Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “This new study purporting to show that the global warming ‘pause’ was merely an ‘illusion’ that disappears upon further ‘adjustments’ will have virtually no impact in the climate debate.
The new study fails to examine satellite data which now shows an 18 year 6 month standstill in global temperatures. Sen. Ted Cruz and others can confidently and accurately continue to state that satellite data shows there is indeed a ‘pause’ of over 18 years. See: June 3 2015: Global warming standstill/pause increases to ‘a new record length’: 18 years 6 months’
The global warming ‘pause’ is alive and well.’
This latest study merely adds to the dueling datasets and of course timelines in the climate debate. Whether you deal with sea level rise, temperature or ice, the method of measurement yields different results. (satellite monitoring shows sea level rise acceleration while tide gauges do not for example)
It now appears that global warming is morphing into a debate where both sides can have their own set of ‘facts’!” – See: Dueling Datasets: Satellite Temperatures Reveal the ‘Global Warming Pause’ Lengthens
Ironically, the global warming establishment has simultaneously tried to deny a ‘pause’ while at the same time making up endless excuses for the ‘pause’. See: It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
Revising the past temperatures will always be a hard sell especially when the scientists doing the ‘adjustments’ to the past have a vested interested in promoting man-made climate change. The climate establishment has a history of ‘adjusting’ away inconvenient data from the global warming debate.
See: The ‘pause’ never existed and presto, warmists readjusted Arctic temperatures to alter past global temperatures. See: Say What?! After years trying to ‘explain away’ the flatline/pause/standstill’ in global temperatures, warmists now readjust past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed! – See: Presto! There was no global temperature standstill! Warmists rewrite temperature data to claim: ‘Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half’
End Morano statement.
The new paper published in the journal Science by Karl et al. is already under heavy criticism from scientists.
See: Physicist Dr. Fred Singer critique excerpts: NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces. It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas…
There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis: the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming…
One thing is quite certain, however: Current IPCC climate models cannot explain what the observations clearly show.This makes the models unsuitable for climate prediction – and for policy purposes generally.” End Singer excerpt.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was not involved in the new study, says it is interesting that tiny changes in data could erase the hiatus entirely. He points out that any look at how temperatures change over time is an estimate, so as more measurements are taken, understanding of potential biases improves and corrections are to be expected…
Judith Curry—a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences…”This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set,” she wrote. “The global surface temperature data sets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama Administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”
Marc Morano, publisher of the contrarian Climate Depot website and a former aide to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), says that NOAA’s new study will have “virtually no impact in the climate debate.” Cruz and others can continue to point to satellite data that still show a hiatus of more than 18 years. “This latest study merely adds to the dueling data sets and of course time lines in the climate debate,” Morano said by email.
Key pitfalls of the paper:
The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with other all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.
Three Scientists on New Paper: IS THERE NO “HIATUS” IN GLOBAL WARMING AFTER ALL?
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Paul C. Knappenberger
A new paper, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors, that removes the “hiatus” in global warming, will doubtless receive much attention in both scientific and policy circles. As with many scientific publications, Karl et al. prompts many serious scientific questions.
While this will be heralded as an important finding, the main claim that it uncovers a significant recent warming trend is certainly dubious. The significance level (.10) is hardly normative and the use of it certainly will prompt many readers to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, so that the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.
Additionally, there multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature that are made independently from surface measurements and which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and midtropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted. Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.
Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records.
And finally, even presuming all the adjustments applied by Karl et al. ultimately prove to be accurate, the temperature trend reported by Karl et al. during the “hiatus” period (1998-2014), remains significantly below (using Karl et al.’s measure of significance) the mean trend projected by the collection of climate models used in the most recent report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.
 Karl, T. R., et al., Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Scienceexpress, embargoed until 1400 EDT June 4, 2015.
 “It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998-2012…”
 Both the UAH and RSS satellite records are now in their 21st year without a significant trend, for example
“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”