Slashdot Mirror
NOAA: Global Warming 'Pause' Never Happened
Taco Cowboy writes: The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever. Researchers from the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have published a new study in Science saying there was no "pause" in global warming. Dr. Thomas Karl points out that the warming rate over the past 15 years is "virtually identical" to warming over the last century, and updated observations show temperatures did not plateau.
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
The new "analysis" deliberately tampered with data for this very purpose:
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
There have been some accusations that the data is being 'massaged' to get to a specific result:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
-Styopa
...
Science learns as it goes.
So science is NEVER "settled"?!?!?!?
Who knew!
It turns out to be part of the foundation of Science. In Mathematics, you *can* prove things. Done. That's the difference between math and science. You can never prove anything in Science, you can only *disprove* things. "Our earlier hypothesis turned out to be wrong. It turns out that the Earth is not flat. Also domestic sheep have evolved into a new species, they can no longer mate with wild-type sheep. Who knew? Well, some people did. Just not you."
The primitive equations which are used to model atmospheric flows basically ignore charge change phenomena.
Lol, this is crank science ... do me a favor 1) write navier stokes equations in energy form 2) add joule heating term 3) do order of mangitude analysis under liberal and conservative assumptions. 4) discard joule heating after realizing its negligible by about by 5 orders of magnitude. Or look up all the papers in the 1950s and 1960s that published on this. Yeah thanks for playing, you idiot clown.
Instruments on ocean buoys for some reason are reading a lower temperature than research ships. Many buoys were deployed during the time period of the "pause", which pushed down the average temperature reading as compared to past measurements. They've now taken this disparity into account and the "pause" disappears. They were looking for an explanation for the "pause" and found it to be an error in the way the data was collected, so they corrected for the error.
Dinosaurs make up about 0.01% of fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuels are primarily the fossils of trees that grew in the carboniferous period - the first trees actually. Normally trees are carbon neutral - but those were not because nothing had yet evolved that could eat or decompose wood. They died and they all fossilized.
And while they were alive, because they were not decomposed... the atmosphere had almost twice as much oxygen as today (that's why you could get dragonfly's a meter long).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
There are three problems with this article:
First and foremost, this result is achieved with "corrected commercial ship temperature data", " corrected ship-to-buoy calibrations", and other adjustments. However, I don't see any information on where we can go to examine their adjustment techniques.
Second, the statements at the end of the article make it plain that the goal of the authors is to show even more warming. This is not a neutral investigation, but an investigation with a desired outcome.
Finally, with their new adjustments, they claim to have established a warming rate of around 0.1 degree/decade, and they also say that this is what the warming was from 1950 to 1999. Oddly, they then claim that this is "more than twice the IPCC's estimate". Now that's just weird. The IPCC never predicted so little warming. The IPCC originally predicted ten times that amount, or around 4 to 5 degrees per century (See page xxii, figure 8 in the IPCC report); later reports did revise that down, but never by an order of magnitude.
So: we have people massaging data again, but they are also apparently trying to massage history. Credibility? Somewhere around zero.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Nobody said it makes them bigger. It is however a prerequisite. Insects have exoskeletons. That puts an upper limit on their size relative to the oxygen content of the air. More oxygen allows bigger insects to be capable of existing. A dragonfly that big today would suffocate.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And the Democrat party contains anti vaxxers. Trying to act like somehow the Democrats are better than the Republicans in science matters is pretty silly.
While all political parties have their wingnuts, only the GOP routinely nominates theirs as presidential candidates.
There's a difference between having idiots as members of your party and having idiots as leaders of your party.
TFA says they calibrated the buoys data with the ship-based data. The offset is not chosen by hand as you claim, but fitted to make the two types of measurements, which should be measuring the same thing, consistent with each other. That is justifiable to remove systematic errors. Another study by IPCC found the same offset value.
The paper says:
The details on the calibration are:
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
If you read the original report, the error bands are included.
"It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998–2012 (Fig. 1 and table S1) using the approach described in (25) for determining trend uncertainty. In contrast, IPCC (1), which also utilized the approach in (25), reported no statistically significant trends for 1998-2012 in any of the three primary global surface temperature datasets. Moreover, for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058C dec1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067C dec1 (see table S1 for details). This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century (Fig. 1). A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (see supplement) that also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, also shows that the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were positive at the 0.10 significance level."
its not calibration like you are thinking (I am a calibration technician), ie, metrology (NOT meteorology!).
the buoys weren't "wrong".
its not that the buoys were miscalibrated as to the accuracy of the instruments (metrology).
its that the dataset as a whole was "miscalibrated" as relates to the inherent differences in results from different methodologies of measurement. it's a statistical error, not a metrological one.
you can measure the same location in one of 3 typical ways:
-buoys
-engine intake
-bucket (ie, drop a bucket, haul it up, and measure the water inside)
Each has its own inherent (built in) factors that cause the same readings from the same place at the same time, but taken with different methods, to measure slightly differently. The corrections to the dataset seek to remove and cancel out these differences.
and when the measurement is taken they don't JUST write down the reading taken, but the local conditions at the time (sunny? cloudy? windy?), the type of measurement taken and method used, the instrument used, the location of the instrument (on a hill? in the shade?), etc. and all of that additional information is recorded PRECISELY BECAUSE of the desire to eliminate inherent differences so that every measurement conforms to the same baseline.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
pastafazou: If it doesn't matter if you adjust one up or the other down, why did they choose to adjust the more accurate data up instead of the suspect data down?
Here's an answer from one of the authors:
The reason for adjusting buoy (+0.12C) rather than adjusting ship (-0.12C) is that there is no buoy observation at all before the 1970s. Therefore, it would be questionable how ship can be adjusted relative to buoy before the 1970s, if we did so. However, assuming that the adjustment to ship is -0.12C before the 1970s, our tests show that the long term temperature trends remain the same. This has been discussed in Huang et al. 2015 (J. Climate 28, 911-930, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1.)
I dispute a 15 year pause. Statistically the warming trend since 1998 is the same as the trend from before that. Here's a blog post by a statistician that examines the question of a slow down in warming from a number of angles and is unable to find any statistically significant slow down in the warming trend.