Global climate debate-the facts

Yep, all you have to do is change the numbers and voila, you can get rid of anything. Just like Karl et. al. did with the pause. BTW, it didn't do away with the mainder minimum so what is the point?

 

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XupQ8B52
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And there's this to consider.

http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/494840-nasa-noaa-climate-data-fake-data.html

 

I know they haven't.

 

BINGO!

 

Good example of how the bambooozled denier cultists desperately grasp at any straw, no matter how fraudulent and spun up, and then add it to their crackpot mythology.

"In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
*****

In the REAL world....

Reaction Quotes to Rose's Article from Science Leaders:

Jeremy Berg, Editor of Science:
With regard to the “rush” to publish, as of 2013, the median time from submission to online publication by Science was 109 days, or less than four months. The article by Karl et al. underwent handling and review for almost six months. Any suggestion that the review of this paper was “rushed” is baseless and without merit. Science stands behind its handling of this paper, which underwent particularly rigorous peer review.

Sherwood Boehlert, Republican Chair of House Science Committee 2001-2007
Those trying to debunk these studies seem to be grasping at straws and resorting to personal attacks. If they have evidence that these studies are wrong then it should be submitted to the appropriate journals and peer reviewed. Nothing they've pointed to so far seems to hold up. The current attacks should be received with extreme skepticism , given the enormous body of evidence supporting the conclusion that the climate is changing and poses a danger that needs to be addressed. And public officials have an obligation to follow the scientific consensus unless more credible critiques emerge.

Rt. Rear Admiral David Titley, former NOAA chief operating officer:
In summary, the Mail on Sunday has found a disgruntled ex-NOAA employee and is using him to construct alternative facts about the climate. Unfortunately for all of us, the air will keep warming, the seas will keep rising, and the ice will keep melting, regardless of the Daily Mail's fanciful claims and accusations. The real atmosphere is impervious to alternative facts.

There is both a NOAA internal process on scientific integrity (my office ran it when I was at NOAA) and the opportunity to submit allegations of wrongdoing to the Department of Commerce Inspector General who, if there is reasonable evidence to substantiate the allegation, would undertake an independent investigation.

Is the science bad? No. Karl et. al. was published in a high-prestige, peer-reviewed journal, where the reviewers were almost certainly eminent scientists external to NCEI and NOAA. More importantly, the Berkley group (originally founded to disprove the NOAA and NASA temperature recorded but ended up confirming their validity) as well as other external organizations, such as the UK Met Office, have all subsequently INDEPENDENTLY replicated the Karl et. al. results. That's the gold standard of science, not some NOAA internal bureaucratic procedure that may or may not have been followed.

Is the earth continuing to warm? Yes

While the arguments about ARGO floats vs. WWII shipping sea water injection temperatures vs. Satellite SST's are fascinating to the dozens of scientists who care about such things, our knowledge of global warming and climate change is built on overwhelming, independent lines of observational evident, understanding of the basic physics that goes back to the mid 19th century, and our ability to accurately project the overall global warming in computer models for over 40 years. Nothing in the Daily Mail article refutes any of this evidence.

Jane Lubchenco, former NOAA administrator:
These are sad, old accusations that have been definitively disproven. The accusations are a blatant attempt to sow confusion and doubt with the goal of distracting folks and undermining the global momentum to reduce carbon emissions. Reduction of emissions is paramount if we are to avoid even more serious climate disruption that would bring disastrous consequences for our health, economies and communities. Children and the poor stand to suffer the most.

Definitive studies by other authors have independently and conclusively verified Karl et al.’s findings. I know that NOAA has robust scientific checks and balances. Its scientists are widely recognized as outstanding and its high standards and procedures ensure that its products are rigorous and of the highest quality. Moreover, there is a refreshing openness to multiple points of view and possible interpretations, but in the end, conclusions are based on data, rigorous analysis, and are subject to peer-review.

Karl’s paper was peer-reviewed. And it has now been independently demonstrated by other scientists to be correct. Good science stands the test of time. The scientific process is all about challenging, testing and either validating or revamping earlier conclusions. Karl et al.’s earlier conclusions have been challenged, tested, and verified. They are robust. Time to move on.

We know from thousands of studies that the climate is changing, humans are largely responsible for the changes, the changes are already wreaking havoc with many extreme weather events, and that many of those events (e.g., heat waves or flooding) have very real consequences for human life, the economy and our communities. Fortunately, local communities, states, businesses and national governments are taking action and making headway. Many businesses and governments understand the economic opportunities that are already being realized from renewable energy and conservation efforts. Now is the time to accelerate those efforts, not be sidetracked by trumped-up false controversies.

James Hansen, former Director of NASA-GISS:
This is another case of making a mountain out of an anthill, while not telling the public that it is an anthill.
The misimpression, that there might be a substantial flaw in climate change analyses, was predictable and surely was realized and even encouraged by those who brought forth this attack. The only censure should be on the heads of those who pretend that there is some significant new revelation and those who aid in the promulgation of this falsehood.

Tom Karl is an outstanding, hard-working, honest scientist.

Kathryn Sullivan, former NOAA administrator:
For months in 2015 and 2016, NOAA provided the House Science Committtee with data, information, and briefings on the Karl et al paper. As I testified under oath in 2016, "[we] have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate data". The committee's claims that this study was rushed and politically motivated are just as baseless now as they were then.

Since its publication the Karl et al finding has been confirmed by a number of independent, peer-reviewed analyses. The science is clear: our planet's climate is changing. Its time to stop these bogus theatrical “debates” and focus on solutions that benefit American communities, businesses, and our economy.

 

It's called CYA. Now, maybe you can tell us why it is the only dataset that does not show the pause.

 

Nope! It called the scientific facts.....something you are too brainwashed to accept.

Wrong again, little denier. Numerous studies have shown that there was no 'pause' in the rate of warming of the Earth's surface, atmosphere, cryosphere, and oceans.

 

That's not true. Only one data set shows a slow down in the rate of warming and that is the Karl set (ERSSTv4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) dataset).

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

Another dead ignorant denier cult myth! Supported, as usual, by the discredited stooge for the fossil fuel industry, Judith Curry.

In the real world....

Study drives a sixth nail into the global warming ‘pause’ myth
Numerous climate records and denial myths have fallen in 2015
The Guardian
Dr. John Abraham
24 November 2015
Despite the organization and funding behind groups which try to cast doubt about the causes and implications of climate change, the facts have spoken. The world continues to warm and their favorite myths have died.

We know that human-emitted heat-trapping gases warm the planet. In fact, this has been known for well over a century. With modern instruments (like ocean thermometers and satellites among others) we are now measuring the change. With advanced climate models, we can predict the changes. The measurements and the predictions are in excellent agreement, despite what cable news and second-rate skeptical scientists say.

And this year, the data are in. Using measurements to date, and long-term weather forecasting to predict the last 40 days of the year (while it may seem a bit early) we now know. As my colleague Dana Nuccitelli recently noted, 2015 is the hottest year on record. When the final numbers come out in January, the NOAA 2015 global averaged surface temperature anomaly over both land and ocean will be 1.6°Fabove the long-term average. For the NASA GISTEMP dataset, it will be 1.5°F above the long-term average. This comes on the heels of last year’s record and recent record ocean heat content. So, the bad news is we continue to break records. [update: 2016 was even hotter than 2015, making it the third 'hottest year on record globally' in a row]

The good news is that the favorite myths from climate-change skeptics have taken a beating this year. Perhaps the best-known myth is the so-called “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. This year, six individual studies have looked into this and found it incorrect. I have co-authored one of the studies, and I’ve written about some of the others here and here.

Well just today, another paper was published by Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes that comes to the same conclusion. The paper is titled, “On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”. The authors assess the magnitude and significance of all possible warming trends during the past 30 years. They found that looking back in time, the current definition of a “pause” in warming, as it is used in the literature, would have been used for more than one-third of the time, even though temperatures during the past 30 years increased by 1.1°F (0.6°C).

The authors included 40 peer-reviewed studies that reported on the so-called hiatus or pause, and found no consistent definition among those studies. Then, the authors used these same 40 papers and asked whether the so-called “hiatus” was unusual in the time records. They found it wasn’t.

The study also found that when the sample size is small (such as a short time period with very few years), a so-called “hiatus” will always appear. For instance, anyone claiming a “hiatus” shorter than 12 years will almost always find one.

I asked author Naomi Oreskes for a summary and she told me,

For a long time, climate change contrarians and deniers have insisted that global warming has paused, stopped, or taken a hiatus. This might have been dismissed as the usual denier cherry-picking - since much of it was based on cherry picking the starting year of 1998 - an unusually hot year.

So we took up the question, first of all, whether the warming had stopped and second, if it had not, why were scientists calling it a pause. Ironically the paper that answered the second question got published first: we showed how contrarian discourse had steeped into the climate science community, so scientists were calling this decrease in the rate of warming a pause, when it clearly was no such thing. If warming continued, as indeed it did, then by definition that is not a pause, nor a hiatus. Our new paper, shows statistically that not only has there not been a pause or hiatus, but that the observed rate of warming is well within the range of previous fluctuations - including some positive fluctuations (i.e. increases in the rate of warming) that did not generate any scientific attention.

So the bottom line is: there is no pause, and there has never been one. The rate of global warming does fluctuate - but this has been known for a long time. Whether or not any particular fluctuation has an identifiable cause - like the effects of ocean heat uptake or an El Niño - is an interesting question, but a fluctuation is not a pause, and it is important to be clear that the recent fluctuation is not statistically anomalous compared with other fluctuations we have seen, relative to the longer-term warming trend.

Now, with six nails in this coffin of this myth, are any more needed?

 

You actually call that ^^ science ?? The "discussion" of 1998 is priceless. Where is the demonstration that computer models have been able to backcast the last 70 years ??

 

Yup! And so does the rest of the world! Only anti-science nutjobs would say otherwise when a prominent climate scientist, Dr. John Abraham, discusses his own published scientific paper along with five other peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that all predate the Karl et al paper from last year and that all also debunk the notion that there was any actual pause or hiatus in global warming after 1998.

And quite accurate....and totally beyond your comprehension.

Right here, among many, many other places, you poor ignorant delusional denier cult dupe.

 

Excuse me, why do you show charts that are outdated by 16 years?

 

Members of the hockey team all. Peer review ?? The hockey stick papers were peer reviewed - peer review means nothing. The discussion was not scientific but a "depends what the meaning of the word "pause" is. There is actual acknowledgement that other pauses have happened besides the last ~ 20 years.

And again with the data from the third AR ?? Where are the missing global warming pause years ??

 

The hockey stick graph is quite accurate and confirmed by many other scientific studies. No matter what your anti-science denier cult myths tell you.

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick
By Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf

There was no pause after 1998 in the rate and progression of human caused global warming. No matter what your deranged anti-science denier cult myths claim.

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American
Jun 4, 2015 - No Pause in Global Warming. The global warming hiatus—a decade-plus slowdown in warming—could be chalked up to some buoys, a few extra years of data and a couple buckets of seawater. ... The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer.

No Pause in Ocean Warming - Scientific American
Jan 4, 2017 - No Pause in Ocean Warming. Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus, in global warming—the contention that global surface temperatures stopped rising during the first decade of this century.

NOAA confirms there is no pause in global warming confirming ocean temperatures | Daily Mail Online
Jan 4, 2017 - A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.

NASA Study Finds There Was No "Pause" In Climate Change | IFLScience
The notion that global warming was slowing down at the start of this century left climate scientists stumped. They were unable to explain this so called “hiatus,” which quickly became an important weapon in the arsenals ...

There was no pause « RealClimate
Jan 22, 2017 - I think that the idea of a pause in the global warming has been a red herring ever since it was ... And there was no reason to think that changes in the cryosphere and precipitation had ceased either.

There Was Never a "Pause" In Global Warming, Scientists Say - Popular Mechanics
Jan 5, 2017 - A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate ...

Conservative media can't stop denying there was no global warming 'pause' | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Jan 10, 2017 - July 2016 Was the Hottest Month on Record In 136 years of modern record- keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space ...

Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia
A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase ...

Already Debunked Global Warming 'Hiatus' Gets Another Dunking | InsideClimate News
Jan 4, 2017 - Their findings refute the already debunked contention that warming paused from 1998-2012. Using a global ... 4 in Science Advances, shows there was no slowdown in the pace of global warming.

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming. - National Oceanic and Atmospheric ...
Jun 4, 2015 - The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years. The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and ...

 

Most AGW fools think that when it's cold it's just the 'weather' but when it's hot it's the 'climate.'

- - - Updated - - -

They are like a monkey with a shiny object.

 

When the world is hot, it's climate, when your back yard is hot it's weather. The fools cannot differentiate either side.

 

The hockey stick and it's derivatives have been shown to be pure junk science to put it mildly. And dishonest science to put it bluntly.

Your sources are kind of a joke - the first does not mention the dishonesty of the MBH papers. And the remainder ?? Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, Guardian, Wikipedia, ??? The only way that a significant warming trend can be produced for the last 20 years is to use the manipulations of Karl on the sea surface temperature.

 

So if my backyard is cold it is no longer in the world?

 

No, if your backyard is cold that means global warming is a farce. See how that works?

- - - Updated - - -

No, if your backyard is cold that means global warming is a farce. See how that works?

 

No....I was told that when the world is hot it's climate but if it's hot in my backyard it's climate. No mention of cold... Therefore if my backyard is cold it must not be in the world. You completely missed my point.

 

Must be why the IPCC dropped in AR5.

 

"That is why you fail."

 

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...s-behind-global-warming-pause-say-scientists/

 

I'm sure you believe that bogus twaddle, like a good little denier cult devotee, but in the real world of science and facts that everyone actually lives in, that BS is just another one of your very demented denier cult delusions that only your crackpot cult is foolish, ignorant and brainwashed enough to believe.

In the real world of actual science.....

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty(grey area) as you go further back in time.

A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.


Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH199 compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?

Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.


Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).


Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).


Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxyestimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.


Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

 

Please look at the time scales of all your plots. The only one which goes back to the MWP is a graph from Mann who has been completely discredited for dishonesty. The IPCC does not even refer to the hockey stick in any form.