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."
I worked with the group who built and operated the optical sensor which discovered the hole in the ozone. Except that they didn't know they had. Every time the sensor took optical data over the poles there was an "anomaly" in the data and they got uncharacteristically low numbers. For three years, this was written off as an unexplained anomaly when viewing down towards the polar ice. Until they looked up from below and found out that there really was no ozone there. Going back to the old data resulted in a fairly large change to the interpretation of the existing data which had been thrown out as unexplained.
Science learns as it goes.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This latest attempt to shore up the crumbling global warming agenda is another obvious attempt to manipulate the data and create momentum for the Paris meeting later this year.
This new study (or mangling the data to get the conclusion you want) is full of holes.
They have extrapolated land temps to sea areas where no data exists.
They have adjusted (the favorite warmists method, warm new temperature while adjusting old temperature data down to create a trend) sea surface temperatures to agree with a less reliable data set instead of the other way around.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/
are two critiques of this tendentiously timed data mangling.
Indeed, our best temperature data in the USA (I know, not the whole world) the USCRN (US climate reference network) uses triple redundant aspirated platinum temp sensors in pristine rural locations. It has been operating for >10 years, and shows NO warming at all. This data is not adjusted like so much of the surface record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
The satellite temp record (also with no hokey adjustments to create warming like GISS) also shows NO warming for the past 15-20 years.
So, this new data mangling is just another last ditch attempt to ram through the UNIPCC agenda, of controlling the energy infrastructure of the world for a green socialist fantasy.
Actually, there is a fairly simple solution that can be done in a couple of decades, and has the bonus side effect of producing megatons of food in some of the more impoverished regions of the world. The trick is to convert semi-arid and arid grasslands into productive grazing lands for herbivores by using Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing which is described in detail (with stunning before/after photos) by Allan Savory in this TED Talk.
In a nutshell: MIRG simulates the "mobbing, mowing, and moving" behavior of large herds of herbivores in nature, where herds "mob together" for protection from predators, and move constantly to find fresh pasture. Following in their wake is a swath of "disturbed" pasture, which has just been aerated by hoof prints and fed with a rich load of fertilizer. This spurs a blaze of regrowth in the grasses, which replaces root mass which had earlier been shed (many plants shed root mass when cropped, to preserve the root-shoot ratio). Thus, every time herbivores graze a piece of land, they sequester a large amount of carbon into the soil, and actually increase the health and the depth of the topsoil.
Obviously, there's quite a bit more to this story, including earthworks to harvest and retain water, permaculture design to optimize ecosystem health and productivity, etc. But hopefully this will be enough to get the gears turning...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
...except they didn't, overall. It would be wrong, at that: most ship-based SST measurements are at various depths (ship intake, bucket measurements, each of which are at random depths). A ship engine intake depth can be anywhere from a meter below the surface to ten times that depth, and the old bucket measurements were all over the place.
Adjustments for differing measurements have already been made in the historical record - they went in and adjusted it MORE because it wasn't agreeing with the global warming that they just assume has to be happening (because of their continually-blown model predictions).
Your "reinterpretation" of #3 is fanciful at best. Why make bad science even worse by adjusting the actual data?