They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
,,,
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
…
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
…
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
…
…
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
Read the entire extraordinary expose by David Rose here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48
I feel sorry for Mosher and Stokes too. All these years of building up their Devoted Warmist Merit Badge collections, only to be undone by someone with a big mouth.
Andrew
Re the NOAA/HadCRUT4 comparison chart, David Rose says:
“…the UK Met Office’s independently tested and verified ‘HadCRUT4’ record [shows] lower monthly readings and a shallower recent warming trend”
________________________
As has been pointed out previously, the main visual difference between the two series in this chart is a result of the fact that NOAA and HadCRUT use different anomaly base periods and David Rose has made no attempt to set them on a like-for-like scale.
The “recent warming trend” in HadCRUT4 (since 1997 – the period shown on the chart) is 0.133 ±0.101 °C/decade, while that in NOAA is 0.159 ±0.095 °C/decade. So the ‘best estimate’ difference between the two is just 0.026 °C/decade, which is more than covered by the error margins: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Also, note that the best estimate trend in each case is higher than its 95% confidence error margin, meaning that the warming since 1997 in both NOAA and HadCRUT is statistically significant. So even NOAA didn’t exist, HadCRUT4 (and all the other surface temperature data producers) would still indicate statistically significant warming since 1997.
That’s right. They’re all equally in on the conspiracy, as shown so graphically by the Climategate emails.
What is the likelihood that i) any one particular global surface temperature data producer is engaged in a conspiracy to inflate recent warming, and ii) that all 5 major global surface temperature data producers are engaged in more or less exactly the same conspiracy?
The likelyhood is 100%.
Do you not understand UN Agenda 21 and later announcements?
Nick Stokes and others here demonstrate how easily the climate believers will deal with this.
Draw the attention away from Dr. Bates whistleblowing and on to the inaccuracies in the Rose article.
Paint the article as “more fake news from well known climate denier”, and the climate faithful will never read beyond the fake news headline (repeated by MSM) and Bates will just be assumed to be part of the fake news hoax…
What exactly is Dr Bates stating that’s supposed to be so controversial? That one of the computer’s used to process the data failed?
Read the article at CE. Software bugs in land data. Review procedures not followed, Information Quality Act violated, internal objections overruled. Proof from the inside of politicized climate ‘science’.
I think you’ll find that it is not the opinions of the climate believers that matter, it is those of Myron Ebell and Lamarr Smith.
They will not acquire their information from the Daily Mail, they will acquire it directly from Dr. Bates personally.
And then they will report their findings to President Trump…
There is no helping the Climate Glow Bull Alarmist believers. And, not in the way you might read that sentence.
It’s over. Trump will shut off all funding to fake science. It’s over for them. They will retire, of find other ways to fleece, of find honest jobs. The meme is dead.
Stokes and Mosher,
Wow. So. it’s true: BLACK actually is WHITE! You guys are good…
Bombshell this isn’t.
and anything associated with David Rose is suspect.
Here’s a factcheck of the David rose piece:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
“In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.
What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.”
Misses the point that failing to follow approved methodology to rush a paper out before a Climate Conference in Paris is… Not Science.
It is advocacy pretending to be science.
You may well be correct though when you imply that this has influenced later work. The fake science will have spread as all the homogenisation techniques are calibrated against each other.
But that just shows why science should be disinterested.
Knowing the answer you want means you will get the answer you want.
Pure nonsense. What part of the fact the data was not archived did you miss? How can they validate something without the data? What they did is cherry pick other data sources and then lied that it verified the Karl paper.
Griff, you say:
Yet, it seems that K15 is incapable of being replicated based on ts data and code. What do you know that no-one else does?
BTW: I can agree with you that Rose is wrong in hoos assertion that – “World Leaders were duped….”. They weren’t, were they? They were all in on the act. They needed the scare of AGW like you need CO2 to live.
Hi Griff,
If police fail to follow proper procedure to get a necessary search warrant … what is likely to happen (hint: a criminal has a better chance of going free until UNTAINTED evidence is collected — “fruit of the poisonous tree” and all that)?
If Karl et al. fail to follow proper procedure to get their data reviewed … what should happen (hint: it should involve immediate investigation / disciplinary actions, but I haven’t seen that)?
Scientists in specialized disciplines like climate have expertise, but not are not granted some special authority to “fudge” the process, EVEN IF they have sufficient expertise. They all need to (on both sides of this issue) follow the same review procedures to minimize questions like the ones presented in the article by Rose.
And EVEN IF the article were entirely bogus (doesn’t seem to be), it presented procedural questions that “should” be answered BY the NOAA with “We are 100% confident that Karl et al. followed all required scientific policies and review processes … and we stand behind these findings as presented.”
Then, someone can challenge those findings if they can present better evidence or dare I say it, a better data model entirely. I haven’t seen that happen either, instead I’ve seen a politicized environment (pun intended) that is obscurantist at best.
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford yet, you skanky little liar?
And rest assured it is indeed a bombshell, coming as it does when President Trump has got his sights firmly lned up with NOAA.
Anything Griff says is suspect.
And this succinctly exposes David Rose as a dishonest manipulator of the data….
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists
Oh look, another squirrel. Laughable article. The claimed verification by BEST has been shown to be nothing but cherry picking. If that’s the “best” you have, you have nothing. The chart Rose used is not even relevant to the issue. The paper was pushed forward for political reasons and ignored NOAA’s own internal policies. It was also based on adjusting good data using bad data. Try to keep up.
BEST is a non-profit, NOT linked to Berkely Uni. that received half a million from “somewhere”.
Run by a RABID alarmist, Muller’s daughter.
Yeah, and Rose is such an honest and accurate reporter. That’s what’s really laughable, he’s had a number of stories proven to be full of misrepresentations. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/humiliating-mistakes-by-the-mail-on-sunday/
Yes, Muller’s daughter has outsize influence, but she has very recently realized that the exaggeration of climate fears is a problem.
There are some people whose daughter’s papers I might start reading again.
============
Exactly as I predicted earlier
Focused on Rose as climate denier, posting fake news in his article.
Meanwhile the real story is buried.
Not one mention of Dr.Bates in this or the earlier arcticle griff points to.
The climate faithfull will never even know of Bates’ whistleblowing
“The climate faithfull will never even know of Bates’ whistleblowing”
IF and when they check Drudge today (AND the opposition DOES check Drudge) they will see it today …
Griff climbs so far up his own arse that if he wanted anyone (whom?) to find him, he’d have to paint the soles of his feet white to assist in said rescue.
Impressive, a 20 year old joke.
No one holds a candle to Karl, Hansen, Jones, Schmidt, et al as data manipulators.
You really are a joke, aren’t you?
The Guardian…
Oh my aching sides!
Perhaps you’ve not noticed, but your big problem isn’t with David Rose, it’s with this gentleman: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/american-geophysical-union-elects-ncdc-scientist-board
I think you’ll find he is a different prospect altogether.
Oh, and the Daily Mail is a paragon of accurate reporting? Please – it’s a tabloid. Here’s the top story from today’s online edition: “Sealed with an ‘H’? Meghan Markle makes a bold declaration of her love for Prince Harry as she wears a ring with his initial while shopping for flowers in London”
Haha, yup, there’s some serious journalism being practiced there!
Quoting that rag exposes Griff as a wishful manipulator of data. But that rag doesn’t have any data, so no manipulation of real data can occur.
“…we should have war crimes trials for these bastards-some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Irony.
If you speak out after you retire you are no longer a whistleblower. The real and necessary courage is speaking out while on the job. It is why they have laws to protect whistleblowers. The fact that you need them, in a supposedly open democratic society, succinctly says you don’t have one.
Bates is bailing because of the regime change. If Hillary had been elected he would not be saying anything.
In a way, that makes it even better. When one rat jumps ship, the others notice.
There is no ship for the rats to jump from. Trump will expose the timbers of the supposed ship to be devoid of substance.
Unfortunately, laws have the effect of being just a formality, when you see the same potentially hostile people day in and day out who could make your life miserable in more subtle ways than the subtleties of the law could account for. Someone to enforce the law is not present every second of every day in the exact proximity of physical associations required for carrying out daily tasks of work, week after week under a sinister glare.
He spoke out internally loud and hard for a year before he contacted Represent. Smith.
Dr. Ball,
It seems Dr. Bates took his “40 years and out” option BEFORE there
was a regime change or that it was obvious there would be one after
our last Presidential election.
If he was, in fact, passing along information to Representative Smith
before the election but still on the NOAA payroll, that qualifies him as
as whistleblower. He simply dodged the sharp rocks by retiring.
Some few retired bureaucrats and University Professors seem
emboldened to speak out once they’ve retired from their secure
positions… don’t you/they?
The Daily Mail is dishonest shock!
Not quite as newsworthy as that NOAA is dishonest.
Keep your eye on the ball. The Daily Mail won’t cause major policy changes through fake news.
NOAA does.
NOAA: and the Archive of the incontinent, Where data only goes in one by one.
It has been fun to watch this play out here and over at Climate Etc. The usual suspects trying to defend the indefensible. NOAA stonewalled Rep. Smith’s subpoena. Now we know why. Emails will have Holdrens WH fingerprints on them; Karl and Holdren have been close acquaintances for many years. This was explicitly rushed out for Obama for COP21 in Paris. Going to be serious consequences when that gets shown, with the new sheriff in the WH.
Will be interesting to see what Science does, as the paper now provably violates their written requirements for publication.
He probably thinks he deleted all the relevant emails.
That type of thinking can come back to bite a leg off later.
Warmists using fake “data” to push a political position.
In other news, water is wet.
In other news, the Earth was once a glowing hot ball of magma, and has been cooling since.
It is time to close all these national weather agencies and replace them with an agency that only collects data. If private weather forecasting companies want to form they will sink or swim on the accuracy and usefulness of their forecasts based on that data. As it is now, the national weather agencies are consistently wrong but continue to get funded.
I disagree. Large scale science that benefits lots of people a very small amount is clearly something that the State should do. It prevents a market failure.
No group benefits enough to fund the science because if free loaders. So no-one does.
Being consistently wrong would put any firm out of business. That way we will never get any better as we won’t do it at all.
Tim is right. I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Turn the government agencies into collectors of data. Their only standards would be accuracy and efficiency. This would eliminate the political bias from the process. With the “science” and the “data collection” tangled up together, there is no way to validate either if (when!) someone has their thumb in the scales.
Take the same money that is now squandered doing “science” and offer it up as contracts or prizes to competing companies, with the promise of even more lucrative contracts or prizes for high quality results.
If you turned government’s roll into that of a collector and indexer of data, and then offered a $1 Billion prize for the climate model proven to be most accurate in the next 10 years, you’d have a dozen of them popping up in the private sector, and the WORST of them would still be better than the dreck produced now. The private sector would spend (collectively) considerably more than $1 billion trying to win that prize, and since their ONLY metric would be accuracy (I’m assuming proper metrics established in advance of course) you would eliminate the social justice warrior mentality from the science ranks trying to prove their assertion based on a quasi religious belief that even if they are wrong they are doing the right thing for the planet, and so it is OK to have their thumb on the scale.
The free market viciously destroys weak products. Which is precisely why climate models should be produced by the free market. Lots of companies could build accurate climate models. Few could collect the data. The government should be an enabler by collecting the data and making it available as a product for the consumption by free enterprise which will figure out how to produce accurate results, or die trying.
The armed forces at least need WX forecasters.
Our WX ships off Greenland were able to let Ike know he had a WX window on June 6, 1944, which the Germans didn’t know about.
The late, great Reid Bryson, Father of Climatology, was a WWII US Navy weatherman who twice warned ADM Halsey about coming typhoons, which advice he ignored both times, with loss of life. Bryson later famously said that you would have more affect on climate by spitting on the sidewalk than by doubling CO2.
Or at the very least, separate the data gathering agencies from all the government users. And publish their unadulterated data daily.
Yeah, because privatizing energy companies worked so well. Oops, wait a minute, Enron didn’t work out so well.
Yeah, because privatizing prisons worked out so well. Oops, that was a failure too.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-prisions-idUSKCN10T1P7
Same for turning over big chunks of our armed forces to private contractors. http://yris.yira.org/essays/707
So, communism works for you?
Oops!
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/wishful-thinking-czech-style/#comment-625
Thank you Dr. Bates!
Thank you Roy Spencer!
Shame on you, Nick, and others of your ilk!
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming => Global Warming
Semantic creep.
Furthermore, it’s a conflation of logical domains to predict system behavior outside of a limited frame of reference in both time and space, that is not only assumed but known to be incompletely characterized and unwieldy. It is inappropriate to substitute models (i.e. hypotheses) for observation and reproduction. It is inappropriate to extrapolate from limited, circumstantial data, especially that acquired in isolation (e.g. laboratory), to global proportions. It is inappropriate to replace deduction with inference (i.e. created knowledge) in the scientific method, where the latter is more correctly employed to gain insight in the philosophical domain. It is inappropriate to assume risk when there is evidence of benefit. It is inappropriate to assume a process is progressive (i.e. monotonic change) when the system is in fact chaotic (thus the need for a scientific logical domain) with large variance, and both natural and anthropogenic tempering factors.
This clown show just gets better and better.
Way, way too many indoctrinated and brain washed people that won’t believe this.
They seem to have a strange disorder that humans are somehow destroying the planter at every turn. They feel we (and themselves) must be punished for our transgressions.
Most of them have been feed this false story since they were kids by people they were told they must respect and believe.
With Trump defunding fake science, the source of some of the fake news will disappear.
The times, they are achanging.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-1880-1950-0.5C.jpg
Prior to the publication of his highly criticized 2015 paper that made the the nearly two-decade-long pause in global temperatures ‘disappear’ (by adjusting sea surface temperature data – cooling the past and warming the present), NOAA’s Karl was quoted saying (2012) that NOAA’s surface temperature trends should show the “same kind of a trend” as satellite temperatures do.
The agreement between NOAA surface instrumental data and satellite data would indicate that the temperature trend is fact, and not an assertion (his word choices).
However, with the adjustments to the data, the satellite records do not show the “same kind of a trend” as the NASA (NOAA) records do:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NASA-vs-RSS-1998-2016.jpg
kenneth_richard on February 5, 2017 at 11:57 am
However, with the adjustments to the data…
I’m afraid you are here the “adjuster in chief”. Simply because usually nobody compares global satellite data with land surface data or the inverse. Either all global or all land.
Moreover, comparing satellite with surface starting with 1998 is quite a bit flawed due to the two harsh satellite peaks in feb/apr 1998.
That effect you of course only see when you bring the anomaly baselines to a common period (here: UAH, 1981-2010):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170206/xk42e68k.png
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.431/plot/uah6/from:1999/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.091/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12/offset:-0.293/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.431/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.091/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/offset:-0.293
I understand you have an issue with starting the trend in 1998, but apparently you didn’t realize that the Karl et al. (2015) pause-busting paper in question here starts in 1998. This is the very reason why that particular year was chosen.
Furthermore, in their discussions of the “hiatus” from warming in the most recent IPCC report, the start year for the hiatus is, once again, 1998.
So why did you decide to cherry-pick the year 1999 as your starting point when no one has ever suggested the pause/hiatus started in 1999?
And I fail to see what is the problem with comparing the GIStemp to the RSS plot other than you don’t like how it is evident that the GIStemp adds an additional 0.2+ C of warming relative to the RSS non-trend for 1998-2016:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2016/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1998/to:2016
kenneth_richard on February 5, 2017 at 10:43 pm
My apologies for answering so late to your reply.
I never would speak about pauses in time series ranges starting with a huge value, as this automatically lowers trends. But I agree: you wanted to put your comment in relation with Karl’s video. That’s OK.
I have reread http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full
and everything in it is OK for me. I have no problem with that paper, as it shows that two different institutions (NOAA, HadCRUT) got similar results concerning two points:
– the discrepancy between buoys and ships
– the understimate warming in the Arctic.
So it’s evident that our meanings differ. That’s life…
All in all: my opinion is that the best base for a sound discussion is to show trends in time series where ENSO and volcano signals have been extracted.
See e.g. Santer et al. 2014, who computed for RSS3.3 TLT a residual warming of 0.085 °C / dec in 1979-2016): https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
P.S. A little hint on your use of GISTEMP land in the trend line: land data shows always higher trends than land+ocean, as ocean is cooler.
RSS 3.3 TLT land has a trend of 0.178 °C / dec opposed to 0.135 for RSS Globe in 1979-2016
UAH6.6 TLT land has 0.167 °C / dec opposed to 0.124 for UAH Globe
The same holds for GISTEMP land having 0.203 °C / dec opposed to 0.174 for LOTI.
kenneth_richard
Entering a “To (time)” date of 2016 in the WoodforTrees database means you only get data up to December 2015. So your chart does not include the very high temperatures seen in RSS in 2016, nor does it show that the trend in RSS TLT 3.3 since 2008 (to Jan 2017) is now upward (+0.01 C/dec), out of the picture: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Also, RSS advise that their TLT3.3 data set contains a known cooling bias which has yet to be corrected for; so even aside from the fact that GISS and RSS measure 2 different things, any comparison using RSS TLT 3.3 is inappropriate.
“Entering a “To (time)” date of 2016 in the WoodforTrees database means you only get data up to December 2015.”
Correct. And the Karl et al. (2015) paper, which, again, is the subject of this article, only includes data from 1998 through 2015 too, which is precisely why I chose to extend it to December 2015 only (2016). The NOAA data adds 0.2+ C of unaccounted-for warming to the 1998-2016 pause that exists in the satellite record. For some reason, you are wanting to choose different years (1999?) than what are used in the Karl paper. Why not use the same years Karl and co-authors did and compare the satellites to NOAA for those years? Do you just not like what you see?
“any comparison using RSS TLT 3.3 is inappropriate”
So then why does Karl himself say in 2012 (the youtube video above) that the means by which the NOAA data are affirmed as “fact” vs. “assertion” is by seeing if the NOAA and satellite data show “the same kind of trend”? (They don’t. NOAA has added more than 0.2 C to the 1998-2016 trend.) If satellites are so “inappropriate” to compare the NOAA data, wouldn’t Karl be distancing himself from them rather than affirming them?
Why?
In the Great Big Picture, how did this whole charade come about?
Would it be fair to suggest Karl and his cohorts are members of a generation that have, since early childhood, effectively been spoilt? They’ve been repeatedly told how clever they are, how beautiful, lovely and attractive they are and they’ve gone through school & college system that reinforced that. Eventually they got into ‘Public Service’, again an atmosphere of total and political correctness and where if they do do anything wrong, The System will look after them.
Then roll on to them telling their own children that sort of junk and a media, especially movies, full of superhereoes, from Superman himself, thro Star Trek, Indiana Jones, John Wayne etc etc.
But see how almost all the modern heroes, in order to stop the runaway train, defuse the atomic device or generally save The World – they all tend to do something a little bit ‘against the rules’
They shoot when told not to, they go when told to stop, they cut the red wire instead of the blue one and invariably this little bit of well intentioned disobedience is what saves the day/world/children/city/whatever.
And is this not exactly what Karl has done? Broke the rules in a well intentioned plan to ‘Save The World’
Especially just before his retirement and an important (aren’t they all?) COP in Paris.
His way of going out in a blaze of glory, of leaving a legacy.
And all his upbringing, can’t do wrong, so clever, so intelligent, egged on subconsciously by the media and on top of that, half his brain effectively switched off by a poor diet. The same poor diet most people are now on.
Karl is not the first, will not be the last and one day, one of these brain-washed and brain-dead folks is really gonna blow it. Just look at 0bama for a start.
Global Warming Climate Change is symptomatic of a much greater malaise.
Can’t remember the last time I saw a movie where the well-intentioned heroes fudge the rules, cause a total disaster, and catch hell for it. And I don’t mean just a stern lecture from a stuffy authority figure, or a temporary punishment that’s always rescinded after they turn out to be right. I mean real, lasting consequences that personally affect them, where even if they were right, their indulgence in going a little rogue has come back to bite them, hard.
But that kind of story wouldn’t sell many tickets at the box office nowadays.
AGU President Eric Davidson defends: CLIMATE SCIENCE & DATA MANAGEMENT
Excellent. Means this is causing real warmunist damage, even on Super Sunday. AGU’s problem (and maybe Davidson does not know this) is that the rest of the consensus is as rotten to the core. Falsified models. No accelerating SLR. Multiple provable cases of academic misconduct in Science and the Nature stable of papers. Polar bears. On, and on. Never bring a rubber knife to a gunfight. And now we got a real gunfight with ‘bullets’ flying.
What is it, exactly, with scientists who publish claimed results and then allow the supporting data to be disappeared? This has been an ongoing problem. Do we need a national repository for data to be deposited BEFORE a paper may be published which is based on that data?
Those are both the government and Science rules. Honored in the breach. I suspect that will have real consequences.
No doubt the “Old Girls CEO Clubs” in D.C. including AGU, AMS and AAAS will pool their membership money to hire a killer to murder Dr. Bates.
I have a question for Bindidon
With your graph of the three data sets excluding the temporary rise due to the last el nino, it appears clear there is a pause starting around 2000-2001. Can you comment on this please
Bindidon is not aware that Hadcrut also adjusted it’s data to fit with the Karlization of temperatures. When I coined the term ‘Karlization’ shortly after the felony in June 2015, here on WUWT it caught on for a while, but in this giant expose it appears to have died out. My ‘gang green’ didn’t become a keeper either. No more poetry for me!
RobW on February 5, 2017 at 12:38 pm
Sorry RobW for the late answer. The comment couldn’t be more simple: it is a pause, not more, not less.
My only problem is: why does everybody look at this pause but ignores all others since the very beginning of temperature measurements?
Gary Pearse on February 5, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Bindidon is not aware that Hadcrut also adjusted it’s data to fit with the Karlization of temperatures.
The problem with people like Gary Pearse is that they all pretend things instead of writing valuable arguments and showing verifiable data.
With tihs comment, Gary Pearse, you confirm that you know neither about HadCRUT nor even about what is really behind “Karlisation”.
I have no problem with that.
“Bindidon”, who are you… really?
Anthony Watts on February 8, 2017 at 11:19 am
Hello Anthony, I’ve seen there is a contact corner.
I’ll write you about that on that channel when I get some time to do.
All it will take is for the POTUS to ask the FBI to go borrow all NOAA computers and servers. No warrant is needed to take computers that are already property of the government.
Whistle blower is full of it
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?spref=tw