interesting... perhaps you are correct... but that does not make me a liar.
let me findout if you criticism of that chart is correct.
let me findout if you criticism of that chart is correct.
Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
Today's news - From strength to strength:
Does have to be Micro-Plastics, or CO2!
"One million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute, with most ending up in landfill or in the sea. Photograph: Zakir Chowdhury/Barcroft Images "
"In one recent survey, an international team reported more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic are floating in the world’s oceans, collectively weighing nearly 269,000 tonnes."
Coastal pollution, viewed from underwater, in Philippines. Photograph: Jurgen Freund/Corbis
Does have to be Micro-Plastics, or CO2!
"One million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute, with most ending up in landfill or in the sea. Photograph: Zakir Chowdhury/Barcroft Images "
"In one recent survey, an international team reported more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic are floating in the world’s oceans, collectively weighing nearly 269,000 tonnes."
Last edited:
I am tracking this down...
but so far I have learned...
Karl the guy whose changed the data which resulted in more warming said this...
"Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: 'John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.' He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: 'There was no discussion about Paris.'
They played fast and loose with the figures
He also admitted that the final, approved and 'operational' edition of the GHCN land data would be 'different' from that used in the paper'."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz52OYZ7HKq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
---
So now I am wondering whether the final data graph has come out.
but so far I have learned...
Karl the guy whose changed the data which resulted in more warming said this...
"Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: 'John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.' He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: 'There was no discussion about Paris.'
They played fast and loose with the figures
He also admitted that the final, approved and 'operational' edition of the GHCN land data would be 'different' from that used in the paper'."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz52OYZ7HKq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
---
So now I am wondering whether the final data graph has come out.
Last edited:
https://climatethetruth.com/2016/02/21/karl-et-al-pause-buster-paper-debunked-again/comment-page-1/
Pause-buster’ Paper Debunked Again
In June 2015, NOAA NCEI Director Thomas R. Karl published a paper “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” that concludes
Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
In addition to the several problems with the questionable data adjustments made by Karl et al that have been thoroughly documented and analyzed by Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Richard S. Lindzen, Arno Arrak, Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, S. Fred Singer, and others in the following articles to name a few:
The gist of Karl et al is that the decadal warming rate from 1950 to 1999 (using their cooked data) of 0.113ºC is nearly identical to the rate of 0.116ºC from 2000 to 2014, and therefore there is no pause. The problem with this simplistic argument is that these are cherry-picked endpoints for trend analysis, and the anthropogenic warming rate was by no means constant during this period. Indeed, from 1950 to 1974, there was very little anthropogenic warming, whereas from 1975 to 1999 there was significant anthropogenic warming. By erroneously conflating those two very different time periods, Karl et al concludes there is no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’. In fact, when one looks at the trends in decadal temperature change from 1975 to 1999 versus 2000 to 2014 even using Karl’s cooked data, there is a substantial slowdown aka hiatus aka pause.
Pause-buster’ Paper Debunked Again
In June 2015, NOAA NCEI Director Thomas R. Karl published a paper “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” that concludes
Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
In addition to the several problems with the questionable data adjustments made by Karl et al that have been thoroughly documented and analyzed by Bob Tisdale, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Richard S. Lindzen, Arno Arrak, Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, S. Fred Singer, and others in the following articles to name a few:
- NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data (June 4, 2015)
- Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper (June 10, 2015)
- Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?
- Twin peaks – twin prevarications
- Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one
- More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset
- A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015
- @NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?
- Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?
- The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not
The gist of Karl et al is that the decadal warming rate from 1950 to 1999 (using their cooked data) of 0.113ºC is nearly identical to the rate of 0.116ºC from 2000 to 2014, and therefore there is no pause. The problem with this simplistic argument is that these are cherry-picked endpoints for trend analysis, and the anthropogenic warming rate was by no means constant during this period. Indeed, from 1950 to 1974, there was very little anthropogenic warming, whereas from 1975 to 1999 there was significant anthropogenic warming. By erroneously conflating those two very different time periods, Karl et al concludes there is no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’. In fact, when one looks at the trends in decadal temperature change from 1975 to 1999 versus 2000 to 2014 even using Karl’s cooked data, there is a substantial slowdown aka hiatus aka pause.
If the data has been changed by noaa to create warming...do you think NOAA chart is going to show otherwise.
What you have to do is compare NOAA chart after the data change to a chart using noaa warming before the data change.
If the changes shows a lot of upward drift.
Then you have to decide of the change was done for real scientific reasons or for more nefarious reasons.
There is no argument about the fact NOAA data was adjusted up and it show more warming.
The only question is whether it was legitimately done for science or more nefarious reasons.
The articles I have read are leading me to believe that Karl made a lot a arbitrary upward revisions. But I am sure you say they were all done in the name of good science.
What you have to do is compare NOAA chart after the data change to a chart using noaa warming before the data change.
If the changes shows a lot of upward drift.
Then you have to decide of the change was done for real scientific reasons or for more nefarious reasons.
There is no argument about the fact NOAA data was adjusted up and it show more warming.
The only question is whether it was legitimately done for science or more nefarious reasons.
The articles I have read are leading me to believe that Karl made a lot a arbitrary upward revisions. But I am sure you say they were all done in the name of good science.
I love the fake attempts at honesty and truth. You have no interest in the truth. If you did you would not use "Climatethetruthdotcom" LOL. You would use NOAA and NASA and similar authoritative trustworthy sources. Here, track this down...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3274
the above is a paper which is very interesting.
I believe this chart goes with this paper... but I am not going to vouch for that fact.
the above is a paper which is very interesting.
I believe this chart goes with this paper... but I am not going to vouch for that fact.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/new-karl-buster-paper-confirms-the-pause-and-models-failure/
here is more info on the paper...
New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure
Anthony Watts / April 17, 2017
The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
more at link...
here is more info on the paper...
New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure
Anthony Watts / April 17, 2017
The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
more at link...
Greenpeace/Gavin Parsons
The 5 Gyres Institute
The 5 Gyres Institute
