It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The "pause" you are talking about was a result of including sea surface temperatures (which carried an uncorrected cool bias) in the models.
But the rate did slow down (the "pause")
I think that human activity is the primary cause of the observed ongoing warming. I think that CO2 emissions are the primary factor.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
And you Phage, do you believe is Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change? Do you believe that that there is insufficient evidence to support alarmist claims
Vaguely so. Yes.
Well that is the very subject of this thread now is it not?
Has Bates disputed the conclusions reached in K15?
Could it be because attacking John Bates would also bring climate data as a whole into question because john Bates worked on it?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kennyb72
That quote has been quoted several times, thanks. I don't see "cudgelling" in there.
Indeed. There is clearly no love lost between Bates and Karl. However, I see no unequivocal statement about data being deliberately distorted.
And this is the general tone coming from Bates if you read carefully.
Do you think that Bates thinks AGW is a hoax?
The "pause" you are talking about was a result of including sea surface temperatures (which carried an uncorrected cool bias) in the models.
Recent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the surface air temperature record is of high scientific value. Investigations have also identified non-climatic artefacts in tropospheric temperatures inferred from radiosondes and satellites, and important errors in ocean heat uptake estimates.
Newly identified observational errors do not, however, negate the existence of a real reduction in the surface warming rate in the early twenty-first century relative to the 1970s–1990s.
Link
With regards to John Bates criticisms of how Karl et al. handled established NOAA data archiving protocol and have possibly circumvented the quality control process, it mainly refers to the new version of the GHCN-M data set, not to the publication of ERSST.
In August 2014, in response to the continuing software problems with GHCNMv3.2.2 (version of August 2013), the NCDC Science Council was briefed about a proposal to subject the GHCNMv3 software, and particularly the pairwise homogeneity analysis portion, to a rigorous software rejuvenation effort to bring it up to CMMI level 2 standards and resolve the lingering software errors. All software has errors and it is not surprising there were some, but the magnitude of the problem was significant and a rigorous process of software improvement like the one proposed was needed.
However, this effort was just beginning when the K15 paper was submitted, and so K15 must have used data with some experimental processing that combined aspects of V3 and V4 with known flaws. The GHCNMv3.X used in K15 did not go through any ORR process, and so what precisely was done is not documented. The ORR package for GHCNMv4 beta (in October 2015) uses the rejuvenated software and also includes two additional quality checks versus version 3.
Read more
The bias corrections to NOAA's sea surface temperature data did not close the gap between observations and models.
When I was referring to models I did not mean climate models. I was referring to the temperature analysis methods being discussed. I will be more careful in the future.
You're conflating separate issues. The key questions for climate scientists has always been why global surface temperatures have warmed at a significantly slower rate in last two decades than expected from simulations.