Null



Sign in to follow this  
AFTiger

Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

Recommended Posts

If the data does not give the result you want, change your data!

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

Posted By Michael Bastasch

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NEXT PAGE: ‘Adjusting Good Data Upwards To Match Bad Data Seems Questionable’

NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”

Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming.

It “would seem more logical to seriously question the [NOAA] result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records,” the three scientists wrote.

“Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.

“It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

http://dailycaller.c...warming-hiatus/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




The bigger the Lie, the more people will believe it........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the linked article:

...Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.” “Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.” ...

And Curry nails it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

denial_scr.jpg?w=980&h=1206

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing the cartoon.

Just don't expect him to read the actual paper in question and point out the fallacies - much less define the term hiatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:/>

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

It's more like 17 -18 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:/>

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

It's more like 17 -18 years.

Well, you are a denier. Tell me exactly.

Let me guess, it started in 1998, right? :-\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct I am not a cult member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:/>

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

It's more like 17 -18 years.

Well, you are a denier. Tell me exactly.

Let me guess, it started in 1998, right? :-\

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

When I read this part of the article, it appears to say there was a warming trend but the new data doubled that. To me the hiatus part is the man made global warming trend all the chicken littles of the world squak about.

Do you agree with Dr. Curry that the data should not have been changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

Edited by AUcivE09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never a 15 year hiatus to begin with. :dunno:/>

And this is obviously a biased article. The first sentence gives that away. It's written by deniers for deniers.

It's more like 17 -18 years.

Well, you are a denier. Tell me exactly.

Let me guess, it started in 1998, right? :-\

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

When I read this part of the article, it appears to say there was a warming trend but the new data doubled that. To me the hiatus part is the man made global warming trend all the chicken littles of the world squak about.

Do you agree with Dr. Curry that the data should not have been changed?

No I don't.

If they have research-based data that indicates a given method provides a consistent bias I see no problem with making such adjustments. It all depends if everything is properly documented and supported with data.

Not sure I understand your argument regarding the relative nature of the "hiatus" (which never existed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves the subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

If you talked to them like you do on this forum, you only thought you had them for breakfast. I suspect they walked away thinking that you were a complete jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

I'd say "unbelievable" if I hadn't seen this tactic before. When confronted with actual knowledge, it is ever the way of the Faithful Follower to attempt to shift attention away from any reality that doesn't agree with his preconcieved notions.

Me, I'll take the word of the guy that does this for a living over the notions of a Believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

I'd say "unbelievable" if I hadn't seen this tactic before. When confronted with actual knowledge, it is ever the way of the Faithful Follower to attempt to shift attention away from any reality that doesn't agree with his preconcieved notions.

Me, I'll take the word of the guy that does this for a living over the notions of a Believer.

A. An engineer is not a scientist

B. Regarding "actual knowledge," it doesn't occur to you that Homer might have some regarding science.

C. A CivEng Is not a climatologist, and doesn't "do this for a living." He's commenting on an area outside his area of expertise.

I don't know what it is with engineers. There's a reason the Salem hypothesis is a thing. :rolleyes:

Edited by Bigbens42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "B" some people have "actual knowledge" that is old and outdated and due to thier biases refuse to` budge from their positions. i will take Curry, et., al., over these types any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "B" some people have "actual knowledge" that is old and outdated and due to thier biases refuse to` budge from their positions. i will take Curry, et., al., over these types any day.

Homer's position aligns with the vast, vast majority in the field that have "actual knowledge." Yours matches up with 4 that I can name off hand. Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and Curry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right ones.

A relatively tiny minority.

If you were to survey all of the oncologists, I'm sure you could find a small minority that rejects the link between smoking and lung cancer. Good to know you'd side with them rather than the consensus opinion. ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is quite often wrong. A consensus elected Obama.

Edited by Proud Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is quite often wrong. A consensus elected Obama.

riiight :rolleyes:

We shouldn't listen to the majority of the oncologists and quit smoking because they might be wrong about the link between smoking and cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

If you talked to them like you do on this forum, you only thought you had them for breakfast. I suspect they walked away thinking that you were a complete jerk.

No doubt that some of them did. But I am sure that's partly due to me being correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this