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."

Comments

Data tampering

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

once the data is "processed"...

[argStyopa]

There have been some accusations that the data is being 'massaged' to get to a specific result:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

Re:Electric Joule Heating

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:so what you're saying is

[dywolf]

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.