New Analysis Shows Lamar Smith's Accusations On Climate Data Are Wrong (arstechnica.com)

Layzej writes from a report via Ars Technica: In 2015, NOAA released version 4 of their marine temperature dataset called ERSST. The new dataset accounted for a known cooling bias introduced when ocean temperature measurements transitioned from being taken in ship engine intake valves to buoy-based measurements. The warming of the last couple decades increased ever so slightly in NOAA's new analysis. This was a red flag for U.S. House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), who rejects the conclusions of climate science -- like the fact that the Earth's climate is warming. Suddenly he wanted to see the researchers' e-mails and echoed the accusations of contrarian blogs about scientists' supposedly nefarious adjustments to sea surface temperature measurements. Rather than invoking scientific conspiracies, issues like this should be settled by analyzing the data. A new study, led by University of California Berkeley's Zeke Hausfather, does just that -- and Rep. Smith won't like these results, either. To test the NOAA dataset, Zeke's team created instrumentally homogeneous temperature records from sensors available only over the last couple decades. As it happens, the Argo float data, the buoy data, and the satellite data each hew closer to the updated dataset that NOAA used. The older version (3b) gives a global average that is too cool in recent years, growing to an offset of about 0.06 degrees Celsius. The researchers repeat this same analysis for two more major sea surface datasets that are used by the UK Met Office and the Japanese Meteorological Agency for their global temperature records. Both of those datasets also drift cooler than the comparison data, but less so than NOAA's old dataset.

Comments

Re:Or skeptics

[Fragnet]

+1 insightful. If I had a +1 on this thread to give.

Re:Not even a debate

[Fragnet]

Oh no, I'm very picky. I have an excellent antenna for bullshit. I can smell it from a long way off. That's why I love Slashdot comments so much. I'm extra happy to not be with the in-crowd on this. I realise I won't get tenure but I don't care.

Re: Who cares?

[Maritz]

You'll still be saying that when you're neck deep. And you'll still be a dopey cunt. But at least, one day, you're be a drowned dopey cunt.

Re:instrumentally homogeneous temperature records

[Ol Olsoc]

The greenhouse effect that is in the realm of science fair projects, isn't the same as the unfortunately named Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere, and saying it is only make your ignorance obvious. The warming experienced in greenhouses is caused by the simple obstruction of convection of warm air.

Thank you for pointing out my ignorance. I guess that the carbon dioxide enrichment that is used in Greenhouses does not exist as outlined in this wikipedia Article to wit:

Carbon dioxide enrichment

The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years.[18][19][20] After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands.[21] Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration.[22] Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery,[23] consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. The refinery reduces its carbon emissions, whilst the nursery enjoys boosted tomato yields and does not need to provide its own greenhouse heating.

Deny that. Please do deny that.

Thanks for playing, and your time honored denialist insults are noted.