PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Challenged by NOAA Research



CK 17
06-05-2015, 01:41 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/science/noaa-research-presents-evidence-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html


". . . . . For many decades, into the mid-20th century, the main measurements came from sailors hauling up buckets of seawater and plopping thermometers into them.The buckets varied, the thermometers varied, and some of the sailors were more diligent than others about following instructions. On average, scientists believe, the water tended to cool off a bit before the temperature was recorded.
NOAA had long believed the data glitches from the buckets had largely disappeared after World War II, but new information suggests that bucket measurements continued on some commercial vessels long after the war. The new NOAA data set attempts to correct for this and other problems in the ocean records.. . . . "

htom
06-05-2015, 01:59 AM
So the old temperatures were too LOW (from cooling off)? This is going to help the cause of global warming how?

Peerie Maa
06-05-2015, 02:52 AM
So the old temperatures were too LOW (from cooling off)? This is going to help the cause of global warming how?

Better understanding of the data and how it was gathered = more accurate science.

LeeG
06-05-2015, 05:03 AM
So the old temperatures were too LOW (from cooling off)? This is going to help the cause of global warming how?

So try reading the article.



http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012.
This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012.
The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999.
"The IPCC's statement of two years ago - that the global surface temperature 'has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years' - is no longer valid," said Dr Karl, the director of Noaa's National Climatic Data Center.

Ian McColgin
06-05-2015, 05:14 AM
To simplify, readings from ships tended consistently low but with more buoys and still ships taking temperatures in the same area, the problem was discovered and the correction constant was found. In a similar manner, the vast increase in land stations and in the number of data points from each station led to a different cause for under-estimating temperatures and the discoverey that, like at sea, a constant could be applied to correct the old date.

It should also be noted that even with the old and faulty data, the observation was that climate change had slowed, not reversed. But if you want to bring your snowball into the Senate, fine.

Edited to correct last sentence first paragraph.

Flying Orca
06-05-2015, 07:31 AM
This is going to help the cause of global warming how?

Just curious - why do you mis-categorize global warming as a "cause" rather than a well-attested physical phenomenon? You're too smart for it to be other than deliberate.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to outline your disagreements with specific items in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, along with your scientific objections to those items. What have you got?

skuthorp
06-05-2015, 08:19 AM
It's about time that the politicians and the public, like the military and insurance industries, stopped arguing about the cause, or how much and had some thoughts about coping strategies. There'a a lot to be done.

CK 17
06-05-2015, 09:02 AM
I've asked this question of the deniers before; just what is it they would want to see regarding observable changes in the climate before accepting climate change as real and man made?

Of course, by the time the deniers are convinced, by the time it's so obvious, it's gonna be way too late.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2015, 09:07 AM
I've asked this question of the deniers before; just what is it they would want to see regarding observable changes in the climate before accepting climate change as real and man made?

Of course, by the time the deniers are convinced, by the time it's so obvious, it's gonna be way too late. I think it's almost too late!

CK 17
06-05-2015, 09:22 AM
^and I've never got an answer.

ahp
06-05-2015, 10:36 AM
If there is a world wide conspiracy of evil scientist to persuade governments that global warming is real, instead of false, and they succeed, who benefits?

Tell me, I want to be entertained.

RonW
06-05-2015, 10:47 AM
I can't figure out which group is the craziest, the group that believes mankind has the ability to change (warm) the temperatures of the earth, or the group that believes that mankind through a carbon tax (more taxes) can cool the surface of the earth ?

Oh wait, hold it, this is all the same group .

Paul Pless
06-05-2015, 10:50 AM
or the group that believes that mankind through a carbon tax (more taxes) can cool the surface of the earth ?

no group believes this

RonW
06-05-2015, 10:52 AM
no group believes this

Then what are they going to do with the money from the carbon tax ?

Lew Barrett
06-05-2015, 10:56 AM
A carbon tax is not the solution and has never been proposed as such. It's but one means of providing an economic incentive to gross polluters to find the solutions. Of course mankind can have no effect on the earth. Our situation is just as dark as it ever was. See? No visible effects.

http://a.images.blip.tv/SpaceRip-BlackMarbleUnprecedentedNewViewsOfEarthAt690-698.jpg

RonW
06-05-2015, 11:07 AM
A carbon tax is not the solution and has never been proposed as such. It's but one means of providing an economic incentive to gross polluters to find the solutions. Of course mankind can have no effect on the earth.


Then the carbon tax is nothing more then a Sin Tax.. Which means the government is scamming money instead of dealing with any if any issues.

Sounds like a corrupt, ineffectual, over bloated bureaucracy with unelected officials creating law by the way of regulations and fines.

Flying Orca
06-05-2015, 11:16 AM
the group that believes mankind has the ability to change (warm) the temperatures of the earth

Well, that's the state of the science, as confirmed by thousands of scientists looking at hundreds of different facets of the phenomenon. The IPCC reports that warming is "unequivocal" and "extremely likely" to be primarily caused by human activity. What's your scientific basis for disagreeing?


the group that believes that mankind through a carbon tax (more taxes) can cool the surface of the earth ?

As has been pointed out, nobody believes this. Taxes as incentive to change, and to fund change, have a long and successful history - I'm surprised you don't know this.

Flying Orca
06-05-2015, 11:17 AM
Sounds like a corrupt, ineffectual, over bloated bureaucracy with unelected officials creating law by the way of regulations and fines.

What's your suggestion? If you have a better solution, bring it to the table. If you don't, shut the **** up and let the leaders lead.

CK 17
06-05-2015, 11:26 AM
What's your suggestion? If you have a better solution, bring it to the table. If you don't, shut the **** up and let the leaders lead.
Suggestion, solution? He doesn't even think there's a problem.

S.V. Airlie
06-05-2015, 11:33 AM
He's got a problem but, denies it CK!

RonW
06-05-2015, 01:44 PM
Flying Orca -
The IPCC reports that warming is "unequivocal" and "extremely likely" to be primarily caused by human activity.

Fling Orca -
What's your suggestion? If you have a better solution, bring it to the table. If you don't, shut the **** up and let the leaders lead.

I thought we already had this discussion, and the conclusion was----that most likely the earth's temperatures have risen by approx. 3/4 of 1 degree over the last hundred years,or so they think. And most of it is caused by the oceans turning over and releasing more carbon dioxide..

And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it......now any all governments that would like to reduce pollution and carbon dioxide is a good thing as long as it is done within reason. Or find cleaner and cheaper alternate fuel systems........

Now what leaders are you talking about....al gore and his 2 bit crony friends that are pulling a scam. Is that our leaders?
I am just amazed at how many people will jump on the band wagon for the typical liberal response to everything..which is throw money at it, but make damm sure it is some one else's money.........

Canoez
06-05-2015, 01:59 PM
And there ain't a damm thing you can do about it......now any all governments that would like to reduce pollution and carbon dioxide is a good thing as long as it is done within reason.


Deja Moo, I think. (I've heard that bull before..)

Folks said that about CFC use and the Ozone hole in the '70's and '80's. There was a "damm" thing we could do about it, we did and things are improving.

If you do nothing, nothing will ever change. Seeing as how we know the cause, we can take action. Once we take some action, it will have an impact in the positive direction.



Or find cleaner and cheaper alternate fuel systems........


Nail on head. The research to find the cleaner and cheaper alternate energy sources takes dollars which could be paid for with a carbon tax. Oh - and less consumption. Better insulation, etc. These things are positive because for the end consumer, it has a quick payback and saves money, too.

Peerie Maa
06-05-2015, 02:15 PM
Nail on head. The research to find the cleaner and cheaper alternate energy sources takes dollars which could be paid for with a carbon tax. Oh - and less consumption. Better insulation, etc. These things are positive because for the end consumer, it has a quick payback and saves money, too.

This. These are the ways that both voters and (listen up Ron) INDUSTRY can benefit by doing it better..

LeeG
06-05-2015, 03:21 PM
Oceans turning over is the source of CO2 increase?

Lew Barrett
06-05-2015, 03:34 PM
Then the carbon tax is nothing more then a Sin Tax.. Which means the government is scamming money instead of dealing with any if any issues.

Sounds like a corrupt, ineffectual, over bloated bureaucracy with unelected officials creating law by the way of regulations and fines.

Do you like oysters, Ron? (http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/2015/06/shellfish-toxin-study-reveals-impact-warmer-waters)

RonW
06-05-2015, 03:57 PM
Do you like oysters, Ron? (http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/2015/06/shellfish-toxin-study-reveals-impact-warmer-waters)

Will we lose all of our oysters if we don't pass a global warming carbon tax, Lew ?

Lew Barrett
06-05-2015, 04:05 PM
Will we lose all of our oysters if we don't pass a global warming carbon tax, Lew ?

As we've been saying here Ron, are you proposing that there's no problem, or simply that you don't find the solutions very exciting? If the latter, I suspect you'll find much agreement that a lot more can be accomplished, and by all concerned parties. If the former, anticipate more ridicule.

RonW
06-05-2015, 04:40 PM
As we've been saying here Ron, are you proposing that there's no problem, or simply that you don't find the solutions very exciting? If the latter, I suspect you'll find much agreement that a lot more can be accomplished, and by all concerned parties. If the former, anticipate more ridicule.

It is like I said, it is 3/4 of 1 degree rise in temperature over the last 100 years and 2/3 rds of that is caused by oceans turning over, and there ain't a damm thing we can do about it, and placing a tax on the people is nothing more then a scam.....

Now if you want to reduce pollution, or increase insulation to reduce energy consumption, that is another subject.....

Lew Barrett
06-05-2015, 04:43 PM
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.......

LeeG
06-07-2015, 12:56 PM
This is entertaining, denier diva Anthony Watts letter to Tom Peterson one of the co-authors to the recent paper.


http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html#more

Peterson,
This latest paper, Karl et al. 2015 is an embarrassment to science. It epitomizes president Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address about science and politics becoming hopelessly intertwined, and thus corrupted.
In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.
After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.
This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.
How sad for you all.
Anthony Watts

Dear Mr. Watts,
As you might imagine, my views about our paper and our motives are somewhat different than yours. To explain why, I should start by explaining my views on what science is and how it works.
Here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GksJ3QteNF0
is a 14 minute TEDxAsheville talk I gave in January on What is Science. While I can't do justice to a 14 minute talk in a single sentence, the bottom line is that science is the result of tests.
So let me give you two examples from our paper. One of the new adjustments we are applying is extending the corrections to ship data, based on information derived from night marine air temperatures, up to the present (we had previously stopped in the 1940s). As we write in the article's on-line supplement, "This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period."
The second example I will pose as a question. We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.
You are, of course, welcome to share this with your readers (or not), as you deem appropriate.
Regards, Tom.

LeeG
06-07-2015, 01:02 PM
This is entertaining, denier diva Anthony Watts letter to Tom Peterson one of the co-authors to the recent paper.

Petersons's question pretty much exposes Watts chicanery

"What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? "

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html#more

Peterson,
This latest paper, Karl et al. 2015 is an embarrassment to science. It epitomizes president Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address about science and politics becoming hopelessly intertwined, and thus corrupted.
In my last telephone conversation with you, I stated (paraphrasing) that “I believe you folks aren’t doing anything fraudulent, but you are doing what you feel is correct science in what you believe is a correct way”.
After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.
This will be NCDC’s Waterloo, and will backfire on all of you terribly on the world stage. Take a lesson from Yamamoto’s own observation after he bombed Pearl Harbor. Take a lesson from what is on WUWT today.
How sad for you all.
Anthony Watts

Dear Mr. Watts,
As you might imagine, my views about our paper and our motives are somewhat different than yours. To explain why, I should start by explaining my views on what science is and how it works.
Here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GksJ3QteNF0
is a 14 minute TEDxAsheville talk I gave in January on What is Science. While I can't do justice to a 14 minute talk in a single sentence, the bottom line is that science is the result of tests.
So let me give you two examples from our paper. One of the new adjustments we are applying is extending the corrections to ship data, based on information derived from night marine air temperatures, up to the present (we had previously stopped in the 1940s). As we write in the article's on-line supplement, "This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period."
The second example I will pose as a question. We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.
You are, of course, welcome to share this with your readers (or not), as you deem appropriate.
Regards, Tom.

WX
06-07-2015, 06:06 PM
Seems there was no "pause" in global warming.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179

LeeG
06-07-2015, 08:40 PM
Darn that science!