Hey, Global Warming Fanatics: How Does It Feel To Be Lied To?

NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse



February 5, 2017

A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.

Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told the Daily Mail NOAA’s 2015 study was meant “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Bates said NOAA scientists made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998. The Daily Mail claims Bates showed it “irrefutable” evidence NOAA’s study relied on “unverified” data.

Bates’ objections to the paper were ignored by his superiors, who let scientists make “decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation” in advance of a major United Nations climate summit in Paris, France.

His statement to The Daily Mail comes amid an investigation into the NOAA study by House Republicans on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, subpoenaed NOAA in late 2015 for records related to the so-called “Karl study” that adjusted global sea surface temperature upwards, eliminating the “pause” in global warming since 1998.

Smith was heavily ridiculed for subpoenaing NOAA scientists, and the agency refused to hand over any internal deliberations of the “Karl study.” The study’s lead author, Tom Karl, has since left NOAA.

“Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,” Smith said in a statement on The Daily Mail’s story.

“The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity,” Smith said.

Scientists have been debating over the so-called “pause” in global warming since at least 2013, referring to the period from 1998 to 2014 without any significant rise in global average temperature.

The Karl study made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend of that period to 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade from 0.039 degrees per decade.

Karl’s study was welcomed by some scientists and environmentalists who see man-made global warming as the biggest threat to humanity; it was criticized by others in the scientific community.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, formerly of Georgia Tech, wrote at the time that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming.

Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

But the Karl study may have had deeper problems.

It was based on two “flawed” temperature datasets, Bates told The Daily Mail.

NOAA has now “decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming,” The Daily Mail learned.

NOAA’s revised data will show “lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

The “land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable,’” and based on an “alpha” version that was never verified. It still hasn’t been approved.

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results,” The Daily Mail reported.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/n...make-global-warming-seem-worse/#ixzz4XsrzcNBv

 

I have never disagreed with climate science in the fact that human activity has an affect. Just don't think the impacts are nearly as severe as projected. Plus any change such as climate has both negative consequences and positive benefits. The pro-climate change political argument always seems to be framed by the negative consequences without any weight given to the positive benefits.

One example is the argument that global warming is causing malaria to spread. Well it requires stagnant standing water for the mosquitoes that carry malaria to breed and hatch. Which means arid regions are receiving more annual rainfall.

 

"The Daily Mail claims Bates showed it “irrefutable” evidence...." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

 

The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday are well known in the UK for being dishonest and propagandistic tabloids with practically no credibility. Anything they say should be checked for accuracy, because they have a long history of mendacious and highly biased reporting. [apophasis]However, I guess we shouldn't hold fact that the Daily Mail supported fascism in the 30s against it.[/apophasis]

"More fake news in ‘The Mail on Sunday’" | Grantham Institute

"Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise" | CarbonBrief

 

Interesting since JoeNation quotes The Daily Mail as if it were the gospel.

Regardless, are you refuting what the whistleblower is asserting?

I'll offer my opinion in the piece. I neither believe nor disbelieve the whistleblower. I enjoy reading a lot of information before making a judgment. So, I ran across this article and posted it here for all to read.

You've decided to attack the messenger and not the message. I suppose that's your prerogative, but it would make more sense if you could offer an opinion as to why you don't believe the whistleblower instead of attacking the outlet that reported it.

 

Believing the oil company's propaganda is clearly the way to go here. NOT!!!' I'm sure they have absolutely no stake in weather man-made climate change is real or just a trick by literally the entire world scientific community. Right!!!!

If you simply follow the money and realize that oil companies are the largest corporations on earth, why wouldn't they try and propagandize an issue that directly impacts their financial well being. The only real question here is why would anyone take them seriously especially when the fate of the world is in the balance.

 

The opinion of the Daily Mail I cited (with which I agree) stands--it doesn't matter to me who quotes it.

I do not consider myself qualified to refute the lies of the reporter who wrote that piece, nor of the "whistleblower" he is reporting on. That's why I cited qualified scientists who know the facts, and who showed beyond any doubt that the Daily Mail story is full of lies.

I began my post by pointing out that the Daily Mail is not a reliable place to get accurate information. It's a low quality tabloid and its main focus is actually sensationalized celebrity gossip. You cherry picked that part of my post to criticize, and ignored the rest.

You disingenuously accuse me of attacking "the messenger and not the message." However, I cited and quoted two sources that explain in detail the dishonesty of the Daily Mail report and the "whistleblower" it uses as its source. The "message" is based on lies.

 

Please show me one place I quoted the Daily Mail as anything other than Reich-wing propaganda. I'd have to see what was quoted but my first thought here is that you are confusing the Daily Mail with the Guardian. Please Back up you claim or shut up.

 

All you're offering is your opinion that you agree with someone's opinion. Big deal. You can do a 10-second Google search on any news organization in the world and you'll find many negative opinions. Hell, even the National Enquirer which is nothing more than a tabloid rag, gets it right once in a while such as when they claim that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broadrick or that Hillary had an illegal Internet server. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Quit attacking the messenger.

You're not qualified to "refute the lies"? Then you're not qualified to refute the truth, either. You simply assume he's telling a lie. Thanks for your worthless opinion.

Attacking the messenger. Get it? Who cares what outlet reports the story; take the information for what it's worth, file it way, dismiss it, refute it, confirm it or whatever. I'm merely presenting the story here for your perusal.

There's nothing "disingenuous" about my accusation. It's a very genuine accusation since all you've done is attack the messenger.

 

Sure! Here ya go:

http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...s-to-discuss-news-corp.3789/page-2#post-67019

 

Oh.. and here's another one. Is that backed up enough for you?

http://www.partisanlines.com/thread...s-next-move-concerning-libya.3501/#post-60163

 

That's bullshit. You continue to ignore the actual rebuttals to the lies in the Daily Mail article that I linked in my initial post in this thread while you bleat about how all I've done is "attack the messenger." You routinely use dishonest tactics like this, CoinOKC--you seem unable to display any intellectual integrity.

 

Rebuttals? You mean "opinions". Unsubstantiated opinions, at that, but opinions you agree with nevertheless. So come on, who is bullshitting whom here, eh? You haven't refuted a single fact. For that matter, all you've proffered is someone else's opinion.

 

Fake news.

 

Go fuck yourself you freedom-hating, violent-rhetoric-spewing liberal.

 

It seems to me that you didn't bother to read the sources that I linked before. That's being charitable. If you did read them, you're simply lying.

Facts:

"The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 became a key talking point for ‘sceptics’ in 2006 after ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ published an article by the late Dr Bob Carter, a geologist based in New Zealand.

"Although global temperature records compiled by the UK Met Office (TXT), NOAA (CSV) and NASA (TXT) show that 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998, many climate change ‘sceptics’ have continued to falsely assert that there has been no real warming over the past 18 years."

"[T]he article by David Rose in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ contains many demonstrably false statements and misrepresentations about the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors.

"The article states: “None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results”.

"But the article fails to admit that the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors has already been subjected to extensive scrutiny by other researchers since it was published in June 2015."

"[T]he newspaper’s fake graph wholly misrepresents the differences between the analysis in the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors and the separate record compiled by the Met Office.

"There are many other fallacious assertions in the newspaper article, including that “official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed [sic] NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement”. In fact, the publication of the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors played no significant role in the negotiations about the Paris Agreement, a draft of which already existed."

"David Rose and the editors of ‘The Mail on Sunday’ have a track record of unreliable reporting on climate change and of misrepresenting the science. They have published numerous articles wrongly claiming that sea ice extent has stopped declining in the Arctic."

"Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results 'can never be verified' is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results."

"Rose’s article presents a deeply misleading graph where he shows an arbitrary offset between NOAA’s data and the Hadley land/ocean dataset. This is an artefact of the use of different baselines; Hadley’s “0C” value is relative to the average temperature from 1961-1990, while NOAA’s is relative to the average temperature from 1901-2000 (a period which includes the colder early 20th century).



"This comparison ends up being spurious, because each record uses a different baseline period to define their temperature anomaly. As the chart below shows, when you correctly put the two datasets on the same baseline (eg, with respect to the 1961-1990 period), you find no offset in recent years between the two, though there is slightly more warming in the NOAA dataset due to the higher weight they give more reliable buoy data in their analysis."

 

NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data
Guest Blogger / June 4, 2015
Did SNL’s Tommy Flanagan Oversee the New Surface Temperature Data?

By Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts, commentary from Dr. Judith Curry follows

There is a new paper published the journal Science about the recent slowdown in global surface warming (released from embargo today at 2PM eastern). It is from Tom Karl and others at NOAA’s newly formed NCEI, National Centers for Environmental Information (a merger of three NOAA data centers: NCDC, NODC and NGDC) and from the government-consulting firm LMI. The lead author is Tom Karl, Director of NCEI and Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The paper is Karl et al (2015) Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. “Possible” is obviously the key word in the title.

There is a big push by the American Association for the advancement of Science (AAAS) to promote this paper. Here is what they sent out to press contacts days in advance:

Science Press Package
This information is embargoed until:
2:00 PM U.S. Eastern Time, Thursday, 4 June 2015
Check timezone conversions here.

Please cite the journal Science and the publisher, AAAS, the science society, as the source of this information. Please hyperlink to www.sciencemag.org when publishing online.

Summaries of Articles in the 5 June Science
Evidence Against a Global Warming Hiatus?
An analysis using updated global surface temperature data disputes the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown described in studies including the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment. The new analysis suggests no discernable decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century, a period marked by manmade warming, and the first fifteen years of the 21st century, a period dubbed a global warming “hiatus.” Numerous studies have been done to explain the possible causes of the apparent hiatus. Here, Karl and colleagues focused on aspects of the hiatus influenced by biases from temperature observation networks, which are always changing. Using updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea, the researchers show that temperatures in the 21st century did not plateau, as thought. Instead, the rate of warming during the first fifteen years of the 21st century is at least as great as that in the last half of the 20th century, suggesting warming is continuing apace. According to these and other results, the authors suggest the warming slowdown was an illusion, an artifact of earlier analyses.

Article #16: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” by T.R. Karl; A. Arguez; B. Huang; J.H. Lawrimore; M.J. Menne; T.C. Peterson; R.S. Vose; H.-M. Zhang at National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC; J.R. McMahon at LMI in McLean, VA.

The abstract of Karl et al (2015) reads (our boldface):

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” 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.

Karl et al expand on that highlighted discussion in the text of the paper (our boldface):

It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are statistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998–2012 (Fig. 1 and table S1) using the approach described in (25) for determining trend uncertainty. In contrast, IPCC (1), which also utilized the approach in (25), re-ported no statistically significant trends for 1998-2012 in any of the three primary global surface temperature datasets. Moreover, for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058°C dec−1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067°C dec−1 (see table S1 for details). This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century (Fig. 1). A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (see supplement) that also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, also shows that the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were positive at the 0.10 significance level.

THE MISDIRECTION

As shown in their Figure 1 (also our Figure 1), Karl et al. (2015) used the periods of 1951 to 2012 and 1950 to 1999 as references for the recent slowdown in surface warming. The IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report serves as the justification for the early-1950s start point for their reference periods. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 9 of AR5 for the IPCC’s brief mention of the slowdown in global surface warming.



Figure 1

Yet the climate model-based projections of a disaster-filled future global surface warming better align with the warming rate of the recent warming period, which began in the mid-1970s, not 1950. See Figure 2, which uses the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data, because the new NCDC data have not yet been released. Keep in mind there was an earlier hiatus that lasted from the early-to-mid 1940s to the mid-1970s.



Figure 2

If NOAA would like to revise their estimates of future global warming to reflect the more benign warming rate of 0.1 deg C/decade from 1950 to 1999, it would be a big step toward their coming to terms with reality.

We illustrate the ever-growing differences between models and data in the monthly global surface temperature (and lower troposphere temperature) update posts. Figure 3 is the model-data comparison from the April 2015 update.

 

(continued)


Figure 3

NEW DATA USED

In many respects, the paper is an introduction to a revised global surface temperature dataset from NOAA. For the oceans, it includes their new ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data. We discussed that new NOAA sea surface temperature data in the post Has NOAA Once Again Tried to Adjust Data to Match Climate Models? (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.)

For the land portion, Karl et al. (2015) state:

Third, there have also been advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures (LSTs). The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank (14, 19), which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis. The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily dataset (20) with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available.

ADJUSTMENTS MAKE MOST OF THE WARMING

NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time. The modus operandi so far has been to get a new paper published describing what NCDC considers to be a new and improved dataset, and since NCDC’s articles are often peer reviewed by other government employed scientists at NOAA, they often don’t get a critical peer review. Certainly, based on the reports I’ve received over the years, few if any skeptic scientists have ever been asked to review an NCDC paper on a new global temperature dataset and the techniques involved.

Fortunately, it is very easy to divine such adjustments by comparing the raw data and the final adjusted data, as shown in the graph below. Note how the past gets cooler, centered around 1915 and the present gets warmer.




Figure 4 Maturity diagram showing net change since 17 May 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature record prepared by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA. The net result of the adjustments made are becoming substantial, and adjustments since May 2006 occasionally exceeds 0.1oC. Before 1945 global temperatures are generally changed toward lower values, and toward higher values after 1945, resulting in a more pronounced 20th century warming (about 0.15oC) compared to the NCDC temperature record published in May 2008. Arrows indicate two months where the adjustments over time are illustrated in the figure below. Last diagram update: 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum

Figure 4


On May 2, 2011, NCDC transitioned to GHCN-M version 3 as the official land component of its global temperature monitoring efforts. In November 2011, the GHCN-M version 3.1.0 replaced the GHCN-M version 3. The overall net effect of the transition from GHCN-M version 2 to version 3 is to increase global temperatures before 1900, to decrease them between 1900 and 1950, and to increase temperatures after 1950.

The diagram below exemplify adjustments made by NCDC since May 2008 for two single months (see arrows in diagram above); January 1915 and January 2000.

 

(continued)

Figure 5 Diagram showing the adjustment made since May 2008 by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in the anomaly values for the two months January 1915 and January 2000. Last diagram update 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum

Figure 5


Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data. To revisit something said in regards to a previous news story about NCDC’s tendency to adjust data as time goes on, so much so that they can’t even tell us with certainty anymore which month in the past century was the warmest on record, this is still applicable:

“Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment,” Watts told FoxNews.com.

“In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”

Hold that thought, because NCDC is at it again.

THE IMPACT OF NOAA’S SHIP-BUOY BIAS ADJUSTMENTS DURING THE SLOWDOWN HAVE MADE THEIR NEW SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATASET AN OUTLIER

You’ll note in Figure 1 that the biggest changes between the new and old NOAA data during the global-warming-slowdown periods are in the sea surface temperature data, not the land surface air temperature data. Those adjustments are supposed to be justified by ship-buoy biases. See the quotes in the post Quick Look at the DATA for the New NOAA Sea Surface Temperature Dataset, under the heading of SHIP-BUOY BIAS CORRECTIONS IN ERSST.v4.

(Note 1: the buoys being discussed are NOT ARGO floats. The buoys used for sea surface temperature measurements are Surface Drifting Buoys and fixed buoys like the TAO Project buoys. Note 2: the latitudes of 60S-60N were used for the following graphs to avoid any differences in how sea ice is accounted for between the datasets and to be consistent with the two papers that introduced the new ERSST.v4 data. Note 3: the trends shown are for sea surface temperatures. They are not directly comparable to the trends discussed by Karl et al. in the second quote, which were for combined land-plus-ocean data.)

THE UKMO HASST3 data have also been adjusted for ship-buoy biases. For the two slowdown periods presented by Karl et al., Figures 6 and 7 compare the HADSST3 and the new NOAA ERSST.v4 data, both of which have been “corrected” for ship-buoys biases, to the older NOAA ERSST.v3b which had not been adjusted for those biases. During both periods, the bias-adjusted HADSST3 data have a much lower trend than the bias-adjusted NOAA ERSST.v4 data. In fact, the bias-corrected HADSST3 data in both cases is more in line with the older NOAA data than the new.



Figure 6


Figure 7

Some might think that NOAA under the direction of Tom Karl designed their ship-buoy bias adjustments with the sole intent of minimizing the impacts of natural slowdown in surface warming. (Those would be some interesting emails and meeting minutes to read.)

And just in case you’re wondering, the new NOAA ERSST.v4 data are compared to the NOAA and UKMO satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data in Figures 8 and 9.



Figure 8



Figure 9

As noted in the heading, with their new adjustments, NOAA has created an outlier in their new sea surface temperature dataset. Add that to the curious spike in the late-1930s and1940s that can’t be explained by climate models, which were presented in the post here.

BUT THE WARMING RATES OF NOAA’S OLD AND NEW SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA ARE THE SAME OVER THE PAST 3+ DECADES

The satellite era of sea surface temperature data started in November 1981. Neither of the NOAA sea surface temperature reconstructions (new or old) utilize the satellite-enhanced data. The original version of the NOAA ERSST.v3 data included satellite data when they were first released in 2008, but the satellite data were removed before the dataset became “official” because they did not meet political agenda of the dataset users, which were only NOAA at that time. The revised dataset was renamed ERSST.v3b. It is ERSST.v3b that Karl et al. are calling the “old” data.

But we can learn something very interesting if we compare NOAA’s ERSST.v4 (new) and ERSST.v3b (old) data during the satellite era. See Figure 10.



Figure 10

The warming rates are the same.

But the new data show a much higher warming rate during the “hiatus” periods, and that means…

TO MANUFACTURE WARMING DURING THE HIATUS, NOAA ADJUSTED THE PRE-HIATUS DATA DOWNWARD

If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.



Figure 11

Remember the adjusted data from figures 4 and 5 above? Figure 11 uses the same data subtraction method to determine the difference between the original measured data, and the “new and improved”adjusted data courtesy of government-funded science. It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise.

Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.

 

Instead of addressing my post which showed your dishonest approach to this discussion, CoinOKC, you copy-paste an article from Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts. Neither of them is a climatologist. Tisdale has no qualifications at all in the field (as far as I've been able to find, he doesn't have any training in science whatsoever), while Watts is a meteorologist. They are both frauds who are notorious for their dishonesty in regard to this topic. It's no surprise that you'd post something that they wrote. The Tisdale link looks at some of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations that can be found in the piece you copy-pasted.