The answer is YES.
The same shell-game routine was used when the Alarmists/Activists changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" when their claims of Global Frying fell far short of real World temperatures.
Anomalies are lousy to start with. They are "averages of averages of averages that form a consensus temperature" based on pin-pointed temperature measurements at specific times and represent a huge area. If you ever look at one of these temperature charts, you will see extreme fluctuations since the beginning of instrumental measuring. We are talking about global average temperatures rising based on these anomalies that fluctuate by as much as 75% of the "proposed warming" in one month's time.
The data has been wrong since day 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature...
" ... Absolute temperatures for the Earth's average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global) scales. ... "
Lots of wiggle room in those bloomers!!! :-) (" ... the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C ... ")
Planet has been warming for centuries, and sea level has been rising for centuries. ow they are saying throw out the data which disagrees with out thesis, because it is lousy, but then they say use the data which agrees with our thesis, which happens to include deep sea heating which includes the missing heat. For some reason lousy data there is not a possibility.
>>So what they are saying, is surface temperatures do not show AGW, satellite temperature measurements do not show AGW, sea surface temperatures do not show AGW. so we should abondon them and go by sea level rise as indicated by satellite measurements ( of which not one satellite agrees with another, but averaged to 3mm per year) ( while reliable tide gauges show 1.78mm) <<
The article does not say that (regardless of the attention seeking headline) - and certainly that is not what the scientists are saying. What is wrong with you - Are you insane?
here http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pause-global-warming-data-sea-level-rises
It says Global average sea surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat for the past 15 years.
And Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy".
Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises.
The models don't have the skill we thought they had. That's the problem," said Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.
So what they are saying, is surface temperatures do not show AGW, satellite temperature measurements do not show AGW, sea surface temperatures do not show AGW. so we should abondon them and go by sea level rise as indicated by satellite measurements ( of which not one satellite agrees with another, but averaged to 3mm per year) ( while reliable tide gauges show 1.78mm)
Is this a case of throw away any data that does not agree with AGW, and just look for data that does agree.
