Climate change: Is it for real?

LOLOL. In the real world, your fraudulent denier cult myths DO NOT "debunk" actual science.....that's one of the insanities of your crackpot cult of reality denial.

There has been no "hiatus since 1998".

'Science' publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming
NOAA
June 4, 2015
A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

The apparent observed slowing or decrease in the upward rate of global surface temperature warming has been nicknamed the "hiatus." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998-2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951-2012.

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014--the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.


(Credit: NOAA)

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods.

New analyses with these data demonstrate that incomplete spatial coverage also led to underestimates of the true global temperature change previously reported in the 2013 IPCC report. The integration of dozens of data sets has improved spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have been rapidly increasing in recent decades. For example, the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank, integrated with NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily dataset and forty additional historical data sources, has more than doubled the number of weather stations available for analysis.

Lastly, the incorporation of additional years of data, 2013 and 2014, with 2014 being the warmest year on record, has had a notable impact on the temperature assessment. As stated by the IPCC, the "hiatus" period 1998-2012 is short and began with an unusually warm El Niño year. However, over the full period of record, from 1880 to present, the newly calculated warming trend is not substantially different than reported previously (0.68°C / Century (new) vs 0.65°C / Century (old)), reinforcing that the new corrections mainly have in impact in recent decades.

On the Web

* To learn more, see the recently published paper in Science, which details the corrected calculations and updated analyses in its supplementary material.

* To see NCEI's collection of climate monitoring reference information, see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/

* For operational NCEI data, see the Climate-at-a-Glance visualization tool, see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

 

We just pointed out upthread the fundamental problem with Karl's paper. He adjusts the more accurate buoy data up so that it agrees with the ship heat contamination of the ship intake tubes. Karl manufactures a warming trend since 1998 by making this bogus adjustment.

 

Sorry - I'm not quite sure what you are saying - the wording is hard to understand. I think that the point is that after WWII the adjustments are positive creating or adding to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) story.

 

Yes but there was also significant positive adjustment before that. So you can make PDs argument depending on where you start your analysis from. Its not a lie just dishonest.

 

And I debunked your BS by pointing out that your source is the corrupt science-whore, Patrick Michaels, who takes money from the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel industry players to gin up fraudulent pseudo-science to fool the rightwingnuts.....and that the 'Cato Institute', that posted his BS on their website (because it is corrupt crap non-science that can't get published in any actual reputable peer-reviewed science journals) is basically a corporate propaganda outlet founded by the Koch brothers and funded by the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco companies and other far rightwing foundations that are heavily invested in oil and coal.

Meanwhile the paper I cited was peer-reviewed and published in Science. It represents sound science and it is affirmed by the other climate scientists. You have not even come close to challenging its validity.

 

Well the EPAs inspector general fount that the EPA violated the act in its endangerment finding and nothing at all happened.

 

Still based on the Karl et. al. paper that has many scientists scratching their heads and NOAA whistle blowers reporting to Congress. Now 300 scientists have written to Congress asking ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’.

But that won't phase you will it? You will believe anything the government tells you (or that you read on ThinkProgress) because government NEVER has an agenda and the billions poured into proving a conclusion absent the facts by government has no effect. LOL

 

So in your own words tell me how it is acceptable to adjust good data to match bad data rather than adjust the bad data?

 

X 2. It's puzzling to grasp the fact that other people would sign off on something so obviously wrong. It must be that the ends justify the means. Some are convinced that AGW is an existential and immediate threat to the world's human population. If that paper was peer reviewed then the process of peer review is meaningless.

 

The genetic fallacy - anything that comes out of Cato is dishonest due to corruption from the donor list and must be immediately rejected as untrue.

BTW, Dr. Michaels is a reviewer for the IPCC. You'd better get on the phone and warn the UN about this scientific fraud.

http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

 

Its very simple when you understand the ethics of climate scientists. Stephen Schneider is the person most responsible for the clime scientist ethic.

This is the climate scientists' version of the golden rule. It is their ethic. When their chips are down they are going to lie.

 

Quite demonstrably - anything that comes out of the Cato Institute is biased and corrupted by the agendas of the people and coporations who fund and control the Institute. Nobody in the world scientific community (or anyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together) takes seriously their blatantly biased bullcrap disputing the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking tobacco or the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes. They are a corporate propaganda outlet designed to deceive ignorant rightwingnuts into supporting corporate profits over everything else that matters in this world.

Oh, they know about him. Everybody in science knows what a corrupt science-whore he is. And no one trusts anything he says.

You're impressed that he is "a reviewer for the IPCC? LOLOLOL. Don't be.

“Reviewer for the IPCC” doesn't mean that they asked him to review material – all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.

 

Michaels was one of the US reviewers composing the International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group in 2007.

 

Yes, when they are on the side of goodness -- ClimateGate. Telling that Karl's Krew won't release their emails as well.

 

The genetic fallacy on steroids ^

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks - I'd like to learn some more on this - is there a link or other source that you could point me to?

 

His source and link actually go right up his butt.....which is where he pulled those crackpot conspiracy theories from in the first place.....just like all of you delusional denier cult dupes and your anti-science twaddle....

 

Climate gate - was investigated SEVEN TIMES and each time found to be baseless

 

By whom, Media Matters?

 

LOLOLOL....so you're still as clueless and confused as ever, I see......do you really never actually look anything up for yourself? LOL.

 

How can you not know this??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

It seems a lot of people in America heard about a documentary made by an ex politician and some emails that were illegally hacked and decided that the tens of thousands of scientists around the world were in on a conspiracy

What is worse is that they have not bothered to learn fact one since

 

Whitewashes according to this paper by Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Canada:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

 

When quoting someone it is a good idea to look into their background to see if they have any biases or have a history of being paid for opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

So even without looking further this guy has a vested interest - he is a paid author publishing books "debunking" global warming

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fraser_Institute
http://www.desmogblog.com/ross-mckitrick

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

The rationalwiki entry is a complete hoot!! (*)(*)(*)(*)! This twonk has published data indicating that Antarctica has a population of 59 million WTF???

But the bottom line is that Mckitrick is NOT a scientist (as multiple sites that point out his fundamental flaws) he is an economist with little understanding of what he is talking about

Now as to his opinion on the EIGHT DIFFERENT ENQUIRIES to assert all eight got it wrong is to buy into conspiracy theory of the worst kind

 

Who wrote the rational wiki ??

One does not have to be a scientist to evaluate an inquiry into wrong doing. Did you read the piece and consider his arguments ?? Bjorn Lomborg (Cool It) and William Nordhaus (The Climate Casino) are both economists, have excellent understandings of climate science, understand how to conduct a logical and thorough inquiry, and both believe in global warming and advocate a carbon tax (yes, that's right - Lomborg does believe in both).

Dr. Mckitrick does a thorough analysis using the following objective. You have chosen to attack the person which is much easier (and less risky) than critiquing his work. That is a tell that the work is valid.

 

Bottom line - he is a denialist working for an institute known to get money from the Koch brothers and other high profile well financed denialists with a monetary interest in NOT solving climate issues

HIs "arguments" are laughable and basically he is a laughing stock of the scientific community

More than one website pulls his so called data to pieces

As for his commentary on the EIGHT DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS - it is his opinion only

 

Don't even start me on Lomborg - who incidentally does not agree with Mckitrick. Mckitrick is a complete denialist insisting nothing at all is happening whereas Lomborg admits some change but thinks we are tackling it wrong