:
I assume neither you or Christy were asked to review this paper?There aren’t many satellite temperature data experts in the world.
He replied:
Interesting question….
John reviewed their original paper submission to JGR, in detail, asking for additional evidence — but not advocating rejection of the paper. The JGR editor ended up rejecting it anyway.
Mears & Wentz then revised the paper, submitted it to J. Climate instead, and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought these satellites were compared against the weather balloons. That should settle the discrepancy shouldn’t it?
Yes, but the change, although highly questionable, still leaves the satellite record far below what the models predict!
Unfortunately that is not what the MSM will publish.
So not to worry China and India keep burning heaps of coal. Warming is imaginary. Whew! The relief…
I have to say I’m not surprised. When I saw that video with Mears and how utterly deceitful he was being trying to fool the listener into thinking that trending is simply drawing a line from point A to point B, along with other deceptions, I knee this guy was a lying sack who would do anything.
Boy do I hate being right:
Science or Fiction | November 6, 2015 at 4:47 pm |
I have a concern regarding the satellite Remote Sensing System RSS.
Carl Mears is Vice President / Senior Research Scientist at RSS
Here is a quote by Carl Mears»:
“(The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)»
It is remarkable that he uses the term «denialists». A term which can be regarded as nothing else than name calling.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Wikipedia: “Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propagandatechniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.”
Further, Carl Mears is involved in the current project:
“Improved and Extended Atmospheric Temperature Measurements from Microwave Sounders. The purpose of this project is to completely redo the current MSU and AMSU atmospheric data records using more advanced and consistent methods. This project is funded by the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate.”
Being a Vice President I imagine that Carl Mears is quite influential in that project.
My guess is that we will soon see dramatic changes in the RSS temperature data series. I would be greatly surprised if we will see a cooling trend.
Yeah, I think we all saw the handwriting on the wall, but held out hope that RSS would stand firm. Puts me in mind of MPATHG and Brave Sir Robin:
Help us, Roy Spencer and John Christy, you’re our only hope.
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Ingsoc
Oh my. I am surprised that the folks at RSS are not less transparent. What will Congress say if one of the satellite data centres starts to “adjust” their temperature data as well. This is turning into one big mess.
The real problem will be trying to cool the recent past, the last 15 years, to make the temperatures look warmer in the future than they are now. The other problem will be if temperatures drop so much that they can’t possibly adjust the temperatures of the past 15 years to compensate. ( I bet they use the unadjusted satellite data then) Another problem was when they stated temperatures in 2000, they weren’t adjusting the past temperatures to fit. There are 2 different time scales involved, 1) is the temperature comparison from the year 2000 going back They didn’t have to adjust the data for that. ( well maybe, we don’t know, the original data records are in a landfill and those temperatures becoming the original were adjusted. They said so on that and there was no way to confirm what they did) . and 2) the adjusted figures from the past to show that it is warmer now.
This is the most cracked pot science ever. There is no certainty in any of it. The only two things I am certain of is that there was a MWP and a LIA, both of which they have magically made to go away. I can see the graphs of the future will have time and spatial distortions, maybe from the newly found gravity waves.
But, but, the data used to show a pause…
I am altering the data. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
OMG that is funny!!!!
UAH adjusts down, everyone is happy. RSS adjusts up and cries of impropriety.
The denominator is obvious and has nothing to do with analysis of any worthy character.
How many times has UAH been adjusted down?
At least 4 times. In 1994 (linear diurnal drift correction), 1998 (removal of dependence
of time variations of hot target temperature), 2004 (tightened criteria for data acceptance), and with V6, which is still in Beta as Spencer and Christie await peer-review of their latest set of adjustments.
I got the same info from a different source. 4 down adjustments (and a number of up adjustments).
I was referring to the recent revision (2015 Beta6,) which adjusted the latter part of the record downwards, and which everyone here was pretty pleased with.
But you knew that.
Upwards bad. Downwards good. That’s the tenor of the general view here. If you can’t see that, then you’re embroiled in it.
barry – Michael showed the UAH adjustments you were railing against are utterly negligible.
Bartemis – I have no problem with UAH or RSS trying to improve data sets. My point was that others do – only when the adjustments are in a direction they don’t like. Some devotees from ‘the other side’ had a go at UAH for their cooling adjustment, too. This reflexive criticism is tribal, not neutral, and perpetuates the irrationality that pervades the general debate.
“The UAH upwards adjustments were made for transparent and logical reasons and nobody disputed them here. But the Karl adjustments and recent RSS adjustment are a completely different kettle of fish.”
RSS published their methods before changing the data set (TLT has not been updated as of this time). Karl et al methods are also in the public domain. UAH have yet to have their methods published.
Dr Spencer has been using Beta 6 on his website since last April and we still haven’t seen the code. Your criticism is completely ill-targeted. Talk about giving a “free pass.”
Unless “a different kettle of fish” merely alludes to the direction of the adjustments. It is clearly the denominator here for criticism/approval.
From the morons at Skeptical Science who were keeping a running tally thru the end of 2011…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAHcorrections.jpg
A cumulative net +0.069 deg C/decade rise.
Go ahead and tell me more about “UAH adjusts down, everyone is happy.”
Barry, you can apologize now.
Feel free to link any article at WUWT that called into question UAH revising their data downwards recently. Any article that mocked UAH for ‘tampering’ with the data. An article like the one at the top of this thread.
When you post a WUWT article that criticized UAH for their recent version update, in terms similar to above, then I’ll apologize.
You won’t find one. Because upward adjustments = bad, and downwards adjustment = good. That’s the tenor here, and you know it.
It is true that upwards adjustments are carefully scrutinised here. But if they are well founded then no problem. On the other side of the fence, believers subject downwards adjustments to intense scrutiny and have a tendency to give upwards adjustments a free pass.
The UAH upwards adjustments were made for transparent and logical reasons and nobody disputed them here. But the Karl adjustments and recent RSS adjustment are a completely different kettle of fish.
One glance at the difference between old and new results in 9C and 9d should’ve made the authors and reviewers freak-out and determine that the new dataset is garbage. One.
FWIW, made essentially the same comment as this post on the previous thread. AW is correct. We now have Karlization and Mearsization. Same ization. Erase that darned pause. No matter how.
And next verification of the “hotspot” in 3, 2, …1.
The RSS and UAH pause disappeared with the February numbers. Do they want to shoot themselves in the foot by showing adjusted data that do away with the pause? The impression will be left that the adjustments removed the pause.
Unfortunately 80 percent or more of the population will only read the headlines.
But Werner, you’ll be there to inform the malcontents that the pause disappeared before the RSS adjustments.
What I find amusing is that about a year ago Dr. Spencer, on his own site, expressed an opinion that the RSS data was running cool , and that adjustments in the works on his own UAH data, which he indicated was bit warm, would correct downward. The big surprise is when the UAH data was cooled very close to the RSS data that Dr Spencer said was too cool. Crazy.
Werner Brozek:
You say
The Pause has existed and its importance remains whether or not ‘adjustments’ remove the Pause.
I remind of a post I made on another thread and I copy it to here to save others needing to find it.
Richard
Torture numbers long enough and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear.
The pause is gone in UAH without any adjustments. It was expected to go for RSS in the first few months of this year.
Of course, the uncertainty is larger than the trend for 1997/98 to present global TLT, so ‘pause busting’ is qualified. However, that qualification applies to the pause itself. As the pause was a period with no statistically significant trend, and the uncertainty envelope overlapped with the prior, warming trend, There was no statistically significant evidence that the long-term trend had subsided. The pause should always have been qualified with ‘apparent’, or ‘possible,’ as it usually was in formal publications.
barry:
You again ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ in this thread when you write
Really!?
Don’t tell that to us: tell the IPCC “There was no statistically significant evidence that the long-term trend had subsided” because the IPCC said there was;
see Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is that is here and is titled
That section of the IPCC does not discuss trend uncertainty. It compares models with observations.
Step by step:
1979 – 1998 trend is 0.082C/decade +/- 0.256
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/0e4596ab-dbfa-4ddc-87fa-f5cdecd02c0f_zpso0uquukg.png?t=1456930434
Trend is anywhere between -0.17 and 0.34C per decade.
If the uncertainty in the trend since 1998 overlaps with that window then there has been no deviation in trend to the 95% confidence interval.
The trend from 1998 – 2016 is -0.016C/decade +/- 0.178
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/rss%201998%20to%202016_zps3vpuaozk.png?t=1456930913
The envelope of the trend estimates overlap not only each other but also the mean estimates. The trends have not deviated to statistical significance.
Moreover, both trends fail the null hypotheses. There is no statistically significant evidence in either of any warming.
Yet the full record shows a warming trend and that is statistically significant.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/rss%201979_zps8qz5gp0c.png?t=1456930917
0.123C/decade +/- 063
The uncertainty minimum is greater than zero (0.06C/decade), passing the null hypothesis test.
The two segments are too short to determine that signal.
And way too short to determine any warming, pause or cooling.
There may be better evidence for a slowdown or pause by examining the whole system or other data sets, but this discussion is, as often, focused on the TLT record. No such evidence is found when examining the whole of that data set (instead of the 2nd half exclusively). Not statistically.
If anyone can see something statistically incorrect about the above – and accurately address my actual comments – I’d be glad to hear from them.
First graph should be this:
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/rss%201979%20to%201998_zpshfeyltdk.png?t=1456930917
“Yet the full record shows a warming trend and that is statistically significant.”
I find claims of statistical significance very tiresome. Statistical inference requires a statistical model. If the model is wrong, then the inference is likely to be wrong.
Most often, I have seen an arbitrary AR(1) model used to claim statistical properties. But, these data are correlated with a long term trend plus an approximately 65 year periodic correlation, which requires at least an AR(2) model. In the face of that, statistical inference using the former are GIGO.
Bartemis, it’s an ARMA (1,1) model.
barry sez:
…the IPCC does not discuss trend uncertainty. It compares models with observations.
OK, let’s see the comparison:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
barry, you’re quite the little parrot, spouting the latest talking point: “Global Warming Nevah Stopped!!
For the past ten years or so, people like Phil Jones acknowledged that global warming had stopped. Question: why lie about it, when that fact is so easy to prove?
barry:
You compound your error – so add another to your growing list of needed apologies – by providing another falsehood when you write
NO!
The “section of the IPCC” I cited is Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says
A “hiatus” is a stop.
And the Box says
GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
And there cannot be a known “difference between simulated and observed trends” in the absence of ascribed certainty to those trends.
Richard
barry March 3, 2016 at 2:31 pm
“Bartemis, it’s an ARMA (1,1) model.”
Which is completely inappropriate and arbitrary.
The end of the pause in UAH is unsurprising and insignificant. At the height of an El Nino one would not expect to see any significant pause. The pause is defined as how far back one has to go to find a statistically significant rate of warming. As an El Nino year is typically significantly warmer than the few years that preceded it the answer in an El Nino year is almost by definition small. Unfortunately for the pause deniers, unless the El Nino ushers in a step change such as the one we saw in 1998, once the El Nino is over the pause WILL RETURN even larger (due to the passage of time) than it was before.
None of us actually know with certainty what will happen next year. But I think the odds of this El Nino kicking off another 1998 type step change are pretty slim. The pause deniers crowing about the end of the pause at the very peak of an El Nino are grasping at straws and will likely have to eat their words next year.
The pause deniers…
I would say, the pause liars, for the simple reason that they were arguing about what ‘explanation’ to attribute the ‘pause’ that they accepted as a fact as recently as last year. This includes the IPCC.
Now the new talking point is ‘The pause never happened!’ Just another desperate case of “Say Anything”, and hope it sticks.
Well, there is no “pause.” Not one single dataset shows it.
Wrong.
There are plenty of databases showing the so-called “pause” (ie: when global warming stopped):
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PaintImage113.png
There are also local coroborrating databases:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/00cfc3dc0cdc552e62c2d2be2e31b025/tumblr_inline_nvhsnjKEiR1qij8k6_500.png
On a longer time scale we are within long term parameters. There is nothing unprecedented or unusual happening, much as you wish it.
The whole scare is blown way out of proportion by guesstimating tenths and hundredths of a degree, instead of the whole degrees that the wacko contingent tells everyone the globe will warm by. They pick tiny fractions of a degree — as if they’re that accurate — but they use whole degrees trying to scare the public. None of the alarmist crowd are being honest. The graph on the left shows reality; the one on the right is based mostly wild-eyed guesstimates:
The pause is ending. So you’re wrong again.
When are you gonna pay off on your bogus ‘challenge’?
Eventually the data will be massaged so much that it contends when we step outside on a summer’s day we will all spontaneously combust. Yeah right.
Did someone put the thumbscrews to Mears’ funding source?
…even warm-oriented scientists such as Michael Mann and Ben Santer co-authored a rebuttal paper that said Karl was dead wrong and the pause was real.
Actually, they said the period represented “a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop’.” [actual quote from the paper]. They did not corroborate the notion of a pause or hiatus. Rather, they concluded there was a ‘reduced rate of warming’.
barry,
Your ‘facts’ are wrong.
They’re making up stories now.
Last year none of them were saying that global warming was chugging along as usual, and they had the same info they have now. In fact, they were making up endless excuses to explain the fact that global warming had stopped.
Trenberth claimed the heat was hiding at the bottom of the oceans. Ben Santer called it a “warming hiatus“. The UK’s Met Office said the ‘pause’ may last for many more years. (Put ‘pause’ into the search box for dozens of similar articles.)
But now the Narrative has changed. The new talking point is that global warming never stopped. Every one of them and their lemmings have turned 180º, and are now effectively repudiating what they were saying before.
This is just dishonest. They’re at the point now where they will “Say Anything”, rather than admit that global warming had halted for many years. They’re not stupid people, barry. But they are certainly ethics-challenged. Wouldn’t you agree?
barry, your really hurting here.
Barry reminds me of another ‘drive-by’ contrarian who sometimes posts here. Plenty to say, plenty to protest about. Long on rhetoric yet every time he is called out on the substance of his post he never returns to acknowledge how wrong he is because he’s already on his next spray and pray attack.
To get back to the point, the study mentioned does not say what the author of this article purports it says.
To answer your points
There was much discussion over the apparent slowdown/pause/hiatus in global temperature. Views were not uniform, and language in commentary is often decontextualised. Ie, to remove qualifiers like ‘apparent,’ or, in the Santer example you give, to remove the quotation marks around “warming hiatus” and ignore that the paper refers – without scare quotes – to muted warming. Which, by the way, matches the language in the study mentioned in the OP, also co-authored by Santer. So Santer doesn’t corroborate a pause, he thinks there has been a slowdown in warming. This is consistent between each of the studies mentioned here just now that he co-authored.
The apparent “pause” was never going to last, as many regulars here predicted. Rather than quote mine to set a false impression, loosen your grip.
barry,
So now it was just an “apparent slowdown” of global warming.
You have zero credibility. You’re just parroting the new talking points that your disreputable leaders tell you to.
“Views were not uniform” – oh, so there was no consensus on that? Are you telling me that climate scientists can look at a zero trendline and then not uniformally take the view that the trend was zero? Are they really that stupid of a bunch, or is it just you?
It “was never going to last”…well, almost two decades seems like “lasting.” It is certainly well-beyond anything that the warmistas thought would happen. It even went beyond the period for which some scientists said was possible.
And it still flies in the face of models and global warming theory regardless of which dataset you use. If you’d rather just take the “apparent slowdown” data that currently exists or go back to when data clearly showed an extended “pause” ranging from several years to almost two decades (depending on which dataset you looked at), fine. It still doesn’t fit the narrative and leaves much explaining to do.
barry, over fifty ways to leave your lover…
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fhockeyschtick.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F07%2Fupdated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html
On the contrary, I’m quoting the studies a) mentioned in the article, and b) cited by you.
There are other sources, I just looked at the ones provided and realized they didn’t say what was promoted. You can see for yourself with the Santer paper that was the focus of one of your links. “Warming haitus” appeared just like that – with quote marks – in that study. You removed them, decontextualizing that the authors were holding the notion at arms length. In the first comments in their abstract, they refer to ‘muted’ warming and later a slowdown. I am not revising history here. You can corroborate just with a few clicks.
I followed your other link to the Met Office article, which also speaks of a slowdown, not a pause. You can track that back for yourself too, and see.
It’s small fudges like these that can lead to a misapprehended overview. There was never one opinion on global temps over the last 18 years or so, but the tribal nature of these comments sections prefers binary, us/them characterisations. Grist for gut reactions, but poor analysis.
barry,
You didn’t even read the link right above by David A, did you?
You are parroting the “no stop in global warming” Narrative that you’ve been issued.
If you had read the link, you would see all the scientists who were acknowledging the fact that global warming had stopped. Arch-Warmist Phil Jones is there, too, admitting that global warming had stopped, and talking statistics. There are plenty of similar quotes. Just scroll down toward the end. You can read them all.
So the fact is that as recently as last year, all sides of the debate accepted the fact that global warming had stopped. Faced with that reality, the Narrative writers responded with their new talking point: “Global warming never stopped!”
They are lying, barry. Lying through their teeth. That’s extremely easy to prove with the internet. Just read the link, from last year. The question is: why are you passing on their lies? Is your self-respect that low?
dbstealey,
The cited study and article was misrepresented by you, as was the study cited in the OP. They speak of a slowdown, not cessation of global warming. All of them.
Presumably you agree, otherwise you would have addressed the point directly rather than move on to a different one, and repeating the canard doesn’t hold up well when your first 2 examples failed.
barry,
Now you’re lying, too? Or you still didn’t read the link, which has quotes like this:
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel:
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that.”
And:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has…
And:
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change:
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
There are more quotes like those, admitting that global warming stopped.
Wake up, barry. You’re just parroting the new Narrative. But your talking points aren’t science. They’re just alarmist propaganda. They are flat out lies.
First sentence in the Santer paper.
The relatively muted warming of the surface and lower troposphere since 1998 has attracted considerable attention.
First few sentences of the intro:
A number of scientific explanations have been advanced for the post-1998 “hiatus” in surface and tropospheric warming. One prominent view is that this behavior is primarily or wholly attributable to natural internal variability of the climate system, originating in either the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean [Kosaka and Xie, 2013] or in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans [Chen and Tung, 2014]. Other interpretations of the “hiatus” posit that the relatively muted surface and tropospheric warming over the past 17 years is not due to a single cause but instead arises from the combined effects of internal variability and external forcing
Hiatus is in quotes because they are referring to popular usage, not because they think no warming occurred.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062366/full
The other paper in your link to the WUWT article (Ridley et al) has this as the opening of the introduction.
Over about the past 15 years, globally averaged surface temperatures have increased more slowly than during the two previous decades (≈1980–2000), a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “hiatus” or “pause” in global warming.
http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/99152
Increased. More slowly. A slowdown. They mention the popular terms for this period.
From the Uk Met Office article in your other link:
Global mean surface temperature rose rapidly from the 1970s, but the rate of warming has slowed over the most recent 15 years or so…
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/8/c/Changes_In_The_Climate_System.pdf
Slowdown, not “pause.”
These are the sources you first cited. These you have ignored since I checked them out and corrected your misrepresentation.
I’m going now to the first cite in David’s link. If it proves to be as misrepresented as these examples – cited by you – I won’t be bothering with the rest. The pattern of distortion will be clear.
So….
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant…”
Of course researchers with any stats skill would scorn him if he said that. 7 years of data fails statistical significance. You couldn’t possibly say it was warming or cooling or flat with that time period.
Jones is quite right – ridiculous to make a claim about any trend with so little data. Presumably you’re quite aware of that, as you’ve been present at discussion here regarding statistical significance.
The first item in the list is another distortion.
So what we have are, as I said, a range of views about an apparent slowdown, or “hiatus” or “pause” for the period. Others disagreed that there was a pause at all. I am one of those. From your point of view, this puts me at odds with Mann, Santer, Ridley and others. I’m hardly parroting their views, according to your take on the, am I?
That’s the facts of the matter. A range of views, not some binary “gotcha” scenario invented for an easy win in a net argument.
The truth is rarely so simple. No mater how much we’d like it to be to shore up our views with as little effort as possible.
I think I’ve shown that there was no pause – not to statistical significance – in the first place. That would be the post you ignored while diverting to what other people have said. Perhaps the name-dropping can stop and you can return to the substantive part of the comment. Discussions about quasi-famous people is so Who Weekly.
What makes the warming in general nothing more than natural internal and external forcing?
Or a processing artifact from infilling and homogenization because there is internal variability and that was processed into a warming trend?
There is no loss of nightly cool, when it’s compared to the prior days warming, none since 1940. And lots of evidence of regional variability, and measurable evidence of the impact of land use changes.
MikeCrow6500,
barry is now at the ‘Say Anything’ stage. He’s simply passing on the new talking points. And he quotes the über-deceptive Ben Santer, the lead author who personally reviewed and approved Chapter 8 of the 1996 IPCC Report.
The following statements were to be included, but Santer deleted them:
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to man-made causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
3.”Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
4.”While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
5.”When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’”
After deleting those committee comments, Santer then added his own:
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.” (my emphasis)
Now, twenty years later, there is still no verifiable evidence quantifying any global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions. So barry had best find another ‘expert’ — one with an ethical backbone. That leaves out Ben Santer.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
At the step back and look at the big picture level, it’s all getting a bit pathetic isn’t it? These supposed grown-ups who purport that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels pose a threat to humanity because the temperature is going up, all hootin’ and hollerin’ and high fiving because the temperature is going up. Sad people.
” These supposed grown-ups who purport that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels pose a threat to humanity because the temperature is going up, all hootin’ and hollerin’ and high fiving because the temperature is going up. Sad people.”
Especially since their funny math caused most of the warming.
Oh it gets worse. You’re leaving out the people who hope for catastrophic weather events so that they can be used to suit their narrative.
…. not to mention Arctic ice, where it’s a disaster if it melts a bit.
It must drive them crazy that cognitive dissonance alone cannot melt ice.
Yeah, but the heat went up because of El Nino, not because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yep
The ‘warmists’ are the ones trying to warn the public that AGW is not a good thing. If they are warning the public about something not good, how does that now become ‘jumping up and down with glee’?
Really comical that ‘Climate Science’ relies on so called ‘Version’ numbers for their Data Sets.
I didn’t know that Science had ‘Versions’.
Did all the great Scientists of the past have ‘Version’ numbers?
“I didn’t know that Science had ‘Versions’.”
UAH is on Version 6.0 beta 5.
I kid you not. Google it.
Also, try googling ‘astronomy data set version.’ Plenty of hits. Revising and improving data is part and parcel of research.
You can try googling under ‘medicine’ or any number of scientific disciplines using data sets. Thankfully, no serious researcher assumes the first, second or latest data set is perfect. It would be unbelievably intellectually lazy if they did. Hence, as dcpetterson points out, UAH satellite record, favoured here by many regulars, has numerous versions, with many adjustments to the record as a result. Their latest version (6Beta) has been much hailed here, as it cooled the record a little.
Yeah, linear trend changed from 0.0139 deg C/decade to 0.0114…OMG!!!! What “hailing” are you talking about exactly?
And RSS was 0.0122 at the time…
The hailing of UAH being adjusted so that it was closer to RSS. This was seen as a corroboration for the pause-o-philes. Bob Tisdale posted early on it, saying that the satellite temps were now in agreement, therefore more likely ‘correct’.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/20/fundamental-differences-between-the-noaa-and-uah-global-temperature-updates/
In reply to criticism, Bob said:
Bottom line for the UAH changes: unlike with the NOAA data, we can’t say the changes to the UAH data are unjustified because they are so similar to those of RSS, and, as a result, we also cannot say the UAH data are overcooked…or undercooked, depending on your point of view.
You can find plenty of evidence of satisfaction with this result in the comments section around that time.
But the point is, adjusting data sets is par for the course for EVERY research group. D.I is strangely miffed by this ordinary part of science.
barry,
Yes. “Adjustments” happen. It is surprising anyone here thinks this is unusual.
There is no other way for the self-correcting nature of scientific research to proceed. Anyone who pretends that “adjustments” are part of a “conspiracy” is not familiar with how science works.
Yes, they are constantly adjusting their models but don’t forget, the science is “settled” and you are a bad person if you don’t immediately agree with latest version of the constantly moving alarmist position.
We’re talking about data, not models. We can question the adjustments all we like, including upwards and downwards revisions (like the recent UAH revision). But without in-depth analysis it’s hot air.
“Anyone who pretends that “adjustments” are part of a “conspiracy” is not familiar with how science works.”
And, anyone who pretends that adjustments cannot be manipulated to achieved a preconceived outcome is a naive simpleton. Especially when the adjustments have consistently been in that direction.
Some folks just change datasets quietly and don’t bring any attention to them. Which do you think makes more sense?
The confusion here stems from the notion of “data.” What we are looking at here are not raw data, which really shouldn’t change over time, but the end product of a complex calculations that, apart from the raw data, also contain interpretations and corrections. There may be legitimate reasons for changes to the latter.
Indeed, raw data frequently need to be calibrated, as the MSU data have since the start of the measurements, correcting for the orbital decay and the diurnal drift etc.. It’s not always apparent that an error exists, for example when a new satellite is deployed, and post hoc calibrations have to be done.
[Comment deleted. Read the site Policy. Labeling those with a different point of view as “deniers” violates policy. -mod.]
[Please include an explanation when posting links. -mod]
I don’t know how to find my old comments on this site, but I am pleased to have coined the term Karlization here on WUWT right at the time they came out with the pause buster. Originally I called it Tomkarleization but shortened a short time later. When the Mears, Mann et al video came out, many laughed and joked about it here. I wrote at the time, it was no laughing matter and that any good poker player would recognize the “tell”. I said to watch for the RSS to diverge from UAH and an excuse about diurnal drift or orbital issues that make it look cooler. I also noted that in the video they criticized the work of Christy and Spencer, marginalizing their work deliberately so that when RSS was bent upwards from UAH, they had already make UAH guys look like buffoon incompetents. I was right on all counts but don’t recall any readers at the time agreeing with me. Anyone for an evening of Texas Holdem?
PS, I also criticized Bob Tisdale and Christopher Monckton for always using the new revised numbers of the clime syndicate for their critical reviews, telling them both, that if they continued to accept the alterations to the data sets that one day neither of them would have anything to say at all. Bob’s and Christopher’s work would be squeezed into irrelevance.
The error bars on these measurements of the whole earth’s temperature just can’t be large enough considering all the corrections that are necessary. And now the difference of opinions about the corrections!
Over one year ago Steven Goddard, AKA Tony Heller, called this…
=============================================
“Enron accountants would blush at these tactics. Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.”
===============================================
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/collusion-is-independence/
I used to be an automation engineer long time ago. One thing I learned from the measurements was that every measurement has an error. The absolute error is not important but the most important issue is, is there any drift in a measurement i.e can a measurement give the same result for a phenomenon exactly in the same conditions after one or 10 years. This means that the trend is important and not the absolute value. Just looking for UAH adjustments it looks like that they have been corrected data in order to get the absolute value right. I think that it is extremely difficult to adjust the internal weaknesses of any measurement afterwards. I would rely on the trends of any measurements without any adjustments.