? ? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
I've already posted the link several times. It came out a few days ago there.
You should also check out Judith Curry's web site (she worked as part of the team at BEST, with the intent of showing that global warming wasn't caused by humans and has a history of being supportive of deniers.) Judith Curry also wrote, recently, on WUWT, a died-in-the-wool denier site (which gets a lot of its funding from the Heartland Institute) about this report. It's clear where she stands and still does stand.
See one of the report author's response to her on her web site here:
? ? http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncert...
See the other report author's response to her on her web site here:
? ? http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncert...
As you can see, the authors do respond to criticisms by someone like Dr. Curry, even if her criticisms are rather vague or simply demonstrate she didn't read the report with understanding (her comments seem to show), "While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows ‘some’ correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons." That isn't a specific criticism, at all. It's hand-waving and claiming that she knows something she isn't disclosing, by fiat. She also criticises them for something they didn't even do saying, "but reanalyses are not useful for trends owing to temporal inhomogeneities." But as the authors say, in writing AND in their report, the paper is not based on reanalysis datasets. She completely gets this wrong for reasons I can't even begin to understand. But they responded anyway. Which I think is good of them. And they point out this mistake of hers.
Also read this:
? ? http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/...
Finally, I've been aware of the fact that HadCRUT didn't include areas such as the arctic regions for more than a decade, when I first learned about that. HadCRUT has consistently shown a low-ball global average for that reason alone, as well as a few other reasons. I consider it to be a "near lower bound" dataset. They are working to remedy this "problem", currently. But I don't know exactly what they are planning to do, yet. So I can't comment on that. Also HadCRUT doesn't release their land ensemble, even to other scientists, so others can't use the dataset to see what might happen by including analysis of various methods for vacant areas they don't incorporate.
So far, I'd take Dr. Kevin Cowtan and Dr. Robert Way's analysis as at least suggesting there is a problem that needs more study and that will likely eventually affect mainstream products as they understand better how to improve their products in this regard. But it's certainly not the final word on anything. It's just pointing out an existing failure to deal as thoroughly as should be done with poorly covered parts of the globe.
EDIT: A video targeted right at your level is here:
UAH and RSS don't like their own products for the poles, too noisy. So I doubt they did a good job of incorporating them. This looks to be similar to the methods used in Steig et al to show Antarctic warming, and this was corrected by ODonnell et al to show that the method was flawed. They had created warming where none existed.
HADCRUT already updated to the new version to incorporate the Arctic, and also to get rid of the inconvenient 'our record temperature was 15 years ago.'
What's of concern is they introduce the method, but never actually test the method. This should have been a separate paper, establishing the robustness of the method. Take some stations out of the network, and see if their method can predict the temperatures at those stations.
Too much of climate science uses ad hoc methods that have not been properly evaluated in the proper disciplinary journals like econometrics and statistics.
>>For reference, I have shown both UAH and HadCRUT4 over that time period here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut... <<
You might want to check your UAH trend line. I think that you plotted the wrong series.
=====
Mike L --
>>First the graphs dont start with zero a sign thats doctored<<
Congratulations – that might the most stupid comment by anyone, ever.
Is your apostrophe key broken?
In spite of the connection to SkS, they do seem to be serious scientists. They have joined in with the discussion on the paper at Judith Curry's blog. Do not confuse them with the likes of the more vociferous SkS team members.
From my point of view, the main problem is that if you assume this paper is correct then we do not have any accurate temperature data prior to the current "pause". So even if the most recent 16 years is now correct we do not know what it was like before that.
There is the same problem with the "missing heat going into the oceans" theory. What happened before? Both are just incomplete, "sticking plaster" solutions.
Well so they started incorporating the Arctic temps as part of global temp avg and come up with a change of 2.5 times greater than they estimated. Although they have explained previously that the Arctic temps were not included, they should have been
There is no mention here of missing heat.
How about considering instead that many of the professional deniers receives money from big oil. That doesn't seem to concern the deniers here
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
-
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
-
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
-
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
The IP CC needs to be dis-banned!
You know, if you gleaned the climate data enough you could predict the past Kentucky Derby winners with it.
Evidently, the missing heat is in all those white squares.
I wonder if they caught the rapid ice recovery that is seen in the artic this year?
Seems like Hanson's old trick of adding data in polar regions to bolster an agenda.
Thats a old Math trick . First the graphs dont start with zero
a sign thats doctored . Its only a 20 span . Not long enough .
And you should alway queston figures .
Good ole statistics. You could prove unicorns with it if you have enough dollars riding on it. If they manipulate it enough they will get even more warming. I believe they could even get warming out of a cooling trend and the warmists would say "See!!!".
Alarmists really know how to manipulate data (past temps downward, current temps upward).
Lol... "Yeah, you know that missing heat excuse we used to explain the pause? Well, we've adjusted our re-re-re-re-re-re-re-readjusted upwards adjusted temperature numbers upwards and it turns out it really wasn't missing at all."
This is a pretty hot topic for the warmists. For example, Dana Nuccitelli: "This new study kills the myth of the global warming pause".
A new paper has used a new method(s) to combine HadCRUT4 global mean temperatures and UAH data since 1997 to conclude that the Earth is actually warming at 2.5 times the rate indicated over this period. This is explained here with a graph showing the HadCRUT trend and their new estimate trend: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html
For reference, I have shown both UAH and HadCRUT4 over that time period here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/wti/from:1997/trend
Hence, I have a few questions:
1. How does one combine two data sets both with essentially the same trend and come up with a new trend that is 2.5 times greater?
2. How good is UAH data coverage at the poles?
3. I thought the "missing heat" was going into the oceans?
4. What would prompt a chemist and a geologist to do this study?
5. Does it mean anything that one of the authors is on the staff at skepticalscience.com?
