UPDATED: Ross McKitrick’s PDF file has some minor changes.
The Pause has been unfound, not with new data, but with new adjustments in one odd dataset.
The awkward “Pause” in global temperatures shows up in every major dataset. It’s the reality that conflicts with nearly every major climate model. But it’s there in the Hadley records of land surface and ocean, it shows up in the Hadley sea surface measurements, it’s there in NCDC, GISS, and of course in the satellite data of RSS, and UAH, and it shows up in the best data we have on the ocean, the ARGO buoys. It’s quite the challenge to unfind it!
(Thanks to Ross McKitrick for the individual graphs)
To find global warming in the last 15 years, we need to ignore all that and use sea surface data blended from boats randomly trekking through shipping lanes with buckets and from ocean buoys (and that’s not ARGO buoys). But even that isn’t enough, that original data needs to be adjusted, and where sea ice gets in the way, gap-filled from sparse land data (as you would right?). Then we need to accept a lower-than-usual significance test, and carefully cherry pick the time periods to blend the past rapid warming with past cooling, so we can say we’ve found the holy grail, a quasi significant slight “warming trend” in data adjusted with a wildly uncertain correction estimate. And Professor Matthew England likes this kind of science.
Ross McKitrick points out that to get the new NOAA sea surface data they added 0.12 °C to the buoy readings, to make them more like the ship data. That magic number came from Kennedy et al. (2011) where the uncertainty was reported as (wait for it) 0.12 ± 1.7°C. (Which is like saying there is definitely one apple here, give or take 17 apples. So this is what 95% certainty looks like?). Worse, that uber-extremely-uncertain-number was supposed to be used to adjust the ship data down so it was closer to the buoys. The authors felt the buoys were more accurate than bucket-from-ships. Even Karl et al paradoxically agree (have cake, eat cake), saying that because the buoy data is better, it should be weighted higher. In this fashion, the best data can get adjusted the most, to make it more like the bad data, then it can count for more. This is Double-Good-Science! Thanks to Ross McKitricks comments on Karl et al 2015 for details (1K PDF).
Here’s how this dubious chain of uncertainty and assumptions plays out in the media:
Professor Matthew England, Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at UNSW, said the findings were no surprise.
“There’s nothing all that new in this paper and nothing that surprises me,” Professor England said.
“The bottom line is that multiple data sets and multiple lines of evidence have shown that global warming hasn’t stalled at all’”
Who is the denier then? The person who recognises the obvious results in all the major data sets, or the person who is “not surprised” when a contrived adjusted concoction of not-good data produces a result he expected? (Well really, who at this late stage is really surprised by the recent try-on?)
This is so desperate even other fans of the global warming theory are not buying it. They have some standards. They know the global temperature pause is real:
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre said…
“The slowdown hasn’t gone away, however,” and “The results of this study still show the warming trend over the past 15 years has been slower than previous 15 year periods.”
Prof Tim Osborn, Professor of Climate Science at the University of East Anglia, said he would caution against dismissing the slowdown in surface warming on the basis of this study, nor to downplay the role of natural decadal variability for short-term trends in climate.
“There are other datasets that still support a slowdown over some recent period of time, and there are intriguing geographical patterns such as cooling in large parts of the Pacific Ocean that were used to support explanations for the warming slowdown,” Professor Osborn said… (h.t to Waxing Gibberish).
[Reuters] “Some other experts said however the idea of a hiatus was still valid, since warming had probably slowed this century if compared to fast rates in the 1980s and 1990s.
“It is curious that a comparison with these decades was not included in this new study,” said Richard Allan, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading. (h/t Barry Woods)
In the endless quest to make reality fit the models, the adjustments to data have become their own parody. What is “evidence” anymore? Evidence schmevidence.
Seven steps to unfind the Pause?
Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Judith Curry, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul C. Knappenberger, and the GWPF and Fred Singer have already taken it apart.
@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all? – WUWT
Reports Of The Death Of The Global Warming Pause Are Greatly Exaggerated – GWPF
- Use a weak test: p < 0.1, not the usual significance. Bit desperate.
- Use assumptions and apply large adjustments to sea surface data. Don’t use the best dataset for sea-surface temps (ARGO). Ignore the satellites.
- Create Arctic sea surface temperatures by extending data from land measurements. The ocean there is covered in ice. There aren’t many land measurements to go from. What could possibly go wrong?
- Don’t mention the eighties or nineties. The fastest recent global warming occurred in the 1980’s and1990’s. Obviously the 2000’s are red-light bad news for the alarm-us camp, because that was when CO2 emissions increased dramatically but the warming slowed. The worst possible thing is to compare those decadal trends to the previous ones.
- Cherry pick the time frames! Karl et al carefully choose a long trend — all the way back to the 1950s — in order to find a weak long term warming trend that the recent decade can outdo. Back in the 50s and 60s, the world was cooling, so wrapping in and averaging the long cooling and then warming cycle, they can come up with a small warming trend number.
- To find warming in the sea surface during the pause, it helps to adjust the late 90’s sea surface temps down and the recent measurements up, thus increasing the trend in the last 15 years, but not affecting the trend across the whole period. Check.
- Ignore contradictions like: why can’t we find a hot spot? If the surface warmed more than we thought, the upper troposphere should have warmed even faster. This means the missing hot spot is more missing than before.
Anthony Watts and Bob Tisdale have some eye watering graphs on temperature adjustments. Get a load of this:
Adjustments to sea surface data cool the late 1990s, and warm the last ten years. | Thanks to Anthony Watts and Bob Tisdale.
This is a fairly standard form of adjustment — cool the past, warm the present. Smooth the bumps.
From Anthony Watts we can see how USA thermometers were all biased to warm until WWII, then biased too cold. (Luckily someone at NOAA knew what the thermometers of 1915 should have read, and “fixed” them decades later. Scientists were pretty stupid in the early 20th Century, eh? Silly old Einstein.)
Figure 4 Maturity diagram showing net change since 17 May 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature record prepared by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA. The net result of the adjustments made are becoming substantial, and adjustments since May 2006 occasionally exceeds 0.1oC. Before 1945 global temperatures are generally changed toward lower values, and toward higher values after 1945, resulting in a more pronounced 20th century warming (about 0.15oC) compared to the NCDC temperature record published in May 2008. Arrows indicate two months where the adjustments over time are illustrated in the figure below. Last diagram update: 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum
The desperate lengths of the Team to find some recent warming says a lot about how important the pause is.
If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.
(h.t Hockeyschtick. I’m shamelessly copying their motto.)
REFERENCE
T.R. Karl; A. Arguez; B. Huang; J.H. Lawrimore; M.J. Menne; T.C. Peterson; R.S. Vose; H.-M. Zhang (2015) “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” by at National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC; J.R. McMahon at LMI in McLean, VA.
The numbers are so tiny! How can anyone draw graphs variations of 0.01C in 1890? What sort of thermometers did they have?
Quite apart from resolution problems in all this data including the buckets, the original man made Global Warming proposition was so simple, +0.5C in 10 years so +5C in 100 years. No debate, no exceptions. The Science was in. Rapid, runaway global warming (caused entirely by CO2). In the last twenty years the world temperature was supposed to be up 1.0C, not lost in error bars. Not this search for a ghost in the machinery.
Besides, if all these hindsight explanations about decadal oscillations, natural variation and oceanic effects are so important now, doesn’t that destroy the entire validity of the models in the first place? Who know what else is missing?
The fact is nothing has changed. Most of the original proponents of the +5C warming are heading for retirement with the track record of being famously wrong but perhaps much richer for it.
713
Wood, leather, iron, or plastic buckets …. they don’t even know when they where used, in which mix they were used. It’s a long stretch from measuring the water temperature along shipping lanes to measuring the sea surface temperature, given the large intercontinental currents one cannot even be sure the sea water is well mixed.
481
Ben, how well is well mixed? I would expect to find variations of a whole degree or more in surprisingly short distances. just as in the air.
81
I note.in #9 a quote from “jinghis” citing a frequent variation of 5 degrees in the top metre of the ocean surface. Without instruments I have observed that in a small river in summer there is a big drop in the water temperature in the metre below the surface. But it surprises me that this should be also the case in the oceans, which I expected to be more turbulent.
Which calls into question the whole oceanic temperature record. The metadata or lack of it become critically important.
20
So GISS and BEST must be wrong? Silly scientists, those. Tell that Steven Mosher …
292
“Science” like this is a few rungs below Phrenology, but it doesn’t matter. The MSM are already running with it’s press release.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/
Pointman
362
“it’s” – Doh!
P
111
Indeed Pointman. Phrenology has considerably more going for it. The interpretation may have been flawed, but the observations were real enough.
Climate “science” is mere ‘adjustment’ Observations are ‘created’ to fulfill the interpretation. It is perfect a status inversus to usual science.
82
Utterly bizarre to use data gathered bu the LEAST accurate methods such as ‘canvas buckets’, ‘wooden buckets’ ‘insulated buckets’ and engine room cooling water intakes (well inside relatively hot engine rooms) and likely to be rounded up because it was being gathered to record cooling water temperature (conservatively?) not the global ‘temperature’.
To the start “adjusting” such comparatively junk data where you are chasing 0.1˚C accuracy at least is utterly reckless at best and incompetent most likely. At worst it is [snip, might be true, let the judges decide], IMO.
In short this ‘paper'(peer reviewed !! LOL) is A JOKE, a sick cynical and utterly desperate joke.
333
Why can’t we charge these people with some kind of offense?
Their methods and their claims are certainly offensive to me.
263
=> Because they will always have do-gooder, pro-bono, Global-warming, activist-lawyers protecting them. Appeals will take months. Don’t waste time and money on lawyers! Remember, these folks are backed by some very wealthy/powerful organisations and individuals who are invested in Global Warming. The legal avenue will allow them to drag things out…As they can afford to!
If you wish to punish a dishonest scientist or engineer:
* Focus on their reputation for dishonest and [snip, say “incompetent”, “misrepresent”, “misinform” ] behaviour. Keep bringing their name. (The public needs to be aware.)
* Get their academic credentials stripped. (Scammers depend on these to get the blind trust from the public!)
* Inform their financial sponsors of the behaviour.
* Put them into a position where they have no choice but to admit fault for what they’ve done to the public. (Corner them to the point where they have no avenue but to be honest with the public).
And when anyone questions us on our motives? The answer is simple. We want truth, honest, integrity in our science. When one politicises science, it no longer becomes an avenue of discovery or exploration. It becomes a propaganda tool for activists. We want activists out of our science!
123
Just keep up the good work, it seems to be telling on the desperados. But a bit of ad hominem would surely be appropriate for this one.
11
The more I read of this the more it seems to me that enough has been said about the science here. Time to study the records of the people who produced this work.
10
These people are the best scientists that money can buy.
10
It’s not Science.
It’s not even Cargo Cult Science.
It’s a very grim fairy story but definitely not to be confused with a Brothers Grimm Fairy Tale.
Are you all sitting comfty-bye on your botty? Good, then let us begid. Once upon a time, on a blue and white planet called Earth … yes dear, that’s us … a teensy tiny rise in all the warmth around was seen as a Little Blip in a little thermometer … yes dear, just like the one Mummy takes your temperature with … The Little Blip was spotted by some clever men who called themselves Klimate Sy-en-tists. … no dear, that’s what they called themselves. I didn’t call them that …why? Because they didn’t behave at all like good scientists behave … how? They kept molesting the data. No, we won’t go there and yes, it was naughty, very very naughty. A lot of people saw them do it but nobody who could punish them for such bad behaviour. … anyway. they worked and worshipped in the Church of Klimatology. …. no, dear, Klimatology, not Scientology, although it was such nonsense they spoke it could have been either or both and no one would have noticed …
(with apologies to the Small Faces, Lewis Carroll and a few others whose names I can’t remember …)
I used to think scientists were above this sort of chicanery. Poor naive me.
“Integrity? Ethics? We’ve heard of them.”
662
Very well done – have a green tick.
222
I can tell you exactly where the thermometer was placed to produce the results of this stinker….
231
Well, it just so happens that Mrs Whakaaro was clearing out the fridge. Who would have thought that there was food hidden in there, behind all the beer? … But I digress.
As I was saying, she was clearing out all this food, and came across my grandaddy’s old thermometer, underneath some very dubious looking cheese. I’d thought the cuzzies had borrowed it (the thermometer, not the cheese), so you can imagine how pleased I was to get it back. Anyway, I wiped all the green stuff off, and hung it back on the wall, in pride of place over the coal range.
Well bite me with a huntaway, you could actually see that global warming stuff pushing up the temperature. Strewth, I thought. This stuff is really serious. Better put a few dozen more beers in the fridge, before her in the kitchen puts any more green cheese in there …
310
A question Rereke, why was the thermometer kept in the fridge, was it a forgotten ‘fridge dial calibration’ procedure?
It appears the thermometer not being used consciously morphed into a type of cheese catcher, was the cheese Blue Vein by any chance?
30
No idea mate. Perhaps her-in-the-kitchen was a bit hot, and put it in there to cool the temperature down a bit. It does get a bit hot in the kitchen, when she is knocking up some scones for her mates. As for the cheese, does “Blue Vein” have hard brown bits?
60
Blue vein with hard brown bits? Sounds like some of our older supplies!
00
Whoops, gotta go. The bloody sow has gotten in the sheep dip again …
30
Very bucolic.
20
Images of Wal Footrot cleaning out a fridge full of beer, with Cooch’s cousin Kathy making scones are filling my mind. Im seeing it from the Dog’s point of view.
70
Rereke.
Been there!
Done that or something similar too many times!
Got the dirty T shirt to prove it!
And you gave me a good laugh as well.
Hope both you and the sow got outa that one OK as there can be some pretty bad consequences for all concerned if it all goes very wrong.
20
Turn her into salami! That was somebody’s suggestion for the DD’s sow which is still cluttering up the home area! 🙂
00
The young bull calf got out under the hot wire too…
00
I got charged by our bull a couple of weeks back.
Her-in-the-kitchen stepped between us, raised her rolling pin, and yelled, “Stop”, and the bull stopped.
I didn’t, at least not until I had gotten to the pub. I wasn’t sure which one of us was the target for the rolling pin.
70
This is a great story, wonder if Graham Lloyd has seen it?
102
@el gordo:
Yes he’s seen it, but is was a bit early, so the writeup was cautious. The actual paper was supposed to be embargoed until 2pm US EDT (4am Saturday AEST), but enough people had the details already. 370 comments on Lloyd’s article so far.
After the ludicrous ship buckets adjustments and the arctic smearing one wonders what daft claim will be resurrected next. As a number of people have observed, this is the dead parrot sketch.
242
Thanx Martin, the story has legs and won’t disappear quickly. As Jo said, ‘the adjustments to data have become their own parody.’
Luv it.
52
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released…
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz3cBqv8XxX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
252
Conclusion to the article linked above by Russ Browne:-
“So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed …..”
To me, this sounds like back-pedaling, whilst the Karl et al “exotic adventures” adjusting data look like desperation.
Slowly but surely the Great Global Warming/Climate Change Catastrophe seems to be unravelling.
153
But not any time soon, as there’s too much money to be made out of it yet, and people will do anything and everything they can to protect their sources of money.
It will take something really catastrophic for it to go away, and we all know what that will be, don’t we?
And even then, it will persist.
In a way, I have this hunch that there might be a Sepp Blatter moment sometime in the near future, and in a similar fashion to what is happening there ….. you know ….. if I go down, I’m taking others with me sort of thing.
In the interim, we just have to keep chipping away at the tiny ice cube on top of the humungous iceberg.
Tony.
202
How can this be so, when according to Murry Salby, increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising at a steady, linear rate of 2ppm p.a., while anthropomorphic levels have been increasing at an exponential rate, at least in the last couple of decades?
61
Judith Curry should sue dailymail.co.uk and Photoshop over that photo!
21
An extract in line with Jo’s comments from Ross McKitricks PDF ;
A First Look at “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015
[quoted;]
The Three Main ERSSTv4 Adjustments
The measurement problems mentioned above all well-known. A great deal of work has been done in recent decades both to try and recover some of the metadata for in situ temperature readings, and also to estimate corrections in order to overcome biases that affect the raw data.
K15 have made some relatively minor changes to the bias correction methods, and the result is a large increase in the post-1998 trend.
A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships.
As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.
B. They also gave buoy data extra weight in the computations.
C. They also made adjustments to post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular a large cooling adjustment applied to readings over 1998-2000.
Taken together these changes largely explain the enhanced trend over the past 15 years.
So now everybody needs to decide if they think these adjustments are valid.
&
SST data have historically been collected using different methods
Wooden buckets were thrown over the side, filled with seawater and hauled on deck, then a
thermometer was placed in the water;
Same, using canvas buckets;
Same, using insulated buckets;
Automated temperature readings of Engine Room Intake (ERI) water drawn in to cool the ship engines;
Ship hull temperature sensors;
Drifting and moored buoys.
In addition, there are archives of Marine Air Temperature (MAT) taken by ships that have meteorological equipment on deck.
Here are some of the problems that scientists have to grapple with to construct consistent temperature records from these collections:
Ships mainly travel in shipping lanes, and vast areas of the oceans (especially in the Southern Hemisphere) have never been monitored;
Sailors are not inclined to take bucket readings during storms or perilous conditions;
Readings were not necessarily taken at the same time each day;
During the process of hauling the water up to the deck the temperature of the sample may change;
The change will be different depending on how tall the ship is, whether the bucket is wood or canvas, whether it is insulated, and how quickly the reading is taken;
The ERI intake may be just below the surface in a small ship or as much as 15 m below the surface in a large ship;
Similarly the hull sensors may be at widely-varying depths and may be subject to temperature effects over time as the engines heat up the hull;
MAT readings are taken at the height of the deck, and modern ships are much taller than older ones, so the instruments are not at the same height above sea level;
Buoys tend to provide readings closer to the water surface than ERI data;
There were not many surface buoys in the world’s oceans prior to the 1970s, but there are many more now being averaged in to the mix.
Now add to these challenges that when data is placed in the archive, in about half the cases people did not record which method was used to take the sample (Hirahari et al. 2014). In some cases they noted that, for example, ERI readings were obtained but they not indicate the depth.
Or they might not record the height of the ship when the MAT reading is taken.
And so forth.
[/]
————-
So they adjusted the buoy data by an upward warming adjustment of 0.12C with an uncertainty of 1.7C, a range of 3.4 C for an adjustment of 0.12 C to match the ship data and then because the buoy data was regarded as more reliable than the ship data, Karl et al and etc gave a greater weighting to the buoy data in their computations.
The mind boggles; If the buoy data was more reliable then why adjust it particularly to the more unreliable ship data as acknowledged by Karl et al ?!
I’m not sure anybody could make this stuff up but Tom Karl and etc sure found a way to do that.
Which means that with Karl’s elimination of the “Pause’, the 60 odd papers trying to explain the pause are rubbish as are Trenberth’s claims that the “missing heat” that should have continued the increased global warming has disappeared instead into the deep ocean while being undetected as it made its way down past the couple of thousand metres depth that the ARGO floats descend to, is also rubbish.
It also means that the plethora of weather and climate sensing satellites which show NO warming for the entire period of satellite monitoring of the global climate have all been a total waste of tax payers money and are of no benefit whatsoever to any potential climate data users.
As for the accuracy of ship’s SST data that the Karl et al adjustement relies on, I can’t possibly include all the anecdotal comments from the old seamen on WUWT who posted on WUWT and a couple of other blogs but a couple of comments which give an indication of the absolute accuracy [ sarc ] of those measurements.
___________
Oldseadog June 4, 2015 at 12:19 pm
Not sure about the part on engine intake data being contaminated by the structure. I served on two weather reporting vessels in the early 1960s and the depth of the intake varied from 16 to 32 feet depending on whether we were in ballast or loaded. At that depth the sea water cooling water intake temperature thermometer was right at the intake valve and I would have thought that there was no way that any heat from the engine room could be transmitted to the water before the temperature was taken.
More to the point, the thermometer was crude and uncalibrated and I would have thought that if it was accurate to +- 2 degrees it was doing well. Also the temperature was taken from well below the surface.
No question that the data was crude to say the least.
Oldseadog June 5, 2015 at 1:22 am
D J:
Marked glass tube with liquid inside, with the bulb in the water.
———–
Ivor Ward June 4, 2015 at 2:08 pm
As one of the many people who actually took these readings of seawater temperature I can quietly and confidently say that K15 is a complete and utter load of unadulterated crap.
————–
jinghis June 4, 2015 at 3:38 pm
I have been recording ‘SURFACE’ sea temps for a while now and can unequivocally state that the skin is always the same or cooler than the water just below the surface and that the water temperature changes rapidly within centimeters of the surface depending on the time of day (sunlight) and wind conditions.
Deeper water as in ship inlet temperature can be much colder than surface temperature.
But the big thing is that water temps tend to stratify and bands of water at different temps tend to persist, unless broken up by wind, waves and current.
I can almost always get an accurate range of temperature readings of more than 5˚C in the top meter of the ocean surface, often much more. Merely depending on the depth of the temperature reading.
There desperately needs to be a definition of what exactly the ‘Surface’ is.
———-
Much more could be said and no doubt will be said about Karl et al.
But it will get a big run by the climate religion fanatics but one hell of a lot of warmists climate scientists aren’t going to be happy to see some years of work explaining global warming or the lack of plus numerous other aspects of climate science research turned to horse shite by a very dodgy climate science politically “Just in Time” paper from one of Obama’s tame climate eunuchs made on demand for Obama to have something climate catastrophe scienence sounding to lean on at Paris.
Karl et al is DOA but it will take a while to get around to burying it.
323
Some of K15’s conclusions rely on the Arctic temperature data used by K15.
However Richard Lindzen Proffesor emeritus points out that K15 created Arctic data when no such data exists ie Karl et al “invented” Arctic data that he used for his computations.
This contention is supported by Judith Curry in her comments on her blog.
JC’s speciality in climate matters seems to be concentrated on the Arctic climate analysis.
But there is another aspect to this entire climate research debacle that has been bugging me for some time and is particularly noticeable in the case of ships SST measurements which play a major role in the K15 paper.
There are a number of anecdotes from seamen on a number of blogs who actually and regularly took those shipping SST temperatures and recorded them which are scathing about the levels of accuracy imputed to those ship’s SST data by climate scientists.
Now from where I sit and having some association with scientists, agricultural in my case, the skilled craftsman, the skilled tradesman, the proffessional sea man and etc are just as smart, just as qualified in their fields and moreover totally practical in that they had to make things work or they or somebody else suffered the potentially serious consequences, as any so called climate scientist and more so than most scientists of most scientific disciplines.
Yet the entire scientific proffession at every level almost invariably shows a total arrogant derisory contempt for the views, opinions and skills and knowledge of anybody who in their view is not academically qualified or is not of the ivory tower dwelling clique.
The classic case of this derisory contempt for the lower classes by the academically qualified is seen right here in the K15 example where the numerous debates are all concentrated on the minutiae of the ships measuring of SSTs and the impact of the sources of those measurements whether they are wooden buckets, canvas buckets, insulated buckets or Engine intake water readings and where they were taken from on the ship and etc.
Yet nowhere, not once have any of the supposed climate experts and scientists from both sides of the divide in their total arrogance and hubris and casual dismissal of anybody not of their academic qualifications have ANYWHERE acknowledged in the slightest way the actual real life experiences and straight out dismissal of ship measured SST’s by the highly skilled sea men who actually took those purported measurements and recorded them and so are fully conversant
with the actual and truly lousy and bad quality by scientific standards of that ship measured SST data.
Yet the hubris laden ivory tower academics continue on their merry way acting as if they believe the accuracy of that data was measured to a tenth of a degree or so and continue arguing over those tenth of degrees accuracy which they then feed into their climate modelling programs.
To give a further example [ below ] from a highly skilled ship surveyor, the guy who probably is much better qualified than most climate scientists and has to put his name to the forms that say a ship is safe to operate and it’s systems are all correct and safe to use.
And unlike any climate scientist who continues to use the very bad corrupted data as acknowledged by the seamen, he, the surveyor bears the full consequence and responsibility for anything going seriously wrong with the ship he has cleared and had to put his name to down to do so.
——————–
From the “Climate Etc” blog comments;
Anders Valland | June 5, 2015 at 3:48 am |
A ship usually has two sea chests, as the intakes are called, one on the vessel side to be used in shallow waters and one on the bottom, or well below the lowest load line (Plimsoll mark). The reason is to avoid ingestion of sediments when in shallow waters. It is not uncommon for the crew to forget to switch from one to the other. In open water this means sucking air into the system, and thus temperature increases.
The temperature measurement is normally made in a position well away from engine heat, as the temperature is used for engine control purposes. Although this requires accurate measurements, it does not mean “accurate” as in tenths of degrees.
And ship instrumentation is wanting in the area of calibration, to put it mildly.
I have been a classification society surveyor, specialising in machinery.
The idea that automated temperature readings of inlet temps are anywhere near as accurate as required for the purpose of climatology is laughable.
———
Does the opinion and actual experiences of a highly qualified ship surveyor such as Anders Valland on ship instrumentation accuracy as above ever get even the slightest acknowledgment from climate scientists from every side of the argument.
NO way!
After all he is only a mere ship’s surveyor and not a climate scientist.
He is merely the guy who is qualified enough to give the Ok that says that a ship is safe to sail the world’s oceans.
Frankly I have about reached the stage where I am starting to regard the whole of the climate science proffession as about as arrogant and hubris laden and almost totally corrupted intellectually as the worst sector of the any of the rest of society.
——–
THanks ROM! Very helpful – Jo
353
Excellent! Arrogant and devoid of wisdom in my view.The pompous views from academe has gone well past its used by date;they have bred like fleas on a stray dog and that dog is our polity. Just ask a group of them what the word sinecure means – as I did recently and you would be amused by the response.I am sorry,I am plain contemptuous towards the majority of them.
103
There’s still the issue of significant figures. If you see a “measurement” or a change in aggregate data that is two or three decimal places, keep in mind that the original data (in most cases) was only read or recorded to one decimal place.
212
Two things JoNova:
1. The decadal trends for both time periods are now lower
so the discrepancy with GCMs is greater with Karl’s work.
2. Just saw this from Clive Best suggesting that ~ 0.2 degrees
of cooling the past is due to the 500 biggest cities so that
this ~ 0.2 C is UHI since 1850 (about 1/4 of total from adjusted
data and 1/2 of unadjusted although since this shows up in the
adjusted it is safer to use the 25% figure) http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6678
42
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,”
Possibles..possibles? Don’t give me no damn possibles when I know the science is settled you low down lying denier!
92
Another spot of climate revisionism. Isn’t it amazing what has happened to all that previously-settled science, eh?
202
Tiny changes to estimates of past temperatures, and the so-called ‘hiatus’ vanishes? Well, that’s hardly surprising, as recent trends weren’t statistically significant to begin with, but rather statistically short term variation (the last 15-18 years are far too little data for significance) overlaid on longer term trends.
Equally large variations above long term trends have been correctly considered as just that, as variations (Rahmstorf et al 2007). Certainly interesting to investigate, but not contradictory to long term trends or our basic understanding of radiative physics. Regarding low variations as being more significant than high variations is unjustified – and IMO a case of rather wishful thinking.
62
KR, a moderate comment from you but still based on this idea that the pause was too short to be climatically meaningful or statistically significant. Tell that to Santer et al.
01
The Santer study (often misrepresented on blogs) where they examined the statistics of the climate and found that it would take at least 17 years to for a trend to rise above noise in the absence of any changes in forcings and with corrections for ENSO?
And if you do account for ENSO variations? Well, there’s no sign of a pause in the underlying trends.
I believe Santer et al are _quite_ familiar with the statistics. And that, as they have variously stated, claims of a recent ‘hiatus’ are statistically unsupportable.
14
And I thought everything was settled. Makes a mockery of many published papers.
92
They have the gall to call this SCIENCE?
0.12 in a range of 3.4 uncertainty. Sadly there are some mugs who will be fooled by this, but any real scientist will cringe with embarrassment if asked to endorse this Climate Crap.
232
It has been impressive to see the speed with which this paper has been debunked convincingly (helped no doubt by the leak received by Anthony Watts). Now the challenge is to get rebuttals formally published, to squash out the refuge of the scoundrels.
I had an amusing encounter with the editors at Carbon Brief:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/8842.aspx
It seems that they’re on the back foot as they “undeleted” my comment after I challenged them. Meanwhile, it seems that we’re getting more contributions in the form of critiques of Karl et al. to add to those already noted above. Lord Monckton has a post at WUWT with a different angle. Doubtless there will be others.
152
Just followed your link to carbon brief (disqus). A real gaggle of sks commenters over there. Don’t think I saw a jot of science from the proponents of this rewriting of temperature history.
10
First there were four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Now there’s seven steps to the Apocalypse.
But I don’t recall the horsemen being disbanded, so the steps are additional. The apocalypse is getting more bureaucratic every year!
I say that because I just finished watching Kurosawa’s classic film Ikiru. In part it’s a rebuke of bureaucracy and how horribly hollow some of the the people inside can become. And speaking of Ikiru there’s even a scene pertinent to this blog’s perennial topic. I know it’s a work of fiction but the following line has to be typical of what was in newspapers at the time. A character reading the daily newspaper mentions one of the headline stories: “They say there hasn’t been a heatwave like this for thirty years.”
That movie was made in 1954. Some things don’t change, we just call it clickbait today.
121
Wonder if you felt left out by not getting a thumbs down? Seems to me someone has gone down the whole blog….Only one and the same….??
51
Then I expect the following non-redded commentators, all posting prior to your comment, should all feel similarly left out.
Yonniestone, June 6, 2015 at 6:01 am.
TedM, June 6, 2015 at 7:30 am.
Glen Michel, June 6, 2015 at 8:09 am.
Aaron M, June 6, 2015 at 8:57 am.
gnome, June 6, 2015 at 10:35 am.
The downvoter(s) are not very meticulous, but we could have predicted that.
42
SST measurements taken by ships are apples.
SST measurements taken by buoys are oranges.
Adjustments are bananas.
312
“The famed mythical city El Dorado”
I really like Jo’s Blog and mainly for the reason that when it comes to exposing the truth of the matter she often comes right to the point without delay or mystery.
As for the Climate scientists I have often thought that they are on a parallel with those adventurers seeking the fabled city of Gold “El Dorado” in their attempts to convince the rest of us that the planet is about to explode.
Putting things into perspective , Scientists are still unable to predict, when Tornadoes touch down, what type of El Nino/La Nina will occur, what sea level will occur during Hurricanes, when an Earthquake will happen etc etc. So I find it very disturbing when I see 95% confidence levels attached to predictions that are centuries in the future. If you are going to work in the field of stochastic systems then at least you should know your limits.
The quality of Science is being tainted to a degree we have not witnessed before and when climate scientists publish papers showing the sea level is increasing at a rate (0.001mm/yr) that is well below the values measured for surface tension it is time to seriously defund these academic peddlers of sophistry.
213
When the data refutes their agenda…NOAA changes the data.
142
[…] Exotic adventures in global data to unfind “the Pause”, by Karl in 2015 […]
20
Considering all the adjustments, corrections, data selections, starting points, and ending points, why bother with processing actual data. All you need to do is code a multiple control point b spline with the points strategically spread over the last 150 years and add noise and various cycles.
First, set each control point of the b spline to an estimated (aka fictional) temperature. Then add Gaussian noise of some random amount to the curve. Finally, add multiple sin curves with strategically selected periods and amplitudes to the curve. Then, all you need to do is plot your desired climate change curve as a function of time. To the resulting plot, add some fuzzy climate like language about the interpretation of the cart.
Assuming you can program in C or C++ for your favorite platform, you can find very useful public domain b spline code at http://www.keithv.com/software/3dpath/spline.cpp. There are various Gaussian random noise generator functions available. A sin function is part of the C run time library.
Add some glue and graphics code to compute and plot the chart on the screen. The result will be a climate model that will be as good at predicting the future as any the so called climate scientist use. In fact, it can be made to match any one of them you choose.
The payoff for all of this work is that you can pretend to be a brilliant climate scientist. You can easily rely upon the generally accepted idea that computer simulations produce data to sell your pretense to the MSM and governments. Just be careful that the climate change from your simulation follows the latest politically correct climate catastrophe dogma.
142
It’s great to read a sane article for a change! Thank you!
Here’s a good example of goalpost moving: “The heat went into the ocean.” Apparently, this has only been going on for about 15 years. It’s as though the 2nd law of thermodynamics failed during the 20th century and decided to kick in during the 21st century. If there is anything to the greenhouse effect, then the atmosphere should be heating the oceans. In other words, the atmosphere near the surface should be warmer, not “pausing.”
153
You make a very good point there G M Jackson.
Lukewarmers, do you have any comment about this?
21
Applying the same method to adjust the data after 2000 should show a global cooling trend for the last 25 years.
92
It’s going from the sublime to the ridiculous with the constant massaging of old data well beyond their original limitations. I’ll stick with the satellite and balloon data as they are far more accurate and sample both the land and sea without bias and also without the need for various adjustments. If one measures temperatures to an accuracy of half a degree or so that’s it; 0.12 plus or minus 3.4 is a nonsense, to report as anything else is not of the truth.
92
Matthew England is fully on-board the Karl 2015 ship-of-foolishness, as is to be expected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/a-review-of-professor-matthew-englands-say-anything-past-failed-claims/
Karl 2015 is an example of Climatology’s new tangled math, which by a strange coincidence is an anagram of Matthew England.
272
I suppose people will find a way to eek out a living it’s just the way some people go about it, thinking of anagrams King Canute almost describes this type of eeking.
80
When nature just won’t play along,
With the warming the models got wrong,
Being mainly because,
The hiatus won’t pause,
Which for warmists has gone on too long.
242
Creative accounting indeed.
Imagine the fortune these guys could make if they ran an accountancy business.
60
Creative accounting a speciality
20
Somebody should report this to the FBI! Paris would be a perfect opportunity for them to arrest a few people.
182
Meanwhile at Science they’ve just published a bunch of comments – all of them scathing:
http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.aaa5632
Will they retract the paper?
82
This might be the one for Rob JM to refer to the FBI.
10
I thought the latest edition of the IPCC bible had acknowledged the pause. So if they are wrong can we also assume that everything else in this version of their bible is wrong ? sarc/
Also why have so many other papers / reviews/excuses been published trying to explain the pause ( about 60 last time, I read about it)? So can we now assume that all these scientists did not know how to understand/ interpret the data they were trying to explain way ?
102
Now, I remember when …
You know, buckets and “given that they are often obtained by untrained non-scientist observers with low precision, inaccurate instruments at unknown intake depth”, that “they were drunk at the time” …
Comparing historical and modern methods of Sea Surface Temperature measurement
NASA 2012: “We compare wood, canvas and rubber bucket temperatures to 3 m seawater intake temperature along a Central Tropical Pacific transect conducted in May and June 2008.
In contrast to the prevailing view we find no average differences between bucket temperatures obtained with different bucket types.
Using a physical model we demonstrate that warming of intake seawater by engine room air is unlikely a cause of negative average bucket-intake temperature differences, as sometimes suggested.
We propose removal of intake temperatures and bucket adjustments from historical SST records and posit this will lead to their better capture of real long-term trends.”
Steve McIntyre in July 2011
Bucket Adjustments: More Bilge from RealClimate
“CA readers are aware that I discussed bucket adjustments on a number of occasions long before Thompson et al 2008, in particular, questioning the absurd IPCC assumption that all SST measurements switched from buckets to engine inlet on the day after Pearl Harbour.”
And then ‘oogle for more: https://www.google.com.au/#q=sst+measured+by+bucket+inaccurate
92
Ironically this move by the warmists to rewrite history may backfire . You’d be surprised how many of the general public aren’ t even aware that there is a hiatus. Whilst all skeptics are aware that the pause has been acknowledged by the IPCC. It was never part of the publicity which highlights the fact ( clearly misleading ) that 13 of the warmest years ever occurred this century. Hopefully the publicity surrounding this controversy may alert people to the extraordinary steps that warmists will go to try to manipulate information to fit the narrative. By highlighting the pause highlights how deceitful the media has been in keeping the public uninformed.
112
Also, they’re now admitting they didn’t even have the right data in the first place: hardly a tactic to promote confidence in their science and its conclusions. “We got the right answer using the wrong data” doesn’t sound very convincing, does it?
62
But that is a perfectly valid response for those folks with a post-normal mind set. Remember, in the post-normal world, the truth is whatever seems intuitively right. How you got there is really immaterial.
20
When I talk to the average Joe that casually accepts the AGW meme, the usually say: ” Well we are certainly seeing a warming trend.” Then I give them some basic facts and they are speechless. They had never been informed.
The “pause” is a major problem for the warmist and leftist agenda going forward, especially with Paris on the horizon. Thus the attempts to rewrite the record. Lets not let them succeed in this deception and continue their current lists of deceptions.
103
‘They had never been informed.’
That’s true and the bulk will remain uninformed until the MSM tells the truth.
32
Joanne wrote:
“This is a fairly standard form of adjustment — cool the past, warm the present. Smooth the bumps.”
Yes – Agree 100% …
______
… BUT:
What’s going on with the ERSSTv3b2 ***geographical reconfiguration*** to ERSSTv4 is orders of magnitude more sophisticated & sinister than what such a trivial “analysis” (not much of an analysis frankly) of global temporal average (alone) can reveal.
• Reminder: Sinister ***geographical reconfiguration*** (this wasn’t done by amateurs — you have to be extremely clever, intently manipulative, & on a no-fail mission to save the world to pull off a multivariate optimization with such a calculated spatiotemporal impact) from ERSSTv3b2 to ERSSTv4 erases 4 primary sun-climate fingerprints.
• Lukewarmist K15 diversionary mitigation aids & abets alarmists — so-called “analysis” completely misses the map of what’s really going on…
If people let this slide, there’s no chance of winning the war …but I’m pretty sure everyone will be afraid to touch it.
Candid Advice: Find the courage or prepare for certain defeat. Letting them get away with such egregious geographical reconfiguration is a waving white flag.
_
The real deception here:
They can now REVERSE the COUNTER-oscillatory changes they’ve made to the global temporal average and look submissive to naive critics (the ones who only focus on global temporal averages, ignoring the MAP of multivariate spatioteomporal pattern…)
…BUT they’ll have successfully built in a geographical white-wash to hide the 4 primary sun-climate fingerprints.
If they’re on the path I estimate them to be on with their endgame-magnitude history revision, they’ll boldly engineer an underhanded claim that annual & semi-annual sun-climate patterns in earth rotation are orbital aliases.
They haven’t tried that yet, but it’s the obvious thing a deceptive agency with serious intent would try.
I hope they’re reading here so they’ll get the idea and try.
Observing such an attempt would provide invaluable information about their true nature.
_
In summary:
These are NOT good, honest people. They’re on a very serious mission and they’ll stop at nothing.
Sincerely
123
I have a few thoughts.
1) There is no “global average temperature”. To pretend there is represents anti-science. If we can generate reliable temperature databases for specific regions, which can be smaller or larger, depending on proximity to oceans, topographical characteristics, et al., this has been and will continue to be useful.
2) To put forth nonsense such as a “global mean temperature rise” of 4 deg C from 14 to 18, will be “catastrophic”, is ludicrous. San Diego, California’s annual mean temperature is slightly lower, and Los Angeles, California’s mean temperature is slightly higher than 18 degrees. Southern California’s climate has been a primary draw for immigrants–an 18 C annual mean temperature is spectacular.
3) If we want to be honest about temporal temperature changes, we need to compare historic rural monitors’ data to same-site (if still rural) modern data. If the stations have been shuttered, reopen them. If modern instruments generate different temperatures to classic thermometers, run both, side by side in say 100-1000 locations, (also do historic vs. modern time-of-day for recording temps) and adjust the modern instruments’/ time-of-day values to equal the historic instruments’/time-of-day values. Anybody who resists this scientific assessment of present vs. past measurements is a crackpot.
Are rural instruments too expensive to maintain? Well, we have lots of retired persons, who, if the government paid their travel expenses, would be pleased to take the measurements and record them, paint the housings every year, etc.
4) I’m not convinced that Argo is the best system for measuring ocean temps, for the purpose of assessing ocean heat storage, and changes in ocean heat.
I think that a better monitoring system would be to place anchored devices in representative areas of the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, and Arctic Oceans. Let’s consider several thousand locations, representing continental shelf and deep-ocean sites.
The idea would be to place, in each site, three neighboring instrument sets. This would enable quick corrective repair/replacement of defective instruments: two show the same data, one is aberrant, the one is dysfunctional.
Depending on the depth of anchorage, each site would have a specific ensemble of depth-changing mobile robotic buoys.
Type 1 would continuously move between 0 and 50 meters depth.
Type 2 would move between 45 and 100 meters depth. (This would provide crossover measurements between two instruments for 45-50 meters depth for calibration checking.)
Type 3 would move between 95 meters depth and 500 meters depth.
Type 4 would move between 450 meters depth and 2000 meters depth.
Type 5 would move between 1900 meters depth and 5000 meters depth.
Type 6 would move between 4500 meters depth, and the ocean floor.
Now, remember, each such ensemble would have two comparator ensembles. So each cable system would have data-reliability from depth overlaps, and you would also have two nearby-situated independent monitoring ensembles.
Data from the individual instruments can be transmitted undersea to a broadcast-to-satellite buoy on the surface, which can store data and wait out storms to transmit.
Impossible to build? Give the challenge to UCSD/Scripps and MIT/Woods Hole. They can make it work. Or forget it, just give 1000 times as much money to Mo Strong and Christiana Figueras. They are such scientific geniuses that Mo only finished high school, and Christiana studied anthropology.
62
I still want to know what caused the Roman warming and the Medieval warm periods and even the Little Ice Age. The well known warming periods were beneficial and degrees warmer than today. Ice skating on the Thames was recent. Even a simple theory would be good. Maybe it was CO2? How can anyone model the future if they cannot model the past?
How can anyone believe anti CO2 propaganda when we cannot explain the end of the last ice age and the melting of the glaciers only 10,000 years ago, a place where now 60% of humans live? Now some scientists are chasing shadows in the data looking for statistical warming effects when any real Global Warming would have been very obvious.
All this money and time, effort and analysis has perversely confirmed that recent warming was a tiny effect which would have gone unnoticed except for the IPCC’s formation. After all, how can you pompously call your business the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change and find there was no man made warming? Now we are told the environment is not the real concern of the IPCC but the reform of world economies on the communist Chinese model? What part of Climate Change is that?
I remember a time long ago when meteorology was a really boring science and the models did not work very well and when real science was all about the advance of mankind in conquering an inhospitable planet, diseases, innovation and finding new sources of power. Now man is the villain, the planet is a God and our only hope for survival is to build windmills? When did we go completely mad? The search for the missing warming is becoming like the search for the Holy Grail. There is no warming. We do not need an IPCC or change the last word.
141
And I still want to know what’s so good about ice.
We are told the Arctic will be icefree; it’s a terrible thing, ice is good?
60
Having been through on the train at least Siberia, it is a different place when the ice is all gone. The same with Canada and the US and Scandinavia and Europe. Where does it all go? The Baltic does not overflow and it is nearly closed off and much closer to fresh water than the North Sea. Copenhagen is fine. Floating sea ice melting does not mean the water rises at all. The Arctic can reach 25C. (Totally unlike the South Pole where -25C is a sunny midsummer day and the wind only a mild 40km/hr)
So if the arctic ice melted and the Arctic sea was navigable, that would be fantastic. The polar bears do not live on the ice. They retreat to land where they starve as they contrast against the brown soil. Their first cousins, the Brown bears do the reverse and hibernate for the winter. Either way, the ice could all melt and the world would be a better place.
A century ago it was a major human endurance feat to reach the North Pole and many died trying. Now people want to keep the ice. No idea why.
50
Cold weather is a lot harder on everything, plant life, animals, society in general, also consider with prolonged periods of cooling and less food produced the human body’s BMR(Basal Metabolic Rate) increases by 7% for every 0.5°C of internal temperature change which means more food needed but in the bigger picture supply and demand is out of balance.
90
it may be Aussie weather, but surely this attempt to wipe out the Pause couldn’t have come at a worse time!
5 June: ABC: Alkira Reinfrank: Canberra’s extreme run of overnight lows ‘only seen every 10 to 15 years’
Since early Monday morning Canberrans have spent more hours in temperatures below zero than above.
Overnight, Canberrans shivered through a low of -7 degrees, with mercury only climbing above zero after 9:30am.
This follows Monday’s cold temperatures which saw 20 centimetres of snow fall on the New South Wales ski resorts and Canberra region, the -7C lows experienced on Tuesday morning- which matched temperatures in the Snowy Mountains, and Wednesday’s -5C lows…
Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Sean Carson said temperature lows seen this week, along with last August’s extreme run of lows only occurred once a decade.
“August last year saw a pretty impressive run of overnight lows, where we saw eight consecutives nights below -5C, with the lowest night in that sequence getting all the way down to -8C,” he said.
“But prior to that it is probably something we only see every 10 to 15 years where we get such cold minimums.”…
Mr Carson said this “impressive” run of temperatures was more common in the 1970s.
***”It used to be fairly regular before the 1970s, before we saw a lot of development across Canberra, which did give Canberra a little bit of heat coming from industry,” he said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/extreme-frosty-mornings-continue-in-canberra/6520778
91
Was -1.7C under the eaves of the hottest wall of my house the other night.
After the coolest summer I can remember in Canberra I’m not looking forward to this winter.
20
What they are not saying is that this is very early. Canberra winter has just started. We’re about six weeks from peak cold and by my reckoning the -5C we had recently was still late autumn though the -7C just made it into winter.
30
If these warmist
Scientistsclowns keep adjusting the past temperatures down, eventually we will find that the Laurentide ice sheet disappeared in 1850 and the Little Ice Age ended in 1945.91
I’m not surprised by the article by Thomas Karl and others. What can you expect from a bunch of climate pause deniers?
72
I had a look at your site, “Climate Change Predictions“. There is a lot of good stuff there!
21
o/t but taking place today:
***”down” in the headline is telling!
6 June: Irish Times: Unique consultation brings climate ***down to the citizens
Today people from 80 countries will join the largest ever global debate on climate change
by Derek Scally in Copenhagen
The “World Wide Views” meeting is a unique experiment in simultaneous civic participation, hearing opinions from more than 10,000 people in more than 80 countries in one day, from 10am to 5pm.
Organisers hope that, by bringing ordinary citizens to a table previously dominated by bureaucrats and lobbyists, they can help break the long-running deadlock in UN talks to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol…
Participants have been chosen to reflect the demographic diversity in their country or region and have received information packs detailing ***all sides of the debate on climate change and energy policy. They will watch identical introductory videos, debate the issues, and vote on identical questions…
The conclusions will be collated and communicated to the June session of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) now under way in Bonn and to November’s UN climate conference (COP21) in Paris.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, welcomed the WWViews debate as a “unique engagement . . . on one of the greatest challenges of this generation”…
The event enjoys the direct support of French president Francois Hollande…
***Anticipating challenges from all camps, WWViews organisers say the information given to citizens has been vetted by a scientific advisory board for accuracy and balance..
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/unique-consultation-brings-climate-down-to-the-citizens-1.2239471
from this link you can access the questions, information booklets, videos that allegedly detail “ALL SIDES” & the results of this exercise, initiated by UNFCCC, etc. LOL.
http://climateandenergy.wwviews.org/publications/
btw the first question is headed:
1. Importance of tackling climate change
This theme covers the present situation and how important people assess actions on climate change and the need to shift to a low carbon economy.
“balanced”…not really.
81
Pat writes here: (my bolding)
Where the UN will ignore them in toto, and do what it has already decided to do, to push their own agenda.
Tony.
120
I may as well put this here as well.
What’s all the fuss about? IPCC lead author Phillip Lloyd has a 2015 study of the ice cores that shows that the normal temp difference over 100 year intervals is about 1 C. This is for the last 8,000 years.
We’ve had about 0.85C warming since 1880, so what is unusual about this warming for the last 135 years and at the end of a minor ice age? NOTHING. Here is the abstract————-
Abstract
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
91
One heartening outcome of the Karl15 paper as suggested by Fred Singer is that it may cause confusion amongst the warmists at an inconvenient time, ie the run up to Paris.
Lots of warmists have created temperature series graphs, or written papers explaining the Pause. It may be embarrassing at this time if it according to Karl15, it is not actually there.
It may be interesting to watch the attempts to paper over the cracks and divisions.
83
The Klimatariat hopes the unspeakable pause will have been forgotten and the global warming bandwagon will be back on song.
They desperately need the public to remain ignorant.
53
Meanwhile, back at UN HQ;
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2015/06/05/kofi-annan-slams-aust-as–free-rider-.html
20
Gee I wonder if Karl et al are Hockey fans?
21
(previous was supposed to be a new post)
As for Kofi Annan, wasn’t he too busy getting a free ride to a free lunch in New York when the slaughter was underway in Rwanda? Posh restaurant with finger bowls to wash one’s hands with or something like that.
42
China has also complained that Australia isn’t doing enough vis a vis CO2 reduction… yet it’s business as usual for them for another 20 years. Typically, the ABC doesn’t point that out.
20
Saw the article in ‘The Age’ (http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/us-meteorological-body-finds-global-warming-slow-down-did-not-happen-20150605-ghgvhn) by Tom Arup regarding NOAA reporting that the slow down (pause) did not happen. Got angry when there is no way to comment on article; typical of this lot. Had to set him straight. Damn hard to contact by email, resorted to Twitter – damn. Thanks for this article Jo.
41
Good effort Wayne, I feel your angst. Professor Tim Osborn from the University of East Anglia seems nice.
10
[…] Exotic adventures in global data to unfind “the Pause”, by Karl in 2015 […]
10
it was only a “rumour” on the internet & on certain media outlets! haha. scientists have been “QUICK” to debunk it!
5 June: The Weather Network: Scott Sutherland: Global warming ‘pause’? New study shows it doesn’t exist
No Global Warming “Pause”
Despite evidence to the contrary, there’s been a persistent rumour floating around on the internet and on certain media outlets about a global warming “pause” or “hiatus.” In response to this rumour, scientists have been ***quick to point out that, although surface air temperature records might show that the rate of warming has slowed somewhat over the past 15 years or so, this does not mean that the Earth is no longer accumulating heat from global warming…
What of the other temperature records, from other agencies around the world, that support the “pause” – including the latest IPCC report?
“Before this update, we were the slowest rate of warming,” Thomas Karl, director of the NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and lead author of the study, told the Washington Post. “And with the update
now, we’re the leaders of the pack. So as other people make updates, they may end up adjusting upwards as well.”
And what of the research that’s been done over recent years, to account for how a “pause” could develop? Karl told the Washington Post that the phenomena discovered in the research are very real and they did cause cause
a slowdown in warming – just not to the point where the rate of warming actually slowed. Instead, these factors kept the warming trend from spiking even higher.
“Those things won’t persist, and when they’re gone, that means the rate of temperature is free to increase even more than it would have,” Karl said in the interview…
As Penn State climate scientist Michael E. Mann noted in an article on EcoWatch…etc
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/whats-up-in-climate-change-no-global-warming-pause/52258/
42
***might as well say faith ***Healers?
WhiteHouse.gov: Faith ***Leaders as Climate Champions of Change
Posted by Katharine Gallogly on June 03, 2015
This July, the White House will honor faith leaders who are making a difference to combat climate change and advance conservation in their communities. We will celebrate the impact they are having here at home, and on the lives of people around the world.
Please help us identify outstanding faith leaders in the following categories…(NO SCEPTICAL CATEGORIES)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/03/faith-leaders-climate-champions-change
62
I’m hoping to use something like this trick when I do my tax return next month.
41
Been using that trick for years.
Get used to it guys…it’s all French to me.
21
as funny as anything to date. love how Amy leaves gas out of the headline (gas is good CO2 emissions, of course.)
***a Fossil free (except for gas) World is possible, says the headline. to achieve it, all these guys need now is a PLAN! (they don’t even have a plan, Amy?)
without the PLAN, it would be the hottest summer in the US 75% of the time, plus “a lot of climate change”. this passes for intellectual discourse CAGW-style:
VIDEO: 5 June: Democracy Now: A Fossil Fuel Free World is Possible: How to Power a Warming Earth Without Oil, Coal and Nuclear
Is a 100% renewable energy future possible? According to Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, the answer is yes. Jacobson has developed plans for all 50 states to transform their power infrastructure to rely on wind, water and
solar power…
We speak with Jacobson and Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University Associate Professor and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment…
MARK JACOBSON: Well, our plans are to change the energy infrastructure in each and every state in the United States, and in fact, ultimately, every country of the world, to infrastructures run entirely on wind, water, and solar power for all purposes. So that is electricity, transportation,
heating and cooling and industry…
AMY GOODMAN: So how do you do that?
MARK JACOBSON: Well in our plans, we do it state-by-state. ***And we first develop a plan, and we say, this is like how many wind turbines we need, how many solar panels do we need, how much rooftop areas do we have, how much land area do we require, what would be the cost, how much storage do we need? How many jobs would be created as result? And it would, in the United States, create a net of about 2 million jobs to do such a transformation.
And then we have — once we have developed a plan, then we educate the public about the plans, educate policymakers, and try and hope that people will then take these plans and run with them and actually start implementing these changes…
AMY GOODMAN: That is one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, Rick Santorum. Noah Diffenbaugh, as we wrap up now, what is your answer to him? He says do nothing if it’s not going to make a difference.
NOAH DIFFENBAUGH: Well the thing about the climate system, is it’s connected globally. And we’ve actually looked, we have asked this question, what if the developed world, what if the EU and the U.S. did nothing, and the rest of the world looks like us?. What if the rest of the world — if we had a world of 9 billion people that look like me?
What that means for most of the U.S. is, what used to be the hottest summer that anyone ever experienced happens 75 percent of the time. So we are tremendously exposed to what
happens around the world. And it is true that the scale of the problem is enormous. And the kinds of innovations that Mark is talking about in his home, the kinds of innovations that we are talking about here at Stanford in California, that’s what we need in order to radiate out to the whole world in order to make this transition.
If we don’t make this transition, we’re going to have a lot of climate change…
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/5/a_fossil_fuel_free_world_is
32
Expect more of this as Paris approaches although there is a sense of deja vous about this, remember “we have to find a way to get rid of the medieval warm period”, now it looks like there is an attempt to get rid of the pause. Have they no shame?
102
Listened to the NOAA author speaking on the radio driving home tonight. I did love a couple of the things he said that surely undermine the “adjustments” to the point that they are worthless. Which I apologise for, because that comment pre supposes they had value in the first place. Anyway….
“We don’t really have any solid data from the poles so we are not sure what effect they may be having”
“There are of course vast tracts of ocean with varying depths, water profiles and current conditions we also don’t fully understand or have data for”
This of course does not stop him from producing an apparently “accurate” rendition of the raw data using his own special fudge factors, that ban be measured to points of a degree c
Its pretty tawdry really…. its just another nail in the coffin of the good name of solid science practice. Espousing a hypothesis then testing it has been replaced with espousing the results then fiddling the data to fit them.
Heaven help us if we have an actual problem as a species, the science community will have depleted every bit of goodwill and be unable to convince us to act on something that actually poses a threat. Crying wolf writ large.
151
‘Heaven help us if we have an actual problem…’
Like global cooling began in 2003 and everyone is looking the other way. These adjustment scientists are criminals.
71
Yep , having a look at some of the ice core and sediment data it looks like that first drop after an interglacial can be a doozy , not as precipitous as the warming leading into the interglacial but very nasty nonetheless .
30
You will not prove anything from temperature data. You need to look into the physics involved.
To physicists and those who want to understand what’s happening …
You are correct in believing carbon dioxide cannot warm the Earth’s surface: in fact it cools, but probably by less than 0.1 degree.
But I wonder if you really understand the explanation as to why the Earth’s mean surface temperature is in fact warmer than the Sun’s direct radiation could make it. This is very obviously also the case for Venus where the surface receives only about a tenth of the direct solar radiation that we do, and yet is over 450°C.
I have had on offer a AU $5,000 reward since the publication of my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” in March 2014 (available through Amazon) and my reward is for anyone proving the physics in the book to be significantly incorrect and also producing a counter study which, with similar methodology to mine in the Appendix of the book, shows that, instead of cooling, the so-called “greenhouse gas” water vapor warms the surface in the order of about 20 to 30 degrees for each 1% in the troposphere, as is implied by the IPCC.
My book is based on extensive research that I had previously published in two papers in 2012 and 2013, all based on correct physics.
Unlike others, I have not only shown why the radiative forcing “greenhouse” conjecture is wrong, but I have also explained just precisely how it is that a planet’s surface does receive the required thermal energy in order that its temperature normally rises during its daytime on the sunlit side, offsetting the inevitable cooling at night.
The required thermal energy cannot be (and is not) supplied by radiation. It is supplied in accord with the laws of physics as I have shown based upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am probably the first in the world to have correctly explained planetary surface temperatures (and even sub-surface temperatures) and the necessary energy supply mechanisms.
This explanation is the last nail in the greenhouse coffin, and so I urge you to look into it carefully. You will not defeat the fraudulent hoax with analysis of temperature data, because there will be some warming before about 500 years of natural cooling starts, probably within 100 years or so. You will also not defeat it unless you understand the one and only correct explanation of planetary temperatures and energy flows – which is what I have explained.
I wonder if, for example, you know that the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface, even though it is about 30 times further from the Sun. No significant solar radiation reaches down there through 350Km of the Uranus troposphere, and there’s no surface there anyway. Likewise Earth’s tropospheric temperatures are not in general the result of direct solar radiation warming the surface which then just cools off. On Venus the Sun’s direct radiation can only raise the temperatures in the upper troposphere and above where such temperatures are not already above about 400K. Such radiation simply cannot raise the temperature of lower regions or the surface where such temperatures are already around 700K and more. So you need to think about why it is that a location on the equator of Venus does warm back up by about 5 degrees during its four-month-long sunlit period, having cooled by a similar amount at night, which cooling must happen to some extent. It takes an input of thermal energy to raise a temperature, so how does that energy get into the Venus surface? Radiation from the less-hot troposphere of Venus cannot raise the surface temperature. So what does?
For more information you may read my website http://climate-change-theory.com and the papers linked at the foot of the ‘Evidence’ page.
I would like this comment to be drawn to the attention of any physicist with a sound knowledge of thermodynamics and an understanding of entropy maximization that occurs as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate. Readers without such understanding may find the website http://entropylaw.com helpful.
I am happy to answer questions which pertain to the content of my book and papers and clearly demonstrate that these documents have been studied.
320
This shows how desperate they are getting.
30
Its all really quite funny. Think of all the 50-60 explanations of the lack of trend. All in vain. And then it’s just in time for the Paris conference!
50
I think, judging by some of the cool responses, even some of the alarmists are quietly alarmed at the audacity of this attempted deception.
If they push the envelope a bit too far then there is a risk of some of the currently pliant media rumbling that they really are being taken for a ride.
20
It’s hard to see what the excitement is about, the results are not all that different.
Evidence for a significant slowdown in global warming was never strong, 15 (or so) years for the trend calculation is too short a duration.
Anyway the corrections to get a better estimate for global warming is good science. Without the corrections (at least in this case), the rate of global warming over the long term would be overestimated.
09
Harry Twinotter,
In this case, the graph in Jo’s O/P that plots the changes to the raw data from May 2008 to May 2015 clearly shows more warming not less.
Abe
11
Just-a-guy.
I cannot see the point you are making. I was talking about global temperatures. You are showing a graph for CONUS only.
02
Harry Twinotter,
That graph appears in Jo’s O/P up top.
I wasunder the impresion that you’d read the article.
Abe
21
Just-a-guy.
Well you better take up that one with JoNova. She says:
“From Anthony Watts we can see how USA thermometers were all biased to warm until WWII, then biased too cold. (Luckily someone at NOAA knew what the thermometers of 1915 should have read, and “fixed” them decades later. Scientists were pretty stupid in the early 20th Century, eh? Silly old Einstein.)”
12
Harry Twinotter,
When calculating the base line from which to plot the monthly/yearly temperature anomalies, the WMO concedes that a period ‘substancially shorter than 30 years’ are sufficient. They also state that ten years are enough. Therefore, logic dictates that 15 years is sufficient to indicate a trend.
I am in no way advocating the use WMO practices. All I’m saying is, according to their own guidelines 15 years are sufficient.
There are enough peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how temperatures follow a cyclical pattern. The use of normals and averages and anomalies as ‘potificated’ by the WMO are useless and misleading when describing temperatures in our earthly climate system.
Abe
51
Just-A-Guy,
I disagree with your interpretation of the WHO Handbook, you have taken quotes out of context.
The IPCC AR5 report said that the 15 years (or so) trend-line showed the rate of warming was smaller than the previous 15 years (or what ever), and cautioned that the calculated trend was sensitive to which start and end points were used. This was in 2013.
So here we are in 2015 and the trend-line shows the rate of warming is increasing.
Anyway it is good climate change dissidents are now trusting the climate science more, and are less inclined to call it a hoax or something like that. To call something a “hoax”, especially the work of professional climatologists, is a really nasty ad hominem argument.
26
Harry Twinotter,
I already know that you disagree. That’s why I wrote what I wrote. You have to explain how I took the meaning of those quotes out of context. Baring that, you’ve added nothing to the conversation.
You won’t be able to provide such proof because the quotes speak for themselves. Go ahead and try.
Further more, I provided you with the exact location where you could find my references. Do you really expect me to go and read the entire ar5 to find what you’ve quoted here?
Thirdly. The O/P clearly states that according to this new study, the warming trend has not changed. But you say that it has, and produce the IPCC ar5 to substantiate your claim.
Make up your mind. Did you even read the O/P?
Abe
31
Just-a-guy,
the passages you quoted out of the WMO guidelines refer to periods of time used to calculate climatic normals. They do not refer to calculating trends.
A rookie mistake.
You can calculate trends over any period of time – there is no hard and fast rule about it. But you have to interpret the results with caution. One stumbling block is calculating results that are not “statistically significant” ie the trend is not easy to distinguish from random variations that produce the appearance of a trend by accident.
If you want to find stuff in the IPCC AR5 report, use the Adobe search function. You can start off by searching for the text “hiatus”. It is better to read stuff in context.
23
Harry Twinotter,
Thank you for proving that you are capable of rational thought. This will make future attempts at obfuscation on your part much harder.
Yes, those quotes do refer to normals and not trends. The reason for quoting them* is this. If ten years of temperature data is enough time to produce a valid average temperature normal to base subsequent temperature anomalies on, then a series of ten year average temperature normals are just as valid to show a temperature trend. This is true by definition.
Furthermore, if that series of ten year temperature normals is produced an a monthly basis over the course of thirty years or more, then that series can safely be used for evaluating temperature trends over the long term.
To that end, I’ve prepared exactly such a graph using the woodfortrees data-base. I’ve also plotted the same temperature series using a period of fifteen years on monthly data to show you and others how this downward trend is clear and beyond reproach.
RSS lower tropospheric global mean from 1979 to 2014.
As you can see, the rising temperature trend of the eighties and nineties has now reversed. The new trend in now cooling. IOW, from around 2006 onwards, the monthly 15-year temperature normal gets lower every single month.
Abe
*I’ve done this previously to others like sillifilly and Tristan in order to ‘out’ them into proving that the reality of their arguments is not ignorance or lack of debating skills, i.e. rational thought. The reality of their arguments is that they, and you, intentionally say things that are meant to obfuscate and confuse the casual reader.
IOW, by correcting my ‘mistake’, contrived though it may be, they, and now you, prove that you’re not dumb or confused or misinformed but rather aimed at intentionally misleading others.
The jig is up.
22
Just-a-guy.
Nice attempt at a “switch”, but not good enough.
You have gone from quoting the WMO guidelines as authority for your claim, to presenting your own opinion.
Baselines and trends are two different things, I cannot make it any plainer than that.
The synthesised RSS TLT data is interesting (it is not surface temperatures however), but the same thing applies. It is a short trend, so is it “statistically significant”? You should at least attempt to calculate the confidence intervals to show that your cooling trend is statistically significant. 2-sigma is the usual standard (again there is no hard and fast rule about it). Try the trend calculator on the Skeptical Science website, it has a shot at calculating confidence intervals.
I tried plotting a linear trend from 1999 to 2014 and it shows a warming trend (although I do not know if this is statistically significant or not). So I suspicious about your “downward trend is clear and beyond approach” – perhaps you should review your methods.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2014/trend
Anyway it is good to see people trusting the heavily-adjust RSS TLT dataset. It means they will not be so suspicious of other adjusted datasets.
13
Harry Twinotter,
No evidence provided, just another Appeal to Authority argument. It is poor form to claim that Just-A-Guy is guilty of using Ad Hominem arguments because he demonstrates that AGW alarmism is a hoax, by providing referenced evidence. This is not Ad Hominem. He ‘slates’ their ‘Science’, not them as individuals. The Appeal to Authority argument is really tacky. You must do better than this!
23
StoptheRot,
a bit of long weekend trolling, hey?
Some people here are trying to have an honest discussion. Stop wasting people’s time with nonsense.
24
What long weekend? Oh, I see another jump the shark moment. Are you capable of honest conversation or can’t you see beyond ad hominem arguments?
22
The 2 ERSSTv4 papers have been liberated from the paywall — links here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/noaa-tries-to-make-global-warming-slowdown-vanish/comment-page-1/#comment-102174
I’ve verified 2 fatal errors and left new notes.
10
And from an environmental editor no less
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Graham+Lloyd
00
I’m confused, mere days ago you suggested Argo thermometers could not be relied on. I guess it depends on what message you’re trying to send.
10
Timboss.
Indeed. And how much ARGO data is there?
01
My position is consistent — the best ocean data is ARGO, but it’s still not good enough to report the tiny trends they “find”. The question remains as to why Karl et al used even worse data, and why they adjust their bad data up to match the most-awful-data.
41
Joanne Nova.
How much ARGO data is there?
02
Hi jo, interested to now your views on this:
http://michiganssa.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/a-first-look-at-ross-mckitricks-first.html
Is McKitrick’s +-1.7 error bar correct or is the Michigan kid’s +- 0.02 correct?
p
00
Thanks Hide, I emailed McKitrick yesterday, he’s replied on the michiganssa blog and updated his pdf. The number 0.12 ± 1.7oC still stands, McKitrick has clarified and corrected a couple of minor points, and the michiganssa author has admitted he made mistakes, edited his post and has “deleted some comments”.
It’s always good to straighten these things out, it’s a shame Alexander Coulter implied McKitrick was anything other than skilled an honest.
Karl et al looks as meaningless as ever.
30
Hi Hide and Joanne,
Dr. McKitrick’s and my exchange was pretty pleasant, yes we did both clear up some points. I suppose just for a brief summary of said changes:
1) To McKitrick’s point, Hirahara et al. used both NMAT and metadata to make the correction for insulated/non-insulated bucket fraction; I had gotten the impression before that McKitrick was suggesting they did not use NMAT, but I must have misread his article, so I updated both of those previous remarks.
2) The issue of the standard deviation v. standard error of the mean has been resolved in, it seems, the opposite direction that you suggest Joanne. The error on the mean estimate has to be calculated with standard error of the mean, so 0.85 is certainly not the value we want to use. McKitrick says that himself in our most recent comment exchange.
3) That being said, it seems that McKitrick has made a good point in that the global value was not area-weighted, but sample-size weighted. In particular, the value is driven by over sampling from the northern oceans. Southern and Tropical ocean values seem to be higher, though they were not sampled as highly. As such, an area-weighted global mean would probably bring the correction up more. I have included another article giving a “crude, crude” estimate of what that new value could be. As it were, since the standard errors are the uncertainty on each regional mean, when you carry them through the variance function with the new area weighting scheme, the standard error of that crude global mean is still 0.01(2). That result is more robust than the mean value itself, just due to the still large net sample size.
Hope that helps clear some things up! And yes, with McKitrick’s politeness in all of his comments, following as well from the tone of his article at WUWT, I was unfair and impolite to him, and will keep my language more civil in the future. (Or, at least, equally toned: pardon if I don’t hold the same opinion of Mr. Monckton for instance :P)
10
Alexander,
thanks for taking the time to comment here.
In McKitricks update he was still using 0.12 +/- 1.7. as from Kennedy 2011. Is that still a reasonable estimate?
Thanks for paying attention to the details, which helps us all.
I’m all for constructive commentary, and polite exchanges are rare.
Jo
10
I am unsure if that mean (0.12) is reasonable; due to the sampling issues, it is probably higher than that, by maybe 0.02. I am pretty sure that 0.01 is a more appropriate uncertainty term for the mean. The standard deviation for each region describes the spread of the data with respect to the mean. We might take, for instance, a simple Gaussian probability density function, distributed by N(0,1). The standard deviation is 1, but our uncertainty of what the mean is, is zero. That is because it is simply a value determined by the curve itself.
Sampling helps us start to define what the curve is that exists in reality. Most curves have means (some don’t if the tails don’t fall off quickly enough, though you won’t likely have something like that in reality), and our ability to say with confidence what the mean actually is will depend on how well-defined that curve becomes. The more sampling we do, the more well-defined the curve is, just like how histograms become smoother with more data. Of course, sampling does not itself change the distribution!
So the sampling distribution, and the distribution of the sample mean, are two different things. The former is that curve, and describes the probability of getting any particular value. The latter, by the Central Limit Theorem, begins to approximate a normal distribution, with mean at the sample mean and variance equal to the variance of the first distribution divided by the sample size, i.e. V(s.m.) = V(s.) / N. Since standard (deviation) error is the square root of the (population) variance, the “standard error of the mean” is SE = SD / √(N).
So with the square root of the sample size, the sample mean’s variance approaches zero. This basically reflects the fact that as you get more samples, the curve becomes more well-known, and the mean thus becomes better known as well. If the mean is zero, you’ll still be sampling values at +0.5, or –1.1, or what have you; you just will, after enough samples, basically be able to say “yeah, zero’s in the middle”.
You can double check this in other statistics resources, such as equation 33 here:
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/data/media/public/sep/prof/pvi/rand/paper_html/node16.html
Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error#Standard_error_of_the_mean
And perhaps more succinctly here:
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat414/node/167
So, while the standard deviations are large, and do actually for that reason hinder our ability to accurately say what the mean is, the sample sizes are even larger still and help to bring it down.
(A small note too: when you divide by N, you actually don’t have an unbiased estimate of the variance (i.e. the significance test results don’t actually match up exactly with your significance levels). You need to divide by N–1 to get an unbiased estimate. I’m a bit unfamiliar off the cuff on how to show this just by using equations, but I’ve run Monte Carlo simulations to test that, and it pans out. I can do another blog post just illustrating that concept if you’d like, or any others here.)
00
Just want to follow up on this issue; I’ve written a blog post to illustrate the difference between “standard deviation” and “standard error of the mean”. It’s presented as a look independent of the temperature issue, and would apply more generally to essentially any single-variable dataset (such as temperature). Feedback very much welcome! (As I briefly reread it I may need to make some grammar editing, grumble grumble…)
http://michiganssa.blogspot.com/2015/06/sd-v-se-of-mean.html
00
Great stuff from Ross McKitrick and Alexander Coulter.
In a nutshell, McKitrick is right that the error bar for Karl et al 2015 uniform uplift to bouy temps of 0.12 is +-1.7, not +-0.2 as suggested by Coulter. That’s because Mckittrick chased down the the climate science on which Karl 2015 is built more carefully than Coulter did. So Coulter is left with an academic dissertation about sd v se stats, which is great for stats nerds but for those of interested in climate science he’s not demonstrated Mckittrick to be wrong.
Mckittrick is addressing the actual adjustments actually made in Karl 2015 which purportedly disappear the ‘pause’ that every other dataset shows and that the IPCC even acknowledges.
IMHO he is also the superior communicator and the better bloke – Coulter has the snippiness and chippiness f the climate believer. He’s walked it back a bit, sure, but I think it’s rather inadequate. Put Coulter in the same camp as Robert Way – too young, too zealous. Motivated by dislike instead of by truth. Always be skeptical of their first impressions.
00
Seeing Tom Arnold’s reference to the Karl paper, set me wondering if repeated such practices might merit a classification of their own in epistemology … https://twitter.com/auverte/status/608160596580810753
00