There was no global warming hiatus.

No global warming hiatus

No global warming hiatus

The previous hints of a potential slowdown of global warming between 1998 and 2013 turned out to be spurious, an effect of subtle instrumental changes.

In summary: before the recent period, ocean temperature measurements were taken from ship-based systems. In these, the water being sampled passed through a warm engine room, causing a slight upward bias in recorded temperature.

Over the last decades there has been a transition to modern automatic robotic undersea vehicles and instrumented buoys which directly measure the temperature. Significant investigation shows that these are more accurate and substantially less biased. When the older data is corrected with knowledge of the bias or newer data adjusted to match the old record effectively (this can of course be measured now by comparing the same ocean with two different measurement techniques) the results turn out to show no significant global warming hiatus. This was NOAA's adjustment.

The newest study constructed three separate temperature records each from its own instrument type (buoy, robot, satellite radiometer) and confirms the validity of the NOAA adjustment.

So now, both ocean depth and ocean sea surface temperature show there was no hiatus from 1998 to 2013: global warming was steady and going up during this time just as all the basic physics predicted decades ago, and keeps on predicting correctly now.

a reply to: mbkennel

So we only trust the Govt. when it fits the narrative we agree with.

Gotcha

a reply to: mbkennel

Global warming was never about climate change.. it is about getting rid of capitalism. At least, it is if you believe the people behind it.

Otto Adenhofer...

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about it. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation and the ozone hole.

He was an official on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).

Christina Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change...

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution

Look up Naomi Klein (activist) and check out her book or documentary This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. To quote her in the trailer of the documentary... "What if global warming isn't the only crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever gonna get to build a better world?"

Progressives. Find a crisis, use it, give a government solution... for just a little more from you. It's just a little more liberty given away, after all. How much do we have left?

The people behind this and other panic/reaction schemes for your money call their followers useless eaters.

So it's neat that you are all perky about AGW, but please start looking at real facts.

Most of us don't want to be taxed for existing.

a reply to: mbkennel

No global warming hiatus. Correct! If there is no warming, then there is no hiatus. Everything I read after that is laughable.

a reply to: mbkennel

First let me state that I am not a scientist and have no working knowledge of climate change or the claims of climate change by the scientific community. I would however like to offer a possible explanation of why I don't subscribe to the theory of climate change. I do not trust the Obama administration and the Progressive/Socialist movement in the U.S. and the EU that are pushing this agenda. I think that the fact that the UN has been involved in organizing the industrialized nations into agreement that climate change is real bodes ill for all nations. The climate change hustle is nothing more than a thinly disguised mechanism to tax the wealthier industrialized nations from big corporations right down to homeowners based on energy usage. The taxes will be redistributed by the UN to the third world as reparations for the perceived evil of wealthy energy rich nations. If you wish to support the climate change agenda as being man made go ahead but you better get used to living without air-conditioning in summer and reduced heat in winter.

www.armstrongeconomics.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

May I see the original data? Before adjustment?

Need to go back to using Mercury thermometers since mercury expands and contacts at constant rate subject to temperature of it's surroundings. A mercury thermometer from 1700 would read the same as one today. Just have reading errors to content with instead of some arcane unknown electronic instrument error....

originally posted by: mbkennel
When the older data is corrected with knowledge of the bias or newer data adjusted to match the old record effectively

In the engineering world we call this "Making *Stuff* up" and it is considered unethical as hell... sad to say climatologists don't seem to have the same level of ethical values with their work.

97 out of one hundred carbon dioxide molecules would agree, they are not man made.

a reply to: mbkennel

Really, Who Cares when the only "solution" presented is a "carbon credit" money scam.

It gets really hard to believe when statistics are "extrapolated / manipulated" as we have seen many times in order to press for a money scam to rob the public and make rich people richer with absolutely no positive impact.




If you or anyone else actually want to do something about this "problem" then present a solution that is not a financial scam! Until then, people like me will resist.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: mbkennel
When the older data is corrected with knowledge of the bias or newer data adjusted to match the old record effectively

In the engineering world we call this "Making *Stuff* up" and it is considered unethical as hell... sad to say climatologists don't seem to have the same level of ethical values with their work.

You might want to look at UAH versions 5.6 and 6.0, then.

TLT Annual temperature (5.6 for 2016 is not out yet, as December is not recorded)
_UAH_5.6_
1998 (J-D): +0.42
2016 (J-N): +0.60

_UAH_6.0_
1998 (J-D): +0.48
2016 (J-D): +0.50

Supposing we substitute Dec 2016 in 6.0 to make up the difference:
_UAH_5.6_PLUS_DEC_2016_FROM_6.0
1998 (J-D): +0.42
2016 (J-D): +0.57

Hm how about TLS instead?
_UAH_5.6_
1998 (J-D): -0.29
2016 (J-N): -0.52

_UAH_6.0_
1998 (J-D): -0.25
2016 (J-N): -0.53

Not nearly as much change, at least. Although, it is quite interesting from an energy balance perspective the differences between TLS and TLT between the two years. There has been much less warming in the rest of the troposphere and tropopause, and the sun hasn't changed all that much... so what happened there?

Hmm....scientists globally all say this whole global warming thing is real.

However, some political talking heads representing a few mega corporations said its fake...therefore..its clearly fake.


And even if it is real, who cares...its not like discussing issues ever came up with creative solutions..its best to simply call it fake and never pay any interest in the subject..Hannity would never lead us astray...he is probably a super scientist after all.


-ATS Comments

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton

I'm still waiting for the Ice Age these scientific bozos predicted in the 1970's
At the rate we're going I guess I should have invested in beachfront property in Arizona.
Political correctness and more importantly, government funding, knows no bounds.
No doubt the next disaster will be the desertification of Antarctica.
Oh, sorry. It already is a desert.
My bad.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Your paranoia is showing..."all" scientists do not support the global warming narrative as a quick Google search would reveal. The majority of those supporting the climate change narrative are the ones who take research money from the government. I believe in climate change, just not man made climate change. I don't think man has the ability to influence a huge ecosystem like the Earth, if the climate is changing it is more than likely part of a cyclical pattern that has occurred many times within the Earth's history. I think in the 21st century a good rule of thumb on deciding if a cause is legitimate is to .....follow the money.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: mbkennel

Really, Who Cares when the only "solution" presented is a "carbon credit" money scam.

Exactly. I think we all know the climate changes and it would be astonishing to find humans play no role in it. When someone comes up with a solution that isn't in the form of a tax ill be happy to discuss it. Until that time, like the marine biologist, I'm far more concerned with pollution. Pollution is real, it's 100% man made, and it's ignorant to leave unaddressed.

OK, after some digging and getting dirty, here is the original paper, I believe that the OP refers to:

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records Zeke Hausfather1,2,*, Kevin Cowtan3, David C. Clarke4, Peter Jacobs5, Mark Richardson6 and Robert Rohde2

So, grab the calculator, warm up the R and bring a brain and let's go!

Now at first pass looking at their charts, I don't see their error bars...bad sign.

a reply to: drewlander

The foolish economists are who present that idea.

It will never work. In economic theory it might, but then economic theory is predicated on the fact that people are perfectly rational.

Please see: the housing crisis/Great Recession, Great Depression, etc..

The only real solution is to immediately shut off all fossil fuel emissions.
I don't expect many people would do that, though. People have to eat, they have to heat their residences...

I looked at the sourced article. I saw no linear temperature rise. I saw linear trend lines, but trend lines by definition are either linear or a polynomial function as defined when they are created.

I also looked up the different UAH versions (5,6 and 6.0) and found exactly what I expected to find:

"One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data."

Source: environmentalforest.blogspot.com...

In short, both systems require adjustments. The system under measurement is simply too complex and too chaotic to measure to the desired accuracy directly. We now have three measurement methodologies which show minor differences. That means at least two are inaccurate: nothing more. In order to know which are inaccurate, we would have to repeat the experiments, which is clearly impossible (unless we manage to invent time travel). So the best we can do is hypothesize about which are the most accurate.

In other words, we have to SWAG it (Sophisticated Wild-Ass Guess). Yes, that's a 'scientific' term. It implies the results are not conclusive.

There's nothing here that I haven't been saying since I joined: the signal-to-noise ratio of the climatic system is insufficient to make the kind of predictions that we see politicized 'scientists' making on a daily basis.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: drewlander


The only real solution is to immediately shut off all fossil fuel emissions.
I don't expect many people would do that, though. People have to eat, they have to heat their residences...

What would you expect the death toll from that to be?