Skip to content

A Pause In Global Warming? Pah, FOOLS. There Was NO PAUSE

|
Andrew Orlowski, The Register

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything

There is lots of news about science ending The Pause – so I am guessing they will call it a lull next and then shortly after that we will be told the one thing we cannot call it is… a lull.

DENIAL_scr

Scientists have made the inconvenient “pause” in global warming disappear with a wave of their statistical wand. A new paper published in Science by NOAA estimates that global temperature during period 1998 to 2012 increased twice as fast as all other estimates had calculated.

However, the paper has immediately run into a wall of criticism. The study eschews six of the seven temperature sets used by climate scientists and plumps for the one regarded as problematic, and indeed shunned by the UK’s own Met Office.

Where instrument readings don’t exist (such as for the Arctic), numbers have been “infilled” or guesstimated. Past temperatures have been massaged to emphasise recent warming, with the baking 1930s erased.

And even after all that, the paper only produces a low (0.90) confidence for the assertion.

The pause in global warming, now almost two decades long, was acknowledged by the IPCC, although the published version (after input from bureaucrats) buried the acknowledgment deep in the report.

A final draft stating (correctly) that “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming over the last 10-15 years” was cut. Well over 30 papers have been advanced (here’s a handy list) to explain the hiatus, falling into over a dozen categories.

But they’re all wrong, reckons Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), who has found warming that nobody else has previously noticed.

The pause or ‘hiatus’ in warming was in fact imaginary, because temperatures rose twice as fast as studies the IPCC quoted. By its calculations, the rate of warming over the twelve year period was 0.09C rather than 0.04C per decade.

It’s magic – so how did they do this? With the Vulture Central so close to London’s premier magician supplies shop, we have some useful insights.

1. Discard all reliable instrument data: Climate scientists use a number of temperature records – GISS, HadCRUT, SST, HadSST (the UK’s version of the SST sea temperature set), NCDC, and RSS, the latter derived from satellite measurements the lower troposphere. The satellites show no warming trending. Karl et al take a raw sea temperature record, which is notoriously problematic, and apply some statistical processing.

“I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) ERSST dataset; I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures,” writes climate scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.

“This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set … I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

In addition, skeptical climate scientists including Richard Lindzen note Arctic data that doesn’t exist has been extrapolated, or put another way, “invented”.

Full post