High ranking Global Warming scientist whistleblows on manipulated data ...

a reply to: Phage

Like I said - I thought you had participated in this thread. Sorry you missed it

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I thought I been providing information.
What have you been doing?

a reply to: Phage

just thinking aloud and talking to myself - pay no mind

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

grevan

I will not withdraw my statement because it is a true one. You have stated on many occasions that the Pause starts at the peak of the 1998 El Nino and you find it hilarious.

In actual fact, fact, my dear. The Pause is a period of years during which the RATE of waming is not statistically different than the norm. It not about comparing the actual temperatures.

blogs.nicholas.duke.edu...

This blog is old but explains it well and the graph shows clearly examples of the last and previous pauses that took place throughout the century.

The problem, is physics. The Law of the Conservation of Energy. The temperature measurements of land and oceans showed that the excess heat was not in the ocean, the land or the atmosphere but the theory of Global Warming states that the more carbon dioxide that accumulated in the Troposphere, the more heat was reflected back to the earth.

The fact that the hiatus started in 1998, just before the BOTTTOM of the El Nino and lasted until 2014 (or 1914 if you buy into the Pause Buster study) and the excess heat supposedly created by excess Carbon Dioxide wasn't in the global temperature is proof that the Theory of Global Warming is false.

That is why scientists have offer 40 or 50 different explanations including a study in 2016 that offered the startling explanation that hiatuses occur because "trees forget to breathe" during cooling periods.

The current global temperature as of January 2017 is 0.3 degrees above the 30 year average of 14 degrees. Can you look all your stupid graphs and find the last time that a global temperature of 0.3 degrees occurred? I believe that occurred in 1988.

The PAUSE IS BACK and it is now lengthier than "evah""

So 1/3 of all the carbon dioxide that was discharged by man was discharged in this century. Now the question remains - where is all the heat????

So, the pause was 2000 to 2009? Or was it 1998 until 2014?

You're contradicting yourself quite a lot. For example, you wrote this earlier:

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
There are 8 data sets that show a pause in the rise of global temperature over the last 18 years. There is only one data set that shows no pause. and the raw data was never available for independent review.

2014-1998=16 years.
2009-2000=9 years.
????-????=18 years.

a reply to: Phage

ERSSTv4 will likely be retracted. Any data that matches ClimateGate 2.0 should be considered suspect.

ERRSTv5 corrects the errors and manipulation. It will show lower absolute temperatures and lower warming.

GHCN software has also undergone significant changes. It should be more than a random number generator this time.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

ERSSTv4 will likely be retracted.

Nope.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Hausfather's work helped validate it.

a reply to: Greven

Not really contradicting myself Greven, just pointing out that the current global average temperature (ocean and land) is 0.3 degrees above average. The last time this occurred was in 1998 (same graph)

But the Pause is not just a cherry picked date of start. The start date is actually calculated and I am certainly not capable of those calculations. And the length of the Pause is not from same temperature to same temperature. Its actually a trend line of best fit with a flat or 0 upward and downward trend. I am not capable of those calculations either.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

ERSSTv4 will likely be retracted.

Nope.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Hausfather's work helped validate it.

ERSSTv5 is not out yet.
ERSSTv4 is Circling the drain..

we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.

science.house.... gov/news/in-the-news/exposed-how-world-leaders-were-duped-investing-billions-over-manipulated-global

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Your link is muddled. Is this the full quote?

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

I don't see that Science retracting an article (if they did) would cause ERRST V4 to be abandoned.

What do you think about Hausfather et al and the seeming duplication of results? What do you think about Berg's statment that there was no manipulation of data or that he didn't actually say anything against V4?

a reply to: Phage

No, it looks like they were referring back to the Pausbuster paper. I suppose ERSSTv4 would just be archived.

Maybe Hausfather was also using unchecked pairwise homogeneity adjustments. If they did such a great job, why are they duplicating manipulated results?

Berg, I assume you mean Bate's right? He is very critical of ERSSTv4. Every other quote he's saying the data is wrong.

Do you believe that ERSSTv4 is correct? It shows 3X more warming than ERSSTv3. And now, V5 will be significantly lower than V4.

Maybe it will look something like this;

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Maybe Hausfather was also using unchecked pairwise homogeneity adjustments. If they did such a great job, why are they duplicating manipulated results?

Maybe you should actually read what Hausfather wrote and attempt to understand it.

It shows 3X more warming than ERSSTv3. .

No, it doesn't.

I've read about Hausfather, but they were short on specifics. If ERSSTv4 is only a small fraction of the data, how did Hausfather manage to process all the data even faster?

I think V5 will be a little more credible.

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

Regarding V3, is this quote misleading?

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Consider the number of scientist that have ERSST v. 4.0, I think it is more than important that NOAA make a public announcement about why version 4 is being retired so prematurely.

It taints future research

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

I've read about Hausfather, but they were short on specifics. If ERSSTv4 is only a small fraction of the data, how did Hausfather manage to process all the data even faster?

I don't know what you mean by "small fraction of the data." The whole point of Hausfather's study was to look independently at three data sources individually rather than combining them. Avoiding the ship temperature "controversy" entirely.

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade.

You did not specify a time period in your original statement. Yes, cherry picking can indeed be misleading. Particularly when one does not make clear that one is doing so.

The new version of ERSST shows the same trend in sea surface temperature as previous versions—an increase in the global average of 0.005°C per decade since 1880. However, the changes in the new version, including the adjustments to account for more buoys, did result in a higher trend in global ocean temperature since 2000. In ERSST v4, the rate of increase in global ocean temperature is 0.099°C per decade, while it was 0.036°C per decade with the previous version.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Over the past 19 years (Hausfather):

The update from ERSST version 3b to version 4 resulted in an increase in the operational SST trend estimate during the last 19 years from 0.07° to 0.12°C per decade, indicating a higher rate of warming in recent years.

Rather than "reading about him" you can read his paper.
advances.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I think it is more than important that NOAA make a public announcement about why version 4 is being retired so prematurely.

When is it being retired?

Why would 1880 be a good starting point? V3 and V4 could diverge by 20 degrees in the last decade and still be statistically equal. 19 years is also a long baseline.

I would say that the point where V3 and V4 begin to substantially diverge is the best year to begin the comparison. That looks to be around 2004.

It seems like a moot point to try validate V4 when it's already admittedly flawed and being superseded by V5. If Hausfather's results mirror V4, then it stands to reason that he simply parsed Karl's data.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

As the people who did the "independent" review of Karl et al, I think Zeke Hausefather et all need to be investigated as well

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Not really contradicting myself Greven, just pointing out that the current global average temperature (ocean and land) is 0.3 degrees above average. The last time this occurred was in 1998 (same graph)

But the Pause is not just a cherry picked date of start. The start date is actually calculated and I am certainly not capable of those calculations. And the length of the Pause is not from same temperature to same temperature. Its actually a trend line of best fit with a flat or 0 upward and downward trend. I am not capable of those calculations either.

You're not capable of those 'calculations' - who is, then?
Did you forget that you wrote this?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Greven

You don't even no what the Pause is, never mind where it went away or not.

You've said 'the pause' lasted 18 years.
You've linked to an article that claims a pause of 9 years.
You're now claiming you don't know how to calculate it, but that it was definitely calculated at a some point in 1998.
You're merely twisting and squirming, trying to avoid answering anything while claiming a bunch of crap that is easily refuted by the data on the first page of this thread - dismissing it because...?

Do you know the really ironic thing? That post was initially a response to you in another thread. I recommend you and others review that little exchange.

You ran away then. You're running away now.

I've always felt something fishy about global warming.

a reply to: Greven

I am absolutely going nowhere!

I posted a link from 2013 from Duke University to explain to you what the Pause was about - that my friend was not claim the length of any Pause at all. I looked and looked to find a link to a source that was not from climate denier site and that you would accept. Your welcome by the way.

I don't know that the Pause ended AT ALL because it was only claimed that the Pause ended when Karl et al published the Pausebuster Study. Now we find out that the Pause may not have ended then because Karl et al played jiggery pockery with the data.

I said that the Pause may be over 18 years in length because until the Karl et al investigation is finished we cannot officially say anything.

YOU still don't want to admit that you loudly proclaimed that the Pause was OVER and you didn't even know