Global Warming Pause Challenged by NOAA Research

NOAA claims to have uncovered problems with way the climate data was measured, stating that the what was thought be a recent pause in the warming trend was based on erroneous calculations.

The slowdown, sometimes inaccurately described as a halt or hiatus, became a major talking point for people critical of climate science.

Now, new research suggests the whole thing may have been based on incorrect data.

When adjustments are made to correct for recently discovered problems in the way global temperatures were measured, the slowdown largely disappears

The article goes on to say...

At the same time, senior climate scientists at other agencies were in no hurry to embrace NOAA’s specific adjustments.

Some experts also pointed out that, depending on exactly how the calculation is done, a slowdown in global warming still appears in the temperature record over the past 15 years, though it may be smaller than before. These scientists have never accepted the notion that the slowdown represents any major problem in climate theory, but they say it was real and demands an explanation.

The main issue - to me at least - is how are we supposed to have any confidence in the theory when we can't have confidence in the data? We have some scientists stating that the calculations were incorrect while others are say they are in no hurry to embrace these corrections. Not everyone can even agree that the data is valid, much less what how it will impact the planet and all that it encompasses.

I think most people want to know that the information they are getting regarding this topic is based off of factual evidence. I think most of it is but can we really be sure at this point?



article

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Looks like all the agw papers published over the past will have to be recalled as they were in error . That is a lot of correcting to do even in all of the IPCC reports .

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Ah! I see our old friend Gavin A. Schmidt has got his neb in,
“What you have is a reasonable effort to deal with known biases, and obviously there is some uncertainty in how you do that,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, who heads a NASA climate research unit in New York that deals with similar issues"

Similar issues??? He's the guy at the forefront of the UEA E-MAIL scandal, and much of the climate change lexicon. I wouldn't trust him with a bargepole, never mind the North pole. He likes to talk and threaten but not debate, here he is in debate...not. with Dr. Roy Spencer.
(And if you want to know more about the E-Mail scandal, it is mostly considered at UEA, that the E-Mails were blown by an insider there)

a reply to: smurfy

I really do want to just leave it to the experts (climate scientists) and take their word for it. But at this moment in time I just can't.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Truth is always truthier when revised.

a reply to: smurfy

Debunkin g Climategate

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
a reply to: smurfy

I really do want to just leave it to the experts (climate scientists) and take their word for it. But at this moment in time I just can't.

So would I, but then many scientists were/are sceptical from the start, which puts us plebs between a rock and a hard place, but the more you look the more you learn.
Some scientists, (not all of course) like to indulge themselves with enconomies of the truth when it suits, just like Schmidt did well after he discovered that the exchanges of E-Mails between his group had been made public,

'Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:48:21 -0500
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: lucia liljegren
Subject: a word to the wise

Lucia, As I am certain you are aware, hacking into private emails is very illegal. If legitimate, your scoop was therefore almost certainly obtained illegally (since how would you get 1000 emails otherwise). I don’t see any link on Jeff-id’s site, and so I’m not sure where mosher got this from, but you and he might end up being questioned as part of any investigation that might end up happening. I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so. Just my twopenny’s worth
Gavin'


Never mind the threat, he had already known two days before that the E-Mails were [legit]..well he knew they were anyway since he was a correspondent to others in those E-Mails, and rather that they they were already available and legit those two days before. So he was lying to her, to hopefully scare her! She was just a recipient. Mr nice guy Eh!

a reply to: smurfy

The emails were obtained by a hacker. Publishing them was breaking the law. He wasn't threatening her, he was telling her that he was not giving her permission to publish the private emails. You really should check up on the other side of climategate, the link I gave above is a good place to start.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
a reply to: smurfy

I really do want to just leave it to the experts (climate scientists) and take their word for it. But at this moment in time I just can't.

What experts? With all the "corrections" that have "had" to be made . In the case of GW information , if it doesnt fit what they want , it has to be "corrected" . This is absolutely not science and they are not "experts". It actually reminds me of "Larry,Moe, and Curly"

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

The emails were obtained by a hacker. Publishing them was breaking the law. He wasn't threatening her, he was telling her that he was not giving her permission to publish the private emails. You really should check up on the other side of climategate, the link I gave above is a good place to start.

You really believe that? he was threatening her and making the lie at the same time, "If legitimate".... At the same time throwing out names in the hope to identify the hacker in reciprocation. He lied, and you know it. you really should do a bit of checking yourself, apart from checking your own link that is.

Anyway back on topic rather than debunking for the millionth time the manufactured Climategate that deniers won't bother checking out anyway (shocking)...

In a new paper in Science Express, Karl et al. describe the impacts of two significant updates to the NOAA NCEI (née NCDC) global temperature series. The two updates are: 1) the adoption of ERSST v4 for the ocean temperatures (incorporating a number of corrections for biases for different methods), and 2) the use of the larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database, instead of GHCN. This kind of update happens all the time as datasets expand through data-recovery efforts and increasing digitization, and as biases in the raw measurements are better understood. However, this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more. To understand why this is perhaps less dramatic than it might seem, it’s worth stepping back to see a little context… - See more at: www.realclimate.org...

Here we go again....

Human activity is causing increases of CO2 and CH4 in troposphere(ground layer of the atmosphere). Both are known to cause radiative forcing. It is only a logic deduction to assume that human activity is indeed causing a warming effect on planet Earth.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

*sigh*

When will the need to manipulate the data end? If the trends don't match the narrative, the data gets manipulated at one point or another. NOAA has already been shown to be unnecessarily manipulating data to change the trends, so why stop now, right?

Either that, or the people collecting and interpreting the data are inept fools and need to seek employment outside of the scientific community.

In either case, this is a reiteration that nothing is a consensus when it comes to climate change, other then the fact that the authorities on the subject apparently need to pull their collective head out of their arse and learn how to do things properly.

originally posted by: jrod
Here we go again....

Human activity is causing increases of CO2 and CH4 in troposphere(ground layer of the atmosphere). Both are known to cause radiative forcing. It is only a logic deduction to assume that human activity is indeed causing a warming effect on planet Earth.

And again, as has been pointed out a million times, in Earth's history the CO2 levels have been much much higher and life flourished. Perhaps most of the globe was even a tropical climate. Sound the alarms!!

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

I don't see what the problem is. Scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptical of new information. That's how science works. So that group of scientists who are skeptical of the new NOAA report is a good thing. It shows that the peer review process ISN'T as corrupt as climate change deniers like to pretend.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: jrod
Here we go again....

Human activity is causing increases of CO2 and CH4 in troposphere(ground layer of the atmosphere). Both are known to cause radiative forcing. It is only a logic deduction to assume that human activity is indeed causing a warming effect on planet Earth.

And again, as has been pointed out a million times, in Earth's history the CO2 levels have been much much higher and life flourished. Perhaps most of the globe was even a tropical climate. Sound the alarms!!

Just because life flourished at those higher CO2 levels, doesn't mean that human life will flourish. I'm pretty sure that no one thinks this will wipe out all life on the planet. Evolution will account for the higher CO2 levels just fine and life will go on. Heck, with the number of humans on the planet, it is unlikely that it will even spell doom for the human race.

The problem is that this isn't a natural occurrence. We humans are causing it, and it is getting to the point that we are looking at a sixth major extinction event because of it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

I don't see what the problem is. Scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptical of new information. That's how science works. So that group of scientists who are skeptical of the new NOAA report is a good thing. It shows that the peer review process ISN'T as corrupt as climate change deniers like to pretend.

I'm not a climate denier. My statement was simply that it's difficult to trust the entire model when there are doubts bringing into question the integrity of the underlying data. Base off of this data, there are those that have said that denying climate change (not man made global warming I concede) is tantamount to criminal activity.

Link

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

I didn't call you a climate denier, or at least I didn't mean to. The point is that, your problem of the data having doubts by certain scientists is the peer review process at work. Scientists at the NOAA publish some data, other scientists have their doubts and see if it stands up to scrutiny. They test it and either confirm or deny it.

No scientific theory has 100+ consensus on it, even the data. It just doesn't work that way.

Just more climate scientists fudging numbers. If their equipment says that the weather is becoming too cool, they muddle it up and twist it around until it says otherwise.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed and I get that. I work with data a lot. If I had the inconsistencies this group has, my employer would have zero confidence in my analyses. I guess my point is that these guys need to get their act together. And if they need to have their data peer reviewed BEFORE they publish anything then that's what they should do. Given that, those data set are tremendously huge and highly denormalized. When working with data sets like that, there are always certain assumptions that have to be made along the way. Ask any big data person and they'll tell you the same.