New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[Frodo]

Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Challenged by NOAA Research

By JUSTIN GILLIS
JUNE 4, 2015

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RFayette]

Interestingly, it lowers the total amount of warming measured over the past 150 years or so.  I am curious what some climate change skeptics would respond about this. 

[cinyc]

Interestingly, it lowers the total amount of warming measured over the past 150 years or so.  I am curious what some climate change skeptics would respond about this. 

NOAA is massaging the data to get the result it wants, similar to what they have done in the past.  Meanwhile, the satellite temperature records have shown zero warming for over 18 years.  Or something like that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They use that term to try to silence anyone from objecting to their view and to delegitimize your view. It's an Alinsky tactic.

[RFayette]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

[TJ in Oregon]

I certainly believe the mechanism behind global warming (the blackbody radiation spectra of certain atmospheric gases) contributes to increasing the global temperature. I don't think many people can really deny that much. But what is far less obvious is the magnitude of this increase in temperature. I'm not quite sure the signal is larger than the noise and the temperature data over the last couple decades casts  that further into question. If I were to place a bet, I would probably say there's about a 70% chance that the greenhouse gas effect is leading to a significant increase in global temperature.

The dataset discussed in the article is less than idea for a lot of reasons. There are just so many inconsistencies between measurements done at different places over the course of years and as a result we have a litany of complicated corrections applied to fix this that or the other thing, each of which adds more uncertainty to the model. In many of their datapoints, the error bars are quite a bit larger than the trend. Again, it's probably real but I've seen plenty of data from other experiments that looked more convincing than this which turned out to be artifacts. Again, it's probably real but Snowguy's arguments shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It's entirely possible that the actual greenhouse gas warming effect is irrelevantly small, the trend is mostly noise, and the adjustments are just everyone being so convinced we already know what the data is 'supposed' to be that we'll find a way to make it say that.

On the policy side of things, what I think we ought to be doing now is trying to figure out how we can increase our nuclear power output. No other alternative to fossil fuels can provide the type of base load that nuclear can right now. We should be lightly subsidizing wind and funding research into the rest.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

Richard Muller says it's 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than 250 years ago. And this was because of work that was trying to prove the climate deniers right. Obviously he's not a denier any more.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

[RFayette]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

Indeed.  I'm just saying, I'd like to see a debate on the validity of the adjustments and see what the opposing side is saying.  Certainly there is a time and a place for adjusting stats, but the real question is how appropriate the modifications were this time.

[CountryClassSF]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

I think the green industry sees dollar signs in "climate change." I think that's the #1 motivator.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

Richard Muller says it's 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than 250 years ago. And this was because of work that was trying to prove the climate deniers right. Obviously he's not a denier any more.

What magic crystal ball did Richard Muller use to calculate the global temperature of 250 years ago?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

There seems to be a considerable lack of understanding about the collection, collation, analysis and presentation of stats.

This seems to be a nicely worded way of dismissing my post above.  But while I could link to the paper in question and the analysis of the stats and adjustments...I'll leave that to you as it might give you some understanding about the collection, collation, analysis, and presentation of stats.

Stop being obscurantist.  This is simple.  The scientists adjusted the trend upward by 0.08°C over 13 years and then obscurantized and jargonized the justification until you would just take them at their word.  Like a 3 cylinder full sized pick up truck...but with all kinds of bells and whistles!

Then they send the dogs out with the denier word to drown out any skepticism.

They say as much in the abstract.  They found a problem (the warming trend wasnt strong enough and a talk of hiatus or pause was taking over the debate)...so after some heavy duty analysis they found just enough hundredths of a degree over a 15 year period to technically say the pause never occurred.

Hey Polnut...have you disclaimed that you have a career related obligation not to be skeptical about global warming?  im afraid people might not know that and believe you're just being neutral on the subject.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I'd love to see Snowguy debate a climate scientist.  He seems better informed than Marc Morano, who is paid millions for his work.

I do believe the general consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and responsible for a good chunk of global warming in the past 50 years.  I am very skeptical about statistical manipulations in general and I'd love for there to be a great debate on the statistical modifications and datasets.

I think the green industry sees dollar signs in "climate change." I think that's the #1 motivator.

I think the oil industry sees dollar signs in calling "hoax" on climate change. I think that's their #1 motivator.

[The Free North]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

This pretty much covers everything I was going to say, great work friend.

[The Free North]

Only the future is certain!  It's the past that's always changing.

They finally did it!  Years of torturing the temperature data, every time increasing the warming trend, bit by bit...culling stations that didn't conform...leaving a relative few mostly in urban areas.

The joke is that as the glaciers advance on us, the folks at NOAA will be standing at the last weather station on earth holding a lighter to the thermometer proclaiming "the MODELS were right all along and it's worse than we thought!"

But nobody would look into the smoke and mirrors and genius statistical manipulation involved here.  I'm the denier and they are the objective scientist.  Just remember.  They get paid for their work by the government who has a vested interest in keeping you scared of the weather and the future.  I dont.

They lowered the upward trend in sea surface temps during the 80s and 90s by adjusting temps upward through the 80s by 0.02°C.  Then the adjustments declne to -0.03°C in the 1997-2000 period...when the hiatus actually began.  Then the adjustment slope quickly climbs to 0.05°C by 2013/14.

So they added 0.08°C to the trend over 2000-2013 which was enough to say the hiatus technically didn't occur.

And yet other datasets disagree.  The Argo buoys deployed globally show no warming and the satellites show no warming.

Instead they relied on adjusting sst data collected from ships and figured those in extra heavy into their algorithms.

Again...I'm the science denier!

Richard Muller says it's 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than 250 years ago. And this was because of work that was trying to prove the climate deniers right. Obviously he's not a denier any more.

What magic crystal ball did Richard Muller use to calculate the global temperature of 250 years ago?

Thermometers carefully placed to only record the most urban (read warmest) areas of a region with next to no coverage outside of the industrialized world or in rural areas.

You know...reliable data.

[The Free North]

And before anyone makes a comment, reanalysis is riddled with its own problems and is by no means a perfect substitute for complete satellite coverage.

[Iosif]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

[Antonio the Sixth]

This thread is just sad.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

the difference here is that you are claiming to know better than virtually every actual expert on the subject.

[Iosif]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

So that's a no for you.

You don't have to believe in climate change, but please don't try to parse and criticise scientific research. It's just painful to read.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

the difference here is that you are claiming to know better than virtually every actual expert on the subject.

So the seven datasets that show a pause in global warming, compiled by the authorities you appeal to, don't matter?

I'd merely claim those seven datasets actually have more merit than the one provided in this paper And by simple number are more worthy of consideration.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread are scientists?

Really?  That's the best you can do?

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/19-appeal-to-accomplishment

You have some awesome credentials yourself, being a lawyer and Member of the FBI.

Blatter will come out of this unscathed. He'll disassociate with everyone involved and pretend he barely knew them and it was his leadership really that was behind rooting out corruption.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not.

also, a psychic apparently!

So that's a no for you.

You don't have to believe in climate change, but please don't try to parse and criticise scientific research. It's just painful to read.

You're clearly very uneducated on the issue and have even less of a position to argue from.  I'd recommend using the ignore feature.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Snowguy in 1995:

You must be logged in to read this quote.