Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry responds to warmist attacks on ‘pause’ whistleblower report
In this post, I go through the critiques of Rose/Bates made by NOAA scientists and other scientists working with surface temperature data. They are basically arguing that the NOAA surface temperature data sets are ‘close enough’ to other (sort of) independent analyses of surface temperatures. Well, this is sort of beside the main point that is being made by Bates and Rose, but lets look at these defenses anyways. I focus here more on critiques of what John Bates has to say, rather than the verbiage used by David Rose or the context that he provided.
The Data: Zeke Hausfather and Victor Venema
You may recall a recent CE post where I discussed a recent paper by Zeke Hausfather Uncertainties in sea surface temperature. Zeke’s paper states that it has independently verified the Huang/Karl sea surface temperatures.
Zeke has written a Factcheck on David Rose’s article. His arguments are that:
- NOAA’s sea surface temperatures have been independently verified (by his paper)
- NOAA’s land surface temperatures are similar to other data sets
- NOAA did make the data available at the time of publication of K15
With regards to #1: In a tweet on Sunday, Zeke states
Zeke Hausfather @hausfath @KK_Nidhogg @ClimateWeave @curryja and v5 is ~10% lower than v4. Both are way above v3, which is rather the point.
What Zeke is referring to is a new paper by Huang et al. that was submitted to J. Climate last November, describing ERSSTv5. That is, a new version that fixes a lot of the problems in ERSSTv4, including using ships to adjusting the buoys. I managed to download a copy of the new paper before it was taken off the internet. Zeke states that v4 trend is ~10% lower than v5 for the period 2000-2015. The exact number from information in the paper is 12.7% lower. The bottom line is that sea surface temperature data sets are a moving target. Yes, it is good to see the data sets being improved with time. The key issue that I have is reflected in this important paper A call for new approaches to quantifying biases in observations of sea surface temperature, which was discussed in this previous CE post.…
Whistleblower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.
The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.”
Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Update: NOAA To ‘Review’ Allegations That Scientists Manipulated ‘Global Warming’ Research
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it will “review” allegations by a former scientist that researchers rushed a study claiming the world was warming faster than previously thought to influence policymakers.
Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., blew the whistle on NOAA scientists behind a landmark 2015 taxpayer-funded study claiming there was no 15-year “pause” in global warming.
“NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately,” a NOAA spokesman told The Daily Caller News Foundation in response to Bates’ accusations.
The NOAA spokesman gave no further details on what actions the agency could take.…
New Scandal Rocks Climate Debate: NOAA Whistleblower reveals: ‘World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data’
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming
- 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
385
View comments
Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XmK8dSBJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on …
NOAA Whistleblower: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
First NOAA Whistleblower
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/first-noaa-whistleblower/
Many more to come… World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history, and this needs to end now that criminals are no longer in control of our government. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details. Kent Clizbe Fraud Detection Services [email protected] www.credibilityassurance.com 571 217 0714 Tweet
— gReader Pro…
NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal – Study ‘exaggerated global warming…& timed to influence’ UN agreement
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/noaa-whistleblower-reveals-pausebuster-scandal/
‘Pausebuster’ scandal
Posted: February 5, 2017 by Andrew in atmosphere, climate, Dataset, Politics
Credit:NOAA
David Rose in the Mail on Sunday reports that John J Bates has revealed a host of questionable practices committed by NOAA scientists as they rushed through the ‘Pausebuster’ paper.
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.…
Watch: Morano on TV: NYT hottest year article ‘was bunk’ – Claim is ‘meaningless’
Hottest year? ‘They don’t tell you how much warmer it actually was. If they did, myth would be exposed immediately’
Bryan Leyland: Things you know that ain’t so – 2016 was the warmest year
Labels: Bryan Leyland, Global Warming
“Things you know that ain’t so – 2016 was the warmest recorded year: global warming is real and dangerous”.
Or so they tell you. But you when you examine the facts, you come to the opposite conclusion. It is a classic example of using half-truths to mislead.
They don’t tell you how much warmer it actually was. If they did, the myth would be exposed immediately.
The amount of warming depends on which of the five recognised temperature records you use.
If you believe the satellite records – that NASA says are the most accurate – the warming since 1998 is between 0.02° and 0.04° – 0.1° to 0.2° per century. Statistically, it provides no evidence of warming of any sort.
The other measurements are the surface temperature records that have very poor surface coverage – virtually nothing over the ocean and huge areas of the earth – and have been systematically “adjusted” over the years to exaggerate the warming over the last hundred years or so. For instance, according to the GISS 2008 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.45° between 1910 and 2000. By January 2017, the GISS records showed that the warming for the same period had increased to 0.75°. Remarkable!
According to the satellites, the 2016 El Niño was not much hotter than that of 1998 but the surface temperature records indicate a more rapid rate of warming. But there is a big problem with this. El Niño events are natural and unpredictable and, because they are isolated events, they are unrelated to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations that would lead to a steady temperature rise. Measuring from the 1998 peak temperature to 2016 peak temperature gives a much more rapid rate of warming than measuring the average temperature trend over the period. So they use the temperature peaks. Putting it another way, if the 2016 El Nino had been cooler than that of 1998, would they have told us that it heralds global cooling? I think not.
The plain fact is that although the computer models predicted 0.5° temperature rise during the last 18 years the records show that world has not warmed in any statistically significant sense. Even the surface temperature records show a warming of 0.2° over that period. According to the IPCC, half …
Former Obama Official Mocks ‘Hottest Year on Record’ – Temps Within Margin of Error
Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.
“The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.
Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University who once worked for energy giant BP, also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.
The controversy began in mid-January when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”
NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported an even lower rise, of 0.01C. Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.
The reports, however, set the global warming bell towers ringing. Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was quoted at Climate Central referring to the past temperature record and saying “2016 has really blown that out of the water.”
Following the lead of the Schmidt and government press releases, USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.
Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT and one of the world’s foremost skeptics that global warming represents an existential threat.
“It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”
Koonin suggested the White House and the media could consider an alternative presentation of what’s happening.
“I think simply by having the government press releases on
Analysis: NASA: If The Trend Is Going The Wrong Way, Simply Change The Data
In 1999, NASA’s James Hansen was troubled that his global warming theory was failing and the US was cooling.
Whither U.S. Climate?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath”
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
Troublesome data is no problem for NASA. They simply alter the data to produce the result they want, and then scream that they are being harassed when called out for their fraud.
2000 Version archived by John Daly 2017 Version
In cooperation with NOAA, NASA simply cooled the past to make the post-1930 cooling go away.
NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com