New study confirms - No "pause" in global warming

Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause in global warming. In June 2015, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a paper in Science saying that it had slightly revised the sea surface temperatures it had been citing.

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus - Thomas R. Karl et.al.

The measurement methods, based on sensors in the engine intake ports of ships, had been flawed, NOAA said. The revised methodology also meant that sea surface temperatures during the 2000s had been slightly higher than reported. NOAA adjusted both records, which led to a conclusion that global surface temperatures during the 2000s were indeed higher than they had been in previous decades. No hiatus.
Critics attacked NOAA, claiming it had cooked the books to dismiss claims of a pause. Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas opened a congressional investigation of NOAA scientists, including demands that they turn over their emails, which they have not. But, now a new study has confirmed the findings of of the previous paper.

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records - Zeke Hausfather et. al.

So we can finally put to bed the idea of a "pause" in global warming.
Original AP story: HERE

 

Nothing new here. The AGW cult long ago split into two sects. One says there's been a warming hiatus and desperately tries to explain it while the other denies warming has stopped at all. Same (*)(*)(*)(*) different day

 

Funny stuff. Karl adjusted the SST up to homogenize the accurate buoy data with the known bad ship intake data and declared that there was no pause in global warming. Keep the comedy coming.

 

Um... I don't suppose it has been pointed out here, but the "pause" refutation was only possible by artificially manipulating the data and the starting point for the discussion. A longer view, and a more consistent use of observation data doesn't support the finding of this study.

To put a rather fine point on it, the study is factually challenged, data challenged, methodologically challenged, and still doesn't account for the inability to be reconciled against the broad based satellite temperature record that repudiates it's assertions.

 

Yes, that is the homogenization procedure where known good data (buoys) which showed cooler Surface Sea Temperature was mixed with known bad data from ship intake measurements to produce an ~ 0.12 deg C. The "warming" trend is fake science.

Source: "Lukewarming - Michaels and Knappenberger - 2015

 

As I said, the new study refutes this idea. The pause never happened. Karl et. al. has been confirmed.

Another denial talking point bites the dust. Here's the link to the new paper again ... you obviously missed it.

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records - Zeke Hausfather et. al.

It's my fault, I buried the lead a little bit. But the short of it is ... there has never been a "pause"

 

And the obvious questions are why is 2016 (La Nina) missing and uncertainty bars ??

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01...he-pause-but-is-missing-a-whole-year-of-data/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01...warming-temperature-pause-still-going-strong/

 

Your own link answers those very questions

Adding in 2016 data won't rescue the so-called "pause" ... there is no pause.

​

 

And yet the 2016 data has not been added and the uncertainty bars remain missing. And the land data remains not included. But how does the climate sensitivity of CO2 from the "new" sea surface data compare to the model prediction range ??

 

As I said, adding in the 2016 data will not rescue the "pause" ... there is no pause.

 

You find that the measurements are not showing warming so you change them. Simple. Next thing will be to start working on the other datasets that show the pause, like satellite data.

 

Do you have any evidence that this is what occurred?

 

It is called the Karl et. al. paper. So far the satellite data has not been changed to eliminate the pause which is still happening.

 

You misunderstand my question ... I am asking if you have any evidence that they changed the readings simply because they did not show warming.

 

Every adjustment made to the land/ocean dataset has made the past cooler and the present warmer, including the Karl et. al. paper which is just another step in the long line of yearly adjustments.

There is much written on this but one has to go outside the alarmist bubble to find it.

 

You are further describing WHAT happened. That part is obvious. I am asking if you have any evidence as to the WHY you propose. FWIW, changing evidence to support a narrative would be bad. I'd like to see the evidence it occurred.

 

Step out of your bubble. Do some research.

 

I gather that means "no"

 

"Yes, counsellor, I understand that he pointed the pistol at his boss and pulled the trigger. I am asking if you have any evidence as to the WHY you propose."

None so blind as he who will not see...

 

Correct, the answer is no, you will not step out of the bubble.

 

I have no idea what your point is here ... I am agreeing that the data (Karl et al) was corrected. The new paper confirms the correctness of those corrections. Why do you think that this indicates nefarious intent (other than it is inconvenient for your side)? Do you have any proof that it was done with a preconceived outcome in mind as opposed to attempting to be accurate?

Those are rhetorical questions ... If you had evidence you would have already presented the links 20x.

The "pause" myth is dead.

 

The data has been homogenized. What this means is that known bad data has been combined with known good data and every time this happens (as has been pointed out) the "past" gets cooler and the "present" gets warmer. The use of known bad data should never be included in any form of analysis. Anyone with any knowledge of engineering or science clearly should understand this. Here is a source (which I predict will be ignored) = "Evidence Based Climate Science - Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming" - 2nd Edition - 2016. There is your evidence should you choose to leave the bubble.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the climate sensitivity of the manipulated SST data from 1998 to 2015 ?? How does that compare to the range of sensitivities from the IPCC models ??

 

So? Why is that bad?

no ... what that means is

Your link is broken

... but at any rate this new paper confirms the accuracy and appropriateness of the original paper ... and adding the 2016 data will not rescue the "pause" ... there never was a pause.

 

The reference is a book which will describe the actual homogenization process in practice.

Nothing on the climate sensitivity ??

 

Well, I suppose if you're willing to accept that the studies provided by NOAA represent a factual story, perhaps I can interest you in this bridge. You see, it's in Brooklyn....

The unfortunate truth is that the real data doesn't support the myth of hockey stick style temperature growth. Mann et al are wrong, and have been for 3 decades. To put a finer point on it, if we all agree that natural warming is acceptable to 2C per century, even the warming that we have empirical evidence of still falls well short of that pace. Reviewing all empirical (not statistically smoothed or manipulated, read fake, data) the temperature curve is flat. Since 1998. The Sat data backstops this, the empirical non improved weather station data supports this.

So, the unfortunate facts are that your assertion is baseless. But hey, Bill Nye is on your side. Some comfort there, right?