‘Pause-Buster?’ Scientists Challenge New Study Attempting to Erase The ‘Pause’: Warmists Rewrite Temperature History To Eliminate the ‘Pause’

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’

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: Report: UN Scientist urged: ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’

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.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation analysis of new paper:

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.


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data



Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen

Paul C. Knappenberger

A new paper, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], 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[2] 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”[3].  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.

[1] 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.

[2] “It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998-2012…”

[3] Both the UAH and RSS satellite records are now in their 21st year without a significant trend, for example


NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

“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.”

Related Link: 

Watch Now: Morano on One America News discusses Temperature Alterations



29 Responses

  1. You know, if they keep adjusting the past temperatures downward to support global warming, at some point they’re going to telling us that 100 years ago we were in a global glaciation.

  2. You know, there are lots of hard working people in climate science who are out there doing good work. But this kind of politically motivated rubbish, hiding behind the banner of science, does the good climatologists a disservice. It’s a shame.

    1. “You know, there are lots of hard working people in climate science who are out there doing good work.”

      Really? and where are they? . Obviously they aren’t exactly outspoken huh? . Climatology is akin to Astrology and fortune telling.

  3. Interesting how NOAA cherry-picked their new warming trend line, beginning in 1951 (OK, well that is the day after the “consensus view” of when AGW became potentially observable), but is not 1951 right smack in the first ten years of a cooling trend which persisted from the early 1940’s through the late 1970’s; some 35-40 years? FTR – I simply eyeballed the red tend line.

    1. Is this an old chart? The last ones I saw have turned the cooling from 1940-1975 into a pause. I guess the scientists in the 1970’s didn’t know how to read thermometers.

      1. It’s NOAA’s chart, which the LAT’s used in it’s piece on this story. I copied it and simply added the “eyeballed” cooling tend to it.

    2. Your “eyeballed” trend line is solid evidence of your bias and delusion. If anything the trend from 1940’s to 1970’s is flat, perhaps slightly positive. Just look at how much of the blue line is above your red line and how much is below. Did you decide to simply ignore the early 50’s?

      And btw, as a scientist (thought not in climate science) I can tell you that “eyeballing” trend lines is a legitimate way to look at data, at least as a first pass. Before computers made it fast and easy, doctors and scientists did it all the time. The human eye is remarkably accurate at it with minimal training.

      1. A bit late tot the party – you be. Look, there is not an argument – the warmists agree that we were cooling – even using NASA’s greatly adjusted temperatures, during this period.

        I’d plot the trend from NOAA’s CAG for you – but their site is down in the moment.

        Here’s a 1975 plot from NASA of the Northern Hemisphere – where warming is the worst – as published in the National Academy of Sciences.

        1. I agree my post is pretty random due to late night insomniac internet browsing…

          I am not arguing that there was cooling or warming, just that on the graph that you show (of global temps) your trend-line is wildly off target. The trend is perhaps slightly negative or positive, though I would say flat, depending on your precise start and end points, of course. The second plot you show above is different.

  4. Humanity has been egregiously deceived.

    NOAA doubles down on their mistake.

    Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according
    to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of Joules /sec/m^2. Energy, in
    units Joules/m^2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (Joules/K/m^2)
    equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K). Thus (in consistent units)
    the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times
    a scale factor equals the AGT change. When this is applied to multiple
    corroborated paleo (as far back as 542 million years ago) estimates of CO2 and
    average global temperature, the only thing that consistently works is if the
    effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature

    CO2 has no influence on climate, ocean cycles and solar cycle 24 are both on down-slope.
    The only way to make it appear that it is still warming is to change the temperature numbers.

    See the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and discover what does cause climate change
    (explains 97+% average global temperatures since before 1900) at .http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

  5. JANUARY 3, 2015 The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

    ‘The RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 219 months from October 1996 to December 2014 – more than half the 432-month satellite record.’ ‘The global warming that the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted 25 years ago has stopped altogether.’

    ‘The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas.’


    CO2 makes up .036% of the atmosphere. Tiny, miniscule, practically unnoticeable. Got to be a Religion if you believe it makes the other 99.964% warmer.

  6. June 24, 2014 The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data

    When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


    There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


  7. “In the Soviet Union, the future is know. It’s the past that is always changing.”

    These monsters will do any-and-everything they can get away with to push The Agenda. With a simpatico mainstream press, it looks like they’ll succeed, too.

    Oh, and just wait until Pope Francis addresses Congress and issues his Papal encyclical on “climate change”. 1.2 billion Catholics will suddenly be faced with “Come on board with Global Warming or disobey God”.

    This isn’t going to end well…

  8. FTA: 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…

    What he wanted to say is: I’ve changed my data several times over the last several years, I just don’t announce it anyone, just with every IPCC report, the past gets colder, the MWP and global cooling in the mid-20th century, we’ve already swept those away and pretty soon we’ll show the MWP being an ice age.

  9. We erased our history so many times in the last two centuries. Does anyone remember the “scientific consensus” on Eugenics (which was also just a bunch of loud mouths). Do we remember in our own nation that thousands were killed and castrated in the name of helping “Darwinism” (a complexly failed theory BTW – which may come as a shock to most, but the tree of life is now an “impenetrable thicket, mutations are incapable of creating new functional structures, I could go on and on – see what new theories such as “Natural genetic engineering” LOL, they are coming up with, what is next “natural genetic programming?). Anyway, search for Micheal Crichton, RIP, and global warming on YouTube and he will give us all a fantastic history lesson – you will not be disappointed). Problem is we think we are so enlightened that we are free from the fraud and power grabs of times past – that is simply insanity….

Leave a Reply